Science has *nothing* to do with taking guesses, eh? How did life originate? Where is the scientific proof?
The whole idea of ridiculing someone for believing in somthing unproven while promoting belief in something else unproven seems ludicrous to me. What you're saying is that you believe certain things to be true, whether they have been proved or not, but that anyone who believes differently is stupid. Please tell me where life originated, and then show me the scientific data. Then, just repeat the creation of life to prove your theory. If you cannot, welcome to the realm of faith! It's certainly possible to disagree with someone else's beliefs. It's ridiculing them while evidencing the same behavior that is so silly. It amazes me how many people venerate science without understanding the basic premise that theories are not facts. If you believe something which is not repeatable and verifiable, you have faith. If you believe that someone somewhere else is capable of proving something, but you have not yourself experienced that proof or cannot replicate it, you have faith. If you accept without question the conclusions of others, you have faith. Many, many people in the scientific community take many, many things on faith each day. It is the apparently rampant practice of ridiculing another's faith while having your own that makes you look bad. I doubt that I agree with the beliefs of anyone on slashdot. I'm not just talking about religion, here. However, I do at least give others the courtesy of respecting their beliefs as I wish mine to be respected. If you cannot repeatably prove every single assertion you make, please do not ridicule others for not doing so. I also find it terribly ironic that you accuse the poster you responded to of 'picking arguments' and then you did the exact same thing. There is in fact a ton of argument over whether the word used in Genesis means 'day', 'epoch', or 'undetermined amount of time'. Therefore, the age of the world could easily be (man's age) + (undetermined amount of time), which is certainly consistent with any scientific model you would care to name. Of course, it's much easier to ridicule if you make the word mean '24-hour time period' instead of 'undetermined amount of time'.
Thank you for your response. I agree with you. I respect the opinions of others, and I ask for that respect back. It sounds like we agree on quite a bit, but that isn't why I'm glad you responded as you did. I wish people who disagreed with me were as kind. As for aliens visiting Earth, I find it very unlikely that visitors would feel the necessity of hiding their visits. If they did desire to hide them, I doubt they'd be caught by average people. I also doubt they'd bother to return anyone they abducted. That's just my opinion, though, so while I don't believe aliens have visited us, I also don't believe we'd know it if they did. I've always been hesitant to accept anecdotal evidence, but that's just the way I am. I suppose if either aliens or God ever visited me personally, I'd give anecdotal evidence as well, I just wouldn't expect others to buy it. However, I seriously doubt I'll ever need to worry about that.
I guess I misinterpreted the phrase 'let's step back and take a look at what you just said', followed by a bunch of crap I didn't say. My mistake, or something.
I agree with you. I'm just getting sick and tired of atheists preaching like fundamentalists. Those preachy ones all claim to KNOW. Just like the preachy religious people. *That* is what bugs me. At one time, people 'knew' that the Earth was flat. You were an idiot if you didn't agree. Again, I'm not saying that there is or is not God. I'm saying that I don't know and don't claim to, and that people who claim to know are lying. It's as simple as the difference between 'I believe' (which requires faith) and 'I know' (which requires proof). I don't know how the universe came to be, and so I will not claim to. No matter what my theory is, until it's proven I won't claim it as fact. Plus, it seems rather weird to me that people would put so much time and effort into trying to convince others of the nonexistence of God. I don't believe in ghosts (although I don't claim to KNOW that they don't exist), but I don't go around starting clubs about not believing in ghosts and preaching to ghost-believers about how they don't exist. Same goes for ESP and astrology and a whole heck of a lot of other stuff. I just think it's rather sad that so many people identify themselves so strongly with what they DON'T believe. I'm not saying you're like that, but that's the kind of atheist I was responding to originally. On a side note, I wonder why you ranked aliens so far down on the list. Assuming that life originated here on Earth, why would you assume it couldn't originate elsewhere as well? The universe is an awfully big place. I'm not slamming you, I'm genuinely curious. I don't have any specific knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of aliens, but I'd rank their possibility of existence higher than Santa and the Easter Bunny. That's just me, though.
Ok, lets step back and take a look at what you just said.
# *insert a "god" here* creates the universe.
# *extremely long drawn out silence*
# Billions of years later someone writes a book about it.
# Billions of people believe the story. No one has any proof.
Um. I never said anything even REMOTELY like the above. Let's take an actual look at what I said:
"rm. Going 'farther back' than religion claims [note: I'm not claiming it. religious people are.] would be impossible, as religion claims that God created the universe. Since that hasn't been proved, it's a matter of faith. However, since atheism offers no explanation at all, it is also a matter of faith. I fail to see how that 'proves' any secular argument. Proof is repeatable and definitive. Neither side has it. Therefore, I must conclude that both sides operate under assumptions which I am not willing to accept. [note: BOTH SIDES...see that?] I do not claim to know and thus I don't have anything to prove. Both your side and the religious side claim to know, and thus have burden of proof. However, it has been provided by no one. Until it is, please don't preach either side to me. Thanks."
Why is it that if I disagree with an atheist, they assume that I am a Bible-thumping fundamentalist? I thought atheists would at least TRY to comprehend what they read. After all, aren't they supposed to be enlightened? It's like when I disagree with a Republican, I am assumed to be a Democrat/liberal/tree-hugger and when I disagree with a Democrat I'm assumed to be a gun-totin' war-lovin' Republican. Can people who are part of an artificial dichotomy not understand that there are viewpoints outside it? I'm not a Democrat, I'm not a Republican, I'm a Libertarian. I'm not an atheist, I'm not a religious person, I'm agnostic. I DO NOT KNOW. I DO NOT CLAIM TO KNOW. Stop putting words in my mouth, both sides.
You have totally twisted my argument, on purpose. I specifically said that it's impossible to prove a negative. Thanks for reiterating my argument. I said that the atheists need to provide not proof that there is no God, but proof of the origin of life. That's totally different. If you can't prove the origin of life, then you're taking it on faith. That is what I said. There's no proving a negative there.
I also clearly stated that I am not claiming to know whether or not there is a God. Thus saying that 'my belief in God is an article of faith for me' is stupid. I don't believe or disbelieve in God. I admit to not knowing. Sure, I feel there's some sort of driving force behind the universe, but I freely admit that I could be wrong and that I do not KNOW. Before I take a step back to look at my arguments, perhaps you'd care to look at them. I don't get upset about people who 'don't believe', as you put it. I get upset by people who claim to know for sure that there is or is not a God, since the God side can't produce proof of God's existance and the atheist side can't provide prrof of life's origins. I'm not asking the atheists to prove there is no God, as you can't prove a negative. I'm asking them to prove life can just happen...which they cannot. Like I've said, if one side produces God or the other side turns primordial soup into life, maybe I'll listen to them. Until then, I wish they'd all stop preaching at me.
erm. Going 'farther back' than religion claims would be impossible, as religion claims that God created the universe. Since that hasn't been proved, it's a matter of faith. However, since atheism offers no explanation at all, it is also a matter of faith. I fail to see how that 'proves' any secular argument. Proof is repeatable and definitive. Neither side has it. Therefore, I must conclude that both sides operate under assumptions which I am not willing to accept. I do not claim to know and thus I don't have anything to prove. Both your side and the religious side claim to know, and thus have burden of proof. However, it has been provided by no one. Until it is, please don't preach either side to me. Thanks.
Yep. Now if only we could all agree on what is. Wouldn't that be lovely? I love tautologies. They seem so profound, while in fact they're the refuge of the incompetent. Here's a koan for you, since tautology-spouters often like them: What is the sound of one middle finger pointed upward?
HAHAHAahaha. Yeah. I'm sure 100% of the population is literate and has a full college-level education, in exactly the same way as 100% of the vote in Iraq was for Saddam. Fidel isn't really a dictator, he's a benevolent leader. Keep repeating it, maybe it'll make itself true. However, I agree with you that the US embargo on Cuba is wrong. I'd love to be able to smoke Cuban cigars without resorting to cloak-and-dagger crap that most often nets me Dominican cigars anyhow. Sigh.
By the by, do you really believe non-living chemicals learnt to walk and talk all by themselves?
Categrorically and without doubt. Belief not necessary. They did, ergo : they did.
Oh, you were there, were you? heheheheh. Just like religious people, you're preaching faith. Faith is the belief in something unproven. Seems to me that since you can't prove a negative, it's pretty hard to prove there's no God. I'm not saying there is or isn't, only that no one knows for sure, not even you. You have a strong belief that life came from non-life with no help. However, even rock solid faith is not specific knowledge. As soon as you take some non-living chemicals and make them become alive, you'll have proof. Until then, it's faith either way. Keep the faith, buddy.
All the prerequisites for a non-religious explanation clearly exist and can be proven to exist, whereas the loony version requires the non-provable.
I see. You require nothing unprovable for your belief system, eh? Please cite me your proof of the origin of the universe. Oops, you can't. Guess that's belief in the unprovable, huh? Look, I'm not trying to preach religion to you, just logic. Whatever your belief system, an initial leap of faith is required: either you believe that the universe sprang from nothing, that it always existed, or that someone or something created it. Whichever your choice, it's not currently provable. Thus I don't see as it matters to which unprovable belief you subscribe. My initial leap of faith is that God is unknown and possible unknowable. (that means I'm not claiming there is a God, just saying that if there is God, no one knows better than anyone else how God acts, and it's quite likely no one ever will) The more I learn, the more I feel that there is some sort of driving force behind the universe, but I don't claim to know what it is. You claim to know there isn't one. Most religious people claim to know there is. I just think you're both wrong. I can't prove it, though, and I'm ok with that. You claim specific knowledge, all I'm asking for is proof. You atheist types seem to like to demand that from others, but can no more produce proof for your beliefs than can religious people. It's kind of funny to me: atheists are trying to prove a negative while religious people's beliefs inherently prohibit them from being able to prove them (faith is required, and it isn't faith if one is confronted with direct proof).
My guess is they wrote the headline first, and by the time they got to the body, China had closed 263 more sites. They probably would have changed it, but by then who knows how many sites would have been closed? As an aside, the amount of pro-China sentiment here on slashdot amazes me. It's like making Libya head of the U.N.'s Human Rights Committe...WTF? China is a place where you can be executed by the government at any time for any reason, and no one will help you. Sure, it *probably* won't happen to any random individual, but it certainly could...it just boggles my mind that anyone outside that system would support it. At least we can make fun of our President and every other government official here in the USA without fear of being decapitated for it...in fact, it is almost de rigueur to do so in some circles. Oh well, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by rampant stupidity anymore, as a Libertarian in America I am accosted by it constantly.
Um...he retired. People can't play sports at the pro level forever, you know. They do this weird thing called aging. I hear that happens to others, too.
Our legislators pass laws without reading them, in some cases without being allowed to read them and/or discuss them, and we pass laws which average citizens are not allowed to own a copy of.
Since you're making the assertion, care to back it up? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that you can't spout off that kind of stuff (especially that there are laws on the books, copies of which average citizens may not posess)
Also, I'm sure there are legislators who choose not to read laws they vote for, but I would like some evidence that they are barred from doing so and not just lazy. Also, you have missed the point of the post you responded to. The images discussed, censored or not, were from Iraq, not the US. They may have been censored by the US federal government, but that's different.
Just because you repeat something doesn't make it true. Instead of merely saying that I didn't comprehend something, why don't you explain it? Oh, you can't. Well then, guess you just better repeat your unsupported assertion. That's the ticket!
I've never claimed intellectual superiority, and I certainly don't suffer from a self-esteem problem. I'm *sure* you didn't read what I wrote. Of course. Besides, I don't take more than a few minutes per day to post on slashdot. It's a diversion from work...have you ever heard of work? Your writing would benefit from it.
Basically, what you just posted was what the OP should have posted. I wouldn't have taken issue with the argument had it been framed that way. That's all I was doing, pointing out that the argument was stated improperly and didn't make sense as stated. Sorry that you weren't the OP, I didn't feel like going back through a bunch of levels to find if you were. Yes, I'm lazy. Again, as everyone who's responded to me ITT so far seems to have missed, my problem wasn't that humans do or don't produce more CO2 than volcanoes. It was that the argument condtradicted itself as it was stated.
Just because it may take you a while to type a response doesn't mean that it takes me that long. I type, talk, and think very quickly. Don't blame me if you can't keep up. I post on slashdot for recreation, which people like you are all too happy to provide. Sincerely, thank you. It's amusing when people equate a few words with true effort. I am an English major. Writing is what I do. It's relaxing for me. That doesn't equate to my giving a shit what you think. Sure, I'll be happy to respond to it...but I won't change my style or the content of my posts for you or anyone else. If that's amusing to you, great! If not, great!
I did. You're calling me irrational because I want you to make a logical argument? That speaks for itself. You don't have a very good idea of what words mean, do you?
Well, I agree that your solution is better. That still doesn't tell me why a Fox movie should promote a non-Fox news network, assuming that they are determined to use a real one in their film. I don't think ABCNNBCBS would promote anyone else's news network. That's just my opinion, I could be wrong. I dunno, though, I didn't see any Pepsi cans in Leonard part 6.
You're not so good at reading comprehension, are you? You quoted the part about me not agreeing or disagreeing with your assertion. Why didn't you read it? You said that it is wrong to say that man doesn't put out as much CO2 as volcanoes because only super volcanoes put out more CO2 than man. I was pointing out that your reasoning was flawed. You can't say that something is false and then immediately say it's true and be taken seriously. Consider rephrasing your argument. Unless you are perhaps assuming that super volcanoes are not in fact volcanoes? I would have to disagree with you there. As to whether man puts out more CO2 than volcanoes, man puts out more CO2 than volcanoes not counting super volcanoes, or volcanoes put out more CO2 than man, I don't know. Therefore, as I clearly stated previously, I'm not taking a stand one way or the other. Pointing me to a wikipedia article concerning volcanoes does nothing to make your 'it's false except it's true' argument better. Thank you for playing. Better luck next time.
To put forward totally false assertions (volcanos dump more CO2 than all of mankind does) is the same tripe that is being spewed by the oil companies. Mankind dumps a lot more CO2 than all but the very large super-volcanos (think Yellowstone).
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you here. I'm just pointing out a critical flaw in your reasoning. You say the assertion that volcanoes put out more CO2 than mankind is false, then you say that mankind puts out more CO2 than all volcanoes except the super-large ones.
Thus, if mankind puts out more CO2 than all but the largest volcanoes, mankind puts out less CO2 than volcanoes and the assertion is not false. I'm not claiming that your base premise is true or false, only that stating it the way you did is nonsensical.
Slashdot Mirror
Science has *nothing* to do with taking guesses, eh? How did life originate? Where is the scientific proof?
The whole idea of ridiculing someone for believing in somthing unproven while promoting belief in something else unproven seems ludicrous to me. What you're saying is that you believe certain things to be true, whether they have been proved or not, but that anyone who believes differently is stupid. Please tell me where life originated, and then show me the scientific data. Then, just repeat the creation of life to prove your theory. If you cannot, welcome to the realm of faith! It's certainly possible to disagree with someone else's beliefs. It's ridiculing them while evidencing the same behavior that is so silly. It amazes me how many people venerate science without understanding the basic premise that theories are not facts. If you believe something which is not repeatable and verifiable, you have faith. If you believe that someone somewhere else is capable of proving something, but you have not yourself experienced that proof or cannot replicate it, you have faith. If you accept without question the conclusions of others, you have faith. Many, many people in the scientific community take many, many things on faith each day. It is the apparently rampant practice of ridiculing another's faith while having your own that makes you look bad. I doubt that I agree with the beliefs of anyone on slashdot. I'm not just talking about religion, here. However, I do at least give others the courtesy of respecting their beliefs as I wish mine to be respected. If you cannot repeatably prove every single assertion you make, please do not ridicule others for not doing so. I also find it terribly ironic that you accuse the poster you responded to of 'picking arguments' and then you did the exact same thing. There is in fact a ton of argument over whether the word used in Genesis means 'day', 'epoch', or 'undetermined amount of time'. Therefore, the age of the world could easily be (man's age) + (undetermined amount of time), which is certainly consistent with any scientific model you would care to name. Of course, it's much easier to ridicule if you make the word mean '24-hour time period' instead of 'undetermined amount of time'.
Thank you for your response. I agree with you. I respect the opinions of others, and I ask for that respect back. It sounds like we agree on quite a bit, but that isn't why I'm glad you responded as you did. I wish people who disagreed with me were as kind. As for aliens visiting Earth, I find it very unlikely that visitors would feel the necessity of hiding their visits. If they did desire to hide them, I doubt they'd be caught by average people. I also doubt they'd bother to return anyone they abducted. That's just my opinion, though, so while I don't believe aliens have visited us, I also don't believe we'd know it if they did. I've always been hesitant to accept anecdotal evidence, but that's just the way I am. I suppose if either aliens or God ever visited me personally, I'd give anecdotal evidence as well, I just wouldn't expect others to buy it. However, I seriously doubt I'll ever need to worry about that.
I guess I misinterpreted the phrase 'let's step back and take a look at what you just said', followed by a bunch of crap I didn't say. My mistake, or something.
I agree with you. I'm just getting sick and tired of atheists preaching like fundamentalists. Those preachy ones all claim to KNOW. Just like the preachy religious people. *That* is what bugs me. At one time, people 'knew' that the Earth was flat. You were an idiot if you didn't agree. Again, I'm not saying that there is or is not God. I'm saying that I don't know and don't claim to, and that people who claim to know are lying. It's as simple as the difference between 'I believe' (which requires faith) and 'I know' (which requires proof). I don't know how the universe came to be, and so I will not claim to. No matter what my theory is, until it's proven I won't claim it as fact. Plus, it seems rather weird to me that people would put so much time and effort into trying to convince others of the nonexistence of God. I don't believe in ghosts (although I don't claim to KNOW that they don't exist), but I don't go around starting clubs about not believing in ghosts and preaching to ghost-believers about how they don't exist. Same goes for ESP and astrology and a whole heck of a lot of other stuff. I just think it's rather sad that so many people identify themselves so strongly with what they DON'T believe. I'm not saying you're like that, but that's the kind of atheist I was responding to originally. On a side note, I wonder why you ranked aliens so far down on the list. Assuming that life originated here on Earth, why would you assume it couldn't originate elsewhere as well? The universe is an awfully big place. I'm not slamming you, I'm genuinely curious. I don't have any specific knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of aliens, but I'd rank their possibility of existence higher than Santa and the Easter Bunny. That's just me, though.
Ok, lets step back and take a look at what you just said.
# *insert a "god" here* creates the universe.
# *extremely long drawn out silence*
# Billions of years later someone writes a book about it.
# Billions of people believe the story. No one has any proof.
Um. I never said anything even REMOTELY like the above. Let's take an actual look at what I said:
"rm. Going 'farther back' than religion claims [note: I'm not claiming it. religious people are.] would be impossible, as religion claims that God created the universe. Since that hasn't been proved, it's a matter of faith. However, since atheism offers no explanation at all, it is also a matter of faith. I fail to see how that 'proves' any secular argument. Proof is repeatable and definitive. Neither side has it. Therefore, I must conclude that both sides operate under assumptions which I am not willing to accept. [note: BOTH SIDES...see that?] I do not claim to know and thus I don't have anything to prove. Both your side and the religious side claim to know, and thus have burden of proof. However, it has been provided by no one. Until it is, please don't preach either side to me. Thanks."
Why is it that if I disagree with an atheist, they assume that I am a Bible-thumping fundamentalist? I thought atheists would at least TRY to comprehend what they read. After all, aren't they supposed to be enlightened? It's like when I disagree with a Republican, I am assumed to be a Democrat/liberal/tree-hugger and when I disagree with a Democrat I'm assumed to be a gun-totin' war-lovin' Republican. Can people who are part of an artificial dichotomy not understand that there are viewpoints outside it? I'm not a Democrat, I'm not a Republican, I'm a Libertarian. I'm not an atheist, I'm not a religious person, I'm agnostic. I DO NOT KNOW. I DO NOT CLAIM TO KNOW. Stop putting words in my mouth, both sides.
You have totally twisted my argument, on purpose. I specifically said that it's impossible to prove a negative. Thanks for reiterating my argument. I said that the atheists need to provide not proof that there is no God, but proof of the origin of life. That's totally different. If you can't prove the origin of life, then you're taking it on faith. That is what I said. There's no proving a negative there.
I also clearly stated that I am not claiming to know whether or not there is a God. Thus saying that 'my belief in God is an article of faith for me' is stupid. I don't believe or disbelieve in God. I admit to not knowing. Sure, I feel there's some sort of driving force behind the universe, but I freely admit that I could be wrong and that I do not KNOW. Before I take a step back to look at my arguments, perhaps you'd care to look at them. I don't get upset about people who 'don't believe', as you put it. I get upset by people who claim to know for sure that there is or is not a God, since the God side can't produce proof of God's existance and the atheist side can't provide prrof of life's origins. I'm not asking the atheists to prove there is no God, as you can't prove a negative. I'm asking them to prove life can just happen...which they cannot. Like I've said, if one side produces God or the other side turns primordial soup into life, maybe I'll listen to them. Until then, I wish they'd all stop preaching at me.
erm. Going 'farther back' than religion claims would be impossible, as religion claims that God created the universe. Since that hasn't been proved, it's a matter of faith. However, since atheism offers no explanation at all, it is also a matter of faith. I fail to see how that 'proves' any secular argument. Proof is repeatable and definitive. Neither side has it. Therefore, I must conclude that both sides operate under assumptions which I am not willing to accept. I do not claim to know and thus I don't have anything to prove. Both your side and the religious side claim to know, and thus have burden of proof. However, it has been provided by no one. Until it is, please don't preach either side to me. Thanks.
Yep. Now if only we could all agree on what is. Wouldn't that be lovely? I love tautologies. They seem so profound, while in fact they're the refuge of the incompetent. Here's a koan for you, since tautology-spouters often like them: What is the sound of one middle finger pointed upward?
HAHAHAahaha. Yeah. I'm sure 100% of the population is literate and has a full college-level education, in exactly the same way as 100% of the vote in Iraq was for Saddam. Fidel isn't really a dictator, he's a benevolent leader. Keep repeating it, maybe it'll make itself true. However, I agree with you that the US embargo on Cuba is wrong. I'd love to be able to smoke Cuban cigars without resorting to cloak-and-dagger crap that most often nets me Dominican cigars anyhow. Sigh.
By the by, do you really believe non-living chemicals learnt to walk and talk all by themselves?
Categrorically and without doubt. Belief not necessary. They did, ergo : they did.
Oh, you were there, were you? heheheheh. Just like religious people, you're preaching faith. Faith is the belief in something unproven. Seems to me that since you can't prove a negative, it's pretty hard to prove there's no God. I'm not saying there is or isn't, only that no one knows for sure, not even you. You have a strong belief that life came from non-life with no help. However, even rock solid faith is not specific knowledge. As soon as you take some non-living chemicals and make them become alive, you'll have proof. Until then, it's faith either way. Keep the faith, buddy.
All the prerequisites for a non-religious explanation clearly exist and can be proven to exist, whereas the loony version requires the non-provable.
I see. You require nothing unprovable for your belief system, eh? Please cite me your proof of the origin of the universe. Oops, you can't. Guess that's belief in the unprovable, huh? Look, I'm not trying to preach religion to you, just logic. Whatever your belief system, an initial leap of faith is required: either you believe that the universe sprang from nothing, that it always existed, or that someone or something created it. Whichever your choice, it's not currently provable. Thus I don't see as it matters to which unprovable belief you subscribe. My initial leap of faith is that God is unknown and possible unknowable. (that means I'm not claiming there is a God, just saying that if there is God, no one knows better than anyone else how God acts, and it's quite likely no one ever will) The more I learn, the more I feel that there is some sort of driving force behind the universe, but I don't claim to know what it is. You claim to know there isn't one. Most religious people claim to know there is. I just think you're both wrong. I can't prove it, though, and I'm ok with that. You claim specific knowledge, all I'm asking for is proof. You atheist types seem to like to demand that from others, but can no more produce proof for your beliefs than can religious people. It's kind of funny to me: atheists are trying to prove a negative while religious people's beliefs inherently prohibit them from being able to prove them (faith is required, and it isn't faith if one is confronted with direct proof).
My guess is they wrote the headline first, and by the time they got to the body, China had closed 263 more sites. They probably would have changed it, but by then who knows how many sites would have been closed? As an aside, the amount of pro-China sentiment here on slashdot amazes me. It's like making Libya head of the U.N.'s Human Rights Committe...WTF? China is a place where you can be executed by the government at any time for any reason, and no one will help you. Sure, it *probably* won't happen to any random individual, but it certainly could...it just boggles my mind that anyone outside that system would support it. At least we can make fun of our President and every other government official here in the USA without fear of being decapitated for it...in fact, it is almost de rigueur to do so in some circles. Oh well, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by rampant stupidity anymore, as a Libertarian in America I am accosted by it constantly.
I'm assuming you meant to say 'unwarranted assumptions are what makes slashdot such an exhilarating place'.
At least, I hope you did.
(Whatever happened to Michael Jordan, anyway?)
Um...he retired. People can't play sports at the pro level forever, you know. They do this weird thing called aging. I hear that happens to others, too.
Our legislators pass laws without reading them, in some cases without being allowed to read them and/or discuss them, and we pass laws which average citizens are not allowed to own a copy of.
Since you're making the assertion, care to back it up? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that you can't spout off that kind of stuff (especially that there are laws on the books, copies of which average citizens may not posess)
Also, I'm sure there are legislators who choose not to read laws they vote for, but I would like some evidence that they are barred from doing so and not just lazy. Also, you have missed the point of the post you responded to. The images discussed, censored or not, were from Iraq, not the US. They may have been censored by the US federal government, but that's different.
Sure. Big talk, no action. Typical. But then, you don't read my posts. Ehehehehhe. Whatever.
Just because you repeat something doesn't make it true. Instead of merely saying that I didn't comprehend something, why don't you explain it? Oh, you can't. Well then, guess you just better repeat your unsupported assertion. That's the ticket!
I've never claimed intellectual superiority, and I certainly don't suffer from a self-esteem problem. I'm *sure* you didn't read what I wrote. Of course. Besides, I don't take more than a few minutes per day to post on slashdot. It's a diversion from work...have you ever heard of work? Your writing would benefit from it.
Basically, what you just posted was what the OP should have posted. I wouldn't have taken issue with the argument had it been framed that way. That's all I was doing, pointing out that the argument was stated improperly and didn't make sense as stated. Sorry that you weren't the OP, I didn't feel like going back through a bunch of levels to find if you were. Yes, I'm lazy. Again, as everyone who's responded to me ITT so far seems to have missed, my problem wasn't that humans do or don't produce more CO2 than volcanoes. It was that the argument condtradicted itself as it was stated.
Just because it may take you a while to type a response doesn't mean that it takes me that long. I type, talk, and think very quickly. Don't blame me if you can't keep up. I post on slashdot for recreation, which people like you are all too happy to provide. Sincerely, thank you. It's amusing when people equate a few words with true effort. I am an English major. Writing is what I do. It's relaxing for me. That doesn't equate to my giving a shit what you think. Sure, I'll be happy to respond to it...but I won't change my style or the content of my posts for you or anyone else. If that's amusing to you, great! If not, great!
Fuck off, you racist piece of shit.
I did. You're calling me irrational because I want you to make a logical argument? That speaks for itself. You don't have a very good idea of what words mean, do you?
Well, I agree that your solution is better. That still doesn't tell me why a Fox movie should promote a non-Fox news network, assuming that they are determined to use a real one in their film. I don't think ABCNNBCBS would promote anyone else's news network. That's just my opinion, I could be wrong. I dunno, though, I didn't see any Pepsi cans in Leonard part 6.
You're not so good at reading comprehension, are you? You quoted the part about me not agreeing or disagreeing with your assertion. Why didn't you read it? You said that it is wrong to say that man doesn't put out as much CO2 as volcanoes because only super volcanoes put out more CO2 than man. I was pointing out that your reasoning was flawed. You can't say that something is false and then immediately say it's true and be taken seriously. Consider rephrasing your argument. Unless you are perhaps assuming that super volcanoes are not in fact volcanoes? I would have to disagree with you there. As to whether man puts out more CO2 than volcanoes, man puts out more CO2 than volcanoes not counting super volcanoes, or volcanoes put out more CO2 than man, I don't know. Therefore, as I clearly stated previously, I'm not taking a stand one way or the other. Pointing me to a wikipedia article concerning volcanoes does nothing to make your 'it's false except it's true' argument better. Thank you for playing. Better luck next time.
To put forward totally false assertions (volcanos dump more CO2 than all of mankind does) is the same tripe that is being spewed by the oil companies. Mankind dumps a lot more CO2 than all but the very large super-volcanos (think Yellowstone).
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you here. I'm just pointing out a critical flaw in your reasoning. You say the assertion that volcanoes put out more CO2 than mankind is false, then you say that mankind puts out more CO2 than all volcanoes except the super-large ones.
Thus, if mankind puts out more CO2 than all but the largest volcanoes, mankind puts out less CO2 than volcanoes and the assertion is not false. I'm not claiming that your base premise is true or false, only that stating it the way you did is nonsensical.