Yes. And the westboro church is absolute, unequivocal and undeniable proof that Christianity is a violent, bigoted cult and nothing more. Good point OP!
Parsing this, I assume you took the OP, noticed it contained a logical error, "the exception proves the rule", applied the identical rule to Christianity...  I would guess that the guys in the Westboro church claim to be the only people who really represent Christianity, just like DAESH claims to be the only true representatives of Allah. In reality they are both fringe element groups that embarrass the majority of good people who just want to pray in peace and raise their children. I rather like the analogy, but still suggest you use the commonly used term "ISIS." And if the "worst" of the two religions is respectively Westboro and ISIS, I know which this here atheist likes better. |
|
|
|
.....
But even if we just accept the logical fallacy, it doesn't offer any value to the question of moral standing of the Brits who castrated him. Computers existing is not proof that Britain was morally superior for brutalizing him but stopping short of actually murdering him. I take the position that any society that would go so far to brutally suppress someone has no moral standing on the issue whatsoever. It's possible to have no moral standing and there yet be more brutal actions you could have taken, but there's no moral redemption for being slightly less brutal. And Turing's case is even more remarkable because he was an undisputed war hero. Surely if there was someone to be exempted from prosecution, it would be a war hero. The fact that he was not underscores my point on moral standing.
You still don't understand it at all. Turing was at the center of Allied SPYING. He was instrumental in many, many people being killed (and many not getting killed.) Think Coventry. If that doesn't mean anything, go look it up. Consider how many had loved ones in Coventry that might have hated Turing for what he did. Many, many, MANY examples like that. Normal rules - in particular your SJW modern view - have little relation in such a situation let alone in the past. |
|
|
|
Christians, if you believe your Christ would have anything other than infinite compassion for homosexuals, transfolk, or atheists, than you have grossly misunderstood the teachings of your messiah.
Would argue that statement is also based on perception. Well, the question might be what would Christ have thought if he had encountered the opinionated, arrogant Pink Mafia of today. Got a feeling "infinite compassion" would not have applied...more like his little encounter with the money changers in the temple, that's my opinion. Regardless, Bel's attempts at lecturing on the interest are just plain boring. |
|
|
|
Yes. And the westboro church is absolute, unequivocal and undeniable proof that Christianity is a violent, bigoted cult and nothing more. Good point OP!
Parsing this, I assume you took the OP, noticed it contained a logical error, "the exception proves the rule", applied the identical rule to Christianity... |
|
|
|
.....
You see, people who twists things who you call as "Arabic language professionals" deny/ignore grammars and all to make those verses support their actions. I have started studying Arabic before I learned a lot about Islam and the translations were not having any problems if you don't have grammar mistakes. In Arabic, there are lot of important grammars such as "va", "al" etc... which those people ignore. For example, 'Jihad' in pure linguistic sense, it does not mean 'holy war' like they claim. In pure linguistic meaning, word for "holy war" is "al-harb".
TOTAL FUCKING BULLSHIT, ZAKIR! Just stop it, okay? Nobody cares about your little grammer games, little nuances, little attempts to prove in your own way that "the pen is mightier than the sword." Your pen isn't. Your arguments ring false, and they cover up great injustices done in the name of your religion. You try to make the daily/weekly/monthly killing of innocent people just go away. Or make it go away from your warm, fuzzy, happy concept of your warm, fuzzy, happy religion. And stop the lecturing, dude. |
|
|
|
 okey. i want to tell you about this. ISLAM not HATE cristiant people, atheis, and the other. but, in this positions, like a road there is many limb, and THEY ARE is unmissing understand about what the mean in AL-Qur'an and HAdist from My Prophet Muhammad abseloutely. The Pillars of ISlam there is no Jihad make a warfare, bombardment, and etc. understand about this not of all Muslim like that.. we love peace, and we not problemity about a deferrent you are, and what your religion, we not problemity with that. we can life side by side. even, there is cristiant and islam have merried. its okey.. life is choice. we can to choice but after we control by the choice we have choose right? and Islam hate too the people like make damage with name of "ISLAM" cause ISLAM not lesson about that. even in Al-Qur'an there is verse about "NOT MAKE DAMAGE IN THE EARTH" even, The Prophet make a model the very perfect for we, if we should not with each other haveing warfare, if we can pacification with other, why not? they just the people not understand what te mean about JIHAD. JIHAD is not like that. Islam is very beautyfull for me, and for the people understand about it. thanks, i just tell what i fell, i hope this benefit for us. sorry i dont wanna make hostility. Your comment is welcome. No hostility. Don't let the salafi movement speak for you. I agree whole heartedly but must point out. 1. In the Western world, assertions of well intentioned Muslims to the contrary, the word "JIHAD" is completely hijacked and refers strictly to terrorist acts. That can't be changed. 2. In the Western world, the phrase "Allah Akbar" has increasingly been associated with terrorist acts. So these bad guys really are trying to hijack your religion. Complete denial of this, as some here have done, is not a step forward. http://www.shutterstock.com/s/ostrich+head+in+sand/search.htmlRight! The honest, more-truthful-Islamic Muslims are trying to hijack Islam from those who are far weaker in the Islamic faith... the ones who are peaceful. You can't be a strong Muslim unless you accept ALL the tenets of the Islamic faith... even the violence directives. EDIT: Perhaps if Muslims edited the violence directives out of the Quran and the Hadiths, then peaceful Muslims could be the TRUE Muslims. I don't agree with what you've said. Codes of behavior intended to last for thousands of years must contain advise on behavior during both good, and bad times. That includes how one should act when violence is required, such as repelling invaders. I also do not agree that the weaker are the ones who are peaceful. The pen is mightier than the sword. |
|
|
|
whoever is born a man is a man, Nobody's born a man. Men are made, requiring a solid 20-something years of social conditioning/brainwashing to get out of their ugly ball of baby-fat phase, followed by the ugly child phase, then the teenage bitching phase, before finally fitting into society's man stereotype. It's basically a giant fashion statement. these folks are mentally ill and need treatment, if they told you they were ducks or aliens from outer space trapped in human beings' bodies would you believe them
How do you know you're not? Have you seriously never considered that you might be a space alien trapped in a human suit? Nonsense. Here are some facts on birth rates and facts on gender to start with. You are pushing a political not a biological agenda. http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency |
|
|
|
okey. i want to tell you about this. ISLAM not HATE cristiant people, atheis, and the other. but, in this positions, like a road there is many limb, and THEY ARE is unmissing understand about what the mean in AL-Qur'an and HAdist from My Prophet Muhammad abseloutely. The Pillars of ISlam there is no Jihad make a warfare, bombardment, and etc. understand about this not of all Muslim like that.. we love peace, and we not problemity about a deferrent you are, and what your religion, we not problemity with that. we can life side by side. even, there is cristiant and islam have merried. its okey.. life is choice. we can to choice but after we control by the choice we have choose right? and Islam hate too the people like make damage with name of "ISLAM" cause ISLAM not lesson about that. even in Al-Qur'an there is verse about "NOT MAKE DAMAGE IN THE EARTH" even, The Prophet make a model the very perfect for we, if we should not with each other haveing warfare, if we can pacification with other, why not? they just the people not understand what te mean about JIHAD. JIHAD is not like that. Islam is very beautyfull for me, and for the people understand about it. thanks, i just tell what i fell, i hope this benefit for us. sorry i dont wanna make hostility. Your comment is welcome. No hostility. Don't let the salafi movement speak for you. I agree whole heartedly but must point out. 1. In the Western world, assertions of well intentioned Muslims to the contrary, the word "JIHAD" is completely hijacked and refers strictly to terrorist acts. That can't be changed. 2. In the Western world, the phrase "Allah Akbar" has increasingly been associated with terrorist acts. So these bad guys really are trying to hijack your religion. Complete denial of this, as some here have done, is not a step forward. http://www.shutterstock.com/s/ostrich+head+in+sand/search.html |
|
|
|
^The answer is yes to both (1) and (2). It's a matter of interpretation and narrowness of definitions (to whom does this law apply?, etc). .....
Your Israelis attacked the US on 911, just like they have attacked many other commerical airlines since the mid 1970s. Just like they continue to attack innocent victims worldwide.
.....
Here it is again, THE EVVOOOL JOOOESSS!!! Here it is again, THE EVVOOOL MUUUUUZLIMZ!!! Oh, and when I say "Youtube is not an authoritative source," that does not give you license to assume that I have alternate "authoritative sources" that you can refute. It does not mean that you can leap to a conclusion that I agree with one or another government reports.
Authoritative sources I have used in this discussion are reference materials for high school chemistry and physics. Most of that I know, but I did look up a few melting points and heats of combustion and so forth. Way to ignore everything I said, such as the observation that you can't get yourself to believe (observe) that there was indeed molten metal. I didn't assume anything. You're the one whose entire worldview is made of a bunch of half-assed unquestioned assumptions. Then again, so are most people's worldview/selfview. There are no "authoritative sources" to which you can cling to neatly explain in your mind what happened. You're supposed to be the thinker/seeker/investigator -- if you're not, you're just a parrot. Again, why are you here? Have you ever worked with molten metal personally? I have. Steel, aluminum, and various alloys. And cast iron, come to think of it. So I really don't have any problem just talking about it. I don't feel like I need to find some authoritative source to discuss "molten metal." It's just a matter of looking up the reference numbers for melting points and heats of fusion. Then some 8th grade math will tell us the effect of various amounts of energy on given masses of plastics, steels, and lightweight aluminum. There isn't any way to interject conspiracy theories into the middle of a discussion about melting points and heats of fusion. Well, that's my opinion, anyway. I do not feel any particular need to convince you. |
|
|
|
Other thread got locked before I could respond. Responding here to input my thoughts on the topic. Quoting other thread for context. Quote from: jaysabi on July 17, 2015, 07:35:17 PM When you have 38 straight years of higher-than-average temperatures, and 9 of the 10 hottest years in the last 135 years coming in the last 14, I find global warming credible. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/01/16/377712745/its-official-2014-was-the-hottest-year-on-record-noaa-saysInterestingly, the claim that temperatures are not warming do not come from actual measurements of the temperature, but inference of the temperature based on other measured criteria, and the model used to analyze the temperature has been particularly prone to being inaccurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_datasetIt seems any evidence countering the scientific consensus stems from efforts to selectively frame how to measure temperature, or in this case, using a known unreliable method. Whereas we have ground based measurements showing rising temperatures, the method of measurement used in this study is one of inference. Satellites cannot measure temperatures, they have to infer them based measuring radiance wavelengths and inferring the temperature associated with the measurements. On top of that, the instruments are subject to inaccuracies due to decay. When these errors are corrected, the "evidence" vanishes. Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset#Comparison_with_other_data_and_modelsFor some time, the UAH satellite data's chief significance was that they appeared to contradict a wide range of surface temperature data measurements and analyses showing warming. In 1998 the UAH data showed a cooling of 0.05 K per decade (at 3.5 km - mid to low troposphere). Wentz & Schabel at RSS in their 1998 paper showed this (along with other discrepancies) was due to the orbital decay of the NOAA satellites.[6] Once the orbital changes had been allowed for the data showed a 0.07 K per decade increase in temperature at this level of the atmosphere. So the short answer is no, I don't accept this non-evidence. So the arguments for "NO" are (1) proxy vs direct temperature readings and (2) 1998 corrections to the orbital instrument readings?
Basically, yes. Satellites infer temperature based on measurements of radiance wavelengths and then use an algorithm to calculate temperature. When you plot along all the points inaccuracies can arise (degrading equipment on satellites, correct association between wavelength radiance and temperature (inference accuracy), and quality/accuracy of algorithm to compute inferred temperature), taking ground-based measurements seems far more reliable. Couple this study's outlier data with all the ground-based measurements we have showing rising temperatures, and photographic satellite evidence of shrinking/retreating ice cover in the polar caps, and the evidence seems to support the conclusion the Earth is warming. That is the way I phrased the question. "Here is one data set" vs personal beliefs, other data, whatever. |
|
|
|
I got to admit it sure seems hotter than ever before here.
But it's always like that in summer in Texas. (LOL...)
So are you claiming that the relative humidity has increased? Sounds that way. I can't recall offhand if the hydrological cycle has long term cycles, except regionally. Certainly that's the case like in the US Pacific Northwest, 60-80 year climate cycle influenced by the ocean's Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Not well understood by a lot of people, I guess.
Well I have read about the potential global warming hoax, and did some research to find out more. If I combine my findings with personal experience I would say that it is not a hoax. Yes, we could say that I'm claiming just that. I was just trying to describe what happens once water surface temperature and air temperature becomes hotter. I remember maybe 10 years ago, even on the hottest days one could go outside for a while. However, now with 40+ Celsius there is no just way. Also I can feel the sun burn heavily on the skin (even when the temperature is lower, which suggests Ozone depletion). Trends in humidity is a very interesting subject, so I post the following general discussion with a precaution. Often arguments are incorrectly framed "pro or con global warming" when in fact they are "pro or con regional trends," those being the product of well known (although not well understood) multi decadal climate cycles. I guess the way I would summarize the issue is multiple factors are at work, some can be chosen to support one hypothesis and others can be chosen to support the opposite hypothesis. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/08/20/declining-relative-humidity-is-defying-global-warming-models/ |
|
|
|
Give us a reputable source and we may believe you. The Daily Caller is political propaganda. Not seeking "people to believe me." But you have a point about the "Daily Caller." I'm reluctant to change the wording of a poll in midpoling, but see wikipedia, "global warming hiatus." |
|
|
|
Well in my place there's been no 'normal' winter in the last 10 years maybe. In the early 2000s I still remember how it snowed, and the temperature got under -20C. I miss those years.
PS. I also remember how hot is was in Russia in 2010. It was hell with asphalt roads melting under wheels. Though it was an extreme event, of course.
I feel the same. There has been a shift of seasons. 20 years ago it was quite warm in September, you could run in shorts and you could see the beginning of a beautiful golden Autumn. The winters were very cold and snowy and lasted up to March. Now in September it already gets cold and rainy and continues in December. The temperatures in Winter rarely go below -5*C and it's shitty and rainy up till May. The Summers are very short and hot. We have maybe 2 months of good weather and then storms that turn to cold rains as weeks go by. I live in EU in case you wonder. Yep, pretty the same picture as mine. Don't know how far we are geographically, but I live near Estonia, so pretty much in Europe too  I wonder whether this might be a decadal cycle, such as the effect of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). I'm not personally familiar with weather in Europe, let alone it's long term trends. In other words, is it a planetary effect, or a regional one? Certainly in areas known to be subject to such periodic changes, not mentioning such a thing when a government or scientific body or political organization discusses causes of "climate change" would be lying by omission. Is this happening? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation#Climate_impacts_worldwideThe AMO index is correlated to air temperatures and rainfall over much of the Northern Hemisphere, in particular, North America and Europe such as North Eastern Brazilian and African Sahel rainfall and North American and European summer climate. It is also associated with changes in the frequency of North American droughts and is reflected in the frequency of severe Atlantic hurricanes.[4]
Recent research suggests that the AMO is related to the past occurrence of major droughts in the US Midwest and the Southwest. When the AMO is in its warm phase, these droughts tend to be more frequent or prolonged. Two of the most severe droughts of the 20th century occurred during the positive AMO between 1925 and 1965: The Dust Bowl of the 1930s and the 1950s drought. Florida and the Pacific Northwest tend to be the opposite—warm AMO, more rainfall.[8]
Climate models suggest that a warm phase of the AMO strengthens the summer rainfall over India and Sahel and the North Atlantic tropical cyclone activity.[9] Paleoclimatologic studies have confirmed this pattern—increased rainfall in AMO warmphase, decreased in cold phase—for the Sahel over the past 3,000 years.[10] |
|
|
|
Well I could tell you this from personal experience, I don't even need data to confirm it. That leads me to the question, why are some people denying it? The warmer the water at surface is, the more vapor there is going to be and the increase in air temperature raises the air's capacity to hold that vapor. This leads to heavier rains/storms/snows which some areas clearly have. On the land, the same increase makes dry places drier. I remember the weather 5,10,15 years back and it wasn't this horrible. The weather is becoming more extreme.I got to admit it sure seems hotter than ever before here. But it's always like that in summer in Texas. (LOL...) So are you claiming that the relative humidity has increased? Sounds that way. I can't recall offhand if the hydrological cycle has long term cycles, except regionally. Certainly that's the case like in the US Pacific Northwest, 60-80 year climate cycle influenced by the ocean's Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Not well understood by a lot of people, I guess. come and live in the uk rain rain rain bit ov sun wind wind rain rain bit ov sun sleet snow bit ov sun i am more worried about plastic every where dumping in the sea dumping in land fills..but not to sure about planet heating up .. but mans affect on the earth is bad for the planet thats for sure.. if only we had free clean energy the planet would be saved Yeah but some of that plastic... I mean what about plastic surgeons, dude? |
|
|
|
U should read this: https://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htmThe article you cited is bad - or rather the background research is bad. they cited an paper from the early 90's which used wrong methods to calculate the temperature from satellite data. One of the authors john christie worked on a new paper in 2006 and this is on the first page: Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming... This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies." *edit Someone should twitter the guy my post I'm going to answer this in a way that does not prejudice the polling. Skepsci is in error or perhaps you misread what Cook argued on his site. It is correct that slight orbital decays caused several adjustments in the satellite data sets. The current tabulation of 21 years without warming is after these corrections. Thus, there is a dataset - the satellite data set - which shows as I indicated no warming in 21 years to any statistically significant level. Arguments to the contrary might be that other data contradicts that, etc. But there is no problem with the 21 year data set as you alleged. Im not sure but if look at this graphic with the updated parameters:  http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Satellite_Temperatures.pngThere is an increase till 2010 ( it only goes so far) Thanks for posting that. The line slope is heavily influenced by the starting point. Again, I'm going to be careful what and how I say things because I really don't care to influence the results. Wikipedia has a what looks like a decent discussion on this. The phrase "hiatus" is prejudicial. We have a "hiatus" when it stops warming. But do we have a "hiatus" when it stops cooling? Nope. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus |
|
|
|
Well I could tell you this from personal experience, I don't even need data to confirm it. That leads me to the question, why are some people denying it? The warmer the water at surface is, the more vapor there is going to be and the increase in air temperature raises the air's capacity to hold that vapor. This leads to heavier rains/storms/snows which some areas clearly have. On the land, the same increase makes dry places drier. I remember the weather 5,10,15 years back and it wasn't this horrible. The weather is becoming more extreme.I got to admit it sure seems hotter than ever before here. But it's always like that in summer in Texas. (LOL...) So are you claiming that the relative humidity has increased? Sounds that way. I can't recall offhand if the hydrological cycle has long term cycles, except regionally. Certainly that's the case like in the US Pacific Northwest, 60-80 year climate cycle influenced by the ocean's Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Not well understood by a lot of people, I guess. |
|
|
|
U should read this: https://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htmThe article you cited is bad - or rather the background research is bad. they cited an paper from the early 90's which used wrong methods to calculate the temperature from satellite data. One of the authors john christie worked on a new paper in 2006 and this is on the first page: Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming... This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies." *edit Someone should twitter the guy my post I'm going to answer this in a way that does not prejudice the polling. Skepsci is in error or perhaps you misread what Cook argued on his site. It is correct that slight orbital decays caused several adjustments in the satellite data sets. The current tabulation of 21 years without warming is after these corrections. Thus, there is a dataset - the satellite data set - which shows as I indicated no warming in 21 years to any statistically significant level. Arguments to the contrary might be that other data contradicts that, etc. But there is no problem with the 21 year data set as you alleged. |
|
|
|
YES, because I believe scientific research and evidence on climate change. If scientists announce that they were wrong and misinterpreted their data, then I'll change my mind. But when I see how hot is these days at my home and country, somehow I do not think it will happen Maybe I was unclear but the YES vote means "no global warming," or "global warming if it exists/existed, has stopped for the last 21 years." I have made the questions clearer and restarted this topic using a POLL. And thus lock this thread. Please use the new one - Thanks. |
|
|
|
Affirmative action still not good enough. White people need to pay for what they done, ban whites from jobs. Or better yet if y'all ain't black or Mexican gtfo my country.
I must be racially prejudiced. I have a whiteboard. Not a blackboard. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
