No, you are now only claiming that a 1000 page report, written for politicians and produced every five years or so, "is the answer to all the questions." It's not. The burden is yours to prove things that you have brought up and that you believe are true.
A counterargument is NOT "oh, I'm right, and this thousand page tome proves I'm right. I don't know where but somewhere in it is the proof that you are wrong. See? You're wrong."
Regardless, I wouldn't ban you from Reddit.
Dude... I gave you the link to the summary of the report, it's not 1000 pages but 33, with 3 presentation pages and 2 blanks so only 28 pages long, you can surely read 28 pages can't you? xD Regardless, the important information are in orange at the end of each part. And don't turn the tables! You're the one who brought this report here! You're the one who claimed that it was here to prove that I was wrong! And now that I took the time to actually read it and show you that the report in fact tells exactly the contrary you suddenly say that "it's just a report made for politicians, it doesn't prove anything". Now if that's not bad faith I don't know what it is xD And you wouldn't ban me, fair enough. I provide only logical arguments backed with what I think are reliable sources. You on the contrary only deny my sources saying "they're lying" and when I turn your own sources against you you deny them too. So I think I would have banned you from reddit too, cause you don't bring anything good here. |
|
|
|
did i ever say breaking into homes was all that happens? its just one scenario, i leave it to your common sense to apply the concept to other possible, more general scenarios, that only a gun is going to help stop a gunman.
Could we do the reverse work and think about all the cases in the 11 000 deaths by firearm every year in the USA without any kind of "scenario" justifying the use of guns? The number of deaths simply because two people are arguing and the rise of violence leads to gun use. Like this wonderful trend of people shooting each other on the roads because they think they're terrible drivers. i dont know about you, but i dont hear about people shooting each other up full of lead every time they have an argument, and if a gun owner can't keep a cool head, they shouldnt be owning a gun in the first place. the point of owning a firearm is to use as a last resort if deescalating a situation reaches the point of no return. any sensible gun owner should make it their goal to deescalate any conflict at all times. trust me, if people were shooting each other up because they thought they were terrible drivers, my city would have been wiped off of this plane of existence a long time ago. Oh, and how do you confirm that someone is a responsible and cool headed citizen before giving him a gun? If you're assertion becomes "let's every intelligent, aware and polite citizen the right to own a gun" I'm 100% with you man. But if only intelligent people own a gun, they're won't be a lot of gun owners xD And I don't see how you measure it! |
|
|
|
did i ever say breaking into homes was all that happens? its just one scenario, i leave it to your common sense to apply the concept to other possible, more general scenarios, that only a gun is going to help stop a gunman.
Could we do the reverse work and think about all the cases in the 11 000 deaths by firearm every year in the USA without any kind of "scenario" justifying the use of guns? The number of deaths simply because two people are arguing and the rise of violence leads to gun use. Like this wonderful trend of people shooting each other on the roads because they think they're terrible drivers. |
|
|
|
Even though I don't live in the US. I do think there should be some gun control over there.
It's not a hobby anymore, everyone can own a gun and everyone has easy access to it, it's just way too dangerous
That's different. I rather agree with you, any kind of gun control must be really long term. Cause now that they fucked up and that everybody owns a gun, it's going to be difficult to control anything. But it doesn't mean it shouldn't be done! |
|
|
|
"""Let's review. Afghanistan, after the longest military campaign in US history, is being handed back to the Taliban. Iraq no longer exists as a sovereign nation, but has fractured into three pieces, one of them controlled by radical Islamists. Egypt has been democratically reformed into a military dictatorship. Libya is a defunct state in the middle of a civil war. The Ukraine will soon be in a similar state; it has been reduced to pauper status in record time—less than a year. A recent government overthrow has caused Yemen to stop being US-friendly. Closer to home, things are going so well in the US-dominated Central American countries of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador that they have produced a flood of refugees, all trying to get into the US in the hopes of finding any sort of sanctuary.
Looking at this broad landscape of failure, there are two ways to interpret it. One is that the US officialdom is the most incompetent one imaginable, and can't ever get anything right. But another is that they do not succeed for a distinctly different reason: they don't succeed because results don't matter. You see, if failure were a problem, then there would be some sort of pressure coming from somewhere or other within the establishment, and that pressure to succeed might sporadically give rise to improved performance, leading to at least a few instances of success. But if in fact failure is no problem at all, and if instead there was some sort of pressure to fail, then we would see exactly what we do see."""
--- D. Orlov
Well, coming into a country killing the population (cause they're was no real "official army" so US soldiers had no choice but to fight back against a militia hiding around the population), stealing primary resources and committing true atrocities and depravation doesn't help to stabilize a country... |
|
|
|
But I disagree with the point you're making with faith here. Old gods were believed to be true but also "proven". At the time of ancient Greece, there was no discussion about the existence of gods, the fact that the sun goes up and down was by itself a proof, so be it for the lightning, proof of Zeus wrath.
Faith is an essential part of modern religion because people know there can't be any proof of god's existence, but it was not the case when we had limited knowledge of our world ^^
Don't know about that. Ancient gods were proven the same way people say current gods are proven. And there was discussion in ancient greece about the existence of gods. Some were even atheists. But atheism was a capital crime so they were persecuted and had to hide. But among theists too there was discussion about what were the explanations for things like the sun, lightning, etc. The view that it could have natural causes wasn't uncommon. Of course anyone going too far with it could be accused of atheism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism"The first fully materialistic philosophy was produced by the atomists Leucippus and Democritus (fifth century BCE), who attempted to explain the formation and development of the world in terms of the chance movements of atoms moving in infinite space." "Euripides (480–406 BCE), in his play Bellerophon, had the eponymous main character say: “Doth some one say that there be gods above? There are not; no, there are not. Let no fool, Led by the old false fable, thus deceive you.”[13]" "Aristophanes (ca. 448–380 BCE), known for his satirical style, wrote in his play The Knights: "Shrines! Shrines! Surely you don't believe in the gods. What's your argument? Where's your proof?"[14]" I was trying to speak in a more general way. Today what phenomenon can we observe to argument in favor of the existence of God? Nothing, the only mystery here is the origin of the creation of the universe. Which is not really a "daily phenomenon". Thousands of years ago, everyday phenomenons could be explained only by the existence of gods. How could a woman give birth? Gods of fertility. How can the sun shine so bright and go throw the sky? Gods bringing a huge fireball. How storms lightning and volcanic eruptions appear? Gods Gods and Gods. Of course some had great explanations, it was the case for the most cultivated individuals and lots of scientists and philosophers were probably atheists. But it depends a lot of the period of time you're talking about (because Greek kingdom and Roman Empire cover a long period) and which part of the population. |
|
|
|
|
Yeah let everyone own a gun and let usa still be (by far) the first country in deaths by firearms!
Doesn't matter if 99% of the time the people killed by being shot by other citizens were totally innocent of anything. It's the constitution!
|
|
|
|
Dude... He was an horrible dictator that stole its people until he became one of the richest man in the world. He used torture on anyone he didn't like, murdered entire families for not being of the "right tribe" and killed anyone trying to say it was not right.
Yes he managed to keep Libya under control. Yes he brought some better health care to SOME of his citizens (cause if you were not from the right tribe you could just die in the street). Yes it was probably stupid to go bomb the country like that.
But no he was not a great man you dumbass asshole...
Sure mate. ...he also took candy from children and enjoyed kicking puppies. Saddam had piles of nukes, Assad gassed his own people, muslim immigrants in Europe are all very useful intellectuals and they have nothing to do with terrorism. Are you really believe everything what you've heard on the telly? Of course he wasn't a saint, actually quite far from that, but he was also far from the picture what the western media invented about him. His greatest sin was an initiative about gold currency and moving oil trade from USD to gold as well. That changed him from a more or less accepted bloke with funny clothes to the second most evil villain after Hitler  . No he's greatest sin was probably to plan and conduct the genocide of some of the tribes he was supposed to lead. I'm just answering the guy saying that "he was a great man" cause no he was not a great man! He was an horrible dictator. But not more horrible than most of middle East and African dictator I agree. And Saddam had no nuke at all. Only the USA pretended he had nuke. The most dangerous thing he had were ak 47. |
|
|
|
u think middle east a dangerous place , its not ,US is the most dangerous place
The 11 000 deaths every year in the USA by firearms and the 90 000 non lethal injuries due to guns
Cite or perish, along with the violent criminals (100% of them) who support "gun control" and any means to achieve that end. Cite or perish? I don't understand sorry. So whe should do just the opposite of what criminals want? Damn, it's a shame most of them are more than happy to be able to use internet to buys illegal stuff. Well let's ban the internet then! |
|
|
|
LOL! So the crisis truly is global. Well that's what you get in a worldwide economy  |
|
|
|
muammar gaddafi was a great man who modernised libya and even managed to civilise the black savages somewhat which the arabs couldnt after 1000 years. you could say this refugee invasion europe is currently suffering is its penalty for murdering him.
Dude... He was an horrible dictator that stole its people until he became one of the richest man in the world. He used torture on anyone he didn't like, murdered entire families for not being of the "right tribe" and killed anyone trying to say it was not right. Yes he managed to keep Libya under control. Yes he brought some better health care to SOME of his citizens (cause if you were not from the right tribe you could just die in the street). Yes it was probably stupid to go bomb the country like that. But no he was not a great man you dumbass asshole... |
|
|
|
It's just wrong for civilians to carry weapons.
People that are trained constantly and know and see the repercussions from carrying weapons and the damage they do day in and day out should be the only ones to carry them. Because it takes just one mistake and someone loses their lives.
There are a lot of non-lethal alternatives that can be used for self defense.
lets say mr smith barges into your home with a glock and starts looting the shit out of your place. now, exactly what 'non - lethal alternative' are you doing to use against that? are your hands going to stop those bullets with some strange ESP power? no. are you going to go all star wars up on that glock with a stick? definitely no. is your potato gun going top out do those bullets? no. so exactly is this 'alternative' youre thinking of? because honestly, there really isnt anything that stands up to a gunfight. ever heard the phrase 'you just brought a knife to a gunfight?' pretty applicable here. Yeah cause it happens everyday. And guns are used only that way. The 11 000 deaths every year in the USA by firearms and the 90 000 non lethal injuries due to guns only concern people that violently entered houses to loot people. Not at all kids, stupid neighbors problems or anything else. |
|
|
|
I may not be an american but donald trump is racist
If he became a president peaceful Muslims will be targeted
And will be treated badly the same goes to other race.
Peaceful? are you kidding me? I don't see other religions Stoning people to death or perhaps throwing them off buildings because they have commited some stupid act. Or maybe you mean peaceful by a father slaughtering his daughter because she dates a man that is not a Muslim? Is it a peaceful religion if you Bury a woman to her chest in dirt and throw rocks at her her head until she is dead because she is "ACCUSED" of commiting a crime like adultery? Peaceful? HA! What is so peaceful about your religion when you actively commit crimes against people who just want to live their lives? You insane? Sure cause Christians have always been so peaceful, never killed anyone and never burned alive people. They're not currently killing Muslims in Soudan and they never hanged black people in the USA only a few decades ago. Try to take some recoil while looking at a situation. Islam isn't as old as Christianity. In their calendar it's year 1437. Wanna know what was happening in 1437 after Christ? We were burning people alive and explaining that science was nothing but witchcraft while Arabs were inventing everything in science and mathematics. Not saying that it's just normal to stone women to death, just saying that we did exactly the same when our religion wasn't mature enough. Give them some time to grow. Edit: and when the pope explains that condom are devil instruments and should not be used in the countries the most infected by sida, I don't feel like Christians are far more intelligent... |
|
|
|
What he's saying makes perfect sense in the context of radical islam, it's not so bad for other countries that don't have these kinds of problems, but if you only understand the language of the people that oppress you and tell you what to believe rather than exposing you to other ideas then it stands to reason that's what you're going to believe, it doesn't matter if you're in a new country, you can still be isolated if you don't know the language and don't know how to communicate with other people.
I can't believe there are twats out there who would criticise him for pointing that out since it's so simple, but then again, I live in this shit hole and know exactly the kind of people that would criticise him, it seems that they've toned down the rhetoric now though because of Cologne but I wouldn't hold me breath because it won't be long since they go around screaming at people again and calling them racist for pointing all this out.
What he's saying is a perfect nonsense because it concerns only Muslim women. He wants immigrants to learn English? Fair enough. Then he should create an education system in order for all migrants to learn English while being temporary accepted in the country. It's not a bad idea if it's well done cause learning the common language is mandatory in order to integrate correctly a population. Problem here is that he's just giving some money for Muslim women. What about all the men? Or what about all the other religions/cultures/nationalities? That means if I'm a Senegal male migrant it's ok for me not to learn English? It proves that he's only looking for voters, that he doesn't give a fuck about immigration and their conditions. |
|
|
|
Now you go and try to argue ANY of these past positions by devout warmers, such as the following. You will find they cannot be supported.
1. There was no Little Ice Age.
2. There was no Medieval Warming Period.
3. The climate forecasting models of 1988 were accurate.
4. The climate forcasting models of 1990-2000 were accurate.
There has been a very large amount of very poor "scientific research" in the area of climate science.
Well just read the report you gave me. It supports every point here =) Especially the accuracy of late climate forcasting models. |
|
|
|
|
Dude I had a party last night and then I slept :p
I don't want to talk anymore. The report you showed me explains in detail:
-The incredible warming record of the last 19 years
-The rise of sea levels (linked to CO2)
-The impact of humans on CO2 levels
-The impact of CO2 on temperature
The report YOU showed me talk only about that. There is not a word on natural disaster (contrary to what the lying article is saying).
Just go and read the report. You gave me the proof on every point I made. You just don't want to admit it.
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on reddit simply because you're trolling. Discussing imits of measures, or influences made on scientists is interesting. Giving me a report proving all my points then saying "see you're wrong" is just trolling.
I don't want to go further because we can't go further. You proved my points yourself. You just don't want to admit it.
Read the summary of the report, it's 12 pages long and it explains perfectly everything I tried to proove you. It also completly reject your ideas like "there was no warming in last 2 decades" or "there is no proof between CO2 and any human impact".
Just assume what you proved.
|
|
|
|
Ahahah xD I mean, that's so funny, that's the FIRST time you give an ACTUAL scientific source. And you know what? It just agrees on every aspects of the importance and the reality of climate change! So, where is your proof now deniers? |
|
|
|
So how your report made for the senate is different from the reports I showed for EU?  I just don't understand how you define a "valid and trustworthy source" dude, cause in both cases they are reports made by scientist for politicians... But you know what's the most funny thing here? It's that you didn't read your report xD Again you don't have to go through a dubious article actually lying, just post me the adress to the report. Here it is: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdfAnd take the time to read it, cause the article you linked to is just lying, if you read the report YOU showed me as trustworthy, it confirms every point I made! -"Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850 (see Figure SPM.1). In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence)" -"Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence). It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (0−700 m) warmed from 1971 to 2010 (see Figure SPM.3), and it likely warmed between the 1870s and 1971. " -"Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass, glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent (high confidence) " -"Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750" -"Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system. " -"Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. " AND IT DOESN'T TALK ABOUT NATURAL DISASTERSBut anyway, if the complete report explains that it's higly unlikely that we can link CO2 and natural disasters, very well, maybe you're right here.  Could we just agree on the fact that YOUR trustworthy report totally agrees with me on every other point? |
|
|
|
In my opinion 99% of the world's problems can be solved, if the human population can be stabilized. Uncontrolled population explosion is the root cause behind most of the evils in the world, such as deforestation, warfare, land encroachment, illegal poaching, conflict over water resources.etc. If the population stops growing, then that will bring prosperity to everyone.
Well I think the problem I raised (#1) is one of the few that is not concerned by the size of human population. No matter how many humans are on the planet, it's still a good question to ask how can they organize themselves? Cause even if there is only 1 billion humans (so just a seventh of actual population) that would probably still be an oligarchy! |
|
|
|
If you get stuck in this idea that carbon dioxide is some kind of pollution, I guess you´ll soon be having problems with humans and other animals exhaling the stuff and you´d probably be interested in exterminating them en masse to counter the problem.
Dude, nature is about finding a balance. CO2 is produced by animals and humans but it all depends on the rate of production. If it's not too high, then the ecosystem absorbs it via plants... It's a too high rate that we should fear. A very small fraction of the CO2 released and absorbed yearly by/on the planet has anything to do with humans' use of fossil fuel. There is a lot of unknowns about the annual release of CO2, and much less known of it's uptake. These are things which need study, and bending/breaking science for political purposes is distinctly unhelpful. The potential for a problem was at one time something which the precautionary principle could rationally be applied to, but I (at least) feel that enough is not known that it can and should be relaxes and that it almost certainly would be if global warming would not have been seized upon to achieve unrelated political goals. I understand the concerns about ethics, objectivity and lack of data. But for the ethic part... Well scientists have to be paid by someone! If you don't want them to be paid by governments (because in your opinion they become influenced by politicians) then who will pay them? General Motors? Regarding the rate of CO2... No it's not possible to be 100% sure about the emmission and the link with human activities, but we know for sure that CO2 emissions are not negligible and when you look at the result: http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/Hard to say that their is no correlation at all no? :/ |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
