CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
- "Contrary to media reports Antarctic sea ice continues to expand.
- Dr. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace. He is now a critic of the anthropogenic theory of global warming. His analysis shows that man has contributed less than 0.30C of warming and by the year 2100 may contribute less than 0.40C additional warming.
-Antarctic Sea Ice Up Over 43% Since 1980, Where Is The Media?
-I tell them that study results are hand-picked and modified to fit a pre-determined conclusion."
I could keep on going but you get the point. The sun operates in cycles, and like the intelligent scientists they are, they see a trend in the last 50 years and assume the earth has never seen a variation in temperature like this in it's entire history. Not when comets struck, and not when (arguable) previous civilizations occupied the planet. It stems from no personal research that people ate up the "theory" of global warming.
To respond to your debate question, I believe we live in a world that acts as a template for "modern" man. I believe that people are kept stupid, that doctors aid disease (curing symptoms, nothing else) , and that schools limit knowledge (public school...common...). I think that people are made to bicker about trivial b.s. while ignoring actual issues. People's immediate gratification is catered to before what's best for humanity as a whole. That is the premise of this fast-food nation filled with sex, drugs and rock n roll. In a paradigm catering to immediate gratification, we find ourselves pandering to our own desires of emotion, conscience, and intellect. Every loud-mouthed activist of any sort generating the most noise will win our vote if they scream loud and long enough. This is why we donate to charities without doing any background work to find whether they are even ethical in their motives, this is why we accept a political system in which seemingly opposing sides are shoved in our faces, and we don't think to even question why there aren't more candidates to choose from, even though they belong to the same fraternities and end up pushing our countries in the exact same direction under supposed opposing ideologies. 911 has long since been uncovered as an american terrorist plot against it's own people, but it's nothing compared to what the american military is doing overseas. There are far too many accounts from military personel coming back from afganistan or wherever, and refusing to acknowledge the war as even remotely justified. They are called "Iraq veterans against the war". They're not all insane or wrong. Since WW2, 90% of the casualties are unarmed civilians. In this world, people are facing "terror" and "fear", and not looking at the long term picture. There is only one terrorist branch in the world, it's located in Britain, and it's tendrils stretch into america, and from there, into every part of the world. Osama's real name is Tim Osman.
There are intelligence groups exposing all of this, while trying their best to remain anonymous so as not to blow their cover, and their info is deemed "tin-foil theory".
So in answer to your question, we couldn't possibly be focused more microcosmically than we are now. Parliament rages on about how abortion is the devil and the news is filled with .005 fluctuations in any given company's stock. We look for ways to help, but from our couches. We go for cancer runs without knowing that the cause of cancer is the suffocation of cells for oxygen and that the cure already exists. Do you have any idea how much money was raised for cancer research thus far? Don't you think that after billions and billions and billions of dollars it's time to stop spending more billions if they couldn't find a cure decades later?
To all those not aghast at this post, watch this video, it's "me" approved and the best compacted informational video I've come across yet.
It has everything including young american soldiers tossing a puppy off a cliff.
To the rest, by all means keep wondering why presidents are allowed to lie to you (w.m.d.s), why the military is allowed to classify information, why our freedoms are continually encroached upon, why obama sent 30000 soldiers to afghanistan and is considering sending 40000 more and got a nobel peace prize for it, I could go on but I'm bored.
God help me if I receive extraordinary flac for this one.
Firstly I'd like to congratulate a well thought out response.
For now I'm going to leave the global warming and other conspiracy crap cause it's nothing to do with the debate.
I do however agree with a lot of what you've said - and hopefully you also agree that you're in general talking about western countries. Westerners have their lives fixated around themselves - almost obsessive about their own short-term happiness. In countries where people are 'free' they are also the least happiest. The reason for this is their expectations. They expect to be happy because it's written on paper they should be.
However I was hoping people would talk more about the laws and legislations and trends etc. lol.
Well thank you, I did put thought into it. You're right, I did turn a sharp corner on that topic. I agree to a certain degree that I'm talking about western countries, and thought that it would be better if I didn't attack one continent given I wasn't sure what reaction I would receive, which I now see is none (although perhaps tomorrow might be a different story). I think though, that with the current state of globalization coupled with the propaganda that america is the promised land, many countries have followed in these steps, most european countries (only to a degree since many are far more progressive in terms of independent media etc..) to the point that china has mcdonalds. (Just a thought)
Ya, lol doesn't look like I took that anywhere you had intended, should I delete my post before it whips up a potential shitstorm?
btw did you watch the video? I really suggest everyone watch it, it's only 10 mins.
It would be fun to be at the center of one of these. I've only posted on them (the kiddie porn one for example) and even that turned into a circus. Maybe one day I'll make my own entitled "is america the real terrorist" or something. But I think we should stop this chit-chat I want my points to be earned :)
I've been at the centre of various contraversial topics. I didn't care about no shitstorm. 99% of my downvotes were from women who get menstruated about what I have to say - without thinking about it. What I'm saying is - shitstorms are good. Don't worry about them because if you truly believe in what you write and you stand up for what you believe in then wait for the shitstorm and see it through. Everyone probably gets a shitstorm and those who stay after them aren't the loosers.
I will give a proper post later when I have time (probs in a few days) about what I was trying to aim towards.
If I had more time on my hands, I would read your whole argument. I did read up to the second link and a little farther, but I have so much to do and can't. Anyway.... can you please post this on a debate about global warming? I've always believed in climate rotation as a natural occurrence, not global warming as only (or mostly) man's fault. The problem is, I never knew some of these facts. I usually bring stuff up like the temperatures of Earth were, on average, 4C warmer before the last ice age than they are now. :)
Your claims regarding global warming go against those made by the IPCC. The fact that you are willing to toss aside the findings of the most widely respected authority on the subject based on a few highly dubious websites indicates massive cognitive bias on your part.
I believe that people are kept stupid, that doctors aid disease (curing symptoms, nothing else) , and that schools limit knowledge (public school...common...).
This is true, but you are incorrectly attributing these things to malice when they can be better explained by incompetence and perverse incentives.
I won't bother with the rest cuz it just the same old shit you hear all the time from paranoid internet people.
You'll have to excuse my quick reply, I value your input but I'm apparently needed in another debate.
- Your claims regarding global warming go against those made by the IPCC.
You're correct, were I to agree with these compromised findings I would state your argument in any forum containing a post similar to mine.
-The fact that you are willing to toss aside the findings of the most widely respected authority on the subject based on a few highly dubious websites indicates massive cognitive bias on your part.
I find that attack offensive and unwarranted. I (at the very least) engage alternate sources of media which (however correct or incorrect) displays my lack of bias in that I'm willing to explore alternatives. It's those that don't question authority, and receive all their information from (as you put it "incompetence and perverse incentives." in even the most analytical of scientific fields) that would warrant the potential title bias. I also take issue with the term cognitive as it is already understood that matters relating to belief involve cognitive process. I find this at the very best redundant, but at worst, a manipulative attempt to call my cognitive faculties into question without posing a direct question or statement alluding to potential disorder.
- This is true, but you are incorrectly attributing these things to malice when they can be better explained by incompetence and perverse incentives.
I never claimed that these situations arrived from malice. You're attempting to put words in my mouth (bias). My issue is as stated, "people are kept stupid, that doctors aid disease (curing symptoms, nothing else). Please rephrase.
-I won't bother with the rest cuz it just the same old shit you hear all the time from paranoid internet people.
I will assume you've never bothered with it (this time being no different) which is why you remain steadfast if your belief that the world is as you were raised to perceive it. That's fine, it's absolutely your choice to live your life as you see fit. However "the same old shit" is shit you know nothing (I repeat NOTHING) about or you wouldn't naively arrive at the conclusion that a closed-minded person would attempt to seek knowledge from multiple sources of information. How hard would it be for me to open a newspaper? The fact that I was able to search online for these topics shows my competence in picking up a newspaper.Is yours a harder road traveled? I will tell you for certain I'm not paranoid as I have no reason to fear anything in this world. It's my view that life is a game and death is not the end. Please respond with substance and lose the condescension.
The IPCCs findings are in no way compromised. This is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence.
displays my lack of bias in that I'm willing to explore alternatives
Believing fools and liars doesn't show a lack of bias. It shows a lack of discernment. I'm not saying this because I want to offend you, I'm simply stating the truth.
manipulative attempt...alluding to potential disorder
I wasn't alluding to anything. I was flat out telling you you're being paranoid and not thinking clearly.
I will assume you've never bothered with it.
Haha, if only. Apparently this is coming as a suprise to you, but your point of view is actually a pretty common one. It feels like I spend the majority of time on here trying to beat some sense into the heads of folks like you. I've heard all the half-baked conspiracy theories. Everyone wants to believe the world is corrupt. Everyone wants to find a scapegoat for their problems. People watch a couple of manipulative YouTube videos and think they've seen the promised land while the rest of us are marching along like blind sheep. I can see how this narrative is gratifying to the ego -- but it's simply not true. Many people are interested in making the world a better place. The IPCC are definitely in that group, as are most scientists.
I never claimed that these situations arrived from malice.
Well you said "the people are kept dumb". The word "kept" seems to imply that someone with malicious intent is doing the keeping.
This is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence.
Please state the meaning of extraordinary evidence as compared to evidence. I'm willing to give you evidence, in fact I partially have. The issue with many people like you is that you don't agree with the sources. If it doesn't come from a noted scientific paper then you'll disregard it, which puts me in a catch 22 so to speak. You need to outline the evidence you're willing to accept and I will respond accordingly.
Sorry, I now see that your cognitive bias statement (and extraordinary evidence) stemmed from your manner of interaction rather than specific intent, I'll drop the cognitive bias thing.
Believing fools and liars doesn't show a lack of bias. It shows a lack of discernment. I'm not saying this because I want to offend you, I'm simply stating the truth.
It was you who used the term bias in the context of the sources I choose, so in defense I stated that's not true given I review multiple sources. To then reply using the term bias in a different context (the sources' credibility [which we have not argued yet]), from that of my defense, (the amount of sources), to state that I am biased and lack discernment is nothing more than argumentative. Stay on topic, I asked at the end of the last post that you reply with substance.
Fool
1 : a person lacking in judgment or prudence
2 a : a retainer formerly kept in great households to provide casual entertainment and commonly dressed in motley with cap, bells, and bauble b : one who is victimized or made to appear foolish : dupe
3 a : a harmlessly deranged person or one lacking in common powers of understanding b : one with a marked propensity or fondness for something
Liar
: a person who tells lies
Fools and liars exist on both sides of every debate. Since you haven't shown proof for these people to be fools and liars I won't accept that judgment. Since I'm a discerning person, I can't possibly be showing a lack of discernment. It's your value that I lack discernment based on your belief system which has no place in debate. You haven't proved that they are fools and liars so this point is mute as well.
At this time I should point out that not one of your first three arguments hold any information or constructive thought. They're little more than attacks, and defensive statements intended to re-route the onus of explanation.
Apparently this is coming as a suprise to you, but your point of view is actually a pretty common one.
You're correct. There are many people that see what I see in terms of instances of conspiracy. I agree that many are ludicrous, many are hard to prove (but potentially true) and then there are many that are absolutely true. There are foolproof examples of conspiracies that are very real, and as a result, add another piece into the puzzle you choose not to see. The problem is, I don't know what kind of shut-in I'm debating with, so it may be futile to even relate the long-proven examples to this debate. It's understood that Bush lied about the middle east, so we can only surmise that the reason for american occupation is assets. If you choose to not believe this given the damning evidence then there's no hope for you. On it's own, it means a president lied, but consider it from a conspirators perspective, and you have the president lying to the american people, the head of the military lying to the american people, the military establishment attacking american people (911), I could go on.
It feels like I spend the majority of time on here trying to beat some sense into the heads of folks like you.
As opposed to talking sense into them? I would agree given the amount of information you've posed in the first half of your response.
I've heard all the half-baked conspiracy theories.
I doubt that. I haven't heard all of them and I search them out.
How many well-done theories have you heard? You're pretty unlucky to have only heard the half-baked ones.
Everyone wants to believe the world is corrupt.
You don't apparently. I don't want it to be, but I know it to be. I know what humans are capable of, and I know that everyone has their price. I know that the human conscience is very fragile, and I know that humans create their reality on many levels, the one in particular I'm interested in though, is the one related to reason. From the time we're born, we attribute meaning to what we experience. This leads to many views of reality and not all of them are noble and self-sacrificing. You say that everyone wants the world to be corrupt, how corrupt do you believe the world to be? Not at all? A bit?
Everyone wants to find a scapegoat for their problems.
That's the condescension again. You don't put yourself into that category do you? You're on the net beating sense into everyone, so you must be of higher faculty. So, everyone but you?
People watch a couple of manipulative YouTube videos and think they've seen the promised land
Manipulative how? Photoshopped american army uniforms on "terrorists"? Those were "terrorists" disguised as americans tossing that puppy off the cliff? Here's the truth wise one, all the terrorist "kill freedom" signs were written in the same handwriting. Here's the truth, people proud of their religion and willing to die for it don't hide their faces with cloth. Here's the truth, Osama was raised in america and worked as a cia operative for years. How many times did that "manipulative videos" argument stop you from watching those videos? Or here's a question, how many have you seen? You don't need those big bad videos either, there are entire books dedicated to such conspiracies as ex-cia operatives bribing country leaders with money then bankrupting them to put them in the u.s.' grip for example. Pick up a book.
while the rest of us are marching along like blind sheep.
What? Now you're just one of the guys?
I can see how this narrative is gratifying to the ego
Any situation consisting of a minority would gratify the ego, that's what you're doing, not me. I agree that people realizing what the world is about are the many, you don't. You're the lone ranger helping people get back to their senses, remember? You can't be one of the guys, then become one of the few wise ones to anchor humanity in reason whenever you feel like it.
Many people are interested in making the world a better place.
Finally, something we agree on.
The IPCC are definitely in that group
Not if the findings are as biased as I claim, they're not.
Well you said "the people are kept dumb". The word "kept" seems to imply that someone with malicious intent is doing the keeping.
I didn't type "made to be dumb" I typed kept dumb, potentially meaning side-effect or consequence. Since the definition requires clarity (even though in that same sentence I use the word people implying the many, hence the suggestion that people victimize themselves implying lack of intent) you should have asked for clarification instead of jumping to the conclusion I'm damning the many (bias).
Blanket statements such as "everyone this/that" don't constitute arguments. Since I've seen little else from you am I to assume that you don't have any arguments?
If it doesn't come from a noted scientific paper then you'll disregard it
And do you not understand why that is? Do you not understand that the scientific method is the only way we can gain reliable knowledge of the world around us? Proper scientific papers state where they got their information. And those sources in turn can be verified the same way. You can repeat this process until you get all the way down to the basic scientific principle of repeated observation. Any information that fails to meet that level of rigor must be viewed with skepticism.
from your manner of interaction rather than specific intent
Ha, sorry if I was a bit rough. It's just incredibly frustrating to have this conversation over, and over, and over again.
Since you haven't shown proof for these people to be fools and liars I won't accept that judgment.
Ah, that's the rub isn't it? It's easier to drop a load of shit than it is to clean it up. The only way for me to completely refute their claims would be for me to essentially become an expert in climate science. And I have neither the time or motivation to do this. Instead I choose to trust the consensus opinion of the recognized experts. Again, their findings are clear, logical, and verifiable by data. Trusting them is the reasonable thing to do.
They're little more than attack
Indeed. Ad-hominem is the only recourse that avoids me having to waste many hours educating myself in an obscure field. My argument is that the IPCC is near infinitely more likely to be correct than the sources you cited for reasons I have described.
It's understood that Bush lied about the middle east, so we can only surmise that the reason for american occupation is assets.
No, that's far from understood. It's a possibility, I'll grant you; but to accept it as fact is being overly hasty. Other factors/possibilities include: political pressure, Christian imperialism, alpha-male posturing, general stupidity, etc.
the military establishment attacking american people
Bull. I've looked into 9/11 conspiracies quite a bit. There is nothing more than weak circumstantial evidence. Nowhere near enough to convince me.
You don't apparently.
"Everyone" is of course a figure of speech... meaning "most people"... Ok, so I shouldn't have said "everyone".
how corrupt do you believe the world to be?
Somewhat. Depends on the place. The US isn't too bad. We are a country of laws. I think people are reasonably good, on the whole, when their basic needs are met.
You're on the net beating sense into everyone, so you must be of higher faculty.
Well I'd be lying if I said I wasn't smarter than, say, 95% of people. Not trying to boast, I simply believe that to be true.
Manipulative how?
Selective editing. Emotionally charged music and imagery. Distortion of fact. One-sided presentation. etc, etc.
Those were "terrorists" disguised as americans tossing that puppy off the cliff?
Some people are assholes. What a revelation!
How many times did that "manipulative videos" argument stop you from watching those videos?
I don't know, 60% of the time maybe. I watch the wacky videos sometimes, just to see what's on the minds of the deluded, and to see if they have any valid points. They almost never do.
there are entire books...
I'm sure there are. Again we our faced with the question of reliability. Who do we trust? I trust recognized experts for reasons outlined previously.
What? Now you're just one of the guys?
Indeed. Smart guys are in the subset of non-nutjobs.
P.S. Statements like "CO2's molecular weight makes it too heavy to rise high enough to cause the greenhouse effect" are major red flags. You might as well run around screaming, "I'm an idiot! Don't take me seriously!" There is a rising amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. It is measurable. You could measure it yourself if you obtained the right equipment. What does how high it rises have to do with the greenhouse effect? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth
Do you not understand that the scientific method is the only way we can gain reliable knowledge of the world around us?
I agree that the scientific method has benefited mankind for years. You seem to be forgetting that I'm not attacking the scientific method (even though I see many flaws in it's application), I'm attacking the manipulation of statistics. The ipcc isn't equal to the scientific method. You basing that logic on the assumption that they are one and the same entity which can't possibly be.
Proper scientific papers state where they got their information. And those sources in turn can be verified the same way.
All scientific papers state where they got their info. You need to stop picking and choosing the information I provide to suit the situations you're attempting to portray. You keep stating that my side has no scientific backing even though I'm sure your read (just as one example),
Dr. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace. He is now a critic of the anthropogenic theory of global warming. His analysis shows that man has contributed less than 0.30C of warming and by the year 2100 may contribute less than 0.40C additional warming.
if you won't give my arguments a fair rundown we don't have a debate. I reply to every sentence you type, which is why my arguments are paragraphs long. Start doing the same for me (at least for the important points) or you're just as guilty as the bogus scientific studies you're defending. Choosing to answer only the sentences that don't hurt your cause is unbecoming of a debate partner.
You can repeat this process until you get all the way down to the basic scientific principle of repeated observation.
All you're doing is plagiarizing text from the definition of the scientific method, I'll move on.
Any information that fails to meet that level of rigor must be viewed with skepticism.
I won't even begin to create a debate inside a "debate" regarding the flaws with the scientific method, suffice it to say that the outcome can always differ with regards to the scientific study of quantum physics and theory which is why traditional science is stumped when applying scientific method. You really need to pick up a book.
Ha, sorry if I was a bit rough. It's just incredibly frustrating to have this conversation over, and over, and over again.
You weren't so rough. I saw something that wasn't there and acted on it. Now that I understand your idiosyncrasies we won't have any more misunderstandings.
Ah, that's the rub isn't it? It's easier to drop a load of shit than it is to clean it up. The only way for me to completely refute their claims would be for me to essentially become an expert in climate science.
The converse is true for me to refute your scientific community's claims. Welcome to debate.
Instead I choose to trust the consensus opinion of the recognized experts. Again, their findings are clear, logical, and verifiable by data. Trusting them is the reasonable thing to do.
Clear yes, logical perhaps, reasonable HELL NO. We are in the same boat, an issue of trust is required so as to move ahead without spending our lives becoming mediocre experts in all fields. The onus, however, is on us to choose correctly. Help me out here, how would you approach someone you were attempting to show that fox news isn't the truth, but they flatly argue "but it's on my t.v. so people trust it, if it's not on here it's a lie because I trust the networks. Someone would have pointed out that they're lying". There ARE people pointing it out.
Indeed. Ad-hominem is the only recourse that avoids me having to waste many hours educating myself in an obscure field.
That's a cop-out. You're the one that brought the fight to me, you can't defend argumentativeness and aggression based on the fact that you don't want to spend the time verifying your claims. In this situation "put up or shut up" is more than adequate.
My argument is that the IPCC is near infinitely more likely to be correct than the sources you cited for reasons I have described.
No they are more infinately trustworthy, which is a fair assessment if an average person were to put all their eggs in one basket. But the world is changing, the people we thought we could trust have been exposed as liars, and these liars (scientific heads) are doing everything in their power to maintain their monopoly (destroying the natural sciences [naturopathic medicine etc..]). Seriously you needn't look farther than the fact that inoculations contain mercury. <------RESPOND TO THIS!
I'll grant you; but to accept it as fact is being overly hasty. Other factors/possibilities include: political pressure, Christian imperialism, alpha-male posturing, general stupidity, etc.
"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda." "President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the second-highest total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld and Fleischer each made 109 false statements, followed by Wolfowitz (with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney (with 48), and McClellan (with 14)." ""Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' "
They lied. <---------RESPOND TO THIS.
Your defense of them regarding ANY of the mentioned categories is ridiculous. "Poor president he spends so much time on the golf course he barely has time to whip up arguments to suit every fanatic minority". It's beyond dispute they had had specific intent to start a war and their methods have been deemed as crimes against humanity. That's without the evidence for 911 being a crime against their own country which is now also conclusive.
Bull. I've looked into 9/11 conspiracies quite a bit. There is nothing more than weak circumstantial evidence. Nowhere near enough to convince me.
They were imploded, you don't need more evidence. Oh, and they stated one building (which was planned to be destroyed but hadn't at the time the news was aired) was part of the attack. Seriously, how far did you look into it? You didn't "look into it" at all.<----RESPOND TO THIS
Somewhat. Depends on the place. The US isn't too bad. We are a country of laws. I think people are reasonably good, on the whole, when their basic needs are met.
The u.s. is the worst. It was developed civilization that brought corruption with it. You look at the situation as "u.s., and the rest of the godless world". By the way, the legal system isn't concerned with justice at all, it's concerned with exceptions citing previous cases, and using technicalities to win. Put down your flag.
Well I'd be lying if I said I wasn't smarter than, say, 95% of people. Not trying to boast, I simply believe that to be true.
No, you're not lying because you believe it to be true. It's not though.
Selective editing. Emotionally charged music and imagery. Distortion of fact. One-sided presentation. etc, etc.
Selective editing like your selective arguments? Emotionally charged music I agree with you 100%. I stopped watching any video that plays that fucking lord of the rings violin piece. Don't forget that there is a difference between the videos that I watch and cite, and the videos random douches put up with their own opinions that lots of the time don't mean a damn thing. Be selective of the youtube videos you watch, or watch others. Watch "the obama deception". That's a movie to cite, not some random schoolboy b.s. because they want their voice to be heard.
No, many are assholes, and view eastern people as sub-human "as far as I'm concerned, everyone with a turban is fair game". This is the military you adamantly defend. They're morons used as grunts for war. They're not intellectuals, they're looking for a fight.
I'm sure there are. Again we our faced with the question of reliability. Who do we trust? I trust recognized experts for reasons outlined previously.
Using that logic you could write a story of your life, publish it, and people could say, "no you're lying, that's not your life, I can't trust you". The information speaks for itself. You're, on one hand, blindly believing what you're told because you're told it's a reputable source, and on the other crucifying people that choose to not believe it based on their (supposed blind) belief, even though it takes more work (as you've outline your not willing to engage) than "picking up a newspaper".
Indeed. Smart guys are in the subset of non-nutjobs.
There are "smart guys" that view themselves as such, but are in fact, not. You're one of those people. You haven't debated all of my points, you consider yourself elite in the field while admitting you don't want to do the work, you view yourself as a "sense knocker", and you argumentatively enter debates you have no intention of concluding. You are one of those people.
P.S. Statements like "CO2's molecular weight makes it too heavy to rise high enough to cause the greenhouse effect" are major red flags. There is a rising amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. It is measurable. You could measure it yourself if you obtained the right equipment. What does how high it rises have to do with the greenhouse effect?
I need to say that I blindly copied and pasted random points about global warming. I'm not equipped to fight a debate about the molecular weight of carbon dioxide but I'm willing to relinquish the points I can't argue because every point I've typed until now holds it's own. Even though I can't argue that point, I've referenced noted individuals, I've tied together strings of logic (the backbone of putting this puzzle together) that people like you don't do (and just assume that those we should trust are greedy and incompetent) even though you need to be educated to get into those fields. Many of them know what they are doing. <----RESPOND TO THIS
You might as well run around screaming, "I'm an idiot! Don't take me seriously!"
Name-calling? Seriously?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth
You're hurting your cause by quoting wikipedia.
At this point I'm going to say that you haven't shown yourself to be educated if you choose only the points you wish to argue as opposed to all the points I state. I won't even waste my time copying and pasting "respond to this" for all the GOOD points in my previous replies that not only can't be argued, but deal with many of your current statements. Thus far I've relinquished one point and answered all of yours in full. Conversely, since you have only argued a select few of my points, I contend that you have relinquished everything of yours that I have successfully argued since you didn't retort.
Ok, buddy. Here's the IPCC's report. Where's the bs?
Dr. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace. He is now a critic of the anthropogenic theory of global warming.
I fail to see how an aerospace engineer is qualified to comment on climate science.
flaws with the scientific method
Wtf? If you don't believe in science, then we're not going to be able to agree here.
quantum physics
Oh, ffs. Are you seriously arguing that quantum uncertainity means we can't actually know anything about the world?
Fox News
I would prove that a specific show on Fox News was crap by taking that show and giving a sentence by sentence breakdown of lies and distortions. Example
That's a cop-out.
No it's not. The burden of proof falls on the wacko.
the people we thought we could trust have been exposed as liars
Some. A small minority. You've just heard about the liars. You don't hear about the 95% of honest people because they're too boring for the internet. The internet is biased toward interesting events. This has given you a skewed perception of the world.
mercury
"While the amount of the additive, called thimerosal, in a single vaccine poses no threat, it's remotely possible that the accumulated mercury in multiple inoculations might cause neurological damage. "We took action before evidence of any harm," says Dr. Walter Orenstein, head of the national immunization program for the Centers for Disease Control. "But even with a theoretical risk, we wanted to work with manufacturers to get to thimerosal-free products as soon as possible."
Shall we add the Centers for Disease Control and TIME Magazine to your list of conspirators?
They lied.
Or they were mistaken. Or they stretched the truth. There is a fine line. But whatever, I'll accept that they lied. Still, jumping from "they lied" to "this was a resource grab" is the part I was referring to as being overly hasty.
They were imploded
No. A plane crashed into it, pouring in tons of burning jet fuel, causing heat damage which weakened the central support structures leading to a progressive collapse.
Let's stop here before I start quoting the 9/11 commission report, because we're just going to run into the same issue we're running into wrt global warming. We should stick to the more central question of whether experts can be trusted.
The u.s. is the worst.
No. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_corruption See the map? The majority of the world is more corrupt than the US. Or shall we add Transparency International and Wikipedia to your list of conspirators?
"as far as I'm concerned, everyone with a turban is fair game". This is the military you adamantly defend.
Glaring logical error. You are using cherry-picked anecdotes and implying that they are the norm. Common behavior among conspiracy theorists. You would need some kind of comprehensive overview to show that this kind of thing is the norm.
people could say, "no you're lying, that's not your life, I can't trust you"
Without proof they would have no reason to know whether or not I was being honest. Of course if there's no good reason to doubt me, it would be reasonable for them to trust me. If, however, I were to attempt to cast doubt on established institutions in my book without a great deal of solid evidence, people would have good reason to mistrust me.
The information speaks for itself.
There is such a thing as false information.
blindly believing what you're told because you're told it's a reputable source
Not blindly. It is reasonable to trust experts. And I could dig through their sources if I were so inclined.
...Many of them know what they are doing.
I don't really understand this paragraph. I think you're basically saying "there are some experts who don't believe in global warming". This is true. But the vast majority of experts do believe it's occurring and that it's caused by man. source In any situation where the vast majority says one thing and a small minority says something opposing, it is vastly more likely that the majority is right and the minority is wrong.
You're hurting your cause by quoting wikipedia.
No I'm not. Wikipedia is one of the best sources available. Every sentence in articles such as the one on global warming has been debated to death. Every claim is backed up by reliable sources. Contrast this with the sources you have posted where some random dipshit can say whatever he likes with no intellectual pushback whatsoever.
you choose only the points you wish to argue
I used my judgment to determine which points were central to your argument and focused on those. Addressing every point would be too time consuming and our arguments would explode to an unreasonable size. I'm not trying to avoid anything. If there's anything you especially want me to address, feel free to point it out.
I had 2500 words of debate prepared for you, and just deleted it all to say this. I no longer wish to continue. Throughout our exchange I've attempted to bring forth the most intelligent and courteous interactions and I was met with shallow minded, one-sided opinions and name-calling. I now see that you're the type of person to hesitantly concede that your political and military leaders (in concert) are the type to lie to your people and lead you into a trillion dollar war based on that lie, and you're too blind to even consider what dire ramifications rightly follow (that the people that are supposed to answer to you, in fact, view you more as a technicality to achieve their goals [not to mention the obvious militarization of your political process] ). Half of your responses don't even constitute arguments, as I would have outlined involve 1) putting words in my mouth (not the first time), 2) twisting my words (not the first time), and 3) sending my arguments back at me with meaningless banter intended to avoid responding (not the first time).
1)flaws with the scientific method
Wtf? If you don't believe in science, then we're not going to be able to agree here.
2)quantum physics
Oh, ffs. Are you seriously arguing that quantum uncertainity means we can't actually know anything about the world?
3)They lied.
Or they were mistaken. Or they stretched the truth. There is a fine line. But whatever, I'll accept that they lied
I've spent hours responding to your every word and you as of yet haven't responded with the same courtesy. I have a life to live, and I don't need to add another moron to the list. Life is far too short for the likes of you.
As with every previous reply, I'm not outmatched, if you doubt the validity of that statement, I'll post the incomplete response that I'm sure would have totaled 4000 words upon completion. I really, simply don't want to debate with you. By the way, omitting every post you avoided (in the dozens now), you conceded in one category that a flag waving moron must have had a hard time doing. It's 1-0 as of right now. This by no means implies that I want to avoid debate with you, in fact, I'll be on your ass like a hawk, I just don't see a reason to debate a topic with a person that won't recognize my sources or debate in good faith.
P.S. Since you have issues correlating bits of information I'll say that this post covers every possible response you could have, the only eventualities not included are 1) should you want to voice you discontent (which is fine, it's your right) or 2) should you request my incomplete post. For every other statement or question, refer to this post.
I'll only post it if he asks. I'm a bit of a stickler for protocol, and posting a "there! deal with it!" argument doesn't seem right to me. If he asks me to post it, I will, just to show that I didn't back down for lack of arguments. Plus this way he can't argue that I attempted to get the last word in given that it was he who asked me for it.
your political and military leaders (in concert) are the type to lie to your people
Hasty generalization. Just cuz Bush did it doesn't mean it's typical.
you're too blind
And you accuse me of name-calling.
obvious militarization of your political process
I see no such thing.
putting words in my mouth...twisting my words...meaningless banter intended to avoid responding
I don't believe I did any of those things. And if I did it wasn't intentional. Any particular examples? A common trait among conspiracy theorists is perceiving malicious intent when there is none present.
I really, simply don't want to debate with you.
That's fine.
It's 1-0 as of right now.
There is no score. Debate is not a competition. It is a cooperative endeavor meant to reconcile inconsistencies in the respective mental models of the participants.
won't recognize my sources
I will not recognize unreliable sources, sorry. If you really believe that all the sources I consider reliable are invalid for whatever reason, then you're going to have to construct your arguments all the way from the basic bedrock of repeated observation.
Godam you jessald, now that the amount of points to debate have been simplified I feel compelled to re-engage. I'm a bit curious why you've omitted everything "human" about my last post. Are you some sort of soulless drone with the primary function of arguing what is put in front of you? No "no-bot" of sorts?
Hasty generalization. Just cuz Bush did it doesn't mean it's typical.
You're doing it again, it isn't just bush, it's the bush administration as I've outlined (and you agreed to) comprising military leaders as well. The joint lying implies cooperation towards the goal. Wasting a trillion dollars and lying to you. I won't re-engage if you don't stop twisting words. <-----RESPOND
And you accuse me of name-calling.
I will only be the bigger man for so long, you didn't take a break from name-calling the entire debate, don't you dare call my ethics into question.
I see no such thing.
Look up.
I don't believe I did any of those things. And if I did it wasn't intentional. Any particular examples?
I gave examples in italics for each one (from only your most recent argument [I have many on hand if you need further proof of your ridiculous debate methods] and since you avoided them I can only surmise you ignored them or didn't read my post in full. Since it was little more than a paragraph I can only imagine how sparsely you read my long winded arguments.
A common trait among conspiracy theorists is perceiving malicious intent when there is none present.
This is another practice you need to stop, your personal opinions have no place here. I could just as easily say "blindly following the mainstream media is common among douchebags and that makes you a douchebag". It serves no purpose but to aggravate petty conflict. <-------RESPOND
That's fine.
This was a waste of space, I know it's fine. I do this but simply because I respond to every sentence of yours, you stated that you don't so this is mute. Don't waste time.
There is no score. Debate is not a competition. It is a cooperative endeavor meant to reconcile inconsistencies in the respective mental models of the participants.
You would be correct if we had a debate in which the true purpose was to arrive at consensus. I've outlined many instances in which your practices strayed far from formal debate and even farther from ethical correspondence.
I will not recognize unreliable sources, sorry. If you really believe that all the sources I consider reliable are invalid for whatever reason, then you're going to have to construct your arguments all the way from the basic bedrock of repeated observation.
Here we have a conundrum as I can easily put myself in your shoes, but worry that you refuse to do the same for me (despite my obvious competence). My issue is that what I propose is inaccessible to you as the very nature of my argument relies on grassroots science as opposed to the conglomerates you rely on. <------RESPOND
If you adequately respond to these statements (<---RESPOND) I will reopen the debate. I now know you see me as a worthwhile opponent or you wouldn't be pushing so hard to continue, perhaps you would have even dropped the debate long ago.
It's called synecdoche. Yes, the Bush administration lied. My point is that their lying about WMDs doesn't imply other administrations (i.e. the Obama administration) are lying when they discuss foreign policy. It also says nothing about external entities like the IPCC.
It serves no purpose but to aggravate petty conflict.
Not true. Conspiracy theorists operate with a cognitive bias that impedes their ability to perceive the word accurately. If you are indeed a conspiracy theorist, then tracing the soundness of your arguments would be a waste of time. I see successfully demonstrating that you are, in fact, a conspiracy theorist as the most efficient strategy for bringing this debate to a close.
grassroots science
What is "grassroots science"? Do you mean, "not peer-reviewed"? (lol)
My point is that their lying about WMDs doesn't imply other administrations
Your military hasn't changed smart one. The president doesn't act outside the administration so trying to dazzle me with your prowess in expressing definitions is a waste of time and transparent as an attempt to solidify your "elevated" position as my rival.
nothing about external entities like the IPCC.
Was I referring to the IPCC when I said bush? No. Again stop wasting time.
Conspiracy theorists operate with a cognitive bias that impedes their ability to perceive the word accurately.
Anti-conspiracy theorists operate with a cognitive bias that impedes their ability to perceive the word accurately. Moron.
then tracing the soundness of your arguments would be a waste of time.
You don't read your sources before citing them, I'm not surprised you'd type this.
What is "grassroots science"?
Scientists interested in gaining knowledge, not money. You didn't respond to what I typed, just the last sentence. Do better or I'm wasting my time with you.
No, but the administration has, and that's the important thing. The president is the commander-in-chief. The military just follows orders. Do you agree that it's reasonable to trust the current administration?
Anti-conspiracy theorists operate with a cognitive bias that impedes their ability to perceive the word accurately.
No we don't. "Anti-conspiracy theorist" just means "normal person". There are no unusual cognitive biases at work, so as long as they are not falling victim to well-known logical errors, there's no reason for doubting them. Conspiracy theorists, on the other hand, have a well-documented, exceptional, tendency to misperceive reality and draw conclusions that are spectacularly wrong. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Study_of_conspiracism
Scientists interested in gaining knowledge, not money.
I believe this includes the vast majority of scientists. They chose not to go to business school after all.
I can easily put myself in your shoes, but worry that you refuse to do the same for me
This is because you are not being logical. I believe I understand your position: The world is hopelessly corrupt. The IPCC is paid off by shadowy figures bent on expanding the size of government so that it can better enforce the desires of its puppet-masters. 9/11 was another front in the same war. The thing is your worldview is not based on reality: The claims made by the IPCC square with the facts. The Republicans lost the last election. We are in the process of pulling out of Iraq. Etc, etc, etc.
I attempted to post my response but it kept on giving me the "50 word minimum" error. Turns out my response was too long so I posted half of it, then supported it with the other half.
People's mentality during an election is to think about the candidates in a sense of "What have you done for me lately?" And this doesn't just go political. It is present in all forms of society. Here's an example... Michael Jackson. A lot of people, unfortunately, think of him and immediately think of his child molestation charges, his ranch, his nose, his strange lifestyle, etc. Not as many people immediately think of the Jackson 5, Thriller, etc.
One dollar can be easily argued away, what if the study incorporated 1.5x or 2x the reward for a one day wait. It could be a very different story.
P.S. The premise of that study is flawed as the people would spend more money on gas driving back to the location to pick up the extra $1s worth. If I was offered $10 today or $11 tomorrow, I'd choose the $10. If however I was offered $10 today, and $20 tomorrow, I'd choose the $20. You're "study" proves nothing.
I agree (plus, I want points). If I could get $100 today, $101 tomorrow, or $150 the next day, you had better believe I would wait until the day after tomorrow (Ubermorgen, in German).
Yes, that's what the word "bias" means. Logically they should have taken the dollar the next day. As you say, a 1.5 or 2x reward would likely have overcome the bias toward short-term gratification.
Your gas money argument doesn't work because the study was conducted on students who would have been on campus anyway. And don't you think Princeton researchers are smart enough to control for variables like that?
If you read the actual study you will see that they tried many permutations of the variables and explored the phenomenon in detail.
Logically they should have taken the dollar the next day.
No, logically a dollar can be argued away on multiple premises. If they choose the ten, they 1) don't have to walk to that area of the university to claim it, 2) don't need to interfere with their next day plans for a dollar, 3) don't need to attend to pick up their dollar if they're not required at school the following day, 4) can forget about the ordeal completely, I can keep going but I've made my point abundantly clear. You have no argument.
And don't you think Princeton researchers are smart enough to control for variables like that?
Which is exactly why this was little more than a humorous dig. I don't give university students so little credit so as to allow that this oversight was a possibility. Congratulations, how high did you jump off your booster seat with excitement when you realized that I left myself this open to criticism?
Although in seriousness, it's a fairly childish study outline because (according to the article) they didn't accommodate the fact that a dollar by no means would sway decision. In my reply to your previous post I detail why one dollar is a terrible incentive to abstain, re-read that.
If you read the actual study you will see that they tried many permutations of the variables and explored the phenomenon in detail.
No, YOU read the document YOU quoted. 1) choice of $10 today or $11 tomorrow, 2) choice between $10 in one year or $11 in a year and a day, 3) gift certificates ranging from $5 to $40 in value and larger amounts that could be obtained only by waiting some period, from two weeks to six weeks.
Three constitutes a few not many, (since you're citing reference to scientific testing, you can only argue what your referenced document contains) and not one of the three relates to a 1.5x or 2x short term payoff. I did read the study, you didn't (or you wouldn't have made this mistake).
By the way that was a bad reference to post, the article speaks more to brain activity during the choices rather than the choices made. The result of these tests involves short-term emotional (relating to addiction as well) and long-term logical processes. Seriously, read your references before posting.
Haha you put me in my place with that one. I concede I inaccurately outlined the study you didn't even read, but cited anyway, and now are attempting to correct me on.
