Firearms & co... hate or love them?

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by DrEvilmonki
Do you believe in the big bang theory?

I believe the theory is plausible, just as the theory of evolution is plausible, and until we can prove it through observation and repeatability, they will stay theories.

However, Global Warming is not being taken as a theory it is being taught as fact, fueled by media hype and political agenda.

I have never stated that Global Warming isn\'t plausible, just that man\'s part in it is highly exaggerated if even noticeable.
In fact I\'d go as far as saying Global Warming must exist since we are no longer under the snow and glaciers of the Ice Age, a feat that happened without man.

 

[vincegamer]

Originally posted by supervike
And they all stink.lol

Hey! My S don\'t stink!

 

[philologus]

Originally posted by finn17
Possibly the most amazing feat of moderation on the net!

Indeed, Good Show Finn, Vike, DR et al.

 

[philologus]

Originally posted by Evil Dave

Originally posted by DrEvilmonki
Do you believe in the big bang theory?

I believe the theory is plausible, just as the theory of evolution is plausible, and until we can prove it through observation and repeatability, they will stay theories.

However, Global Warming is not being taken as a theory it is being taught as fact, fueled by media hype and political agenda.

I have never stated that Global Warming isn\'t plausible, just that man\'s part in it is highly exaggerated if even noticeable.
In fact I\'d go as far as saying Global Warming must exist since we are no longer under the snow and glaciers of the Ice Age, a feat that happened without man.

Cool this thread has gone from firearms to global warming, to America is/is not bashed to Big Bang Theory. Maybe we should rename this one to \"Life, the Universe, and Everything\".

 

[vincegamer]

Big Bang theory...

Isn\'t that the one where we\'re all on the back of a giant turtle swimming through space in search of a female turtle to create new worlds with?

 

[Rodnik]

Big Bang theory...

Isn\'t that the one where we\'re all on the back of a giant turtle swimming through space in search of a female turtle to create new worlds with?

I think so...and I seem to recall something about a \"grassy gnoll\"....or was that a \"grassy knoll\".......

 

[finn17]

Time to pat ourselves on the back once again...possibly...

Seriously! I have never encountered such a \'together\' community. I know there are people here who wouldn\'t \'get on\' in real life but bloody hell!!...I have worked in some of the \'best\' universities in the UK and rarely seen such a high level of understanding and tolerance.

I am really proud to be a part of such a community

 

[Avelorn]

@Philologus: Good idea!

I agree on the hype. But the hype is there for the same reason other things are hyped it isn\'t a reason to say that it is true or not true.

However there is always uncertain things even though you will find litterature and articles that have dealt with all the points you\'ve brought up so far (I can give you pointers if you like). But what we have here is a plausable theory and a type of modelling that have made predicitons that still holds with no better explanations (I\'m thinking Hansen et al 1988). Now we have sharper tools and computers to help us and still the theory holds and evidence is gathered all the time. If this theory is true we must start acting now. I do think the climatologists have a credibility (not the meteorologists though.. :cussing: ) And so does UN still for me.. even if it wasn\'t \"their\" science that opened my eyes to global warming. Media.. well... media is useless if you want to form a nuanced opinion without source criticism. That\'s my view of it.

@Finn17: I think you are partly correct that nemesises are sought to unite the country. But does global warming fill the role of russians? I also think you center too much on USA... this is a global phenomenon. If politicians are interested in taxes it\'s not the co2 or petrol tax they\'d raise. With no supplement it will in shortterm lower the annual growth and give lower tax revenue. I don\'t beleive in conspiracy theories but I do think that institution and bureaucracy can get a life of its own.

It is true that the climate has changed through all time. But that is old news.. what we have here is something else. You are insignificant to the climate, and so am I. But we are very many on this planet, so many that in couple of years it wouldn\'t be able to feed us all if the agricultural producitivity won\'t raise. We have had an profound influece on the number of mammals living on this planet as well . However I do agree that we have a tendency to put oursleves in the center.. but maybe we are happier if we think we have control?

EDIT: Well and yes.. I think we have a good discussion and I\'m quite happy it wasn\'t censored. And we\'ll see whom I\'ll get along with when I travel to U.S in a couple of years, right?

 

[funnymouth]

its all a theory

Originally posted by Evil Dave

Originally posted by DrEvilmonki
Do you believe in the big bang theory?

I believe the theory is plausible, just as the theory of evolution is plausible, and until we can prove it through observation and repeatability, they will stay theories.

However, Global Warming is not being taken as a theory it is being taught as fact, fueled by media hype and political agenda.

I have never stated that Global Warming isn\'t plausible, just that man\'s part in it is highly exaggerated if even noticeable.
In fact I\'d go as far as saying Global Warming must exist since we are no longer under the snow and glaciers of the Ice Age, a feat that happened without man.

well, if you want to get all tecnical about theories and such keep in mind that heliocentric theory is the \"theory\" that the earth rotates around the sun. thats right, it still \"just\" a theory.

there are no more new laws. laws of science are a myth. even now we know the \"laws\" of classical newtonian physics are flawed because of relativity. its all theory.

a crucial component of the scientific method is that no idea is above modification. just because something is a theory doesnt mean that its not accepted as fact. the details are subject to change, but that doest make it any less true. you mentioned evolution - it is a myth that there is a debate in the scientific community about whether evolution occurs. there is no such debate. it is a \"theory\" because the specifics of evolution are being researched and debated. the basic principles are solid, and well established, but the story is much more complicated - it is the story of all life on this planet, and the many, amazingly diverse ways it has come to exist. it is the union of genetics, behavior, game theory, probability, luck, etc etc etc. there is as much a reason to discuss the likelyhood of humanities existance as there is to discuss the likelyhood that organisms undergo evolutionary change. many medical advancements we have made hinge directly on the theory of evolution. there is no biology without evolution anymore.

this comes back to the post i just made in the groundhogs thread.
what information on global warming do you have that you did NOT gain from the media. my bet: none.
if you feel strongly about an issue you should take the time to see what people who have dedicated their lives to understanding the subject have learned. hit up google scholar and actually do some footwork instead of being an armchair general and dismissing evidence as rhetoric of a liberal media. maybe you\'re right and they have been sniffing thir own asses - if you can point out the flaws in their research im sure youd get a cushy job and a nice salary.

i have a tasty lil\' tidbit for you: theres been a lot of talk about global warming, but we impact the atmosphere in many other ways too. what about the importance of global dimming? take a look at this paper: from dimming to brightening (let me know if this works for you guys)
global climate change is indeed not as simple a story as the midia might have you believe. - they make everything seem simple, when nothing is.

sigh.... i dont know why i rant -well, i do, im sick of people having conviction in their opinion (on BOTH sides) without having any other reason than \"a feeling\" or some anecdotal BS.
that being said, skepticism is a GOOD thing, and im glad you dont believe the idiot box. being selectively skeptical is not good, however (e.g being skeptical because you \"dont like the idea\"). QUESTION everything - and actually look for answers.
crap im preachy. its beacuse im posessed ossessed: by a \"liberal freak.\"
damn im spitefull, forgive me, its been a trying few weeks.
im not sorry :twisted:

 

[matty1001]

PAGE 20!

 

[Evil Dave]

Another problem I have is this: Carbon Neutrality.
Now tell me please, if we inhale Oxygen and exhale Co2 as a waste gas, then how can you ever be \"Neutral\", sounds like a neato catch phrase to me.
I would like to suggest that all those that wish to be Carbon Neutral please hold your breath until further notice.
Also, @ funnymouth, you said in the other post that you didn\'t own a car.
Ok, that\'s fine, you live in California, which has a pretty decent public transportation system. You are not really sacrificing anything. In fact, I\'d go as far as to say that when I lived in San Diego, owning a car was far more trouble than not. (Except when picking up chicks.)
What about folks like me who live in a state with virtually no public transportation and a thirty mile round trip to work?

I must ask how much land do you own? I own three acres with an acre of it heavily wooded with at least 30 + trees in my front yard alone. I\'m willing to bet that even with my SUV, I contribute more Oxygen and take out more CO2 than the better than average Urban eco warrior.

So should I be taxed more, because I own a vehicle that can actually put up with the extremes of environment that I have to deal with here in Louisiana? I\'ve yet to see an electric car that can a.) drive through at least a foot of water. b.) haul at least a ton of sandbags c.) fit all my tools d.) have the sheer power to go off road or tow a chopped up tree off of the road.

If I can be taxed more for my big vehicle, can I get the cities to reimburse me for the oxygen that I produce, and the CO2 that I get rid of?

Will private land owners, who help the environment far more than the cities, be exempt, or will their property tax be decreased?

Are your leaders in this movement exempt? Al Gore and his producer fly around in private jets. Pelosi, who\'s jumping onto the bandwagon is requesting a 757, that\'s a 250 person jet. Just for her, as legally she cannot use it for personal reasons and must pay back the treasury for other passengers..
Will UN delegates fly coach?
Or will it be more of do as I say, not as I do?

Will the solutions, lead to more problems economically and socially?

 

[funnymouth]

Originally posted by Evil Dave
Another problem I have is this: Carbon Neutrality.
Now tell me please, if we inhale Oxygen and exhale Co2 as a waste gas, then how can you ever be \"Neutral\", sounds like a neato catch phrase to me.
as i understand it the idea is that the CO2 production on earth (or other geographic unit) wouldnt exceed its consumption. mostly bullshit for the individual really. what it comes down to is reducing emissions from big factories (and other major CO2 sources) and such to the point where the CO2 can be absorbed - thus reducing its environmental impact and supporting long term global atmospheric stability (and our ability to breathe). this idea is impractical, at best, and the system will equilibriate on its own (whether we will be able to live is another problem entirely).
I would like to suggest that all those that wish to be Carbon Neutral please hold your breath until further notice.
well....we might have to. if CO2 levels consistantly rise (as a result of increased pollution combined with a decrease in carbon fixation, because of logging etc) logic dictates that the atmosphere would EVENTUALLY become inhospitable to human life, either because of CO2 necrosis or, more likely O2 partial pressures outside of our tolerence range. thats long term though... real long term, but a possibility.

Also, @ funnymouth, you said in the other post that you didn\'t own a car.
Ok, that\'s fine, you live in California, which has a pretty decent public transportation system. You are not really sacrificing anything.
What about folks like me who live in a state with virtually no public transportation and a thirty mile round trip to work?

indeed, this is the crux of our vehicle pollution problem. we have created a system in which we are dependant on fossil fules (which sucks for a number of reasons). my personal answer: \"you gotta\' do what you gotta\' do.\" awareness is important though, and we should make attempts to change so our children aren\'t confronted with the same problem (or a worse one). the dollar vote counts, public voice counts, voting counts, period. if there is demand for a solution, we will create one, that is the beauty of capitalism, and democracy; but you have to want it. it may take time, and i dont expect you to be stranded, but maybe next time you\'ll buy the SUV with better emissions. maybe youll spend an extra dollar next time you buy something to go eco friendly. how will that make the world a better place for your children? 300million whispers is deafening.

I must ask how much land do you own?

none, im 25 and poor

I own three acres with an acre of it heavily wooded with at least 30 + trees in my front yard alone. I\'m willing to bet that even with my SUV, I contribute more Oxygen and take out more CO2 than the average Urban eco warrior.

you\'re right, and id like to thank you for that

So should I be taxed more, because I own a vehicle that can actually put up with the extremes of environment that I have to deal with here in Louisiana. I\'ve yet to see an electric car that can a.) drive through at least a foot of water. b.) haul at least a ton of sandbags c.) fit all my tools d.) have the sheer power to go off road or tow a chopped up tree off of the road.

i fully understand your need for a large vehicle, i am from the stix, after all. it seems like you\'re putting it to good use, and thats great, no beef at all. what i dont like are the millions of SUVs in california alone that people drive because they are a status symbol. they wont even come close to a dirt road; just to work and back, at 30mph, in traffic. you\'re getting the shaft because of a bunch of yuppies


If I can be taxed more for my big vehicle, can I get the cities to reimburse me for the oxygen that I produce. and the CO2 that I get rid of?
if ONLY that were the case. it would be a dream if people actually got credit for preserving the environment

Will private land owners, who help the environment far more than the cities, be exempt, or will their property tax be decreased?
thats a damn good idea

MY GOSH! EvilD is environmentally friendly!

 

[Avelorn]

@Funnymouth: I agree on much of what you said. The problem I think for both sides in a discussion is that it will get polarised. I often make my opinion more radical first and then try to more and more find a common ground. I don\'t think there are that many of us that are capable of understanding all the papers written on the subject and the significance of them as then we would actually work with the subject in question. So the important part is where do we look for authority?

I always use sourcecriticism as a mean for discovering whom I can lend some faith in and who I can\'t, I of course don\'t do that on every subject but on the subjects I discuss like this. And I do try to be just to other argumentations but most often I use sourcecriticism and link to other authorities before I take time answering the argumentation myself. Why? As I find that people rarely take time reading what I write and don\'t answer questions I give, so it\'s a timesaver. Often I find that there is a pattern to denial of something wether it\'s denial of evolution or GW or denial of the holocaust (there is of course a huge difference between the subjects but the same rethoric is there).

There are some funny rethoric things that always come up that I am a bit allergic to. \"I give xx amount of money to anyone who can prove...\" \"I bet xx money that...\" \"Give me one proof, I only ask for one proof\" \"Our people has been harrassed and silenced in ... ways\" \"Science is unreliable.. look how they\'ve changed opinion\". Selective relativity is another thing I find people use as a convenient excuse. Now however just because they use the same rethorics doesn\'t mean they all are equally wrong, it\'s just an observation.

@Evil Dave: We have been discussing the same things in Sweden as we are a large country and up here in the north we are very \"spread out\". Our infrastructure and roads are however pretty decent evereywhere so most of us don\'t need SUV\'s. But I mean last year I worked as a gardener and had to travel 100 kilometers by car each day 5 days a week. There is no public transportation system what so ever. This year however I won\'t do the same as I\'ll try to get somewhere to live on the place.

What we have discussed in Sweden is trying to reduce the amount people drive cars while still for us up here in the north trying to make it financially viable to travel to work. So there is a discussion about different subsidies and such.

We do own some acres of forest in my family though.. so maybe I\'m safe!

Thanks for the link! I couldn\'t access the article you provided unless I went through the university proxy.. so if someone can\'t access it there are some interesting and easily understood articles on Global dimming/brightening on Realclimate.org This one is linked directly to this specific article.

 

[darthfoley]

Back to the original topic...here\'s an article I found rather interesting, showing just how zealous some gun owners can be.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17307316/?GT1=9033

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by darthfoley
Back to the original topic...here\'s an article I found rather interesting, showing just how zealous some gun owners can be.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17307316/?GT1=9033

I really don\'t find it over-zealous.
You see, to some people, a man is held accountable for his actions or words.
The fact, that he back pedaled and made excuses merely made him look like what most of these people despise, a politician who changes his opinions according to who he\'s with, or according to the polls.
Had he held onto his opinion he may have gotten some grudging respect.

 

[M. D. Van Norman]

Or maybe gun owners are just getting tired of bigotry.

 

[funnymouth]

Originally posted by Avelorn
@Funnymouth: I agree on much of what you said. The problem I think for both sides in a discussion is that it will get polarised. I often make my opinion more radical first and then try to more and more find a common ground. I don\'t think there are that many of us that are capable of understanding all the papers written on the subject and the significance of them as then we would actually work with the subject in question. So the important part is where do we look for authority?

some wise insights in there, and some very difficult questions. i am willfully guilty of agressively taking a radical stance. not my beast attribute, but i do it because it is effective. people who stand quietly at the side and raise their hands are oft overlooked in our viceral, dramatic world. your methodology seems tempered, and er...wise.

as for who to trust, well thats an age old question isnt it. the problem is, regardless of their intentions, everyone wants you to trust them. scientific papers are dense and very specific; it can often be difficult to extrapolate their broader implications - further, who the hell wants to read them, except for professionals? in fact, ill generalize and say that that \"thats how it is\" in nearly EVERY professional field.

sooo ummm.... no answer?:]

national geographic is a good source for most anything lol
\"signs from the earth\"

Originally posted by M. D. Van Norman
Or maybe gun owners are just getting tired of bigotry.

yeah! i say we round up all those bigots and..and...ahem..invite them to tea [size=-2]<shoot them>[/size]?

sorry, just joking, but i think its a lil funny to say gun owners are subject to bigotry.

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by M. D. Van Norman
Or maybe gun owners are just getting tired of bigotry.

Or, maybe people are really getting tired of celebrities spouting their mouths.
ie: The Dixie Chicks

Celebrities often forget that just because you have the Freedom of Speech doesn\'t mean those that put you where you are are obligated to agree and keep you there. Those that disagree can exercise their freedom of choice and bring you down. The customer rules the market, not the product.
Celebrities are paid for a specific purpose, their talent, not to spout off about their latest cause or belief.

 

[darthfoley]

Originally posted by Evil Dave

Originally posted by darthfoley
Back to the original topic...here\'s an article I found rather interesting, showing just how zealous some gun owners can be.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17307316/?GT1=9033

I really don\'t find it over-zealous.
You see, to some people, a man is held accountable for his actions or words.
The fact, that he back pedaled and made excuses merely made him look like what most of these people despise, a politician who changes his opinions according to who he\'s with, or according to the polls.
Had he held onto his opinion he may have gotten some grudging respect.

Yeah, and his 40 years of NRA membership/support be damned! Only your last utterance matters! lol

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by darthfoley
Yeah, and his 40 years of NRA membership/support be damned! Only your last utterance matters! lol

Well, if you believe the Bible, Judas supported Jesus for some time.
Hillary supported the war.

The feeling of betrayal is so much worse when it\'s someone close.

Had he uttered it to a group of people I doubt he would have received so much flack.
However, he chose to write it, then post it, a process that takes a little more thought process than merely running one\'s mouth.
As a writer, I am sure he reread what he wrote, and chose to post it anyway, he knew exactly what he was saying.