Is America Cursed?

[junebug72]

ok.

You think that America is suffering natural consequences for abusing the environment?
Yes?

I'm not sure about that. I think that global warming is something that occurs anyway.

here is an interesting article about that http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/

the rest of the website has a lot to say on the subject too

Yes I thought the article was suspicious.  So I checked the guy out.  Sure enough he works for government.  I wonder what he gets in return for his argument?  Maybe he's got money in fossil fuels?  The scientist I listen to have nothing to gain but their reputations as scientist and a cleaner unpolluted planet. Here's a link:

http://www.nrdc.org/health/extremeweather/

There is enough info. there to keep us busy a while.  Yes it seems like a reputable site to me. I'm going to check it out some more but so far I think they are "too legit to quit".

[Mrjason]

Yes I thought the article was suspicious.  So I checked the guy out.  Sure enough he works for government.  I wonder what he gets in return for his argument?  Maybe he's got money in fossil fuels?  The scientist I listen to have nothing to gain but their reputations as scientist and a cleaner unpolluted planet. Here's a link:

http://www.nrdc.org/health/extremeweather/

There is enough info. there to keep us busy a while.  Yes it seems like a reputable site to me. I'm going to check it out some more but so far I think they are "too legit to quit".

Interesting.

this is getting a bit off topic though. Perhaps a new thread is needed for "is climate change man made"

In the mean time Anfauglir has a few questions for you on this thread

[Anfauglir]

Yes I thought the article was suspicious.  So I checked the guy out.  Sure enough he works for government.

That's enough then.  He works for the government, therefore he is biased.  No need to read what he actually writes, we can stop right there.

But anyway.....NRDC.  Hang on!  Their Director, Daniel Lashof, "is involved in developing federal standards and legislation".  So - gasp - HE works for the government too!

Heck.  Both sides work for the government.  How the heck will I be able to work out which one is the lying scumbag?

Dagnabit.  I may have to look at the evidence they are putting forward, and dispassionately compare it and their sources and conclusions.  What a pain.

[junebug72]

Anfauglir,

I answered those questions and many others you've accused me of not answering.  Not answering to your satisfaction is not the same thing as not answering.  I even put the reply # beside the answer to protect myself from being accused of not answering but yet here I am.  You seem delusional from where I'm sitting.


Even after the last post. I can't believe you right now.  I guess I have rocked your world.  I make it hard for you to hate me and you hate me for that. 

Like getting beat up with feathers, right Jag?

Just too much there to repost.

Yes I thought the article was suspicious.  So I checked the guy out.  Sure enough he works for government.  I wonder what he gets in return for his argument?  Maybe he's got money in fossil fuels?  The scientist I listen to have nothing to gain but their reputations as scientist and a cleaner unpolluted planet. Here's a link:

http://www.nrdc.org/health/extremeweather/

There is enough info. there to keep us busy a while.  Yes it seems like a reputable site to me. I'm going to check it out some more but so far I think they are "too legit to quit".

Interesting.

this is getting a bit off topic though. Perhaps a new thread is needed for "is climate change man made"

In the mean time Anfauglir has a few questions for you on this thread

I've answered his questions.  It's time to move on.  Let it go.  I made sure I answered him before I said goodbye yesterday to avoid this nonsense and yet here I am. 

It's part of the conversation. It happens. I'm not complaining. 

[HAL]

I guess I have rocked your world.

LOL. 

[junebug72]

Yes I thought the article was suspicious.  So I checked the guy out.  Sure enough he works for government.

That's enough then.  He works for the government, therefore he is biased.  No need to read what he actually writes, we can stop right there.

But anyway.....NRDC.  Hang on!  Their Director, Daniel Lashof, "is involved in developing federal standards and legislation".  So - gasp - HE works for the government too!

Heck.  Both sides work for the government.  How the heck will I be able to work out which one is the lying scumbag?

Dagnabit.  I may have to look at the evidence they are putting forward, and dispassionately compare it and their sources and conclusions.  What a pain.

I read his article before I read about him. The only reason I did it was to make you happy.  To show you that I can do such things.  You are relentless.

Yes Daniel Lashof is helping the gov. progress the other guy is helping them not to.

[Add Homonym]

I'll see if I can get this right. Here is the Climate Denier's position

There is no such thing as CO2
Carbon dioxide, if it exists, isn't rising
Even if CO2 is going up, it's not due to human activities, but under-sea volcanoes
The climate isn't changing, in fact it's getting cooler.
The climate is changing, but it's not anthropogenic, or due to CO2
The climate is changing, but if it's anthropogenic, there is no need to worry about it, because warmth is good, and CO2 is good for plants.
The climate is changing, and if it is going to change, then there is no need to panic, because (a) it's not that bad, and (b) economics will naturally adapt to it.
The climate is changing, but we don't have to do anything about it, because the cost of doing something is way more expensive than the cost of preventing it.
The climate is changing, and if it is destructive, then that's what God wants.

Here's how Roy got converted to creationism.
http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php

[Mrjason]

I'll see if I can get this right. Here is the Climate Denier's position

There is no such thing as CO2
Carbon dioxide, if it exists, isn't rising
Even if CO2 is going up, it's not due to human activities, but under-sea volcanoes
The climate isn't changing, in fact it's getting cooler.
The climate is changing, but it's not anthropogenic, or due to CO2
The climate is changing, but if it's anthropogenic, there is no need to worry about it, because warmth is good, and CO2 is good for plants.
The climate is changing, and if it is going to change, then there is no need to panic, because (a) it's not that bad, and (b) economics will naturally adapt to it.
The climate is changing, but we don't have to do anything about it, because the cost of doing something is way more expensive than the cost of preventing it.
The climate is changing, and if it is destructive, then that's what God wants.

Here's how Roy got converted to creationism.
http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php

My view is that yes the climate is changing but it does that from time to time. See Ice ages, the hot times CO2 filled times[1]
Yes human activity is accelerating it but it isn't causing it.

1.	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian

[Add Homonym]

My view is that yes the climate is changing but it does that from time to time. See Ice ages, the hot times CO2 filled times[1]
Yes human activity is accelerating it but it isn't causing it.

1.	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian

I wouldn't be quoting creationists to validate my belief, though.

Ice ages have happened in the past, due to continental drift. As continents move around, and mountains get uplifted, snow can get deposited on them, which changes the over-all albedo of the planet. Also, the Milankovitch cycle has been well and truly understood.

Did you come to your opinion by being a climate scientist, or is it some random well-considered opinion, based on what you want to be true, after reading some creationist blogs?

[Graybeard]

this is getting a bit off topic though. Perhaps a new thread is needed for "is climate change man made"

^This. Topics do drift but Mrjason is correct. If the discussion on global warming is to continue, please let it be in another thread.

Thanks. GB Mod.

[Anfauglir]

I answered those questions and many others you've accused me of not answering.  Not answering to your satisfaction is not the same thing as not answering. 

But it IS the same thing Junebug, if what you are responding with does NOT address the points I am making.  Let's look at the most important questions you have yet to answer, and I will try to explain WHY they are so important for you to answer, rather than (again) to dodge or avoid.

And the second question.....how much research did you do on tornados et al before asking here "is America cursed"?  I know you did some, because you quote the difference between tornados in Canada and the US.  What I am interested in is whether you got that far, and thought "maybe America is cursed", or whether you read further first to discover what we know about how tornados form?

Do you feel there is a critical number of haters for a curse to take effect, or is there a sliding scale? 

Is it purely a "quantity" thing, or does it vary depending on the scale of the hate - i.e. does one person seriously hating you cause the same level of curse to fall on you as ten people vaguely disliking you?  (Not implying those are actual numbers, but you see what I mean).

if weather comes from pollution, then cease pollution and you cease the weather.  But if we're talking some kind of karmic effect from people hating you, then would the curse effect cease immediately?  What if the person still hates you even AFTER you've said sorry?  Do you believe the curse would stop, or keep going?

And that's just in this thread, never mind "what is your criteria for evidence" from the debate - would you like me to search other threads as well? 

Remember "why should I follow any of your links, when the one piece of yours I DID read was dishonest and manipulative"? 

Remember "did you read the abstract it referenced?  Did you read the actual study?  Or did you just think 'this fits my opinion, I will just post it and never mind if it is honest or not'"?

And one further - remember the "greed" thread where you said "make minimum wage $2000 a month (or whatever it was) and I asked a whole lot of questions about the knock-on effects of doing that?  You ditched THAT thread and didn't even attempt to answer.

So why do I feel that these questions are crucial - and why do I persist in asking them over and over as you persist in dodging them?

Because ALL of those questions deal with how much importance anyone should attach to the things you say.  You've got extremely strong opinions, Junebug, and that can be a good thing.  But it seems that an awful lot - possibly all - of those opinions come from reading or hearing a scrap of out-of-context or badly researched propaganda, and then building that up into a huge old opinion.  The opinion may be strong, but if its based on sand then it is worthless.

So I've been trying, and failing, to get you to answer the vital questions about HOW you arrive at your strong conclusions.

What your standards are for evidence.
How far you delve into a subject before solidifying your opinion.
Whether you consider all the ramifications of a position before you adopt it.
I think you are a good-hearted person, Junebug.  But I also think that you latch onto snippets of misinformation and build a passionate case around them that you then find impossible to shake, or even to WANT to shake. 

You make statements like "I thought the article was suspicious.  So I checked the guy out.  Sure enough he works for government."  just make me sad.  Because you have decided that "government is bad, m'kay?" you automatically dismiss the opinion of anyone who works for them without any examination of the evidence.  Maybe he is right, maybe he is wrong.  But to say "he works for this person, therefore must automatically be wrong"?  That's a blinkered and highly dangerous way of thinking.

So that's what it comes down to Junebug.  Sure - you answer the trivial questions.  But all the CRUCIAL questions, the hard ones, the ones that would force you to examine your position, the ones where the answers will determine whether we think "hmm, good point from Junebug" or "here goes Junebug with her latest load of woo"......those you dodge and run away from as fast as you can.  You don't "rock my world "Junebug, because so far everything you have said just slides right off - because you have given me no reason at all to even begin to consider anything you have said as worthy of consideration.  Each time I try to engage, to delve into your position to see if there is any substance I should be interested in, it all turns to vapour and you dodge and evade or plain old abandon the thread and move on to the next insubstantial claims.

I think I threaten you Junebug, because I call you on things that you would much rather not think about, and that's why you try to reflect it back on me.  Because that's MUCH easier than the critical self-examination I am asking you to do.

I fully suspect that you will - once again - ignore the whole thrust of this post. I expect that you will either ignore it, or that you will respond with some more "oh, you just don't get me".  I would be surprised, but delighted, if you even went so far as to say "I understand what you want, but I won't ever answer those questions".  And I would be over the moon - but absolutely gobsmacked - to see a response that acknowledges why those questions are so important when it comes to establishing your credibility, and then goes on to actually ANSWER them.

[Nam]

^hell, I didn't even read it all, why would you expect she would?



-Nam

[junebug72]

I answered those questions and many others you've accused me of not answering.  Not answering to your satisfaction is not the same thing as not answering. 

But it IS the same thing Junebug, if what you are responding with does NOT address the points I am making.  Let's look at the most important questions you have yet to answer, and I will try to explain WHY they are so important for you to answer, rather than (again) to dodge or avoid.

And the second question.....how much research did you do on tornados et al before asking here "is America cursed"?  I know you did some, because you quote the difference between tornados in Canada and the US.  What I am interested in is whether you got that far, and thought "maybe America is cursed", or whether you read further first to discover what we know about how tornados form?

Do you feel there is a critical number of haters for a curse to take effect, or is there a sliding scale? 

Is it purely a "quantity" thing, or does it vary depending on the scale of the hate - i.e. does one person seriously hating you cause the same level of curse to fall on you as ten people vaguely disliking you?  (Not implying those are actual numbers, but you see what I mean).

if weather comes from pollution, then cease pollution and you cease the weather.  But if we're talking some kind of karmic effect from people hating you, then would the curse effect cease immediately?  What if the person still hates you even AFTER you've said sorry?  Do you believe the curse would stop, or keep going?

And that's just in this thread, never mind "what is your criteria for evidence" from the debate - would you like me to search other threads as well? 

Remember "why should I follow any of your links, when the one piece of yours I DID read was dishonest and manipulative"? 

Remember "did you read the abstract it referenced?  Did you read the actual study?  Or did you just think 'this fits my opinion, I will just post it and never mind if it is honest or not'"?

And one further - remember the "greed" thread where you said "make minimum wage $2000 a month (or whatever it was) and I asked a whole lot of questions about the knock-on effects of doing that?  You ditched THAT thread and didn't even attempt to answer.

So why do I feel that these questions are crucial - and why do I persist in asking them over and over as you persist in dodging them?

Because ALL of those questions deal with how much importance anyone should attach to the things you say.  You've got extremely strong opinions, Junebug, and that can be a good thing.  But it seems that an awful lot - possibly all - of those opinions come from reading or hearing a scrap of out-of-context or badly researched propaganda, and then building that up into a huge old opinion.  The opinion may be strong, but if its based on sand then it is worthless.

So I've been trying, and failing, to get you to answer the vital questions about HOW you arrive at your strong conclusions.

What your standards are for evidence.
How far you delve into a subject before solidifying your opinion.
Whether you consider all the ramifications of a position before you adopt it.
I think you are a good-hearted person, Junebug.  But I also think that you latch onto snippets of misinformation and build a passionate case around them that you then find impossible to shake, or even to WANT to shake. 

You make statements like "I thought the article was suspicious.  So I checked the guy out.  Sure enough he works for government."  just make me sad.  Because you have decided that "government is bad, m'kay?" you automatically dismiss the opinion of anyone who works for them without any examination of the evidence.  Maybe he is right, maybe he is wrong.  But to say "he works for this person, therefore must automatically be wrong"?  That's a blinkered and highly dangerous way of thinking.

So that's what it comes down to Junebug.  Sure - you answer the trivial questions.  But all the CRUCIAL questions, the hard ones, the ones that would force you to examine your position, the ones where the answers will determine whether we think "hmm, good point from Junebug" or "here goes Junebug with her latest load of woo"......those you dodge and run away from as fast as you can.  You don't "rock my world "Junebug, because so far everything you have said just slides right off - because you have given me no reason at all to even begin to consider anything you have said as worthy of consideration.  Each time I try to engage, to delve into your position to see if there is any substance I should be interested in, it all turns to vapour and you dodge and evade or plain old abandon the thread and move on to the next insubstantial claims.

I think I threaten you Junebug, because I call you on things that you would much rather not think about, and that's why you try to reflect it back on me.  Because that's MUCH easier than the critical self-examination I am asking you to do.

I fully suspect that you will - once again - ignore the whole thrust of this post. I expect that you will either ignore it, or that you will respond with some more "oh, you just don't get me".  I would be surprised, but delighted, if you even went so far as to say "I understand what you want, but I won't ever answer those questions".  And I would be over the moon - but absolutely gobsmacked - to see a response that acknowledges why those questions are so important when it comes to establishing your credibility, and then goes on to actually ANSWER them.

Slander, pure slander.

I am constantly examining my own beliefs I don't need you asking me questions for that.  I think you are the 1 that needs self reflection, I treat people fine.  I am going no further with you until you take back your false accusation.  Why even try with you anymore.  I give up.  You are impossible.  I answered your questions, labeled the answer to the corresponding post.  If you have questions about those answers ask them but don't say I haven't answered you when I have.  It's wrong and unbecoming of you as a person.  I posted an article I found "interesting" and labeled it "just food for thought", you keep throwing that up to my face but will not acknowledge the "just food for thought" label. If you were more empathetic I wouldn't bother you so bad.  That's why you don't hurt me; I am empathetic to you. 

This is way more off topic than global warming.  It's just more of A's personal vendetta against me, a person that has never hurt him.  Half of this thread is ridiculously misunderstood.  You will not run me off.  I'm here to stay.

You say atheist are morally superior to Christians, I can't tell it by your actions.  You A, seem the same.  Welcome to A's hell.  He will make your life hell if you don't answer his questions to HIS liking.  It doesn't matter to him that it's not your strong skill and you are trying to learn how to better communicate here.  It doesn't matter to A if you were too busy getting molested to get a good education and you've done the best you can with the resources you've had.  Nope don't matter, he has no empathy and no respect for you if you don't know how to communicate here. 

So sad.

[junebug72]

this is getting a bit off topic though. Perhaps a new thread is needed for "is climate change man made"

^This. Topics do drift but Mrjason is correct. If the discussion on global warming is to continue, please let it be in another thread.

Thanks. GB Mod.

Part of the discussion is whether or not American actions cause some of the problems in the country.  Pollution is one of those actions so I just don't get it.

[Nam]

Dude, she applauded my "insult" to her. That's hilarious. So dense.

-Nam

[Anfauglir]

I fully suspect that you will - once again - ignore the whole thrust of this post. I expect that you will either ignore it, or that you will respond with some more "oh, you just don't get me".  I would be surprised, but delighted, if you even went so far as to say "I understand what you want, but I won't ever answer those questions".  And I would be over the moon - but absolutely gobsmacked - to see a response that acknowledges why those questions are so important when it comes to establishing your credibility, and then goes on to actually ANSWER them.

<<blah de blah de blah>>

Well, as I suspected, not even the slightest attempt to address the point I was making.  So I'm left with only two options.

Either you are simply unable to grasp what I am saying, unable to understand what I am saying, despite my making it crystal clear.....or you understand perfectly well, and are deliberately avoiding the point.

Frankly, I no longer have any interest in which it is.  I won't be wasting any more time on you, Junebug, since you are either unwilling or incapable of writing anything that gives me the slightest reason to give you any respect, or give your "points" the slightest consideration.

I won't be looking at any of your posts from now on - they simply aren't worth my time. 

[Nam]

^she applauded an obvious insult. She has no reading comprehension.

-Nam

[Betelnut]

The United States is neither cursed or blessed. 

[junebug72]

I fully suspect that you will - once again - ignore the whole thrust of this post. I expect that you will either ignore it, or that you will respond with some more "oh, you just don't get me".  I would be surprised, but delighted, if you even went so far as to say "I understand what you want, but I won't ever answer those questions".  And I would be over the moon - but absolutely gobsmacked - to see a response that acknowledges why those questions are so important when it comes to establishing your credibility, and then goes on to actually ANSWER them.

<<blah de blah de blah>>

Well, as I suspected, not even the slightest attempt to address the point I was making.  So I'm left with only two options.

Either you are simply unable to grasp what I am saying, unable to understand what I am saying, despite my making it crystal clear.....or you understand perfectly well, and are deliberately avoiding the point.

Frankly, I no longer have any interest in which it is.  I won't be wasting any more time on you, Junebug, since you are either unwilling or incapable of writing anything that gives me the slightest reason to give you any respect, or give your "points" the slightest consideration.

I won't be looking at any of your posts from now on - they simply aren't worth my time.

Well so what.  I really don't care what such a hateful person's opinion of me is.  All you got is your false accusations, I have my kindness and that deserves respect.  It's not easy being nice to people that so obviously hate you for being a believer.  I have done nothing to you to deserve your harsh comments. 

[junebug72]

^she applauded an obvious insult. She has no reading comprehension.

-Nam

I applauded your insult of A's post being so long.  My reading comprehension is just fine.   I was being nice to you, you should try it sometime it feels good.

[One Above All]

No, America is not cursed. Other countries have it worse, but you don't hear them whining about it, even though they probably should.

[Nam]

^she applauded an obvious insult. She has no reading comprehension.

-Nam

I applauded your insult of A's post being so long.  My reading comprehension is just fine.   I was being nice to you, you should try it sometime it feels good.

I wasn't insulting his post; I was being facetious to insult you. Again: no reading comprehension.

-Nam

[junebug72]

^she applauded an obvious insult. She has no reading comprehension.

-Nam

I applauded your insult of A's post being so long.  My reading comprehension is just fine.   I was being nice to you, you should try it sometime it feels good.

I wasn't insulting his post; I was being facetious to insult you. Again: no reading comprehension.

-Nam

Your insult shows your character flaw.  You really like insulting people, that's sad.  You don't care if the world is cruel and petty you make it that way.

[Mrjason]

have a go on this thread Junebug, insulting people can be fun. Magicmiles is pretty good at too

This is a blatant copy from IGI. When I hung out there briefly last year it was a lot of fun.

For the uninitiated, the idea is to just come up with any type of strange, creative insult.

I'll kick off by insulting myself in the next post.

click the linky at the top.

[nogodsforme]

^she applauded an obvious insult. She has no reading comprehension.

-Nam

I applauded your insult of A's post being so long.  My reading comprehension is just fine.   I was being nice to you, you should try it sometime it feels good.

JB, you think people here don't like you because you believe in a god. That is not true. People are being critical of you because you do not clearly answer questions they ask. You get distracted and sidetracked by minor issues and miss the main points of the post. Many of your responses are defending yourself against non-existent attacks.

Here is a suggestion. Read people's posts and respond to the substance, rather than the perceived tone. It is hard to determine whether a person is being mean or sarcastic in a debate-type forum. Unless the person is obviously saying "you are an idiot because you believe xyz," don't presume that is what they think. Respond to what someone actually said, not what you think they mean.

[neopagan]

have a go on this thread Junebug, insulting people can be fun. Magicmiles is pretty good at too

This is a blatant copy from IGI. When I hung out there briefly last year it was a lot of fun.

For the uninitiated, the idea is to just come up with any type of strange, creative insult.

I'll kick off by insulting myself in the next post.

click the linky at the top.

I wouldn't recommend JB going there.  Just sayin'

[Razel]

All you got is your false accusations, I have my kindness and that deserves respect. 

Being passive aggressive is your idea of kindness?

[jdawg70]

JB, you think people here don't like you because you believe in a god. That is not true. People are being critical of you because you do not clearly answer questions they ask. You get distracted and sidetracked by minor issues and miss the main points of the post. Many of your responses are defending yourself against non-existent attacks.

Here is a suggestion. Read people's posts and respond to the substance, rather than the perceived tone. It is hard to determine whether a person is being mean or sarcastic in a debate-type forum. Unless the person is obviously saying "you are an idiot because you believe xyz," don't presume that is what they think. Respond to what someone actually said, not what you think they mean.

I would also like to add that there is no shame in asking for clarity from a poster.

Well so what.  I really don't care what such a hateful person's opinion of me is.  All you got is your false accusations, I have my kindness and that deserves respect.  It's not easy being nice to people that so obviously hate you for being a believer.  I have done nothing to you to deserve your harsh comments. 

How would you define 'respect' or 'respectful behavior'?

[junebug72]

I would also like to add that there is no shame in asking for clarity from a poster.

How would you define 'respect' or 'respectful behavior'?

Jdawg there is a respectful way to ask for clarity.  For that question to make sense there must be an answer that needs clarifying.  Saying I have dodged or not answered is going to get a different response such as; I did answer your question.  Oh, but that doesn't attack the character of the person does it?

I define respect as common decency.  The wiki def. is more about earned respect.  Maybe I'm confusing respect with kindness, but when I treat a homeless person with kindness I'm attempting to show them respect. 

I think that's why the ad hominem style that some people here are using, unmoderated and by mods, is not a good way to debate.  It is very disrespectful and more important than that it is unkind.