'We the People' - US High School Textbook

[Kopji]

So I'm working on some homework with my son this week and am suddenly introduced to his US Government textbook. I don't even know where to start.

A project of the Center for Civic Education
Funded by the US Department of Education by act of Congress
Established in 1987 under the Commission of the bicentennial of the United States Constitution.


what were the concepts of the individual and society during the middle ages?[b]

Christianity spread rapidly in the centuries following the death of Jesus and eventually became the predominant faith within the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire collapsed in the fifth century AD, but Christianity survived to shape European society in the centuries that followed. This period, from the fifth century to the fourteenth, we call the Middle Ages - the period that lies between antiquity and modern times.

Medieval society was based on the ideas of unity, social harmony, and other-worldliness. The European people of the Middle Ages saw themselves united in a single society called [b]Christendom. Their spiritual leader was the Pope in Rome. The Popes enjoyed great authority and respect throughout Europe. There were no nations at this time to compete for people's loyalty. Most people thought of themselves in terms of only two allegiances: to their own local community and to the great unity of Christendom with one 'universal' or 'catholic' church presiding over it. - pg 20


...

Etc etc. Basically all of lesson 4 in the book entirely credits Judeo-Christianity for the concept of individual rights.


The Judeo-Christian view of the individual and his or her place in the world was different. It's teaching stressed the dignity and worth of each human being. It was believed that each person possessed an individual soul. Therefore the individual assumed a new importance in people's thinking about society and government...


Say what?

[JoeEllison]

"load of crap" sprung immediately into my head.

[Kopji]

So anyway. My parental guidance to my son was to not believe everything he reads, and that a lot of what we call history is propaganda. I told him he could deliver that message to his teacher for me if he wanted.

Teacher's response:
"yeah, but it's my choice of propaganda".

[Skibum]

LOL, that's the book we used when I was in school.

[Kopji]

...Judeo-Christian morality was different from the Greek and Roman ideals of civic virtue. Instead of public morality, these principles emphasized private morality as expressed in Biblical teachings such as the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount. To classical republican virtues-courage, moderation, and wisdom-Judeo Christianity added other moral qualities, such as love and benevolence toward others. - pg19



how did the renaissance contribute to the development of individual rights?
During the medieval period, people did not strive to make "progress". That is, they did not believe that they could make things better for themselves and their children through hard work or individual initiative...

...Renaissance... this new interest was inspired by the rediscovery of ancient Greek and Roman history, literature, and art, with a view of the world and humanity that was far different from that of medieval Christianity - pg21

Say what??? Didn't they just finish saying that medieval Christianity was the foundation of individual rights?

So there's something here for everyone. WHAT A MESS.

[Kopji]

"load of crap" sprung immediately into my head.

In another class they are reading 'Fahrenheit 451', good timing.

[Kopji]

LOL, that's the book we used when I was in school.

Maybe it gets more accurate later. If not at least it has cartoons.

[aries]

As always, this is of course both right and wrong. Christianity and the Roman State went into a sort of a marriage in 325 and again in 525 (or maybe 545?). And as such what is known as Rome's Law (or Legality?) become prevalent and dominant, at least throughout what now is known as The Wester World. As I understand, Rome's Law also had respect for the indiviual's rights. That's why the Romans held trials...And I do belive that even the Greek and Romans believed that humans had individual spirits or souls...

You could argue that Christianity puts value on the individual since its starter, Jeshua, or Paul, underlines that all people, even slaves!, are the equal in the eye of God, at least in Spirit. On the other hand, you have Paul saying that the Christians should not rebel against the authority since this authoriy was put there by God.

The thing is, though, that Christendom in the high middleages (about 12th-15th century) got mixed up with a lot a greek thinking, especially Aristotle's teachings and writings. Thomas of Aquinas did make some very great contributions to get Aristotle's thoughts on individualism or Plato's thoughts on how the state should be.

I'm rather sure that this inspired the Magna Carter form 1215? in which it states 'that every free man'...and this then became the foundation for the US Constiution, where is says 'we, the people, hold these truths to be self-evident, that men of their Creator, have been given...' And so on...

As for book saying the things about christianity and loyalty to only their local 'lord' or the universal or Catholic Church, this is again true as there were no countries, no state borders then. However, there were the great Holy Roman Empire that went from Germany to the tip of Sicily and from the Netherlands to the Poznan (in current Poland I think?). Remember that way back in the 13th century, there were only the universal Catholic Church, at least in Western Europe.

In reality, the discussion about where our morals & ethics comes from are being discussed even today. I know that the Greek & Roman ideas are civic duty and virtue are different from Christendom's ideas of (private) shame and personal virtues. The whole idea of the seven deadly sins and seven heavenly virtues, though, are at least somewhat inspired by the Greek ideals of how people should behave publicly.

Virtues etc. in the Greek Roman civilization would be those who benefitted the whole nation or at least the public life, while virtues in Christianity would be those who beefitted the individual. At some point, though, during the High Middle Ages, these two sort of melted together...

As for the people in the Middle Ages believing they couldn't make live for themselves better, this is probably true, partly because of the Roman Catholic Church teaching them to obey their (local) Lords, partly because people just couldn't get up and leave their villages and townd if they were unhappy. And of course, partly because the Roman Catholic Church told them that íf they did they would all burn in eternity in Hell...if they did anyway, the Chruch then had a letter they could buy and burn it - for all their sins..(and hey, even for the forefathers' sins you could buy letters....) Very amusing and very sad. And thus Luther rebelled against this, and made his reformation during what is known now as the 'renaissence'.

As for the accuracy of the book, history text books can never be completely accurate. There will always be a leeway for the authors' interpretation of the historical facts. And even Christians can't agree on what happened during the start at Christendom....

[Kopji]

Slavery still existed at the founding of the country, and women's rights were almost zero. How were Jews treated? Indigenous populations? These glaring omissions make the text seem like modern revisionism, or worse, a whitewashing of what really was the reality of the time.

If Christendom was so 'pro individual rights', why were these not issues of concern at the founding of the country?

And I may be wrong, but certainly Aristotle seems to reject their accusation that classical republicanism was not interested in the individual. That seems like an invention of the authors to justify promotion of religion as a compelling force for individual rights. I've been there, lived it and frankly just do not see this relationship. It seems contrived and false.

[athon]

Unless there's something you're not quoting, from what you've said I can't see the major problems. It's simply stating that there was a revolution in thinking that progressed from the collective to the individual - which was pretty much the case. The application of this view didn't always result in what we might approve as real individualist ideals (even today there are many who believe that 'some people are more individual than others'), but a comparison might be the US view of democracy and freedom. Holding those as ideals doesn't equate to a result that everybody agrees reflects that vision.

The main thrust of Christ's preachings was to step away from a collectivist view of religion where the masses were dominated by a central dogma and rule. His preachings - and those evangelisized - appealed so much to the Hellenised world because of that very difference; that the individual mattered, not matter how harsh a life they have. Therefore if you didn't belong to the collective you were still valuable in some way. Hellenistic culture of that period was extremely collectivist.

Athon

[ImaginalDisc]

Unless there's something you're not quoting, from what you've said I can't see the major problems. It's simply stating that there was a revolution in thinking that progressed from the collective to the individual - which was pretty much the case. The application of this view didn't always result in what we might approve as real individualist ideals (even today there are many who believe that 'some people are more individual than others'), but a comparison might be the US view of democracy and freedom. Holding those as ideals doesn't equate to a result that everybody agrees reflects that vision.

The main thrust of Christ's preachings was to step away from a collectivist view of religion where the masses were dominated by a central dogma and rule. His preachings - and those evangelisized - appealed so much to the Hellenised world because of that very difference; that the individual mattered, not matter how harsh a life they have. Therefore if you didn't belong to the collective you were still valuable in some way. Hellenistic culture of that period was extremely collectivist.

Athon

What the hell do Jesus alleged teachings have to do with culture in the Middle Ages, a time period dominated by feudalism, pointless warfare, the treatment of women as chattel, and serfdom that was a hair's breadth away from slavery?

[LostAngeles]

What the hell do Jesus alleged teachings have to do with culture in the Middle Ages, a time period dominated by feudalism, pointless warfare, the treatment of women as chattel, and serfdom that was a hair's breadth away from slavery?

Athon was commenting on how easy it was for Christianity to spread amongst the Hellensistic people. By the Middle Ages, I'd guess that, "the meek shall inherit the earth," and, "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven," were quite handy in keeping the poor down.

Course, in the right hands, ANYTHING can be quite handy in that.

[geni]

What the hell do Jesus alleged teachings have to do with culture in the Middle Ages, a time period dominated by feudalism, pointless warfare, the treatment of women as chattel, and serfdom that was a hair's breadth away from slavery?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ball_%28priest%29

[athon]

What the hell do Jesus alleged teachings have to do with culture in the Middle Ages, a time period dominated by feudalism, pointless warfare, the treatment of women as chattel, and serfdom that was a hair's breadth away from slavery?

Firstly I was commenting on the significance of the view that Christianity promoted individualist culture in a collectivist society.

However, I also pointed out that simply because a society embraces an ideal, it doesn't necessarily translate into an action. Collectivist hierarchies dominated medieval European culture, which again was why Christianity appealed. It basically offered a prize at the end of a crappy existence. Politics maintained the social oppression, yet as with all dogma it was a perversion of the original teachings of individual worth.

Athon

[ImaginalDisc]

Firstly I was commenting on the significance of the view that Christianity promoted individualist culture in a collectivist society.

However, I also pointed out that simply because a society embraces an ideal, it doesn't necessarily translate into an action. Collectivist hierarchies dominated medieval European culture, which again was why Christianity appealed. It basically offered a prize at the end of a crappy existence. Politics maintained the social oppression, yet as with all dogma it was a perversion of the original teachings of individual worth.

Athon

I think you're trying to polish a turd.

[athon]

I think you're trying to polish a turd.

Well, there's an argument. :rolleyes:

Athon

[ImaginalDisc]

Well, there's an argument. :rolleyes:

Athon

That's precisely how I feel about your inane assertion that Christianity introduced individualism into Hellenistic society. That's news to the Athenians, I'm sure.

[Zygar]

Firstly I was commenting on the significance of the view that Christianity promoted individualist culture in a collectivist society.

Odd that Greek culture did this hundreds of years before Christianity existed. Greek culture was a clear example of independent thought in a collectivist society.

Not only that, but how did Christianity ever engender this sort of cultural shift? If anything I would think that Christianity stifled it.

[Bahiabel]

So anyway. My parental guidance to my son was to not believe everything he reads, and that a lot of what we call history is propaganda. I told him he could deliver that message to his teacher for me if he wanted.

Teacher's response:
"yeah, but it's my choice of propaganda".

Please don't equate history with propaganda. The teacher was wrong to say what he/she said, but that does not mean we need to perpetuate the myth that history is nothing more than propaganda stories. History, as written, is usually in narrative form, but the way it should be considered is in more of the expository form of cause and effect. All History should be regarded as a study in cause and effect.

The best thing you can do for your child is to help them analyze the text they are reading. Who is the author? What are their credentials? What are their sources? Look at the bibliography. What did the author use as evidence? Is the evidence credible?

If they can analyze, then they will not have any problem with school or textbooks.

[athon]

That's precisely how I feel about your inane assertion that Christianity introduced individualism into Hellenistic society. That's news to the Athenians, I'm sure.

Thanks for misquoting 'promoted' to 'introduced'. As much as it helps your argument look better, it's not what I said.

It wasn't unique, as other philosophies certainly existed across much of the ancient period promoting individualist ideals. They all appealed to the popular masses in various ways, for obvious reasons. However in some parts of the Hellenised world, such as in the Middle East, collectivist oppression was rather strong. Early Christianity was an example of a social revolution which promoted individualism. I don't see your problem with that.

Letting your hatred for a concept cloud the reality of it doesn't help your understanding. I'm not Christian by any shot, but it doesn't mean the history of its spread isn't any the less fascinating.

Athon

[athon]

Odd that Greek culture did this hundreds of years before Christianity existed. Greek culture was a clear example of independent thought in a collectivist society.

See my last post. Ancient Greek society was essentially collectivist, however there were individualist philosophies which arose, particularly from the philosophers.

Not only that, but how did Christianity ever engender this sort of cultural shift? If anything I would think that Christianity stifled it.

Early Christian philosophy was based on the individualist ideal, especially considering it was rebelling against the Judain political control over the communities. Christ was insisting that God was personal and there wasn't a need for a place or person through which he was to be worshipped, and that each person - regardless of social rank - was permitted to worship and be recognised by God.

Indeed, the dogma of this view changed over time, and it is especially ironic that it returned back to being about priests and places during the middle ages. However this is indicative of religion being used to manipulate the masses, something that happens no matter the dogma its based upon.

Athon

[ImaginalDisc]

Thanks for misquoting 'promoted' to 'introduced'. As much as it helps your argument look better, it's not what I said.

It wasn't unique, as other philosophies certainly existed across much of the ancient period promoting individualist ideals. They all appealed to the popular masses in various ways, for obvious reasons. However in some parts of the Hellenised world, such as in the Middle East, collectivist oppression was rather strong. Early Christianity was an example of a social revolution which promoted individualism. I don't see your problem with that.

Letting your hatred for a concept cloud the reality of it doesn't help your understanding. I'm not Christian by any shot, but it doesn't mean the history of its spread isn't any the less fascinating.

Athon

Please present evidence to support your apologetics.

[athon]

Please present evidence to support your apologetics.

I'm not sure why you'd even care. You evidentally have a bug up your arse about it, to the point you claim it's apologetics, and that I'm 'polishing a turd'. I've presented a commentary on the social influence of early Christianity, proclaiming no value claims on it. If you appeared happy to discuss the idea, I'd be more than helpful to point out a few texts and web sites. But you've clearly got an issue with the subject matter that clouds whatever I'd say.

I couldn't care less if you agreed or disagreed. When it comes to Middle Eastern ancient history and social study, I've got an objective interest. For you to paint it as if I've got some sort of subjective investment in it, it clearly shows you're not interested in the matter past it being an emotional choking point for you.

Well, enjoy.

Athon

[ImaginalDisc]

I'm not sure why you'd even care. You evidentally have a bug up your arse about it, to the point you claim it's apologetics, and that I'm 'polishing a turd'. I've presented a commentary on the social influence of early Christianity, proclaiming no value claims on it. If you appeared happy to discuss the idea, I'd be more than helpful to point out a few texts and web sites. But you've clearly got an issue with the subject matter that clouds whatever I'd say.

I couldn't care less if you agreed or disagreed. When it comes to Middle Eastern ancient history and social study, I've got an objective interest. For you to paint it as if I've got some sort of subjective investment in it, it clearly shows you're not interested in the matter past it being an emotional choking point for you.

Well, enjoy.

Athon

So, your assertions are groundless, then?

[athon]

So, your assertions are groundless, then?

Feel free to make any judgements you want. Come back to the table when you want to discuss something, bringing something to discuss of course, and we might have a conversation. Until then, you're welcome to think and interpret whatever you want.

Athon

[DonJunbar]

The Judeo-Christian view of the individual and his or her place in the world was different. It's teaching stressed the dignity and worth of each human being. It was believed that each person possessed an individual soul. Therefore the individual assumed a new importance in people's thinking about society and government...


I'd just like to know if that mistake is yours or if you copied it exactly from the book.

[SomeGuy]

Feel free to make any judgements you want. Come back to the table when you want to discuss something, bringing something to discuss of course, and we might have a conversation. Until then, you're welcome to think and interpret whatever you want.

Athon

Well, we'd like some sources on how the Greek society was mainly collective.

Because everything we know from their philosophy and teachings seems to indicate the opposite. Read Socrates, even Plato who deals with a society as a whole, and you'll see a great interest in the individual, and in individual morality.

Also please show how teaching people morality from a book they were not allowed to read (the first modern language translations of the bible in catholicism were from the 20th century) has somehow empowered their personal individual morality.

The whole middle-ages people were kept ignorant and fearful of god, through the application of Memento Mori(remember to die, eq your afterlife), everything anyone did wasn't based on individual morality, it was based on what the church expected of you. Because as they all knew 'as below, so above', which meant if you pleased the church god would welcome you.

Christianity, at least the pre-enlightenment version of it, has held Europe back for 5 centuries, taking from everyone, and given nothing back.

[athon]

Right, if anybody can access some great texts such as "Culture and Leadership Across the World" by Felix Brodbeck et al, it's got some interesting reading in it. It's available on Google books, and has a few pages on collectivism in ancient Greece (http://books.google.com/books?id=b1rRHQ5HndMC&pg=PA783&lpg=PA783&dq=collectivism+greece+history&source=web&ots=ovg1BuJYh4&sig=oTDgB2RuMUm5d2dL4K8Y8K26Rag). Note that it points out that while there were individualist philosophies being promoted, in rural areas and outside of major city centres it remained fairly collectivist.

An article at http://www.praxeology.net/civsoc.htm is quite a nice one which explores what many of you are trying to articulate - that the perception of a collectivist Greek society doesn't work when it comes to concepts such as democracy. I happen to agree that individualist movements and ideals were perpetuated throughout Athenian history, especially where one looks at the rise of democracy. However, much of the Hellenised world didn't follow Athenian philosophies. Societies throughout the middle east - especially those of Arab heritage - were clearly Hellenic in culture yet extremely collectivist in community.

Also please show how teaching people morality from a book they were not allowed to read (the first modern language translations of the bible in catholicism were from the 20th century) has somehow empowered their personal individual morality.

Boy, I'm getting tired of people needing to misquote me just to pick a fight. Show me where I even mentioned the bible! I said the original views being promoted by early Christian teachings were essentially individualist in a collectivist community.

If you all need to invent a fight for me, I guess my role is useless. You'd do as well without me.

The whole middle-ages people were kept ignorant and fearful of god, through the application of Memento Mori(remember to die, eq your afterlife), everything anyone did wasn't based on individual morality, it was based on what the church expected of you.

Sure. I agree that the politics of Christianity in the middle ages enabled the predominantly collectivist hierarchy to maintain their positions nicely. It worked well, especially as (as you so nicely pointed out) they were kept ignorant of what the texts said. Protestantism arose essentially when Christians questioned the previously catholic view of the texts and figured that Christianity was about individual men connecting personally with God, something that was earlier a taboo thought.

Athon

[ImaginalDisc]

An article at http://www.praxeology.net/civsoc.htm is quite a nice one which explores what many of you are trying to articulate - that the perception of a collectivist Greek society doesn't work when it comes to concepts such as democracy. I happen to agree that individualist movements and ideals were perpetuated throughout Athenian history, especially where one looks at the rise of democracy. However, much of the Hellenised world didn't follow Athenian philosophies. Societies throughout the middle east - especially those of Arab heritage - were clearly Hellenic in culture yet extremely collectivist in community.



In what way is the "Hellenetic" element of Arab tribes in the time before Christianity "clear?" How were the Bedu, and the Syrian Arab tribes, for example, Hellenistic?

[athon]

In what way is the "Hellenetic" element of Arab tribes in the time before Christianity "clear?" How were the Bedu, and the Syrian Arab tribes, for example, Hellenistic?

The Nabataeans (which covered much of modern day Jordand and Syria) were heavily Hellenised, especially in terms of architecture. There were Hellenic aspects to the Idumeans as well. The Bedu, as such, didn't exist (some claim Nabataean lineage, although that's debatable). There were quite a few Arabic tribes that remained influenced by the Alexandrian conquests.

Seriously, mate, I have no problems with discussing this period. While I won't admit to being an expert on the period, I can hold my own on pre-Islamic middle eastern culture and politics, especially around the time of Christ. I'm not Christian, however the period does fascinate me for a number of reasons. Your bias screams loud, and makes you look like you've got an agenda even before you've argued anything of substance.

Athon

[Kopji]

Please don't equate history with propaganda. The teacher was wrong to say what he/she said, but that does not mean we need to perpetuate the myth that history is nothing more than propaganda stories. History, as written, is usually in narrative form, but the way it should be considered is in more of the expository form of cause and effect. All History should be regarded as a study in cause and effect.

The best thing you can do for your child is to help them analyze the text they are reading. Who is the author? What are their credentials? What are their sources? Look at the bibliography. What did the author use as evidence? Is the evidence credible?

If they can analyze, then they will not have any problem with school or textbooks.

Authorship not given, no references, no sources. The textbook is a bipartisan work from the Reagan era.

The core of what I had difficulty with was the development of their idea that the US government was put together from two basic sources: 1- a Judeo-Christian religious source that inspired individual rights. and 2 - a classical republican source (Greek, Roman, etc) that inspired social responsibility.

They go quite a ways with this notion, without really offering much as evidence. The period of time they glowingly write about in progressive terms used to be referred to as the 'Dark Ages'. I suppose I'm old fashioned.

Not being raised in mainstream Christianity I find that sometimes I stumble on things that seem generally accepted as true or otherwise common knowledge. This may be one of those times but I don't think so.

The early NT made a point of mentioning that they had all things in common, and there is a very present tense sense when Jesus speaks of the kingdom of heaven on earth. 'Community' over 'individual' is an early and pervasive theme in the NT, or am I missing something? It just struck me as glaringly wrong to claim that Judeo-Christian philosophy were the source for the idea of individual worth, when the Bible offers no support for it that I can discern. The claim does serve a modern political usefulness though, justifying the current integration of religion and politics.

[Kopji]

To my son's teacher's credit, he pulled him aside today to discuss a little more what his dad found 'propagandish' enough to post on the internet. :)

I like that revised approach a lot better. If the ideas are a platform for discussion, it does not bother me as much. The book is not footnoted though, so IMHO it encourages the students to discuss and debate, while not giving any help in digging deeper.

[SomeGuy]

Right, if anybody can access some great texts such as "Culture and Leadership Across the World" by Felix Brodbeck et al, it's got some interesting reading in it. It's available on Google books, and has a few pages on collectivism in ancient Greece (http://books.google.com/books?id=b1rRHQ5HndMC&pg=PA783&lpg=PA783&dq=collectivism+greece+history&source=web&ots=ovg1BuJYh4&sig=oTDgB2RuMUm5d2dL4K8Y8K26Rag). Note that it points out that while there were individualist philosophies being promoted, in rural areas and outside of major city centres it remained fairly collectivist.

An article at http://www.praxeology.net/civsoc.htm is quite a nice one which explores what many of you are trying to articulate - that the perception of a collectivist Greek society doesn't work when it comes to concepts such as democracy. I happen to agree that individualist movements and ideals were perpetuated throughout Athenian history, especially where one looks at the rise of democracy. However, much of the Hellenised world didn't follow Athenian philosophies. Societies throughout the middle east - especially those of Arab heritage - were clearly Hellenic in culture yet extremely collectivist in community.



Boy, I'm getting tired of people needing to misquote me just to pick a fight. Show me where I even mentioned the bible! I said the original views being promoted by early Christian teachings were essentially individualist in a collectivist community.

If you all need to invent a fight for me, I guess my role is useless. You'd do as well without me.



Sure. I agree that the politics of Christianity in the middle ages enabled the predominantly collectivist hierarchy to maintain their positions nicely. It worked well, especially as (as you so nicely pointed out) they were kept ignorant of what the texts said. Protestantism arose essentially when Christians questioned the previously catholic view of the texts and figured that Christianity was about individual men connecting personally with God, something that was earlier a taboo thought.

Athon

I think we're in closer agreement than the tone of our messages would imply.

[athon]

I think we're in closer agreement than the tone of our messages would imply.

I sure hope so. I didn't come in here picking for a fight, but rather to contribute my view of individualist philosophies as introduced into the Roman-oppressed Arabic world. It really is a fascinating era of politics, especially when explored outside of the view of religion.

Being accused of trying to 'polish a turd' and being called an apologist really doesn't make one feel welcome to discuss history, however. It's no different to trying to discuss the political beginnings of Christianity with a fundamentalist.

Athon

[Ducky]

"load of crap" sprung immediately into my head.

Quoted for truth.

[blobru]

Well, we'd like some sources on how the Greek society was mainly collective.

Because everything we know from their philosophy and teachings seems to indicate the opposite. Read Socrates, even Plato who deals with a society as a whole, and you'll see a great interest in the individual, and in individual morality. ...


You have to be careful with citing Socrates and particularly Plato as champions of individualism.
Plato was Athenian, but no fan of her democracy, which he blamed for sentencing Socrates to death. "The Republic" is modeled on Athen's rival Sparta (the only change Plato makes is to have his kings study philosophy); and Sparta of course was about as individualist as an ant colony.
The main advocates of individual rights in classical Greece weren't Socrates and Plato but the Sophists.

[KingMerv00]

The Judeo-Christian view of the individual and his or her place in the world was different. It's teaching stressed the dignity and worth of each human being. It was believed that each person possessed an individual soul. Therefore the individual assumed a new importance in people's thinking about society and government...

Is the word "serf" in the index?

[geni]

Is the word "serf" in the index?

The rule lawyering around serfs was weird. You couldn't generaly sell them but you could sell the land they worked and they went with it.

They had rights as individuals (could own property and the like) but that the same time they didn't really have the right to freedom of movement.

Serfdom was in effect a multi generational legal argrement with both the landlord and the serf haveing legal duties. The catch was that the legal agreement favored the landlord to a large degree (although evicting serfs from the land they worked could be tricky) and it applied down the generations.

[KingMerv00]

The rule lawyering around serfs was weird. You couldn't generaly sell them but you could sell the land they worked and they went with it.

They had rights as individuals (could own property and the like) but that the same time they didn't really have the right to freedom of movement.

Serfdom was in effect a multi generational legal argrement with both the landlord and the serf haveing legal duties. The catch was that the legal agreement favored the landlord to a large degree (although evicting serfs from the land they worked could be tricky) and it applied down the generations.

Are you saying that serfdom was helpful to fomenting individual rights?

[drkitten]

Are you saying that serfdom was helpful to fomenting individual rights?

Compared to the chattel slavery that it replaced, I think it was very helpful. Slaves had no rights whatsoever; serfs actually had a substantial body of customary law protecting them. Be careful not to make "the best" the enemy of "the good."

[KingMerv00]

Compared to the chattel slavery that it replaced, I think it was very helpful. Slaves had no rights whatsoever; serfs actually had a substantial body of customary law protecting them. Be careful not to make "the best" the enemy of "the good."

Also be careful not to overstate the positive.

From what I remember, the serf did not have a choice to be anything but. In order to leave the land, the serf had to ask the lord for permission.

While somewhat better than slavery, I wouldn't call it a great leap forward in human rights. The textbook in question is still a pile o' poo.

[drkitten]

From what I remember, the serf did not have a choice to be anything but. In order to leave the land, the serf had to ask the lord for permission.

While somewhat better than slavery, I wouldn't call it a great leap forward in human rights. The textbook in question is still a pile o' poo.

Shrug. Depends on whether or no you consider the following rights to be "a great leap forward," then (see this link (http://www.jstor.org/view/00312746/ap020092/02a00010/0) for discussion):

the right to own property
the right to make wills
the right to marry
the right to send sons to be educated
... or to join the Church
et cetera


In fact, one of the most significant protections that the serf had over the slave is exactly the bond to the land that marked him as "unfree"; as long as he paid his "customary" tribute in labor (or more usually, in money, because money was almost always more needed by the lord), he couldn't have the tribute raised. The effect is that serfs were often paying less for the land that they held than their freeborn neighbors who rented the land from the same lord, but without the customary protections of serfdom.

[Madalch]

SO what does this textbook say about the War of 1812?

[geni]

Are you saying that serfdom was helpful to fomenting individual rights?

No. Serfdom makes no sense without some levels of individual rights.

[DonJunbar]

SO what does this textbook say about the War of 1812?

The heroes went north to cleanse subjects of the Satanic British empire from the Earth. The Lord ordered them to burn the city of York and destroy the evil that dwelt within.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Slavery still existed at the founding of the country, and women's rights were almost zero. How were Jews treated? Indigenous populations? These glaring omissions make the text seem like modern revisionism, or worse, a whitewashing of what really was the reality of the time.

If Christendom was so 'pro individual rights', why were these not issues of concern at the founding of the country?

And I may be wrong, but certainly Aristotle seems to reject their accusation that classical republicanism was not interested in the individual. That seems like an invention of the authors to justify promotion of religion as a compelling force for individual rights. I've been there, lived it and frankly just do not see this relationship. It seems contrived and false.I see this text in a very similar light to the way you see it. And sadly, most US primary school (k-12) history text books are just as oversimplified and whitewashed.

A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_People%27s_History_of_the_United_States) and Lies My Teacher Told Me by James Loewen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies_My_Teacher_Told_Me) are two good history books which reveal the lies in the average school history book and reveal some interesting and much more balanced history of the US. It's a shame there is such social-political forces influencing the teaching of history in the US public schools.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Apparently it isn't such a slam dunk that Christianity gave us individualism as the text implies.

In the Dictionary of the history of ideas (http://etext.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv2-66) they give a more broad story.HISTORY OF THE TERM “INDIVIDUALISM”
The first uses of the term, in its French form individualisme, grew out of the context of the counterrevolutionary critique of the Enlightenment. Conservative thought of the early nineteenth century was virtually unanimous in condemning the appeal to individual reason, interests, and rights, sharing Burke's scorn for the individual's “private stock of reason” and his fear that the commonwealth would “crumble away, be disconnected into the dust and powder of individuality” (Reflections on the Revolution in France, 1790)...

...The Saint Simonians, themselves influenced by the theocrats, were the first to use the term systematically in the mid-1820's, to refer to a complex of related elements which they held to characterize the modern “critical epoch” originating with the Reformation. Such elements were the narrow and negative eighteenth century philosophy glorifying self-interest and the individual's conscience and rights; liberalism in politics; anarchy and exploitation in the economic sphere; and unbounded egoism everywhere. They saw the eighteenth century philosophers as “defenders of individualism,” reviving the egoism of Epicurus and the Stoics, and they held the inevitable political result of individualism to be “opposition to any attempt at organisation from a centre of direction for the moral interests of mankind...” (Doctrine de Saint-Simon: exposition—première année, 1829, 1830, twelfth session)....

...For some, individualism resides in dangerous ideas, for others it is social or economic anarchy, a lack of the requisite institutions and norms, for yet others it is the prevalence of self-interested attitudes among individuals. Men of the right, from de Maistre through Veuillot and Brunetière to Maurras, have seen it as all that undermines a traditionalist, hierarchical order. Socialists, including Leroux, Pecqueur, Cabet, Blanc, and Blanqui, contrasted it with “association” and “associationism,” “philanthropy,” “altruism,” “socialism,” and “communism,” though Blanc also stressed its progressive aspect as a rejection of authority and a “necessary transition” to a future age of fraternity, while the followers of Fourier denied any basic opposition between individualism and socialism, and Jaurès saw socialism as the logical completion of individualism.
Liberals such as Tocqueville condemned it as inimical to liberty. For Tocqueville it was the natural product of democracy (“Individualism is of democratic origin and threatens to develop insofar as conditions are equalised”), involving the apathetic withdrawal of individuals from public life and their isolation from one another, with a consequent weakening of society and the growth of the unchecked political power of the state. ...

...Quite distinct from the French use of the term is another whose characteristic reference is German, namely, the romantic idea of individuality (Individualität), reacting against the abstract, uniform standards of the Enlightenment and glorifying individual uniqueness, originality, and self-development. The romantics themselves did not use the term Individualismus, but it came to be used in this sense from the 1840's, when a German Liberal, Karl Brüggemann, contrasted with its Saint-Simonian meaning that of a characteristically German “infinite” (unendlichen) and “whole-souled” (innigen) individualism, signifying “the infinite self-confidence of the individual aiming to be personally free in morals and in truth” (K. H. Brüggemann, Dr. Lists nationales System der politischen Ükonomie, 1842; see Koebner, p. 282)...

...It was in America that “individualism” came to specify a whole set of social ideals and acquired immense ideological significance: it expressed the operative ideals of late nineteenth- and early twentieth century America (and indeed continues to play a major ideological role), advancing a set of universal claims seen as incompatible with the parallel claims of the socialism and communism of the Old World. ...

...Imported with negative connotations via the writings of various Europeans, among them the socialists and the Saint-Simonian Michel Chevalier, the economist Friedrich List, and Tocqueville, “individualism” acquired a positive meaning and expressed an evolving reinterpretation of American ideology. In 1839, an article in the United States Magazine and Democratic Review (VI, 208-09) already described the “course of civilization” as “the progress of man from a state of savage individualism to that of an individualism more elevated, moral, and refined.”...

...Historians and sociologists have come to use the term in a variety of contexts. Some, such as Ernst Troeltsch, associate it with primitive Christianity and the Gospel ethic; others, like Burckhardt, with the Italian Renaissance; others, following Max Weber and R. H. Tawney, with Protestantism, especially Calvinism, and the rise of capitalism (Weber, 1904-05; Tawney, 1926), or with the growth of a “possessive market society” in seventeenth-century England (Macpherson, 1962). Others, such as Otto Gierke, associate individualism with modern Natural Law theory, from the mid-seventeenth to the early nineteenth century (Gierke, 1913), and yet others, like Simmel and Friedrich Meinecke, with the rise of romanticism. Finally, economists of a doctrinaire liberal kind, such as the Austro-liberals Ludwig von Mises and F. A. Hayek, and Milton Friedman, as well as laissez-faire ideologists like Ayn Rand, adhere to “individualism”: in this sense, it is an ideological trend of the right, of comparatively minor significance in most contemporary industrial societies....

... 1. First, there is the ultimate moral principle of the supreme and intrinsic value of the individual human being, an idea which A. D. Lindsay describes as “the great contribution to individualism” of the New Testament and all Christianity (1930-35, p. 676); though it is also found in the religious, if not the social, ethics of Hinduism. Absent from earlier Judaism (in which God's concern was with Israel, the nation), it is adumbrated in the prophets and clearly set forth in the Gospels, as in such sayings as: “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me” (Matthew 25:40). In its Christian form, centered on God and implying the supreme value of the soul, this idea was reaffirmed at the time of the reformation, with Luther's and Calvin's preoccupation with the individual's salvation, and the sectarian principle that all men are alike children of God, each with his own unique purpose. It had, on the other hand, been de-emphasized in the medieval thesis of the corporational structure of society (itself rooted in Roman conceptions), which was expressed by the principle Utilitas publica prefertur utilitati privatae (“Public utility is preferable to private utility”). According to that thesis, “what mattered was the well-being of society and not the well-being of the individual parts constituting it”; the “individual did not exist for his own sake but for the sake of the whole society” (Ullmann [1966], pp. 36, 42)....The article goes into detail about the various components of individualism and it is clear one is not talking about a single concept if one is to discuss individualism.

Even this article has the typical Euro-American centrist historical view. It's as if Asia and Africa and the rest of the world were some unimportant entity in terms of history. All the world evolved around Mesopotamia then spread into Europe and followed the migration of Europeans in to their colonies. Africa, why bother? Asia, well there were some Mongrel Hordes but not much else. :rolleyes: It will likely be a while before history books actually cover world history without this tunnel view.

[Kopji]

From early childhood, they were familiar with the teachings of the Bible
-pg 19



Classical republicanism put the good of the state and community above that of the separate interests of individuals who belonged to it.

The Judeo-Christian view of the individual and his or her place in the world was different. Its teachings stressed the dignity and worth of each human being. -pg 19,20



Acts 2:44-45 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain

44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

I find that 'Acts' passage to be a pretty typical NT theme. This notion that the NT teaches rugged individualism is just foreign to me, maybe the conclusions of the text seem less 'out there' to more mainstream religious folks.

I understand the conclusions the authors are reaching, I just don't see any justification for them.

The text makes this statement early on:

The Judeo-Christian tradition holds that... ...For many, the striving for salvation through obedience to God's divine law is of prime importance...
pg 19

Is that really what the early Deists thought? What modern Christianity teaches? Maybe I've been mistaken.

[thull]

Is that really what the early Deists thought? What modern Christianity teaches? Maybe I've been mistaken.

Early Christianity was quite interesting, and not all early Christians were deists. Since most of the early NT books were read in small home settings, the difference between what texts one community had access to compared to another could be quite vast. Hence the beliefs and views gained from Christianity during that period were based on what books the community had access to and read from.

Around 300-500 AD, the Gospels and letters got cut down into something more standardized (Most of the trimming was done at this time, later certain denominations went further or included an older text. Example: "Book of Wisdom" is in most Catholic Bibles, while in most Protestant Bibles it is not).

Then fast forward about a Century and People are breaking off of the Catholic Church and forming new denominations of Christianity. Complete with different interpretations, emphasizes, and doctrine to go by.

The Path of Christianity is a great example of people taking their Individual rights of what to learn, worship, and outwardly express. However, Christianity played both the antagonistic and protagonist through history. For it was the people behind/using the Bible that did the actions that caused such joy or pain throughout the years, not the message (*varied where available, not all stores participating).

Side Note: one of my favorite teachers that loved to debate laid down two rules on the first day of class:
1. no anecdotal evidence (no first, third person accounts)
2. no referencing the bible

His response on why he didn't allow the bible to be used as support within any discussion was that it took little skill to find a line and twist it to your favor. He then proceeded to point and counterpoint himself using the same bit of scripture (just using a different translation or omitting part of it). He did this with about 15 verses from the bible, then said that's the last i want to hear from the bible this semester.

[KingMerv00]

Shrug. Depends on whether or no you consider the following rights to be "a great leap forward," then (see this link (http://www.jstor.org/view/00312746/ap020092/02a00010/0) for discussion):

the right to own property
the right to make wills
the right to marry
the right to send sons to be educated
... or to join the Church
et cetera
In fact, one of the most significant protections that the serf had over the slave is exactly the bond to the land that marked him as "unfree"; as long as he paid his "customary" tribute in labor (or more usually, in money, because money was almost always more needed by the lord), he couldn't have the tribute raised. The effect is that serfs were often paying less for the land that they held than their freeborn neighbors who rented the land from the same lord, but without the customary protections of serfdom.

I defer to your greater knowledge. I suppose it is just hard to see serfdom in a positive light with my modern prejudices. Guess I was wrong.

[Tokenconservative]

So I'm working on some homework with my son this week and am suddenly introduced to his US Government textbook. I don't even know where to start.

A project of the Center for Civic Education
Funded by the US Department of Education by act of Congress
Established in 1987 under the Commission of the bicentennial of the United States Constitution.



...

Etc etc. Basically all of lesson 4 in the book entirely credits Judeo-Christianity for the concept of individual rights.
Say what?


I guess I am missing something...um...not sure where this is much off the mark.

While the idea/ideal of individual worth existed, mostly, among the Greeks and the early Romans before the rise of Christianity, they didn't exist before this notion in Judaism, from which all of this in Christianity arises.

I can't think of any other culture in history where an emphasis on individuality has been the norm. China? No. Japan? Nope. Anywhere in the Americas? Nuh, uh....Africa? No. Asia? Inuits? Native Australians? South Seas?

Um...nope.

So I guess I don't get your complaint.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Also be careful not to overstate the positive.

From what I remember, the serf did not have a choice to be anything but. In order to leave the land, the serf had to ask the lord for permission.

While somewhat better than slavery, I wouldn't call it a great leap forward in human rights. The textbook in question is still a pile o' poo.

Mayhaps. But like asking about Hemingway, "what's he done recently!?" one might say...when was the last time you ran across a serf in Western culture?

You can still find them just about everywhere else (changing due to contact with...um, the West, to be sure).

Can you quantify and qualify your assessment of the textbook as a "pile of poo" based on something OTHER than your apparent lack of knowledge about the development of Western culture and how it is unique in the world?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

The heroes went north to cleanse subjects of the Satanic British empire from the Earth. The Lord ordered them to burn the city of York and destroy the evil that dwelt within.

And then some others went south and kicked Limey butt in NOLA...even though they really din't have to.

[Tokenconservative]

Apparently it isn't

Even this article has the typical Euro-American centrist historical view. It's as if Asia and Africa and the rest of the world were some unimportant entity in terms of history. All the world evolved around Mesopotamia then spread into Europe and followed the migration of Europeans in to their colonies. Africa, why bother? Asia, well there were some Mongrel Hordes but not much else. :rolleyes: It will likely be a while before history books actually cover world history without this tunnel view.

Maybe. Maybe it all equalizes?

My daughter is furious at her AP History class because the text is Asia-Africa-centric.

As I tell her, Asia is very important in world history.

And she can just sleep through the stuff about Africa.

Tokie

[KingMerv00]

I guess I am missing something...um...not sure where this is much off the mark.

While the idea/ideal of individual worth existed, mostly, among the Greeks and the early Romans before the rise of Christianity, they didn't exist before this notion in Judaism, from which all of this in Christianity arises.

I can't think of any other culture in history where an emphasis on individuality has been the norm. China? No. Japan? Nope. Anywhere in the Americas? Nuh, uh....Africa? No. Asia? Inuits? Native Australians? South Seas?

Um...nope.

So I guess I don't get your complaint.

Tokie

Are you saying that Judaism gave rise to individual rights in Greece?

Where do you that information?

[KingMerv00]

Mayhaps. But like asking about Hemingway, "what's he done recently!?" one might say...when was the last time you ran across a serf in Western culture?

You can still find them just about everywhere else (changing due to contact with...um, the West, to be sure).

Can you quantify and qualify your assessment of the textbook as a "pile of poo" based on something OTHER than your apparent lack of knowledge about the development of Western culture and how it is unique in the world?

Tokie

First, please see above. I cut back on my dislike of serfdom...a bit.

Second, you see serfdom as a bad thing and that "the West" (I assume you mean Christianity) destroyed it as is moved around the world. If that is so why did it last so long in the heart of Europe during the Middle Ages?

[Tokenconservative]

First, please see above. I cut back on my dislike of serfdom...a bit.

Second, you see serfdom as a bad thing and that "the West" (I assume you mean Christianity) destroyed it as is moved around the world. If that is so why did it last so long in the heart of Europe during the Middle Ages?


Hmm...I guess I was not being clear....

Serfdom, I believe Western history has shown, was neither, relatively, "good" nor "bad," but rather "just what happened." Of course, if Bush declared himself King George, took away my land and made me a serf on it, I would not like that, today.

No, when I say "the West" I do not mean "Christianity." I mean Western culture and society of which Christianity is/has been a part, but is hardly the root of same and is hardly alone in it. Christianity played a huge role in the development of Western culture into modern times, of course, but it's roots--and the roots of "individualism" lie some 4000 years in the past with the Greeks, most notably the Ionian Greeks. I don't believe they were Christians.

So it's something of a bigoted assumtion.

I never said Christianity "destroyed" serfdom...again I fear I have been unclear. I said that notions of the "individual" are unique to Western culture and that Christianity (largely) developed within that framework and worked well within it (as does Judaism). The same could not be said of say, Buddhism, or certainly Islam.

And by the way: serfdom lasts unto this day. It was hardly eradicated in the Middle Ages. Today, it's more of an attitude in Europe (and spreading to the US) than an actual fact, but it's hardly dead and gone.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Are you saying that Judaism gave rise to individual rights in Greece?

Where do you that information?

Hmm...I can see that what I wrote is confusing.

That's hardly what I'm saying, though I can see how what I did say might confuse you.

The Greeks developed this quite on their own, as far as I know. It developed as well, independently among the Hebrews, based in their religion (among the Greeks it was more a philosophical view than religious one) which led to it being transfered into Christianity. To be sure, various Popes did yeomanlike work to rid their faith of such dangerous notions, but by then it was probably too late.

And I said nothing about individual "rights," anyway. I thought we were talking about individualism.

Tokie

[LostAngeles]

Maybe. Maybe it all equalizes?

My daughter is furious at her AP History class because the text is Asia-Africa-centric.

As I tell her, Asia is very important in world history.

And she can just sleep through the stuff about Africa.

Tokie

Pity. I always thought the idea behind AP was for kids who were motivated to learn more and not just, "I wanna go big college."

Frankly, your child is not going to be able to critically evaluate the situation on the African continent at present without knowing what's happened there. This is akin to attempting to understand WWII without even (at least) understanding WWI which is difficult to understand without European history with is difficult to understand without learning about Europe's contacts with other societies which is... etc. etc.

Also, as I like to remind folks, Egypt is in Africa and Ethiopia had multiple contacts with Hellenistic societies.

Oh, and there was a pretty substantial empire in sub-Saharan Africa too..

[Tokenconservative]

Pity. I always thought the idea behind AP was for kids who were motivated to learn more and not just, "I wanna go big college."

Frankly, your child is not going to be able to critically evaluate the situation on the African continent at present without knowing what's happened there. This is akin to attempting to understand WWII without even (at least) understanding WWI which is difficult to understand without European history with is difficult to understand without learning about Europe's contacts with other societies which is... etc. etc.

Also, as I like to remind folks, Egypt is in Africa and Ethiopia had multiple contacts with Hellenistic societies.

Oh, and there was a pretty substantial empire in sub-Saharan Africa too..

She wants to go to a pretty small college, actually...it's called "Juliard." And most kids take these classes for one or the other of these reasons: their parents believe it will look good when they apply to Big College, or their parents like the idea of being able to use this "free" (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAJAHA+AAHHAHKJLAHHHHHAAAAA!) class to get their kid out of some core class at college. My kids are attending because there is no honors English and because the one's experience in American Gov't taught her only that something bad is happening in Darfur, the earth is doomed--DOOOOMMEEEDDD!!--because of some odd combination of G W Bush and the religion of Global Warming, and that AIDS is a problem in Africa. Oh, and that if you want to learn anything in high school, your best bet (though by no means a sure thing) is being in into higher level classes.

In any case, you make a little joke and out come the sourpusses...really? Egypt is in Africa? Who knew!? And Ethiopia too? You don't say!

Egypt is, or course, about as "African" as Australia is South Pacific. Ethiopia is, in fact fully African and a pretty interesting place historically, as is much of northern Africa and a limited number of places south of the equator like South Africa and the former Rhodesia (most notable now for what a cesspool it has become after its anti-white pogrom).

As for Great Zimbabwe, which is what you are refering to, um..actually, while it was in fact a large, very local center of trade, it really wasn't much at all as a "civilization" when compared to oh, say...Egypt or Ethiopia. Or even the ancient society on the Canary Islands. But if you are Africa-centric in your thinking you grasp at any port in haystack I guess.

Tokie

[LostAngeles]

She wants to go to a pretty small college, actually...it's called "Juliard." And most kids take these classes for one or the other of these reasons: their parents believe it will look good when they apply to Big College, or their parents like the idea of being able to use this "free" (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAJAHA+AAHHAHKJLAHHHHHAAAAA!) class to get their kid out of some core class at college. My kids are attending because there is no honors English and because the one's experience in American Gov't taught her only that something bad is happening in Darfur, the earth is doomed--DOOOOMMEEEDDD!!--because of some odd combination of G W Bush and the religion of Global Warming, and that AIDS is a problem in Africa. Oh, and that if you want to learn anything in high school, your best bet (though by no means a sure thing) is being in into higher level classes.

In any case, you make a little joke and out come the sourpusses...really? Egypt is in Africa? Who knew!? And Ethiopia too? You don't say!

Egypt is, or course, about as "African" as Australia is South Pacific. Ethiopia is, in fact fully African and a pretty interesting place historically, as is much of northern Africa and a limited number of places south of the equator like South Africa and the former Rhodesia (most notable now for what a cesspool it has become after its anti-white pogrom).

As for Great Zimbabwe, which is what you are refering to, um..actually, while it was in fact a large, very local center of trade, it really wasn't much at all as a "civilization" when compared to oh, say...Egypt or Ethiopia. Or even the ancient society on the Canary Islands. But if you are Africa-centric in your thinking you grasp at any port in haystack I guess.

Tokie

Eh, as long as you know that world history isn't just guys in ruffly collars.

[ImaginalDisc]

For the moment, I'm going to set aside your assertion that "Global Warming" is a "religion."


Egypt is, or course, about as "African" as Australia is South Pacific. Ethiopia is, in fact fully African and a pretty interesting place historically, as is much of northern Africa and a limited number of places south of the equator like South Africa and the former Rhodesia (most notable now for what a cesspool it has become after its anti-white pogrom).

Ok, please explain what makes you casually toss aside geography when you dissociate Egypt from the rest of Africa.

Please let it be less racist than it sounds.

[geni]

For the moment, I'm going to set aside your assertion that "Global Warming" is a "religion."



Ok, please explain what makes you casually toss aside geography when you dissociate Egypt from the rest of Africa.

Please let it be less racist than it sounds.

You haven't read that marvious work that is the The New Student's Reference Work (1914)


For Egypt (compared to the rest of Africa) is a healthy land for Black, White, and Yellow. Give it a sufficient water supply in the way of irrigation and it will become one of the wealthiest regions, for its area, on the world's surface and one of the most habitable. What the ultimate consequences of this regeneration of Egypt under the British aegis will be, it is interesting to speculate. Certainly the prosperity of this land will far exceed the greatest altitude ever reached in population and civilization at the best period of the rule of the dynastic Egyptians—let us say, Egypt 1,500 years before the time of Christ; and if ever Egypt again is one of the great nations of the world the thanks of her people will be due entirely to the British nation which undertook its regeneration.


http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:LA2-NSRW-1-0041.jpg


A more serious argument could be made by looking at who egypt tended to interact with. While they did have dealings with people to the south they generaly competed with groups to the north frist the Hittites and later the various meditaranian groups.

[truethat]

See this thread is what I mean about not being real skeptics. You jump out of one box squarely into another and put your fingers in your ears singing la la la

The fact is, when Jesus's teachings were spread they changed a lot of how people thought of the individual.

Try reading up on the difference between the sacred and the profane.

http://www.bytrent.demon.co.uk/durkheim1.html

Just because something good happened associated with Christianity doesn't mean its propaganda.

[ZirconBlue]

She wants to go to a pretty small college, actually...it's called "Juliard."

Is that anywhere near Juilliard?

And most kids take these classes for one or the other of these reasons: their parents believe it will look good when they apply to Big College, or their parents like the idea of being able to use this "free" (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAJAHA+AAHHAHKJLAHHHHHAAAAA!) class to get their kid out of some core class at college.

That's sad. When I was in High School I made my own class choices.

In any case, you make a little joke and out come the sourpusses...

If only there were some sort of visual indicator one could use to make it clear that one is joking! ;)

[Tokenconservative]

Say what??? Didn't they just finish saying that medieval Christianity was the foundation of individual rights?

So there's something here for everyone. WHAT A MESS.

While Christianity was a strong force in Medieval and Renaissance Europe, it was by no means the ONLY force; you had lots of people who were more interested in making money than in being good Catholics, or even Good Protestants, for example, and often enough, when they butted heads with the Church, they won simply by agreeing to give the Church more of their money.

Human history did not arrive in Europe with Christianity...the place was pretty well-populated by the time the Romans (who um...came from Europe) executed the man they called Jesus Christ.

Nor did Christianity manage, hard though it tried, to completely erase the culture already present across much of Europe, especially Levantine Europe, where reason and logic were born.

Christianity, howmsoever, unlike say, Buddhism or Islam, DOES express a call for individualism--Jesus saw each person as an individual, to be INDIVIDUALLY dealth with by God, apparently, not as cog in a wheel working for the good of the many, or a mass to be used to spread itself by force, as people are viewed in every other faith, for good or bad...I am not making any judgement here.

So yes, regardless of how this textbook screws it up, and tip-toes around this issue on PC toes, that's what happened in Europe. It helped that the Jews were there and such a strong influence, too, since they are also individualistic and also driven by a strong desire for material gain.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Is that anywhere near Juilliard?


That's sad. When I was in High School I made my own class choices.

If only there were some sort of visual indicator one could use to make it clear that one is joking! ;)

No...not that I know of. Never heard of that place. Is that a mechanical arts school?

(I just love net nannies).

What's sad? Yes, I made my choices, too...today, I can weave baskets with the best of 'em! My wife actually took "Bowling" and of course Music and Art "Appreciation" were very popular back in the day.

Thank God MY kids have parents who are involved in their schooling and making sure they learn and advance and don't take a bunch of stupid courses like THEIR parents did.

There are smilies, but I find them annoying.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

See this thread is what I mean about not being real skeptics. You jump out of one box squarely into another and put your fingers in your ears singing la la la

The fact is, when Jesus's teachings were spread they changed a lot of how people thought of the individual.

Try reading up on the difference between the sacred and the profane.

http://www.bytrent.demon.co.uk/durkheim1.html

Just because something good happened associated with Christianity doesn't mean its propaganda.

First, love your avi...did a paper on that movie in college that nearly got me expelled...because the Nat'l Honors Society wanted me to present it and the far, far-left-liberal lesbian-feminist principal read it and could've sent smoke signals from her ears afterward.

I was the only student from my small city college invited that year to present...the school did every thing it could to prevent me from doing so.

Yes, I always find it curious as well that anytime you mention the good Christianity has done in the world (which far outstrips the bad) you have 200 people jumping down your throat screaming about the Inquisition, the Crusades (how taking back real estate from people who it didn't belong to is bad, I'll never understand), televangilists, etc.

I guess all those starving babies who've been fed around the world for so long don't matter, because well, it's Christian relief agencies--who also send...horrors!...missionaries with the food-- doing the feeding, eh?

If it were atheists and their proselytizers...that'd be just fine.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

For the moment, I'm going to set aside your assertion that "Global Warming" is a "religion."



Ok, please explain what makes you casually toss aside geography when you dissociate Egypt from the rest of Africa.

Please let it be less racist than it sounds.

And there it is. When thought fails, just scream "racism!!!" and that's the end of the discussion.

Egypt, culturally, like Libya, Algeria, Morocco, et al., is more Middle Eastern than African. I guess I needed to be more clear...yes, it's part of the African continent. Culturally, as I've said, it's about as far from Camaroon as Australia is--culturally--Indonesia.

And Global Warming IS a religion.

That's why I call it that, too.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Eh, as long as you know that world history isn't just guys in ruffly collars.

As long as YOU know the most imporant world history was MOSTLY surrounding guys in ruffly collars.

And no, that's not "raaaaaccccciiiiiissssttttttt!!!!!" it's just factual. Nothing important in culture, economics, technology, etc. came out of Central Africa, or even Great Zimbabwe. Hell, very little came out of China regardless of all the caterwauling about what they Chinese invented that eeeeeevvvvvvvviiiiiilllllll white debils from Europe stole...and did something with.

Tokie

[LostAngeles]

As long as YOU know the most imporant world history was MOSTLY surrounding guys in ruffly collars.

And no, that's not "raaaaaccccciiiiiissssttttttt!!!!!" it's just factual. Nothing important in culture, economics, technology, etc. came out of Central Africa, or even Great Zimbabwe. Hell, very little came out of China regardless of all the caterwauling about what they Chinese invented that eeeeeevvvvvvvviiiiiilllllll white debils from Europe stole...and did something with.

Tokie

Actually, the reasons as to why things went like that I find to be substantially interesting. I know recommend Jared Diamond a lot, but he does some fantastically nice work on that in Guns, Germs, and Steel. It's worth reading. Basically some groups had a climatic and environmental advantage (big dumb animals and good potential crops) whereas others did not. China became monolithic so early, rather than having the constant battling and competition of Europe that the innovation slowed down.

On the other hand, really, it does all come back to getting the 0 from India, though... :p

[KoihimeNakamura]

Ugh, Howard Zinn. I think he's a bit too biased, myself. Granted, I took AP US HIst and then AP US gov and politics, so I obviously have a view in this.

(I will note that "Lies my Teacher taught me" is an excellent book though.)

[Tokenconservative]

Actually, the reasons as to why things went like that I find to be substantially interesting. I know recommend Jared Diamond a lot, but he does some fantastically nice work on that in Guns, Germs, and Steel. It's worth reading. Basically some groups had a climatic and environmental advantage (big dumb animals and good potential crops) whereas others did not. China became monolithic so early, rather than having the constant battling and competition of Europe that the innovation slowed down.

On the other hand, really, it does all come back to getting the 0 from India, though... :p

The O from India...Oil? :eye-poppi

Yes, much of what caused Europe to develop the way it did was lucky happenstance, like big dumb animals...but horses come from Asia, as do the animals we've bred into domesticated cows, and there were plenty of perfectly good crops in India, China, and across all of Eurasia, in fact.

And none of this goes very far in 'splainin' what happened in the Americas, where they hadn't even invented the wheel by the time Europeans arrived. This place is teeming with resources and the Natives had not even tapped the readily-available surface ores by the time Euros arrived and found what seemed to them a land of immense, and unending resource run by loin-cloth-clad savages.

I suppose you could say they weren't here long enough, but even just 12-20,000 years SEEMS like a long time...

What China's hegemeny caused, and this goes back to culture, was stagnation. In the West, Britain and Franch both were the head cheeses for a while and while France fell behind, Britain literally steamed ahead leading the Industrial Revolution. Now, America is the Boss Hogg of the world, and while we have handed our industrial base over to others, and allow many within to tell us that we are washed-up and falling apart, we nevertheless continue to lead the world in innovation of all sorts.

Again, chalk that up to culture, and in a very simple way: Western culture is unique in the world in that it is (pre and post Christian) FORWARD looking (linear time, for example) whereas every other culture is BACKWARD looking (ancestor worship and cyclical time). In the West, our cultural paradigm became one of change. Everywhere else, the paradigm was one of stasis.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Ugh, Howard Zinn. I think he's a bit too biased, myself. Granted, I took AP US HIst and then AP US gov and politics, so I obviously have a view in this.

(I will note that "Lies my Teacher taught me" is an excellent book though.)

Saying that Howard Zinn is a BIT too biased is like saying water is a bit wet.

"Biased" is where you BEGIN your description of Zinn...from there it goes to self-loating, hateful, propagandist and...well, you fill in the epithet of your choice for this charlatan.

Tokie

[athon]

Nor did Christianity manage, hard though it tried, to completely erase the culture already present across much of Europe, especially Levantine Europe, where reason and logic were born.

Small point - Christianity flourished precisely because it didn't try to erase cultures. Following Roman practice, it slipped in quietly by stating that the plebs were already worshipping Christ, they just didn't know it. Hence we have pagan/Xian holidays, saints, icons etc. It essentially preserved a lot of culture, although it is arguable how much culture remains considering the context changed.

Athon

[LostAngeles]

The O from India...Oil? :eye-poppi

Yes, much of what caused Europe to develop the way it did was lucky happenstance, like big dumb animals...but horses come from Asia, as do the animals we've bred into domesticated cows, and there were plenty of perfectly good crops in India, China, and across all of Eurasia, in fact.

And none of this goes very far in 'splainin' what happened in the Americas, where they hadn't even invented the wheel by the time Europeans arrived. This place is teeming with resources and the Natives had not even tapped the readily-available surface ores by the time Euros arrived and found what seemed to them a land of immense, and unending resource run by loin-cloth-clad savages.

I suppose you could say they weren't here long enough, but even just 12-20,000 years SEEMS like a long time...

What China's hegemeny caused, and this goes back to culture, was stagnation. In the West, Britain and Franch both were the head cheeses for a while and while France fell behind, Britain literally steamed ahead leading the Industrial Revolution. Now, America is the Boss Hogg of the world, and while we have handed our industrial base over to others, and allow many within to tell us that we are washed-up and falling apart, we nevertheless continue to lead the world in innovation of all sorts.

Again, chalk that up to culture, and in a very simple way: Western culture is unique in the world in that it is (pre and post Christian) FORWARD looking (linear time, for example) whereas every other culture is BACKWARD looking (ancestor worship and cyclical time). In the West, our cultural paradigm became one of change. Everywhere else, the paradigm was one of stasis.

Tokie

The zero. O is not 0.

Actually, the best native agricultural crop in the Americas was corn and the spread of that and beans was pretty slow. Take into account the giant desert between South America and The Great Plains and it makes sense why it was so slow.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, the wheel was invented by the Mayans, but as a children's toy.

Even then, what would they have used to pull the carts? Llamas and Alpacas hadn't spread that far, I think.

[ZirconBlue]

What's sad? Yes, I made my choices, too...today, I can weave baskets with the best of 'em! My wife actually took "Bowling" and of course Music and Art "Appreciation" were very popular back in the day.

Thank God MY kids have parents who are involved in their schooling and making sure they learn and advance and don't take a bunch of stupid courses like THEIR parents did.

Parents that are involved is one thing; parents micromanaging every aspect of your schooling is another. "Most kids" choosing courses based on what their "parents believe", rather than being able to make an informed decision themselves is what I find sad.

There are smilies, but I find them annoying.

And that's fine, as long as you realize that you're more likely to have your "jokes" taken seriously that way.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Please present evidence to support your apologetics.

The misusue of that word by folks on this forum is a meme that must be excised from our collective discourse.

[UnrepentantSinner]

First, love your avi...did a paper on that movie in college that nearly got me expelled...because the Nat'l Honors Society wanted me to present it and the far, far-left-liberal lesbian-feminist principal read it and could've sent smoke signals from her ears afterward.

I was the only student from my small city college invited that year to present...the school did every thing it could to prevent me from doing so.

Any one else's B.S. meter sound as loudly as mine did when I read this? Well, at least anyone who has attended an American high school and college and knows the difference between the two.

I was going to parrot LA's Guns, Germs and Steel recommendation, but I don't think you'd understand it.

[ImaginalDisc]

And Global Warming IS a religion.

That's why I call it that, too.

Tokie

The fact that not a single climate scientist in over a decade has disputed either the fact that global warming is happening, nor that it is anthropogenic troubles you not in the slightest?

[athon]

The misusue of that word by folks on this forum is a meme that must be excised from our collective discourse.

To be fair, ID hasn't returned to the argument - I can only assume he found himself better educated by the responses and couldn't continue this line of debate.

But I agree it seems to be amongst the more abused terms on this board. But maybe I'm just being an apologist for anti-apologists.

Athon

[Tokenconservative]

The zero. O is not 0.

Actually, the best native agricultural crop in the Americas was corn and the spread of that and beans was pretty slow. Take into account the giant desert between South America and The Great Plains and it makes sense why it was so slow.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, the wheel was invented by the Mayans, but as a children's toy.

Even then, what would they have used to pull the carts? Llamas and Alpacas hadn't spread that far, I think.

Oh. Zed. I see. Did they? Well, good for them. Very useful, the zero.

They had dogs, the Mayas...oh, and slaves. Lots and lots of slaves. Slaves are good for pulling things.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Parents that are involved is one thing; parents micromanaging every aspect of your schooling is another. "Most kids" choosing courses based on what their "parents believe", rather than being able to make an informed decision themselves is what I find sad.

And that's fine, as long as you realize that you're more likely to have your "jokes" taken seriously that way.

Well, until a certain point, parents need to micromanage...I am not my kids "friend" I am their dad. And I am going to try and help them avoid some of the mistakes I made. My parents left my schooling entirely up to me and the school after 7th grade (and weren't very much involved prior to that, either).

In doing some self-analysis, I decided this was not a good approach and have (hopefully) helped my kids make some good choices in classes, etc.

In any case, this is what the principal at the school said a lot of kids take AP courses for: their parents think it will look good on a college application. It probably will, so long as they pass the test in May. Not so much if the kid really has no interest and bombs it.

Yes...it's very important to me that people take my jokes seriously.

:)

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Any one else's B.S. meter sound as loudly as mine did when I read this? Well, at least anyone who has attended an American high school and college and knows the difference between the two.

I was going to parrot LA's Guns, Germs and Steel recommendation, but I don't think you'd understand it.

Hmmm...I don't know about anyone else, but I know I'd have a clearer understanding of what you mean with a little more detail.

I notice that you boldfaced some of what I said, so I am assuming you find that...telling, in some way or another, or perhaps just hints to your oh-so-clever meaning.

I guess I am too dense to get it. I imagine nobody else in here is so dense as to not take your meaning, but perhaps, out of the pure kindness of your heart (no doubt swelling THREE sizes!) you'd share with me what it is about what I've said that leaves your "BS meter" pegging?

But yeah, I guess you are right. I wouldn't undestand that book. I'se jest too durn dumb!

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

The fact that not a single climate scientist in over a decade has disputed either the fact that global warming is happening, nor that it is anthropogenic troubles you not in the slightest?

LOL.

Lots n' lots of climate scientist have disputed it, and more importantly disputed (and continue to)the doctrinaire dogma that says humans are causing it, amen.

Just because you are unable/unwilling to seek and digest exculpatory evidence does not mean it's not out there.

Tokie

[ImaginalDisc]

To be fair, ID hasn't returned to the argument - I can only assume he found himself better educated by the responses and couldn't continue this line of debate.

But I agree it seems to be amongst the more abused terms on this board. But maybe I'm just being an apologist for anti-apologists.

Athon

Thank you so much for presuming to put words in my mouth. Composing an organized argument in defense of Christianity is the dictionary definition of apologetics.

You may take your snobbery to Webster's.

[ImaginalDisc]

LOL.

Lots n' lots of climate scientist have disputed it, and more importantly disputed (and continue to)the doctrinaire dogma that says humans are causing it, amen.

Just because you are unable/unwilling to seek and digest exculpatory evidence does not mean it's not out there.

Tokie

Please find even one paper published in a peer-reviewed journal published since 1993 in support of your argument.

[UnrepentantSinner]

To be fair, ID hasn't returned to the argument - I can only assume he found himself better educated by the responses and couldn't continue this line of debate.

But I agree it seems to be amongst the more abused terms on this board. But maybe I'm just being an apologist for anti-apologists.

I was going to retract my objection to the misuse of apologetics/apologists in the case of ID...

Thank you so much for presuming to put words in my mouth. Composing an organized argument in defense of Christianity is the dictionary definition of apologetics.

You may take your snobbery to Webster's.

...but now I see I was right to wait and not do so.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I guess I am too dense to get it.

Oh come now. You're a ConservativeTM who knows all the buzzwords which means you think with your head, not your heart. And, as they say, you "get it." Plus you've had a college education so surely you can figure out why I bolded the words that I did.

It wouldn't be that difficult for someone who actually went to college.

Or maybe you're just a troll.

[athon]

Thank you so much for presuming to put words in my mouth. Composing an organized argument in defense of Christianity is the dictionary definition of apologetics.

You may take your snobbery to Webster's.

Well, either you're a rather poor wordsmith or you know precisely what you mean by 'in defence of Christianity' and know full well that it needs a context in order for me to 'defend' it. Defend it's actions in relation to evangelism? In the Crusades? Defend it in relation to how its values relate to poverty? Are we talking all of it, or select parts? Defend the papacy? The right for people to worship it?

Considering I was arguing that historically speaking, early Christian teaching was individualist in a collectivist community, I can't for the life of me see what I was defending Christianity from. That isn't a value statement, but a historical one.

But as I said, the fact you had nothing more to argue could only mean you don't have a worthwhile contribution, other than to call people names.

Athon

[ImaginalDisc]

Well, either you're a rather poor wordsmith or you know precisely what you mean by 'in defence of Christianity' and know full well that it needs a context in order for me to 'defend' it. Defend it's actions in relation to evangelism? In the Crusades? Defend it in relation to how its values relate to poverty? Are we talking all of it, or select parts? Defend the papacy? The right for people to worship it?

Considering I was arguing that historically speaking, early Christian teaching was individualist in a collectivist community, I can't for the life of me see what I was defending Christianity from. That isn't a value statement, but a historical one.

But as I said, the fact you had nothing more to argue could only mean you don't have a worthwhile contribution, other than to call people names.

Athon

Oh, I'm still waiting for someone to substantiate the claim that individuality in society is a gift brought to us by Christianity.

[athon]

Oh, I'm still waiting for someone to substantiate the claim that individuality in society is a gift brought to us by Christianity.

You can keep waiting. I'll wait too. Hell, while we're waiting, why not point out where I said that. Since we're not doing anything while we wait for this strawman to burn down to a pile of ash.

I for one never claimed that 'individuality in society (assuming you mean modern society) was a gift (assuming you mean directly resulting from) Christianity'. I made no parallel between modern and ancient society at all, in fact.

But I guess you now need that strawman to save face, hey...

Let's keep waiting anyway.

Athon

[ImaginalDisc]

Egads. I am thoroughly chastised. Where on Earth would I have gotten the notion that you attributed the rise of individualism to Christianity?

Unless there's something you're not quoting, from what you've said I can't see the major problems. It's simply stating that there was a revolution in thinking that progressed from the collective to the individual - which was pretty much the case. The application of this view didn't always result in what we might approve as real individualist ideals (even today there are many who believe that 'some people are more individual than others'), but a comparison might be the US view of democracy and freedom. Holding those as ideals doesn't equate to a result that everybody agrees reflects that vision.

The main thrust of Christ's preachings was to step away from a collectivist view of religion where the masses were dominated by a central dogma and rule. His preachings - and those evangelisized - appealed so much to the Hellenised world because of that very difference; that the individual mattered, not matter how harsh a life they have. Therefore if you didn't belong to the collective you were still valuable in some way. Hellenistic culture of that period was extremely collectivist.

Athon

[athon]

Egads. I am thoroughly chastised. Where on Earth would I have gotten the notion that you attributed the rise of individualism to Christianity?

Good point...where did you get that notion? Let's look at what I said:

It's simply stating that there was a revolution in thinking that progressed from the collective to the individual - which was pretty much the case.
Indeed, there was a revolution in thinking in that culture. I never said it happened only the once, nor that it was responsible for modern individualism in any way.
The application of this view didn't always result in what we might approve as real individualist ideals (even today there are many who believe that 'some people are more individual than others')but a comparison might be the US view of democracy and freedom. Holding those as ideals doesn't equate to a result that everybody agrees reflects that vision.

Which is true. The ideals might not manifest into a perfect practice, but the individualist ideals did arise in a collectivist community.
The main thrust of Christ's preachings was to step away from a collectivist view of religion where the masses were dominated by a central dogma and rule.
Any arguments with that?
His preachings - and those evangelisized - appealed so much to the Hellenised world...
I highlighted it, but in hindsight I should have specified 'parts of the Hellenised world'. However many communities in the Hellenised world were rather collectivist, especially those in the Middle East. Note; we're still talking about a time that isn't modern.
...because of that very difference; that the individual mattered, not matter how harsh a life they have. Therefore if you didn't belong to the collective you were still valuable in some way. Hellenistic culture of that period was extremely collectivist.

So, care to point out at which point I suggested:
that individuality in society is a gift brought to us by Christianity

Especially when I'm referring to collectivism in Hellenic culture, and the fact that Christianity was an example of individualist thought during that period.

Whenever you feel ready.

Athon

[ImaginalDisc]

I'm done with you, Athon. Others can clearly read you avoiding the issue of having massaged the truth.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'm done with you, Athon. Others can clearly read you avoiding the issue of having massaged the truth .

Nope. I've read him and his point is clear, succinct and fairly obvious.

[athon]

I'm done with you, Athon. Others can clearly read you avoiding the issue of having massaged the truth .

Well it would be easy to demonstrate which words I've 'massaged' then. It must be clear in a sentence or a phrase where I've twisted some meaning, if that's the case. The example post you quoted is rather evident and obvious, so much so you can't refute what I said. Unless, of course, you have another example?

Yes, others can clearly read what I said. You should have stayed low rather than raising your head to embarrass yourself again.

It might be a good idea on your behalf to 'be done with me'.

Athon

[apmason]

What grade and state? I am studying to be a history/govt. teacher at the high school level and am interested in what historical perspectives school oards decide to focus on when they select text books.

[Tokenconservative]

Oh come now. You're a ConservativeTM who knows all the buzzwords which means you think with your head, not your heart. And, as they say, you "get it." Plus you've had a college education so surely you can figure out why I bolded the words that I did.

It wouldn't be that difficult for someone who actually went to college.

Or maybe you're just a troll.

I am no scientist, to be sure, but it's my understanding modern science in the Western world long ago gave up the idea that thinking originated in the heart and that the brains was some sort of cooling system.

As I say, I am no scientist, so I could be wrong.

No, apparently I need to think with my heart in order to get all that bolding. Your inability to explain why you did that suggests that you yourself do not know.

Which means you must also be thinking with your head, and must also be a conservativeTM.

Or a trollTM.

Tokie

[ImaginalDisc]

I am no scientist, to be sure, but it's my understanding modern science in the Western world long ago gave up the idea that thinking originated in the heart and that the brains was some sort of cooling system.

As I say, I am no scientist, so I could be wrong.

No, apparently I need to think with my heart in order to get all that bolding. Your inability to explain why you did that suggests that you yourself do not know.

Which means you must also be thinking with your head, and must also be a conservativeTM.

Or a trollTM.

Tokie

Please cite even one paper published in a peer-reviewed article published since 1993 in support of your claim that global warming is not happening.

[Tokenconservative]

Please find even one paper published in a peer-reviewed journal published since 1993 in support of your argument.

Nope. Not gonna do 'er!

I've done enough of that in other forums to last me a lifetime, and have grown weary of doing the heavy lifting for True Believers like you, only to have you shriek "tool of Big Oil!!! Tool of Big Oil!! Everybody! Look! Tool of Big Oil!!!!!!"

It bores me.

Tokie

[ImaginalDisc]

Nope. Not gonna do 'er!

I've done enough of that in other forums to last me a lifetime, and have grown weary of doing the heavy lifting for True Believers like you, only to have you shriek "tool of Big Oil!!! Tool of Big Oil!! Everybody! Look! Tool of Big Oil!!!!!!"

It bores me.

Tokie

Please either substantiate your claim that the entire community of climate scientists in conspiring to deceive everyone that climate change is happening, or shut your filthy pie hole.

[Tokenconservative]

Please either substantiate your claim that the entire community of climate scientists in conspiring to deceive everyone that climate change is happening, or shut your filthy pie hole.

I belive I shall continue to allow my filthy pie hole to collect flies, thank you very much (if you are already preparing my stake, please make it hickory...pine sap makes me itch).

Speaking of saps.... I don't believe I said every scientist who subscribes to the idea that climate changes is part of some worldwide conspiracy. If that's what you infered from anything I posted, I can only apologize profusely and with great sincerity.

And fart in your general direction.

If you'd like, I can educate you on how science in the modern world (as opposed to the Medieval world which you inhabit) works. But not now, I have to go.

And when you gotta go, you gotta go...
That often happens after a really good fart!

Tokie

[ImaginalDisc]

I belive I shall continue to allow my filthy pie hole to collect flies, thank you very much (if you are already preparing my stake, please make it hickory...pine sap makes me itch).

Speaking of saps.... I don't believe I said every scientist who subscribes to the idea that climate changes is part of some worldwide conspiracy. If that's what you infered from anything I posted, I can only apologize profusely and with great sincerity.

And fart in your general direction.

If you'd like, I can educate you on how science in the modern world (as opposed to the Medieval world which you inhabit) works. But not now, I have to go.

And when you gotta go, you gotta go...
That often happens after a really good fart!

Tokie


Please provide some minuscule shred of evidence to support your ideas if you want anyone to take them seriously.

[UnrepentantSinner]

No, apparently I need to think with my heart in order to get all that bolding. Your inability to explain why you did that suggests that you yourself do not know.

I'm unfamiliar with any college that has a principal or a National Honor Society, so I'm saying your anecdote had the distinct odor of B.S.

The fact that you still don't know why I bolded those words tells me you never went to college.

[Tokenconservative]

I'm unfamiliar with any college that has a principal or a National Honor Society, so I'm saying your anecdote had the distinct odor of B.S.

The fact that you still don't know why I bolded those words tells me you never went to college.

LOL.

Well, I didn't go to a very good college, to be sure...

I did go to college, it's been some time; never said colleges had principals...if I did, it was a misstatement, and misstating the name of the college-level Honors organization, the same.

It's been a while, you see, and I have not, unlike some, apparently, spent the remainder of my days since, wallowing in some nostalgic mudpuddle about those halcyon days, and so I misremember.

I think that proves I am getting old, and forgetting things...but you go ahead and believe as you will

[Tokenconservative]

Please provide some minuscule shred of evidence to support your ideas if you want anyone to take them seriously.


Which ones?

The one about often having to take a dump after a really good directed fart?

Tokie

[ImaginalDisc]

Which ones?

The one about often having to take a dump after a really good directed fart?

Tokie

Don't be obtuse.

Please find even one paper published in a peer-reviewed journal published since 1993 in support of your argument, that global warming is not happening, and that it is not anthropogenic.

Hint: If you don't know what "anthropogenic" means, you're in over your head.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I did go to college, it's been some time; never said colleges had principals...if I did, it was a misstatement, and misstating the name of the college-level Honors organization, the same.

It's been a while, you see, and I have not, unlike some, apparently, spent the remainder of my days since, wallowing in some nostalgic mudpuddle about those halcyon days, and so I misremember.
{truncating mine}

That's interesting since you remember so many minor details but you misremembered that a secondary school would have a principal but not a college, something that is more common knowledge rather than something one would need to recollect. Sorry if I remain skeptical.

First, love your avi...did a paper on that movie in college that nearly got me expelled...because the Nat'l Honors Society wanted me to present it and the far, far-left-liberal lesbian-feminist principal read it and could've sent smoke signals from her ears afterward.

I was the only student from my small city college invited that year to present...the school did every thing it could to prevent me from doing so.

[Skeptic Ginger]

What grade and state? I am studying to be a history/govt. teacher at the high school level and am interested in what historical perspectives school oards decide to focus on when they select text books.They focus on idealistic patriotism and not offending anyone as far as I can tell.

[Tokenconservative]

Don't be obtuse.

Please find even one paper published in a peer-reviewed journal published since 1993 in support of your argument, that global warming is not happening, and that it is not anthropogenic.

Hint: If you don't know what "anthropogenic" means, you're in over your head.

Wow...let's not even talk 'bout thet thar "antropwhatsits...." What th hail does "obtuse" mean!?!?

Look, I was going to let this go on for a while to see whether I could determine more precisely the depth and breadth of our ignorance and/or stupidity, but I am already bored with you because you simply repeat the same, shrill, illogical shriek over and over and over and um...did I already say over and over?

It is not up to me to prove that something is NOT happening (how poorly educated ARE you?) it's up to you to prove it IS happening.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

{truncating mine}

That's interesting since you remember so many minor details but you misremembered that a secondary school would have a principal but not a college, something that is more common knowledge rather than something one would need to recollect. Sorry if I remain skeptical.

LOL! Well look at that..I DID say "principal." Clearly I meant PRESIDENT. I guess it's like with GW Bush's pronunciation of "nuclear." One little misspelloration and whammy! Proves ya never done did go t' college!

Yep. I like the way you think! It's clear to me that I've run into an intellect far greater than my own, one easily as sharp as any bowling bowl in the alley!

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

They focus on idealistic patriotism and not offending anyone as far as I can tell.

Indeed. You can find any numbers of history text that blame the US for the war in the Pacific with Japan, or at least assign equal blame through some...interesting logic and presentation of "facts."

Moreover, you cannot find a middle or high school "earth science" text that does not toe the radical, religious-environmentalist line on "global warming."

And this is not new and extends to college. I took one of those 101 level sci. classes in college where we were taught that modern, mechanized farming methods were "bad for the planet" and that a better approach was that of (their example in the textbook) terrace farming of the sort hill tribes in rural Vietnam engage in.

I asked, in a paper, how one grows wheat in the amounts needed by a nation like the US in that way and whether doing so did not require much more labor, thereby leaving little time for anyone to do other things such as...writing textbooks.

The prof. was....not pleased, but unable to give me anything but an "A" on the paper.

And what about "rainforest math" LOL!

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Short Poll.

If you were going to lie about where you went to college would you claim you went to:

1. Yale or Harvard

2. Cal Poytech or MIT

3. The Sorbonne

4. Some nameless, faceless little city college in middle America?

Tokie

[LostAngeles]

Short Poll.

If you were going to lie about where you went to college would you claim you went to:

1. Yale or Harvard

2. Cal Poytech or MIT

3. The Sorbonne

4. Some nameless, faceless little city college in middle America?

Tokie

The one that would let me ask a question such as this so as to throw people off the trail.

Oh and re: global warming?

Welcome to the JREF forums. You made a claim about global warming, namely that it's disputed. As you made the claim, you are expected to be the one to produce evidence as to your claim.

[Tokenconservative]

The one that would let me ask a question such as this so as to throw people off the trail.

Oh and re: global warming?

Welcome to the JREF forums. You made a claim about global warming, namely that it's disputed. As you made the claim, you are expected to be the one to produce evidence as to your claim.


LOL.

What a brilliantly evasive answer.

No, actually, you are the one running around, waving your arms over your head shrieking that the sky is falling. It therefore falls to you to prove that assertion, not to me to disprove. I can only prove that your assertion is wrong after you provide your flawed, illogical, biased and hysterical evidence.

That's how logical discourse works.

I realize that you in habit a world where things such as evidence are not necessary when one is "beliving the right thing," but others have not yet boarded the yellow submarine to that place and require something a bit more substantial than you, closing your eyes rilly, rilly tightly and wishing it so.

Tokie

[LostAngeles]

LOL.

What a brilliantly evasive answer.

No, actually, you are the one running around, waving your arms over your head shrieking that the sky is falling. It therefore falls to you to prove that assertion, not to me to disprove. I can only prove that your assertion is wrong after you provide your flawed, illogical, biased and hysterical evidence.

That's how logical discourse works.

I realize that you in habit a world where things such as evidence are not necessary when one is "beliving the right thing," but others have not yet boarded the yellow submarine to that place and require something a bit more substantial than you, closing your eyes rilly, rilly tightly and wishing it so.

Tokie

I made no comment on global warming one way or another. It may be helpful if you keep track of who you're talking to.

Nevertheless, you were the first one to bring up global warming. You stated your opinion and then refused to back it up when called on it.

Your evasion is noted.

[ImaginalDisc]

Wow...let's not even talk 'bout thet thar "antropwhatsits...." What th hail does "obtuse" mean!?!?

Look, I was going to let this go on for a while to see whether I could determine more precisely the depth and breadth of our ignorance and/or stupidity, but I am already bored with you because you simply repeat the same, shrill, illogical shriek over and over and over and um...did I already say over and over?

It is not up to me to prove that something is NOT happening (how poorly educated ARE you?) it's up to you to prove it IS happening.

Tokie

Since 1993, not a single paper by climate scientists published in a peer reviewed journal has disputed the conclusion that global warming is occuring, and that it has at least some anthropogenic component.

On a personal attack note, if you can't be bothered to open a dictionary when you come across an unfamiliar word, I'm not at all surprised that you can't be bothered to find the slimmest sliver of evidence to support your assertions. Your laziness is astounding. I'm very grateful that climate scientists the world over are all more active in the pursuit of truth than you are.

[Tokenconservative]

I made no comment on global warming one way or another. It may be helpful if you keep track of who you're talking to.

Nevertheless, you were the first one to bring up global warming. You stated your opinion and then refused to back it up when called on it.

Your evasion is noted.

If only we were in Parliament, your parliamentary proceedures, would be most valued.

It does not matter who you are, or what you did or did not say. The fact of the matter is, those who shriek "show me the proof that GW is NOT happening!!" are invariably those who are deeply religious, zealous believers in that faith.

And, ultimtely, illogical. So...once again: I do not need to prove that something is NOT happening, YOU (as a True Believer in the One True Faith) must prove that it is.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Since 1993, not a single paper by climate scientists published in a peer reviewed journal has disputed the conclusion that global warming is occuring, and that it has at least some anthropogenic component.

On a personal attack note, if you can't be bothered to open a dictionary when you come across an unfamiliar word, I'm not at all surprised that you can't be bothered to find the slimmest sliver of evidence to support your assertions. Your laziness is astounding. I'm very grateful that climate scientists the world over are all more active in the pursuit of truth than you are.


Y'all keep usin' them thar big words 'n I cin't unnerstan a gol-durn thang y'all's sayin'!

First, of course your claim is ridiculous (please catalog all papers published since 01/01/93 in the climatological and geologic sciences so that we might peruse them to be sure you are not just pulling this out of um...the air), and no doubt based upon some very irrational sets of parameters set by um...you.

Many scientists of all stripes have "disputed" whether GW is happening at all; many have also published papers disscussing work which has either said man is 100% to blame, partly to blame or not to blame at all for (this naturally-occuring cycle which we've seen before in both historic times and certainly is present in the geologic and other natural records) what appears to be a very slight increase in global temperature means over the last 12 years or so.

Many others, quaking in their boots for their jobs and their funding, have been for at least a decade been walkin on eggshells around the subject, given that it is and has been for some time, carved in stone as Holy Scientific Gospel according to the "consensus" (I believe that's also how new Pope's are identified...).

Tokie

[ImaginalDisc]

If only we were in Parliament, your parliamentary proceedures, would be most valued.

It does not matter who you are, or what you did or did not say. The fact of the matter is, those who shriek "show me the proof that GW is NOT happening!!" are invariably those who are deeply religious, zealous believers in that faith.

And, ultimtely, illogical. So...once again: I do not need to prove that something is NOT happening, YOU (as a True Believer in the One True Faith) must prove that it is.

Tokie

Arctic sea ice is at its lowest thickness since records have been kept. (http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20070810_index.html)

Mean global temperatures are at al all time high. (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/)

Glaciers are melting and falling into the sea at an unprecedented rate. (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/category/climate-changes/polar/antarctic/)

Sea levels have risen roughly 10 cm in the past 100 years. (http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/19.htm)

The concentration of CO2 in the atomosphere has risen above 380 parts per million for the first time in nearly 400,000 years, (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87) a period of time covering four ice ages, during which global temperatures have been strongly correlated to CO2 concentrations. (http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/)

Corals reefs that have endured thousands of years are suddenly dying off at an unprecedented rate, due to the increased temperature of the oceans which kills off the endosymbiotes of the polyps (do you even know what that means?) (http://www.marinebiology.org/coralbleaching.htm)

The IPCC (http://www.ipcc.ch/)is resoundingly clear in the message that climate change is occuring, and it is largely anthropogenic.

Where is your evidence?

[ImaginalDisc]

Many scientists of all stripes have "disputed" whether GW is happening at all; many have also published papers disscussing work which has either said man is 100% to blame, partly to blame or not to blame at all for (this naturally-occuring cycle which we've seen before in both historic times and certainly is present in the geologic and other natural records) what appears to be a very slight increase in global temperature means over the last 12 years or so.


Janus, you decieve yourself. You cannot seriously argue that there are numerous climate scientists who agree with you, while arguing that it is unreasonable to ask you to cite one.

[LostAngeles]

If only we were in Parliament, your parliamentary proceedures, would be most valued.

It does not matter who you are, or what you did or did not say. The fact of the matter is, those who shriek "show me the proof that GW is NOT happening!!" are invariably those who are deeply religious, zealous believers in that faith.

And, ultimtely, illogical. So...once again: I do not need to prove that something is NOT happening, YOU (as a True Believer in the One True Faith) must prove that it is.

Tokie

Once again, I have said nothing on the truth or falsehood of GW. As a skeptic, I noted you made a claim and when asked for evidence, evaded. The least you could do is to provide a paper that disagrees with the majority on global warming. That would be a source and I, and other folks here, would be happy to evaluate it. Those in the global warming camp would then provide their own evidence (as ID just has) for you to also evaluate.

[Tokenconservative]

Arctic sea ice is at its lowest thickness since records have been kept. (http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20070810_index.html)

Mean global temperatures are at al all time high. (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/)

Glaciers are melting and falling into the sea at an unprecedented rate. (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/category/climate-changes/polar/antarctic/)

Sea levels have risen roughly 10 cm in the past 100 years. (http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/19.htm)

The concentration of CO2 in the atomosphere has risen above 380 parts per million for the first time in nearly 400,000 years, (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87) a period of time covering four ice ages, during which global temperatures have been strongly correlated to CO2 concentrations. (http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/)

Corals reefs that have endured thousands of years are suddenly dying off at an unprecedented rate, due to the increased temperature of the oceans which kills off the endosymbiotes of the polyps (do you even know what that means?) (http://www.marinebiology.org/coralbleaching.htm)

The IPCC (http://www.ipcc.ch/)is resoundingly clear in the message that climate change is occuring, and it is largely anthropogenic.

Where is your evidence?

I'm not sure where you learned rational debate, but where I went to school, it was taught that it was not necessary to prove a negative...to prove that something is NOT happening. Now, what you've cited here are a handful of studies showing that it's getting warmer (strawman in your argument: nobody is saying it isn't...or that global shifts in temperature don't happen; only a zealous absolutist believes in climatological stasis). And a few political articles stating that man is the cause.

Let's see whether you can throw out the politics and find a renowned climatologist who is not paid (funded) by environmentalists, a socialist university or an anti-Western/US government who says that without any doubt whatsoever human (mostly American) activity is the single cause of the current, apparent, rise in mean average temperature globally.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Once again, I have said nothing on the truth or falsehood of GW. As a skeptic, I noted you made a claim and when asked for evidence, evaded. The least you could do is to provide a paper that disagrees with the majority on global warming. That would be a source and I, and other folks here, would be happy to evaluate it. Those in the global warming camp would then provide their own evidence (as ID just has) for you to also evaluate.

Hmmm...I always have a hard time believe the shouted claims of "I'm a skeptic!! I'm a skeptic!!" when the same person doing that shouting is running around shrieking something as patently illogical as "oh, yeah!? Well prove it ain't happenin'!!!"

I guess you don't know much about logical discourse, or you'd recognize immediately the illogic of that demand.

Tokie

[ImaginalDisc]

Let's see whether you can throw out the politics and find a renowned climatologist who is not paid (funded) by environmentalists, a socialist university or an anti-Western/US government who says that without any doubt whatsoever human (mostly American) activity is the single cause of the current, apparent, rise in mean average temperature globally.

Tokie

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/images/4.gif

[LostAngeles]

Hmmm...I always have a hard time believe the shouted claims of "I'm a skeptic!! I'm a skeptic!!" when the same person doing that shouting is running around shrieking something as patently illogical as "oh, yeah!? Well prove it ain't happenin'!!!"

I guess you don't know much about logical discourse, or you'd recognize immediately the illogic of that demand.

Tokie

To ask you for the evidence as to why you formed that opinion?

Any opinion/stance should be formed on the basis of evidence. You must have a good reason to have taken this stance and ID (and now I as well) would like to know what that reason is.

I guess you don't know much about logical discourse either.

[Tokenconservative]

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/images/4.gif

hmmm....not sure what that is. I am certain that in some circle or another it is a very well-known symbol, and that among the members of that circle I've just been handed my head or something, but I find obscure comments like this tend to somewhat fall short of the mark when the intended target has no clue at all what it could possibly be.

Looks like a little stick-figure carrying a refrigerator.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

To ask you for the evidence as to why you formed that opinion?

Any opinion/stance should be formed on the basis of evidence. You must have a good reason to have taken this stance and ID (and now I as well) would like to know what that reason is.

I guess you don't know much about logical discourse either.

What's "ID"?

I have formed this opinon from a decade or more of reading various things on the subject from various sources, looking at the data presented, analyzing it in my own admittedly unscientific mind, and figuring out that like the Alar scare, and the End of All Frogs as We Know Them scare and the Population Bomb, and how we were gonna be out of oil by 1990 (circa 1974) etc., etc., etc., it's a great way for a few people to make lots of money (can you say 'Algore'?) by scaring the bejaysus out of the rest of us, but that in the end it comes down to power and wealth and that's all Global Warming (the religion and political movement, not climate) is all about.

Many opinions are also formed on the basis of belief. That's what religion is all about, and from these we often develop morals and ethics (of course atheists will argue that such things just emerge somehow).

And no, actually, what you asked (at least I think it was you) was that I prove that global warming is not happening. First of all, all reasonably untainted evidence from reasonably believable sources suggest that there is a fairly minor uptick in mean global temps going on right now (past 12 years or so--added to the past 30,000 or so from the end of the last glacial period).

And therefore what? Climate is no more static than is weather. Here is how a Global Warmingist thinks: human industrial activity exists at the same time as this uptick in mean global temps, therefore....humans are causing it!

Here is the same argument: humans exist at the same time as the AIDS virus, therefore....humans must've INVENTED AIDS!!! For some reason, if I say that, you start fitting me for a tinfoil hat. But the fist hypothosis sounds perfectly reasonable to you.

Thet thar is whatcha call a classic case of illogical thinking. Correlation does not always suggest causation. This is the trap the GW'ers fell into when they leapt to the conclusion that because a bad hurricane hit New Orleans that it was caused by GW and that every hurricane season following (until GW Bush signed Kyoto, anyway) would only get worse! The very next hurricane seaso came and went with virtually no storms hitting the US mainland. This year is looking to be much the same. And for some reason, the 1919 hurricane season, when some 20 'canes hit the US mainland, well before the "spike" period (after WWII, but especially beg. in the '70s) of industrial output of 'greenhouse" gasses was cooking the atmosphere, is never mentioned.

I wonder why?

I guess comparing the 2005 hurricane season to the 1919 season wouldn't be "scientific" enough for those pushing an agenda, huh?

Tokie

[ImaginalDisc]

hmmm....not sure what that is. I am certain that in some circle or another it is a very well-known symbol, and that among the members of that circle I've just been handed my head or something, but I find obscure comments like this tend to somewhat fall short of the mark when the intended target has no clue at all what it could possibly be.

Looks like a little stick-figure carrying a refrigerator.

Tokie

It's a moving goal post. You're moving the goal posts. You called global warming a religion, and I showed you how it is based on evidence. I've asked you for your evidence, and you responded by asking me for evidence from some fictional totally independent, bubble-dwelling scientist who is capable of studying global climate change without a budget.

[ImaginalDisc]

What's "ID"?

Me, nimrod.

I have formed this opinon from a decade or more of reading various things on the subject from various sources, looking at the data presented, analyzing it in my own admittedly unscientific mind, and figuring out that like the Alar scare, and the End of All Frogs as We Know Them scare and the Population Bomb, and how we were gonna be out of oil by 1990 (circa 1974) etc., etc., etc., it's a great way for a few people to make lots of money (can you say 'Algore'?) by scaring the bejaysus out of the rest of us, but that in the end it comes down to power and wealth and that's all Global Warming (the religion and political movement, not climate) is all about.

If you have examined the evidence, could you please cite even one paper by a climate scientist published since 1993 in a peer-reviewed journal supporting your conclusions?

And no, actually, what you asked (at least I think it was you) was that I prove that global warming is not happening. First of all, all reasonably untainted evidence from reasonably believable sources suggest that there is a fairly minor uptick in mean global temps going on right now (past 12 years or so--added to the past 30,000 or so from the end of the last glacial period).

False. There is a dramatic and unprecedented rate of rise in CO2 levels and which has not been seen in the last 400,000 years.

And therefore what? Climate is no more static than is weather. Here is how a Global Warmingist thinks: human industrial activity exists at the same time as this uptick in mean global temps, therefore....humans are causing it!

You cannot seriously argue that global climate changes wildly, therefore we should ignore this climate change, while simultaenously arguing that it isn't changing now.

Here is the same argument: humans exist at the same time as the AIDS virus, therefore....humans must've INVENTED AIDS!!! For some reason, if I say that, you start fitting me for a tinfoil hat. But the fist hypothosis sounds perfectly reasonable to you.

False comaprison. CO2 and other GHG's have been emmited for a good long time, and direct observation, along with ice core data show a tight correlation between CO2 levels and global mean temperature. In controlled conditions, GHG's have been shown to have heat retaining qualities, including CH4 (you do know what CH4 is, don't you?)

Thet thar is whatcha call a classic case of illogical thinking. Correlation does not always suggest causation. This is the trap the GW'ers fell into when they leapt to the conclusion that because a bad hurricane hit New Orleans that it was caused by GW and that every hurricane season following (until GW Bush signed Kyoto, anyway) would only get worse!

A. Arguing about what effects global warming will have is entirely different from arguing about whether or not it is happening.

B. As global mean temperatures increase, tropical waters will warm up, and 82 degree F water is one amoung many curcial components in hurricane formation. What precise effect this inevitable increase will have is a matter of debate. That it is going to increase is not disputed in the scientific community.

The very next hurricane seaso came and went with virtually no storms hitting the US mainland. This year is looking to be much the same. And for some reason, the 1919 hurricane season, when some 20 'canes hit the US mainland, well before the "spike" period (after WWII, but especially beg. in the '70s) of industrial output of 'greenhouse" gasses was cooking the atmosphere, is never mentioned.

I wonder why?

BECAUSE WEATHER IS NOT CLIMATE!

There is uncertainty about what precise effects increased global mean temperature will have. Matters such as whether this region or that will have diminished percipitation is where the scientific debate is right now. The question of wehter or not global mean temperatures will rise has already been answered by a resounding consensus.

[Tokenconservative]

It's a moving goal post. You're moving the goal posts. You called global warming a religion, and I showed you how it is based on evidence. I've asked you for your evidence, and you responded by asking me for evidence from some fictional totally independent, bubble-dwelling scientist who is capable of studying global climate change without a budget.

Indeed.

I move the goal posts and you demand that I prove a negative.

Like a couple of dogs chasing their own tails.

Tokie

[ImaginalDisc]

Indeed.

I move the goal posts and you demand that I prove a negative.

Like a couple of dogs chasing their own tails.

Tokie

I'll use small words so you can understand.

The facts are such that the entire community of climate scientists (people who study things) is in total agreement that global warming is happening. You contend that it isn't, and said that "plently" of scientists agree with you. Name one. Cite their work.

[Tokenconservative]

Me, nimrod.

If you have examined the evidence, could you please cite even one paper by a climate scientist published since 1993 in a peer-reviewed journal supporting your conclusions?

False. There is a dramatic and unprecedented rate of rise in CO2 levels and which has not been seen in the last 400,000 years.

You cannot seriously argue that global climate changes wildly, therefore we should ignore this climate change, while simultaenously arguing that it isn't changing now.

False comaprison. CO2 and other GHG's have been emmited for a good long time, and direct observation, along with ice core data show a tight correlation between CO2 levels and global mean temperature. In controlled conditions, GHG's have been shown to have heat retaining qualities, including CH4 (you do know what CH4 is, don't you?)

A. Arguing about what effects global warming will have is entirely different from arguing about whether or not it is happening.

B. As global mean temperatures increase, tropical waters will warm up, and 82 degree F water is one amoung many curcial components in hurricane formation. What precise effect this inevitable increase will have is a matter of debate. That it is going to increase is not disputed in the scientific community.

BECAUSE WEATHER IS NOT CLIMATE!

There is uncertainty about what precise effects increase
d global mean temperature will have. Matters such as whether this region or that will have diminished percipitation is where the scientific debate is right now. The question of wehter or not global mean temperatures will rise has already been answered by a resounding consensus.

Hmmm...I had a complaint lodged against me for suggesting someone was a bit in his cups...you shriek "NIMROD!!!!" at me...I wonder if you'll also get a wrist slapping.

Prolly not.

Anyway:

1. No. I can't. A: I don't have to prove a negative. Second, it is not MY religion, and so I do not keep handy a catalog of such things. And IV, I don't do the heavy lifting for others, especially since (having many times in the past played this game you've so cleverly trapped me into!)I know that I could give you studies from MIT and God Himself and you would shriek that both are "tools of big oil!!! TOOLS OF BIG OIL!!!!"
So I no longer bother. If YOU want to find exculpatory studies...go LOOK for them. But that's rather like asking an Evangelical Christian to go look up Darwin, innit?

2. And previous to 400,000 years ago?

3. Hmmm...as I've said, it APPEARS that, globally, this planet (like Mars, Saturn, Uranus and Pluto) is experiencing a rise in mean avg. temps. I'm not sure why this strawman is so important to you, but let's get beyond it, shall we?

4. Do you know what H20 is? Yeah...look at that, first...and oh, that big yellow thing in the sky (unless you live in Muncie, then you'll just have to take my word for it).

5.
A. And therefore, what?
B. And so...the hurricane season of 1919 which spawned some 20 hurricanes that made landfall in continental N. America means that human-caused global warming was already taking place then? Or do we ignore those hurricanes because not many people were impacted by them then and besides, we din't give them cute names?

6. Indeed. It isn't you should spread that word to some of the faithful of your religion who seem not to understand that. At my age, howmsoever, I do appreciate the...increased font size you were kind enough to provide. Helps out the ol' orbs, lemme tell ya!

7. Of course....scientific debate over weather is an ongoing thing, as it should be, especially given how little we understand of it AND climate. What the REAL debate is about however, is this: how will the US economy best be destroyed, using ginned up hysteria over "global warming"? That climate changes is what's not in dispute. What the fearmongering "argument" from you side (true believers in the One True Faith) is is not even whether human activity is the cause of climate change--that we know is a given, according to the "consensus" (you seem to have your finger on the pulse of "science" so maybe you can tell me: when did we move from the scientific method to "consensus-science" based mostly in politics? Did I miss the announcement?)--and so the only thing remaining to "argue" about now (at least if you are a climatologist or some such who wants to eat next year) is how to stop what may well be simply a natural climatalogical cycle...which sounds like a good idear, but may not be if my recollection of human meddling in such things in the past does not fail me.

Tokie

[ZirconBlue]

A: I don't have to prove a negative.

My claim: Tokenconservative does not make worthwhile posts. Should I have to provide evidence of that claim?

[Tokenconservative]

My claim: Tokenconservative does not make worthwhile posts. Should I have to provide evidence of that claim?

Of course not. On the left (modern) and especially among believers in The One True God, proof of anything is not necessary.

Like the Soviets and the Nazis before you, you know that the lie told often and loudly enough becomes the truth.

So, you merely drown out more rational, reasonable voices by shrieking "Tool of Big Oil!!!" or "conspiracy nut!!" or any of a host of other rote, approved claims about anyone who, no matter how mildly, questions the "consensus" that "all" scientists have arrived at (thanks to a political body at the UN) that GW is happening, that human activity is the primary cause, and that the US is the primary culprit.

Why let reason, rationality and logic get in the way of your faith?

Christians don't. Muslims don't. Scientologists don't.

Why should your religion be any different?

Tokie

[ZirconBlue]

Of course not. On the left (modern) and especially among believers in The One True God, proof of anything is not necessary.

Why let reason, rationality and logic get in the way of your faith?

Christians don't. Muslims don't. Scientologists don't.

Why should your religion be any different?

Tokie

I am far from being "on the left", so the bulk of your post is meaningless. My point was that I phrased my claim as a negative. According to your previous statements it would appear that, as I can't prove a negative, I shouldn't have to provide any evidence of my claim. I don't believe that, mind you, but it does seem to be the position you're advocating.

[Kopji]

See this thread is what I mean about not being real skeptics. You jump out of one box squarely into another and put your fingers in your ears singing la la la

The fact is, when Jesus's teachings were spread they changed a lot of how people thought of the individual.

Try reading up on the difference between the sacred and the profane.

http://www.bytrent.demon.co.uk/durkheim1.html

Just because something good happened associated with Christianity doesn't mean its propaganda.

Ignoring the strawman (that Christianity never did any good is clearly not my point), I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever that Jesus taught something unique 2000 years ago that uniquely guided the progress of history through the millenia and then suddenly came to light as a new idea in the creation of the US.

Yes I am familiar Otto and the notion of the 'numinous'. Please do not make the arrogant mistake of thinking that if I disagree with you, I must be less informed.

If God is real there is nothing I could argue that could refute that truth. But if we create God, I fail to see how that is any different than what atheism teaches except for having the potential for deception and more control over others.

In an odd way, I think that my experience in religion and the complete lack of this 'individualism' it is supposed to promote, is itself a refutation of the broad claims of the textbook. I invite interested readers to search on the term "burned over district". the phrase will introduce you to some interesting history links to uniquely American forms of religion and spiritualism.

The passage I quoted from the Bible is an example of elements of early Christianity that encouraged a kind of communal state where everyone shared their possessions - this continues to this day. To claim that modern ideas of individualism are also due to the teachings of Jesus seems like a rather selective viewpoint that ignores the Biblical record itself as well as contrary expressions.

[Damien Evans]

Mean global temperatures are at al all time high. (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/)


Nitpick: Global Temperatures are at a high for the period of record keeping, not an all time high. The Earth used to be much warmer than it has been for the last few million years

[Tokenconservative]

I am far from being "on the left", so the bulk of your post is meaningless. My point was that I phrased my claim as a negative. According to your previous statements it would appear that, as I can't prove a negative, I shouldn't have to provide any evidence of my claim. I don't believe that, mind you, but it does seem to be the position you're advocating.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....

Anyway, in rational discourse, it's long been recognized that one does not have to prove a negative.

To wit: When someone on your side of things shrieks "oh, yeah!? Well PROOOOOOVVVEEEEE Global Warming is not caused by humans!!!" it is not necessary for the more rational thinker to do so...the rational thinker knows that one cannot prove a negative.

Put in terms you may more easily assimilate: "Oh yeah!? Well PROOOOOOOVVVEEEEEE there's no God!!!!"

See? Same thing.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Nitpick: Global Temperatures are at a high for the period of record keeping, not an all time high. The Earth used to be much warmer than it has been for the last few million years

Indeed. Something religious (is there any other kind these days?) Global Warmingists ignore with a passion approaching the sort of zealotry we have not seen since the Salem witch trials.

They "forget" that in fact, prior to about 60 million years ago, the earth was pretty much permanently locked for a couple or three hundred million years, into a state of "global warming" that makes even the most hysterical claims of Algore laughable.

Then, avg. global temps were something on the order of 60 degrees F than today. Plants and animals populated all of the Antarctic continent and there WAS not ice at the north pole, a sea filled with reptiles (reptiles, for those who don't know, have a natural aversion to ice for some reason).

Likewise, they utterly ignore periods of warming over the past million years or so (we are currently in what geologists call an "inter-glacial period") when the ice sheets that more normally have covered large parts of the planet, retreat because um...it's gotten warmer. They also religiously avoid looking at historical periods of warming...some as recent as the 1970s, and especially the one in the 30s when temps rose 6-10 degrees F.

I wonder why they do this? It reminds me as nothing so much as Intel. Designers, or Creationists and their creative--but minless and meaningless--excuses for what fossilized organizms are and where they came from, etc.

This, for those who do not recognize it, is borne of RELIGIOUS belief....

Tokie

[ZirconBlue]

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....

Anyway, in rational discourse, it's long been recognized that one does not have to prove a negative.

To wit: When someone on your side of things shrieks "oh, yeah!? Well PROOOOOOVVVEEEEE Global Warming is not caused by humans!!!" it is not necessary for the more rational thinker to do so...the rational thinker knows that one cannot prove a negative.

Put in terms you may more easily assimilate: "Oh yeah!? Well PROOOOOOOVVVEEEEEE there's no God!!!!"

See? Same thing.

Tokie

Um, what exactly is "my side". Let me guess: anyone who disagrees with you (or asks you for evidence) is "on the left". Am I close?

Anyway, no one is asking you to prove that global warming is not caused by humans. They're asking you to back up the claim that there are (climate) scientists that agree with you.

[LostAngeles]

Um, what exactly is "my side". Let me guess: anyone who disagrees with you (or asks you for evidence) is "on the left". Am I close?

Anyway, no one is asking you to prove that global warming is not caused by humans. They're asking you to back up the claim that there are (climate) scientists that agree with you.

Have fun with this. The only reason I'm not bothering is because classes started.

[Kopji]

Some days I miss acid rain.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Let's see whether you can throw out the politics and find a renowned climatologist who is not paid (funded) by environmentalists, a socialist university or an anti-Western/US government who says that without any doubt whatsoever human (mostly American) activity is the single cause of the current, apparent, rise in mean average temperature globally.

Tokie

To see whether this is a reasonable request, how about you cite one study, funded by anyone you like, published in any peer reviewed journal that you consider of good standing that says "without any doubt whatsoever" that ANY outcome is due to ANY cause?

Seems like someone here has a quasi-religious attachment to their viewpoint.

[Tokenconservative]

Um, what exactly is "my side". Let me guess: anyone who disagrees with you (or asks you for evidence) is "on the left". Am I close?

Anyway, no one is asking you to prove that global warming is not caused by humans. They're asking you to back up the claim that there are (climate) scientists that agree with you.


Actually, here is how it boils down: if you believe that any climate change impacting the planet MUST be caused by humans, you are a lefty. It's really that simple. Now, you MAY be a conservative (or a waffling "moderate" or of some other meaningless description) who is simply too ignorant to do more than parrot the accepted line of this that you see (in America) everywhere from the "news" media, to music, to commercial advertising!

No...that's not what was asked of me. What was asked was "prove that global warming is not happening."

I can't do that. Nor can I prove that God does not exist (I happen not to be so arrogant as to believe that a Creator does not exist, but it's the same thing).

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Some days I miss acid rain.

Most days, I miss it.

Actually, acid rain is a good example of something REAL that humans did cause (now it can be caused by NATURAL sources, too: volcanoes, especially and far more efficiently and effectively than humans). And a good example of something humans mitigated, or in fact eliminated in the West. It's still a huge problem in places like China, India, Pakistan, but of course left-liberal "environmentalists" have nothing to say about it in these places for political reasons.

But acid rain is a localized event (at least for the past billion years or so). And libs...er, environmentalists are wont to claim that any local WEATHER event is actually a harbinger of the larger GLOBAL climate situation (of course, they are inextricably intertwined) BUT that any "strange" local weather MUST BE proof--PROOOOOOFFFFFFFFFFFF!!!!!--of human-caused global warming.

Yet....they never want to talk about how humans caused mean global temps to be some 60 degrees F higher some 60 million years ago, nor how humans caused the end of the last "ice age" or what human activity causes glaciation in the first place.

I've posited this: it's the Hanna-Barbera Effect. You see, the people of Bedrock had those enormous feet. They used them to power and (key) STOP their stone cars. This caused enormous amounts of sloughed foot-sole skin to be cast into the atmosphere, which caused the ice age to begin, killing of the dinosaurs and burying Bedrock under 3 miles of ice.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

To see whether this is a reasonable request, how about you cite one study, funded by anyone you like, published in any peer reviewed journal that you consider of good standing that says "without any doubt whatsoever" that ANY outcome is due to ANY cause?

Seems like someone here has a quasi-religious attachment to their viewpoint.


Seems like you, no matter how accidentally, have hit exactly upon the point. For some reason, other than when discussing certain physical laws (and hell, not always then) scientists use a lot of "maybes" and "the evidence suggests."

Except when talking about one issue: global warming.

Then, the language they use seems lifted directly from Holy Writ. There is no doubt. It is a given. It is...carved in stone.

Tokie

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Actually, here is how it boils down: if you believe that any climate change impacting the planet MUST be caused by humans, you are a lefty. It's really that simple. Now, you MAY be a conservative (or a waffling "moderate" or of some other meaningless description) who is simply too ignorant to do more than parrot the accepted line of this that you see (in America) everywhere from the "news" media, to music, to commercial advertising!

How about if you believe that there is no requirement for climate change to be caused by humans, but that evidence suggests that this is currently the case? What label are you going to stick on that?

No...that's not what was asked of me. What was asked was "prove that global warming is not happening."

Nope, plainly not true.

"Please find even one paper published in a peer-reviewed journal published since 1993 in support of your argument, that global warming is not happening, and that it is not anthropogenic."

Like to try again?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Seems like you, no matter how accidentally, have hit exactly upon the point. For some reason, other than when discussing certain physical laws (and hell, not always then) scientists use a lot of "maybes" and "the evidence suggests."

Except when talking about one issue: global warming.

Then, the language they use seems lifted directly from Holy Writ. There is no doubt. It is a given. It is...carved in stone.

Tokie

You were the one who demanded that a climatologist must use that language "without any doubt whatsoever" before you would consider the paper (subject to some other exceptions to allow you to dismiss anyone who has ever taken funding from anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun).

Now you say that this IS the sort of language they use - so you must have examples? Not from newspapers or other media outlets, but from scientists, in peer reviewed publications.

[Tokenconservative]

You were the one who demanded that a climatologist must use that language "without any doubt whatsoever" before you would consider the paper (subject to some other exceptions to allow you to dismiss anyone who has ever taken funding from anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun).

Now you say that this IS the sort of language they use - so you must have examples? Not from newspapers or other media outlets, but from scientists, in peer reviewed publications.

Sure.

Go to UN.com

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

How about if you believe that there is no requirement for climate change to be caused by humans, but that evidence suggests that this is currently the case? What label are you going to stick on that?

Nope, plainly not true.

"Please find even one paper published in a peer-reviewed journal published since 1993 in support of your argument, that global warming is not happening, and that it is not anthropogenic."

Like to try again?

Ah, the old "don't label!!!" cannard.

Anyway...I'm going to stick the label "I'm from Missouri...show me!" label on it.

Once again: the demand is that I prove that something is not happening.

I cannot do that.

That's simply not possible in logical discourse.

Tokie

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Once again: the demand is that I prove that something is not happening.

That is not true. The demand is:

"Please find even one paper published in a peer-reviewed journal published since 1993 in support of your argument, that global warming is not happening, and that it is not anthropogenic."

in response to your claim

"Lots n' lots of climate scientist have disputed it, and more importantly disputed (and continue to)the doctrinaire dogma that says humans are causing it, amen.

Just because you are unable/unwilling to seek and digest exculpatory evidence does not mean it's not out there."

Claim: lots of climate scientists dispute global warming and specifically that humans cause it.

Evidence requested: peer reviewed journal articles of them doing so.

Hope this is clear enough for you and you will not try and pretend you are being asked to disprove climate change. It is almost as if you are trying to back away from your own claim when asked to provide evidence for it.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Sure.

Go to UN.com

Tokie

Which article specifically are you referring to?

[Oroborus]

a time period dominated by feudalism, pointless warfare,


Men hitting other men with five feet of steel for land is never pointless. :duck:




(ps, the black knight is always victorious!)


Edit: Uh guys, I woudlnt call this "thread drift", I'd call it derailing via global warming >.> lol

[Tokenconservative]

That is not true. The demand is:

"Please find even one paper published in a peer-reviewed journal published since 1993 in support of your argument, that global warming is not happening, and that it is not anthropogenic."

in response to your claim

"Lots n' lots of climate scientist have disputed it, and more importantly disputed (and continue to)the doctrinaire dogma that says humans are causing it, amen.

Just because you are unable/unwilling to seek and digest exculpatory evidence does not mean it's not out there."

Claim: lots of climate scientists dispute global warming and specifically that humans cause it.

Evidence requested: peer reviewed journal articles of them doing so.

Hope this is clear enough for you and you will not try and pretend you are being asked to disprove climate change. It is almost as if you are trying to back away from your own claim when asked to provide evidence for it.


Hmmm...I guess I remain uncertain as to what part(s) of the following highlighted portions of the excerpt it is you do not "get" : "Please find even one paper published in a peer-reviewed journal published since 1993 in support of your argument, that global warming is not happening, and that it is not anthropogenic."

I realize that for many in your...position, it all depend upon what one's personal definition of "is" is, but I can't operate that way. "Not" is a negation; you are asking me to prove a negative. I neither CAN do so, nor do the rules of rational discourse demand that I do so.

Moreover: I am not in the habit of doing the heavy lifting for others. The orginal demand that I prove a negative was posed as the assertion that no papers published since xx date proved that global warming was NOT happening. Aside from the nonsensical nature of that very statement, and its base equivocation, this assertion was not accompanied by the catalog of peer-reviewed, publishe studies proving that GW is happening and is man-made.

When I asked for that catalog, I was ignored.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Which article specifically are you referring to?

Do this keyword search: "protocols," and "Kyoto."

If you dare.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Men hitting other men with five feet of steel for land is never pointless. :duck:

(ps, the black knight is always victorious!)

Edit: Uh guys, I woudlnt call this "thread drift", I'd call it derailing via global warming >.> lol

RE: feudalism. Um, it was hardly pointless to the people who shaped the lands in which it was present.

RE: the Black Knight: Save when he challenges King Arthur at the footbridge. Then, he loses his arms and legs. And falls down.

Once again: it was not I who mentioned GW first.

Tokie

[JoeEllison]

LOL.

Lots n' lots of climate scientist have disputed it, and more importantly disputed (and continue to)the doctrinaire dogma that says humans are causing it, amen.

Just because you are unable/unwilling to seek and digest exculpatory evidence does not mean it's not out there.

TokieLinks, please?

[drkitten]

Aside from the nonsensical nature of that very statement, and its base equivocation, this assertion was not accompanied by the catalog of peer-reviewed, publishe studies proving that GW is happening and is man-made.

When I asked for that catalog, I was ignored.

This is a direct lie. I provided that catalog in the form of a blbliography from the relevant UN report.

You, on the other hand, have provided nothing.

[drkitten]

Do this keyword search: "protocols," and "Kyoto."

If you dare.


Translation -- Tokenconservative has no idea what is on the UN.com site.

[drkitten]

Hmmm...I guess I remain uncertain as to what part(s) of the following highlighted portions of the excerpt it is you do not "get" : "Please find even one paper published in a peer-reviewed journal published since 1993 in support of your argument, that global warming is not happening, and that it is not anthropogenic."

I fear that it's you who don't get the excerpt.


I realize that for many in your...position, it all depend upon what one's personal definition of "is" is, but I can't operate that way. "Not" is a negation; you are asking me to prove a negative. I neither CAN do so, nor do the rules of rational discourse demand that I do so.

Actually, it's fairly easy. This site (http://naturalscience.com/ns/letters/ns_let06.html), for example, holds a letter from Dr. Fred Singer (published in NaturalScience) in which he specifically denies that global warming is happening. It's in the very title of the letter itself.

And it's published in 1998, which satisfies the time constraint. The only problem is that the letter isn't peer reviewed, and therefore doesn't qualify.

You are not being asked to prove a negative. You are being asked to provide positive proof of a negative claim (in a peer-reviewed journal).


Moreover: I am not in the habit of doing the heavy lifting for others.

Nor for yourself, it seems.

[Mashuna]

Once again: the demand is that I prove that something is not happening.

I cannot do that.

That's simply not possible in logical discourse.

Tokie

You're being asked to show a single paper that contradicts the evidence for global warming. You've then either claimed that this is asking you to prove a negative (you really should look up what that means, as you keep getting it wrong), or that the evidence is out there somewhere, but you're not going to tell us where.

All you need to do now is ask us to prove that the evidence you're talking about doesn't exist, to complete the circle of irony.

[Tokenconservative]

I fear that it's you who don't get the excerpt.

Actually, it's fairly easy. This site (http://naturalscience.com/ns/letters/ns_let06.html), for example, holds a letter from Dr. Fred Singer (published in NaturalScience) in which he specifically denies that global warming is happening. It's in the very title of the letter itself.

And it's published in 1998, which satisfies the time constraint. The only problem is that the letter isn't peer reviewed, and therefore doesn't qualify.

You are not being asked to prove a negative. You are being asked to provide positive proof of a negative claim (in a peer-reviewed journal).

Nor for yourself, it seems.

Heavens! I are slain, "Dr" Kitten!

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

All you need to do now is ask us to prove that the evidence you're talking about doesn't exist, to complete the circle of irony.

Hmmm...good point. Well?

I mean, why not complete this illogical farce? I'm being asked to prove that something is not happening, so why shouldn't y'all prove that what I am being asked to prove isn't happening isn't not happening by cataloging the evidence for it's non-occurance that doesn't exist?

Tokie

[athon]

Heavens! I are slain, "Dr" Kitten!

Tokie

Token, you seem to have a lot of passion about those things you believe in, which appears to have a lot to do with education. I can respect that. However do you have any desire to be taken seriously here at all?

You came in crowing that you'll probably be booted before long as, in your experience, people find your portrayal of the truth to be offensive. Well, you're still here, and unless you break any rules you'll still find yourself welcome to remain. But what the hell is your point? Given the floor, you do nothing with it.

You've got a lot of work to do if you want anybody to pay attention to what it is you've got to communicate, because less than becoming an offensive git, you're rapidly becoming someone with a lot of hot air but little substance. Nobody is taking you seriously enough to be offended.

Athon

[LostAngeles]

You know, Tokie, if you need a catalog of peer-reviewed journals, perhaps you should ask your daughter who's taking AP History.

Although with such an involved and dedicated parent such as yourself, I'm honestly surprised you haven't assisted her with such research and are familiar yourself with how to access and use them.

They're really quite simple to use.

It's called a public library. The Central Library is both fantastic and gorgeous. You should go there sometime.

[Tokenconservative]

Token, you seem to have a lot of passion about those things you believe in, which appears to have a lot to do with education. I can respect that. However do you have any desire to be taken seriously here at all?

You came in crowing that you'll probably be booted before long as, in your experience, people find your portrayal of the truth to be offensive. Well, you're still here, and unless you break any rules you'll still find yourself welcome to remain. But what the hell is your point? Given the floor, you do nothing with it.

You've got a lot of work to do if you want anybody to pay attention to what it is you've got to communicate, because less than becoming an offensive git, you're rapidly becoming someone with a lot of hot air but little substance. Nobody is taking you seriously enough to be offended.

Athon

Fair questions. But, I have to say, not the first time I've had them posed in my direction.

I am not here to educate.

I am not here to BE educated.

I am here to entertain myself, primarily.

I sleep little (4-6 hours/night) I work for myself, virtually by myself 16 hrs a day, and I like to break up the monotony of my work with stuff like this.

It's not a matter of "passion." I find, for example, the GW issue dangerous, true. I find all zealously-practised religions dangerous, and as this one is beginning to impact me financially, and will soon cripple my nation's economy (yours too, probably) I find it especially onerous and threatening.

And therefore, what? I am unable to do much about that. I have neither the power nor the time to wage an uphill against this deluge of religious ignorance. So I come into places like this and when this subject is brought up, stick pins in the hides of "true believers."

As to my duration here: I've been "warned" at least 3 times now. Not sure how many strikes I get. These warnings have come because I've called someone a "name" Like: Liberal. From my dealings with you Brits, you tend not to get your shorts in a knot over such trivialities, but to liberals here, that's like firing a silver, cross-shaped bullet using garlic-based propellent out of gun made of mirrors into their hearts.

It is the very worst name-calling you can engage in. Note that I've been called "stupid," "ignorant," and my favorite, "RAAAACCCIIIISSSTTT," time and time again in here by, no doubt, some of the very same who've lodged complaints agin' me, for calling them "liberal."

In my experience, moderators in such forums are nearly always themselves liberals, and so they find such complaints to be wholly with merit. Which is why they don't simply laugh at the complainants, but do in fact pass on the complaints in the form of "warnings."

And so it goes. I will shortly be banned from this forum, and will move on to another.

Why? Well, I am now identifying for what they are, the usual cast of characters who are unable to restrain their racism and hatred, etc., who are now coming a bit unglued and are shrieking all sorts of nasty insults at me. What will happen now, is that they will peruse every post of mine with a microscope and, typically, taking what I say out of context, will make complaint after complaint after complaint against me. It is likely they will do this in concert, communicating privately about how they are gonna "get" Tokie.

Again...so be it.

Finally, I gave up getting anyone to pay attention to me in such forums years ago. I've not run into anyone on the left side of political ideologies who can engage in rational debate since about 2001, and few enough on the right. So I don't bother any longer.

Look at the level of "debate" in here on the GW issue...while zealous believers in The One True Way demand that I prove a negative over and over and over (one of their Playbook tactics) they themselves are entirely unable to offer any proof that human activity is causing GW other than trotting out hoary (intentionally mis-quoted) NASA/GISS temp charts and political-studies shrieking that if the US is not stopped...er, that is to say it GLOBAL WARMING is not stopped...!

It's not precisely high comedy, give me Spamalot any day over this...but it will have to suffice to break my workaday monotony.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

You know, Tokie, if you need a catalog of peer-reviewed journals, perhaps you should ask your daughter who's taking AP History.

Although with such an involved and dedicated parent such as yourself, I'm honestly surprised you haven't assisted her with such research and are familiar yourself with how to access and use them.

They're really quite simple to use.

It's called a public library. The Central Library is both fantastic and gorgeous. You should go there sometime.

Libarry?

"...such an involved and dedicated parent such as yourself..." I think I WILL ask them (I have two daughters in AP History) to dissect the "English" in this, howmsoever....

Unlike such as, a parent like, such as yourself, I like, such as, let them do thier like, such as, own research.

Such as.

Were you ever a beauty queen from North Carolina?

Tokie

[Mashuna]

Look at the level of "debate" in here on the GW issue...while zealous believers in The One True Way demand that I prove a negative over and over and over (one of their Playbook tactics) they themselves are entirely unable to offer any proof that human activity is causing GW other than trotting out hoary (intentionally mis-quoted) NASA/GISS temp charts and political-studies shrieking that if the US is not stopped...er, that is to say it GLOBAL WARMING is not stopped...!



Seriously, look this up.

[ImaginalDisc]

Look at the level of "debate" in here on the GW issue...while zealous believers in The One True Way demand that I prove a negative over and over and over (one of their Playbook tactics) they themselves are entirely unable to offer any proof that human activity is causing GW other than trotting out hoary (intentionally mis-quoted) NASA/GISS temp charts and political-studies shrieking that if the US is not stopped...er, that is to say it GLOBAL WARMING is not stopped...!


Please find even one paper published in a peer-reviewed journal since 1993 in support of your claim that global warming isn't happening, and that it isn't anthropogenic.

You claimed "plenty" of climate scientists agree with you. Prove it. That's not asking you to prove a negative. You badly need to look up what it means to prove a negative. You also badly need to research papers written on global warming.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Hmmm...I guess I remain uncertain as to what part(s) of the following highlighted portions of the excerpt it is you do not "get" : "Please find even one paper published in a peer-reviewed journal published since 1993 in support of your argument, that global warming is not happening, and that it is not anthropogenic."

I realize that for many in your...position, it all depend upon what one's personal definition of "is" is, but I can't operate that way. "Not" is a negation; you are asking me to prove a negative. I neither CAN do so, nor do the rules of rational discourse demand that I do so.

You are being asked to find one paper that supports your argument. Not to prove anything, simply to find a paper that supports your argument.

That is not a request to prove a negative, as you well know. It is a request for evidence of your positive claim.

Want to try again?

[drkitten]

You are being asked to find one paper that supports your argument. Not to prove anything, simply to find a paper that supports your argument.

And furthermore, I even found such a paper for you -- although I had to delve into the muck of the non-peer-reviewed to do so. Using that as a model, it shoudn't be that hard for you to find other papers that agree with you. And if, as you suggest, there are lots of professional climate scientists who do agree with you, almost any of them should have their CV's available on-line for you to pull papers from.

[ImaginalDisc]

And furthermore, I even found such a paper for you -- although I had to delve into the muck of the non-peer-reviewed to do so. Using that as a model, it shoudn't be that hard for you to find other papers that agree with you. And if, as you suggest, there are lots of professional climate scientists who do agree with you, almost any of them should have their CV's available on-line for you to pull papers from.

That's why I asked for a peer-reviewed paper. It's fairly easy to find a chemist or ecnomist (not picking on them, it's just not their field, so they're not experts on climate change) who agrees with Token, or some quack as you may have, but finding a "cimate scientist" who agrees with him would be a surprise to me. He's the one who claimed "plenty" of climate sicentists agree with him. I want evidence.

[Tokenconservative]

You are being asked to find one paper that supports your argument. Not to prove anything, simply to find a paper that supports your argument.

That is not a request to prove a negative, as you well know. It is a request for evidence of your positive claim.

Want to try again?


No, I don't.

First, I don't have to prove a negative.

Second, it's not up to me to prove ID's argument. For some reason, Global Warmingists view exculpatory evidence as a vampire does the sunrise. They HOPE that it will never come but when it does, they melt from it shreiking "noooo!!!! Noooooooooo!!!"

I don't have to do the heavy lifting for you, for ID or for any other Global Warmingist. If you are afraid to seek and examine this evidence, that's your problem, not mine.

Tokie

[ImaginalDisc]

No, I don't.

First, I don't have to prove a negative.

Second, it's not up to me to prove ID's argument. For some reason, Global Warmingists view exculpatory evidence as a vampire does the sunrise. They HOPE that it will never come but when it does, they melt from it shreiking "noooo!!!! Noooooooooo!!!"

I don't have to do the heavy lifting for you, for ID or for any other Global Warmingist. If you are afraid to seek and examine this evidence, that's your problem, not mine.

Tokie

I have provided you evidence, of my claim, in spades. You have cringed from discussing the evidence global warming like a craven coward. Instead, you've centered the discussion around your savage beating of a strawman, namely, that we are asking you to prove a negative. Instead, what I am asking you to do is find even one paper published in a peer reviewed journal since 1993 in support of your claims. That's all. Find even one and let the strawman escort Dorothy to the wizard in peace.

[Tokenconservative]

That's why I asked for a peer-reviewed paper. It's fairly easy to find a chemist or ecnomist (not picking on them, it's just not their field, so they're not experts on climate change) who agrees with Token, or some quack as you may have, but finding a "cimate scientist" who agrees with him would be a surprise to me. He's the one who claimed "plenty" of climate sicentists agree with him. I want evidence.

I might--MIGHT--do this eventually, but first some ground rules must be decided upon (I know that you are far, far smarter and more clever than I, but do you really think this is the first time I've engaged a Global Warmingist in this debate? Really?)

1. You will agree that if you question the authority of my source you will publically admit you are engaging in a logical fallacy and have thereby, lost the debate. This, of course, is anatham to a Global Warmingist. If you cannot shriek "tool of Big Oil!!! Tool of Big Oil!!!" you cannot address exculpatory evidence.

2. You will not question the expertise of my expert (so long as he/she is a climate scientist) even though he or she has not been paid by MoveOnPac to "study" the climate. If you do, you will publically admit that you have lost the debate and that humans have nothing to do with Global Warming.

3. You will not, following presentation of my evidence, use anything from NASA/GISS or the UN to refute it. You will present ONLY evidence from independent studies, studies which YOU can show were not paid for by a special interest with any sort of positive interest in "proving" that any climate change is the fault of human activity.

Okay?

Tokie

[LostAngeles]

Libarry?

"...such an involved and dedicated parent such as yourself..." I think I WILL ask them (I have two daughters in AP History) to dissect the "English" in this, howmsoever....

Unlike such as, a parent like, such as yourself, I like, such as, let them do thier like, such as, own research.

Such as.

Were you ever a beauty queen from North Carolina?

Tokie

That's really funny. I spelled library correctly and you're mocking it and my English?

Also, why do you assume I'm a parent?

[LostAngeles]

I might--MIGHT--do this eventually, but first some ground rules must be decided upon (I know that you are far, far smarter and more clever than I, but do you really think this is the first time I've engaged a Global Warmingist in this debate? Really?)

1. You will agree that if you question the authority of my source you will publically admit you are engaging in a logical fallacy and have thereby, lost the debate. This, of course, is anatham to a Global Warmingist. If you cannot shriek "tool of Big Oil!!! Tool of Big Oil!!!" you cannot address exculpatory evidence.

2. You will not question the expertise of my expert (so long as he/she is a climate scientist) even though he or she has not been paid by MoveOnPac to "study" the climate. If you do, you will publically admit that you have lost the debate and that humans have nothing to do with Global Warming.

3. You will not, following presentation of my evidence, use anything from NASA/GISS or the UN to refute it. You will present ONLY evidence from independent studies, studies which YOU can show were not paid for by a special interest with any sort of positive interest in "proving" that any climate change is the fault of human activity.

Okay?

Tokie

Please back up your claims in points 1-3. If you could start by showing posts in which you are called a, "Tool of Big Oil," or similar, that would be a good start.

Thanks.

[drkitten]

I might--MIGHT--do this eventually, but first some ground rules must be decided upon.

None of those "ground rules" are in any way reasonable.



1. You will agree that if you question the authority of my source you will publically admit you are engaging in a logical fallacy and have thereby, lost the debate.

This is errant nonsense. There are a number of so-called "peer reviewed journals" that are nevertheless light-weight catbox liner; the Journal of 9/11 Studies, for example, has a review board of entirely unqualified people based purely on their political stances.


2. You will not question the expertise of my expert (so long as he/she is a climate scientist) even though he or she has not been paid by MoveOnPac to "study" the climate.

Again, this is errant nonsense, there are similarly unqualified scientists who are widely recognized as such, despite phoney "credentials." A good example of this would be William Dembski's "expertise" as a mathematician, which he uses to bolster his claims of intelligent design, despite the fact that he's got almost no publications in mathematics and the real professionals have amply refuted his work.


3. You will not, following presentation of my evidence, use anything from NASA/GISS or the UN to refute it.

This, again, is errant nonsense. You might as well say that he can only respond in Kurdish.


You will present ONLY evidence from independent studies, studies which YOU can show were not paid for by a special interest with any sort of positive interest in "proving" that any climate change is the fault of human activity.

So, YOU can present anything you like, published by any kind of special interest group you like, but he must first prove that his responses were not paid for by a SIG? Double standard much?


Okay?

Actually, it's brilliant, from my perspective. The degree to which you need to pre-wrap your "evidence" in bubble foam before risking getting it shattered by the first touch of reality indicates to any independent observer just how weak and fragile it is. This list of demands has proven far better than either I or ID could that you've lost the debate.

Furthermore, the fact that you make this list of demands in advance shows that you know already that you've lost the debate, and thus is further proof of your intellectual dishonesty.

I couldn't have asked for a better opportunity to paint you in ths light. The fact that you're busy painting yourself makes it all the better.

Oh, in answer to your question -- yes, I do think this is the first time you've debated a Global Warmingist. These aren't even rookie mistakes. These are stupid rookie mistakes. These are the kind of mistakes that get rookies cut from training camp.

[Tokenconservative]

That's really funny. I spelled library correctly and you're mocking it and my English?

Also, why do you assume I'm a parent?

I am not mocking your English. I am mocking you.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Please back up your claims in points 1-3. If you could start by showing posts in which you are called a, "Tool of Big Oil," or similar, that would be a good start.

Thanks.

You seem...confused. I'm just some goofball on the interwebby, not a climate scientist. I can hardly be a "tool of Big Oil!!!" other than that I continue to pony-up to the pump every few days.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

None of those "ground rules" are in any way reasonable.

This is errant nonsense. There are a number of so-called "peer reviewed journals" that are nevertheless light-weight catbox liner; the Journal of 9/11 Studies, for example, has a review board of entirely unqualified people based purely on their political stances.

Again, this is errant nonsense, there are similarly unqualified scientists who are widely recognized as such, despite phoney "credentials." A good example of this would be William Dembski's "expertise" as a mathematician, which he uses to bolster his claims of intelligent design, despite the fact that he's got almost no publications in mathematics and the real professionals have amply refuted his work.

This, again, is errant nonsense. You might as well say that he can only respond in Kurdish.

So, YOU can present anything you like, published by any kind of special interest group you like, but he must first prove that his responses were not paid for by a SIG? Double standard much?

Actually, it's brilliant, from my perspective. The degree to which you need to pre-wrap your "evidence" in bubble foam before risking getting it shattered by the first touch of reality indicates to any independent observer just how weak and fragile it is. This list of demands has proven far better than either I or ID could that you've lost the debate.

Furthermore, the fact that you make this list of demands in advance shows that you know already that you've lost the debate, and thus is further proof of your intellectual dishonesty.

I couldn't have asked for a better opportunity to paint you in ths light. The fact that you're busy painting yourself makes it all the better.

Oh, in answer to your question -- yes, I do think this is the first time you've debated a Global Warmingist. These aren't even rookie mistakes. These are stupid rookie mistakes. These are the kind of mistakes that get rookies cut from training camp.

You and I have a lot in common, "Dr" Kitten: we both talk a lot and often say little.

The difference is I am not a professor at an "exclusive small college." Do your students ever learn anything?

My demands may seem "errant nonsense" to you, but to me, they are simply a means of avoiding wandering through the typical, hoary morass of leftist cant, screed and dogma on this subject. I've argued this same issue oh, at minimum, 5000 times on other forums and am QUITE familiar with the Playbook tactics that will (and already are) be employed, and so am setting these ground rules to at least keep the thing marginally interesting...to me. I really don't care about anyone else.

It's not a matter of double standards, it's a matter of engaging in RATIONAL (as opposed to your type) discourse. I have no interest in defending my sources to the nth degree, finding their 4th grade "what I did this summer" essay to assure my worthy opponent that they were not, that summer, being paid by Mobil.... Your Olympian leap to the baseless conclusion that I am an ID'er or some such and the attmpt to condemn by association (I happen not to believe in ID or Creationism, or whatever name it goes by this month) and your attendant assumptions that I must be an ig'nant, un-so-fist-eye-kated, backwoods, racist, sexist, homo- and xeno"phobic" warmongering redneck chickenhawk hater, is proof of exactly the sort of "debate" I have no interest in engaging it, but which I know this will (has) quickly devolve into with this poster (and you).

You see, believe it or not, despite how "clever" you and the poster who continues to (yawn) demand this of me, I've seen THIS tactic before, as well!

Long ago (I think back around discussion # 1560 or so) I decided that in future, TOKIE would be the one to establish the parameters of the debate, not the foaming-at-the-dogma, shrieking, zealous Global Warmingist.

But at least you admit you and ID are Global Warmingists.

That's something to recommend you.

Tokie

[ImaginalDisc]

You and I have a lot in common, "Dr" Kitten: we both talk a lot and often say little.

The difference is I am not a professor at an "exclusive small college." Do your students ever learn anything?

My demands may seem "errant nonsense" to you, but to me, they are simply a means of avoiding wandering through the typical, hoary morass of leftist cant, screed and dogma on this subject. I've argued this same issue oh, at minimum, 5000 times on other forums and am QUITE familiar with the Playbook tactics that will (and already are) be employed, and so am setting these ground rules to at least keep the thing marginally interesting...to me. I really don't care about anyone else.

It's not a matter of double standards, it's a matter of engaging in RATIONAL (as opposed to your type) discourse. I have no interest in defending my sources to the nth degree, finding their 4th grade "what I did this summer" essay to assure my worthy opponent that they were not, that summer, being paid by Mobil.... Your Olympian leap to the baseless conclusion that I am an ID'er or some such and the attmpt to condemn by association (I happen not to believe in ID or Creationism, or whatever name it goes by this month) and your attendant assumptions that I must be an ig'nant, un-so-fist-eye-kated, backwoods, racist, sexist, homo- and xeno"phobic" warmongering redneck chickenhawk hater, is proof of exactly the sort of "debate" I have no interest in engaging it, but which I know this will (has) quickly devolve into with this poster (and you).

You see, believe it or not, despite how "clever" you and the poster who continues to (yawn) demand this of me, I've seen THIS tactic before, as well!

Long ago (I think back around discussion # 1560 or so) I decided that in future, TOKIE would be the one to establish the parameters of the debate, not the foaming-at-the-dogma, shrieking, zealous Global Warmingist.

But at least you admit you and ID are Global Warmingists.

That's something to recommend you.

Tokie

You egomanical attiude compares unfavorably to Dr. Doom, Baron Vladimir Harkonnen, and David Irving.

Are you seriously suggesting that global warming can only be objectively examined when we all accept your stacked and biased rules, which you have the right to institute because. . .what, you are the Chosen One?

[ThatSoundAgain]

The only thing close to shrieking in this thread I've noticed is your long-winded rants, TC.

I'm sure somewhere on the internet, some people called you those things. It sounds neither accurate, productive, or very pleasant. Those places, however, are not the JREF forums.

Why not try to give other posters the benefit of the doubt and assume that if they ask for a source for your claim, they're genuinely interested in your perspective? Why turn the debate into a schoolyard fight that's about winning or losing?

As for your "ground rules", if I was the one asking you a question, I surely wouldn't agree to terms that pretty much boil down to: "Before I present my argument, you will agree that if you ever present a counter-argument, you're obligated to publically admit losing the argument." What kind of tortured, defensive debate tactic is that? Again, if it were me, I'd simply note your inability to argue your point, and move on. I'm sure a lot of readers here are doing just that.

Oh, BTW, greetings from a Kyoto signee country, where the economy has never been in better shape!

How does one request a thread to be split?

[Tokenconservative]

You egomanical attiude compares unfavorably to Dr. Doom, Baron Vladimir Harkonnen, and David Irving.

Are you seriously suggesting that global warming can only be objectively examined when we all accept your stacked and biased rules, which you have the right to institute because. . .what, you are the Chosen One?

Well...Dr Strangelove, anyway...

Yes. That's precisely what I am suggesting. That's because I've had this "debate" with True Believers in the One True Way so many times in the past that I simply have no interest, as I said, in making sure that my source wasn't sent into the hall for dipping Susie's pigtails in the inkwell-- said ink a petroleum product and this wasteful use of it PROOOOOVINGGGGGGGGGGG my source is a TOOL OF BIG OILLLLLLLLLLL!!!

I'm like SO over that, such as.

I am not the Chosen One. That's Al Gore. I couldn't hope to fill his shoes. Or his pants. There'd have to be 5-6 more of me to do that.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

The only thing close to shrieking in this thread I've noticed is your long-winded rants, TC.

I'm sure somewhere on the internet, some people called you those things. It sounds neither accurate, productive, or very pleasant. Those places, however, are not the JREF forums.

Why not try to give other posters the benefit of the doubt and assume that if they ask for a source for your claim, they're genuinely interested in your perspective? Why turn the debate into a schoolyard fight that's about winning or losing?

As for your "ground rules", if I was the one asking you a question, I surely wouldn't agree to terms that pretty much boil down to: "Before I present my argument, you will agree that if you ever present a counter-argument, you're obligated to publically admit losing the argument." What kind of tortured, defensive debate tactic is that? Again, if it were me, I'd simply note your inability to argue your point, and move on. I'm sure a lot of readers here are doing just that.

Oh, BTW, greetings from a Kyoto signee country, where the economy has never been in better shape!

How does one request a thread to be split?

Yes...that Tokie...he's in love with the sound of his own voice....to be sure.

Not "other" forums, but ALL other forums have I faced this same "debate" from Believers. The debate was couched in the original request in what I've come to recognize as a sort of rote, Playbook approach. The requester is not some intellectually curious amateur. This is someone who has done this countless times before.

You are misreprenting my ground rules. My rule is that you are not to shriek "TOOOLLLL OF BIG OILLLLLLLLLLL!!!!" about my sources, even if the stench of crude is heavy in the air. You see, here is how the "debate" on GW has gone: there are two interested parties: one, is interested in making money off of oil, the other in making money (and gaining political power) off of environmental issues. Neither is pristine and pure, both are self-interested, self-aggrandizing and pay "scientists" and scientists, including some of the top scientists and their universities, to produce the results they want. And, if said institutions and scientists want to eat next year, that's just what they do.

This is not new. Read Kuhn.

Greetings back, from the ONLY country specifically identified in Kyoto as one that must, essentially, shut down its economy to be in "compliance."

Tokie

[ImaginalDisc]

Greetings back, from the ONLY country specifically identified in Kyoto as one that must, essentially, shut down its economy to be in "compliance."

Tokie

Ahem.


The Kyoto Protocol is an agreement under which industrialized countries will reduce their collective emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2% compared to the year 1990 (but note that, compared to the emissions levels that would be expected by 2010 without the Protocol, this limitation represents a 29% cut). The goal is to lower overall emissions of six greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, HFCs, and PFCs - calculated as an average over the five-year period of 2008-12. National limitations range from 8% reductions for the European Union and some others to 7% for the US, 6% for Japan, 0% for Russia, and permitted increases of 8% for Australia and 10% for Iceland.

Source. (http://unfccc.int/cop3/fccc/info/indust.htm)
Not only is this not tantamount to "shutting down" the US ecnonomy, other countries have more stringent requirements.

Next time, use facts.

[Tokenconservative]

Ahem.

Source. (http://unfccc.int/cop3/fccc/info/indust.htm)
Not only is this not tantamount to "shutting down" the US ecnonomy, other countries have more stringent requirements.

Next time, use facts.

Hmmm...I wonder...could you compare the economies of say....Oh, I dunno, Russia or Iceland or even, say "Europe" (say...aren't there a lotta countries there!?) to the US?

Now, let's compare: if you ask Iceland to cut back on 7% of its "greenhouse" (whatever in the hell that even means) gas emissions, is that the same as asking the US to?

Do you now ANYthing about comparative economics? And I notice a couple or three countries missing there...China. India. Pakistan.

Next time, use thought.

Tokie

[ImaginalDisc]

Hmmm...I wonder...could you compare the economies of say....Oh, I dunno, Russia or Iceland or even, say "Europe" (say...aren't there a lotta countries there!?) to the US?

Now, let's compare: if you ask Iceland to cut back on 7% of its "greenhouse" (whatever in the hell that even means) gas emissions, is that the same as asking the US to?

Do you now ANYthing about comparative economics? And I notice a couple or three countries missing there...China. India. Pakistan.

Next time, use thought.

Tokie

Even assuming that you were right in the first place, and that the onus on the United States were particularly egregious, 7% reduction in GHG's does not equal a 100% reduction in the US ecnonomy. In fact, studies show that the US can achieve in excess of 11% reduction for roughly 3% of GDP. Are you going to claim 3 equals 100?

[LostAngeles]

I am not mocking your English. I am mocking you.

Tokie

So, Mr. "Learn the rules of logical discourse" is engaging in ad hom?

You seem...confused. I'm just some goofball on the interwebby, not a climate scientist. I can hardly be a "tool of Big Oil!!!" other than that I continue to pony-up to the pump every few days.

Tokie

Have you or have you not been called a, "Tool of Big Oil!!!!111eleventyone," in this thread? This is not a question of whether or not you are one, but have you been called one as you apparently were claiming.

You egomanical attiude compares unfavorably to Dr. Doom, Baron Vladimir Harkonnen, and David Irving.

Are you seriously suggesting that global warming can only be objectively examined when we all accept your stacked and biased rules, which you have the right to institute because. . .what, you are the Chosen One?

Doom demands you retract the unsavory comparison.

Baron Harkonnen, as a pretty decently done character with a clear motivation, also demands you retract.

And David Irving? Don't Godwin us, baby.

I'd compare him to Pat Robertson or Michael Moore as The Bearer of Truth and The Savoir From The Lies.

[Tokenconservative]

So, Mr. "Learn the rules of logical discourse" is engaging in ad hom?
Have you or have you not been called a, "Tool of Big Oil!!!!111eleventyone," in this thread? This is not a question of whether or not you are one, but have you been called one as you apparently were claiming.

Doom demands you retract the unsavory comparison.

Baron Harkonnen, as a pretty decently done character with a clear motivation, also demands you retract.

And David Irving? Don't Godwin us, baby.

I'd compare him to Pat Robertson or Michael Moore as The Bearer of Truth and The Savoir From The Lies.

When I do that, I am kiddin' around. When others direct such at me, they are engaging in the lowest, vilest form of vituperative personal attack.

No, not YET in here have I been called at "TOOL OF BIG OIL!!!1!@!One11!!"

But the moment I offer ANY source, that source will be identified as such by any number of shrieking harridans of the One True Faith, and I will be thereby tarred with the same brush.

Godwin...isn't he the guy that says every conversation on the interwebby breaks down into a screaming match about who is most like Pee Wee Herman within 6 posts?

Tokie

[ThatSoundAgain]

You are misreprenting my ground rules. My rule is that you are not to shriek "TOOOLLLL OF BIG OILLLLLLLLLLL!!!!" about my sources, even if the stench of crude is heavy in the air. You see, here is how the "debate" on GW has gone: there are two interested parties: one, is interested in making money off of oil, the other in making money (and gaining political power) off of environmental issues. Neither is pristine and pure, both are self-interested, self-aggrandizing and pay "scientists" and scientists, including some of the top scientists and their universities, to produce the results they want. And, if said institutions and scientists want to eat next year, that's just what they do.

This is not new. Read Kuhn.

All right. Bias exists, that much we can agree on. Why is it that you want people "on the other side", as you percieve it, to submit to gag agreement swhen we could be examining and exposing these biases (whatever directions they may take) instead? You know, in the interest of finding out what's really going on.

As for my misrepresenting your proposal, I may be doing that, but it genuinely reads to me like you want to be able to present anything from anyone and have it accepted unchallenged. It's hard to disagree with an "environmental expert" and to try to show them wrong without challenging their expertise, you know.


Greetings back, from the ONLY country specifically identified in Kyoto as one that must, essentially, shut down its economy to be in "compliance."


Not going near that one.


No, not YET in here have I been called at "TOOL OF BIG OIL!!!1!@!One11!!"

But the moment I offer ANY source, that source will be identified as such by any number of shrieking harridans of the One True Faith, and I will be thereby tarred with the same brush.


It's a bit quaint to hear you speak of broad brushes when you dismiss any research that's been near the UN or NASA as fraud off-hand, as well as calling anyone who disagrees with you (heck, even asks you questions) shrieking religious zealots.

ETA: Again, does anyone know the process of requesting a thread split? Do I just report this post?