Israel election

[+joc]

Is that because the right would rather bury there heads in the sand? You learn and get knowledge from reading books, better then making up half baked ideas and saying that is how things are with no proof

If you rely on books and think 'knowledge' is in books...you might just rethink that a little bit. Knowledge is not in knowing what is in books...it is knowing what is true and what is not, whether it be in books or elsewhere. Knowledge and its correct application equal Wisdom. Just because a bunch of leftist elitists wrote stuff in a book and say its true...you believe it? There is a certain amount of 'reasoning' and discernment that should go along with the acquisition of knowledge.

[Occult1]

Go read some history books or something...please.

Your books...forget the books man...think!

Now you are contradicting yourself again, joc. And who says that reading books to acquire knowledge is an impediment for critical thinking? I beg to differ.

Edited March 25, 2015 by samus

[Degen]

If you rely on books and think 'knowledge' is in books...you might just rethink that a little bit. Knowledge is not in knowing what is in books...it is knowing what is true and what is not, whether it be in books or elsewhere. Knowledge and its correct application equal Wisdom. Just because a bunch of leftist elitists wrote stuff in a book and say its true...you believe it? There is a certain amount of 'reasoning' and discernment that should go along with the acquisition of knowledge.

So all books are written by leftists are they? Is it because the right has nothing of substance to add?

[Occult1]

If you rely on books and think 'knowledge' is in books...you might just rethink that a little bit. Knowledge is not in knowing what is in books...it is knowing what is true and what is not, whether it be in books or elsewhere. Knowledge and its correct application equal Wisdom. Just because a bunch of leftist elitists wrote stuff in a book and say its true...you believe it? There is a certain amount of 'reasoning' and discernment that should go along with the acquisition of knowledge.

The fact that you just called 97% of all the climate scientists on Earth ''a bunch of lefitist elists'' is so beyond reason and common sense that I think it is preferable for me to bow out of this conversation.

Edited March 25, 2015 by samus

[+joc]

The fact that you just called 97% of all the climate scientists on Earth ''a bunch of lefitist elists'' is so beyond what should be consider reasonable that I think it would be preferable me to bow out of this conversation.

What the hell is a 'climate scientist' anyway...hahaha! You may bow out... I would not expect one who has just had their ass handed to them in a basket of daisies to hang around. I was trying to educate you...but I see who you bow to. Bow out of here, bend over and bow to the God of the Atheist...Climate Change.

[Degen]

What the hell is a 'climate scientist' anyway...hahaha! You may bow out... I would not expect one who has just had their ass handed to them in a basket of daisies to hang around. I was trying to educate you...but I see who you bow to. Bow out of here, bend over and bow to the God of the Atheist...Climate Change.

You always think you "hand someone there ass", but the reality is they just get bored with dealing with ignorance.

[+joc]

Science is neither right nor left, nor is the scientific method restricted to certain cultures or ethnic groups. That's indeed what my books tell me.

Edit: Even if a state should happen to use the scientific method unethically for some purpose, we have a whole international scientific community, joc. Objectivity and peer-review (as well as ensuing discussions, debates, conferences ect.) are part of the process. Could the scientific consensus on climate change be wrong? That's always possible though in this case it's very unlikely in light of the overwhelming evidence. You are entitled to your opinions, but please, don't mixt up your religious or fanatical views with science.

To your Edit: where did I mention my beliefs, religious or otherwise? It would seem to me that your views are indeed 'fanatical'....which beliefs do I have mixed up with the perpetration of a hoax by the Russian Communists for the destruction of American Democracy? Religious? Nope Fanatical? Nope I know the history of Russia...I know the History of the Cold War...and on and on and on.

[+joc]

You always think you "hand someone there ass", but the reality is they just get bored with dealing with ignorance.

It does get boring dealing with ignorance. But some of us plow on through it anyway with the hope that it really is ignorance and not stupidity. Ignorance is just a state of not knowing...Stupidity is a state of not thinking.

And when someone tells me that a man who clearly knows how to think...who is clearly the smartest man in any room he walks into is an 'idiot' because he doesn't buy the Climate Change Crapola....well, that speaks volumes.

Cling to your God (Moscow) and your Guns (climate change)...and I'll cling to the Truth!

[Degen]

It does get boring dealing with ignorance. But some of us plow on through it anyway with the hope that it really is ignorance and not stupidity. Ignorance is just a state of not knowing...Stupidity is a state of not thinking.

And when someone tells me that a man who clearly knows how to think...who is clearly the smartest man in any room he walks into is an 'idiot' because he doesn't buy the Climate Change Crapola....well, that speaks volumes.

Cling to your God (Moscow) and your Guns (climate change)...and I'll cling to the Truth!

Hahaha, you are so full of yourself man. You? The smartest? No. Just no.

truth

<p>

[trooth] /truθ/

SpellSyllables

• Synonyms
  
• Examples
  
• Word Origin
  

noun, plural truths

[trooth z, trooths] /truðz, truθs/ (Show IPA)

1.

the true or actual state of a matter:

He tried to find out the truth.

2.

conformity with fact or reality; verity:

the truth of a statement.

3.

a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like:

mathematical truths.

4.

the state or character of being true.

5.

actuality or actual existence.

6.

an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.

7.

honesty; integrity; truthfulness.

All of which is lacking in your replies.

[Wickian]

I'm hesitant to get involved in an AGW debate in an Israel election thread(or for any reason since most have chosen a side and arguing online about it is useless), but as far as the dismissing skeptics because of the "consensus", that's just stupid. Disregarding that the "consensus" is inflated in numerous different ways, how many times in the last 100 years alone(ignoring all of history) has the consensus been proven decades later to be flat out wrong?

Trying to claim that rough generalizations of fictitious future trends(climate models) that don't give consistent, reliable or accurate results(so far they've all been wrong about the past 15 years) are facts that prove a hypothesis to be true is just silly.

[+and-then]

I'm hesitant to get involved in an AGW debate in an Israel election thread(or for any reason since most have chosen a side and arguing online about it is useless), but as far as the dismissing skeptics because of the "consensus", that's just stupid. Disregarding that the "consensus" is inflated in numerous different ways, how many times in the last 100 years alone(ignoring all of history) has the consensus been proven decades later to be flat out wrong?

Trying to claim that rough generalizations of fictitious future trends(climate models) that don't give consistent, reliable or accurate results(so far they've all been wrong about the past 15 years) are facts that prove a hypothesis to be true is just silly.

Ah yes, but lord high potentate Gore wants people to be PUNISHED for refusing to join the global warming band wagon.

[Occult1]

I'm hesitant to get involved in an AGW debate in an Israel election thread(or for any reason since most have chosen a side and arguing online about it is useless), but as far as the dismissing skeptics because of the "consensus", that's just stupid. Disregarding that the "consensus" is inflated in numerous different ways, how many times in the last 100 years alone(ignoring all of history) has the consensus been proven decades later to be flat out wrong?

It's not about dismissing the skeptics but rather the compelling evidence presented to us by our scientists worldwide(1)(2). The fact that there is strong consensus among them should ring a bell(3), unless you believe that the vast majority of our phyicists, chemists, biologists, geologists, meterologists and oceanographists are a bunch of incompetent fools. To which I would obviously disagree. Refering to past errors in science is a feeble argument, for even if humans are indeed prone to err (including you) as we further our understanding of the natural world, the effectiveness of the scientific method has been established beyond any reasonable doubt. Or do you also deny it?

(1): http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

(2): http://dels.nas.edu/...change-full.pdf

(3: http://climate.nasa....ific-consensus/

Trying to claim that rough generalizations of fictitious future trends(climate models) that don't give consistent, reliable or accurate results(so far they've all been wrong about the past 15 years) are facts that prove a hypothesis to be true is just silly.

Maybe you should publish your ''research'' and present your scientific data in a peer review journal then. In any case, the likes of Ted Cruz (and far-right conspiracy theorists like joc) are dismissing climate change on ideological grounds, not real science.

Edited March 25, 2015 by samus

[+joc]

Hahaha, you are so full of yourself man. You? The smartest? No. Just no.

I wasn't talking about me Dregen....I was talking about Ted Cruz!

Governor MoonBeam called him an idiot because he was not a believer ....in Climate Change...the new Religion of the Left

Edited March 26, 2015 by joc

[Degen]

I wasn't talking about me Dregen....I was talking about Ted Cruz!

Governor MoonBeam called him an idiot because he was not a believer ....in Climate Change...the new Religion of the Left

Yeah there was so many other reasons he could of called him one instead

[+joc]

Name one. Having faith doesn't make you an idiot...it makes you a man of faith...

[Degen]

Name one. Having faith doesn't make you an idiot...it makes you a man of faith...

It makes you someone who cant think for themself and relies on a old book which people take to literally when it should be regarded more like aesops fables

[+joc]

It makes you someone who cant think for themself and relies on a old book which people take to literally when it should be regarded more like aesops fables

So your problem with Cruz is his own personal beliefs? How petty! See...in AMerica we have something called Freedom of Religion...we get to choose to worship whatever way we want or not to worship at all....we have the Freedom to choose a religion, or to choose No Religion. Whether that religion is silly to you is of zero consequence. Men and women of every walk of life have faith in God. When you castigate Cruz you are also castigating them...again...how Petty!

[Degen]

So your problem with Cruz is his own personal beliefs? How petty! See...in AMerica we have something called Freedom of Religion...we get to choose to worship whatever way we want or not to worship at all....we have the Freedom to choose a religion, or to choose No Religion. Whether that religion is silly to you is of zero consequence. Men and women of every walk of life have faith in God. When you castigate Cruz you are also castigating them...again...how Petty!

You also have seperation of church and state

[+and-then]

It makes you someone who cant think for themself and relies on a old book which people take to literally when it should be regarded more like aesops fables

Fair enough, Degen. That old book predicts that a group of nations, including Turkey and Iran (among many others) are going to come against Israel in a huge military force to destroy the country. It also predicts that this force will be miraculously defeated and that 5/6 of the troops will be slain. That was written about 2600 years ago. If that happens in your lifetime what will you believe then about that old book? Just curious.

[+joc]

You also have seperation of church and state

Separation of Church and State actually means Freedom of Religion. It means the Government doesn't get to tell you that you must be Catholic. Or Baptist. Or Whatever. King George of England dictated his brand of Christianity on his people.

Separation of Church and State limits the Governments ability to interfere with your faith.

What does that have to do with anything?

[+DieChecker]

Isn't saying someone is stupid (or is crazy, or is a dangerous zealot) because they follow a religion just about the same as saying gays spread AIDS? Or that fat people are lazy. Or that blacks can't keep it in their pants? Or that Jews are money grubbers? Seems like a bigoted statement to me. Calling a Christian someone who can't "think for themself" is basically a Hate Statement.

It makes you someone who cant think for themself and relies on a old book which people take to literally when it should be regarded more like aesops fables

OH, but I forgot... I the USA it is OK to hate White guys and Christians... Sorry I brought it up. :innocent:

Edited March 26, 2015 by DieChecker

[Degen]

Separation of Church and State actually means Freedom of Religion. It means the Government doesn't get to tell you that you must be Catholic. Or Baptist. Or Whatever. King George of England dictated his brand of Christianity on his people.

Separation of Church and State limits the Governments ability to interfere with your faith.

What does that have to do with anything?

His political beliefs shouldnt be swayed by his religious beliefs.

[Degen]

Isn't saying someone is stupid (or is crazy, or is a dangerous zealot) because they follow a religion just about the same as saying gays spread AIDS? Or that fat people are lazy. Or that blacks can't keep it in their pants? Or that Jews are money grubbers? Seems like a bigoted statement to me. Calling a Christian someone who can't "think for themself" is basically a Hate Statement.

OH, but I forgot... I the USA it is OK to hate White guys and Christians... Sorry I brought it up. :innocent:

If thats how you want to read it. Or could it be im just referring to joc himself? Nah, because then you would miss a chance to throw out stereotypes. Did it feel good to get them all out under the guise of a question?

Edited March 26, 2015 by Degen

[Degen]

Fair enough, Degen. That old book predicts that a group of nations, including Turkey and Iran (among many others) are going to come against Israel in a huge military force to destroy the country. It also predicts that this force will be miraculously defeated and that 5/6 of the troops will be slain. That was written about 2600 years ago. If that happens in your lifetime what will you believe then about that old book? Just curious.

But what if it doesnt happen in mine, yours or anyone elses lifetime? Thats the problem with that question, if it happens, then i will be wrong, but we might never know if you are. Basically you wont ever admit you are wrong about it because you have a little sub clause saying it could happen in the future when we are long past it.

Edited March 26, 2015 by Degen

[+joc]

His political beliefs shouldnt be swayed by his religious beliefs.

What? Do you just pull this BS out of your head or are you getting talking points from some Liberal Think Sewer Tank?