It's not necessarily the media that says that global warming is happening, so much as every major scientific institution in the entire world. The fact that a number of Republicans have chosen to deny science has nothing to do with the media.
Let me break this down for you:
1. Our planet is currently warming faster then at any other point in recent history.
2. The primary cause of this warming is from Greenhouse gasses, the most common of which is CO2.
3. Humans activity has caused CO2 levels to rise much more than is natural.
Jake there is no other valid explanation for global warming than that greenhouse gasses are causing an unnatural change in the climate.
Let's not make this a political issue, even though it seems to have become one. The evidence points to global warming, yet for some reason many conservatives don't want to accept this. Perhaps it's because stopping global warming would require government intervention, and Republicans don't like that. Perhaps it's because it would hurt the oil companies.
I don't know, and really I don't care.
What I do know is that global warming, is happening, and that if we allow petty political arguments to get in the way of stopping it then our planet is seriously screwed.
What I find most depressing about your argument is that you provide no evidence, and don't even mention the issue at hand. What you say can't even be considered a statement, but instead an implication that has very little (if anything at all) to do with the science of global warming.
1. Well we both know Bush has never been all that keen on politics...Cheney has been pretty damn loud though. I'm not sure I've heard Bill telling him to shut up.
2. That was my point...he talks about dumb tabloid issues as if they're real news. My main point was that he consistently misrepresents the facts for the right.
3. If we don't get rid of the system completely we will continue to lose troops. Considering the fact that we are in two wars right now, that seems kind of important. The reason Obama isn't doing anything about it right now though is because he doesn't want to tick off the officers, who, as the link I posted earlier shows, tend to be more conservative then the enlisted men.
4. The fact that he was an attention whore was only a pretense to get upset with him.
Hatred towards atheists is common in the real world.
5. Say what you want, but global warming is super super cereal.
1. He was still president of the United States...or does that mean anything anymore.
2. Like when he got really angry about Jammie Lynn Spears pregnancy. That was really gritty. Or how about when he lied about Churchill to try and discredit Obama. That certainly wasn't about politics.
3. First, no one is going up to kids saying, "hey I'm gay!" as O'Reilly would like you to believe. However, I don't see that there's anything wrong with explaining to a kid that you like boys instead of girls, or girls instead of boys. Obviously don't go out of your way, but what if the kid asks "why aren't you married?" then you don't really have much of a choice. As far as students (one of the people O'Reilly told to shut up was a gay high school student), who doesn't discuss sex with their friends? "Yo Bobby, why don't you have a girlfriend?" seems like a pretty fair question in a school environment. How about starting an activism group like the Gay Straight Alliance? Should highschoolers not be allowed to do this either? An organisation that attempts to have an open discussion about our differences in order to create a healthier and open atmosphere? I guess not.
As for the military: don't base arguments on stereotypes...you might end up looking dumb. Turns out a study checked to see what the ideologies and party affiliations of the military were...turns out they aren't all the southern conservative "homophobes" you make them out to me. The Officers are more conservative and more religious (in fact I've read accounts of atheists who were passed up for promotions because they weren't "religious enough) then the general population; however the enlisted men are not at all. Also, let's give our armed men and women some credit here: do you really think they won't appreciate the service of men and women risking their lives for our country just because they're gay? No offense, but look at your argument...doesn't it sound similar to an argument against letting blacks serve with whites in the military? Because it might cause some unnecessary animosity?
As far as the whole fighting force thing...it's not just the ones that are on the front lines that are being kicked out. 55 soldiers that knew Arabic have been kicked out, among the 11,000 total removed from don't ask don't tell. If you want to see how unjust the system is, read this guys story. Or this guys. It's not about making our fighting force "open minded", but about taking advantage of every resource we have regardless of sexual preference. This is how we can make our force better...not by firing people who are trying to serve, while at the same time extending the stay of others. That just doesn't make any fucking sense.
4. I have nothing to add to my previous statements. Christians, Jews, Muslims...they will push their religion on you given the chance. The fact that an single incident with an Atheist gets attention says more about our society then about the kid. Don't forget, he did get kicked out for being an Atheist, and honestly, I'm not sure I would have said the pledge had I been in his place. When I go to Church, I usually stay silent the whole time.
When I'm asked about my views I say, I was raised Catholic but I'm not religious... people don't always respond well when you say you're an atheist (refer to the Dane Cook video).
5. Except for global warming
Make sure you read the article
...he was referring more to the people who bring nothing new to the debate. Just critics to be critics.
I guess President Jimmy Carter was being a critic just to be a critic. I guess a former U.S. president didn't bring anything new to the debate.
He's also attacked advocates of the death penalty and plenty of corrupt CEOs. He is, as well, an environmentalist.
Great...his views aren't perfectly in line with every conservative...that still doesn't mean he's not an idealist. I agree with Keith Olbermann on a lot of issues...that doesn't mean he's not an idealist.
He invites guests on the show to yell at them. He rarely listens, but instead interrupts and tells people to shut up. In fact, he wants anyone with different views then him to shut up. Let's take the gay issue. Do you think it's alright for people to be openly gay? I wonder what Bill thinks?
"My thesis, you may know, is that nobody should ever talk about their sexuality in any—in any regard ever. You should not define yourself that way. It just makes life a lot rougher. So, therefore, I would probably say, if you're a gay celebrity, shut up."
—March 21, 2001
"I am in favor of having equal treatment for everyone. But I'm also in favor of having everybody in the military shut up about their sexuality. All right. Not discuss it, it's not germane. It's irrelevant."
—Dec. 20, 2000
"You can do whatever you want. Just shut up about it. Little kids don't need to know whether you're homosexual, heterosexual, a cross-dresser, whatever. Don't discuss it. That's reasonable."
—Sept. 28, 2000
"I don't want the Scout master to tell my boys if he's gay, if he's straight, if he's a bigamist, if he's anything. I don't think that has any place in Scouting, so therefore I don't think the Scouts are wrong in saying shut up. We just don't want to hear about this."
—Aug. 29, 2000
"Why didn't you just—why—why didn't you just not say anything? This—I never can get this for you guys, and I—and I don't mean to be arrogant or anything like—I just don't get it. Just shut up about it. Who cares what you do? That's what the Air Force is asking you to do. Shut up."
—June 8, 2000
"If I were Rosie O'Donnell and I didn't want to get married, I'd shut up. The same thing with Madonna. Have the kids if you—you know, obviously, they have money. They can support the kids. But I'd shut up."
—Dec. 14, 1999
"I'm asking you to shut up about sex."
—Sept. 23, 2002
O'Reilly: "I don't go running around telling everybody about my sex life, and I don't think you do either, do you?"
Hugh Downs: "No, you don't have to—"
O'Reilly: "So just shut up about it."
Bill wants us all to go back to puritan times where no one discusses sex ever...which is kinda funny looking at all the times he talked about gay people.
seriously... do you actually watch his show?
Occaisionally. I find him far too obnoxious to watch on a regular basis.
the atheist was just a little attention whore. He was in the middle of a Boyscouts pledge and in that there's a mentioning of serving God and country and the kid said "o, i'm an atheist".
I don't know when the kid became an atheist, but he was an eagle scout so clearly he went a long time in scouts without mentioning that he was an atheist. He speaks up once and suddenly he's an "attention whore". Please.
Now, I personally have been very quite about my atheism...almost none of my friends know that I'm an atheist, and I haven't told them because a couple are fairly religious. However, I will absolutely defend the right of anyone who wants to be open about their beliefs. Christians put Jesus fish on their cars, build tremendous churches, and knock on peoples doors trying to convert them...but one little atheist mentions that his beliefs...perhaps at a slightly inappropriate time, and he gets crucified. Turn on your T.V. right now and tell me how many atheist channels you can find.
I'll wait...
None? Wow... you'd think that those attention whore atheists would want to announce it to everyone. Now how many Christian networks did you find? The T.V. in my room only gets about 25 channels, but I'll be damned it 3 of 'em weren't Christian based...not that there's anything wrong with that, people have a right to free speech; however don't tell me that it's atheists who are the attention whores.
Refer to Dane Cook on Atheist Attention Whores.
Eh..south park did a better job making fun of atheists. (And for the record, I say bless you)
Edit: Forgot to include a great criticism of O'Reilly that is much more articulate than mine.
"From your tone I can only assume you are homosexual or you are close to someone who is."
Nope...nice try though.
"Well in any case the web sites in your response i've already read and like all the rest they are full of "psycho babble.""
Hmmm...."psycho babble" you say. That's pretty interesting since not a single one of the sources I gave had anything to do with psychology. Let's take a closer look, shall we?
Source 1 was about a BYU professor who presented evidence that homosexuality is biological.
FTA: "To prove his statements, Bradshaw offered data ranging from clinical evidence, brain anatomy, birth order and genetic studies."
Are any of these psychological? No. Are all of these biological and objective? Yes.
Now, other psychological studies were mentioned, but I'm not sure what causes these to be considered "psycho babble". Is it because they contradict your views?
Source 2 did just what it's title suggested. It discussed an evolutionary rationale for homosexuality.
Once again, this is not psychology.
Sources 3 and source 4 both talked about physcial studies of the brain. These are facts, and as you said: "The key elements in finding the truth are knowing the facts".
Now maybe all this isn't your fault. Maybe you just didn't read the articles, or, possibly, you just don't know the meaning of the word psychology.
"Now lets examing some facts, Homosexual sex is only engaged in for the so called pleasure of the participants and nothing more. Whereas heterosexual sex is not only done for pleasure but also for producing children. Therefore marriage was created for the rearing of these children."
Have you ever heard of birth control? More often then not, heterosexual sex is for pleasure as well.
In addition, marriage is more then just an institution to raise children, but also as a way for two individuals to express there love for each other, and make a lifetime commitment to that love.
What I fail to see is how any of this proves why homosexuality is not biological.
If all homosexuals where seperated from the rest of society in less than a hundred years they would cease to exist. This is why we have the modern homosexual movement, and organizations such as manbla so that new souls can be brought in.
Wow, I like how you backed this statement up with facts...you know, because "the truth will set us free".
First, what the fuck is "manbla" and why does it have anything to do with this debate?
Secondly, homosexuality has existed among humans for thousands of years, in numerous different cultures. How would this be possible if people aren't born gay? The "gay conspiracy" that you continue to describe would have to have started separately in different parts of the globe among widely different peoples all around the same time. This is just plain ridiculous.
In addition homosexuality is found in thousands of species of animals. Is there a gay conspiracy among chimpanzees? Lions? The clear answer is that the causes of homosexuality are in fact biological.
So you tell me...whose side do the facts really support?
Now i can back up my arguments also with scientific research.
Really? Well it's about time.
Homosexuals can change and go on to lead normal lives. Now I'm going to give out one web site that will back me up. I could give out many more but something tells me no matter how many i give out you will only dimiss them as someones opinion! So i guess this information will be for others who read this and follow up for themselves because i not asking anyone to only take my word for it but to find out for themselves and have the courage to believe the truth when they find it. The name of the website is NARTH.COM.
A website that claims to be able to convert homosexuals, straight. Well, I'm sure you'll be happy to hear that their claims of "success" have been proven fraudulent time and time again.
Here is an article about faked evidence.
Here is another article that shows the same thing.
And here is a written apology by three former leaders of a group that attempted to turn gay people straight. You will find that this letter is on a website for a support group for people who had to go through the trauma these "conversion therapies". This supposed treatment causes more psychological harm then good, and can appropriately be called "psyco babble."
You seem to be very concerned with truth, and the is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with being gay. Psychological problems only occur when people like you attempt to make people feel bad about something that is perfectly natural.
He's just saying that certain people need to shut up.
Let's look at the people he wants to shut up
-Gay kid
-Atheist
-Critic of George Bush's Policies
And then you go on to say:
...what i like about him is that he's not an ideologue. He couldn't give two shits if someone was a Republican or a Liberal...
I am work right now, so I can't exactly burst out laughing, but trust me I want to.
The guy flat out deceives people, by misrepresenting the facts, and guess which side he lies for 99% of the time? If you guessed either for conservatives, or against liberals then you would be correct.
And which group does he usually complain about? Far left-wingers, or the liberal media.
Going back to my previous point about him wanting Bush critics to "just shut up" because we are in war, don't you find it strange that he isn't following his own advice in his criticism of Obama? Of course not.
So, I disagree that O'Relly's style is "something that's hard to find nowadays," just go to any conservative blog, and find the angriest guy there...you'll see that his style is all too common.
Scientists have confirmed that temperatures before the last ice age were about 4C higher than they are now.
Could you please show me what "ice age" your talking about.
I have not seen anything about how long the rate of global warming will remain the way it is now.
Actually, the warming is accelerating, and shows no signs of stopping. The main thing that is happening is that more and more ice is melting, releasing more CO2 that is trapped either in, or beneath that ice. In addition, snow tends to reflect sunlight. As more and more snow melts at the poles, less is being reflected, and more is being absorbed. This causes more ice to melt, and thus expedites the process further. If you've taken biology, you might be aware of the term positive reinforcement system. If not you can look it up, because it applies.
I must once again though ask why your "beliefs" are somehow more accurate then every major scientific organisation in the world.
I would agree, and only add that we should guarantee higher education to anyone who can qualify.
The main reason for this is that the average number of children a woman has is inversely related to her education level. The longer women stay in school, the longer they wait to settle down and have kids.
How could you possibly agree that humans have no major role in warming the climate?
Do you know more then nearly every climatoligest, and every major scientific organization on earth?
Clearly you have been poorly educated; however I will be happy to clear up any confusion that you may have.
Do you deny that the earth is warming?
Do you deny that this warming is much greater then can be explained by natural phenomenon?
Do you deny that excess CO2 in the atmosphere is contributing significantly to this warming process?
Do you deny that human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels over the past century, is responsible for excess CO2 in the atmosphere?
Which of these do you deny, because I would be more than happy to explain any and all of them.
Well, how long does it take to develop new forms of fuel?
Exactly 0 years.
We already have other forms of fuel. Coal is one of the biggest contributers to fossil fuels, and we can easily replace it with solar, wind and geothermal energy.
In addition, hydrogen fuel cell technology, and current technology for electric cars is easily good enough to replace fossil fuels within the next decade if we seriously invest in it.
If you read my arguement you would realize that I said only take parts of the Parks.
It's still cutting down oxygen providing trees. And, as a side note, who the fuck would want to cut down parks? I wanted to address that earlier, but there were too many other things wrong with your argument.
By the way, I like how you ignored the rest of my argument. Sometimes looking the other way when people prove you wrong is the best way to save face...good work!
So let me get this straight...first you want to cut down national parks to make room for more people, and now you want to plant more plants? Pick one so that I can tell you specifically why your wrong.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that you pick the plant more plants thing. While this is a good and noble idea, it's about the same as using a wet washcloth to put out a forest fire.
In order to have an effect we would first have to stop the extreme amount of deforestation that occurs in rainforests in order to make land for crops and grazing livestock. In case you were unaware (and I'm guessing from your previous comments that you are) the rainforests are responsible for producing around 20% of the world's oxygen. Therefore any reforestation would first have to replace the damage that has already been done...assuming you could stop people from cutting down the rainforests, and therefore putting lots of people out of a job...but, hey how hard could that be?
In addition, not only would we have to both stop people from working for a living, and replace all the trees we've already cut down, but we would have to actually grow more trees then were there before, because of the amount of CO2 and we are putting in the atmosphere.
I also must ask if you know how long it takes for a tree to grow? They don't spring up over night that's for damn sure. Reforestation would take decades if we began right now.
Finally, we must consider that all what I just mentioned, only deals with CO2. While that is the most significant greenhouse gas, there are others that would not be stopped merely by complete reforestation.
The amount of carbon dioxide put into the air by humans is small
Wrong. Humans put more then 120 times the amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as do volcanoes.
Don't plants need carbon dioxide to live? If stop emiting CO2 into the air the plant will die.
How do you think plants lived before fossil fuels? Obviously plants need some CO2, but the point is that there is way more then the plants can possibly take up. A certain amount of CO2 is emitted naturally by all animals, and other sources (like the volcanoes I mentioned), and this is good; however the extreme amounts of CO2 we put in the atmosphere coupled with deforestation is making CO2 rise way more then is natural.
I find it very sad that you have been duped by those people who deny that global warming exists. Please, do yourself a favor and read about the subject, because right now you are spewing nonsense.
Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses are causing the planet to warm up, and the number one cause of these gasses is human activity. These are facts, and to ignore them is just plain ignorant.
It was the user "Supremelord"...you can tell by looking at his reward points.
It is.
Telling someone to shut up, just because they disagree with you is limiting their right to free speech. It's actually a command.
Calling someone a dick, while arguably not very mature, is doing no such thing. I also gave reasons, and if you want me too I can give more. The guy flat out misrepresents the facts in order to suit his own political views. As a journalist (if he can even be called that) it should be your job to educate people. What O'Reily (and most of Faux news, with one or two exceptions) does is flat out deceive.
When you take that into consideration, I think calling him a dick was an understatement.
Oh! Just suggestions! That's much more reasonable. I know when I'm talking to someone in a debate, I often suggest that they "just shut up."
Face it pyg, the guys a dick. He reports with complete disregard for the facts, and is extremely rude to anyone who disagrees with him. I am perplexed by your continued support of this guy. Trust me, he's not worth it.
You just described social darwinism...have you ever heard of Hitler?
I personally agree with Darwin on this issue:
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
I don't know about the whole mic cutting thing, but I do know that O'Reilly certainly likes to tell people to "shut-up" when they disagree with him.
Anecdotal evidence is useless in a debate. Unless you plan to back up your claims with actual evidence, then it is safe to assume that your opinions are just that...opinions. It is also safe to assume that your making all this shit up, because it has been evidenced in countless studies that homosexuality is not a choice, but that biology plays a significant role in whether someone is homosexual or straight.
Here is some actual evidence that homosexuality is not a choice, or as a result of abuse or mistreatment, but instead the result of biological factors:
http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/49488
http://zero.poynt.zero.googlepages.com/home
http://discovermagazine.com/1994/mar/sexandthebrain346/?searchterm=levay
http://politicalinquirer.com/2008/06/17/
So next time, before you open your mouth and spew out gallons of bigoted verbal diarrhea, make sure your claims are backed up by the facts...otherwise you might come off looking pretty dumb.
This is assuming that gay people are exactly the same as straight people.
This is ignoring the scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice.
This is, in essence, ignoring that homosexuality even exists.
Straight people are allowed to marry who they are attracted to, and gays aren't.
If the government outlawed insulin, diabetics would be upset, but technically (according to your definition) they aren't being discriminated against because they are being treated the same as those people who don't have diabetes.
I agree completely. There has never been a better tool for discovering and learning then the internet. There are tons of great sites out there that can change your perspective, and help you learn about a whole range of subjects.
If I had to recommend one, I would say ted.com. It is an amazing site that has talks on all kinds of topics by extremely interesting people.
Assuming what your saying is that hard work is what we want to encourage, do you agree that we need to make it more difficult to pass on wealth?
Do you agree that there is nothing difficult with about inheriting money?
Do you also agree that many people start out disadvantaged, and that often bad luck plays a part in peoples financial troubles (i.e. medical difficulties, and layoffs that have nothing to do with a persons work ethic)?
You must understand that a purely capitalist system does not address any of these concerns. You also have to understand that capitalism rewards not just hard work but also greed. Those employers who outsource to countries with cheap labor can make more money, but are actually hurting the society as a whole.
I understand that you have grown up in an environment where Smithian economics are practically a religion, but you must understand that capitalism is not the answer to everything.
(For the sake of this argument I am going to assume that this debate does not deal with personal decisions made by politicians, but instead with decisions affecting policy.)
First off let me start by saying politicians, in general should not be making moral decisions. Morality tends to be subjective, and therefore the moral decisions must be left up to individuals. For example, something should never be outlawed for the mere fact that it is considered immoral. Instead one must look at the positive and negative effects of outlawing and how it will affect the society they are ruling. By looking at laws in this way, you can see that the decisions made by politicians should not be moral at all, but instead based on reason.
In addition, by basing laws off a particular religious belief system, the state is indirectly supporting the views of a religion. This becomes a conflict in places where there is supposed to be a separation of church and state (like the U.S. for example). I must reiterate that laws that govern a diverse cross section of people must be based on reason, because not everyone has the same moral code. Otherwise, people will have their freedom restricted.
I'm pretty sure you didn't understand my point, so allow me to explain myself. Homosexuality is found throughout nature, in numerous species. Therefore, calling homosexuality unnatural would be misleading (at the very least).
You are correct that we do not have the same genes as fish. But as I said earlier, homosexuality is prevalent in nature, and therefore must be genetic in all of the species I named (including many mammals, and some primates). Therefore if humans were not born homosexual, then this would make our species an exception.
None of this matters however, because we have studied humans, and homosexuality is not a choice. It has to do with a combination of genetics, and hormone levels in the womb.
I am no biologist so my credibility only extends as far as my source's credibility. In this case my source is the video I linked to which is made by a biology student. I have found all of his videos very informative and factually accurate and therefore find no reason to doubt him. If you want to check out his page here it is.
http://www.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2
Most of his videos are about evolution and debunking creationist arguments.
