Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Things we'd be talking about if the forum wasn't deadFollow

#4602 Jan 27 2018 at 1:27 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,076 posts
You guys suck at analogies. It's more like this:

gbaji: How many legs do cats have?

Vet: What are you, ******- oh, it's you again. Let me get my crayons.

gbaji: I love ******* dogs.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#4603 Jan 27 2018 at 5:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Tough, but fair. Smiley: schooled
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4604 Jan 29 2018 at 8:18 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,054 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Let's get rid of all of it before it burns our planet down!
Well, there wouldn't be any war and vegans if it weren't for oxygen. How about that, huh?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4605 Jan 30 2018 at 4:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,106 posts
Jophiel wrote:
So you think that how conservatives think & act is a completely separate topic from how liberals think and act.


No. I think that conservatives have a much better understanding of liberal positions and arguments than liberals do about conservative positions and arguments. This is a position I've adopted over a couple decades of discussing political issues with both conservative and liberals, and something I've commented on many times on this forum. Long before I'd ever heard of Haidt, and long before he ever did his study or wrote a book about it. It also just happens that Haidt's study provides additional hard data which confirms my opinion on this, but that is hardly the source of my position.

I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to grasp.

Quote:
That's... an amusing defense? Ah well, you keep on telling yourself what you need to tell yourself.


Amusing defense of what? Yet another example of a liberal completely misunderstanding something a conservative says. It's almost like you're supporting the very point I'm making here.

Let me repeat this again:

gbaji wrote:
So... Um... Is there anything in the book that refutes what was in the study?


You have repeatedly brought up the whole "you didn't read the book" bit, but you have also failed to claim that a single thing in the book actually refutes anything I've said regarding Haidt's study, and how it relates to my own observations regarding liberal understanding of conservative positions and rationales. If the book doesn't contradict what I'm saying then why would me not reading the book in any way invalidate what I'm saying?

Do you have an answer for this question?

Edited, Jan 30th 2018 2:36pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#4606 Jan 30 2018 at 4:49 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,520 posts
gbaji wrote:
So... Um... Is there anything in the book that refutes what was in the study?


Waiting for you to read it, and let us know. Until you have all the facts, we don't need to hear you talk about this again.

____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#4607 Jan 30 2018 at 5:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Actually, I've mentioned points from the book previously and you just went "Nuh UH doesn't count!" so I'm uninterested in wasting time on it now when you can't be bothered to read it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4608 Jan 30 2018 at 5:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,106 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Gbaji: I always suspected that oxygen was flammable
Scientist: Oh, it is flammable, and in addition to that, every living person on the planet needs it to-
Gbaji: Ah, ah ah, that's enough out of you, science boy!! You have confirmed what I had already perceived. There is literally nothing else I need to know about oxygen. Let's get rid of all of it before it burns our planet down!


Sure. And if I proposed a course of action based on the fact that oxygen is flammable that we should eliminate all oxygen from the Earth, you'd have a point. Which, interestingly enough, sounds a lot like the whole "let's label CO2 a pollutant and place restrictions on it" bit, but that's another topic.

I haven't done anything similar with regards to this subject though. And if Joph thinks I have, he's free to quote something from the book that directly contradicts a single thing I've said about the subject. But he's consistently failed to do this, not only right now, but way back when we first had this discussion as well. Which leads me to my assumption that he's just throwing out the whole "you didn't read the book", not as a legitimate counter to my position and argument, but as a means of avoiding it.

Edited, Jan 30th 2018 3:45pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#4609 Jan 30 2018 at 5:46 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,106 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Actually, I've mentioned points from the book previously and you just went "Nuh UH doesn't count!" so I'm uninterested in wasting time on it now when you can't be bothered to read it.


If they weren't points that contradicted something I said, then they weren't relevant. See how that works?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#4610 Jan 30 2018 at 5:53 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,106 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So... Um... Is there anything in the book that refutes what was in the study?


Waiting for you to read it, and let us know. Until you have all the facts, we don't need to hear you talk about this again.


Wait. Let me get this straight. There some book out there that you think includes information which contradicts something I've written. But instead of you finding the book, reading it, and presenting whatever facts, data, quotes, or whatever are contained within that you think constitute a refutation of something I've written, you're demanding that I must go and read the book to find it myself? And then... what?

Um.... That's not how this works. If you or Joph think there's something in the book which counters something I said, it's kinda on you to produce that information and quote it here. Not me. I can't prove a negative. I cannot ever prove that a book written by someone else does *not* contain a counter to something I said. I can only argue that you have not shown that it does. Again, that counter argument and support is on you to produce, not me.

You're going off the rails here.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#4611 Jan 30 2018 at 10:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Actually, I've mentioned points from the book previously and you just went "Nuh UH doesn't count!" so I'm uninterested in wasting time on it now when you can't be bothered to read it.
If they weren't points that contradicted something I said, then they weren't relevant. See how that works?

30 GOTO 10
RUN
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4612 Jan 31 2018 at 12:39 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,422 posts
gbaji wrote:
sounds a lot like the whole "let's label CO2 a pollutant and place restrictions on it" bit
I'd love to observe the effect of CO2 pumped into your condo.

Not dangerous at all!!!
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#4613 Jan 31 2018 at 12:43 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,422 posts
gbaji wrote:
There some book out there that you think includes information which contradicts something I've written. But instead of you finding the book, reading it, and presenting whatever facts, data, quotes, or whatever are contained within that you think constitute a refutation of something I've written, you're demanding that I must go and read the book to find it myself?
Kinda like me wanting you to read Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

Having not read it, you are the arbiter of truth.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#4614 Jan 31 2018 at 8:40 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,054 posts
Jophiel wrote:
30 GOTO 10
RUN
Oh ho ho! Because he's so basic!
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4615 Jan 31 2018 at 10:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
He wears Uggs, drinks Starbucks and drives a Jetta!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4616 Feb 01 2018 at 7:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,106 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
sounds a lot like the whole "let's label CO2 a pollutant and place restrictions on it" bit
I'd love to observe the effect of CO2 pumped into your condo.

Not dangerous at all!!!


At the percentages we're talking about in terms of global CO2 levels in the atmosphere? Correct. Not remotely dangerous. One would actually say: Necessary.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#4617 Feb 02 2018 at 12:39 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,422 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
sounds a lot like the whole "let's label CO2 a pollutant and place restrictions on it" bit
I'd love to observe the effect of CO2 pumped into your condo.

Not dangerous at all!!!


At the percentages we're talking about in terms of global CO2 levels in the atmosphere? Correct. Not remotely dangerous. One would actually say: Necessary.
Being willing to inhale a pollutant does not make it "not a pollutant".

If one was to insure that the amount of CO2 you decided to pick was delivered to your lungs under some easy to create conditions, you'd die.


Or do you know 200X more than the rest of us about biology and chemistry, too?Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#4618 Feb 05 2018 at 8:07 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,054 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Or do you know 200X more than the rest of us about biology and chemistry, too?Smiley: oyvey
He did see a high school science book once. It was from Texas, but still.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4619 Feb 05 2018 at 9:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
Or do you know 200X more than the rest of us about biology and chemistry, too?Smiley: oyvey
He did see a high school science book once. It was from Texas, but still.

Well, he saw a book review about one in National Review Online and it told him what he already believed so why would anyone pursue it from there?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4620 Feb 05 2018 at 9:11 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,520 posts
So, remember when Paul Ryan tweeted about the secretary that got the 1.50 per paycheck raise?

____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#4621 Feb 06 2018 at 10:35 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,054 posts
She can almost afford a large can of beer from a gas station to help her forget how disappointing that is.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4622 Feb 06 2018 at 10:40 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,520 posts
I would hope that like any responsible American, she spends that money on half a gallon of gas, in order to enrich the top 1%.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#4623 Feb 06 2018 at 4:59 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,106 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
sounds a lot like the whole "let's label CO2 a pollutant and place restrictions on it" bit
I'd love to observe the effect of CO2 pumped into your condo.

Not dangerous at all!!!


At the percentages we're talking about in terms of global CO2 levels in the atmosphere? Correct. Not remotely dangerous. One would actually say: Necessary.
Being willing to inhale a pollutant does not make it "not a pollutant".


it does make it "not dangerous" (not the "willing to inhale", but the actual amount of CO2 in the air), which is directly relevant to the statement you made.

Quote:
If one was to insure that the amount of CO2 you decided to pick was delivered to your lungs under some easy to create conditions, you'd die.


Again. Not at the levels in the atmosphere though. Not even remotely close, in fact. What exactly do you mean by "amount of CO2 you decided to pick"? The amount I'm talking about is the same percentage that is creating hand wringing and calls for regulations. That amount is vastly less than anything even remotely hazardous to us in terms of breathing. If it wasn't, then we'd all be suffering from this all the time. We're not. So no... Not dangerous at all.


Quote:
Or do you know 200X more than the rest of us about biology and chemistry, too?Smiley: oyvey


I apparently know more about the effect of CO2 on the air we breath than you do. You do realize that the "normal" level of CO2 in an interior space (like your living room) is between 350 and 1000 ppm (250 to 350 is "normal" for outside air)? The horrible rate that has everyone upset about is that the earth's rate in the atmosphere has on occasion in some areas risen to a super high... wait for it... 400ppm.

Over 1000 ppm, you might notice the air is a little stale. Over 2k ppm, a bit more. Over 4k ppm, you'll start to get headaches. And somewhere around 40k ppm, it's fatal. So yeah, if the concentration of CO2 continues to rise to a level that's like 100 times higher than the highest we've measured it since we've begun obsessing over the whole "OMG! Global warming!!!" thing, then maybe at that point, we might have an issue with the toxicity of the air caused by too much CO2.

It's not dangerous. The concerns about CO2 levels in our atmosphere have nothing at all to do with difficulty breathing it. It's entirely about the greenhouse gas effect caused by it. Which is a whole different thing. Hence, the issue with labeling it a pollutant to be tracked and regulated. That's a category generally reserved for things like oil spills in water, or a variety of complex chemical compounds that have actual toxic effects in the concentrations they are found in. CO2? Not so much.

Edited, Feb 6th 2018 3:10pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#4624 Feb 06 2018 at 5:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,106 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
I would hope that like any responsible American, she spends that money on half a gallon of gas, in order to enrich the top 1%.


Laughing at Ryan's poor choice of examples aside, the reality is that most Americans have seen a noticeable increase in their take home pay just from the tax rate changes.

Kinda curious if any of you have looked at your pay checks over the last month. I just checked mine and I'm getting $28 more per two week pay schedule. Which isn't huge, but still adds up to over $700 a year. That's a bit more than a costco membership I think.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#4625 Feb 06 2018 at 5:21 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,106 posts
Interesting bit about the Ryan tweet. I don't follow the guy, so I have no clue what the context was, but it's interesting that his tweet was a direct quote from this article. My suspicion is that he (or, more likely his staff), just quoted every paragraph in the article that listed a person and their savings. Of course, if you ignore the two bracketing examples of 200 dollar a month savings and just look at the $1.50 a week one in the middle, it might look a bit weird.

Very easy to cherry pick one tweet in a set and make it look like something it's not. I'd be shocked if out of the list of examples in that article, he actually chose to include just the one that was smallest, so I'm going with "series of tweets quoting savings from the article, and folks decided to jump on one of them" angle. But hey. Let's not look at the whole picture here when we can zero in on the outliers.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#4626 Feb 06 2018 at 5:25 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,422 posts
Way to miss the point, gbjai.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 0 All times are in CST