NATION

PASSWORD

Should climate change deniers be disenfranchised?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

Post a reply
User avatar
Objectiveland
Diplomat
 
Posts: 736
Founded: Oct 15, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Objectiveland » Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:11 pm

Mavorpen wrote:

NOT a scientific source.

Try again.


Case and point
"Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one's government is not necessarily to secure freedom."
Top
User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:12 pm

Objectiveland wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:NOT a scientific source.

Try again.


Case and point

I agree. Case and point you have no evidence.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman
Top
User avatar
Objectiveland
Diplomat
 
Posts: 736
Founded: Oct 15, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Objectiveland » Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:12 pm

Agymnum wrote:


Conservapedia...

HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH

Oh... That slaps me on the knee!

Try a real source, please.


Case and point
"Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one's government is not necessarily to secure freedom."
Top
User avatar
Agymnum
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7393
Founded: Jul 31, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Agymnum » Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:12 pm

Objectiveland wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:NOT a scientific source.

Try again.


Case and point


Except we all acknowledge that Conservapedia isn't a valid source.

If you actually think it's valid...

Change your name from Objectiveland to Conservativeland. Would suit you better.
Glorious puppet of Highfort
Top
User avatar
Objectiveland
Diplomat
 
Posts: 736
Founded: Oct 15, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Objectiveland » Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:20 pm

Agymnum wrote:
Objectiveland wrote:
Case and point


Except we all acknowledge that Conservapedia isn't a valid source.

If you actually think it's valid...

Change your name from Objectiveland to Conservativeland. Would suit you better.


Wrong. Any source I use is invalid ( even though the site I referenced used specific studies). But I am expected to use your sources ( Wikipedia for example) as gospel. Therefore you can choose my truths or your lies. Makes no difference to me as the only objective truth is the climate has always changed and always will irregardless of human intervention.
Last edited by Objectiveland on Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one's government is not necessarily to secure freedom."
Top
User avatar
Ethel mermania
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 126530
Founded: Aug 20, 2010
Libertarian Police State

Postby Ethel mermania » Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:21 pm

Agymnum wrote:
Objectiveland wrote:
Case and point


Except we all acknowledge that Conservapedia isn't a valid source.

If you actually think it's valid...

Change your name from Objectiveland to Conservativeland. Would suit you better.


not to really get into this debate of climate change but this popped up on google.

http://www.aproundtable.org/tps30info/globalwarmup.html

my problem is the thought that disagreement on an issue, is grounds for disenfranchisement. Except eugenics, i think people who support eugenics should be killed to save the species from well people who think eugenics is the answer to save the species. I live for irony.
The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion … but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.

The most fundamental problem of politics is not the control of wickedness but the limitation of righteousness. 



http://www.salientpartners.com/epsilont ... ilizations
Top
User avatar
Tubbsalot
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9196
Founded: Oct 17, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Tubbsalot » Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:23 pm

Ethel mermania wrote:this popped up on google.

A shamelessly stupid and dishonest blog from 2002?

Well I suppose that clinches it.
"Twats love flags." - Yootopia
Top
User avatar
Agymnum
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7393
Founded: Jul 31, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Agymnum » Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:24 pm

Honestly, I'm done here. I'm just... Done.

I'm going to take a break before I chuck my monitor out the window from the stupidity that allowing morons to breed has seemed to cause among humans. I...

I'm done.
Glorious puppet of Highfort
Top
User avatar
Vitaphone Racing
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10123
Founded: Aug 25, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Vitaphone Racing » Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:27 pm

I don't think people who refuse to accept climate change are stupid or ignorant inherantly. They're just in denial. They don't want to accept that the world and their lifestyle is changing.
Parhe on my Asian-ness.
Parhe wrote:Guess what, maybe you don't know what it is like to be Asian.

ayy lmao
Top
User avatar
Raeyh
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6275
Founded: Feb 24, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Raeyh » Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:33 pm

Objectiveland wrote:
Agymnum wrote:
Except we all acknowledge that Conservapedia isn't a valid source.

If you actually think it's valid...

Change your name from Objectiveland to Conservativeland. Would suit you better.


Wrong. Any source I use is invalid ( even though the site I referenced used specific studies). But I am expected to use your sources ( Wikipedia for example) as gospel. Therefore you can choose my truths or your lies. Makes no difference to me as the only objective truth is the climate has always changed and always will irregardless of human intervention.


Isn't Conservapedia a satire site? It's like linking to the Onion.
Top
User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:34 pm

Objectiveland wrote:
Agymnum wrote:
Except we all acknowledge that Conservapedia isn't a valid source.

If you actually think it's valid...

Change your name from Objectiveland to Conservativeland. Would suit you better.


Wrong. Any source I use is invalid ( even though the site I referenced used specific studies). But I am expected to use your sources ( Wikipedia for example) as gospel. Therefore you can choose my truths or you lies. Makes no difference to me as the only objective truth is the climate has always changed and always will irregardless of human intervention.

I knew this would come up. Let's look through Conservapedia's "references," shall we?

Source number one!: This is hilarious. The source is from IPCC. Do you know what the IPCC IS?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body,[1][2] set up at the request of member governments.


Source number two!: This isn't a "study" at all, it's a fucking book. Not only that, but the link to the source doesn't even work, so you can't even check it. This wouldn't be considered valid by even the most idiotic of conservatives.

Source number three!: Another hilarious one. It's from a published paper that is a collaboration between two PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES in Germany!

Source number four!: Again, this isn't a study. This is a blog about an asshole whining about NASA.

Source number five!: This one is ALSO not available to check. So it's in essence COMPLETELY FUCKING USELESS.

Source number six!: This ALSO isn't a study, and is instead a paper about a guy whining about the politicization of science, without providing ANY insight as to whether man made climate change is true.

Source number seven!: This is also hilarious. It's not a study, but an article by the NY TIMES (the supposed LIBERUL think tank), showing that man made climate change is REAL.

Source number eight!: ALSO an article that shows man made climate change to be real.

Your source proves ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. It provides a mixture of research released by PUBLIC institutions, shit that DOESN'T have anything to do with climate change, sources that AREN'T accessible, and articles that report that man made climate change is REAL.

I'll give you this big suggestion, so you don't try to pull this shit again.
READ YOUR SOURCES
Last edited by Mavorpen on Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman
Top
User avatar
Ethel mermania
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 126530
Founded: Aug 20, 2010
Libertarian Police State

Postby Ethel mermania » Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:35 pm

Agymnum wrote:Honestly, I'm done here. I'm just... Done.

I'm going to take a break before I chuck my monitor out the window from the stupidity that allowing morons to breed has seemed to cause among humans. I...

I'm done.


kool, your on my eugenics list. j/k but seriously the concept that folks should listen to the elite "cause they know better" sickens me to the core. It is about as unamerican an attitude as you can have. When buckley talked about preferring to give the governance of the united states to the first 400 names in the boston phone book, as opposed to the faculty of harvard university. This is what he was talking about, and he was right.
The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion … but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.

The most fundamental problem of politics is not the control of wickedness but the limitation of righteousness. 



http://www.salientpartners.com/epsilont ... ilizations
Top
User avatar
Objectiveland
Diplomat
 
Posts: 736
Founded: Oct 15, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Objectiveland » Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:41 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
Objectiveland wrote:
Wrong. Any source I use is invalid ( even though the site I referenced used specific studies). But I am expected to use your sources ( Wikipedia for example) as gospel. Therefore you can choose my truths or you lies. Makes no difference to me as the only objective truth is the climate has always changed and always will irregardless of human intervention.

I knew this would come up. Let's look through Conservapedia's "references," shall we?

Source number one!: This is hilarious. The source is from IPCC. Do you know what the IPCC IS?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body,[1][2] set up at the request of member governments.


Source number two!: This isn't a "study" at all, it's a fucking book. Not only that, but the link to the source doesn't even work, so you can't even check it. This wouldn't be considered valid by even the most idiotic of conservatives.

Source number three!: Another hilarious one. It's from a published paper that is a collaboration between two PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES in Germany!

Source number four!: Again, this isn't a study. This is a blog about an asshole whining about NASA.

Source number five!: This one is ALSO not available to check. So it's in essence COMPLETELY FUCKING USELESS.

Source number six!: This ALSO isn't a study, and is instead a paper about a guy whining about the politicization of science, without providing ANY insight as to whether man made climate change is true.

Source number seven!: This is also hilarious. It's not a study, but an article by the NY TIMES (the supposed LIBERUL think tank), showing that man made climate change is REAL.

Source number eight!: ALSO an article that shows man made climate change to be real.

Your source proves ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. It provides a mixture of research released by PUBLIC institutions, shit that DOESN'T have anything to do with climate change, sources that AREN'T accessible, and articles that report that man made climate change is REAL.

I'll give you this big suggestion, so you don't try to pull this shit again.
READ YOUR SOURCES


Again case and point. I am expected to accept your sources as gospel but mine are biased. Why do you keep asking for them if you have no intention of believing them? The only objective truth is the climate has always changed and always will irregardless of human intervention. You can believe my truths or your lies it makes no difference to me.
Last edited by Objectiveland on Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one's government is not necessarily to secure freedom."
Top
User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:43 pm

Objectiveland wrote:Again case and point. I am expected to accept your sources as gospel but mine are biased.


QUOTE me saying it's biased. PLEASE do.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman
Top
User avatar
Objectiveland
Diplomat
 
Posts: 736
Founded: Oct 15, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Objectiveland » Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:46 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
Objectiveland wrote:Again case and point. I am expected to accept your sources as gospel but mine are biased.


QUOTE me saying it's biased. PLEASE do.


Oh so you finally agree with me. Thank god I got through to someone!
"Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one's government is not necessarily to secure freedom."
Top
User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:48 pm

Objectiveland wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:
QUOTE me saying it's biased. PLEASE do.


Oh so you finally agree with me. Thank god I got through to someone!

Never said that.

STILL waiting on your scientific sources.
Last edited by Mavorpen on Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman
Top
User avatar
AiliailiA
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 27722
Founded: Jul 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby AiliailiA » Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:52 pm

Objectiveland wrote: the only objective truth is [that] the climate has always changed and always will irregardless of human intervention.


All living things die. Therefore we shouldn't worry about murder.
My name is voiced AIL-EE-AIL-EE-AH. My time zone: UTC.
Cannot think of a name wrote:"Where's my immortality?" will be the new "Where's my jetpack?"
Maineiacs wrote:"We're going to build a canal, and we're going to make Columbia pay for it!" -- Teddy Roosevelt
Ifreann wrote:That's not a Freudian slip. A Freudian slip is when you say one thing and mean your mother.
Ethel mermania wrote:
Ifreann wrote:
DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:
: eugenics :
What are the colons meant to convey here?
In my experience Colons usually convey shit
NSG junkie. Getting good shit for free, why would I give it up?
Top
User avatar
Franklin Delano Bluth
Senator
 
Posts: 4962
Founded: Apr 13, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Franklin Delano Bluth » Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:00 pm

Objectiveland wrote:
Agymnum wrote:
Except your viewpoint is not objective. It's biased.

You don't seem to understand what objective means. You can't pull shit out your ass and call it "objective".


The only objective truth is the climate has always changed and always will. Irregardless of humans as there were no humans 5 million years ago


Hunger can cause headaches. So can stress.

A rotating magnetic field can create an electric current. So can the right kinds of chemicals properly connected.

Cardiac hypertrophy can cause cardiac arrest. So can arterial blockage.
The American Legion is a neo-fascist terrorist organization, bent on implementing Paulinist Sharia, and with a history of pogroms against organized labor and peace activists and of lynching those who dare resist or defend themselves against its aggression.

Pro: O'Reilly technical books, crew-length socks, Slide-O-Mix trombone lubricant, Reuben sandwiches
Anti: The eight-line signature limit, lift kits, cancelling Better Off Ted, Chicago Cubs
Top
User avatar
AiliailiA
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 27722
Founded: Jul 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby AiliailiA » Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:00 pm

Objectiveland wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:
Still waiting on your evidence for this that my sources fits this description. Refute EVERY one of them.


Just as mine to you your sources to me are meaningless. Just concede that people are allowed to have an objective viewpoint other than yours.


What does the word "objective" mean to you?

Two viewpoints in direct disagreement with each other cannot both be objective.
My name is voiced AIL-EE-AIL-EE-AH. My time zone: UTC.
Cannot think of a name wrote:"Where's my immortality?" will be the new "Where's my jetpack?"
Maineiacs wrote:"We're going to build a canal, and we're going to make Columbia pay for it!" -- Teddy Roosevelt
Ifreann wrote:That's not a Freudian slip. A Freudian slip is when you say one thing and mean your mother.
Ethel mermania wrote:
Ifreann wrote:
DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:
: eugenics :
What are the colons meant to convey here?
In my experience Colons usually convey shit
NSG junkie. Getting good shit for free, why would I give it up?
Top
User avatar
Franklin Delano Bluth
Senator
 
Posts: 4962
Founded: Apr 13, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Franklin Delano Bluth » Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:01 pm

Eleutheria wrote:I'd also say, Bluth, that whether you believe in an electoral democracy or not, it makes no sense whatsoever to compromise between the two positions (elections and whatever proletarian dictatorship or benign autocracy it is that you advocate) and have some people voting (i.e. people who agree with you) and others not. Stick to one position or the other, that middle-ground grants the state far too much power, which it will undoubtedly abuse.


That's the idea in the long run, yes.

If hierarchy hasn't successfully been abolished before it's too late to do something about climate change, however, we've still got to do the best we can with the social order we have.
Last edited by Franklin Delano Bluth on Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The American Legion is a neo-fascist terrorist organization, bent on implementing Paulinist Sharia, and with a history of pogroms against organized labor and peace activists and of lynching those who dare resist or defend themselves against its aggression.

Pro: O'Reilly technical books, crew-length socks, Slide-O-Mix trombone lubricant, Reuben sandwiches
Anti: The eight-line signature limit, lift kits, cancelling Better Off Ted, Chicago Cubs
Top
User avatar
Globocom Enterprises
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 125
Founded: Oct 01, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Globocom Enterprises » Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:12 pm

Ok, so everyone wants sources, I get that.

Someone please give me the source/research and the name of the persons most responsible for climate change over the last 4.54 Billion years!

Wait...

Did someone say his name is "the son?" I don't understand...

*Muffled yelling in the background*

What? Now the scientists are saying it was cows and dinosaur farts?!?!
Last edited by Globocom Enterprises on Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
User avatar
Globocom Enterprises
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 125
Founded: Oct 01, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Globocom Enterprises » Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:19 pm

*LOOKS IN HIS WALLET*

I've got 900 bucks in there... can someone tell me what 900 out of 4.54 billion is? I just need to know the percentage.

I've got all these people convinced that this $900 is WAY more important than the other 4.54 billion LOL, what a bunch of suckers.
Top
User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:25 pm

Globocom Enterprises wrote:*LOOKS IN HIS WALLET*

I've got 900 bucks in there... can someone tell me what 900 out of 4.54 billion is? I just need to know the percentage.

I've got all these people convinced that this $900 is WAY more important than the other 4.54 billion LOL, what a bunch of suckers.

So what you're saying is, rape should be legal, because in the grand lifespan of the Earth, it's been happening all the time, amirite?
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman
Top
User avatar
Prussia-Steinbach
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22386
Founded: Mar 12, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Prussia-Steinbach » Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:30 pm

Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:Then what do you propose we do, if the climate change deniers continue their stubbornness indefinitely and continue to promote humanity's destruction for their own private interests?

...

Respect their freedom of speech?
I don't care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do.
The question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. ― William S. Burroughs
Top
User avatar
Mezique
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 124
Founded: Sep 30, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Mezique » Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:31 pm

Well damnit, I'm the last idealogically right-wing person on NSG.
Economic Left/Right: 6.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.08
Mexicanos al grito de guerra!
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Betoni, Cachard Calia, Honorlords, Narland, Senkaku, Vassenor

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Advertisement

Remove ads