|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2521 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Help me find a hypocrite! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
riVeRraT writes: If Arnold's well meaning, isn't enough to make him president, then what is? Last I heard, being born in the U.S.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Nuggins writes: A recent (though certainly not most recent) example is Ted Haggard, the Fundy anti-gay preacher who was exposed as a Meth-head and a homosexual. Then, after a good three day class in how not to be gay, he returned to his flock with open arms - a "cured" man........... The problem I have is that they ALL seem to be from the political right?. Aren't there any hypocrites on the left? Maybe an openly gay senator who's actually straight? Or world reknowned atheist who's actually secretly a cardinal in the Catholic church?......... I put this out as a challenge to all - fundies and scientists - find me some politically left hypocrites! From the above exerpts of your OP you appear to mix your politics with religion so I'll add to the mix. Example #1. I know I'll get flack on this but nevertheless I have always viewed it as hypocritical science and likely always will. From what I read of brother ICANT, likely he is with me on this. On the one hand mainline secularist science disallows any hint of the supernatural into the science agenda until the supernatural can be verified. On the otherhand mainline secularist science which bases much of it's agenda on the observable thermodynamic laws rests on the alleged fact that the universe, energy and space/time is temporal (about 15 billion years last I heard), having no before and no outside of without verification. Example #2. On the one hand, the FDA, in the power & $$ bed with the pharmaceuticals, hospitals & mainline medical practitioners, is ever so fussy about relatively minor problems with the herbals, vitamin & mineral alternative health agenda, disallowing pretty much any claims to advocating as treatment. On the other hand, several hundred thousand deaths and who knows how much suffering is tolerated in the billions of $$ pharmaceutical driven conventional health agenda blessing them along with all the devastating side effects with all the claim for effective treatments of the given ailments. Compared to the hundreds of thousands of deaths & likely millions of side effect complications, the alternative wholistic health practitioners and the products are the cause of nearly no deaths and relatively few side effects, nearly all side effects being good for the user or patient. The purpose, of course of this thread is not to get into spinoff debate on above topics but to address the fact that to some of us the above are examples of what we see as hypocritical. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Tree huggers and greenie type (usually leftist) decry, complain, march & demonstrate against just about anything related to carbon dioxide, all the while ignoring the fact that the trees they hug and the green they claim to be promoting trives luciously on the carbon dioxide they are demonstrating against. The more carbon dioxide we read and hear about from these hypocrits, the more of a jungle the woods on my land is becoming and the more oxygen the lush growth is producing for me and my neighbors to breath. I need a machette sometimes to get up the paths anymore. Not only that, my sweet corn gets taller every year, this year about 8 ft tall & growing.
The hypocracy is that the leftists harp and whine about their agenda (partly politically driven) all the while ignoring the trade off of good that comes with the mix. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
Arnold is in politics, but he's no politician. If Arnold's well meaning, isn't enough to make him president, then what is? A good liar? i guess being a pervert doesn't matter as long as he supports the right people.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4139 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
Example #1. I know I'll get flack on this but nevertheless I have always viewed it as hypocritical science and likely always will. From what I read of brother ICANT, likely he is with me on this. On the one hand mainline secularist science disallows any hint of the supernatural into the science agenda until the supernatural can be verified. On the otherhand mainline secularist science which bases much of it's agenda on the observable thermodynamic laws rests on the alleged fact that the universe, energy and space/time is temporal (about 15 billion years last I heard), having no before and no outside of without verification.
buz, the supernatural tends to hold to laws outside the natural, so by all logic something that can defy natural law, such as flying without any means, it would be supernatural, thus not natural, which are subject to the effects of how the universe works being that time as we have tested it is part of our universe how would we verify something outside of it? being that we are also part of it, how would we do so?
Example #2. On the one hand, the FDA, in the power & $$ bed with the pharmaceuticals, hospitals & mainline medical practitioners, is ever so fussy about relatively minor problems with the herbals, vitamin & mineral alternative health agenda, disallowing pretty much any claims to advocating as treatment. On the other hand, several hundred thousand deaths and who knows how much suffering is tolerated in the billions of $$ pharmaceutical driven conventional health agenda blessing them along with all the devastating side effects with all the claim for effective treatments of the given ailments. Compared to the hundreds of thousands of deaths & likely millions of side effect complications, the alternative wholistic health practitioners and the products are the cause of nearly no deaths and relatively few side effects, nearly all side effects being good for the user or patient.
this is a bunch of nonsense, this sounds like the same old conspiracy junk that holistic promoters seem to favor.you really think that natural remedies do not have side effects and cause harm to people!? i guess you ignore the fact that comfrey can cause liver failure? The purpose, of course of this thread is not to get into spinoff debate on above topics but to address the fact that to some of us the above are examples of what we see as hypocritical.
no i am sad to say that all i see is you taking pot shots at things you hardly understand
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4139 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
Tree huggers and greenie type (usually leftist) decry, complain, march & demonstrate against just about anything related to carbon dioxide, all the while ignoring the fact that the trees they hug and the green they claim to be promoting trives luciously on the carbon dioxide they are demonstrating against. The more carbon dioxide we read and hear about from these hypocrits, the more of a jungle the woods on my land is becoming and the more oxygen the lush growth is producing for me and my neighbors to breath. I need a machette sometimes to get up the paths anymore. Not only that, my sweet corn gets taller every year, this year about 8 ft tall & growing.
thats just plain absurd, the fact that plants need co2, doesn't outweigh the fact that we are putting more co2 in the atmosphere than is safe and its heating up the earth, while people continue to cut down the trees we need for oxygen
The hypocracy is that the leftists harp and whine about their agenda (partly politically driven) all the while ignoring the trade off of good that comes with the mix.
this is not hypocracy, you over state the "good" while de-empathizing the the bad.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2521 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Well, really what I'm looking for in this thread is more like:
Feingold of McCain Feingold campaign finance reform takes 10,000 from some insurance company to vote a different way on a bill. * *I made this up as an example. But to address your posts: #1) Science refuses to accept things outside the realm of science.I fail to see how this is hypocracy. Science is what we can observe and test. That which is outside the realm of what we can observe and test, is necessarily outside the realm of science. Science doesn't say: "This can not exist", it says, "According to science, there's no evidence for this." That's pretty consistant. #2) The FDA doesn't let herbal remedies make unsubstantiated claims.Well, that's the FDA's job. Most of the "herbal" remedy manufacturers are selling products which simply do not do what they claim they do. That's why "Head On" is the most brilliant product ever. They make no claim whatsoever. They don't even tell you what it's used for. Either way, neither of these examples are hypocracy at all, let alone on the scale of a Ted Haggard or this new guy from Florida
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2521 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Obviously you don't actually believe what you've posted.
But, just in case you do, I'll give you an example of why you are mistaken. Water is good for plants, therefore more water is better for plants, therefore a massive flood that drowns everything will be fantastic for my cactus garden. Yes plants utilitize CO2. But the plants existing on Earth right are not capable of using all the CO2 currently here. If they were, there would be extremely low amounts of CO2 available. Add to that the fact that we are adding CO2 to the system at an ever increasing rate, and you come up with more and more CO2 that can not be obsorbed. So, just like you don't want it to keep raining during a flood, adding more CO2 to an already over loaded system is a problem. Not hypocracy, just simple logic
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
CO2 to the system at an ever increasing rate, and you come up with more and more CO2 that can not be obsorbed. I think there might be some misunderstanding here. CO2 accounts for roughly 10% of the greenhouse gases. And as Buz has stated, plants need this to live. Besides, every time you exhale CO2 is emitted in the atmosphere, as a waste product of metabolized oxygen. This makes up the reciprocal nature between plants and animals. We supply them CO2 and they supply us with oxygen. I'm assuming an argument over anthropogenic global warming is afoot, so perhaps you aren't meaning carbon dioxide, but rather, carbon monoxide (CO). Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2521 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
No, I mean CO2.
In a stable system, there is X amount of CO2 and the additional amount of CO2 produced by all living and mechanical means roughly equals the amount of CO2 being absorbed by all plants/ocean/whatever. If the absorbtion rate was higher than the production rate, we would not be in a stable system - the amount of CO2 would be increasingly less than X. If the production rate was higher than the absorbtion rate, we would not be in a stable system - the amount of CO2 would be increasingly more than X. Since we are not adding more plants at nearly the same rate we are adding things we produce CO2, the amount of CO2 in the system is steadily increasing. This increase has not caused a massive boom in plant populations, as Buzz predicts. In fact, deserts are growing larger.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
The rising CO2 level is promoting faster growth of trees and other plants. Google "rising co2 causes lush" and check it out. I was pretty sure this is the case because I once had friends who used CO2 to promote the growth of certain, ah...plants.
But despite Buz's 8-foot corn, it's not going to make the planet a Garden of Eden--more like a green freak show. Real things always push back. -William James Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC! ---------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
We have other places to discuss C02 levels. Not here!
If someone wants to rebut an accusation of hypocrisy in detail it will have to be in another thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
In spite of the criticism of my examples of hypocracy, though conceeding that there are factors on both sides of the issues subject to debate, there is a significant element of hypocracy in all three of my examples in that the leftist camp weighs in heavy on their agenda while supressing what they don't want to admit relative to their claims. The hypocracy tends toward empowering establishment & government while undermining freedom in all three examples.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Besides, every time you exhale CO2 is emitted in the atmosphere, as a waste product of metabolized oxygen. This makes up the reciprocal nature between plants and animals. We supply them CO2 and they supply us with oxygen. Plants use oxygen, too, incidentally. They have mitochondria just like us, so they have a respiratory metabolism just like us. For the most part, most plants produce more oxygen gas than their metabolism requires. We breath the excess. Here's the thing. The world's plants aren't sitting around starving for CO2. It's not the limiting factor on their growth. It's usually water and soil nutrients (hence you see farmers irrigating and fertilizing their fields, and never gassing them with CO2.) There was already far more CO2 than the Earth's green life needed for photosynthesis. With the advent of human industrialization there was even more of an excess.
Besides, every time you exhale CO2 is emitted in the atmosphere, as a waste product of metabolized oxygen. Well, no, not exactly. It's not oxygen that you're metabolizing; you're metabolizing sugars via oxygen, and producing CO2 as a result of that. Plants, in turn, produce sugars from soil carbon and water using the energy of the sun. Look, you're ordering pizzas for your Dungeons and Dragons group. If you have 5 people and 10 pizzas, you already have too much pizza. If you order twice that, people don't suddenly get hungrier - the excess pizza will just continue to accrue. That's the issue here with CO2 - excess piled upon excess. The capacity of plants to absorb CO2 gas is limited by other factors. See message 102 Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 444 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Absolutely nothing but your personal bias. Personal bias based on what I see and read. So what, it still could be true. I've seen enough from this lady, that I am not interested in following what she is doing. You claim it is my personal bias, but what else to we have to go on but the media, isn't your argument with the media? You've just admitted that the media sucks then. Besides, I see Hillary as the type of person that would never admit to anything, just like her husband, maybe I am wrong and it is love. I did mention that anyway, so why point it out? Anyone who would stick up for her, is wasting their time, she has no integrity. Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given. Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024