Questions that conservatives can't answer
POSTED BY: kpo
UPDATED: Wednesday, April 9, 2025 23:15
VIEWED: 19339
PAGE 15 of 16
It's sunny and day time here, why am I on my computer?
I suppose how I see it is one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. whether you see something as an act of terrorism (or a war crime too) depends pretty much upon whether you are someone who feels oppressed enough and desperate enough to use violence as a method of bringing about change, or whether you are the target of the aforesaid violence.
Lots of current legitimate political organisations used/use acts of force and violence on civilians who they considered either legitimate targets because they are associated with the regime that they want changed, or they are legitimate collatoral damage.
Why does declaring war by a government make murdering civilian men, women and children legitimate and therefore acceptable whereas its an outrage if done without a declaration of war or by non government forces?
We (as a society) dont think these issues of morality through quite enough, in my view.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I suppose how I see it is one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
If we talk about the IRA, and even Hamas, then yes, one can see them as freedom fighters. But Al Qaeda? Isis? It's harder to describe them as freedom fighters - whose freedom are they fighting for? Similarly, by what definition is Mandela a terrorist? That's what these conservative clowns here are struggling with. Whereas Wiki says this:
Quote:
Operating through a cell structure, MK agreed to acts of sabotage to exert maximum pressure on the government with minimum casualties, bombing military installations, power plants, telephone lines and transport links at night, when civilians were not present. Mandela stated that they chose sabotage not only because it was the least harmful action, but also "because it did not involve loss of life [and] it offered the best hope for reconciliation among the races afterward."
Does that sound like terrorism to you?
And so my view about terrorist or freedom fighter is that it's possible to be both (Hamas, IRA), one or the other, or neither.
Quote:
Why does declaring war by a government make murdering civilian men, women and children legitimate and therefore acceptable whereas its an outrage if done without a declaration of war or by non government forces?
We (as a society) dont think these issues of morality through quite enough, in my view.
Maybe, but we're getting into quite a broad debate here, the morality of war, pacifism vs. interventionism...
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Another unanswered question to Auraptor:
"Are you saying that individual climate scientists can earn more money pushing the case for AGW than this 'skeptic' got paid by the fossil fuels industry - $1.2 million over 10 years?
Cites?"
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Another unanswered question to Auraptor:
"Are you saying that individual climate scientists can earn more money pushing the case for AGW than this 'skeptic' got paid by the fossil fuels industry - $1.2 million over 10 years?
Cites?"
It's not personal. It's just war.
I'm saying AGW isn't - anything.
Love how you couch your question to specifically 'individual climate scientists' while ignoring AlGore, who has made 10's of millions off of the scam of AGW.
Not bad for a former VP, if you can con enough people.
So, exactly when did you stop kicking puppies ?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Another unanswered question to Auraptor:
"Are you saying that individual climate scientists can earn more money pushing the case for AGW than this 'skeptic' got paid by the fossil fuels industry - $1.2 million over 10 years?
Cites?"
It's not personal. It's just war.
I'm saying AGW isn't - anything.
Love how you couch your question to specifically 'individual climate scientists' while ignoring AlGore, who has made 10's of millions off of the scam of AGW.
Not bad for a former VP, if you can con enough people.
So, exactly when did you stop kicking puppies ?
Just heard a story the other day about how much road salt Atlanta (that is in Georgia, Southern United States of North America) is stockpiling now that global warming is hitting them so much harder than they have every experienced before.
Have I mentioned that a friend/coworker of mine has a brother who is a Nobel Laureate? Every time he visits my friend in Michigan's Upper Peninsula from his home in Indiana, my friend takes him out fishing in the early morning. My friend doesn't fish anymore except for when his brother visits, just to make his brother freeze on the lake. They stop fishing as soon as the brother complains about how cold it is. Not many years ago, the brother admitted that Global Warming was a load of BS, and he really made a mistake. He works at something like Whirlpool, maybe near Hammond, and his Nobel award was for inventing Global Warming, along with the many other people on the panel which Algore visited sometimes - and Algore took all the Nobel money, the rest got nothing.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Stoopid americans
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
" One of the biggest misconceptions about climate research funding is that government funding is unbiased. That is, the belief that government funding does not favor one outcome over another.
This might be true for benign research projects, like the mating habits of the Arctic sea slug, but when it comes to research topics with massive political and economic implications, nothing could be further from the truth.
Government funding programs are, in part, formulated by government political appointees who prefer research with outcomes that support their government programs.
Similarly, university research scientists who provide peer review of proposals for funding favor those proposals which offer to make findings that everyone knows will help to perpetuate funding. After all, it is difficult to get Congress to agree to fund non-problems, and yet climate research funding has to continue in order for the current marching army of lifelong climate researchers to have jobs.
Furthermore, in my experience both government employees and university researchers tend to have a distorted view of where research money comes from, and how prosperity (which is necessary for us to afford scientific research) is achieved. Government managers call their research budgets “funny money”, as if its value did not derive from actual work performed by actual taxpayers."
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/02/the-skeptical-seven-witch-hunt-is-
just-the-beginning/
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
1. An anti AGW advocacy group founded by a climate skeptic
2. See Magons' post
3. See Magons' post. The fact that this is the Kremlin's line on climate science is worrying, and doesn't bode well for future climate negotiations
4. Another climate skeptic advocacy group founded by a group of petroleum geologists
5. Religious conspiracy site?
6. ??
Perhaps you misunderstood what was meant by 'scientific body or institution'. It's not a lobby group set up to fight climate science, or a group of conspiracy nuts. To give you an example, here's a list of dozens of scientific bodies/institutions worldwide, and many of their statements on climate change: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Conc
urring
Also note that many of these bodies are not funded by governments, and those that are, generally aren't funded for their views on climate change.
It's not personal. It's just war.
It's interesting to look at that website, a very comprehensive list of renowned scientific institutions from across the world from a multitude of disciplines vs a few conspiracy theory sites, and organisations funded by the petrochemical and mining industries.
I see what consensus looks like.
Is a "few" equal to over 31,000?
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2008/07/01/30000-scientist
s-sign-petition-global-warming
http://www.skepticalscience.com/scrutinising-31000-scientists-in-the-O
ISM-Petition-Project.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Is a "few" equal to over 31,000?
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2008/07/01/30000-scientist
s-sign-petition-global-warming
31,000 Americans with college science degrees... including in Medicine, Engineering, Biology, Agriculture - fields barely related to climate science. In other words this is just a petition by Americans with irrelevant science degrees who vote Republican.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Is a "few" equal to over 31,000?
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2008/07/01/30000-scientist
s-sign-petition-global-warming
31,000 Americans with college science degrees... including in Medicine, Engineering, Biology, Agriculture - fields barely related to climate science. In other words this is just a petition by Americans with irrelevant science degrees who vote Republican.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
Doesn't really matter to you if it was 300 million, does it? You still will defy reason.
31,000 with College Degrees in (hard) Sciences, versus Inventor of Climate Change Nobel Laureate Algore's Arts Degree in Government and career in Journalism. Your point is epic fail.
He probably couldn't have even graduated St. Albans High School, or college, or gotten his cushy Vietnam-era non-combat Army post without his Senator Dad.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME