The Continent’s Consensus on Climate?……Crumbling

[billvon 2,990]

On 5/29/2024 at 5:43 AM, Phil1111 said:

India temperatures above 126 degrees F. today. A new record.

Eh, they're all foreigners.  That means it's not a real heat wave that affects, you know, real people.

[kallend 2,026]

"You've chosen to ignore content by brenthutch. Options "

My option is to continue ignoring content by trolls.

[gowlerk 2,190]

56 minutes ago, billvon said:

Eh, they're all foreigners.  That means it's not a real heat wave that affects, you know, real people.

There is currently record cold happening in Chile. It all balances out. They are wearing sweaters and gloves and such.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/18/americas/chile-may-temperature-cold-intl-latam/index.html#:~:text=After an eight-day “cold,with the Chilean Meteorologic Directorate.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I’ll trade a patch of snow and ice for record food production, but that’s just me. I would rather feed the hungry than gaze upon an alpine iceberg.

I can hardly believe that you, an aficionado of the numinous, could say such an insensitive thing. Surely you didn't. Surely you have picture books showing all of the beautiful flowers in an alpine tundra and young foxes bounding playfully in every room at home and at the food bank where you toil away feeding the poor.

[olofscience 480]

10 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I would rather feed the hungry than gaze upon an alpine iceberg.

 

Someone call the pope, there's a new saint in town!

 

The same person who opposes higher taxes on the 1% because apparently people are just "envious". 

 

I guess we'll see more of your impressive mental gymnastics as you keep getting older and angrier, and using this forum in lieu of therapy or actually facing your own issues.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

4 hours ago, olofscience said:

I guess we'll see more of your impressive mental gymnastics as you keep getting older and angrier, and using this forum in lieu of therapy or actually facing your own issues.

Oh please. 

This isn't even close to his most convoluted mental gymnastics.

He's made much more ridiculous proclamations in the past.

[brenthutch 444]

5 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Oh please. 

This isn't even close to his most convoluted mental gymnastics.

He's made much more ridiculous proclamations in the past.

Nothing as ludicrous as:

EVs will outsell ICE vehicles, global warming poses an existential threat, we are running out of fossil fuels, overpopulation is a problem, wind and solar can replace fossil fuels, renewables are cheaper, science is done by consensus and greatly increasing the money supply is not inflationary. These are just a few examples of of the nonsense promulgated by some of the lefties on this forum.

Edited May 31, 2024 by brenthutch

[Coreece 190]

On 5/28/2024 at 5:58 AM, olofscience said:

only leftists are trying to destigmatize pedophilia?

I don't know that, nor did I say that.  I simply posted what was being said and you got all defensive because it was coming from the left.

Their main argument for destigmatization is that it would create an environment where pedos would feel more comfortable coming out to seek the help they need.

Why do you think that's a bad thing?

 

On 5/28/2024 at 5:58 AM, olofscience said:

Is that why you're so obsessed thinking about what homosexual people do

Again, I'm not the one that brought it up.  Someone asked a question and I answered.  

You on the other hand felt the need to publicly and voluntarily make an unbidden declaration that you are against pedophilia. . . .

 

[Coreece 190]

On 5/28/2024 at 1:05 PM, billvon said:

On 5/28/2024 at 12:52 AM, Coreece said:

Ok, so let's test that.  If parents at the beach were upset because some known creep was biting his lip and gawking at someone's daughter frolicking on the splash pad, you'd say/think "who cares, leave the poor guy alone, he can't help it, he was born that way, he's doing nothing wrong, it's all in his head.  He'll never be able to live as his true self,  have some compassion for Christ's sake?"

Great test.  And my answer depends on the definiton of "some known creep."

Is he a "known creep" because he's black, and you know those people?  Is he a "known creep" because he's 60, and why is he at the beach with kids if he's 60?  Is he a "known creep" because you know he has a younger girlfriend who likes to dress like an anime schoolgirl?  Is he a "known creep" because he's a liberal, or he was a swinger when he was younger, or he once gave a talk on consent, or he dresses up in women's clothes at DZ parties because he thinks it's funny?

Then yes, I'd think he did not deserve to be attacked.

Is he "some known creep" because another parent caught him with child porn?  Because he raped someone?  Because he was on a sex offender list?  Because he was stalking a kid online?

Then I'd be on the side of the parents.

Again, see if you can determine the fundamental difference between the two general cases above.

No, that would obviously give us just cause to forcibly remove him from the situation.  

Let's say that because of destigmatization he got help before it was too late and never physically offended anyone.  He still fantasies about all that stuff, but he never acts on it.  Maybe he heard you talking about how you don't care what's in the heads of people like him, or that it even matters.  So one day he gets drunk at a community mixer and tells everyone what's really on his mind.  Then a couple weeks later you see him by himself at that splash pad gawking at the little girl and doing that creepy lip thing.

Still don't care?

Hopefully you'd at least politely ask him to leave, and he'd probably snap out of it and go to therapy.

But what if he didn't.  What if he gets all pissed off and says "Damn it, I knew this distigmatization stuff was a crock.  They lied and now everyone hates me.  Well f-you, f-all of you.   I was born this way, I'm not hurting anyone.  I'm coming for your children!"

A couple weeks later you see him at the local library dressed like a clown whore teaching kids how to twerk.

Not sure if they still think background checks are unnecessary for these events, but apparently a few sex offenders slipped through.  Wouldn't matter for this guy tho, it's all in his head.

Still don't care? Doesn't matter?

 

[Coreece 190]

On 5/28/2024 at 9:07 AM, gowlerk said:

Childhood marriage is a conservative and largely a religious based belief. . .

. . .It is a problem of the extreme right. . .

Ok, so a 15 year old girl in a non-abusive relationship can claim that she is a homosexual boy, consent to having her breasts removed, legally have sex with her 25 year old boyfriend, abort their unwanted baby without parental consent and keep it all a secret with her teacher, but you have a problem with them getting married. . .because it's extreme?

[gowlerk 2,190]

44 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Ok, so a 15 year old girl in a non-abusive relationship can claim that she is a homosexual boy, consent to having her breasts removed, legally have sex with her 25 year old boyfriend, abort their unwanted baby without parental consent and keep it all a secret with her teacher, but you have a problem with them getting married. . .because it's extreme?

That's an interesting take on what I said. Doesn't change the fact that paternalistic religions have a long history of what we now consider to be statutory rape. 

[billvon 2,990]

2 hours ago, Coreece said:

No, that would obviously give us just cause to forcibly remove him from the situation.  

Great, we agree.

Quote

Let's say that because of destigmatization he got help before it was too late and never physically offended anyone.  He still fantasies about all that stuff, but he never acts on it.  Maybe he heard you talking about how you don't care what's in the heads of people like him, or that it even matters.  So one day he gets drunk at a community mixer and tells everyone what's really on his mind.

If he tells them he wants to have sex with underage kids and he's going to act on it?  Then yes, he's a threat.

If he tells them that anime schoolgirls look hot? Then no, he's not.

Again, this is pretty simple.  Not sure why you are having such a hard time with this.

Consider it from this perspective.  Let's say guy A has fantasies about having sex with people who look underage and doesn't tell you because he wants to keep it a secret.  Guy B has fantasies about having sex with people who look underage and DOES tell you.  Which one is a bigger threat?

Quote

A couple weeks later you see him at the local library dressed like a clown whore teaching kids how to twerk.

I don't know what a clown whore is and honestly I don't want to know what your imagination came up with.

If he is teaching kids how to have sex with him?  Then arrest him.

If he is dancing and wiggling his butt?  Then I don't care.  Don't want to see it, don't want my kids to see it, but if other parents do - fine with me.

If he is reading from a book that's been approved by the library?  Then also no problem.

You seem to be having a lot of trouble here understanding pretty simple concepts here, I suspect because your imagination is coming up with things that don't happen.  I'd recommend sticking with the real world.

[billvon 2,990]

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

Ok, so a 15 year old girl in a non-abusive relationship can claim that she is a homosexual boy, consent to having her breasts removed . . .

It's fascinating that you find that abhorrent, but you think that a 15 year old girl in a non-abusive relationship that claims she is a girl can consent to having her breasts "removed" (reduced.)  Which does in fact happen with some regularity.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

No, that would obviously give us just cause to forcibly remove him from the situation.  

Let's say that because of destigmatization he got help before it was too late and never physically offended anyone.  He still fantasies about all that stuff, but he never acts on it.  Maybe he heard you talking about how you don't care what's in the heads of people like him, or that it even matters.  So one day he gets drunk at a community mixer and tells everyone what's really on his mind.  Then a couple weeks later you see him by himself at that splash pad gawking at the little girl and doing that creepy lip thing.

Still don't care?

Hopefully you'd at least politely ask him to leave, and he'd probably snap out of it and go to therapy.

But what if he didn't.  What if he gets all pissed off and says "Damn it, I knew this distigmatization stuff was a crock.  They lied and now everyone hates me.  Well f-you, f-all of you.   I was born this way, I'm not hurting anyone.  I'm coming for your children!"

A couple weeks later you see him at the local library dressed like a clown whore teaching kids how to twerk.

Not sure if they still think background checks are unnecessary for these events, but apparently a few sex offenders slipped through.  Wouldn't matter for this guy tho, it's all in his head.

Still don't care? Doesn't matter?

 

It totally matters which is why it is futile to have secular authority in charge. Thought crime is as much a crime as a crime, the Tenth Commandment teaches us. In the meantime I'll go back to coveting my neighbors Burgundy collection.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

9 hours ago, billvon said:

...Again, this is pretty simple.  Not sure why you are having such a hard time with this...

...I don't know what a clown whore is and honestly I don't want to know what your imagination came up with...

...You seem to be having a lot of trouble here understanding pretty simple concepts here, I suspect because your imagination is coming up with things that don't happen.  I'd recommend sticking with the real world.

He's having a hard time with it because HE WANTS TO BE OFFENDED.

So he makes up shit that offends him, and then argues about it.
The fact that it has NOTHING to do with reality doesn't matter.

It's a standard propaganda technique.

Very similar to what Brent does with EVs.

Make up or deliberately misunderstand something, then argue against it.

[Coreece 190]

20 hours ago, billvon said:

this is pretty simple.  Not sure why you are having such a hard time with this.

It's not that.  I just thought I asked a pretty simple question, but you let your imagination run away with it and provide all sorts of colorful imagery.  (Not complaining BTW, I can appreciate it even if I don't agree with some of it.)

I'll work on my framing of rhetorical questions in the future. . .

 

20 hours ago, billvon said:

a girl can consent to having her breasts "removed" (reduced.)  Which does in fact happen with some regularity.

Reduction would imply a still functioning breast, but that's not what I was talking about.  It's all beside the point anyway and I'll save my thoughts for the proper thread.  (you're welcome)

 

10 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

he makes up shit that offends him

I agree it's unbelievable, but the parts about the twerking/sex offenders were based on true stories and inspired by Bill's comments about the sizable phalli of color.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

3 hours ago, Coreece said:

It's not that.  I just thought I asked a pretty simple question, but you let your imagination run away with it and provide all sorts of colorful imagery.  (Not complaining BTW, I can appreciate it even if I don't agree with some of it.)

I'll work on my framing of rhetorical questions in the future. . .

 

Reduction would imply a still functioning breast, but that's not what I was talking about.  It's all beside the point anyway and I'll save my thoughts for the proper thread.  (you're welcome)

 

I agree it's unbelievable, but the parts about the twerking/sex offenders were based on true stories and inspired by Bill's comments about the sizable phalli of color.

Damn, so I google it and twerking attacks really are a thing. https://abc7news.com/twerking-dancing-caught-on-camera-sexual-abuse/1079390/

But just imagine you're the dude and a cop walks in and the ladies start screaming bloody murder. 

[billvon 2,990]

5 hours ago, Coreece said:

It's not that. 

It is that.  It's really simple.  Take action against kids or threaten action against kids - go to jail.  Think about stuff in your head and don't act on it - don't go to jail.  It's true for everything, not just things that have to do with kids.

I'm glad you're not in charge of anything.  We have enough thought police as it is.

[Coreece 190]

17 hours ago, billvon said:

It is that.  It's really simple.  Take action against kids or threaten action against kids - go to jail.  Think about stuff in your head and don't act on it - don't go to jail.  It's true for everything, not just things that have to do with kids.

I'm glad you're not in charge of anything.  We have enough thought police as it is.

Ya, see how you are?  Never said they should go to jail for their thoughts.

Then joe says I'm the one making shit up.

[billvon 2,990]

48 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Ya, see how you are?  Never said they should go to jail for their thoughts.

Great.  Then you now agree that "there's no immorality in merely being attracted to children."   Thoughts don't matter - actions do

[olofscience 480]

On 6/1/2024 at 2:28 AM, Coreece said:

I don't know that, nor did I say that.  I simply posted what was being said and you got all defensive because it was coming from the left.

You were implying it heavily. And you didn't simply "post what was being said" you just stated it without any sources.

On 6/1/2024 at 2:28 AM, Coreece said:

You on the other hand felt the need to publicly and voluntarily make an unbidden declaration that you are against pedophilia. . . .

Oh it was bidden alright, because you were implying that being left wing implied support for pedophilia. You do know your posts are recorded here and I can just quote them, right?

 

You're clearly not arguing here in good faith, you're here more to get "gotchas" rather than actually argue for your beliefs. Quite ironic isn't it...

[olofscience 480]

19 hours ago, Coreece said:

Ya, see how you are?  Never said they should go to jail for their thoughts.

Then joe says I'm the one making shit up.

All you're doing here - for the past several posts already - is saying "that's not what I was saying".

Then you're just trying to get "gotchas" - but you never really clarify what you mean.

This is really just trolling. Either you're just too cowardly to actually say what you stand for and argue for it, or you don't really stand for anything.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

5 hours ago, olofscience said:

All you're doing here - for the past several posts already - is saying "that's not what I was saying".

Then you're just trying to get "gotchas" - but you never really clarify what you mean.

This is really just trolling. Either you're just too cowardly to actually say what you stand for and argue for it, or you don't really stand for anything.

You're just figuring this out?

This has been his MO for a VERY  long time.

That and thread derailing.

[BIGUN 1,306]

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

thread derailing.

Careful, Joe. That's a trigger for those with an Army background. 

[Coreece 190]

10 hours ago, olofscience said:

you didn't simply "post what was being said" you just stated it without any sources.

I made reference to a Ted Talk and gave you the title of the topic.  I also gave you a direct quote from the college professor who wrote a book on the subject.   In fact everything I said about it where ideas mentioned in these sources. That should've been enough to get you started on your own research if you really cared that much instead of getting so defensive.  I would've been happy to discuss the points that I agree with regard to destigmatization and those I don't - but it wasn't central to the point I was making.

 

10 hours ago, olofscience said:

you're here more to get "gotchas" rather than actually argue

The conversation was doomed from the start.  We were talking about mix of several different ideas and didn't define terms.  I tried telling you that, but you just ignored it, continued on with your tantrum and walked right into it.

 

10 hours ago, olofscience said:

On 6/2/2024 at 6:39 PM, Coreece said:

Ya, see how you are?  Never said they should go to jail for their thoughts.

Then joe says I'm the one making shit up.

All you're doing here - for the past several posts already - is saying "that's not what I was saying".

Then you're just trying to get "gotchas" - but you never really clarify what you mean.

I specifically told him that we can't be arrested for thought crimes when he brought it up jail to begin with.  It was irrelevant to the point, but he goes on with that red herring anyway because that's all he had.