Trump sez: Transgenders B gone!

[ok doser]

... incredible increase in irrationality in the public sphere, in public discourse, especially with regard to politics and social issues

meant to share this yesterday - peterson on climate change: eminently rational and the predictable backlash is an irrational misrepresenting of his views:

peterson refers to bjorn lomborg - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjørn_Lomborg

 

[Tambora]

you really can't see that your position is untenable, unsupportable?

i understand why rape is one of your trigger words and why you can't discuss it rationally

i can only guess why you're triggered by the topics of marriage and adultery and spousal abuse and promiscuity to the point where you can't discuss them rationally either :sigh:

Poppycock.
I can discuss it plenty.
I don't skew it all as one-sided.

 

[ok doser]

Poppycock.
I can discuss it plenty.
I don't skew it all as one-sided.

yes, you can discuss it plenty

that wasn't the point of the post you responded to

the point of the post you were responding to was that you can't discuss those topics rationally

thank you for responding irrationally and proving my point

 

[Tambora]

sorry - should have included a trigger warning :chuckle:

Over your head again I see.
You just don't seem to be able to realize that the consequences of bad behavior can result in something positive as easily as something negative.
If you say that consequences of actions are earned and deserved, then if it results in a positive ---- that positive result is earned and deserved by bad behavior.

 

[Tambora]

yes, you can discuss it plenty

that wasn't the point of the post you responded to

the point of the post you were responding to was that you can't discuss those topics rationally

thank you for responding irrationally and proving my point

Whoosh! Right over your head again.

 

[ok doser]

...the consequences of bad behavior can result in something positive as easily as something negative.

then you should be in favor of legalizing rape and child molestation :idunno:

 

[ok doser]

Whoosh! Right over your head again.

perhaps these shots you think you're firing over my head are dummy rounds :idunno:

 

[ok doser]

....
peterson refers to bjorn lomborg - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjørn_Lomborg

Bjørn Lomborg (Danish: [bjɶɐ̯n ˈlʌmbɒːˀw]; born 6 January 1965) is a Danish author and President of his think tank, Copenhagen Consensus Center. He is former director of the Danish government's Environmental Assessment Institute (EAI) in Copenhagen. He became internationally known for his best-selling and controversial book, The Skeptical Environmentalist (2001), in which he argues that many of the costly measures and actions adopted by scientists and policy makers to meet the challenges of global warming will ultimately have minimal impact on the world’s rising temperature.[1] In 2009, Business Insider cited Lomborg as one of "The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics".[2] While Lomborg campaigned against the Kyoto Protocol and other measures to cut carbon emissions in the short-term, he argued for adaptation to short-term temperature rises, and for spending money on research and development for longer-term environmental solutions. His issue is not with the reality of climate change, but rather with the economic and political approaches being taken (or not taken) to meet the challenges of that climate change. He is a strong advocate for focusing attention and resources on what he perceives as far more pressing world problems, such as AIDS, malaria and malnutrition.[3][4] In his critique of the 2012 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Lomborg stated: "Global warming is by no means our main environmental threat."[5] In 2011, and 2012, Lomborg was named a Top 100 Global Thinker by Foreign Policy "for looking more right than ever on the politics of climate change".[6]

gonna have to get his books

 

[Tambora]

then you should be in favor of legalizing rape and child molestation :idunno:

Ridiculous and hostile conclusion from you, as usual.

 

[ok doser]

Bjørn Lomborg (Danish: [bjɶɐ̯n ˈlʌmbɒːˀw]; born 6 January 1965) is a Danish author and President of his think tank, Copenhagen Consensus Center. He is former director of the Danish government's Environmental Assessment Institute (EAI) in Copenhagen. He became internationally known for his best-selling and controversial book, The Skeptical Environmentalist (2001), in which he argues that many of the costly measures and actions adopted by scientists and policy makers to meet the challenges of global warming will ultimately have minimal impact on the world’s rising temperature.[1] In 2009, Business Insider cited Lomborg as one of "The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics".[2] While Lomborg campaigned against the Kyoto Protocol and other measures to cut carbon emissions in the short-term, he argued for adaptation to short-term temperature rises, and for spending money on research and development for longer-term environmental solutions. His issue is not with the reality of climate change, but rather with the economic and political approaches being taken (or not taken) to meet the challenges of that climate change. He is a strong advocate for focusing attention and resources on what he perceives as far more pressing world problems, such as AIDS, malaria and malnutrition.[3][4] In his critique of the 2012 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Lomborg stated: "Global warming is by no means our main environmental threat."[5] In 2011, and 2012, Lomborg was named a Top 100 Global Thinker by Foreign Policy "for looking more right than ever on the politics of climate change".[6]

gonna have to get his books

or find youtubes of him speaking - been doing a lot of that lately

 

[Tambora]

perhaps these shots you think you're firing over my head are dummy rounds :idunno:

You still don't get it, do ya.

If you insist that consequences of your actions are earned and deserved, then a positive result of bad actions are earned and deserved just as much as a negative result would be.

 

[ok doser]

Ridiculous ...

it is ridiculous - the ridiculous application of your ridiculous claim that "the consequences of bad behavior can result in something positive as easily as something negative"

a rational person would recognize that

and an irrational person would ascribe hostility to my pointing out her irrationality:

...and hostile conclusion from you, as usual.

:sigh:

 

[ok doser]

..you insist that consequences of your actions are earned and deserved...

not universally

but this has been pointed out to you dozens of times over the last three years and you are still misrepresenting my position

which is irrational

 

[ok doser]

Bjorn on TED!
https://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lom...LvRBetYSYKO3IRf1AhJur-PhiBT4PYxe8DwkwbfxylvUU

Bjorn on electric cars!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwMPFDqyfrA



right now bjorn seems a lot more interesting than pointing out tam's irrationality - and the trigger warning stuff I found I'll read in bed later - pdf's load more quickly on my handheld than my lappy - instantly, actually

:wave2:

 

[ok doser]

One that looks at their marriage per the law instead of the heart seek such a list.

gonna revisit this - tam sidestepped it before

marriage vows taken before God form a contract - a contract with God to form one flesh from two

Matthew 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

this is why we refer to "the marriage contract" - a contract between two individuals and God to make one flesh

and tam wants to say that God's work is so weak that the contract should be deemed irretrievably broken when one party of that single flesh feels it to be so in their heart, for undefined and apparently undefinable reasons


this makes a mockery of marriage

and it makes a mockery of God

 

[Tambora]

and tam wants to say that God's work is so weak that the contract should be deemed irretrievably broken when one party of that single flesh feels it to be so in their heart, for undefined and apparently undefinable reasons

Gross and hostile misrepresentation of my point ..... as usual from you.

 

[ok doser]

i'll leave you with a video of a steam traction engine popping a wheelie

 

[ok doser]

Gross and hostile misrepresentation of my point ..... as usual from you.

feel free to explain how i'm misrepresenting you - that's what a rational person would do

 

[JudgeRightly]

Over your head again I see.
You just don't seem to be able to realize that the consequences of bad behavior can result in something positive as easily as something negative.
If you say that consequences of actions are earned and deserved, then if it results in a positive ---- that positive result is earned and deserved by bad behavior.

:think: "do not do evil that good may come of it"

 

[ok doser]

:think: "do not do evil that good may come of it"

what bothers me about her claim is that "as easily as" implies that the consequences of bad behavior are, on average neutral, which leads to the ridiculous conclusion that the consequences shouldn't be avoided, that the behaviors shouldn't be avoided

it's obvious to anyone with any experience in this world that bad behavior usually leads to bad consequences