Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

Phalanx wrote:

gogreen55 wrote:

Phalanx wrote:The 2nd Amendment is teetering on the edge, and Hillary is waiting to give it that last push.

Yeah, it would be a real tragedy if you couldn't go pick up another assault rifle. It really makes one wonder how virtually every other civilized country in the world has managed to survive without their citizens pretending they are GI Joe and having a military style cache of weapons in their homes. Thank goodness all these guns have kept us Americans safe!

None of what you just posted has any actual reasoning value, as far as I'm concerned. Mocking is not an argument.

Mocking your viewpoint was actually my less combative way of responding. I could have alternatively hit you over the head with a bunch of facts, which you also would have no logical response to since the facts simply don't support NRA sympathizer viewpoint, but what is the point? From my experience, there is no epiphany moment for Trump supporters/NRA sympathizers/Conspiracy nuts (lumping all these people together may be slightly unfair, but there is a huge overlap with these groups and they have more similarities than not). Their misguided views are so set, and there is so much misinformation readily available on the Internet to fuel their delusions, that wasting a bunch of time trying to wake them up to reality is an exercise in futility.

FlDuckFan wrote:Nothing wrong with owning an assault rifle...

What about grenades? Should you be able to go down to the local Walmart and pick up a handful of those? Maybe buy a dozen grenades and get 1/2 off on a rocket launcher?

The real question is, why do you feel the need to have a weapon that was designed for the military, and where do you draw the line in terms of regular citizens being able to purchase military weapons?

gogreen55 wrote:

Phalanx wrote:There are some pretty smart folks who remain skeptical about the media/liberal narrative on 'climate change'. I wouldn't necessarily lump them in with those who think all of the mass shootings are a false flag.

There are supposedly some "pretty smart folks" that think the moon landing was a hoax also. These people are obviously clueless, but it shows how it is virtually impossible to get 100% consensus on anything when dealing with a large enough number of people.

The overwhelming consensus from climate scientists around the world, from all different countries and all different ends of the political spectrum, is clear. When you examine the extreme minority that don't agree, they often aren't even experts in the field and/or they stand to benefit personally from their viewpoint. It is no different than big tobacco for years claiming there was no link between smoking cigarettes and cancer. They helped foster this "doubt" and "non-consensus" in part by paying "medical experts" to spout their nonsense. The real debate isn't whether or not humans have had some impact on climate change, it is just a matter of the degree that this will impact things in the future (which there is some legitimate debate over).

Yeah, none of what you said is actually true. The only reason you don't see the myriads of scientists who disagree with your religion is because your own voice is too shrill to hear past.

A more accurate and measured view of the situation by someone who actually knows what he is talking about:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c

gogreen55 wrote:

Phalanx wrote:

gogreen55 wrote:

Phalanx wrote:The 2nd Amendment is teetering on the edge, and Hillary is waiting to give it that last push.

Yeah, it would be a real tragedy if you couldn't go pick up another assault rifle. It really makes one wonder how virtually every other civilized country in the world has managed to survive without their citizens pretending they are GI Joe and having a military style cache of weapons in their homes. Thank goodness all these guns have kept us Americans safe!

None of what you just posted has any actual reasoning value, as far as I'm concerned. Mocking is not an argument.

Mocking your viewpoint was actually my less combative way of responding. I could have alternatively hit you over the head with a bunch of facts, which you also would have no logical response to since the facts simply don't support NRA sympathizer viewpoint, but what is the point? From my experience, there is no epiphany moment for Trump supporters/NRA sympathizers/Conspiracy nuts (lumping all these people together may be slightly unfair, but there is a huge overlap with these groups and they have more similarities than not). Their misguided views are so set, and there is so much misinformation readily available on the Internet to fuel their delusions, that wasting a bunch of time trying to wake them up to reality is an exercise in futility.

That's okay, I'm sure we could go on all day listening to your factless rants. Or, maybe you could just try one or two, just for fun, to see if having a discussion like an adult works.

gogreen55 wrote:

FlDuckFan wrote:Nothing wrong with owning an assault rifle...

What about grenades? Should you be able to go down to the local Walmart and pick up a handful of those? Maybe buy a dozen grenades and get 1/2 off on a rocket launcher?

The real question is, why do you feel the need to have a weapon that was designed for the military, and where do you draw the line in terms of regular citizens being able to purchase military weapons?

I don't , I never have nor ever will purchase a gun. I don't like them and they just increase the chance that I'll be injured by it. Just because I don't like something doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to have one so long as you pass a stringent background test and evaluation process showing you know how to use one and how to safely own it ( Much like you do when getting a drivers license).

I grew up in rural areas where a large amount of people hunted. I understand that hunting is a huge part of people's lives and I respect that. What do you need an assault riffle to hunt, though?

I'd vote for whichever candidate supported a full ban on guns. There isn't one compelling nor logical reason as to why someone needs a gun. They don't make you safer, we don't need well armed militias, you can hunt with bows and arrows and amendments can be amended (hence their name). Yes I know someone could stab me to death rather than shoot me and we aren't banning knives but I haven't seen any recent knife attacks in night clubs killing 49 people. Violent crimes will always happen and it sucks that law abiding citizens have to pay the price for the the criminals but that is reality. I'm all for mitigating the amount of damage a violent criminal can do which is what a gun ban would do.

Google Jim Jeffries Gun Control if you want a humorous yet valid argument against guns. If you can get past the cussing and his Aussie accent, he makes a surprising amount of sense for a comedian.

Phenom wrote:I grew up in rural areas where a large amount of people hunted. I understand that hunting is a huge part of people's lives and I respect that. What do you need an assault riffle to hunt, though?

Assault rifles are already banned. National Firearms Act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, and Firearm Ownership Protection Act of 1986.

Phalanx wrote:Yeah, none of what you said is actually true. The only reason you don't see the myriads of scientists who disagree with your religion is because your own voice is too shrill to hear past.

What specifically did I say that isn't "actually true?" The facts are the facts, just because you have a hard time comprehending them doesn't make them untrue, it simply reinforces my previous statements.

1. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists, peer-reviewed scientific journals and leading scientific organizations worldwide agree human activities have contributed to climate change. This majority is no less overwhelming than the majority of medical experts that agree there is a link between cigarette smoke and lung cancer. I am not giving you an opinion. This is an irrefutable fact. Whether or not you agree with the overwhelming majority of the scientific community is a completely different issue. If you have somehow convinced yourself that you know more about this topic than scientists that have dedicated there lives to studying this type of stuff, at least you have provided some unintentional comic relief.

2. Speaking of comic relief, let's get to your Youtube video. Do you not even realize that everything I have told you is reinforced by that video? All the guy does is point out the debate isn't over whether or not man has contributed to climate change (which is beyond any serious debate), it is the degree to which this will impact things in the future (catastrophic or not). That is exactly what I told you in my previous post. Try rewatching your video and think this time. Everybody knows that there are other things that impact the climate beyond human activities. Everybody knows CO2 is necessary for life, but that an increase of it in the atmosphere leads to "some warming" (as the video puts it). Everybody knows these levels have been increasing for a long time, but that these levels have taken a dramatic jump (as the video chart shows) in recent decades as the world has become more and more industrialized. This guy is doing nothing more than agreeing with the basic facts and science surrounding the issue. Apparently the part that got you excited is when he acknowledged he has no idea how this will impact things in the future, then goes on a little rant against politicians and the media? If you think the sentiment that "we don't know if the impact of human activities on climate change is going to have catastrophic future consequences or not" is somehow reassuring, I am not sure what to tell you.

3. A cartoonish buffoon by the name of Donald J. Trump thinks that global warming is a conspiracy created by the Chinese. I am just pointing this out again since little of the above has anything to do with his original asinine comment that sparked this discussion.

Just to review, this is what you said (minus a bunch of garbled comparisons to smoking,etc): "Considering Trump thinks global warming is a hoax invented by the Chinese (as with his innumerable other asinine statements, he later claimed he was joking, despite repeatedly referring to global warming as a "hoax," "canard," "myth," "con job," etc. throughout the years)...The overwhelming consensus from climate scientists around the world, from all different countries and all different ends of the political spectrum, is clear...The real debate isn't whether or not humans have had some impact on climate change, it is just a matter of the degree that this will impact things in the future (which there is some legitimate debate over)."

I think most intelligent folks know that the media, politicians, and nutty people on message boards have completely exaggerated the 'science' aspect of global warming, or the supposedly 'dire situation' we are all in. So for Trump to say that it is a 'con job' is certainly within reason and not anything like believing that Sandy Hook was a false flag. I have no idea what he said about the Chinese having invented or perpetuated it, possibly he sees an advantage to Chinese industry if the U.S. goes overboard with shutting manufacturing down and the Chinese don't. If you produced the actual statement in context, maybe we could examine it.

What the video I posted makes clear is that there is no 'overwhelming consensus' among world scientists about if humans have impacted climate change. The scientist in the video says that there has been no significant climate change in the last two centuries (only 1 degree Celsius), and that even if there were, there is no clear evidence that it has anything to do with human activity, only that there is potential for such an effect. He attributes the rise in CO2 levels to coming out of a 'little ice age' as much as to anything else.

Again, you might have seen the existence of a different viewpoint if you had simply listened instead of launching into a mockfest of anyone and everyone who disagrees with you. People are starting to push back on rhetorical bullies, and that to me is at least a partial explanation for the Trump phenomenon. I personally don't like Trump, but when I see people like you hurling scorn at his supporters, who are actual people with valid thoughts, it makes me like them more than you.

Phalanx wrote:

Phenom wrote:I grew up in rural areas where a large amount of people hunted. I understand that hunting is a huge part of people's lives and I respect that. What do you need an assault riffle to hunt, though?

Assault rifles are already banned. National Firearms Act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, and Firearm Ownership Protection Act of 1986.

There is a mass shooting (defined as 4 or more victims) 5 out of every 6 days in this country. The graphic in the link (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-i ... n-violence) is appalling. I'm still waiting to hear a realistic solution from either side.

Phalanx wrote:I think most intelligent folks know that the media, politicians, and nutty people on message boards have completely exaggerated the 'science' aspect of global warming, or the supposedly 'dire situation' we are all in.

Your label of "intelligent folks" is a misnomer. First of all, a far higher percentage of Americans believe global warming is real than don't. This percentage is not as overwhelming as it is within the scientific community (since your average American obviously isn't going to be as intelligent and well versed on the subject as the 97% of scientific experts), but it leaves a comparatively small percentage of deniers. Studies have shown that the majority of deniers identify themselves as Conservatives/Republicans, they tend to be deeply religious, they tend to be male, they tend to be older and they tend to be hostile towards the media and science in general (not just regarding this topic). In other words, they are Trump's core support group. Needless to say, your assumption that these people are intelligent should be taken with a grain of salt.

Phalanx wrote:What the video I posted makes clear is that there is no 'overwhelming consensus' among world scientists about if humans have impacted climate change.

Dude, are you serious? I don't know if you are slow, incredibly uninformed or if you are just playing dumb in a pathetic attempt to cling to your misguided ideology, but let me make this very clear to you one final time. Saying there is an overwhelming consensus amongst the scientific community on this topic is not even debatable. It is an irrefutable fact. I am honestly baffled by your inability to grasp this. Do you not know how to use Google? Do you not understand percentages? Whatever your issue is, here is a special link for you (that doesn't even involve the evil media) on this topic, courtesy of NASA...

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

(Bonus Tip: When percentages start going above 90 and are rapidly approaching 100, that is an overwhelming consensus.)

The funny thing is this video you keep referring to doesn't even attempt to refute any of this, despite your inexplicable belief it does. Rather than resort to blatant lies, the guy in the video sticks to the most elementary of climate change summations possible while strategically omitting or glossing over certain facts, in an attempt to influence people that are either uninformed or not smart enough to connect the dots. For example, he mentions there are two groups of scientists, without mentioning one group consists of the overwhelming majority and the other consists of the extreme minority. This apparently worked on you, as I covered above. He also puts up a graph showing CO2 atmospheric levels increasing over the past 200 years, while skipping the fact these levels took a sharp, near vertical upward turn in recent decades. Hello? Are you not able to see? When a guy is being paid to promote a certain agenda (more on that below), you need to be able to read between the lines and connect some dots in order to get the full picture, rather than think he is going to point every little thing out for you, even if it runs contrary to his argument.

As for the agenda of the guy in the video (Richard Lindzen), are you aware that he is basically the poster boy for "paid by big oil?" Back in 1995 he was charging oil and coal interests $2,500 per day for his "services." He made a trip to testify before the Senate that was paid in full by Western Fuels. A speech he wrote on global warming was underwritten by OPEC. While on the payroll of Exxon Mobile, he gave newspaper interviews in which he described Exxon as "the only principled oil and gas company I know in the US." These are all facts you can look up. You can also go back to my original post, in which I pointed out that the extreme minority of deniers often aren't even experts in the field and/or stand to benefit personally from their viewpoint (being paid). I likened this to big tobacco back in the day, which was an incredibly apt comparison that apparently went over your head. In both cases, when the facts (and thus the overwhelming consensus) goes against the financial interests of "big oil" and "big tobacco," they turn to the tried and true strategy of trying to foster "doubt" and "non-consensus" by paying "experts" to spin their version of the truth.

Phalanx wrote:The scientist in the video says that there has been no significant climate change in the last two centuries (only 1 degree Celsius)

Who are you to determine what is significant? The "paid for by big oil" guy in the video didn't even say it wasn't significant. What he did say (whatever that is worth) is nobody knows (including himself) exactly how significant it is. Also, do you not live in America? Assuming you do, why are you using the smaller 1 degree Celsius number instead of 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, like any unbiased person in this country that isn't trying to promote a particular viewpoint would do? If sea levels rise by 1.8%, would that be significant? 1.8 is a pretty small number, I guess we would have nothing to worry about, right? Temperatures have "only" risen by 1.8, but do you know if that rate is steady or accelerating? Do you know what the numbers look like in the year 2050, 2100, or 2200? Do you know how many feet the sea levels are projected to rise at the current pace? What would be significant in your world....a rise of 6 feet...20 feet...100 feet? What impact would even a relatively "small" increase in sea levels have on coastal cities around the world? Since we know you don't have the answers to any of this stuff, you might want to look into it and hold off on assuming that seemingly small numbers can't have a larger than anticipated impact.

Phalanx wrote:I personally don't like Trump, but when I see people like you hurling scorn at his supporters, who are actual people with valid thoughts, it makes me like them more than you.

Frankly, I couldn't care less who you like. I am not trying to make friends with you, nor any Trump supporters, nor anyone else for that matter. On certain topics people would assume I am a raging liberal. On other topics a raging conservative. I don't identify myself with any particular political party or ideology....I simply go with the facts. If anything, my upbringing would lead someone to believe I would have the exact opposite viewpoint on the topics discussed in this thread. I grew up out in the country, listening to Rush Limbaugh on the radio as I did tasks around the property with my father. To this day my father still listens to Rush, Mark Levin and Fox News on the regular. My father owns many guns, including for some inexplicable reason an Israeli assault rifle (which I don't think he even knows how to operate on his own) that he purchased from my halfwit brother-in-law, who owns 4 more assault rifles himself. The point being, my viewpoints are about as independent as they can be and if I discuss enough topics, I will eventually offend just about everyone on here at some point.

It's funny - you use words like 'overwhelming consensus' (which is a fallacious argument anyway, appeal to majority), and then when I point out a specific example of a 30-year professor of Meteorology at MIT who doesn't seem very overwhelmed, you launch into your insulting tirade. I know what the majority of scientists say. I also know who controls the funding gateways for most science in this country and that grants are not given to those who deviate from the narrative. It is funny though, how you are able to argue around in circles without ever dealing with the material point, that the earth simply hasn't warmed, that the climate hasn't changed to any significant degree. The MIT guy states that pretty plainly. I'm not sure how you could have missed it.

When I was a lad growing up in Oregon, we were shown fear-filled videos that insisted we were heading into another ice age within a few decades. Now the story is global warming. Through all of it, the temperature has remained the same, going through normal ebbs and flows. The echo chamber in the publicly-funded scientific world can shift gears on a dime, while still retaining the same arrogance and snobbery. It never ceases to amaze. Polling suggests that most people in the U.S. have taken a 'wake me up when something actually changes' approach. Most of us want to avoid pollution not because we think it causes volcanic eruptions and the north pole to boil over, but because we like clean air and less pavement and smokestacks in general. A lot of people hold to these views in spite of rude people like you rather than because of them.

You can evaluate a candidate any way you want. As I say, I don't like Trump either. I do value the people, my neighbors, though who are voting for him this time. They are more significant to me than some narcissist on the internet who loves to go around insulting everyone and casting them as somehow sub-human. Even your own family members...now that is class. It's funny how the product of this supposedly enlightened scientific education is so often contempt for ones own family, the people who raised you. And for what? A warm feeling of being smarter than everyone? This is really sad. I'd say you have bigger problems than whether or not the temperature goes up another half degree in the next century.

I understand why people are put off by Trump but I can't fathom where people believe that Hillary is somehow a qualified candidate. What has she done of substance in her two major positions as Senator and Secretary of State? IS is directly traced to her actions in the state department and before with her liberal warhawking for Iraq. Abu Gharib and other prisons were their colleges; Benghazi and the arms transfer from Gaddafi in Libya as well as Egypt were their armory. We live in a lecherous and vain society and we deserve either of these two.

We do need a wall built, to keep people out during the coming water wars. Mexico absolutely would pay for it; once you backed up all trucks trying to enter the country and prohibited them from entering until passing vigorous and multiple inspections. U.S. businesses manufacturing and assembling would struggle to absorb 6 month delays at the border. Immigration isn't a people problem but a population problem. We can't take care of the people here, adding more doesn't help. The Dalai Lama even said that it's unfair for Germany to take all these refugees in. Homogenization is the death bed of diversity. Give this land back to the native Americans before you flood it with people from the world over.

Deforestation and the destruction of our ecology and fresh water is the bigger problem in regards to our planets health than the climate is. Climate change is newspeak for future tax revenues and it largely ignores the role of the sun. We have to drastically alter how we construct our societies in order to keep the sheer number of people on the planet or we need a massive culling.

Me guess is on the latter.

maxduck wrote:

Phalanx wrote:

Phenom wrote:I grew up in rural areas where a large amount of people hunted. I understand that hunting is a huge part of people's lives and I respect that. What do you need an assault riffle to hunt, though?

Assault rifles are already banned. National Firearms Act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, and Firearm Ownership Protection Act of 1986.

There is a mass shooting (defined as 4 or more victims) 5 out of every 6 days in this country. The graphic in the link (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-i ... n-violence) is appalling. I'm still waiting to hear a realistic solution from either side.

Well the largest mass shooting in U.S. history was actually Wounded Knee and the right of the people to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with hunting beyond personal reasons which are outside the purview of a government of the people.