| Aloittaja |
Aihe: Global Warming |
355 vastausta
|
|
|
I preferred James Dragonrider.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Ethan Littlejohns @ October 29th 2021,18:04:16 ) I 100% lost it Noted.
Quote ( Ethan Littlejohns @ October 29th 2021,18:04:16 ) The first step is identifying the issue. Good job. Thanks
Quote ( Ethan Littlejohns @ October 29th 2021,18:04:16 ) Hey you edited the part I quoted. Not fair :( ROFL XD
Thanks for the laugh.
|
|
|
|
And this is why aliens will never visit us..
|
|
|
|
Finally, a civilized discussion. Id like to add:
ROFL XD LMAO
rawr xd
I hope this clears things up.
Quote ( Ricardo Antunes @ October 29th 2021,17:11:58 ) I already started filling them with costly items. I suppose you have been doing the same?
That was a mistake Ricardo, they are now legally allowed to start a war. What have you done?! The diplomat was already on his way!!!
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Rocco Stallone @ October 29th 2021,18:48:37 ) And this is why aliens will never visit us.. They already have.
Oh wait, you mean extra terrestrials? Nvm.
|
|
|
|
|
#336 lähetetty 30.10.2021, 18:44:30 (viimeksi muokattu 30.10.2021, 18:45:21 Sonny Long toimesta)
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Sam Martin @ October 26th 2021,20:28:21 )
<!-- gpro_300x250 -->
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Quote ( Sonny Long @ October 26th 2021,19:03:32 )
Erm, ok. I'm a tad confused, but likewise, Sam is as well. Speak for yourself, not for me. You're confused about my being confused. You've also managed to mix up the order of things in your short post.
My first post was a call for unity and harmony, not supporting either side, but denouncing the hostility. the TLDR version "can't we all just get along?" This was repeated by someone else on page 2, which was applauded by both sides for the articulate and insightful post, primarily targeting the Global Warming side for using insults and hostility to shut down the discussion, rather than holding a respectful debate on the relevant points.
Quote ( Sonny Long @ October 26th 2021,19:03:32 )
The GPRO community, being themselves, tell them, "Your wrong, get out." Are you saying that the entire GPRO community is against me? Because I could name several who believe global warming is a hoax, but I wont. Most people do not want to stand up to bullies, because they don't have the strength, or the stamina, or whatever, to deal with the exact BS that has been slung here.
Let me be clear: I'm not talking about scientific discussion, I'm talking about things like calling anyone who doesn't believe the government and the media "10/10 Karens" and similar irrelevant comments. That stuff collectively constitutes BS.
Stuff like Roy talking about data he's collected, or changes he's observed: that's 100% spot on, and worthy to discuss the merits and relevance. I'm happy to explain why the data is bad, or why a particular fact isn't proof of a particular conclusion. While Roy is not the only one to have put forth such points, he is one that was fairly respectful at first.
Quote ( Sonny Long @ October 26th 2021,19:03:32 )
Sam protests that it is political, I'm not sure if you're trying to say that I'm protesting that it is political, or that you're saying I'm claiming it is not political?
But at any rate: I would like to stick to the scientific aspects of it, and not the political aspects. So stuff like bashing someone for "being politically incorrect" would fall under political BS in this case.
Quote ( Sonny Long @ October 26th 2021,19:03:32 )
HOWEVER, one person that seems to support Paul & Andrews movement I was not aware they had a movement, and didn't even consider that they might until you brought it up as an issue. I'm supportive of their right to freely speak the truth, as they see it, just as I have not tried to silence the runaway greenhouse effect on political grounds, but only to illuminate the flaws in it so that people can become more aware
Quote ( Sonny Long @ October 26th 2021,19:03:32 )
Sam Martin, who puts together, a whilst somewhat good in parts, but utterly mostly pointless argument. Since you've called me out personally here, please explain why my arguments are utterly mostly pointless. Because you don't agree? Or because you are confused?
Quote ( Sonny Long @ October 26th 2021,19:03:32 )
Ffs, the sun doesn't shine bright in your state Sam, doesn't it? Just in case you missed it Roy: this is another ad hominem attack.
Did I imagine that he wrote that? Or was he really trying to be abusive, without actually discussing the merits of any particular point?
Quote ( Sonny Long @ October 26th 2021,19:03:32 )
@Oliver Manning (R112) joins the party, quotes a post & says nothing else. So he didn't say anything, and you want me to question him not saying anything? Seriously?
Quote ( Sonny Long @ October 26th 2021,19:03:32 )
The rest, I will crack on with later, but nothing escapes my eye Sam. It isn't like I'm hiding in PMs, I'm discussing this in the main forums.
That being said: it does seem like some stuff escapes your eyes from what I've observed. See above.
Ok. It has been, what, 4 days since you made your argument, and your response - well, wow...
Point 1 - I rechecked everything after your comment & found out you were lying. Same with your so called, "evidence", which offers nothing, but bs.
Point 2 - Yes, it seems like the GPRO community is against you - and, we all know you passed your degree in Science & Law, so, cut to the chase, your argument is OVER.
Point 3 - Yes, you are saying it is political, because it's stated on the post.
Point 4 - Tbh, if you looked at how Andrew W aligned his POV so similar to Pauls POV, you'd understand.
Point 5 - It. Is. Bullshit. Simple as.
Point 6 - The way you say it how it is, it's false & it sounds like smartarse material.
Point 7 - Yeah. You seemingly find it OK to question every ones points, except him? It'd be nice for even Oli to explain his POV.
Point 8 - Clearly you don't put enough effort in to check in the forums. I've seen every argument you've made, and trust me, it's similar to what I've done, but you're not going to stop, are you?
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Sonny Long @ October 30th 2021,18:44:30 ) Point 1 - I rechecked everything after your comment & found out you were lying. I have not lied yet, so this is straight up slander.
Quote ( Sonny Long @ October 30th 2021,18:44:30 ) Same with your so called, "evidence", which offers nothing, but bs. I already posted a conclusion of what there was agreement on across the aisle, while admitting that not everyone on both sides agreed to every point.
If you go back through the discussion: you can find the agreements.
As for the nature of the evidence, in many case it was things that were "self evident" ot that you could verify yourself easily, such as the ground not being molten. Go ahead: check your local ground conditions and see if they are molten. If not: you have the evidence right at your home. Do you need a photo of the ground by my home in a peer reviewed study before you call it evidence?
Quote ( Sonny Long @ October 30th 2021,18:44:30 ) Point 2 - Yes, it seems like the GPRO community is against you... cut to the chase, your argument is OVER. And here we have evidence of what was my point in my original post: evidence of a lack of civility and tolerance of viewpoints that differ. The facts backing up Global Warming as a hoax, or as some called it: hype, was to show that there was reasonable ground for people to hold a different viewpoint.
What the abuse was about was shutting down the discussion by employing emotional tactics, just like what you pulled in this particular point, and in your post in general.
Quote ( Sonny Long @ October 30th 2021,18:44:30 ) Point 3 - Yes, you are saying it is political, because it's stated on the post. I'm saying it is political, because Global Warming hype is used to manipulate people on an emotional level, rather than used to have an open discussion. While I agree with the basic assumption of the movement (we need to take care of our environment) I do not agree that those in power are using the movement to facilitate that end.
Quote ( Sonny Long @ October 30th 2021,18:44:30 ) Point 4 - Tbh, if you looked at how Andrew W aligned his POV so similar to Pauls POV, you'd understand.
Quote ( Sonny Long @ October 30th 2021,18:44:30 ) I'm a tad confused I'm not the one having trouble understanding.
It might be because America and the UK both speak English, but some words have different meanings. For example: Blinkers.
Quote ( Sonny Long @ October 30th 2021,18:44:30 ) Point 5 - It. Is. Bullshit. Simple as. I would say point 5 described itself. Really wasn't a point at all. At best, it is an unarticulated opinion.
Quote ( Sonny Long @ October 30th 2021,18:44:30 ) Point 6 - The way you say it how it is, it's false & it sounds like smartarse material. Pretty much the same as point #5.I think you're talking about how I put a list of points together on why there is global cooling, but you're vague enough here that it is open to multiple interpretations.
As to my list: they were supporting a conclusion about global warming, or lack there of.
Your list seems to be about you being offended that I built a case against your viewpoint, after 2 people got insulted for holding their viewpoints, which the roughly 2 dozen vocal people in this thread disagree with.
Just because everyone thought the world was flat: doesn't mean the people like Christopher Columbus were wrong to try and said around the world, to find a better path to India and the spice trade. Likewise: just because the majority of people now thing the world is a sphere, doesn't make them right. (In fact: it is not a sphere, because of the equatorial bulge, but "close enough.")
Quote ( Sonny Long @ October 30th 2021,18:44:30 ) Point 7 - Yeah. You seemingly find it OK to question every ones points, except him? My entering into this discussion wasn't about global warming vs not global warming. It was about people thinking it was okay to call people "idiot" over a voicing of their view. This trend to silence opposing views by ridicule and shouting them down does not lead to enlightenment, but rather to echo chamber belief systems, where the truth is not welcome. Someone called it a soap bubble, but supposing that they were the ones on the outside of it with Global Warming, and those who were opposed to the hype being on the inside of the bubble. My view is that it is exactly 180 the other way, and global warming is on the inside, with everyone inside agreeing that global warming is "a real thing" and unwilling to listen to anyone that says otherwise.
The also try to discredit anyone who doesn't believe in global warming with things like flat Earth, linking the notions as part of a disconnect from reality. To the extent that they are connected, it is that both groups believe you can't trust government to be honest with you. Surprisingly: someone for Global Warming admitted this was true early on, but then shot themself in the foot by saying "but you know who else lies?" effectively stating "I'll believe the government lies because other people lie also."
Flat Earth movement is about conducting experiments, and drawing conclusions from them. It is a return to scientific inquiry, devoid of politics. Unfortunately: it is NOT actually devoid of them, and is not usually based upon real scientific methodology. I'd be interested in going to 1 of their meetings, and seeing how well they respond to real scientific inquiry?
Quote ( Sonny Long @ October 30th 2021,18:44:30 ) Point 8 - Clearly you don't put enough effort in to check in the forums. I've seen every argument you've made, and trust me, it's similar to what I've done, but you're not going to stop, are you? While you've indicated this is a point, it ends in a question mark. I'm not sure how your question is a point.
Are you asking me if I'll continue to stand up for the minority when they get attacked by the majority? Yes. In general: that is what I'm inclined to do. I don't care too much for bullies, or the people who run to their defense.
Are you asking if I'll keep responding to direct attacks against myself? Sometimes. Sometimes not.
Are you asking if I've read every forum post ever? No.
Are you asking if I'll respond to every forum post ever? No.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Sam Martin @ October 30th 2021,19:30:52 ) Quote ( Sonny Long @ October 30th 2021,18:44:30 )
Point 1 - I rechecked everything after your comment & found out you were lying. I have not lied yet, so this is straight up slander.
Quote ( Sonny Long @ October 30th 2021,18:44:30 )
Same with your so called, "evidence", which offers nothing, but bs. I already posted a conclusion of what there was agreement on across the aisle, while admitting that not everyone on both sides agreed to every point.
If you go back through the discussion: you can find the agreements.
As for the nature of the evidence, in many case it was things that were "self evident" ot that you could verify yourself easily, such as the ground not being molten. Go ahead: check your local ground conditions and see if they are molten. If not: you have the evidence right at your home. Do you need a photo of the ground by my home in a peer reviewed study before you call it evidence?
Quote ( Sonny Long @ October 30th 2021,18:44:30 )
Point 2 - Yes, it seems like the GPRO community is against you... cut to the chase, your argument is OVER. And here we have evidence of what was my point in my original post: evidence of a lack of civility and tolerance of viewpoints that differ. The facts backing up Global Warming as a hoax, or as some called it: hype, was to show that there was reasonable ground for people to hold a different viewpoint.
What the abuse was about was shutting down the discussion by employing emotional tactics, just like what you pulled in this particular point, and in your post in general.
Quote ( Sonny Long @ October 30th 2021,18:44:30 )
Point 3 - Yes, you are saying it is political, because it's stated on the post. I'm saying it is political, because Global Warming hype is used to manipulate people on an emotional level, rather than used to have an open discussion. While I agree with the basic assumption of the movement (we need to take care of our environment) I do not agree that those in power are using the movement to facilitate that end.
Quote ( Sonny Long @ October 30th 2021,18:44:30 )
Point 4 - Tbh, if you looked at how Andrew W aligned his POV so similar to Pauls POV, you'd understand.
Quote ( Sonny Long @ October 30th 2021,18:44:30 )
I'm a tad confused I'm not the one having trouble understanding.
It might be because America and the UK both speak English, but some words have different meanings. For example: Blinkers.
Quote ( Sonny Long @ October 30th 2021,18:44:30 )
Point 5 - It. Is. Bullshit. Simple as. I would say point 5 described itself. Really wasn't a point at all. At best, it is an unarticulated opinion.
Quote ( Sonny Long @ October 30th 2021,18:44:30 )
Point 6 - The way you say it how it is, it's false & it sounds like smartarse material. Pretty much the same as point #5.I think you're talking about how I put a list of points together on why there is global cooling, but you're vague enough here that it is open to multiple interpretations.
As to my list: they were supporting a conclusion about global warming, or lack there of.
Your list seems to be about you being offended that I built a case against your viewpoint, after 2 people got insulted for holding their viewpoints, which the roughly 2 dozen vocal people in this thread disagree with.
Just because everyone thought the world was flat: doesn't mean the people like Christopher Columbus were wrong to try and said around the world, to find a better path to India and the spice trade. Likewise: just because the majority of people now thing the world is a sphere, doesn't make them right. (In fact: it is not a sphere, because of the equatorial bulge, but "close enough.")
Quote ( Sonny Long @ October 30th 2021,18:44:30 )
Point 7 - Yeah. You seemingly find it OK to question every ones points, except him? My entering into this discussion wasn't about global warming vs not global warming. It was about people thinking it was okay to call people "idiot" over a voicing of their view. This trend to silence opposing views by ridicule and shouting them down does not lead to enlightenment, but rather to echo chamber belief systems, where the truth is not welcome. Someone called it a soap bubble, but supposing that they were the ones on the outside of it with Global Warming, and those who were opposed to the hype being on the inside of the bubble. My view is that it is exactly 180 the other way, and global warming is on the inside, with everyone inside agreeing that global warming is "a real thing" and unwilling to listen to anyone that says otherwise.
The also try to discredit anyone who doesn't believe in global warming with things like flat Earth, linking the notions as part of a disconnect from reality. To the extent that they are connected, it is that both groups believe you can't trust government to be honest with you. Surprisingly: someone for Global Warming admitted this was true early on, but then shot themself in the foot by saying "but you know who else lies?" effectively stating "I'll believe the government lies because other people lie also."
Flat Earth movement is about conducting experiments, and drawing conclusions from them. It is a return to scientific inquiry, devoid of politics. Unfortunately: it is NOT actually devoid of them, and is not usually based upon real scientific methodology. I'd be interested in going to 1 of their meetings, and seeing how well they respond to real scientific inquiry?
Quote ( Sonny Long @ October 30th 2021,18:44:30 )
Point 8 - Clearly you don't put enough effort in to check in the forums. I've seen every argument you've made, and trust me, it's similar to what I've done, but you're not going to stop, are you? While you've indicated this is a point, it ends in a question mark. I'm not sure how your question is a point.
Are you asking me if I'll continue to stand up for the minority when they get attacked by the majority? Yes. In general: that is what I'm inclined to do. I don't care too much for bullies, or the people who run to their defense.
Are you asking if I'll keep responding to direct attacks against myself? Sometimes. Sometimes not.
Are you asking if I've read every forum post ever? No.
Are you asking if I'll respond to every forum post ever? No.
Point 1 Reaction - No way can you nickname it slander & expect to get away with. That, in itself, is purely borderline crap no one comes up with.
Point 2 Reaction - erm, I highly doubt that. I do understand everyone is different in views & opinions, but you can't wait to have the patience to understand one's situation, can you?
Point 3 Reaction - First thing we agree on. They might not be able to facilitate both ends, but hey, that's life.
Point 4 Reaction - That wasn't a point to me. Explain further.
Point 5 & 6 Reaction - Point 5, you barely replied to. Point 6, you imply I am offended, which I am not. I cannot underestimate the point about your list, but implying I'm offended, woah, that is disrespectful.
Point 7 - You changed the subject AGAIN, much like I pointed out, which I find very political to do. I asked about why you didn't question Oli, not about the flat earth debate.
Point 8 - I left it as a question for you to think about, not to publicly discuss. Everyone can become a better person, and I think this forum topic might change the way people see you as a person. I only compared myself, because I did bad things in the past & I have changed since then.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Sonny Long @ October 30th 2021,20:55:08 ) Point 1 Reaction - No way can you nickname it slander & expect to get away with. That, in itself, is purely borderline crap no one comes up with. It is not a nickname, it is a description. You claimed I lied, when I did not. Falsely claiming I lied was to harm my reputation, and so it was slander. Since it was not verbal, it does not meet the legal definition, but I wasn't trying to prove it in court, just call it out.
Quote ( Sonny Long @ October 30th 2021,20:55:08 ) Point 2 Reaction - erm, I highly doubt that. I do understand everyone is different in views & opinions, but you can't wait to have the patience to understand one's situation, can you? I'm not the one who started calling people "Idiot" because they voiced a different opinion. Maybe you're pointing the spotlight in the wrong direction? Turn it around, and point it at the Global Warming believes who try to silence anyone speaking against their world views, instead of trying to understand that intelligent people can draw different conclusions.
Quote ( Sonny Long @ October 30th 2021,20:55:08 ) Point 3 Reaction - First thing we agree on. Any common ground is worth noting. It is a start.
Quote ( Sonny Long @ October 30th 2021,20:55:08 ) Point 4 Reaction - That wasn't a point to me. Explain further. My point was: there is often times difficulty in understanding others due to a language difference. Earlier in this thread, the mention of "blinkers" came up, and it means something different in the UK vs America. The UK term blinkers means turn signals in the USA, and the USA term blinders means what the UK term blinkers means.
When I discussed this point: it triggered someone from the UK to double down that the correct term was blinkers, and not blinders. Due to his blinkers: he missed that blinders was the correct term in the USA for the same thing. In other words: he was so motivated to denounce me that he took offense at my discussion that was aimed at confirming an understanding across a language barrier.
Quote ( Sonny Long @ October 30th 2021,20:55:08 ) Point 5, you barely replied to. My reply was longer than the original point, or your reply to my reply.
Quote ( Sonny Long @ October 30th 2021,20:55:08 ) Point 6, you imply I am offended, which I am not. I cannot underestimate the point about your list, but implying I'm offended, woah, that is disrespectful.
Quote ( Sam Martin @ October 30th 2021,19:30:52 ) seems to be Buried in the middle of the comments on point 6 was this little gem which the point following pivoted on. I'm not actually claiming you're offended, I'm claiming that seems to be the motivation for things like the use of emotionally charged words. Claiming I lied, that it is BS, that what I said was borderline crap. Etc. You have not proven any of those charges, simply put them out there as though your say so is equivalent of fact, like you're some sort of authority.
This sort of behavior is indicative of someone who is offended, but I'll admit: it is not proof. So while it seems like you're offended, I have not ruled out other options. You're welcome to provide an alternative explanation for the vague ridicule, other than that I don't agree with your world view.
Quote ( Sonny Long @ October 30th 2021,20:55:08 ) Point 7 - You changed the subject AGAIN Sorry, I tried to answer what I thought was your point: my conduct within the thread. I also tried to stick to points already in the thread. If there is a particular post that you wanted me to respond to, I'm not sure what it is?
Quote ( Sonny Long @ October 30th 2021,20:55:08 ) Point 8 - I left it as a question for you to think about, not to publicly discuss. Okay, fair enough.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Sam Martin @ October 30th 2021,21:27:18 )
When I discussed this point: it triggered someone from the UK to double down that the correct term was blinkers, and not blinders. Due to his blinkers: he missed that blinders was the correct term in the USA for the same thing. In other words: he was so motivated to denounce me that he took offense at my discussion that was aimed at confirming an understanding across a language barrier
There you go miss quoting people.
I never said it was or wasn't, the correct term, i said @Robert Kearney (P21) meant Blinkers, and stated that's what we say in England.
Quote ( Shaun Thornton @ October 26th 2021,21:09:29 )
Quote ( Sam Martin @ October 26th 2021,20:39:30 )
Quote ( Robert Kearney @ October 26th 2021,20:10:40 )
Yawn, yawn, a guy with blinkers on accuses the rest of being stupid….. world scientists too! Not sure about how things work in the UK, but in America: putting your blinker on is a form of communication to let people know you're turning.
I think maybe you mean blinders, as in those things put on a horse so it can only see what the masters want the horse to see.
.
No..... He meant blinkers, that's what we say in England.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/blinkers
so, @Robert Kearney (P21) , did you mean Blinkers or Blinders?
|
|
|
|
Here's a few of my POV's, just stating this clearly as it makes it impossible for anyone to argue. As it is my POV, who would someone be to say I'm incorrect ... ?! Also, my plan was and is to not get involved in this too much, don't expect me to comment again, though I might. That prerogative is mine ;)
@Sam Martin (R117)
- I think you're an intelligent guy, using a big vocabulary and due the way you present your case(s).
- I like the thought of standing up to bullying, but dismissing others in a similar manner makes your stand ... what's the word ... preposterous.
- Though some have dished out against you, that alone does not make their views invalid, the same goes for your POV for that matter.
- Other then that, I believe you are incorrect in most of your views.
Though you stood up against bullying, keeping my pre-mentioned observation in mind, you did go on to the topic of Global Warming. Whether it was you that started it, does not matter, you gladly dove in deep and keep on doing so. I have no illusion that this post will silence you, but I'm tired of your wiggling all over the place in an effort to make it all look good for you, and all other's are just plain wrong, at least from your POV and the way I see things unfold in here. Many others are also quite done with your way of communicating from what I read above. Again, this is my POV, so there's no point to argue ...
You're a master of word play. You quote portions off other people's text trying to prove your point(s). You must know that this selective way of quoting is just plain incorrect behavior when trying to keep any discussion open and level. You pick the portions that either suit your POV, prove it or disprove it, whatever sticks best to your line of thinking. Whenever a topic is getting to a certain point of discomfort (I presume), you open up another can of worms to try and still prevail over others. When starting or participating in any form of discussion, the main object is to be open to different views, possibly having to accept a change in ones own line of thinking. While I read your POV on many, many, many posts, I (still) have a different POV despite your unrelenting efforts ...
What gets to me most maybe, is that you use different time scales when trying to make your point(s), timescales that simply cannot compared. To underline my POV;
- On a timescale from the very early days of Earth, the planet being hot and boiling with lava and volcanic activity all around, obviously we are in a cooling trend. The surface meanwhile solidified (well mostly anyway, except for the bodies of water) a very sure sign Earth cooled down over 4,543E9 yr (give or take a few).
- On a timescale since the start of the Industrial Revolution, average temperatures have gone up, this has been proven over and over again by science in general.
These days days when there's talk about Global Warming, it's referring to the latter. Consensus theory is that the time period of the industrial revolution was 1750 to 1914. The industrial revolution occurred in two distinct phases: the first industrial revolution, between 1750 and 1850, and the second industrial revolution, between 1850 and 1914. What this time period gave us and in the years beyond was a great leap in human advancement on many levels, however the basis for most of this was and is the burning of fossil fuels. You are correct in stating that all that has been available on earth since the beginning, however it never was burned of in whatever way in such a "short period of time". The concentration of waste gasses therefore has been on the rise since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Throw in a few other chemicals that are listed as green house gasses and/or other polluting substances and the so-called Greenhouse effect is staged.
While all this pollution is up in the air, it readily let's the heat from the sun in, then traps it from escaping the Earth's atmosphere again after being reflected of Earth's surface. In short, Earth is holding more and more heat mainly coming from an external force, the sun. This heat has it's effect on our ice caps and glaciers, these are melting. Over many years both these icy plains have dramatically gone down on overall size and mass. The winter periods in which these masses would/should be growing again, have become shorter and less cold, contributing to the demise of said ice masses. The square mileage of ice going down, lowering the Earth ability to reflect sun heat, and the demise of earth lungs in the form of jungles and forest being cut down, lowering the earth capacity to extract CO2 and others from the Earth's atmosphere, are just a few more cob wheels adding to the trend of Global Warming.
Concentrating on the ice caps only, or more to the point, the Nordic ice cap in particular, I trust you know it is one of the main driving forces in the global conveyor belt. And it's the approximately 1.000yr cycle of this global conveyor belt, that is one of the main driving forces in Global weather. This system starts (if you will) at the poles where melting water from the ice caps, being lower in density, sinks to the bottom of the sea/ocean setting a large column of water in motion and eventually completes that 1.000yr cycle after having traveled much of the globe. Once the Nordic Ice Cap is gone, this force will seize to exist and things will dramatically change for the whole planet.
When you draw up your list of consensus, without getting into the different points listed, was a pinnacle in this thread. With very little to go on, keeping in mind only the size of this community as a whole, and the number of people that were contributing to this thread, you made a statement to which there was some level of agreement according to you ... With so little in hand to base your list on, at minimum this has streaks of megalomania to it. And again, that's my POV, no need to argue ...
You are correct when stating Earth will be able to coop, it will. It's all a matter of basic physics in the end, and the planet will find a way to balance it all. The problem humankind is facing is that the pre-mentioned changes will quite possibly mean that human activity on this lovely planet will seize to exist as well. And this is what the "protect Earth" movement is based on. Humankind's foorprint has never been this big ever before, nor was any other species able to make such a big impact on the world. Sure, I've left out many, many related theme's, but ...
As this post is getting to be a wall of text again, I'll leave you to it yourself to find more detailed info on the matters addressed above. A quick Google search will be able to keep you busy for a long time ;)
One serious pointer to keep in mind though, with reference to GPRO Game Rules > /gb/GPRORules.asp#91-forums
• No forum spamming or pointless posts!
• Use good forum etiquette including, but not limited to, avoiding shouting (using all capitals) and avoiding consecutive posts when an edit is suitable!
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Shaun Thornton @ October 30th 2021,22:12:10 ) I never said it was or wasn't, the correct term, Quote ( Shaun Thornton @ October 30th 2021,22:12:10 ) No..... He meant blinkers Thanks for proving that you did in the same post you claimed you didn't.
Quote ( Shaun Thornton @ October 30th 2021,22:12:10 ) so, @Robert Kearney (P21) , did you mean Blinkers or Blinders? Both, as it is the same thing. I guess you still don't get it, despite my repeatedly explaining that point. Talk about having blinkers on!
Quote ( Niels Van Heijster @ October 30th 2021,22:20:05 ) Here's a few of my POV's, just stating this clearly as it makes it impossible for anyone to argue. As it is my POV, who would someone be to say I'm incorrect ... ?! You can be correct that it is your point of view, and have your point of view be incorrect. For example: saying an elephant is like a tree is your point of view, and someone else claims it is like a snake from their point of view, but neither point of view encompasses the entire elephant, so both are ultimately incorrect PoVs. I hope that clears that up.
Quote ( Niels Van Heijster @ October 30th 2021,22:20:05 ) - I think you're an intelligent guy, using a big vocabulary and due the way you present your case(s). Thanks for agreeing that I'm intelligent. As for the words I choose: I try to be exact, with language that is often ambiguous. I'm not trying to use particularly "big" words, they just are the words that seem most applicable. It is not my intent to make things seem more complex, but rather to make things seem simple.
Quote ( Niels Van Heijster @ October 30th 2021,22:20:05 ) - I like the thought of standing up to bullying, but dismissing others in a similar manner makes your stand ... what's the word ... preposterous. If a bully hits someone, and you hit the bully for hitting someone, it is not the same as picking on a bully, it is holding them accountable for their actions. Similarly: if someone brings a gun to rob someone, and they shoot a clerk: the police are not guilty of murder for shooting the thief, although the thief is guilty of murder for shooting the clerk.
While you may view that as preposterous, I don't. Maybe you can understand my PoV, and maybe we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
Quote ( Niels Van Heijster @ October 30th 2021,22:20:05 ) - Though some have dished out against you, that alone does not make their views invalid, the same goes for your POV for that matter. I agree 100%.
Quote ( Niels Van Heijster @ October 30th 2021,22:20:05 ) Though you stood up against bullying, keeping my pre-mentioned observation in mind, you did go on to the topic of Global Warming. Whether it was you that started it, does not matter, you gladly dove in deep and keep on doing so. True enough. I was glad to put up a fight against those would would silence dissent. So I agree with you here also.
Quote ( Niels Van Heijster @ October 30th 2021,22:20:05 ) but I'm tired of your wiggling all over the place in an effort to make it all look good for you You may be tired, I can't tell. I'll take your word for it. From my perspective: it is continuing to fight against those who would silence me, just because they hold a different view, and those who would discredit me with false accusations. You might see it as wiggling, but I see it as providing counter points, and analogies that help to highlight the situation.
Quote ( Niels Van Heijster @ October 30th 2021,22:20:05 ) and all other's are just plain wrong I wouldn't say that, but there are certainly points that I would say are plain wrong. Rather than simply saying that though, I've tried to provide points. I don't try to rely upon my expertise. In other words: it is not the credibility of the source that makes something right and true. No matter how much I know: there are things I don't know. And in fact: more things that I don't know than that I do know. Same holds for everyone else. Experts can be wrong. Further: people quoting experts can misquote, intentionally, or otherwise.
So my intent was primarily to show that it is possible to hold a different view while still being intelligent.
This is already getting pretty long, and so I think I'll stop the reply at this point, unless you wish for me to cover more of it.
I wish to thank you for being less hostile, and more articulate, in this post.
I feel this post of yours contributed to the discussion in a meaningful way.
Thank you,
Sam.
|
|
|
|
Given the increase of heated debates recently, this is more than enough evidence that global warming is real!
|
|
|
|
|
And so you walked in eyes wide shut showing more of your true colors ...
When opening my post with ...
Quote ( Niels Van Heijster @ October 30th 2021,22:20:05 ) Here's a few of my POV's, just stating this clearly as it makes it impossible for anyone to argue. As it is my POV, who would someone be to say I'm incorrect ... ?!
... you counter with ...
Quote ( Sam Martin @ October 31st 2021,00:28:23 ) You can be correct that it is your point of view, and have your point of view be incorrect. For example: saying an elephant is like a tree is your point of view, and someone else claims it is like a snake from their point of view, but neither point of view encompasses the entire elephant, so both are ultimately incorrect PoVs. I hope that clears that up.
Not only are you trying to invalided my POV, you even try to ridicule it by the (far fetched) example you provided, while finishing it up in a condescending manor when stating: "I hope that clears that up". With this statement you're implying that my POV is wrong. It would be the same as my implying your POV to be wrong. However, I only stated that "I believe you are incorrect in most of your views". As you like wordplay so much, I trust your appreciate the small differences in both approaches, maybe keeping in mind I'm not a native English speaker will help. The idea that this explanation of yours could possibly be applicable to your own POV you've been voicing in here, seemingly eludes you. After all, while you may believe your POV to be correct, it could well be your POV is incorrect ... I'm just applying your own logic here.
As far as I have been able to keep track, at no point you've been giving even the smallest of hints to accept a different POV from yours, while advocating your POV adamantly, and therefor indicating that only your POV would be the sole righteous way. While you seem to be able to point out any and all "mistakes" a/o failures by others, maybe you should try and apply some of your wisdom to yourself, by yourself. Intelligent people mostly are pretty self aware and prepared to adjust their ways when being prompted by alternate views that would enrich their lives ...
Rather though you revel in wordplay, which could be an indicator of many things. I just hope you're not one of those "lonely souls" without an inner circle of friends a/o family feeling ever more lonely. The way you're communicating in here could well (have) cause(d) people in RL distancing themselves from you, much like several in here are unlikely to hold you close any time soon as the way you communicate is simply detrimental to your likability. I would suggest to try hard and not let your keyboard become your best friend in life. I'm not against your stand against bullies, but such could be done in a more intelligent manor, at least in my POV.
I guess you seek the challenge in whatever is written in reaction to your posts. Like I stated before "As it is my POV, who would someone be to say I'm incorrect ... ?!", you seemingly took that as an invite to find a way to mock and invalidate my POV. Maybe you could have changed my POV by presenting something real to ponder, but this approach does not make me like you much better. Maybe you are just a tad socially challenged, unable to "feel the room". I guess it could explain why maybe you cannot help yourself, and quite possibly the best way around this will be for all, me included, to ignore your posts altogether. Hope lives though that one day you will be able to partake in a discussion in a true constructive way without making others look a/o feel less, nor the need to "come out on top" ...
What strikes me though, while you dissect my and other people's posts line for line at times, you have not addressed any one of my arguments about Global Warming. In your line of thinking, that would mean we have mutual consensus on my writing. And as we have reached this stage, there's no point in arguing this any further, again following your line of thinking.
I'm happy we were able to clear up these clouded area's! For now I would say this should wrap it up for the time being.
Thank you for your contributions! Enjoy your GPRO play ;)
|
|
|
|
Good morning Glasgoooooowwww!!!
I hope that after G20 leaders plot to destroy the free world with corporate taxes, the climate summit put the final nail in the coffin for productive people and pave the way for China's world domination plan.
Feels like 1937 again!
|
|
|
|
Sorry people, that was not me. Uncle Donald stole my phone. He is bored since Twitter closed his account..
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Niels Van Heijster @ October 31st 2021,14:07:18 ) And so you walked in eyes wide shut My eyes were not shut, I was well aware of how you were using "this is my PoV" to pass judgement.
You seemed unaware of how a PoV could be questioned.
Making numerous judgement statements about me under a PoV topic?
That was begging for a response, while simultaneously claiming you were not looking for a response.
If I said "I feel you just like to troll" and said:
"I don't know how you can argue, as this is my feeling."
I'd be doing the same thing you did.
Quote ( Niels Van Heijster @ October 31st 2021,14:07:18 ) Not only are you trying to invalided my POV, I was invalidating that a PoV could not be contested, or that a PoV was somehow inherently correct.
On the other hand: you could be correct that it is your PoV, so I also validated it.
In your PoV, you made a statement about my motives, so I responded to that.
Since it is my motives: I don't know how I can be wrong about that?
Likewise: if your PoV is that a police officer shooting a thief is murder because a thief shooting a clerk is murder: your PoV does not line of with how things actually work.
Even if the person shooting a thief is not a police officer, but just someone with a gun when the thief shoots the clerk: they are not guilty of murder.
Bringing this back to your point before that: If someone attacks another person: attacking the attacker is not an equal offense if it is in response the the earlier attack.
So no: treating a bully how they treated others, as a response to their actions, is not equivalent to being a bully. You put this forth as your PoV, and while you might be correct that it is your point of view: it doesn't make the statement correct.
See how that works?
Quote ( Sam Martin @ October 31st 2021,00:28:23 ) I guess you seek the challenge in whatever is written in reaction to your posts. Incorrect. Again: you're projecting.
This is a bit like saying "I guess you just like to start a fight with everyone that hits you." as though the person who is being hit is the instigator. Clearly it is absurd to attribute the start of the fight to the response. Most people call this "self defense".
Quote ( Niels Van Heijster @ October 30th 2021,22:20:05 ) melting water from the ice caps, being lower in density, sinks to the bottom of the sea/ocean If I just wanted to argue about every possible point of contention: I could have pointed out that salt water has a higher density that fresh water, and that only fresh water is contained in the ice caps, so it wont sink under the salt water.
Again, this was under your "point of view protection." Is it fair to correct it?
Wouldn't that be relevant in a global effects discussion?
But I wasn't looking for a lot of conflict, simply discussing some of the assumptions you made in forming your PoV, and also your post.
Quote ( Niels Van Heijster @ October 30th 2021,22:20:05 ) As far as I have been able to keep track, at no point you've been giving even the smallest of hints to accept a different POV from yours, Maybe you missed the whole discussion about the cave?
And if you think I'm in agreement with all of your points: you have not been reading what I've written. In fact: I think you have, and have chosen to contradict some of my points, specifically and intentionally. My not rehashing the same argument repeatedly does not equate to my agreeing in full with everything you put forward, but:
Quote ( Niels Van Heijster @ October 30th 2021,22:20:05 ) You are correct when stating Earth will be able to coop, it will. It's all a matter of basic physics in the end, and the planet will find a way to balance it all. Your summary judgement was in alignment with my statement that the Earth would balance itself. Yes, you went on past that, and I didn't agree with everything past that point either.
But the main point was: you were civil in the discussion, and I appreciated that.
And I responded respectfully and appreciatively.
You responded to my response with a lengthy personal attack.
|
|
|
|
Whatever rocks your boot, Bud. You won't budge, you wont change, you want to be on top of things. You perceive my post as a personal attack, it could be such, it could be just an observation ...
Yet again you make several assumptions on what I supposedly did in your perception. You go on accusing me of doing such, and all because "he hit me first" should make it alright for you to do? That's playground mentality and you're doing it wrong ...
Quote ( Sam Martin @ October 31st 2021,15:15:30 ) And I responded respectfully and appreciatively. You responded to my response with a lengthy personal attack. I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder, and yours apparently are working differently from mine.
Quote ( Sam Martin @ October 31st 2021,15:15:30 ) Likewise: if your PoV is that a police officer shooting a thief is murder because a thief shooting a clerk is murder: your PoV does not line of with how things actually work. Even if the person shooting a thief is not a police officer, but just someone with a gun when the thief shoots the clerk: they are not guilty of murder. Arbitrary, many more factors would be involved, but it indicates your thoughts on justification.
Quote ( Sam Martin @ October 31st 2021,15:15:30 ) to pass judgement. Similar to your posting and quoting performance.
Quote ( Sam Martin @ October 31st 2021,15:15:30 ) and have chosen to contradict some of my points, specifically and intentionally. Not unlike your behavior in many previous posts. Something about kettle and black?
Quote ( Sam Martin @ October 31st 2021,15:15:30 ) Incorrect. Again: you're projecting. Am I or are you?!
But here's the kicker ...
Quote ( Sam Martin @ October 31st 2021,15:15:30 ) If I just wanted to argue about every possible point of contention
There you have it, the basis of your presence in here. Should be the punchline on your calling card. I would see this as the best summary of your personal presentation in this thread. From what I've seen, it could be you in a nutshell.
Maybe I've not been all good with you, but you're unwilling to owe some of the things you did yourself while accusing others of doing similar things. For me that's also bullying. So don't think you will be eligible for becoming a choir boy either ... You dish out at will stating clearly you are entitled doing so, all under cover of being personally attacked over and over again?! Your perceptions at best are skewed ...
I'll take back my remark on you being intelligent. Mind you, you're not dumb at all, but you ain't very clever when put on the spot.
Post whatever you want ...
As I can only speak for myself, I've seen enough. Have a wonderful life ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#349 lähetetty 31.10.2021, 17:31:31 (viimeksi muokattu 31.10.2021, 17:48:52 Jordan Bell toimesta)
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Niels Van Heijster @ October 31st 2021,16:29:00 ) There you have it, the basis of your presence in here. So pointing out a significant difference between what I've done, and what you ascribe, is somehow a joke to you. I can only conclude you're trolling instead of actually trying to comprehend what is going on.
Here's a few of my POV's, just stating this clearly as it makes it impossible for anyone to argue. As it is my POV, who would someone be to say I'm incorrect?
I believe you are incorrect in most of your views.
You might feel this is an attack, but it is just my observation.
|
|
|
|
Shot...
Quote ( Niels Van Heijster @ October 31st 2021,14:07:18 ) I guess you seek the challenge in whatever is written in reaction to your posts.
Chaser...
Quote ( Sam Martin @ October 31st 2021,15:15:30 ) Incorrect. Again: you're projecting.
This is a bit like saying "I guess you just like to start a fight with everyone that hits you." as though the person who is being hit is the instigator. Clearly it is absurd to attribute the start of the fight to the response. Most people call this "self defense".
I'm glad that irony is not yet dead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
God Yawn, yawn,yawn, he is still waffling on.
I haven’t been on here, just called out by Shaun to respond to blinkers , blinded etc.
This guy thinks he owns the forum.
yeah Shaun, I meant blinkers because that’s what we call the patches over the horses eyes to stop them being distracted sideways. Would be great if they were blinders though because a horse would not be able to see the fence.
don’t give a crap what they call it in USA….. he would argue black is white anyway !
Ciao !
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Robert Kearney @ October 31st 2021,19:18:33 ) don’t give a crap what they call it in USA….. Which is why both you and Shaun missed the main point: they are the same thing.
Quote ( Robert Kearney @ October 31st 2021,19:18:33 ) he would argue black is white anyway ! Both you ans Shaun have incorrectly concluded that I was correcting you, when I was saying that blinkers in the UK are blinders in the USA.
Quote ( Robert Kearney @ October 31st 2021,19:18:33 ) Would be great if they were blinders though because a horse would not be able to see the fence. So a rose by any other name does not smell as sweet?
It is exactly the same thing if you call it blinkers, and the US calls it blinders:
They are both talking about the leather things you put on a horse to limit the field of vision.
But because the USA is outside of the UK, I guess you can't see past your blinkers.
No wonder you think white is black: you're actually seeing the blinkers.
|
|
|
|
Oh God, he even replies to this.
I don’t give a F*** what you think anymore !
|
|
|
|
“Not sure about how things work in the UK, but in America: putting your blinker on is a form of communication to let people know you're turning”
“I think maybe you mean blinders, as in those things put on a horse so it can only see what the masters want the horse to see.”
Yes obviously you didn’t say I was wrong, you just say “you mean blinders”
no I don’t….. I meant blinkers ! Go on, argue that is not what they are called in UK !
apparently you call blinkers what we call indicators but let’s not go there.
it’s obvious you aren’t for turning so I think it’s a pointless discussion anyway. Clearly you think you are right, but the complete diatribe you spout is just somebody missing attention from his Mommy ! PS that’s American for Mum !
I won’t respond again you will be pleased to know.
Ciao, again .
|
|
|
|
Sam, you are a horrible little man.
the worst I have ever encountered on GPRO.
the day you joined was a sad day for the community.
|
|
|
|
|
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Română
Italiano
Português
Português
Français
Polski
Русский
Български
Македонски
Српски
Nederlands
Vlaams
Lietuvių
Čeština
Magyar
Eesti keel
Slovenčina
Türkçe
Shqip
Ελληνικά
Hrvatski
Bahasa Melayu
Dansk
Pirate
