Senior Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


DirtyChai last won the day on September 27

DirtyChai had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

1 Follower

About DirtyChai

  • Rank
  1. The science is clear:

    I think it's important to realize that many of the questions and objections about AGW that we see today are nothing new. Scientists were arguing about this stuff among themselves in much greater detail back in the 60s, 70s and 80s. However, unlike today, such objections weren't based solely on monetary or political motivations as much as they were to simply get the science right in the first place. Also, climate science denial today demonstrates how history is just repeating itself: "By around 2000, some predicted, an unprecedented global warming would become apparent. Their worries first caught wide public attention in the summer of 1988, the hottest on record till then. (Most since then have been hotter.) An international meeting of scientists warned that the world should take active steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The response was vehement. Corporations and individuals who opposed all government regulation began to spend many millions of dollars on lobbying, advertising, and “reports” that mimicked scientific publications, in an effort to convince people that there was no problem at all. Environmental groups, less wealthy but more enthusiastic, helped politicize the issue with urgent cries of alarm. But the many scientific uncertainties, and the sheer complexity of climate, made room for limitless debate over what actions, if any, governments should take." https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/discovery-of-global-warming/ Another source I like to use is a 1982 Memo to Exxon Management about CO2 Greenhouse Effect: http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1982-memo-to-exxon-management-about-co2-greenhouse-effect/ "There is currently no unambiguous scientific evidence that the earth ls warming. If the earth ls on a warming trend, we're not likely to detect it before 1995. This is about the earliest projection of when the temperature might rise the O.5° needed to get beyond the range of normal temperature fluctuations. . . The "greenhouse effect" is not likely to cause substantial climate changes until the average global temperature rises at least 1°C above today's (1982) levels. This could occur in the second to third quarter of the next century. However, there is concern among some scientific groups that once the effects are measurable, they might not be reversible and little could be done to correct the situation in the short term. Therefore, a number of environmental groups are calling for action now to prevent an undesirable future situation from developing." Mitigation of the "greenhouse effect" would require major reductions in fossil fuel combustion." Just a couple figures from that 1982 Exxon memo: IMO, the somewhat eerie predictions in the memo illustrate how climate science can be trusted. We no longer have to rely on their "ambiguous evidence" and "questionable models" of the past since reality today demonstrates the accuracy of those predictions. If we can get such accurate info with seemingly "flawed" models 40 years ago, how much more accurate - and - precise are they today? Whether or not one accepts climate change, most of us can agree that there are other more practical uses for the limited supply of fossil fuels than simply just burning it all up for fuel, especially when we have more efficient ways of creating energy. Same thing with technology. Unless it's for marketing purposes, discussions about new technology don't necessarily have to revolve around the idea of being green or environmentally safe/responsible. We can just say, hey, look at this new cool stuff we have. Most everyone can relate to the excitement of new and interesting technology. We're apparently good at adapting to changes over a 1000+ years, but how good are we at adapting to dramatic changes within 20, 50, 100 years? In the past, many times adaptations came by way of extinction while other species filled the void.
  2. Gun control, which side wins?

    Update: "Jeffrey Zeigler, 53, was found guilty of assault with intent to commit great bodily harm less than murder and possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony in the April 12 incident at his home involving 14-year-old Brennan Walker. He was charged with assault with intent to commit murder, but Judge Wendy Potts gave jurors the option of convicting Zeigler on the lesser charge. Zeigler could get up to 10 years in prison for the assault conviction, plus a mandatory two years for the firearm count. Potts revoked his bond and ordered him to jail pending sentencing Nov. 13." https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/oakland-county/2018/10/12/rochester-hills-homeowner-who-fired-teen-trial/1613420002/
  3. But you were talking about the U.S and dismissed a number of those that accept evolution simple because they believed in God. They obviously aren't clinging to ignorance if they are at least open-minded enough to consider it. Tho many terribly things happen in the name of religion, it's not representative of the vast majority of those that practice their faith. You were simply making broad generalizations and comments about a protected class that can only be described as bigoted.
  4. Gun control, which side wins?

    Actually, that crossed my mind as well. However, a deputy sheriff did testify that Zeigler "played around with the safety." Up to the jury to decide. Edit: If there are any jurors with gun experience, they know it's not necessary to take your eye off the target to disengage the safety. It's very close to the trigger and almost second nature to click it off when you're engaged in an abrupt situation.
  5. Will a Second Civil War Happen in The US?

    Less likely if she gives everyone a free car. . .
  6. What religious people are you talking about? You mean like creation scientists you see online and "political christians" you hear about on TV? Why would you subtract those that believe in God, yet still accept evolution as how things work? It might not be a figure you'd like to see, but IMO, I don't see how it's "terrifying." It's not like our knowledge or denial of evolution can suddenly cause it to stop. Human civilizations have progressed despite their lack of knowledge about it, and they will continue to progress regardless. It's not like that of climate change denial where it could actually lead to dramatic effects on life as we know it. You say that most religious people haven't read the Bible/Koran, but most people that accept/propagate evolution don't really know that much about it or how it really works. You could close the books on evolution today and it's not really going to have any affect on how most people go about living their daily lives. It only matters to biologists and scientists in related fields that use the understanding of evolution to somehow benefit society - and those that benefit will do so despite a lack of knowledge about it, even if they deny the very science that's saving their life. I just think it's misguided to use evolution in a way (much like Dawkins) to make claims about another person's faith as if it should, or even could replace someone's philosophy of life or their personal need for God. That's not what evolution is about. That's not what science is about. Likewise with those using religion as science. That's not what it's about.
  7. Gun control, which side wins?

    It looks like to me that he takes aim, then thinks differently, evidenced by lifting up the gun up before firing as a warning shot instead Ya, I can possibly see that. The video looks like it was sped up for some reason which makes it look worse. I guess the Jury will get to watch it in slow motion if they haven't already. But let me ask you this. Does it look like he may have possibly tried to hurry up and quickly get a shot off, but the safety was locked. In his haste he fiddles briefly with the safety when the gun suddenly goes off?
  8. Gun control, which side wins?

    It's not looking good for this guy: "taking the stand Tuesday was Detective Shawn Pace, who said during his investigation, his assessment of what had allegedly happened at the Zeigler house — a home invasion attempt — changed as he watched the surveillance video. “When I saw that video, my thought process switched...I knew which direction I had to go. I was shocked,” Pace testified. After viewing it a second time, he said he was “charged up, because I was offended by what I had seen.” After watching the video, I have to say that I share the detective's sentiment. Makes you wonder what would've happened if the police didn't have the video. . . Also, Zeigler (the defendant) apparently gave conflicting statements. He denied ever taking aim, and that the gun fired after he slipped. But Detective Pace told him that he did take aim. Ac coring to Detective Pace, Zeigler then “took a big drink of water, looked at me and said, ‘I’m tired of being a victim.’ (Apparently there is a documented history of attempted burglaries and teenagers stealing his beer) https://www.theoaklandpress.com/news/copscourts/jurors-view-video-of-rochester-hills-shooting-as-trial-continues/article_3f07f548-cca1-11e8-8e16-1b5ad08f57c5.html Even more, this guy was already convicted of a gun crime back in 2004 during an apparent road rage shooting: "Zeigler was initially charged with assault with a deadly weapon, a felony punishable by up to four years in prison and one count of discharge of a firearm from a motor vehicle, which can carry up to 10 years in prison." Due to an apparent lack of physical evidence, "Judge John Chmura dismissed the assault with a deadly weapon charge but found Zeigler guilty of firing and aiming a weapon without malice or injury, a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and fines." "He was not jailed but sentenced to one year reporting probation and $609 in fines and costs." https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/oakland-county/2018/04/19/homeowner-charged-shooting-teen-prior-gun-conviction/34005391/ Tho I know the selection of the jury pool is random, I'm not sure if it concentrates on a specific area or not, such as the county in which the alleged crime took place. If in this case it's just Oakland County, then I know the most populated area is the lower southeast quadrant of the county in the map below that also includes Rochester where the incident happened. This area is the most affluent in Michigan, consisting of highly educated doctors, lawyers, professional athletes, Bob Seger, Eminem, etc. This specific area tends to lean left and is most likely the reason that Oakland County is only but several counties in Michigan that didn't vote for Trump. There are also majority concentrations of blacks in Southfield and Pontiac where the trial is being held. Not sure if that had any affect the jury pool or not. The rest of the county is more conservative/republican. Personally, I know there have been many concerns about the rise of petty thefts in these areas, like breaking into cars and things of that nature, but you really don't expect something like this to happen there. IMO the video looks really bad. I didn't see it in your link, but you can watch it below starting around the 35 second mark: https://www.wxyz.com/news/region/oakland-county/surveillance-video-shown-in-court-of-man-accused-of-attacking-teenager
  9. The Selfish Gene Theory

    Ya, they'll also recognize that God can create a 50 year old tree in one day ex nihilo and that science could never prove it because it has 50 rings. . .
  10. The Selfish Gene Theory

    No need to do that. Accepting the Catholic Church's endorsement just makes you look desperate. . .
  11. The Selfish Gene Theory

    Dawkins practically starts out bitching about people that have infinite definitions of God, then he essentially creates his own conflated definition of God and bashes the hell out of him - and then everyone is like ohhhhh, ahhhhh. Easy money. I like Dawkins when he just sticks with what he knows. . .
  12. B Kavanough and MeToo

    That is an important point, to which there are currently no solutions. When looking for solutions, I've always found the CDC to be very helpful. In 2016 they published one of the most comprehensive packages on the subject that I've ever seen, citing nearly 100 sources from 1973-2016. Furthermore, their conclusion states that, "several innovative studies are currently in progress to uncover promising future directions for SV prevention work. As new programs, policies or practices are identified, evaluated, and shown to be effective, they will be added to this technical package." https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/SV-Prevention-Technical-Package.pdf There is also an abundance of additional info on their website: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/index.html Relevant Quotes: "Victims who work with advocates had more positive experiences with both the medical and legal systems, including increased reporting and receipt of medical care, and decreased feelings of distress" "Other types of services include Sexual Assault Response Teams and Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner programs." Another study from 2013 explains Sexual Assault Response Teams in more detail: https://www.nsvrc.org/publications/articles-reports/sexual-assault-response-team-sart-implementation-and-collaborative Direct PDF Link: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/243829.pdf "Coordinated care models may also affect legal outcomes by altering the professional relationships among system personnel. In uncoordinated communities, system personnel lack “a fundamental understanding of ‘who does what’ and ‘who could do what’” (Campbell & Ahrens, 1998, pp. 562), which means that system personnel are largely unable to benefit from each other’s’ expertise. By contrast, coordinated trainings among forensic nurses, police, and prosecutors have been found to increase law enforcement investigational effort and efficacy, which in turn have contributed to increased prosecution rates." While the CDC states that SARTs are "valuable and widely-used practices," they also note that they currently have not been rigorously evaluated and the need for more research is essential. The CDC link above also recommends the promotion of social norms. Programs like Bringing in the Bystander and Green Dot have shown a "19% lower rate of sexual harassment and stalking perpetration when compared to two non-intervention campuses." Most of the CDC recommendations regarding the promotion of social norms are directed at peer groups within a more physical setting, but we have to start addressing the problem of promoting social norms through social media that are more often than not perpetuated by way of verbally barbed and polarizing appeals to emotion. When are we going to realize that such tactics are counterproductive and just don't work? Take Trump and Kavanaugh as a case in point. . .
  13. Did Christianity start with a real human Jesus?

    Yet you continue to talk about Adam and Eve, Zeus, rainbow gods, Joseph Smith, golden tablets, and inquiring into my beliefs about Moses as if all that is somehow more relevant than talking about the possibilities of how Jesus, or whoever else could've inspired the sudden rise of Christianity. Trying to understand who and why given various textual and cultural reconstructions by historians are just as important, if not interesting to me as where and when. Maybe you don't care about that stuff, that's fine as well. And tho it's helpful to determine authorship, it's not necessarily more important than the text. Common Sense for example didn't depend on an author to have a major influence on society and the world today. Sometimes there are just good reasons to write anonymously. Also, you keep bringing up how none of this or that proves anything. Nobody has said anything about proof. If we had scientific proof of Jesus's existence, then a more interesting question would be why does this thread exist, and how is it that it persists for 13+ pages?
  14. Did Christianity start with a real human Jesus?

    Ya, Islam is based on Abraham's illegitimate son Ishmael that he banished to the desert with his mother Hagar, Abraham's servant. It's summed up in OT text that God would protect them in the desert, and that Ishmael would become the father of a Great Nation. A Nation today that is considered to be that of Islam. It came about around 2500 years after it was believed to have been stated and about a 1000 years after it was written. But again, this isn't about discussing the foundations of Islam. While it's believed to have started somewhere in the region of Hejazi, it's not really certain. We don't seem to see nearly the amount of early writings nor the concentration of archeological artifacts indicating a relatively precise time and place like it is for the advent of Christianity, not to mention that it's an entirely different time , place and culture. So there really is no "likewise" equivalence about it in that regard. But none of this really matters, does it? These religions had to start with someone, right? So if you are so hellbent on the idea that Christianity was merely invented, then why not just say that Jesus was the source of that "invention," since you apparently can't articulate a more compelling scenario than that put forth by the consensus that actually fits the evidence we already have? You don't even have to call him Jesus, you can call him Emmanuel, or whatever name that makes you feel comfortable. You're talking people and gods of a time and culture that predate Christianity by up to 3000 years, and provided no evidence of how it even remotely equates to that of the brief, yet exceptional period of antagonistic 1st century Hellenistic Judaism. When you compared the motives of inventing Christianity to that of foot fetishes and swallowing buttons, I thought you were just joking and it made me laugh. But now, your continued references to Horus, Apollo, etc., demonstrate how your arguments are the ones actually "pushing fallacy" rooted in the ignorance of false equivalence and "the fact that it could've happened," which I already stated is neither evidence nor indicative of any meaningful fact whatsoever. Neither do I, what I posted is only a muffled representation of the best and only reasonable scenario that fits the actual evidence we currently have. With the ongoing excavation of thousands of christian artifacts found every year, I'm confident that we will continue to discovery even more evidence allowing the consensus to modify their current prespective on the issue - you know, like science and all that jazz. . .
  15. Did Christianity start with a real human Jesus?

    It is much easier to spread rumors about someone that is known to exist, especially after their death than it is to convince thousands of Hellenistic Jews that some fictional character actually exists now in their lifetime, especially when that fictional character is their supposed messiah of the Davidic line that is to rule as King - and then do it efficiently enough to cause a sudden and rapid rise in Jewish Christianity to produce thousands of related artifacts discovered in that region of the same time period. So again, a more likely scenario for such a sudden rise in Hellenistic Jewish Christianity is that a man, regardless of what you may think of his intentions, persona, mental state, etc., actually did exist in that time. For whatever reason, he would've been the one that people looked at as being a possible messiah regardless of whether or not he ultimately satisfied everyone's particular variety of expectations. He would've been the one causing such a major disruption that news of it would've quickly spread to thousands of people throughout the entire area. (Probably much more efficiently than any handful of inventive conspirators could've.) After his death, many probably gave up, but many others persisted based on the belief that his death and suffering were the fruition of prophesies about the messiah found in Psalms, Isiah, etc. If someone wants to start a 13+ page thread about Moses and provide evidence/scenarios either for or against his existence, I might be inclined to participate. But don't hold your breath. Most people seem to be more interested in Jesus for some reason. But I will say that the "rise" of Judaism, if that's what you can even call it, seemed to be a very slow and gradual process over the course of centuries. But with foundational Christianity (Apocalyptic Judaism, Jewish Christianity, whatever you want to call it, etc.) it just seems to explode over the course of a couple decades, give or take. And the abundance of thousands of archeological artifacts discovered each year, along with thousands of the earliest manuscripts regardless of who wrote them, or the various places they were found, attest to a very sudden, dramatic and isolated event in history for that very specific part of the world. . .