Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day


J-Roc77's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of J-Roc77's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

You presuppose the debate presupposes a two way conversation.

Hope this helps.

1 point

I would choose living because dead people can't talk.

1 point

Sure, the American Family Association says it is sending men into womens restrooms to "test the law". This isn't a measure of risk but one of paranioa. A conservative group here is a the problem not transgenders. This still doesn't support any of the shortcomings that have been voiced ad naseum.

Never mind that your children/women have a higher chance of being abused by men they know rather than strangers, you know; family, members of school, teachers, priests. Never mind that transgenders do not equal predators. Never mind that you don't advocate for keeping predators out of restrooms you try to keep people predators "might pose as" instead.

Your logic is akin to saying bad guys might use guns...so guns are the problem. Either that or you have bigoted feelings towards transgenders and your crusade here is just another way for you to punish a group you don't like. Maybe a bit of both.

1 point

It doesn't seem like a good business model. I would want the car that tries to save me if there was ever an "either or" situation.

1 point

They have noses like humans so they probably smell like humans.

;)

1 point

Maybe men prone to those things are the types that the Kardashians' are attracted to.

1 point

Edit. Double post.

2 points

Lets treat them like how we treat Radical Christians.

1 point

Sure a person has the right to offend someone else. The problem occurs when the "right to offend" is actually the continuation of systemic abuse towards others, then the "right to offend" is a fallaciously reduced excuse used to continue the systemic abuse of others. Saying that something is only "offending" people can be to ignore that the consequences can be far greater than simple offending others.

1 point

Edit, double post again.

J-Roc77(70) Clarified
1 point

I didn't see poor people in there.

How would you ever tell? I guess they weren't pushing their shopping carts full of stuff obviously. There are many types of poor besides obviously poor.

I would hardly call anyones one personal experience to be a conclusive example of a much larger system. We can revisit this when either of us cares enough to look up a decent sample size to make some inferences off of.

Yeah, I don't see liberals reaching across the isle. I see them jumping into the name calling band.

Isn't this a call to group coherency though? And conservatives are more likely to value group coherency than a liberal. ;P

Well I guess they don't seem to be in the same group so you are right.

J-Roc77(70) Clarified
1 point

Your analogy doesn't work. An egg is more like a placenta...

Umm, no. An egg shell might be like a placenta, or maybe even an egg white but the egg will hatch into a bird a placenta won't. What do you think the yolk is? The analogy holds. At what time is an egg a bird? When it forms the shape of a bird inside the egg? When it hatches? It is an arbitrary point we designate.

As far as 'viable,' that is an arbitrary measure. A baby is viable for so long. A homeless person is viable for so long. Realistically, we are only as viable as our health.

This is a bit of an equivocation on the word viable. Surely you can see the difference between a fully grown adult homeless person and a still developing fetus. It is not so arbitrary when you look at it in context and 25 weeks is roughly when a fetus can continue to live with help outside of the womb, any sooner and the chances plummet to an extreme.

The question of "person-hood" is arbitrary.

Agreed. The line being drawn at viability or brain activity is just where ethics say the most humane approach would be if abortions were to occur.

Usually the decision is being made by immature, irresponsible, selfish, horny, young adults without the means to raise a child and whose future would be hampered by a child.

I would ask for a citation for such a generalization of "usually". I know this is what people like to think who is getting abortions but really it is just conjecture. I think the makeup is a little more complicated than that. Possibly in your case could this be projection due to your personal history? Of course this representation does make up a portion of the abortions but I don't think it is the majority. I would think the majority have more to do with poverty than horny teens. We may disagree to some degree of attribution here but it is no secret that the poor have more abortions than the wealthy.

"I could be swayed I would think if the pro-choice side would not use such hyperbolic tactics as 'a fetus is a parasite,' hiding behind 'woman's rights to her body,' appeals to emotions for women who are victims of rape or incest, etc."

While I disagree with many pro life arguments for similar reasons I think some of those examples are a bit off. Appeals to emotion considering rape or incest are also called "legal fictions" having real incidents that have come to light. To dismiss these as a fallacious appeal to emotion is to ignore the reality that people live. It is slightly off my point I failed to make too;

What type of things people value and what the arguments they are using to convey an idea do not often reach across the isle. Conservatives generally value in group cohesiveness more than their liberal counterparts do. Liberals generally value fairness more than their conservative counterparts. Many debates about abortion use tactics that are really preaching to the choir rather than trying to sway those that oppose them. For instance;

Belittling others for their beliefs is a pull towards group cohesiveness. Someone who values the group more than another may find these actions to change their stance. As for the legal fiction above, those are appeals to fairness and those arguments will likely fall flat on someone across the isle.

To reach across the isle one would have to craft an argument that resonates with their opponents values, not their own. In abortion debate we rarely see this. We instead see the sides digging in to their respective opinions. This is why I note that "I could be swayed I would think if..." bit.

Overall we have similar views on this subject but differ on a few "cogs".

J-Roc77(70) Clarified
2 points

Is an egg chicken? No. How much of a chicken is it? The answer is just an arbitrary point. In the future it could be a chicken, if it makes it that far. I think your question is the wrong one to ask or at least gets right to the point that is where prolife/choice people differ. I think the debate circles around "personhood" and when rights are granted. So far personhood seems to be when the fetus is possibly viable.

Can the prolife side make a decent argument for saving a non viable fetus over the life and hardships of a currently living person?

I could be swayed I would think if the prolife side would not use such deceptive tactics in their efforts; editing videos, appeals to emotion, hiding behind children and so on. If their stance was strong there would be no reason to lie as they have in the PP video for instance. Their actions hobble their own stance and only preach to the choir rather than trying to reach across the isle with their rhetoric. Is this because they have already lost the battle in the US? Maybe.

Why don't we just use rats n mice? They use rats for all sorts of medical advancements but the science community recognizes that mice and rats are poor analogues for humans and this as led to problems. There have been medicines developed before, with the help of mice, that have been not effective on human trials due to the differences between humans and mice. A better analogue is needed so we don't waste years of study in efforts on a treatment for living people that will not work.

J-Roc77(70) Clarified
1 point

Edit, double post.

J-Roc77(70) Clarified
2 points

Rats and mice are also used for medical research on humans and they aren't humans.

1 point

Agreed, the article is terribly misleading. First off the study was on the sun, not the sun affecting our climate. The way they have the study framed though it appears that the 97% accuracy is regarding climate but it is really regarding the solar minimum happening. The media seems to be running with this huge misrepresentation though.

Link to the study.

http://computing.unn.ac.uk/staff/slmv5/kinetics/shepherd etalapj147951_46.pdf

Not only does the study not even address what this maunder minimum means for climate the author of that study who is being quoted (Zharkova) is also a mathematician not a climatologist. Any claims she has about climate should be taken with a grain of salt because she is well out of her expertise. Chalk the confusion up to terrible journalism and loads of confirmation bias from their readers.

When discussing science it is best to view peer reviewed research when possible and there is research on what effects a maunder minimum would have on climate. Climatologists have weighed in on the issue years ago finding the solar minimum to not be really that big a deal, co2 will still be the prevailing force considering climate.

I think this is one of the studies you were using for your numbers.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL042710/abstract

Any assessment that concludes this maunder minimum would be good for climate change or end climate change is neglecting to address things like ocean acidification as well.

1 point

No science is claiming that man is causing El Niño events, influencing is the word. This is similar to the claim about the poles melting, it does not address the claims made in the literature.

Your link is quite old (97) and does not rule out human activity influencing El Niño. It doesn't even approach the subject in fact. In science old data is not better than newer ones as older studies lack the data newer studies have access to and can build upon. My study linked was from 2009, and plenty of earlier studies do addres the issue and conclude that we could not rule out human activity. Finding older data with absent claims of human activity either way at all does not support your stance. Your source does not address lots of things, can we assume it is against those as well? Simply no.

Here are more studies;

Study from 96 that actually addresses the issue

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/95GL03602/abstract;jsessionid=8B9EDA6E6C5399738FF44DE402D1FA0F.f03t03

This opens up the possibility that the ENSO changes may be partly caused by the observed increases in greenhouse gases.

Here is a study from 2000 that addresses the issue;

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10856205

The possibility that global warming is affecting those variations cannot be excluded.

In context with newer studies like the 2009 study I linked above I do not see how you can rationally maintain your stance.

If you look at the magnitude of the temp. change there is no significant warming.

I already addressed your methodology and find your lack of context and background information to invalidate your opinion. You are valuing a laymans understanding of a complicated issue over a body of professionals. What you feel is insignificant or not is not on sturdy ground. Certainly not sturdy enough to tackle and overturn a concensus of scientists from around the world.

Neither does size automatically denote significance, as your source clearly implied.

If you had textual evidence to back your claim that would help. The link explictly stated thst the Arctic is losing more sea ice than the Antarctic is gaining. I linked it in rebuttal to you biased claim that the poles are not melting, your source completly ignores the Arctic and was devoid of any scientific claim made by those it suposedly opposes.

There is zero proven causality connect between man and global warming.

I suppose if you ignore the properties of GHGs you can come to this conclusion. These are things that we can measure and test you know? Heat trapping properties of gasses has been studied and verified since the 1800s. We have evidence much older than that as well. We have plenty of evidence that suggests GHGs have changed climate in the past like permean triassic period. Why would the properties of these gases be any different than what tests and history shows us just because man is releasing them now?

It appears your stance on science being opinion is unshakeable with you. As per our discussion in the following link I am unsure if any further discussion on scientific topics between us will be fruitful. Our foundations differ so that discussions in this realm will almost always be at odds unless by chance they coincide like on evolution.

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Is YoungEarthCreationismaValidtheoryoforigin#arg600190

We have already came full circle on a few points. If something new or worthwhile gets discussed I will jump back in but for the sake of avoiding repetition last word is yours.

2 points

El niño being natural or not (more on this later) does not excuse its use in the context your source used. Making an outlier a focal point in a statistical analysis that is supposed to represent the overall trend is not sound nor honest no matter how you slice it. Even if you accept this faulty method there is still a positive increase in warming.

This strong and clear trend is in fact measured as a change of .022/.015 deg C. I will generously take the highest number which reads as a whooping twenty two thousands of one degree.

So you are moving away from global warming has stopped to now it is just slow? So much for the link you posted as your support I guess, now you are contradicting your own evidence. Not sure if this is a concession or you are moving goal posts now.

My first link also explains why studies using similar numbers like what is used in the 2nd link (older data) is likely undervaluing the warming. Your math also assumes the rise in temperature is linear which it is not. We are experiencing a low ebb in warming at the moment likely due to solar cycles being at the low end of its cycle and yet we are still experiencing warming. You are missing much context in your evaluation.

Like here when discussing sea ice loss;

To judge its significance, it must be compared to the earth's total surface area...

Just because you are trying to make something look small does not mean that something is insignificant, it is important to measure the affects of something not just its relative size to X. Your measure misses a slew of things that are crucial like the loss of the albedo effect on the northern hemisphere or area ocean desalination.

The quick and dirty of it is that loss of sea ice decreases albedo (northern hemi) increasing how much more heat gets absorbed by water. This is coupled with the fact that water is a great heat sink, the more water exposed by receding ice allows for more heat to be trapped by water which in turn increases the amount of sea ice we lose in the northern hemisphere. Loss of albedo due to shrinking sea ice is having feedback effects, increasing loss of sea ice exposes more water which traps more heat thus melting more sea ice increasing temperatures as it goes.

This heating of the oceans certainly has effects on things like El Niño events despite you claiming "...el nino is a naturally driven cycle of ocean warming. Not driven by emissions of anything humans are doing." Driven by? No. Affected by? Yes. The claim is and always has been Human activity affects climate change.

Early studies (late 90s early 2k) were clear in that we could not rule out human influence on El Niño events and more recent data continues to shed light on this phenomenon.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19779449

Using calculations based on historical El Niño indices, we find that projections of anthropogenic climate change are associated with an increased frequency of the CP-El Niño compared to the EP-El Niño.

The presence of opinion exists in science, when such a change is considered significant.

And these opinions are striving to be more objective about issues by gathering much as much data and context from various sources on the issue as possible. A layperson may lack much information and context when deciding what is a significant amount of change or not which as we can see greatly skew their results. I would rather side with those that have a more complete veiw of the data and context when they are making their assessments of what is significant or not.

Is it not likely that clean efficient power sources will be in use long before then. Nuclear fission is already here. It is also clear that we are wasting hundreds of billions of dollars annually on a problem that will be corrected by a shift in energy sources long before actual damage is done.

The rest of your post here has nothing to do with the legitimacy of climate science but rather what we should do about the issue at hand. You seem to side with do nothing things will work themselves out. I find this problematic as it just kicks the can further down the road. It also lacks context of the situation. The "before any damage is done" bit seems to lack qualifiers and context considering CO2s feedback effect is predicted to continue wsrming for the next 50 plus years whether we stop emissions now or not. The current focus is on the permafrost and the possible consequences the warming Arctic has on that. I am of the mind we are not past the tipping point yet but think we will long walk past it before we enact any meaningful change.

Unless those who are feeding the cycle the most feel the pressure of a changing climate there will be little to no incentive to change for them. Currently countries like the US have huge tracts of land and immense wealth, they can shake off weather related incidents that would cripple less stable countries. The US can have a major city flood and have the citizens voting in elections within a week, a situation which many other nations would greatly struggle with.

Your position of wait it out is hardly suprising in this context.

2 points

Your link is an opinion piece that is full of falsehoods.

Global warming ending in the late 90's? Bunk. The el nino event you mention is part of this claim, using a incredibly high outlier as a focal point in statistical analysis skews the warming to appear to stop or slow down. This action is not statistically sound nor is it academically honest but of course the attacks on climate science are anything but academic or honest.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2297/abstract

http://web.archive.org/web/20080607061138/tamino.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/garbage-is-forever/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/

The bad starting point for the claim of warming slowing or pausing has been explained to death by stastiticians and other scientists as garbage in garbage out. Of course the years following 98 had hotter years even and yet politically biased sites ignore science and continue to claim global warming stopped.

Polar ice caps not melting? Why discuss only one ice cap of the antartic then? There are two caps aren't there? The data clearly shows the Arctic is losing more ice than gained in the Antarctic. The concern is the loss of sea ice, I have seen no peer reviewed paper that claims "the poles are melting". Plenty of blogs yelling they are not though...

http://m.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/ view.php?id=85246

“Even though Antarctic sea ice reached a new record maximum in September 2014, global sea ice is still decreasing,” said Parkinson, who is based at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. “That’s because the decreases in Arctic sea ice far exceed the increases in Antarctic sea ice.”

The link shows you the measurements they are working with if you want to check methodology and such. Open methodology is something that is obviously absent from sources attacking climate science. Many non scientific sources avoid the real claims of scientists and chase red herrings like "the ice caps are not melting" instead of addressing actual claims in the field of study.

Those IPCC reports do note the changes in climate that has happened as well.climate is long term and changes year to year will be impetceptable, it is long term that climate is concerned with. I am not sure what you are getting at here though as the predictions are out to 2050 and 2100, we're not at either date yet you know?

I suggest people get their science from science sources as other can easily botch the message that was originally intended. The media is a poor mediator between the masses and the sciences.

J-Roc77(70) Clarified
1 point

Gotcha. I may be prone to nitpick on several subjects, climate change being one of those subjects.

J-Roc77(70) Clarified
1 point

Climate change was called inadvertent climate modification before 1970ish. Global warming wasn't coined until later but is not interchangeable with climate change although the general public uses them as such. Within the field of study the terms global warming and climate change are referring to two specific things.

Global warming: the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.

Climate change: a long-term change in the Earth’s climate, or of a region on Earth.

Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used. Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect.

http://pmm.nasa.gov/education/articles/whats-name-global-warming-vs-climate-change

J-Roc77(70) Clarified
1 point

Gotcha. He can pull his own cart.

As an aside and to make a causal argument;

In the studies linked they discuss it is the state of certainty about something that reduces stress, it is the lack of seeing errors the self has made giving the illusion of certainty. It is noted that totalitarian states can give the same certainty and stress relief as we see with religion.

When this mindset gets in positions of power erroneous ideas can find footholds and wreak havoc on large groups. For example in the US the assaults on sciences by pseudoscience like creationism or how Popes, Holy See, and Al Queda and so on affect so many around them with arguably ambigious laws and requests.

Being predisposed toward something doesn't mean it is set in stone though. Our brains have shown some elasticity when subjected to stimuli, one of the more well known studies on this idea was done on taxi drivers in london. Areas dealing with spatial navigation in the subjects were larger than average and grew larger over time with use.

Much like a totalitarian state religion can condition a mindset that is more conducive towards making illogical decisions. Augustine cemented in Christianity for instance the idea that "philosophy is religions hand maiden". This line of thinking subjugates philosophy to religion, philosophy could explain the religious texts but never question. This line of thinking can be detrimental to the group in ways that make a reduction of stress is negligible (subjugation of women, ostracizing groups like homosexuals etc.).

Being predisposed to be likely to be a believer isn't the problem, it is that religion itself can perpetuate this mindset that allows for logical errors to go unseen. This is problematic for those who are subjected to the power of groups that are less likely to notice their errors.

J-Roc77(70) Clarified
1 point

So becoming an Atheist or being an Atheist, will not, does not make one more or less prone to being imprisoned.

Being imprisoned has much to do with environmental factors. My points do not address the issue entirely but do explain a portion of the issue.

You were questioning why believers occupy a larger portion in prisons than they do in society.

Above I have shown that non believers are less prone to repeating mistakes, while believers are more prone to not to spot their own mistakes, a position shared due to similarities in the ACC with prisoners who are likely to repeatedly offend.

Those that are prone to reoffend are also prone to believe in religion. Non believers are less prone from unintentionally making errors that would see them imprisoned again. I am not sure how this fails to address your question.

J-Roc77(70) Clarified
2 points

Atheists generally have more activity in the ACC (anterior cingulate cortex) than religious minded folks.

The ACC has many functions and one helps when critically thinking, when errors are made or uncertainty is encountered the ACC is stimulated. A stressor reaction is made that can aide in not making the same mistake over again (I think Peirce's Fixation of Belief fits well here) but can result in higher levels of stress. While religious folks can benefit from the lack of stress there are draw backs like making the same mistake over again.

For instance repeat offenders in the prison system generally have less activity in the ACC.

It would follow that people with lower activity in the ACC would show more commanality in their predispositions on religion and legal recidivism than those with higher activity in their ACC.

http://m.pnas.org/content/110/15/6223.abstract

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/2153599X.2011.647849#/doi/abs/10.1080/2153599X.2011.647849

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090304160400.htm


1 of 5 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]