Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day

OK, so..., for example..., you are happy living among people who think that gay marriage is an abomination...

I may not agree with the view, but I accept the people.

I do not wish that they would somehow go away.

Those same people are probably responsible for hundreds of good deeds.

...you would do nothing to try and force them to change their point of view..

Force them? No.

I would not force anybody to change their point of view.

But that doesn't stop me from starting a dialog with them.

It doesn't stop me from debating or reasoning with them.

..and force gay marriage down their throats...., right?

For me to force gay marriage down their throats, I would have to put a gun up a straight man's head and force him to marry another man.

Because that is what constitutes "forcing gay marriage down their throats".

So far I have never heard a gay person wanting to do that, so you can relax.

What YOU mean however, is that you demand to have a say on what other people do, even if what they want to do has nothing to do with you, is not illegal and doesn't hurt anybody.

This is no different to: a child that is about to eat some chocolate, and another totally unrelated child throwing a fit about it and demanding that the first child not eat the chocolate.

You are the unrelated child that is throwing the fit. Not only are you throwing a fit, but you are now dreaming of a Utopia where that other child wouldn't be allowed to eat chocolate if he chooses to live in the same place as you.

That is how ridiculous and unreasonable you are.

But regardless of what I think of you, I'm still happy to tolerate you.

That is our difference.

I mean, it's a no brainer. If you don't like a group of people, then stay away from them, avoid conflict, don't start killing them. How hard is that?

Not hard at all Joe. I'm glad you see that.

But you don't need to be physically away from people you don't like.

I want to tell people, you cannot come here and do "blah." If you want to do "blah" go over there. My approach is tolerant of the views of others.

No. No it's not Joe.

Your first two sentences contradict the third.

I don't want to force people into changing their views. They can keep whatever views they want.

That's good. But it's only part of your Utopian picture. The other part is the bit where you force what views are accepted in a certain area.

And most importantly, what views are incompatible with other views.

You, on the other hand, want to force people into changing their views to match your views.

No Joe.

I'm happy living amongst people with all kinds of views.

I'm not the one advocating that anybody who doesn't think like me should go live somewhere else...

You want to force everyone to accept and tolerate everyone you decide is worth tolerating. And you call me intolerant and hateful?!?!?! WTF?

I haven't forced anybody to tolerate nobody. Neither have I ever expressed a desire to have such power. If you have any evidence of the contrary please do tell.

You try to come across as all tolerant/benevolent and the first thing you do is try to pin negative labels on me (hateful, shallow, presumptuous, uncomprehending).

I do think you are all those things.

But that doesn't stop me from tolerating the fact that you are here.

That is our difference Joe.

I'm also fairly certain that you would be able to join more than one game, so the focus would be on the similarities of the players in that one game, even if in other regards they aren't remotely compatible.

Which is what we have now.

A society where people who are otherwise remotely compatible, and yet play all kinds of games with each other.

You have to distinguish between ideas that are proposed through a sincere attempt to make the world a better place, and ideas that masquerade as helpful prepositions and yet fundamentally are nothing but an expression of fear and hate.

Joe's ideas so far fall into the later category.

I think you'll find that Joe's "argument" isn't an argument at all.

It's not even an idea that has been thought through for more than a milli-second.

It's yet another example of the shallow garbage that is spouted by individuals who hate or cannot comprehend the fact that people are diverse.

It is foolish to presume that just because someone likes Gambling, that they would get along well with other people who also like Gambling, in a place where Gambling is allowed. Or that Terrorists would get along with other Terrorists on the basis that they are both Terrorists.

So Joe's Utopia would require for us to rearrange the terrain in such a way that each one of us lives on an island, alone.

We already have such places... they are called "homes".

You already have the ability to play whatever game you wish in your home.

I didn't actually call you a bigot.

You stated in your debate that if we allow gay people to "marry" then we will get confused when talking about "married" couples because we won't know if it's a straight couple or a gay couple we're talking about. And I explained to you that the problem lies with the English language and its use of the Definite Article "THE" for both male and female. Since your first language is Spanish, it is safe to assume that you fully understood the answer to your question.

So if you are not a bigot and you just wanted to raise a concern, then at this point you would have your explanation and happily moved on.

Your post however, reveals that you weren't actually bothered about getting an answer to your question. What you wanted, was to score a point. So at this point, it is also safe to assume that you are indeed a bigot. Your comments about the battle of Maine and California clearly confirm that you see yourself "at war" with the gay community.

Final thought.

Who is trying to shove anything down your throat?

What EXACTLY is going to change in your life if gays are allowed to marry?

When someone says "I went to my cousin's Christening the other day", does the sentence provide any info with regard to the gender of the cousin? No.

So how about we have a different word for the Christening of Boys, and another one for that of Girls?

What you fail to understand is that the problem in your description (i.e being able to understand the sexes involved) lies within the English language itself.

In the English language, the Definite Article "THE" is used to describe both male and female subjects. The same applies for the Indefinite Articles "A" and "AN". So in my above sentence, my subject is "the cousin" or "a cousin", which does not disclose the gender of that cousin.

In other languages however, such as Latin based, some European and Balkan languages (and probably a lot more in the whole world), the Definite and Indefinite Articles are slightly different between the male and the female.

For example, if I was to say my first sentence in Greek and "my cousin" refers to a female, I would say "i ksaderfi mou". But if it referred to a male cousin, I would have to say "o ksaderfos mou". Also note how the end syllable changes from -i to -os. So from the beginning of the sentence you already know the sexes of those involved. The word "Christening" or "Baptism" doesn't need to indicate that.

Which leaves the word "Christening" free and able to indiscriminately describe the institution regardless of the sex of the subject involved.

If what you are trying to do is amend this weakness of the English Language by proposing to have completely different words describing the same process/ceremony/institution/contract depending on the gender of those involved, then something tells me you haven't thought this through... :o)

If, on the other hand, you are only preoccupied with preventing the word marriage being used by gay people, and you don't care about the other institutions or the linguistic shortfall, then you are a bigot.

Thank you for your reply, some of that information is very informative.

I'd like to see how those records prove how much CO2 is produced by humans and how much is produced by the oceans and other natural sources.

Also, why concentrate just on the 1950-to present time period?

500 million years ago the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 20 times higher than today, and we weren't around.

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/CO2History.html

If the earth is capable of producing and handling 20 times the amount of CO2 we have today over millions of years, then we have enough time to lay down some rational plans with regards to our technology. Regardless of what I think about Global Warming I am not against making things cleaner. What I am against, is this rushed attitude of "the world is coming to an end" "let's tax everybody" "stop those damn Chinese".

Your logic goes a bit like this:

The earth is warmer due to more CO2 in the atmosphere. Humans have produced more CO2 recently. Therefore humans are responsible for the extra heat.

I'm sorry but if you can't see that this is a fallacy based on correlation and causal reduction (I said causal, not "casual") then there is not point me continuing.

Correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation, but it can give you a clue. If your water tastes funny and you get sick the next day, the best guess would be that the water made you sick. But you wouldn't know for sure until you got the water tested.

What you described has nothing to do with correlation. You can test the water and prove definitely that it was the cause of the sickness.

Correlation goes a bit like this (example): "When hot chocolate sales go up, crime goes down". So there is a correlation between hot chocolate and crime. But is the hot chocolate the cause of the reduction in crime? No. It's more likely that the sales of hot chocolate increase during cold weather, and because of the cold weather more people stay at home, and therefore there is less crime outside. So the real cause to the reduction of crime is not the hot chocolate, but the cold weather.

That's why you can't use correlation to substantiate a claim. Especially one as grand as global warming.

In the case of global warming, we have causation through the well understood greenhouse effect. The other correlative evidence only makes the case more likely.

The only thing we know is the cause of the greenhouse effect. But you can't prove that humans are responsible for the supposed increase in those gases because the oceans produce a lot more CO2 than we do. The only way the supporters can get to that conclusion is by purposeful causal reduction (i.e. ignore the oceans) and by pretending that correlation is enough to support causation. The tragedy is that average Joe doesn't understand the difference.

I'm afraid, "likely", isn't a good enough reason to be taxing people further than they already pay.

We can never definitively prove global warming because we can't test the entire planet in a laboratory. We have to do a rough cost/benefit analysis based on imperfect data.

Ditto! Thank you. Thank you so very much for standing up and admitting to it. You have no idea how much more I respect you now. I am tiered of people telling me that Global Warming has been definitely proven when it obviously hasn't.

On one hand we have the cost of passing legislation that has a small chance of being unnecessary. On the other hand we have highly probable crop failure on a massive scale among other potential consequences. Do you honestly think the risk of the former outweighs the latter?

That's the definition of scare tactics, i.e. we have no proof, but let's proceed anyway, just in case... The chance of the legislation being unnecessary is not small. It's at least 50/50. Also think about this. If the Global Warming theory is wrong, then those crops are still doomed because we will have focused on just one thing, when in fact the cause could be something completely different.

And if you think that the money raised by these new taxes is going to be used on anything remotely related to the environment you are being blind by choice.

Got a citation for this? And can you explain why it's important?

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html

It's important because if there is a greater source of CO2 on the planet then that changes the whole argument presented by the supporters. How do we know that the oceans are not producing more CO2 than they used to? How do we know this is not a natural long term cycle they go through? Can you prove that they are incapable of absorbing this extra CO2?

Also... please note a very very important part of that paragraph sited. First the site tells us that CO2 concentration on the atmosphere used to be 280ppm and now it is 370ppm. On first look this sounds shocking.

But then they continue by explaining that CO2 concentration measures change according to seasons. In the summer there is more vegetation and more CO2 converted to oxygen by plants. But in the winter all those plants release more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Why does the site not tell us which season was the first measure of 280ppm taken, and which season was the second one of 370ppm taken? Would it make a difference if the first measure was taken in the summer and the second in the winter? Of course it would!

See, little things like that, and you can have the public blinded at the snap of a finger...