I have some questions
 

After reading multiple posts, it occured to me that different questions seem to take variable "proofs" to be defended.

Therefore:

Why is the amount of proof that global warming exists, for example, different than the amount of proof needed to defend foreign policy?

Why can one subject evoke denial and ridicule while another is staunchly defended?

How can one defend, without question, a specific political agenda without first understanding the big picture?

How can one say: "Not enough proof" on (a) and say "It's perfectly obvious" on (b)?

Just some questions based on observation.

I think this is one of the most interesting thing about human nature. Some people believe weird things for weird reasons. Some people defend things for which there is no defense. Some people have emotional attachments to their beliefs and get their feelings hurt if you disagree with them.

Extremely interesting. At least it makes PPOT more fun sometimes. :>)

Mike

fundamentally different approaches to the fields. Once you cut through the crap, global warming is studied by the scientific method, and conclusions are drawn based on the interpretation of available data. Reasonable scientists can come to different conclusions, but generally a majority opinion emerges. There will always be contrarians (witness the vocal minority that claim HIV has nothing to do with AIDS), but for most topics there is a consensus. Of course the bigger the problem, the more complex, the more difficult the studies, and the more open to interpretation. You have humans studying nature. Humans are ridiculous, nature isn't, so you have a 50% chance of getting it right :p

Politics is humans studying humans. 0% chance of getting it right. By its nature politics is designed to influence and coerce. So to try and introduce logical thinking pretty much runs against the grain of the whole enterprise.

Agreed. I find some posts very entertaining in a bizarre way.

There's an article out today that states that the earth is the hottest it's been for 400 years. The global warming crowd would argue that this is proof of global warming caused by man.

I would argue that there were no SUV's 400 years ago. What caused the high temperatures back then?

I believe the global warming agenda is being driven with a result in mind - just like the global cooling theory was in the 70's. It's hard to take it seriously when the biggest blowhards are all politicians.

Craig:

The question is not what the causes are, it is whether it is happening, and many will not even admit that. The causes can vary from natural to man made.

The answer to all of your questions is the same: because we are not all perfectly rational and fully informed beings. If we were, your questions would not arise.

But shouldn't one at least try to be informed about other options?

My favorite thing is the formulaic response: NAME CALLING + PARSED NEGATIVE = IGNORE.

(name calling) "you are a tree hugger"
(parsed negative) "you haven't traded your SUV in for a Prius"
(ignore) "don't have the right to tell us anything about foresting"

So you get a response like - "Until you freaking tree huggers trade in your SUV for a Prius don't tell us what to do about forest managment in my backyard."

Or - "Those nutty fundamentalist Christians whose hatred of gays is ironically unChristian have no right to tell me what movies I watch over the internet in my own home. It's unAmerican, dammit!!."

It's so much fun I'm going to copyright the technique and start a political campaign management company.

Scott:

Just formulate a "sentence generator"

"You are a (pick from column 1) and have (pick from column 2) and should (pick from column 3)

Formulating the columns should not be difficult. All one has to do is reread a bunch of posts!!!

don't know the cause of the warming, but I know onething fer sho, da Artic is a bit warmer now than it has been in a very long time. Ask me how I know...

did you go swimming there and pee?

Man, still smarting over that tree hugger thread? Get over it, that was yesterday.

Interestingly I agree with both of the statements that you seem to propose would represent the right vs the left. No one has the right to tell you what to do in your own home as long as those activities fall within the law. Want to change the law? Go for it.

The lakes/ponds have 30+ inch very hungry fish. It was in the high 60s and I was tempted take a dip to just to say I did but the fear of getting my johnson bitten off by a hungry pike just didn't interest me any.

I will be going back up in July, 24hrs of sunlight and it may hit 70!

And there's the rub - "within the law". One man's porn is another man's scorn. What about the imperative to insist upon moral and/or ethical behavior ? Behaviors that are open to different interpretation within the scope of the law ?

They probably have the "right to tell you what to do" they just don't have the legal authority to enforce their opinions. But we all try to influence each others behavior - and we do it every day through both spoken and unspoken, sometimes unconscious, peer pressure and community mores.

Of course we do and that's fine. As far as porn vs scorn I'm sure there are folks out there who think kiddie porn is just fine and dandy, but see there's a difference.

Kiddie porn is illegal, adult porn isn't. Simple. You can wack off to adult porn all you want in your house if that's your thing, it's perfectly legal. Do the same to kiddie porn and you get to rot in jail. I really don't see how that is a complicated issue.

Kiddie porn or whacking off ? I was thinking about different opinions within the scope of the law - let's use the same film, "The Last Tango in Paris", for example, so we don't get sidetracked. It's treated as merely a film in some homes or cable systems and treated as porn and therefore outside the "community standard" in others. Same picture - different eyes - different beliefs - same laws - different results.

And this thread started off so well..

What the Hell happened to civility?

Some of you guys have really short fuses.......

Moneyguy: If you think anything in this thread is uncivil you really need to get some thicker skin. Hang around OT for a while and I'm sure you will see some REALLY uncivil discussions.

JDSKI: I disagree. Of course people will have different opinions while watching the same movie. That's obvious. But the LAW does not change. That's the key. If I happen to be a tee-totaling person who plays the organ at my church and think my neighbor is going to hell for watching "The Last Tango in Paris" then that's my right to think that. I do not, however, have the right to tell him he cannot watch that film because it isn't against the law. See?

Rick

I have been here longer than you and seen a lot of different posters come and go.

I have a very thick skin, proven by sticking around here. I also have a few years on most of you, and a heck of a lot of experience working with government at all levels. I enjoy a good exchange, even a spirited exchange, but I prefer it to be civil and at least have the trappings of each party actually reading what the other has to say.

That being said, this latest exchange has NOTHING to do with the subject and probably deserves its own thread.

That's all..........Chill!!!