I agree that he is a sharp guy but he more often than not will insult and attack people that don't agree with him which IMO shows an insecurity. Me, I like to argue and don't give a crap what people on the net think. Besides I have learned a lot about both sides of most of these issues and it really makes it more fun when I argue with people in real life.... I can pick either side then.
I just think people read in way too much about the actual human being behind some of the posts here. I've been guilty of that, too.
Will be necessary if you want to delay your son(s?) figuring out you are actually a complete dork. (Hey, I like this new Jorge flavor.)
the younger one thinks i am spiderman the older one is on to me. this whole black pajamas thing just might work. i'll keep you updated.
I just happen to respond better to someone saying "I believe x because of y but respect your opinion" there is too much "you believe x? your an idiot" around here.
I have a hard time taking you seriously because of your moniker(judge reinhold)... which is good in this case right?
Don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but I'll throw this out: The environmentalists really missed the boat by making the environment a political issue. Had they said something to the effect of "Let's do what our mothers taught us to do and be clean and not wasteful," we could be much farther along on this issue than we are. Let's be clean: I hate breathing smog (pollution) and seeing trash (pollution) on the streets and in the waterways. Let's not be wasteful: Let's use what we have and re-use it if we are able to do so (recycling and conservation). I just made a pro-environment argument that didn't bring in any science that could be disputed by anyone, liberal or conservative. Bang, done, wrap it up. In unrelated news, this is my 4,000th post. Go me.
Wow this thread has taken an odd turn since I last checked. Spiderman references are nice but I think T_J and Sam could win MadMax over to the dark side with this Your hate has made you strong MadMax. Give in to your hate.
Well put. I think there is a problem when scientific issues are debated as political issues. Science nothing is every truly proven and there always is the possibility of doubt. That's why Newton's laws have been superceded by Einstein's theories. With an isuse like man made global warming its true that there is a lot that isn't understood about it and given the complexity of the climate I would say we know less about how the climate works than many other controversial theories such as Evolution. I'm for having a vigorous scientific debate on the issue but the problem though is jumping to the conclusion that every problem with it automatically overthrows the theory. This is where we get in the problem of one taking a scientific theory as complete and unchanging where anything counter to it overthrows or looking a science in the realm of free speech where a minority opinion should be granted as much import as a majority. Scientific theories change and by nature every scientific theory is subject to some level of doubt. A minority viewpoint in science should be considered but that doesn't mean it should be accorded the same amount of important compared to a consensus view that has gone through a longer period of study and testing. The minority viewpoint could be right but it has to go through the same amount of testing as the majority. With something like man made global warming there is an other problem since it has immediate policy implications depending on which side of the issue. While the minority viewpoint might actually be correct is it worth it to take that risk given the weight of the evidence supporting the majority? Especially when following the majority view on global warming has many side benefits.
