... and so it begins.

[RandomGuy]

"Just had a very open and successful presidential election. Now professional protesters, incited by the media, are protesting. Very unfair!"

:cry

Man, we will get to expand our Thesaurus...

Twit in Chief
Defendant in Chief (this one is mine, I thought of it first)
Whiner in Chief

The possibilities stretch out before us. Who knows what the next four years of clownish temper tantrums will hold.

[RandomGuy]

... and yes the protesters are also throwing a clownish temper tantrum.

[DarrinS]

... and yes the protesters are also throwing a clownish temper tantrum.

And some of them are also funded.

[DMC]

Those of you who abhor the other half or so of the country should look to set up shop elsewhere. I would if I felt that way.

[RandomGuy]

Those of you who abhor the other half or so of the country should look to set up shop elsewhere. I would if I felt that way.

My solution is to stop abhoring, and start listening, Trump and the morons he seems to be lining up to serve in his administration aside. What a collection of twits.

The left is going to have to grow up a little.

[DMC]

My solution is to stop abhoring, and start listening, Trump and the morons he seems to be lining up to serve in his administration aside. What a collection of twits.

The left is going to have to grow up a little.

After, like you, they throw a few temper tantrums?

[TeyshaBlue]

My solution is to stop abhoring, and start listening, Trump and the morons he seems to be lining up to serve in his administration aside. What a collection of twits.

The left is going to have to grow up a little.

Agreed. Its so much easier to be angry than constructive...a lesson the GOP seems likely to never learn.

[midnightpulp]

My solution is to stop abhoring, and start listening, Trump and the morons he seems to be lining up to serve in his administration aside. What a collection of twits.

The left is going to have to grow up a little.

We have a lot more in common as a people than we think.

The Left's problem is that they focus too much on "social justice" issues, and they communicate their concerns about social justice in such a way that comes off as self-righteous, elitist and even "whiny." The Left isn't going to build a bridge to demographics in middle and southern America with that approach. No matter how "reasonable" and "rational" a woman's right to choose seems to you or to me, to that demographic, most of whom are socially conservative Christians as we know, that non-sentient bundle of cells is a living, breathing, actual human being to them, sacred above all measure. Abortion, from their perspective, truly is murder.

And bleeding heart liberals should applaud the right's empathetic view of life in that regard.

That is the common ground you use to build that bridge.

Most liberals are against the death penalty, while most in the right are in favor of it (which is obviously an ironic position considering their pro-life views elsewhere). Explain to them the Catholic Church is prohibitively against it, that there's numerous New Testament examples of Christ opposing it, and that Christ himself was victim of capital punishment.

You could probably already see how you can extend this dialog to other matters of concern, from foreign policy ("Thou Shalt Not Kill," "Repay Evil With Blessing") to healthcare (Christ went around freely healing the sick) to immigration (Christ made company with the poor, the downtrodden, the lepers, the prostitutes, the unwanted) to the environment ("And I brought you into a plentiful land to enjoy its fruits and its good things. But when you came in, you defiled my land and made my heritage an abomination.") to the economy ("Easier for a Camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get into Heaven").

When you zoom out, the only issues the Left and Right fundamentally disagree on are social wedge issues like abortion, same sex marriage, and the like. Those are indeed important, but right now, they're in the back of the bus of importance to global warming, foreign policy concerns, healthcare reform, and the economy.

Yes, there will always be those intractable, inflexible sorts, who will find snippets of scripture to support their anti-Christian worldview, but generally speaking, most are very well meaning and empathetic people who would "listen to reason" if presented in a way palpable to them. Throwing Dawkins quotes and scientific studies around won't get the job done here. You're not going to shame them over to your side with rhetoric that is, to me, equally as "intolerant" as the rhetoric your average Bible Belt Christian uses in order to "shame" the "Godless" over to their side.

When these wedge issues come up, you basically just have to say agree to disagree and move on to the bigger issues at hand, where there's acres of common ground between the two sides.

[Chucho]

Dont worry, The Right is ready to pay back 8 years of selective ignorance

[rmt]

Those are indeed important, but right now, they're in the back of the bus of importance to global warming, foreign policy concerns, healthcare reform, and the economy.


For those of you who would like to hear the other side, I couldn't care less about global warming - give me clean air and clean water and shove the rest. And I detest when AP Chemistry teachers assigned extra credit assignments where students have to defend global warming in order to get that extra credit. This is akin to brain washing and shoving her agenda down my child's throat.

[midnightpulp]

For those of you who would like to hear the other side, I couldn't care less about global warming - give me clean air and clean water and shove the rest. And I detest when AP Chemistry teachers assigned extra credit assignments where students have to defend global warming in order to get that extra credit. This is akin to brain washing and shoving her agenda down my child's throat.

There's a 97% consensus among scientists that global warming is man made. Granted, I know our little species doesn't have the power to change the Earth permanently, and that any effect we cause is just "temporary" in the grand scheme of things, but concerning the immediate future, it does us no good to be poor stewards of what you would call, "God's Creation."

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/current/nation/where-christians-get-environmentalism-wrong

https://bible.org/article/christian-environmentalism

And for the sake of the argument, let's assume you think man made global warming is "liberal propaganda." It pays to be a a proverbial "good steward" regardless. Litter in our oceans, lakes, and river is "unaesthetic," as are landfills, overflowing trashcans on sidewalks, trash fluttering in the wind, and toxic waste and sewage runoff into the water table. Not to mention smog, species extinction, and other unsightly and negative externalities related to human consumption.

https://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1474130/china-beijing-issues-first-ever-red-smog-alert.png

[rmt]

There's a 97% consensus among scientists that global warming is man made. Granted, I know our little species doesn't have the power to change the Earth permanently, and that any effect we cause is just "temporary" in the grand scheme of things, but concerning the immediate future, it does us no good to be poor stewards of what you would call, "God's Creation."

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/current/nation/where-christians-get-environmentalism-wrong

https://bible.org/article/christian-environmentalism

And for the sake of the argument, let's assume you think man made global warming is "liberal propaganda." It pays to be a a proverbial "good steward" regardless. Litter in our oceans, lakes, and river is "unaesthetic," as are landfills, overflowing trashcans on sidewalks, trash fluttering in the wind, and toxic waste and sewage runoff into the water table. Not to mention smog, species extinction, and other unsightly and negative externalities related to human consumption.

https://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1474130/china-beijing-issues-first-ever-red-smog-alert.png

I am a good steward of what God has blessed me with including the environment - I just don't think of it as Bernie's debate claim that “climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism” or that the greatest threat to national security is climate change or put it before/equal footing as you do with "foreign policy concerns, healthcare reform, and the economy."

There's probably a high percentage of scientists who believe in the Big Bang theory too. And all those so called "experts" on butter, eggs, avoidance of allergies, etc.

[Splits]

:lmao mid

[RandomGuy]

I am a good steward of what God has blessed me with including the environment - I just don't think of it as Bernie's debate claim that “climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism” or that the greatest threat to national security is climate change or put it before/equal footing as you do with "foreign policy concerns, healthcare reform, and the economy."

There's probably a high percentage of scientists who believe in the Big Bang theory too. And all those so called "experts" on butter, eggs, avoidance of allergies, etc.

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.


Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.





Scientists [person A] claim humans are causing global warming [claim X]
rmt [Person B] says that scientists are wrong about the Big Bang [attack on person A]
Therefore scientists are wrong about global warming [A's claim is false]



Global warming is either true or not, fully independent of any other thing.

Your reasoning is incorrect here. The weight of evidence supporting AGW is pretty conclusive, based on the experts who study it.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AJ91kjrTLSk/UznBDSYtz-I/AAAAAAAACb8/iSR2Cs7mRdY/s1600/global+warming+joke.GIF

Fossil fuel companies make trillions of dollars per year selling fuels that, when burned, produce CO2.

How much effort/money can a small fraction of trillions of dollars provide to counter the true idea that increasing levels of CO2 is overall harmful to the planet?

You should be very skeptical of the skeptics.

[RandomGuy]

After, like you, they throw a few temper tantrums?

Happy to admit to my two wolves.

I have decided which one to feed.

(ref:)
http://www.worldofproverbs.com/2012/12/there-is-battle-of-two-wolves-inside-us.html

[midnightpulp]

:lmao mid

Why the emoticon?

[Splits]

Why the emoticon?

Because rmt is the perfect subject for your entire thesis and look at how she just destroyed your approach? You're naive if you think these people can be reasoned with using facts or science. FFS she's pissed they teach chemistry in chemistry class and she lives in Florida.

But keep trying.

[Splits]

There's probably a high percentage of scientists who believe in the Big Bang theory too.

How old is the earth?

Did humans ride dinosaurs?

[midnightpulp]

Because rmt is the perfect subject of your entire thesis and look at how she just destroyed your approach? You're naive if you think these people can be reasoned with using facts or science. FFS she's pissed they teach chemistry in chemistry class and she lives in Florida.

But keep trying.

It's definitely a challenge, agreed.

[Splits]

It's definitely a challenge, agreed.

Or what rational people would call impossible.

[angrydude]

These protests are what happens when you believe your own bullshit

[midnightpulp]

I am a good steward of what God has blessed me with including the environment - I just don't think of it as Bernie's debate claim that “climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism” or that the greatest threat to national security is climate change or put it before/equal footing as you do with "foreign policy concerns, healthcare reform, and the economy."

There's probably a high percentage of scientists who believe in the Big Bang theory too. And all those so called "experts" on butter, eggs, avoidance of allergies, etc.

I was in no way intimating that climate change should be put before those issues. My order wasn't in order of importance.

[spurraider21]

There's probably a high percentage of scientists who believe in the Big Bang theory too.it's not a matter of belief. that's not how science works. the big bang theory arose because it's currently the only working theory that fits all the evidence. scientists dont gather once a year to "vote" if they believe in big bang theory, anthropogenic global warming ,etc. that's now how "consensus" happens.

scientists in a given field perform experiments, gather data, and analyze it. they publish their findings in peer reviewed papers. when 97% of all such papers (backed by evidence, math, and their worked is checked over) point towards man-made global warming, that becomes a working theory. and the people writing these papers are experts in those particular fields: geologists, atmospheric physicists, oceanographers, glaciologists, etc.

so if a guy like ben carson, an accomplished neurosurgeon, starts giving his opinion on climate change, it's not really considered. similarly, i wouldnt ask stephen hawking to perform surgery if i needed it.

people who study climate largely come to one conclusion, and it's not just a bunch of american scientists bought off by their universities, it's a global thing. even climate scientists in fuckin china, where their government doesn't give a single shit about environmentalism, have the same scientific conclusions. unless a scientist is employed by a company (like anybody in the heartland institute), there's no reason to doubt their credibility

i know it's hard, but to really take and understand scientific concepts, you HAVE to separate the science from the politics/policies. for decades, scientists were telling us that cigarettes were linked to cancer, and people like yourself doubted them because they figured scientists were biased and basically politicians who wanted to put regulations on cigarettes. how'd that one turn out?

[RandomGuy]

Or what rational people would call impossible.

Rational people have no choice but to engage people they disagree with. The left has to be better at explaining and talking. Don't give up.

You will like this:
GLG9g7BcjKs

:ROFL

[Splits]

Rational people have no choice but to engage people they disagree with. The left has to be better at explaining and talking. Don't give up.

It depends on the issue, but I happen to think to malign and ridicule is more effective and efficient in many cases. Take spurraider's example above re: cigarettes. We didn't drastically reduce the number of smokers by having a deep, national conversation about scientific conclusions that smoking kills, decades after the science was decided. We made smoking socially unacceptable by making smokers feel stupid and guilt-ridden. There's still some hangers-on, but no politician would dare introduce a bill to re-allow smoking on an airplane.

Same approach should be taken with climate change deniers. They should be ridiculed and demonized as dangers to themselves and their neighbors. The results will be the same.

[angrydude]

It depends on the issue, but I happen to think to malign and ridicule is more effective and efficient in many cases. Take spurraider's example above re: cigarettes. We didn't drastically reduce the number of smokers by having a deep, national conversation about scientific conclusions that smoking kills, decades after the science was decided. We made smoking socially unacceptable by making smokers feel stupid and guilt-ridden. There's still some hangers-on, but no politician would dare introduce a bill to re-allow smoking on an airplane.

Same approach should be taken with climate change deniers. They should be ridiculed and demonized as dangers to themselves and their neighbors. The results will be the same.

I'm sure it had nothing to do with all those taxes placed on them.

[spurraider21]

while there is some validity to it, it's starting to get repetitive hearing about how the left has to :cry be nicer to conservatives :cry... i agree that productive political discourse has been non-existent, but people need to stop being soft pussies, demanding that their opposition treat them with kiddie gloves... do they need their own political safe space?

so when somebody says "u hate gay marriage because ur a homophone" and leaves the convo at that, i definitely understand that it's not productive... but it's not like most conservatives are really open to having a discussion about it without it boiling down to "queers make the choice to be queer" etc.

its also incredibly lazy to say the left lost the election because LOL safe spaces

[baseline bum]

So the talking snake is a better origin theory than the big bang?

[spurraider21]

So the talking snake is a better origin theory than the big bang?yes and the stars are all just lesser, smaller suns that will one day fall onto to the earth during the revelation

[DMC]

Scientist: your life ambition is to disprove another scientist's theory

Religious: Your life ambition is to prove what was written over 2000 years ago to be true

[midnightpulp]

It depends on the issue, but I happen to think to malign and ridicule is more effective and efficient in many cases. Take spurraider's example above re: cigarettes. We didn't drastically reduce the number of smokers by having a deep, national conversation about scientific conclusions that smoking kills, decades after the science was decided. We made smoking socially unacceptable by making smokers feel stupid and guilt-ridden. There's still some hangers-on, but no politician would dare introduce a bill to re-allow smoking on an airplane.

Same approach should be taken with climate change deniers. They should be ridiculed and demonized as dangers to themselves and their neighbors. The results will be the same.

Shaming the opposition for their different beliefs/background is what got the Orange Fuck elected.

Trust me, I used to be in the "shame" camp (probably more due to my argumentative nature and lack of political correctness than anything else), but part of Trump's victory was definitely the result of angry white men who were tired of being called racist, xenophobic, homophobic, misogynist for their different views on things like immigration, abortion and same-sex marriage, protest voting out of the petulant reason to piss off "liberals."

[Will Hunting]

Shaming the opposition for their different beliefs/background is what got the Orange Fuck elected.

Trust me, I used to be in the "shame" camp (probably more due to my argumentative nature and lack of political correctness than anything else), but part of Trump's victory was definitely the result of angry white men who were tired of being called racist, xenophobic, homophobic, misogynist for their different views on things like immigration, abortion and same-sex marriage protest voting out of the petulant reason to piss off "liberals."

This 1000x

Hiilary herself publicly referred to Trump supporters as deplorable. When the fuck did calling people deplorable become a way to get support and unite a country?

I think people are also tired of seeing terrorist attacks happen here and in Europe and before anyone even has time to say "My heart goes out to the victims and their families", there are hoards of liberals spamming social media with "You shouldn't blame Islam for the actions of a few people," as if that's a lot more important than the terrorist attack that just killed a bunch of innocent people.

[rmt]

Rational people have no choice but to engage people they disagree with. The left has to be better at explaining and talking. Don't give up.

You will like this:
GLG9g7BcjKs

:ROFL

Hahahaha - this guy is exactly right. I'd go even further to say that one has to build a relationship with someone to truly get listened to. I'll share one of my experiences campaigning for Trump. I have a very close Christian friend - we go way back - our daughters are best friends so you can imagine the number of hours we've spent together as they grew up. She has a condo in Doral on the edge of Trump's golf course - sold to her by the developer as "golf course view." Of course, Trump decides to plant trees on his golf course (which block her view) and pisses her off. She rails and rails against him (because he has affected the value of her condo). I, of course, tried to convince her that it wasn't Trump's fault (he has every right to do whatever he wants with his property) and to vote for him but she was completely turned off. I continued to add her email address to all the emails I sent out to everyone I knew. Last I heard she wasn't voting for either - just down ballot. I'll have to ask her if she eventually voted for him.

Now compare that to the insults and name-calling I've received here on this board just because I have opinions different from yours - and you expect me to be receptive to what you have to say? RG, I agree with you about the engagement and Splits, I respectfully disagree with the malignment and ridicule. IMO, no one will listen when you ridicule them.

[DMC]

while there is some validity to it, it's starting to get repetitive hearing about how the left has to :cry be nicer to conservatives :cry... i agree that productive political discourse has been non-existent, but people need to stop being soft pussies, demanding that their opposition treat them with kiddie gloves... do they need their own political safe space?

so when somebody says "u hate gay marriage because ur a homophone" and leaves the convo at that, i definitely understand that it's not productive... but it's not like most conservatives are really open to having a discussion about it without it boiling down to "queers make the choice to be queer" etc.

its also incredibly lazy to say the left lost the election because LOL safe spaces

It's lazy to say "most" anything since you have no idea.

[Splits]

Shaming the opposition for their different beliefs/background is what got the Orange Fuck elected.

Trust me, I used to be in the "shame" camp (probably more due to my argumentative nature and lack of political correctness than anything else), but part of Trump's victory was definitely the result of angry white men who were tired of being called racist, xenophobic, homophobic, misogynist for their different views on things like immigration, abortion and same-sex marriage, protest voting out of the petulant reason to piss off "liberals."

That's why I said "depends on the issue" Climate change happens to fall in that category

[Splits]

Hahahaha - this guy is exactly right. I'd go even further to say that one has to build a relationship with someone to truly get listened to. I'll share one of my experiences campaigning for Trump. I have a very close Christian friend - we go way back - our daughters are best friends so you can imagine the number of hours we've spent together as they grew up. She has a condo in Doral on the edge of Trump's golf course - sold to her by the developer as "golf course view." Of course, Trump decides to plant trees on his golf course (which block her view) and pisses her off. She rails and rails against him (because he has affected the value of her condo). I, of course, tried to convince her that it wasn't Trump's fault (he has every right to do whatever he wants with his property) and to vote for him but she was completely turned off. I continued to add her email address to all the emails I sent out to everyone I knew. Last I heard she wasn't voting for either - just down ballot. I'll have to ask her if she eventually voted for him.

Now compare that to the insults and name-calling I've received here on this board just because I have opinions different from yours - and you expect me to be receptive to what you have to say? RG, I agree with you about the engagement and Splits, I respectfully disagree with the malignment and ridicule. IMO, no one will listen when you ridicule them.

I don't want you to listen to me on climate change. I want you to feel like the idiot you are for denying science and complaining about your kid's teacher teaching science in science class.

[midnightpulp]

This 1000x

Hiilary herself publicly referred to Trump supporters as deplorable. When the fuck did calling people deplorable become a way to get support and unite a country?

I think people are also tired of seeing terrorist attacks happen here and in Europe and before anyone even has time to say "My heart goes out to the victims and their families", there are hoards of liberals spamming social media with "You shouldn't blame Islam for the actions of a few people," as if that's a lot more important than the terrorist attack that just killed a bunch of innocent people.

Yeah, SJWs are just as racist and bigoted as their alt-right counterparts, maybe not consciously so, but there's definitely some animosity lurking deep beneath the purple hair and man buns there.

Example:

Downtrodden urban, drug addicted black guy commits crime (or behaves in some other unpleasant manner).

SJW response: "We have to deeply investigate the systematic racial, social, and economic injustices that left him in a dire and hopeless situation where violence was his only alternative."

Downtrodden rural, drug addicted white guy commits crime (or behaves in some other unpleasant manner).

SJW response: "Dumb redneck. Maybe if he would've put down the Bible and got an education, he wouldn't have found himself in that situation."

And then they tell these people, who are victims of those same social and economic injustices as minorities to, "check their privilege." It's totally fuckin' insulting.

Before the Left lost its mind, they were the champion of Southern and Midwest working class whites who were getting screwed by bouton's "BigCorp," along with all the other poor and downtrodden victims of the "system," regardless of race, gender, or creed. Now their attention is focused on nothing but minorities, women, and LGBTQ. No surprise Southern and Middle American lower-middle class whites told them to go fuck themselves, which they vocalized through Trump. And the Left's mentality in this regard has even alienated white male college graduates, a demo which Trump surprisingly won.

I said the Left has an advertising problem, and I think BLM was the campaign that finally pushed that demographic over the edge. Addressing the issue of police violence is indeed a noble cause, but again, advertising, and the BLM approach was very alienating to people who would otherwise have been on their side.

[RandomGuy]

it's not a matter of belief. that's not how science works. the big bang theory arose because it's currently the only working theory that fits all the evidence. scientists dont gather once a year to "vote" if they believe in big bang theory, anthropogenic global warming ,etc. that's now how "consensus" happens.

scientists in a given field perform experiments, gather data, and analyze it. they publish their findings in peer reviewed papers. when 97% of all such papers (backed by evidence, math, and their worked is checked over) point towards man-made global warming, that becomes a working theory. and the people writing these papers are experts in those particular fields: geologists, atmospheric physicists, oceanographers, glaciologists, etc.

so if a guy like ben carson, an accomplished neurosurgeon, starts giving his opinion on climate change, it's not really considered. similarly, i wouldnt ask stephen hawking to perform surgery if i needed it.

people who study climate largely come to one conclusion, and it's not just a bunch of american scientists bought off by their universities, it's a global thing. even climate scientists in fuckin china, where their government doesn't give a single shit about environmentalism, have the same scientific conclusions. unless a scientist is employed by a company (like anybody in the heartland institute), there's no reason to doubt their credibility

i know it's hard, but to really take and understand scientific concepts, you HAVE to separate the science from the politics/policies. for decades, scientists were telling us that cigarettes were linked to cancer, and people like yourself doubted them because they figured scientists were biased and basically politicians who wanted to put regulations on cigarettes. how'd that one turn out?

+1

It is sad to see the anti-intellectualism and anti-science undertones in so much preferred policy by the GOP.

[boutons_deux]

+1

It is sad to see the anti-intellectualism and anti-science undertones in so much preferred policy by the GOP.

the entire Repug/VRWC/right-wing-hate-media strategy is to con 10Ms of stupid, "religious" Americans with god/guns/gays/Muslims LIES, and it works.

Those 10Ms are still reliably dumb enough to think Don The Con gives a shit about them, and will help them after decades of being screwed by Repug/VRWC/BigCorp strategy.