"Snit" wrote in message
...
Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 19:52:51 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 25, 2021 at 11:41:26 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 19:20:41 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 21, 2021 at 11:13:56 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 23:50:26 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 17, 2021 at 10:28:03 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:


...
Scientists are liberal because they want funding for free.

Scientists are liberal because the conservative mindset is to deny
evidence.
We can see this with COVID,

No, we just don't make such a fuss over a small thing. A thing
that
kills 4
times less than cancer and 40 times less than the world population
growth.

The idea that over half a million dead in America, and many more
than that
around the world, and that is WITH some fairly significant
precautions,
is a
"small thing" is an utter rejection of the facts.

It's 4 times smaller than cancer and 40 times smaller then the
population
growth. Those are numbers, irrefutable numbers.

In the US it is the third leading cause of death. And that is with
some
precautions. Your lack of compassion does not reduce the harm.

It's FOUR TIMES LESS. So 100 people die, but only 20 of them were
coronavirus. And that's assuming nobody died of anything other than
the
virus or cancer.

It is still the third leading cause of death. Maybe even higher now.

So not the most important one to deal with. It's like putting out a
candle in the hall when your entire kitchen is on fire.

It is the most preventable of the three €” and still at third WITH lots of
precautions.

Again, your lack of compassion is on you... a "bad trait" if you will.

And those without compassion are bad for society... so by your own
standards
should you not be weeded out?

I'm not telling people to live "dangerously", I'm telling them not to
insist that I don't.

And insisting on a special entitlement to risk their lives €” showing a
lack
of compassion on your part.

As a society, based on your comments, why not weed you out to make the
whole society stronger?

man-made global climate change,

It was 1C here in Scotland a few days ago, in spring. There is no
global
warming.

Denial of the fact from you. That is what I mean.

I can see the temperature with my own eyes! It's on the thermometer
over
there!

You use a local temperature to try to deny evidence of man-made global
climate
change. Your logic is flawed.

So magically my part of the world stays the same and the rest goes up?
Right.... Look, just move to the place that's the temperature you
like, if
you're fussy enough to care about the alleged 2C change.

Selection bias

Stop using silly psychological labels you've read somewhere.

Do you even know what it is you are being called out on?

is not a good way to look at climate. I say go with the
evidence.

I have plenty evidence right here, the weather outside my house is what
it always has been.

Likely untrue but also not relevant.

And moving does not reduce man-made global climate change, nor its harm.

Of course it does. If it becomes too hot to grow crops where you live,
move further north, or grow more appropriate crops. The UK will be able
to grow oranges. Russia will become a huge farmland instead of frozen
wastes.

Food supplies will be harmed €” more than they are now.

You dont know that. They could well be improved significantly.

http://climate.nasa.gov

research on reduction of abortions,

That's not science, that's morals.

If you want to reduce abortions, which most conservatives claim to
want,
there
are known methods to do it. At least in American the Republican
party (the
more conservative of the two) rejects every one of these things.
There
"solution" is to deny women equal rights.

The whole idea that an abortion is wrong is insanity. The child
belongs to
the mother, and nobody else.

The Republican party pretends to be against abortion but then refused
to do
anything to help reduce the numbers. The Democrats want it to be legal
but
want to keep it rare.

Reducing the numbers can only mean you're taking away the right of
choice
from the woman. I thought you liked human rights? The government
should not
intervene.

I say increase the choice. Many who get an abortion would not have
needed one
if they had more choices -- this is based on the evidence of better
education,
free birth control, more access to Planned Parenthood and the like, etc.

It's not rocket science to use a condom. You don't need education for
something that simple. Even if you forget/were drunk, there's a morning
after pill.

Evidence shows education works.

Bull**** it does with unwanted teen pregnancys in the modern first world.

and in some cases even things like evolution.

Evolution could take place if we let coronavirus kill off the weak.

Evolution IS taking place. And the more the virus spreads the more
it
mutates
/ evolves.

I was obviously talking about the evolution of humans to fight it
off.
Think
about Eskimos and the cold virus.

And we as a species have evolved the ability to make vaccines.

No, we've invented the ability to screw up our future evolution.

Evolution has no plan. It is not forward "thinking" -- it does not think
at
all.

It doesn't have to. It works by simply deleting the failures. But
society is allowing those failures to breed, producing more failures.


People have not stopped you from breeding. True enough. Are you suggesting
you should have been sterilized?