On Sun, 02 May 2021 20:35:46 +0100, Snit wrote:
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.
But it's still a very small chance of you actually dying of it, lower than a percent!
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.
I'm not ripping off people's masks.
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?
Yeah I looked it up and it's bull****.
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.
It's true and it's a good unbiassed data point.
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.
What evidence do you have for this? At the moment we have food growing well in some places and not at all in others. So they swap about, who cares?
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.
You mean brainwash. Let people make their own decisions.
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?
I don't need to be, I'm clever enough to realise there are plenty of genes better than mine so I would never pass mine on. I don't think I would even if I was perfect, since the world is vastly overpopulated.
--
Sent from my iPhone, this spam courtesy of Apple incorporated.