Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
134 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [6] | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Is Global Warming the equivalent of the Abortion debate of the 90s? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Maia McGrath
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Jumping in with the big fish of RSP. surprise

It appears to me that global warming is as controversial today as pro-life vs pro-choice was a decade ago. People were extremely reluctant to state an opinion in an open area for fear of the backlash they would receive (on either side.) The picketing (in some cases violence) and news coverage on the debate was extensive. While it is still controverservial, it has at least gotten closer to a topic that can be mentioned without tempers immediately flaring.

Which brings us to today. Mention that you believe global warming isn't "man-made" and much of the same type of tensions arrise. Is this just a phenomon I am seeing or does it actually exist?

BTW, I am not trying to argue the case on either of these positions but more the social reactions to the discussions of said issues.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Benny
United States
Topeka
Kansas
flag msg tools
Everyone likes a piece of pie.
badge
That's wonderful. Good for you! I've always wanted to have a haunted house. It's been my lifelong dream!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Abortion today is the equivalent of the Abortion debate of the 90s.
12 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DarthXaos wrote:

I don't believe global warming will ever reach that level of vitriol.

The reason abortion is so vitriolic is because one side literally believes that the other side is KILLING HUMAN BEINGS. If you look at it from their point of view (I used to be one of them) it makes perfect sense to want to stop the other side by any means necessary.


Apparently you don't hang-out with enough Gore acolytes. They believe that not doing anything will also result in a massive killing of human beings.
5 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
maia_ann wrote:
Which brings us to today. Mention that you believe global warming isn't "man-made" and much of the same type of tensions arrise.


Mention that you think the earth is flat, and some of the same type of tensions arise. I think that's a better analogy.
7 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Obsolete Man
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think that Global Warming is far less cut-and-dried than abortion. Abortion: you're killing a Homo Sapiens. Nobody can accurately specify the matter any other way.

Global Warming is a tougher question. People are intransigent about both issues, but there appears to be more room for skepticism and nuance in the question of GW.

Full disclosure, I really have no firm opinion about Global Warming. Lots of people, many though not all of whom come off as very untrustworthy, say it is happening, and relatively fewer people, many though not all of whom come off as nutters, say it isn't happening. I do not personally possess the adequate level of erudition in that field to make up my mind.

Unlike some of those pro-infanticiders, I'm willing to err on the side of caution (you know the ones: "maybe it's a baby, and maybe it's not... so let's suck out its brains and get back to fucking")... since there might be Global Warming and it might be anthropogenic, we might as well take some steps to lessen our negative impact on the environment. If you're not sure, you might as well err on the side of not killing babies/planets.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
DarthXaos wrote:
Requete wrote:
I think that Global Warming is far less cut-and-dried than abortion. Abortion: you're killing a Homo Sapiens. Nobody can accurately specify the matter any other way.


Unless you don't subscribe to the religious notion that human life begins at conception.


Religious? BS. When a life begins is ideological in the current political landscape, not religious. I'm not a religious person and I'm willing to go on record and say that I believe what happens at conception is that a new human life has begun.

Even the current President doesn't have the courage to do anything but dodge that question and he's a Christian.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
I'm not a religious person and I'm willing to go on record and say that I believe what happens at conception is that a new human life has begun.


Why so late? I think it begins when you think about having sex. So we should pass a law to forbid people from refraining from sex and thus killing the unconceived babies.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Obsolete Man
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
DWTripp wrote:
I'm not a religious person and I'm willing to go on record and say that I believe what happens at conception is that a new human life has begun.


Why so late? I think it begins when you think about having sex. So we should pass a law to forbid people from refraining from sex and thus killing the unconceived babies.


Alright, genius. When a fetus in gestating in a human female, what species is it?

See, in biology class in high school you sometimes dissect a "fetal cat" and sometimes a "fetal pig". Now, any egghead will freely admit that the fetal cat is a felis domesticus, and the fetal pig is a sus scrofa domestica. I mean, after all, there is no scientific justification for calling a fetal cat a fetal "CAT" unless it's a felis domesticus. But bloody-handed sophists won't dare call a fetal human a homo sapiens.

An acorn off a spanish oak is a quercus falcata, just like a sapling or a full-grown tree of the same type. This is the case universally. But when it comes to liberals getting their freak on, science and honesty go right the hell out the window.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Requete wrote:
Alright, genius. When a fetus in gestating in a human female, what species is it?


I'll answer your questions if you answer mine.

When an egg is maturing in a human ovary, what species is it?

When a cell is growing in the lining of my cheek, what species is it?
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Cates
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
DWTripp wrote:
I'm not a religious person and I'm willing to go on record and say that I believe what happens at conception is that a new human life has begun.


Why so late? I think it begins when you think about having sex. So we should pass a law to forbid people from refraining from sex and thus killing the unconceived babies.

A new unique human DNA strand is formed at conception I think it's pretty cut and dry science rather than religion.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
GAWD wrote:
Welcome to the RSP!

If you're lucky ... you just may see why the answer to your question ("Is Global Warming the equivalent of the Abortion debate of the 90s?") is NO.



I agree. They're not the same because eventually word is going to get out that the planet has cycles of temperature variation that are independent of the organisms living on it.

Once those evil Creationists are all silenced that is... then science can preach anything it wants.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ironcates wrote:
A new unique human DNA strand is formed at conception I think it's pretty cut and dry science rather than religion.


A new unique DNA strand is formed every time a cell divides. The DNA in the daughter cell isn't identical to the parent. So is every cell a human life? It's cut and dry science.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
OP:

I can't answer your question because I don't really know since I'm not in the US but I can see where you're coming from at least.

Requete;

Although I think you're correct that a embryo or fetus is biologically homo sapiens, I would tend to say that referring to it as a potential human being rather than a human being is more accurate. My view is admittedly religious, based on the halacha that if for example two men are fighting and a pregnant woman tries to interfere such that she isstruck thereby causing a miscarriage [the example specifically used in Chumash] a penalty is imposed but not the same as if causing the miscarriage constitutes homocide. So, by Torah, a fetus does not have quite the same status asa full-fledged human being.I agree that as a potential human being, thefetus is due protection but for example embryonic stem cells outside a uteruscould never growinto a human being and so are not fundamentally different than a skin sample.

I suspect in practice, our views on abortion probably aren't so different [although if the mother's life is in danger, an abortion becomes a mitzva] but out of intellectual honesty I've to admit I don't find your argument compelling.

Of curse an embryo or a fetus is biologically human but this is not the same as saying it's a human being already.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
DWTripp wrote:
When a life begins is ideological in the current political landscape, not religious. I'm not a religious person and I'm willing to go on record and say that I believe what happens at conception is that a new human life has begun.

Even the current President doesn't have the courage to do anything but dodge that question and he's a Christian.


It's above his pay grade, he says.


In those words? Got a link? That is pretty cavalier for a sitting US President if true.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
GAWD wrote:



Holy shit! I knew this guy was weak, but I had no idea how weak. What a fucking joke. Pretty soon he's gonna fall right off that fence he's straddling and then Sarah Palin will be mocking him when she's a guest on Conan O'Brien's Late Show.

Somebody at the top of the command chain needs to grow a set of balls. His predecessor had a pair big enough to stand up for what he believed in... maybe this guy ought to do the same.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
the positions he holds on abortion are more extreme than NARAL's.


No, they aren't.

Quote:
He couldn't be honest about his positions on abortion during the campaign while he was trying to run as a Christian.


There are Christians who have no problem with abortion. It's not as if Christ ever told us what he thinks.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
The global warming hoax is the equivalent of the ozone hole hoax of the 80s and 90s.


Wow. Some people doubted the projections regarding ozone depletion, or the strategies for dealing with it, but they were proved wrong as the results have been exactly what science predicted. Where does the "hoax" come in? Is that the people who tried to dismiss the problem or discredit the solution? I do think the Inhofes and Exxons of the world will be seen as the hoaxsters of our day.

Let me guess, you're still steaming about the false claims that smoking causes cancer, right?
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
Yes He did. He voiced his support for the "thou shalt not murder" commandment in Matthew 5:21.


Not worth much if he didn't tell us how to define murder. And early abortion was common in Christ's time, if he really thought it was murder you would think he would have bothered to mention that.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
Considering what follows in the passage I cited above, I'm confident that killing an innocent baby would fall well within the realm of His definition of murder.


I bet he would. That doesn't say anything about what he thought of abortion, though.

Do you have an actual explanation for why abortions were happening all around him and he never said a word about it?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
The global warming hoax is the equivalent of the ozone hole hoax of the 80s and 90s.




Seems to me that the Montreal protocol is working well (The treaty was opened for signatures in 1987, and enacted in January 1989).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
The global warming hoax is the equivalent of the ozone hole hoax of the 80s and 90s.


It is a hoax, no doubt, but the ozone hole hoax was like a tiny fib compared to the BIG FAT LIE of anthropogenic global warming.


Conspiracy theorist circle jerk time
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
Here's a shocker: David being intentionally obtuse. shake


Here's a shocker: you have no answer to the question, so you shift to personal attacks.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Requete wrote:

Full disclosure, I really have no firm opinion about Global Warming. Lots of people, many though not all of whom come off as very untrustworthy, say it is happening, and relatively fewer people, many though not all of whom come off as nutters, say it isn't happening.


People who say its happening: professional climatologists who have devoted their life to studying climate.

People who say its not happening: random people (journalists, politicians etc.) who have no knowledge of climatology.

Not really much of a comparison there. Besides, there is really no debate about whether "its happening". The earth is warming at a very high rate, there is no debate about that. There is also no debate about whether CO2 plays a role, it does, its simple physics. The only debatable points are the validity of climate models, and potential future impacts. Whether "its happening" or not is not a question any longer, the question is, what do we do about it, if anything?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Zaphod wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
The global warming hoax is the equivalent of the ozone hole hoax of the 80s and 90s.




Seems to me that the Montreal protocol is working well (The treaty was opened for signatures in 1987, and enacted in January 1989).



Good thing it kicked in 5 years before it was opened for signatures.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SpaceGhost wrote:
Good thing it kicked in 5 years before it was opened for signatures.


You're misreading the chart, somehow. The effect it shows is a steady decline before the treaty, leveling off after the treaty.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [6] | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.