Hindsite wrote:Why should he? We know you would give some other excuse for believing that little whore of the climate alarmists.Is it a bit un-Christian to use the word "whore" in describing someone just because she offends My Friend?
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods
Hindsite wrote:Why should he? We know you would give some other excuse for believing that little whore of the climate alarmists.Is it a bit un-Christian to use the word "whore" in describing someone just because she offends My Friend?
Patrickov wrote:Is it a bit un-Christian to use the word "whore" in describing someone just because she offends My Friend?
Potemkin wrote:You're assuming that Hindsite is a Christian, @Patrickov. That may not be an entirely safe assumption, despite appearances to the contrary.Because that Honourable Gentleman proclaimed himself as one, I think it is appropriate to measure him on that proclamation. It is his issue if his apparent act does not fit his self-proclamation, not mine.
Patrickov wrote:Because that Honourable Gentleman proclaimed himself as one, I think it is appropriate to measure him on that proclamation. It is his issue if his apparent act does not fit his self-proclamation, not mine.
Patrickov wrote:Is it a bit un-Christian to use the word "whore" in describing someone just because she offends My Friend?
Godstud wrote:@Hindsite even if the bible uses the word whore, it is still a derogatory and insulting term, to the majority of people. I am happy to see it was deleted as a rule violation, as is proper.
Hindsite wrote:Here are some verses in the Holy Bible that uses that word:
Deu 22:21 KJV
Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
Deu 23:17 KJV
There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
Deu 23:18 KJV
Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:Yes, really. It says "factors such as increasing values, population growth and inflation", so you know it doesn't mean 'inflation'. Perhaps you have never encountered goods or real estate in your life, but you can find that people make bigger and better stuff - a building with more space for the same users, a car that is more luxurious, and so on - which is not covered either by 'inflation' or 'population growth'.
This is common sense, but of course fundamental to economics as well.
You're not really thinking, are you?
No, the factors the reinsurance company take into account are better than using GDP.
They measure the total potential damage that can be done by a storm in a place - not how much a country produces in a year. The former is much more relevant to the amount they pay out. The point is that it's not just all scientists and meteorologists who say climate change is real - so do some of the most numerate businesses in the world.
Truth To Power wrote:I am thinking to far better effect than you.
PC wrote:No, the factors the reinsurance company take into account are better than using GDP.
For estimating insurance payouts. Not the physical violence of storms.
They measure the total potential damage that can be done by a storm in a place - not how much a country produces in a year. The former is much more relevant to the amount they pay out. The point is that it's not just all scientists and meteorologists who say climate change is real - so do some of the most numerate businesses in the world.
There we again see the dishonesty of saying "climate change is real," with the false and dishonest implication that the other side denies that climate changes. The business in question was concerned with changes in how much it could expect to pay out after a storm, not changes in how strong storms are.
Not thinking very well, are you?
maz wrote:Miss Greta was also accused of attempting to incite political violence for saying politicians should be put “against the wall.”
Greta Thunberg tells cheering crowd 'we will make sure we put world leaders against the wall' if they do not tackle global warming
It's interesting to see 99% of the mainstream media's reaction to her inflammatory language. They all reported the story as "Greta Thunberg apologizes for 'against the wall' comment" instead of something like "Greta Thunberg Threatens To Put World Leaders Up Against The Wall."
I guess this is the way that media covers for one of their assets when they fuck up and are forced to backtrack.
Pants-of-dog wrote:I knew you would talk about who said what instead of supporting your claim. You love using the meta-debate as a red herring.
1. Find a quote from Thunberg that you think shows her being incorrect.
Provide a link to the quote and provide the context.
2. Find a scientific study or other verifiable evidence that disproves her claim.
Provide a link to the evidence and quote the relevant text, bolding the exact phrases that disprove her claim.
Go ahead. We are waiting.
Truth To Power wrote:I see. So, you make false claims about what I have plainly written, and then when I correct those false claims, you accuse me of changing the subject to who said what.
Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that....
<yawn> Are you actually denying that she claims there is a climate "crisis" or "emergency"?
Sorry, but I'm not here to waste my time documenting in excruciating, cross-referenced detail what you and every other reader here already know very well to be true.
OK, so now you even demand peer-reviewed references for the non-existence of an emergency that you and all other readers already know does not exist. Sorry, but I'm not here to waste my time documenting in excruciating, cross-referenced detail self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality that you and every other reader here already know very well to be true.
Don't hold your breath, child...
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, you often make vague claims and when someone tries to clarify them , you pose as a victim of a strawman.
For example, here you are still refusing to clarify what Thunberg actually said.
And again, you are refusing to clarify what she actually said.
And for the third time in a single post, you refuse to provide the claim that you are supposedly refuting.
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Truth To Power
And now you are trying to avoid posting the claim you are refuting by changing he discussion to my beliefs.
Just post the exact claim made by environmentalists about the supposed crisis.
"Americans are primarily economics-oriented.[…]
@Tainari88 I did the test again so you could s[…]