[Hindsite]

[Patrickov]

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?

[Potemkin]

Is it a bit un-Christian to use the word "whore" in describing someone just because she offends My Friend?

You're assuming that Hindsite is a Christian, @Patrickov. That may not be an entirely safe assumption, despite appearances to the contrary.

[Patrickov]

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.

[Potemkin]

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.

Indeed. In fact, it has always puzzled me why such people tend to condemn other individuals who think it is sufficient merely to proclaim themselves to be female for it to be so, while they themselves seem to think it is sufficient merely to proclaim themselves to be Christian for it to be so. It has always seemed to me that the same 'logic' is at work in both cases.

[Hindsite]

Is it a bit un-Christian to use the word "whore" in describing someone just because she offends My Friend?

Here are some verses in the Holy Bible that uses that word:

Lev 19:29 KJV
Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.

Lev 21:7 KJV
They shall not take a wife that is a whore, or profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband: for he is holy unto his God.

Lev 21:9 KJV
And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.

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.

Jdg 19:2 KJV
And his concubine played the whore against him, and went away from him unto her father's house to Bethlehemjudah, and was there four whole months.

Pro 23:27 KJV
For a whore is a deep ditch; and a strange woman is a narrow pit.

Isa 57:3 KJV
But draw near hither, ye sons of the sorceress, the seed of the adulterer and the whore.

Eze 16:28 KJV
Thou hast played the whore also with the Assyrians, because thou wast unsatiable; yea, thou hast played the harlot with them, and yet couldest not be satisfied.

Rev 17:1 KJV
And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:

Rev 17:15 KJV
And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.

Rev 17:16 KJV
And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.

Rev 19:2 KJV
For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand.

[colliric]

You searched that all up on Bible Hub.....

[Godstud]

@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.

[Potemkin]

@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.

In most instances in which the word 'whore' is used in the Bible, it is meant literally. In a few instances, it is used as a metaphor for anti-religious evil. Neither of these uses is applicable in the case of Wednesday Addams, er, I mean Greta Thunberg. It is therefore an inaccurate and offensive use of the word.

[Godstud]

@Potemkin See that? Calling her Wednesday Adams... now THAT is funny.

[Rich]

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.

It saddens me that you look to Deuteronomy for wisdom. Deuteronomy is the work of Josiah or his propagandists. He had 2 wives. Multiple wives are part of alien Judo-Muslim culture, as opposed to Pagan-Christian culture which supported monogamous marriage hundreds of years before Constantine set eyes upon the Milvian Bridge. The Nazis also totally failed to recognise the continuity of Jewish and Muslim culture. Whether he existed or not, the Prophet Mohammed's story is clearly modelled on the Jewish genociders Joshua and Josiah.

[Truth To Power]

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'.

But is by GDP, which also INCLUDES inflation and population growth. Which was my point. You don't seem to have been thinking clearly enough to understand that.

This is common sense, but of course fundamental to economics as well.

GDP is a known, readily available, and verifiable metric. It is not clear how "increasing values" were even measured.

You're not really thinking, are you?

I am thinking to far better effect than you.

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?

[Prosthetic Conscience]

I am thinking to far better effect than you.

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?

You're still fixated on GDP, which is an annual amount of productivity. It is not precisely tied to the value of property - bu the reinsurance company did use figures about the value - which, when then applied to the amount of money they've paid out for property damage, gives a more accurate figure of storm violence than a rough guess from GDP would have. You are insisting that a company should be as vague as you are.

If you think that saying "climate change is real" is dishonest, then you are a literal climate change denier. Not that I was calling you that, until now when you proclaimed it; I was pointing out that "physical violence of storms" is measured by the meteorologists, and that the reinsurance industry backs them up with their figures arrived at with a different method. They know there has already been "a significant long-term upward trend in the normalized figures over the last 40 years"; since they're normalized, it's another indication the storms are stronger.

[QatzelOk]

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.

Oh no. The commercial media is 100% in favor of limiting what people can say, and if Greta got caught saying anything that might suggest we need a system change, they are more than happy to shut her down temporarily in order to discipline her like any pet.

Her only approved media message is: "OMG climate change!"

Anything else means that she starts going the Michael Jackson route to celebrity banishment.

[Truth To Power]

I knew you would talk about who said what instead of supporting your claim. You love using the meta-debate as a red herring.

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....

1. Find a quote from Thunberg that you think shows her being incorrect.

<yawn> Are you actually denying that she claims there is a climate "crisis" or "emergency"?

Provide a link to the quote and provide the context.

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.

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.

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.

Go ahead. We are waiting.

Don't hold your breath, child...

[Pants-of-dog]

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....

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.

<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.

And again, you are refusing to clarify what she actually said.

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...

And for the third time in a single post, you refuse to provide the claim that you are supposedly refuting.

[Truth To Power]

Yes, you often make vague claims and when someone tries to clarify them , you pose as a victim of a strawman.

It must be so relaxing to be so utterly shameless.

For example, here you are still refusing to clarify what Thunberg actually said.

I repeat: do you actually deny that she claimed there is a climate "crisis" or "emergency"? Yes or no?

And again, you are refusing to clarify what she actually said.

I repeat: do you actually deny that she claimed there is a climate "crisis" or "emergency"? Yes or no?

And for the third time in a single post, you refuse to provide the claim that you are supposedly refuting.

I repeat: do you actually deny that she claimed there is a climate "crisis" or "emergency"? Yes or no?

[Pants-of-dog]

@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.

[Truth To Power]

@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.

I repeat: do you actually deny that she claimed there is a climate "crisis" or "emergency"? Yes or no?

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

I can neither confirm nor deny since you have yet to provide any quote of her saying anything remotely like that.