SkyDekker

Those are all pretty general, almost catch phrase style statements. Do you have anything specific? ANything with cost reductions with programs reduced and cost increases for the increased oversight? Any research on likely impact?

Yes I read last night that as many as 6% of non-citizens are voting That is NOT a small deal You are going to have to state which elections you are talking about. Some elections (non-federal) non-citizens are allowed to vote.

A) The record of the Tribe having engaged in such behavior some 3,000+ years ago (with the excuse of divine instruction) is not a matter of pride. B) The Tanakh is a tribal history, not intended for universal consumption. C) The Koran is the unrepentant ranting of an illiterate, violent pervert who got much of his inspiration from a garbled interpretation of the Tanakh. The parts this vicious deviate held most dear are those which best suited his malevolent inclinations. D) The Hebrew scriptures have historical merit in the same sense as do any surviving writings of that era (though I think the earlier tale of Gilgamesh has more to recommend it). E) The Koran, like the Book of Mormon, was but the dictation of a cunning sociopath whose goals were power and an endless supply of strange pussy. So your book of fables you read and discard the parts you find distasteful. The other book of fables you read and you highlight the parts you find distasteful. Sounds like a prime example of confirmation bias to me.

I don't understand why statisticians are not outraged when made up stats are used.

Then you should have said, yes humans can impact climate, but I believe the impact to be negligible. Now you are just flip flopping all over the place. Hard to have a discussion when your points and comments keep changing.

Having an emotion is rational indeed. Neuroscience as well as cognitive science has so far been unable to find a human (with the previous caveats) who can make decisions without emotion being involved. Hence any rational decision (or irrational decision) happened with the input of emotion. If your argument is that for a rational decision to take place emotion cannot be part of it. Then only computers, psychopaths and those with a damaged amygdala are able to make rational decisions.

Which was exactly why I made my post. Since kelpdiver tried to deminish an opinion since he labelled it as emotional as opposed to rational. And no there isn't just a remote connection between the two. Other than those with disorders resulting in having no affective feelings, no human has been able to make rational decisions without emotion playing a role.

Who would it not be rational for?

There was a comma, not a period at the end of that quote. Noe sense having a discussion this way Bill.

Not at all. Actions are not required to say if somebody is rational. And a lack of emotion is a lack of rationality, when having the emotion is rational. (which does not preclude somebody from making other rational decisions)

Talking CO2 here What do you mean? Above you said humans have no impact on climate., you follow that up with: "Talking CO2 here" What does that mean?

that's an interesting position to take.....I'd disagree, at least with my take on the words themselves. maybe you could elaborate. I'd say lack of emotion is a pretty clear indicator of lack of emotion....seems orthogonal to the rationality position - having or lacking emotion wouldn't indicate a position on rationality at all I'd say that a clear indicator of true rationality is those who can deal with their emotions and STILL make rational conclusions whether their emotional response aligns or conflicts with the rational. I don't really think the emotional response can HELP a rational decision at all. I do think that emotional response has the potential to hurt rationality, but it doesn't have to. (I'd say the 'placebo effect' could be argued, possibly, as the exception to my position though) Seems like you are talking about emotional responses and rational decisions. Rational means "based on or in accordance with reason or logic". As an example: it is logical and reasonable to be emotional when you watch your child murdered in front of you. Having no emotion to that would be a pretty clear indicator of a lack of rationality.

Your subject header is "I hate college athletics." Sounds like an emotional rather than rational stance. Emotion can and often is rational. Actually, lack of any emotion is a pretty clear indicator of lack of rationality.

How the fuck did you get out of this without a ban or even a warning? Because it was seen in context with the messages before I assume. Regardless that poster and I have had a chat in PM and all is good. Context matters, even if it wasn't really the smartest or nicest thing to post.

Negligible means there is an impact. That is different from no impact. Which one do you believe. Do humans have an impact on climate, yes or no?

Yes there is a theory. Your theory on reasoning, causation and goals. Let's take your statement: Not broadcast political ads they do not agree with. Your consipiracy theory would wants us to believe that the "do not agree" part pertains to their political ideology. There are obviously other possibilities/theories. That is but one example.

Just me?? Ya right... Every year that passes at this point put another brick on the pile showing you to be wrong Should this turn around in the next few years the debate may change course Until then, so many will continue to trya dn stop those who believe as you do, from pushing a life style you wish on the rest of us (which is your religion) So, for the record, you believe humans have absolutely no impact on climate?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/10/21/media-poll It is a fun one. Since as usual it really says something different from what you and breitbart think it says. Now you will either never respond, or will post some garbled one liner with some emoticons at the end.

Yes I am aware of it. I also don't agree with their standpoint. However, you see it as a covert agreement to protect Justin Trudeau. I see it as news organizations trying to profit more. Sorry, I don't share your conspiracy theory in the matter.

Like you care I do and not about what you think Thanks for clearing that up!

Why? Nothing will change.

. Google is your friend. Searching "CBC CTV Global CityNews Conspiracy" got me THIS as a first result. It seems to be more of a "Lets stop them from using our footage to paint the guy we support in a negative way" than an actual conspiracy to only report what they wanted heard. Stupid, improper, possibly not legal. But not anywhere near an "Illuminati, Rothchilds, et al" style network. So yeah, that has nothing to do with the reporting. It has to do with the use of their news content in political ads.

Ok, so can you point me in the general direction of where these damning emails are? I can't stand Trudeau...Just posted on Facebook what an absolute disgrace I think he is. But the ramblings above are completely new to me, so please do share the evidence.

What are you talking about? You have some evidence show it....I can't stand Trudeau, but have no idea what you are jammering about.

Still very fluid. My kids' school is on lockdown, as is much of the city. What has been interesting is that in all the reporting I have seen and listened to, the word terrorist or terrorism has not been used....(yet)