Coreece

And the minute any of those christians disagreed with you on a political issue or pointed out a flaw in your thinking, you'd just go off on a tangent like you always do, making assumptions about their religion and posting irrelevant links to white supremacist groups that have nothing to do with what's being discussed. You're not fooling anyone, the good has always been there. You could've seen it anytime you wanted. You're just choosing to see it now in yet another attempt to bash those you hate politically. You don't really care about the good they do, just like you don't care about climate change as much as you like blaming Brent for it.

Well that's the problem. People here are claiming that the source faked the content, tho they provided nothing to substantiate that claim. Phmpt says they are suing the FDA for not releasing documents per the FOIA and that they'll post any documents as they receive them. So is that what's really going on here, or not? That kind of needs to be established first if this ever has a chance moving forward.

Nobody's doing that. The only phony here is the alarmist and his ridiculous defense of China's increasing coal consumption.

No, not at all. Are you just assuming people's positions and arguing against them? That was a direct quote, but it's easy to miss when he continually bombards his own posts with irrelevant content. I don't read most of it either, so I can't blame you.

Wtf does wealth inequality, ego and my religion have to do with your ridiculous defense of China's coal consumption?

And the vast economic and geographical disparities throughout China and their influence on per capita numbers has escaped you. The mean is more like 11, not 7. No one has defended China here. Are you sure your political views aren't getting in the way of your common sense? Brent starts a thread about China's increased coal consumption. Phil posts a pic: So seriously, you look at that and the first thing that comes to mind is that "China uses 150 million metric tonnes less than it did in 2013?" That'd be your argument? I mean that's like something Trump would say. Where's your way of common sense? And you really don't have much room to talk. How many people did you accuse of defending Trump when they were merely addressing discrepancies/contradictions between what the left was posting here and what their "supporting" articles actually said.

What was suggested is that your eagerness to defend the biggest polluter on the planet is a bit peculiar and demonstrates a political motive more so than an environmental one.

Also, what does that have to do with the tens of million of innocent people imprisoned/killed that had nothing to do with that abuse, or were merely found guilty by association. I'm mean that train of thought approaches the likes of holocaust denialism.

We've talked about this before, but you never responded: QUESTION: Equating people who happen to be atheists with the political dogma of Stalinism? Come on man. ANSWER: No, I'm talking about atheist rhetoric of today and it's similarities with anti-religious propaganda, even before Stalin. After the Bolos took over, there was still a fierce debate over how the "opiate of religion" should be handled. Those on the right felt that that religion would just die naturally with the influence of science, education and anti-religious propaganda, especially after the elimination of religion in schools and the public square. Those on the left felt a more militant approach was necessary. As they grew weary of waiting for religion to die, the full might of the leftist's militant approach was realized. QUESTION: You just throw out some actions by the Communists in the Soviet Union and pretend that that's how ALL atheists act? ANSWER: Nah, I've already mentioned how some atheists were sickened with how the religious were being treated, and opposed a militant approach, but history is full of examples of relatively good, well intentioned people finding themselves in precarious situations and doing very bad things. QUESTION: Didn't those in power in the USSR do everything they could to stop anyone and anything that threatened their power? ANSWER: Absolutely, but they obviously had a special kind of hard-on for eliminating religion, especially when they got tired of waiting for it to die off after the Russian civil war like they had hoped, which is why they amped-up production of strictly anti-religious newspapers and designated various groups like the Militant Godless and other atheist goons to promote atheism by any means necessary. “Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to Communist policy. It is not a side effect, but the central pivot” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn https://www.dropzone.com/forums/topic/267117-solstice-celebration/?do=findComment&comment=4880994

The climate system doesn’t care how much CO2 an individual produces, only total emissions. If per capita emissions mattered we would be talking about Qatar (37.29 tons per capita) and not the US (15.52). Canada and Australia also have higher per capita emissions than the US Agreed. It demonstrates how for many people it's more political than environmental.

lmfao

This is what I was referring to in the other thread. I don't realize how cryptic I sound sometimes. Thanks!

Wokeism and Climatology? That fits, tho I would've said alarmism.

The developing world doesn't have to play by the same rules that the U.S does, it levels the "playing field" for other countries to kick our ass.

Be honest, you were thinking about Brent on your vacation, weren't you? I bet you just couldn't wait to get home to show him!

You "used to be" a conservative, right?

As long as the U.S doesn't get it, who cares! Level battlefield and all that. . .or is it playing field, I forget?

Christmas has been canceled this year, you know.

The 4th installment is currently in preproduction and is set to be released in a couple years. I'm looking forward to it, but I doubt it'll revolutionize filmmaking and animation like the first two films in that series. Premieres at midnight on HBO: https://www.hbomax.com/the-matrix-resurrections I've broken off my ties to Hollywood and advertising so I didn't get to read the script this time. I don't really know what to expect, but I'm sure I'll love it even if it's somewhat of revamp for a new generation. And btw Bill, you were comparing 3 films to 1.

I can relate to that, I can relate to the person in the article as well - and that's kind of the point. I suppose my hang up is how they're conflating the unaffiliated religious/spiritual with atheists. And even if they made a distinction, what can you really conclude given the broad spectrum of the unaffiliated; that there's a growing number of religious/spiritual people that prefer to do church at home?

No Doubt

Outstanding definition of fuzzy math. Keep going for a couple more paragraphs and you'll be negative for 'the number of nones". What do you know, you think a person chanting rituals and praying at an altar in their home isn't a religious thing, and then use them to beef up the numbers - for what, to give you a sense of belonging? I mean the article specifically defines a non as those that describe themselves as atheist, agnostic or nothing at all, then as an example they use a woman that is NONE of those things.

Gullible. From the article: "The path taken by Charles places her among the religiously unaffiliated -- the fastest-growing group in surveys asking Americans about their religious identity. They describe themselves as atheists, agnostics or “nothing in particular.” But then here's how the article describe Charles: "After leaving her New Jersey church three years ago, she identified as atheist, then agnostic, before embracing a spiritual but not religious life. In her dorm, she blends rituals at an altar, chanting Buddhist, Taoist and Hindu mantras and paying homage to her ancestors as she meditates and prays." Furthermore: "America’s nones vary widely, according to a recent poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. For example, 30% say they feel some connection to God or a higher power, and 19% say religion has some importance to them even though they have no religious affiliation. About 12% describe themselves as religious and spiritual and 28% as spiritual but not religious. More than half describe themselves as neither." So it looks like the number of nones is more like 15%, unless of course you find comfort in identifying with the gullible.

Show of hands: Who thinks he had permission to use "The Cars" song "Just What I Needed" in his show? I had a feeling you'd bring this up, lol. Honestly I didn't even make it past that part. He'd likely claim that it's fair use, but I don't think that qualifies - unless maybe he'd argue that it's editorial usage against liberals?