Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

OT: A moment of silence and prayer


Sepiatone

Recommended Posts

When the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution became the law of the land on December 15, 1791, guns in America were single-shot muzzle-loading flintlocks, which required from 30 seconds to 1 minute to re-load a single shot and to prime the flashpan. They wouldn't work in the rain because the gunpowder in the flashpan would get wet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=slaytonf wrote:}{quote}

> Regardless of your opinion of the appropriateness of environmental laws, there is much less pollution in our air, water, and food than there was thirty and forty years ago

 

I hope you do not think I am 'picking on you' and it is not my intent to cast you in a bad light but I believe that this statement of yours demonstrates a very bad trait in society: that if you disagree with some nonsense put forward in the name of an effort then it is assumed that you disagree with all the tenets of the effort.

 

I actively support several environmental efforts and I approve of most others. The fact that I chose not to accept the lie that global warming is caused or accelerated by man's activity _does not_ make me anti-environment. It has been proven over and over again that it is a lie. That many influential people make money from it and that it opens for politicians to exert more control are the only reasons the lie still lives.

 

I suspect that many here believe I am anti-gun-control. That is not true. I believe strongly that a person should have to prove they are proficient in the care, use and safeguarding of a firearm before they are allowed to have one in their home. I believe strongly that each case of misuse of a firearm be investigated and criminal charges brought when appropriate. I believe strongly that any person who uses a firearm in the commission of a crime should be put into prison for very long time. I believe there should be consistency in the laws from state to state while still allowing for variations which are appropriate for the citizens of each state. The fact that I disagree with banning some types of weapon _does not_ make me anti-gun-control.

 

Has the freedom been lost to disagree with a thing without being branded as being against the effort which they purport to aid?

 

Edited by: SansFin on Dec 22, 2012 11:11 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you're picking on me, and if I did, I hope I would have the character to overlook it. My reference to environmental laws was only to illustrate a point about how Americans can change their society, and their condition through concerted effort, and that the same can be achieved with gun violence.

 

All the discussion I hear in the wake of enormities such as the present one focus on guns and laws, and what to do, or what not to do with them. I wanted to draw attention to the equally important, but ignored subject of the message that is being, and has been sent for the past twenty or thirty years, that guns are a solution. The championing of guns, the imposition of guns on society, the campaign by gun advocates to normalize the presence of guns in the public sphere, has communicated to the populace a social sanction that it is appropriate to use a gun to address problems. And as I stated before, this message is not subtle or indirect.

 

Whatever is done about, or however one defines gun control, it won't be effective until there is in this country a strong, coordinated, and united effort to communicate a social sanction against guns, similar to the social sanction that is now forcing cigarettes and smoking from the public sphere. Guns are not the answer, they never were, and never will be. If it were so, you would think by now, with all the guns there are, and all the times they have been used, there wouldn't be any problems left.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I watch the memoriams every year. I sometimes become so overwhelmedm I am a mess with a box of tissues. the beauty they left behind... sigh. Other times I am shocked because I see a face I had NO idea we had lost. this year, it happened again. The beautiful soul who played Long Green Mile.

 

May I add, I am baffeled. The list this year, mentions 4 musisicans, but ?? has quite a few missing. Dick Clark! Don Cornilus! Gibbs , Etta James, the list is endless. Ravi Shankar passed 12-12-12. I assume there has to be paper work. but to miss some of these artists who contributed to movie blockbusters, ...

 

Here is Rollingstones list. see for yourself.

28 to be exact for 2012. 28! that is alot of my youth.

 

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/pictures/2012-in-memoriam-musicians-we-lost-20121130

 

Edited by: majormovielover on Dec 23, 2012 12:51 AM

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=SansFin wrote:}{quote}

> I actively support several environmental efforts and I approve of most others. The fact that I chose not to accept the lie that global warming is caused or accelerated by man's activity does not make me anti-environment. It has been proven over and over again that it is a lie. That many influential people make money from it and that it opens for politicians to exert more control are the only reasons the lie still lives.

>

 

I hesitate to respond to this, because it is OT for the thread, but do you honestly believe that the 98% of climate scientists, worldwide, who are convinced that global warming is largely man-made, are lying to make money? And that it has been proven to be a lie? I'm stunned. It was just a couple of months ago that one of the top denier scientists switched sides, saying that he could no longer deny the data.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote}

> do you honestly believe that the 98% of climate scientists, worldwide, who are convinced that global warming is largely man-made, are +lying to make money?

 

(She's having a bad day, so I'll answer instead, if you don't mind.)

 

That statistic is marketing hype.

 

The people who determine an institution's official stand on an issue are rarely active scientists -- they're department heads (from all disciplines, not only those related to the issue), public relations (who bend over backwards to prevent controversy), and finance (who'll never offend their grant sources).

 

Once an institution has an official policy, 100% of their staff are added to the roll of believers. There are several scientists who are listed on both sides -- they've published papers or spoken publicly against it while their institution supports it.

 

You have to remember that until the 1960s, they thought climate (weather averaged over the span of decades) never changed. When facts proved them wrong, they had to come up with an explanation. One correlation they found was CO2 levels. It's identical to charting hem lines against the stock market's rise and fall, but since it explained away their mistakes and three top scientists published papers on it, it was accepted as mainstream.

 

Every scientist who's earned their degree since the '70s was taught anthropogenic global warming. It takes a unique person to challenge something mainstream (how many physicists independently set out to prove Newton's laws?), but there is a legion of climatologists who have disavowed the theory.

 

A couple of points to consider:

 

A) Satellite imagery of the south pole shows the ice cap is receding precisely as predicted by the supporters of man-made global warming. That south pole is on *Mars!*

B) They used to say both poles (on Earth) were losing ice, which is what you'd expect when things get warmer. They've had to backpedal seriously since antarctic ice is growing, both glacial and sea ice. (They still blame it on global warming, naturally.)

C) Every mountain ice cap/glacier which has receded has revealed evidence of early human activity. Clearly, there were periods in prehistory when the Earth was much warmer than it's been for the last 3,000 years.

D) The fixes for global warming are environmental disasters.

 

The mining of mercury for compact florescent bulbs releases untold tons of geologically-entrapped mercury into the biosphere every year. The burning of fossil fuels to make the glass bulbs releases more sulfur and NOx compounds into the atmosphere than is produced by generating the amount of electricity they supposedly save.

 

And don't get me started on the environmental nightmare of producing batteries for electric cars!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This just in from The New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/24/science/earth/west-antarctica-warming-faster-than-thought-study-finds.html?_r=0

 

I don't understand why some people are so dead set against the concept and possibility of the threat of global warming. And they seem to be the same people who are terrified of alot of science, e.g. evolution, etc.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

> I hesitate to respond to this, because it is OT for the thread, but do you honestly believe that the 98% of climate scientists, worldwide, who are convinced that global warming is largely man-made, are lying to make money?

I remember reading back in the seventies the New York

Times write up in its magazine about the coming Ice Age

and the fear the scientific community had about it.

 

Yep, I once read that liberal rag before I discovered the

light and moved on.

 

image_thumb26.png?w=275&h=366&h=366

 

The sun also arises, and the sun goes down, and

hastens to its place where it arose.

 

Ecclesiastes 1:5

 

Merry Christmas

 

Jake in the Heartland

 

Edited by: JakeHolman on Dec 23, 2012 8:59 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember Galileo, Pasteur, and so many other scientists who were ridiculed, or even threatened as heretical. Are the people who won't accept global warming today akin to those who thought Pasteur was crazy because of his theory of germs?

 

If it hadn't been for Pasteur, the belief and understanding of microbes would have taken years, and then still have been criticized by sceptics. And Paul Muni may never have won an Oscar!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

People needs to see the documentary "Little Ice Age, Big Chill" that last from about 1350-1850. Ever wondered where Greenland got its name? Siberia use to be a temperate savanna/grassland.

 

An Aten class asteroid that airbursted over the Austrian alps at K?fels around 3123BC created the Sahara Desert. Ice core samples backs up the data. The Sphinx shows water erosion.

 

If it were not for that mini ice age event, the ice caps would have been gone a couple hundred years ago.

 

If we ever have a mega volcanic eruption, we will be *praying* for greenhouse gasses to offset the solar radiation reflected back into space by sulphur dioxide.

 

By the way, what sense does it make to shut down our coal burning plants but allow China to build them? Globalist have even gone far as to say cows cause global warming. Did fa_ting brontosaurs caused their own demise?

 

We are breaking in for a special report

DNN.jpg

 

Scientist says our digestion is given off gas and is causing global warming. A million tons of Gas-X is being shipped to offset the rising CO2 levels.

dinos34-05.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Swithin wrote:}{quote}

> I don't understand why some people are so dead set against the concept and possibility of the threat of global warming.

 

There's a vast difference between global warming and anthropogenic global warming.

 

Should we still believe all diseases are an imbalance of the humours, the human body cannot survive going more than 30 mph, there can't be life on other planets, and a myriad of other scientific facts proven many times during the 100+ years they were considered absolute truths?

 

Should we pollute rivers with mercury just because it's popular to believe that CO2 levels are significant?

 

Should we strip mine, cause water and air pollution, expose workers to carcinogenic chemicals, and burn high-sulfur coal so some can drive electric cars?

 

Maybe the best answer to global warming is to have Al Gore do more speaking engagements. The Al Gore effect is well documented -- whenever he appears, the local temperature often hits unnatural lows.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Children are still being buried, and people are already back to riding their hobby horses about global warming. Are people so dominated by their pet obsessions that they can't see the inappropriateness of their posts? The title of this thread is "A moment of silence and prayer." It was meant to provide a forum for expression of grief, condolence, and compassion. It was bad enough it moved on to a discussion about guns, but there was at least some relevance. But the discussion now, with it's usual antagonistic tones shows the height of disrespect to the victims. One hopes for a certian amount of perspective, a certian decency, a certain respect for proprieties. I hope this is not a demonstration of the American character, that tragedy and horror are quickly turned away from, because they impose unpleasant awareness of difficult issues, in favor of personal preoccupations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=RaquelVixen wrote:}{quote}

> Perhaps we should table politics when someone cites an article from The New York Times.

 

I'd agree with you generally, but I've recently been shown a few instances where they actually got something right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

*I hope this is not a demonstration of the American character, that tragedy and horror are quickly turned away from, because they impose unpleasant awareness of difficult issues, in favor of personal preoccupations.*

 

* *

Wow, to go from a couple instances of people discussing global warming to " I hope this is not a demonstration of the American character.................' is frighteningly facile and a hugely overblown statement.

 

Do we really need this condemnation? I think not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You make a good point, Slaytonf, but the discussion certainly turned to a discussion of gun control in the very town where the tragedy took place. There was indeed a moment of silence, and like all moments of silence, the silence ends and the discussion begins. And not all these topics are totally unrelated -- gun control, climate change, etc. There is a streak in our collective psyche that seems to fear these concepts. I'm reminded of my favorite Sherlock Holmes film -- The Scarlet Claw -- with Miles Mander sitting inside his house, clutching his gun, in terror.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We were so isolated, for centuries, and that bred fear and insularity. And suddenly, we weren't so isolated anymore, and that bred more fear. That's why I think it's a terrible thing to home school a child.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't know if there's an actual percentage, but at this time, the scientific

consensus leans heavily toward AGW/ACC. There are scientists who

disagree, but currently they are in the minority. Of course the consensus

might change in the future. I don't see any reason to think there is some

dark conspiracy or a go along to get along ethic among AGW/ACC

proponents. It will likely be many decades before we will see whether

the predictions of AGW/ACC come to fruition. Time will tell, and it will

likely be a relatively long time.

 

If I remember The Scarlet Claw correctly, Miles Mander had good reason to

fear for his life.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You make very good points. What I don't understand is why so many people have a fear of accepting climate change. I can understand why big corporations fear it -- it costs money to begin to fix it. But I don't understand why individuals get so worked up against the idea, unless it has been assigned its place on the agenda of the right and is simply accepted part and parcel, like opposition to any form of gun control. But I would think traditionally religious people would want to go the extra mile to protect the Earth, as God's appointed caretakers of the Earth: "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good."

 

Regarding Mr. Mander (who gives his usual fine performance in The Scarlet Claw ), he did indeed have cause to fear for his life. Beware of housekeepers in drag!

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

There are probably many different reasons that people don't accept

man-made climate change, some of which might overlap. For some

it is a matter of politics, with the extreme right-wing position being

that it's nothing more than a hoax used by those who hope to destroy

the capitalist system in the U.S. Yes that sounds loony, but I've run

across that view. For others it may be that there is often conflicting infor-

mation out there and they don't know what to believe. And there are

likely many people who are indifferent to it. It will be interesting to

see what happens in the decades ahead, since this will be a long range

proposition.

 

I had forgotten that Mander was bumped off by the murderer dressed up

as his housekeeper. It seems that The Scarlet Claw is just about every-

one's favorite Universal Sherlock Homes movie. I'd agree.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...