posted
I have been an avid OSC reader for many years now, and resently, I was having a discussion with my logic prof. about how much we both loved his writing. I had never looked up OSC online, or read nay of his essays, so i was unaware mostly of what kind of a person he is. Frankly, when my prof. started telling me about some of the things about OSC (frequently discussed on these forums), I was surprised. What I'm talking about specifically is outligned in this wikipedia excerpt on Card.
"Although a self-described Democrat, Card is a vocal supporter of George W. Bush, the war on terror, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the PATRIOT Act, U.S. support of Israel, while being publically opposed to Gay rights and action on global warming."
I know that these topics must be endlessly debated on this forum, and I'm not here to bash Card, because I think that he is an amazing person, if not only for the work he produces. However, i have been reading some of Card's responses to attacks and inquiries, and for the most part, he states that on many of these issues, he is awaiting further "proof" before making any kind of conclusive judgment. I would like to highlight some articles that provide some insight into these issues, from a scientific viewpoint (specifically global warming, and issues involving homosexuality)
I would ask anyone against action towards preventing global warming to pick up any first year environmental sciences textbook, and look at the overwhelming evidence for it, but if that isn't enough, I would suggest following this story
(much more information on global warming is available, and evidence against has shown so far to be unreliable)
On the more controversial issue of gay rights and relations, i would like to point to several articles, all of which provide evidence for homosexuality being a genetic and biological occurence (therefore not something people choose), as well as evidence that homosexuality is not at all destructive to society (or the family)
The list goes on, and the reason all these articles come from one website in particular is simply that it is the one I most frequently check, and that i feel offers the greatest variety of science news. A search on any other science website, or through academic journals will provide the same, if not more information.
As a last point, i would like to ask OSC or anyone who believes they can speak for him how he can support things like the Patriot act, as well as the actions of the american president, in lue of the information we have today. I am simply amazed that the man who wrote the Ender series (in particular the Bean novels, which deal so intimately with war) can support the wars being waged today by Bush, who has clearly (like the Chinese government before Han Tzu) lost the "mandate of heaven" that he claims to have. I would suggest watchin the Daily Show if you want your evidence with a side of comedy.
Im sorry for taking up so much of everyones time, but these issues need to be resolved, lest I lose any of the vast respect I have for OSC, which I sincerely hope doesn't occur.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not challenging anything, I'm simply fulfilling OSC's request to have informationg provided, so that he can make an informed descison on some important matters. I suppose that some of my opinion is molded into the post, but I'm not trying to hide it. And as for being a bold first post, I think it is obvious that the sole reason I created this account was to post this message, to try and get some answers to questions i consider important.
p.s. as you responded to this so quickly after it was posted, you obviously have not read any of the links thuroughly, which i believe to be the central part of the whole post. I would ask future posters to please read all the information before getting involved. I have read a wealth of posts and essays before composing this message, so as to be sure to try and not misrepresent anything or anyone, and I would appreciate it if that courtesy was returned to me.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regardless of my personal opinions on the subject matters (specifically the gay ones), you can't base anything off of one study, even if you try to make it as objectionable as possible, there will always be variables that you can't control. Though there are people who will base their opinions off of one study that was done by one group, it will take a greater amount of research to prove some of the points those articles are trying to make. It does provide a good starting ground for related studies, etc.
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Welcome to Hatrack, of ye of the inquiring mind. The world comes in many shades of grey. And most people wear all shades from white through pitch black on a variety of subjects.
If you try the search function, you might find that many of these issues have been hashed out rather extensively and repeatedly - in fact, ad nauseatedly . . .
You might try visiting Ornery.com, also. They like to debate and explore over there with lots of link's, too.
Oh - and lue is actually spelled lieu - just as an FYI.
posted
Oh and to clarify, I went through the gay ones, and I had already read similar articles in the NY Times or other websites.
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clarifier: I'm not challenging anything, I'm simply fulfilling OSC's request to have informationg provided, so that he can make an informed descison on some important matters. I suppose that some of my opinion is molded into the post, but I'm not trying to hide it. And as for being a bold first post, I think it is obvious that the sole reason I created this account was to post this message, to try and get some answers to questions i consider important.
p.s. as you responded to this so quickly after it was posted, you obviously have not read any of the links thuroughly, which i believe to be the central part of the whole post. I would ask future posters to please read all the information before getting involved. I have read a wealth of posts and essays before composing this message, so as to be sure to try and not misrepresent anything or anyone, and I would appreciate it if that courtesy was returned to me.
You really are kind of stuckup arent you. I'm merely providing OSC the information needed to make his decisions. Wow. If we actually cared enough ,we could find the exact type of documents argueing the other side of the issue. i don't see why you came here,and started off rude, and expected to change OSC views on anything. infact, Im sure you don't expect to change anything. So your just a flame. a Troll. Or maybe just a homosexual
Posts: 332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not trying to speak for OSC, but from what I've seen him post on these forums, a lot of the sides you've accused him of taking, seem to be too absolute. In reality I doubt that there would not be any exceptions, or reasonable bases for his opinions. I'm always willing to hear opinions on any controversial topics from OSC or anyone else on this forum, as it provides new ways to think about things that I have not yet thought of, and opens up my mind to changes in opinion.
Posts: 879 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shan, condescension aside, the fact that something has been discussed before is no reason to not discuss it more, in new contexts. If you have nothing to add to this discussion beyond spelling corrections, please don't post.
Kojabu, obviously you must know that I am unable to present you all with every bit of information available on these subjects, what I have done is offer a entrance into the vast world that many people neglect when they form very deep rooted opinions regarding issues such as global warming or gay rights. I would never suggest that you should base an opinion on one study alone, that is ludicrous, and against the very principles of scie nce. All I'm saying is that when people (such as OSC) claim that there is no evidence or bad evidence for global warming or homoseuzlity being unharmful to society or natural, this is not true.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lanfear, although Clarifier has proven themself to be rude, and slightly disrespectful. There's no reason to be more provacative than them, thinking it will solve, or clarify anything.
Posts: 879 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:i would like to ask OSC... he can support things like the Patriot act.... I am simply amazed that the man who wrote the Ender series can support...
quote:I'm not challenging anything
Yes you obviously are.
quote:I would suggest watchin the Daily Show if you want your evidence with a side of comedy.
I would suggest watching the Daily Show if you want some comedy, especially comedy derived from mocking the people "too stupid" to not vote Bush.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
You really are kind of stuckup arent you. I'm merely providing OSC the information needed to make his decisions. Wow. If we actually cared enough ,we could find the exact type of documents argueing the other side of the issue. i don't see why you came here,and started off rude, and expected to change OSC views on anything. infact, Im sure you don't expect to change anything. So your just a flame. a Troll. Or maybe just a homosexual [/QB][/QUOTE]
Frankly, it sounds as if you are the troll here. i never said OSC "needed" the information I gave him to make a decision, I simply said that he asked for information (which he did in a previous post) and i was providing some. Obviously my side is not the only one to the debate, but as we all should know, we must examine all perspectives before forming an opinion.
Furthermore, no one as of yet has actually responded in any form to the issues raised in this post. As I stressed, I have tried my best to represent OSC's opinions rightfully, if they are wrong, then i would welcome a correction.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Shan, condescension aside, the fact that something has been discussed before is no reason to not discuss it more, in new contexts. If you have nothing to add to this discussion beyond spelling corrections, please don't post.
Shan was just being friendly, you obviously aren't posting here just to get an answer from OSC, so stop being rude. And are year old context's really new?
Edit: How can we respond to the issue if you keep bugging us about the slightly off topic posts that arise because you provoke them?
Posts: 879 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I realized that I shouldn't have added the last part. But thats the only thing i will apologize for. I think you are acting haught and arrogant... but i do retract my ending statement for what its worth
Posts: 332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:i would like to ask OSC... he can support things like the Patriot act.... I am simply amazed that the man who wrote the Ender series can support...
quote:I'm not challenging anything
Yes you obviously are.
quote:I would suggest watchin the Daily Show if you want your evidence with a side of comedy.
I would suggest watching the Daily Show if you want some comedy, especially comedy derived from mocking the people "too stupid" to not vote Bush.
I would like to stress that I am not challenging OSC per say. Yes i do have a different opinion than him, but all i have said is that i would like for him to explain his opinion, so that i can perhaps understand it better. Obviously, my language is slightly loaded, and im sorry. I sincerely believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but i also believe that they should be ready to justify that opinion of they are going to make it public.
Also, The Daily Show is a great show, whether you are left or right, and there are good reasons to vote both ways as well. I do not think that anyone is "stupid" for voting for Bush or against Bush, i just think that some people have the wrong motivations when they do, or the wrong information.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Shan, condescension aside, the fact that something has been discussed before is no reason to not discuss it more, in new contexts.
Here's the thing: it's not a new context. I've been around for seven years, and the post you just made gets put up here -- with maybe the occasional different link, but certainly with the same content -- every single time OSC writes a new controversial article.
If you're not keeping track, that's a lot of posts like yours. And every single person who's ever posted one of them always thinks that none of us have ever seen your like, then always accuses us of arrogance when we don't take your arrival as seriously as you think we should. And sometimes OSC replies, and sometimes he doesn't, and usually he says some variation on the same thing he says in all of these situations.
That's not to say that I don't admire your noble effort. I do, actually, for all that I think it's doomed to failure; I'm pretty confident that OSC's considered all the points you've made, has seen them before, and rejected them for reasons of his own. But observations like "you're kind of stuck up" aren't going to endear you to anyone here.
Quickly scan this forum and look for threads by Exploding Monkey. You'll find them instructive, I think.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, I'd like to refer you to the post in OSC and Gays Thread where OSC commented on science proving whether or not homosexuality is genetic and he later said something about "real evidence."
I would not consider the articles you have provided to be real evidence about whether or not homosexuality is genetic. The studies show that gay men's brains are similar to women's, they do not attempt to prove that it is genetic, which is one of the main questions about homosexuality. They may at some point in the future provide some sort of background research for finding the answer to that ultimate question but they come nowhere near providing real evidence for it.
As for the gay genetics articles, it was a small study done in Italy (I'm going to assume that their sample was Italian). Maybe homosexuality varies by culture, who knows. All I was trying to say was that these studies cannot provide any sort of real evidence, they merely scratch at the surface.
Until more substantial evidence can be found, anyone's guess goes.
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Shan, condescension aside, the fact that something has been discussed before is no reason to not discuss it more, in new contexts. If you have nothing to add to this discussion beyond spelling corrections, please don't post.
Shan was just being friendly, you obviously aren't posting here just to get an answer from OSC, so stop being rude. And are year old context's really new?
Edit: How can we respond to the issue if you keep bugging us about the slightly off topic posts that arise because you provoke them?
if that was Shan being friendly, i would hate to see him/her angry. Infact, i do hope that OSC responds, and I'm having a really hard time seeing how any of my post are rude, and why they are provoking such a negative response. Also, old contexts are always new, when looked at through a new perspective (namely mine)
Posts: 46 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lanfear: I realized that I shouldn't have added the last part. But thats the only thing i will apologize for. I think you are acting haught and arrogant... but i do retract my ending statement for what its worth
quote:Originally posted by kojabu: Ok, I'd like to refer you to the post in OSC and Gays Thread where OSC commented on science proving whether or not homosexuality is genetic and he later said something about "real evidence."
I would not consider the articles you have provided to be real evidence about whether or not homosexuality is genetic. The studies show that gay men's brains are similar to women's, they do not attempt to prove that it is genetic, which is one of the main questions about homosexuality. They may at some point in the future provide some sort of background research for finding the answer to that ultimate question but they come nowhere near providing real evidence for it.
As for the gay genetics articles, it was a small study done in Italy (I'm going to assume that their sample was Italian). Maybe homosexuality varies by culture, who knows. All I was trying to say was that these studies cannot provide any sort of real evidence, they merely scratch at the surface.
Until more substantial evidence can be found, anyone's guess goes.
Im not sure you quite understand the science that you are arguing against. If gay men's brains are similar to womans' brains, it suggests that there is some biological connection between homosexualityand genetics. That is just basic science. Also, I would ask what kind of "real evidence" you are talking about, because the only kind i know of is empirical evidence, and all of these studies are based on the empirical method (unlike the evidence for the opposition, which is mostly based on scripture, or personal opinion. is that what you mean by "real evidence"?)
Posts: 46 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Shan, condescension aside, the fact that something has been discussed before is no reason to not discuss it more, in new contexts.
Here's the thing: it's not a new context. I've been around for seven years, and the post you just made gets put up here -- with maybe the occasional different link, but certainly with the same content -- every single time OSC writes a new controversial article.
If you're not keeping track, that's a lot of posts like yours. And every single person who's ever posted one of them always thinks that none of us have ever seen your like, then always accuses us of arrogance when we don't take your arrival as seriously as you think we should. And sometimes OSC replies, and sometimes he doesn't, and usually he says some variation on the same thing he says in all of these situations.
That's not to say that I don't admire your noble effort. I do, actually, for all that I think it's doomed to failure; I'm pretty confident that OSC's considered all the points you've made, has seen them before, and rejected them for reasons of his own. But observations like "you're kind of stuck up" aren't going to endear you to anyone here.
Quickly scan this forum and look for threads by Exploding Monkey. You'll find them instructive, I think.
I hope this is the last time that you guys do this, because I do not plan on staying here long if this is the kind of response people give to differing views. For the last time, please, i dont care how many times its been discussed, i dont care that uve heard it all before, because you havent! most of these articles were writen very recently, and contain much valued insight into a very important issue. Frankly, it sadens me that not one person yet has actually answered the original thread, and just because you are a senior here does not mean that you can be condescending. Your opinion is not worth anymore than mine, and i would appreciate it if you got off your high horse
Posts: 46 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clarifier: Im not sure you quite understand the science that you are arguing against. If gay men's brains are similar to womans' brains, it suggests that there is some biological connection between homosexualityand genetics. That is just basic science. Also, I would ask what kind of "real evidence" you are talking about, because the only kind i know of is empirical evidence, and all of these studies are based on the empirical method (unlike the evidence for the opposition, which is mostly based on scripture, or personal opinion. is that what you mean by "real evidence"?)
So connectivity leads to causality now? You can't prove geneticism based on one survey like that. That's what I'm saying, again. You yourself agreed that you can't use one study to prove anything.
Ok, for real evidence, I want something more concrete than two surveys that show that gay men's brains are like women's brains. Are lesbian's brains like men's? What about bisexuals? What about people who are transgender? I want some sort of substansive report based on lots of studies that have been done and tested more than just once. Hey, maybe finding the actual gene that relates to it might help.
And you know what, I'm happy when studies like this are done because it means it's another step closer to finding an answer, but it does not mean that the answer has been solved once and for all. In my opinion these are preliminary studies that will prepare scientists for exploring the issue further. I'm sure I agree with your opinions on the topics, but the approach I disagree with.
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Your opinion is not worth anymore than mine...
In your opinion, of course.
Seriously, the problem here is that you seem to assume we've been trapped in a little bubble for the last few years and haven't been exposed to this data -- and, moreover, that anyone who's seen it must necessarily share your opinion of it.
Now, see, I do share your opinions on all the issues you've mentioned. I think homosexuality is at least partly genetic, support SSM, and am generally a flamingly social liberal. But I think you would do well to listen to those of us who've been here for years and have seen OSC post on these topics before, especially when we tell you that he's almost certainly aware of the kind of thing to which you've linked.
In other words, what you've written here isn't likely to surprise him or force him to revisit his opinions. I wholeheartedly endorse anyone's attempt to do so, but I've seen attempts exactly like yours fail multiple times in the past.
You can choose to accept this advice in the spirit it's given, or you can conclude that I'm stuck on a high horse and simply condescending to a newbie. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, to be honest. But it sounds to me like you've got a good head on your shoulders, and I'd hate for you to storm out of here in a huff when you realize that you're not going to take the ramparts without opposition. *grin*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
rotfl, I would bet Tom Davidson read every single one of those articles on News Scientist *before* you did, given his voracious internet reading habits. (Trust me, he knows more than you do about any topic you can think of.) And, if he didn't read them before you Noemon did.
It isn't the differeng views, because many of us, myself and Tom Davison included disagree with OSC on many topics. It's the way you say them. Step 1: Don't assume we don't already frequent the same websites you do.
Step 2: Don't assume anyone's world view on anything here at hatrack, unless you've been here for at least a year. And even then you'll be surprised at times.
posted
i never said that the issue was solved. i merely presented my opinion, and put forward some evidence for it. personally, i think this kind of evidence (as well as much more that i have read and seen myself - my ex-gf dad was an audiologist, and he demostrated to a couple of friends and myself [one of whom was gay] that lesbian's odo-acoustical emissions are closer to men's than they are to womens' - just more evidence pilling up) is more relevant that alot of the counter evidence.
of course connectivity doesnt lead conclusively to causality, but at some point, we must take the inductive leap, lest we remain eternal skeptics of everything (including your own existence if you want to take it that far), and i feel that we have enough information for that leap. you might disagree, but you cannot ignore the accumulating evidence
Posts: 46 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:these issues need to be resolved, lest I lose any of the vast respect I have for OSC, which I sincerely hope doesn't occur.
I think what you're saying is that you won't respect OSC unless he comes to agree with you. I do hope that's not the case.
I can address some of these issues (my perspective, not OSC, but you did ask the rest of us):
Global warming: nobody denies that it's happening. What some deny is that it is proved that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are responsible. Over the past 150 years, temperatures have risen . . . but they have slowed down as the CO2 content has increased. They still don't seem to have reached the temperatures of the Roman Empire days, when there were vineyards in Britain, and fossil fuel use had not been invented. Sunspot activity correlates well with global temperatures, and it certainly makes sense that the temperature of the earth would depend on the sun!
If sex orientation were 100% genetic, then every identical twin of a gay person would also be gay, and that's not true (though they're more likely to be so than in the general population). Figures I saw from a twin study, biased to support the 100% genetic theory, were 40%-60%. This clearly shows that there is a genetic predisposition, but definitely not genetic predestination.
Of course, whether it's genetic or not has no bearing on whether it's a good thing. Hemophilia is genetic; so's strong teeth. Being a great chef isn't genetic; being a terrorist isn't either.
Politics makes for terrible science.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: rotfl, I would bet Tom Davidson read every single one of those articles on News Scientist *before* you did, given his voracious internet reading habits. (Trust me, he knows more than you do about any topic you can think of.) And, if he didn't read them before you Noemon did.
It isn't the differeng views, because many of us, myself and Tom Davison included disagree with OSC on many topics. It's the way you say them. Step 1: Don't assume we don't already frequent the same websites you do.
Step 2: Don't assume anyone's world view on anything here at hatrack, unless you've been here for at least a year. And even then you'll be surprised at times.
AJ
again, a totally useless post which assumes that just because you have been here longer, you are right. just as you ask me not to assume things about you, i would say do not assume anything about me. you have no idea who i am, or what i do, so to make a statement like "rust me, he knows more than you do about any topic you can think of" is immature and ludicrous.
your arrogance doenst hide the fact that you *still* havent actually responded to any of the original questions
Posts: 46 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:these issues need to be resolved, lest I lose any of the vast respect I have for OSC, which I sincerely hope doesn't occur.
I think what you're saying is that you won't respect OSC unless he comes to agree with you. I do hope that's not the case.
I can address some of these issues (my perspective, not OSC, but you did ask the rest of us):
Global warming: nobody denies that it's happening. What some deny is that it is proved that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are responsible. Over the past 150 years, temperatures have risen . . . but they have slowed down as the CO2 content has increased. They still don't seem to have reached the temperatures of the Roman Empire days, when there were vineyards in Britain, and fossil fuel use had not been invented. Sunspot activity correlates well with global temperatures, and it certainly makes sense that the temperature of the earth would depend on the sun!
If sex orientation were 100% genetic, then every identical twin of a gay person would also be gay, and that's not true (though they're more likely to be so than in the general population). Figures I saw from a twin study, biased to support the 100% genetic theory, were 40%-60%. This clearly shows that there is a genetic predisposition, but definitely not genetic predestination.
Of course, whether it's genetic or not has no bearing on whether it's a good thing. Hemophilia is genetic; so's strong teeth. Being a great chef isn't genetic; being a terrorist isn't either.
Politics makes for terrible science.
politics makes for terrible science, that is exactly my point! i never said that gay-ness was 100% genetic.. that is just stupid, of course there is a mix of nature and nurture, but far too often people forget about that, so i was presenting some of the information on it.
and actually, it is your information on global warming that is flawed. infact, CO2 emission are on an incredible rise, and the complex reactions involving fossil fuels, free radicals, and greehouse gases are mostly all documented and understood in chemistry. where as you have not provided any evidence to support your claims, i simply ask anyone who doubts mine to perform a google search on CO2 emissions, or greehouse gases
Posts: 46 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
also, i never said that i had already lost respect for OSC. unlike yourselves, i do not judge people before i have truly listened to their perspectives.
if OSC is able to asnwere my questions rationally and reasonably (whether or not i like that answer) he will have all the respect, if not more, that i already have for him today. i consider him to be one of the best authors around totay, and i treat the ender series like divine scripture
Posts: 46 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
im going to bed, so theres no use in addressing me personally anymore, im sry that we werent able to have a productive discussion on these very important issues.. i thought that it would have been possible, but i suppose i expect too much
thank you anyway for your time
Posts: 46 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clarifier: you might disagree, but you cannot ignore the accumulating evidence
I'm not, I happen to think it is genetic and as I said, I like evidence that leads to that conclusion, but for someone whose opinion differs from mine and yours, it will take more than just a few studies brought up in a forum to convince them.
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clarifier, I wrote a really "less than nice" post which I just deleted.
Here is the summary - in a more nice fashion:
Your final point in your initial post states that you believe these apparent inconsistencies between Mr. Card's fictional works and essays must be resolved, lest you lose respct for Mr. Card.
Please understand that one's works of fiction do not necessarily (nor do they have to) correspond with one's world view. Nor should they, in some cases. (I'm thinking here of works of horror by such authors as Stephen King. Imagine a world populated by Carrie's . . . *shudder*)
Your dilemma is your own. I am sure folks here at Hatrack appreciate the sensibility and honor you do them by sharing it with them - however, it is ultimately your choice to make.
As pointed out before, these contrasting views have been repeatedly rehashed, and you are cordially invited to explore them at your leisure.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: p.s. as you responded to this so quickly after it was posted, you obviously have not read any of the links thuroughly, which i believe to be the central part of the whole post. I would ask future posters to please read all the information before getting involved. I have read a wealth of posts and essays before composing this message, so as to be sure to try and not misrepresent anything or anyone, and I would appreciate it if that courtesy was returned to me.
Was specifically what I was replying to. And yes I was amused. As far as everything else, there are others here that can answer more eloquently than I. (I'm not sure if the threads on which I articulated my views still exist to cut and paste, and you aren't missing much without my opinion anyway.)
AJ
(and Shan is much nicer than I am and an example to us all.)
posted
I skipped the last few posts because chances are they were of the same ilk of the rest. I think you're all being chilidish. Clarifier, you're a little too stubborn on your views trying to shove them down everyone's throats. Everyone else, stop being such jerks about it. Don't go calling people names, insulting their intent and mocking them for a slightly over-the-top post. Clarifier, ur really a snide little Bas****
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clarifier, If you're wondering why you're gettings so many attacks back at you, look at your previous posts. You may not realize it, But your attacking and provoking people, even if you're not trying.
Posts: 9 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
C, You come on a bit strong, as I'm pretty sure you're aware. That's cool, but keep in mind, we don't know you and you don't know us. Reading over this thread, I think you've taken a bit more crap and condescension that was warranted, but at the same time, I can see (though not necessarily agree with) where people are coming from..
Dude, I get it. You're not getting the response you expected and you are getting some people going over the top. Sad to say, that's life. You come across like you've got an okay head on your shoulders. You do sound like you might be attaching a bit more importance onto your opinions than nearly anyone else is going to grant you, but hey, which of us don't really?
The best advice that I can give is to chill out a little. Take a step back or a couple of breaths or let go and let god or whatever the heck works for you. It really does take two to tango (in this case the tango being the dreadfully akward internet argument two-step - crap, I think I either mixed metaphors or musical genres there). You're not going to achieve your goals by shooting off attacks at people, even if, in your perspective and perhaps in objective fact, they deserve it.
You do come across as challenging OSC here and (besides being my job) it comes across as pretty presumptious. He doesn't owe you a darn thing. The poeple on this forum don't owe you a darn thing either, but they'll give you quite a bit if you make the effort to fit into the community. It kind of sucks, I know, but again, that's life.
Rather than starting a thread with singling out OSC and presenting what appeared to many people to be a somewhat conceited challenge (not that it necessarily was, but it did come across that way), you might have been better served to do something along the lines of "I have problems seeing, in the face of evidence like this or this or this, how people can support the claim (as OSC seems to in his essays on the subject) that there is no scientific basis for believing that homosexuality is genetic/biologically based. Don't people find the information in the links that I provided compelling, if not overwhelming, reasons for thinking of it this way?" And you could have started a separate topic for the global warming (thus making the focus of these threads the individual issues as opposed to a more general idea of say people holding opinions that you feel are not all that tenable considering the evidence). Perhaps I'm wrong, but I feel like this may have provoked more constructive responses.
Anyway, welcome to Hatrack. I hope you stick around.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: hope this is the last time that you guys do this, because I do not plan on staying here long if this is the kind of response people give to differing views
On the contrary, Clarifier, I believe you riled up many of the other posters here because of your approach, not your views. I, for instance, agree with you on some of your points. But you might recieve an overall better response if you explained your opinion of the links you post. We could check out newscientist.com whenever we wanted to, but this is a discussion forum primarily, and the opinion of individuals makes for interesting topics.
It was neat having all of those links, but they might have more impact posted in their respective discussion threads already going on the forum. Posting in bulk tends to seem long and overdone, even though your links are excellent.
Also, some of your responses I found offending, such as "you obviously have not read any of the links thoroughly", or "if you have nothing to add to this discussion beyond spelling corrections, please don't post" or "frankly, it sounds as if you are the troll here" or "i dont care that uve heard it all before, because you havent!" or "a totally useless post which assumes that just because you have been here longer, you are right". This isn't really what we condone here at Hatrack. I do understand the frustration of having your post itself, and not your issues, countered or second-guessed. Also the want to respond to such counters. But we like more civilized conversation most of the time.
I'm a newcomer here too, and I look forward to seeing you and your points around here at Hatrack. You are quite a resolute poster, with interesting views. It will be interesting to see your future opinions.
Posts: 973 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
C, Squicky has some excellent and constructive suggestions. Crash's observations, too -- especially the quotes he's provided in the third paragraph -- are valuable for self-reflection.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
When trying to understand OSC's views on subjects such as homosexuality (and even U.S. foreign policy), it may be useful to remember that OSC is a deeply religious person. You can stack up all the scientific "proof" in the world in front of such a person and it will do next to nothing to change the way he or she feels. Proving that homosexuality is genetic still doesn't change God's instruction on the subject.
Posts: 17 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Also worth mentioning is the psychology of internet forums. We are just reading the words on a computer screen. There are different ways of engaging the reader and generating discussion. And if it is a subject that has been flogged repeatedly, sometimes it is human nature to not want to go there again, you get jaded and worn out on the topic, even if there is some new information, kind of like the O.J. Simpson trial. And what you have posted on the topic isn't generally new information for this forum.
For what it's worth I support gay marriage *regardless* of whether homosexuality is genetic or not, which is why discussing that particular point is irrelevant to me. I believe it is an equal protection issue, and don't believe it will cause societal downfall, even if other people on this forum that I respect disagree with me.
quote:i never said that i had already lost respect for OSC. unlike yourselves, i do not judge people before i have truly listened to their perspectives.
You just did, when you said "unlike yourselves"!
--
A Google search finds out what people are talking about. Consensus is not science.
The CO2 Research Center posts estimated global temperatures for the past 150 years -- my beginning programming class regularly uses this data each semester to do statistical analysis. You can examine the data for yourself. You can also look up sunspots and "global warming" on a search engine to find the correlation there. Are you seriously telling me the rate of temperature increase hasn't slowed down over the past 50 years relative to the 100 before? Or that sunspot activity is not correlated to global temperatures? These things are easily verified.
quote:infact, CO2 emission are on an incredible rise, and the complex reactions involving fossil fuels, free radicals, and greehouse gases are mostly all documented and understood in chemistry.
CO2 emissions are indeed on the rise (I don't know what constitutes "incredible"). If by "complex reactions" you mean combustion, of course this is well documented and not in dispute. If you mean that there are complex reactions in the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, which are relevant, this is not the case. CO2 is an inert gas. Water does interact, and this is well understood, but it doesn't stop it from being a greenhouse gas or seriously affect its prevalence. Ozone is formed and destroyed by free radicals, but it is not a serious factor in the heat budget, and is not affected by CO2 or water.
The complexities of the heat budget don't relate to chemical interactions. They relate to absorption profiles. CO2 blocks big chunks of infrared; water blocks pretty much the same sections. The equatorial atmosphere is fairly well saturated. Subtropical is not, especially because of deserts. What makes this complicated: it isn't just the surface that radiates, it's the air itself, so we must consider convection AND radiation AND re-absorption of radiation from lower layers; cloud cover is changeable and affects this; reflectivity of the surface is changeable. The complexities are in physics, not chemistry -- and it isn't well understood what their final outcome is. Or we'd be able to predict the weather years in advance, like we do the orbits of planets.
That's why, despite the fact that sunspot activity is sufficient to account for (in the statistical sense) global warming, and the fact that increased temperatures do seem to increase CO2 levels without our help, we can't say definitively that CO2 increases absolutely aren't contributing to global warming. It's too complicated to say they absolutely aren't. But it's very far from proved that they are.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
And every single person who's ever posted one of them always thinks that none of us have ever seen your like, then always accuses us of arrogance when we don't take your arrival as seriously as you think we should. And sometimes OSC replies, and sometimes he doesn't, and usually he says some variation on the same thing he says in all of these situations.
