Quote :

"what is so evil about cutting down on pollution?"

Nothing is evil about cutting down on pollution. However, carbon dioxide isn't exactly a pollutant. It's harmless to breathe and essential to photosynthesis.

CO2 contributes to warming of the Earth, but so does water vapor.

The EPA went to court on this a year or 2 ago. They could not scientifically define CO2 as a pollutant, therefore they can not regulate it.

2/8/2007 1:14:03 AM

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and any artificial alteration of the environment does have an impact. It could be small and insignificant, but it is there.

2/8/2007 1:50:50 AM

Quote :

"nothing is evil about cutting down on pollution and i think everyone would agree"

I doubt everyone would agree

2/8/2007 11:32:33 AM

Quote :

"^^ You don't what you're talking about. Socrates was convicted by the Athenians of being a Sophist and was put to death--and as a result, Plato fled the city. In addition, you lump Plato, Aristotle, and Ptolemy in one philosophical mélange, yet they were quite different in their positions."

#1 you are an idiot
#2 Socrates, teacher of Plato. Plato, teacher of Aristotle. Ptolemy, used Aristotle to justify the philosophical and logical basis of his science.
#3 All three had very very similar views about the structure of the solar system, which was the only topic i was lumping them together for.
#4 I am engaging in sophistry? You "prove" points by posting fucking pictures.
#5 I dont care what some textbook and high school teacher 20 years told you about any of the above people, stop acting like you know anything.

Quote :

"but if you approach everything where there is a tiny chance of something...well lets say there is a tiny chance that some world leader has wmds...isnt it worth it to try and correct it?"

thats exactly my point. the data on global warming is a lot less suspect than the intelligence surrounding sadaam, yet its not good enough to throw some scrubbers in some smoke stacks.

2/8/2007 1:30:37 PM

You're missing Twista's point.

It's science, not percentages, that you can't trust.

2/8/2007 4:46:12 PM

^once again, a fucking History major claims to know everything based on reading user-contribution websites as sources

^^you are actually missing the point though

Quote :

"the data on global warming is a lot less suspect than the intelligence surrounding sadaam"

do you have a single shred of anything to base that on????

2/8/2007 4:50:51 PM

Quote :

"once again, a fucking History major claims to know everything based on reading user-contribution websites as sources"

http://www.ipcc.ch/

and

http://www.nationalacademies.org/environment/

are wiki's?

And regardless, are you saying that your side is more-credible?

2/8/2007 4:59:07 PM

^^^^ I take GRADUATE-level courses in the subject NOW. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about--still.

2/8/2007 5:40:53 PM

So were you going to disprove him, or just pretend that taking a GRADUATE-level course means something?

2/8/2007 5:44:10 PM

Quote :

"do you have a single shred of anything to base that on????"

other than the fact that sadaam had no WMDs and had nothing to do with Al Qaeda?

^he cant disprove me because I am right.

[Edited on February 8, 2007 at 7:39 PM. Reason : doesnt matter how much i have read]

2/8/2007 7:38:16 PM

But we're talking GRADUATE-level classes. He MUST be right.

2/8/2007 8:29:04 PM

how many graduate level classes have you taken in the field boonedocks?

you sure do like to dismiss accounts of people who have recently studied the subject

if he was taking doctorate level classes would you give a shit? how bout if he got his phd? would he magically know 1000x more about it based on receiving a doctorate? or would he never know anything about it since he must obviously be paid by oil companies to DARE to question something

2/8/2007 10:29:49 PM

well, following your logic on global warming, having his phd in a subject makes it more likely he is wrong on the subject.

2/8/2007 11:38:14 PM

^^^^ First, I emphasized current "GRADUATE" coursework because of the following quotation:

Quote :

"I dont care what some textbook and high school teacher [emphasis added] 20 years told you about any of the above people, stop acting like you know anything."

RevoltNow

Second, the books The Birth of Rhetoric by Robert Wardy and Magic and Rhetoric in Ancient Greece by Jacqueline De Romilly will provide all the contrasts between Plato and Aristotle that one would need. More important, I have confirmed my position with an NCSU professor who teaches rhetoric.

Third, concerning your point about who taught whom among the great philosophers at issue, it proves nothing. Do you adopt all the positions of your teachers? No? Thought so.

Fourth, STFU.

[Edited on February 8, 2007 at 11:39 PM. Reason : ]

2/8/2007 11:39:25 PM

^^you don't follow logic very well

2/8/2007 11:41:06 PM

first, i trust the actual authors over a book about rhetoric
second, we were talking about views of the universe. not about their views on everything. obviously they disagreed on all sorts of things.
third, were you able to find anyone to assert that ptolemy was based on something other than math and aristotle? cause that would be an impressive position to take
fourth, im shocked you actually wrote something instead of posting a picture.

2/8/2007 11:44:32 PM

If you prefer. . .

2/9/2007 12:03:50 AM