Vegetarian Discussion: THE JUNGLE: If We Need A Metaphor To Live By, This Is It!

THE JUNGLE: If We Need A Metaphor To Live By, This Is It!
Posts: 10

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1   (First | Last)

TheTibetanMonkey
2010-03-03 15:03:57 EST
I don't expect myself to go unchallenged, but the more you think about
it, the more it makes sense...

It seems every primitive culture has a metaphor about creation, and
the Christians have their own inherited from sheep herders. Perfect
scenario: the Garden of Eden, Adam & Eve... and Evil (the Serpent).
Everything goes wrong because A&E don't follow God's command. Moral of
the story? Follow the leader!

Real life: We have animal instincts. We thus can call this place where
we survive "the jungle." Nothing's perfect: Things could be worse, but
we can move up from the jungle and reach CIVILIZATION. I tell you
more, it gives you a solution: unlike the Christian story where
there's only one path to salvation, IN THE JUNGLE YOU HAVE MANY PATHS.
There's one sure path to the cliff, though, and that is being HUNGRY
toward nature.

So if you think we need a metaphor to live by, this is it. Actually it
doesn't contradict any of the laws of nature or science. And best of
all, it can get you out of harm's way, or solve conflicts where you
are ignored because of your lower status in the food chain.

Hey, WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE!


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE WISE TIBETAN MONKEY SAYS:

"A perfect balance in the jungle is found when you are neither hungry
beast nor lunch"

WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote

Tunderbar
2010-03-03 15:16:14 EST
On Mar 3, 2:03 pm, TheTibetanMonkey <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> I don't expect myself to go unchallenged, but the more you think about
> it, the more it makes sense...
>
> It seems every primitive culture has a metaphor about creation, and
> the Christians have their own inherited from sheep herders. Perfect
> scenario: the Garden of Eden, Adam & Eve... and Evil (the Serpent).
> Everything goes wrong because A&E don't follow God's command. Moral of
> the story? Follow the leader!
>
> Real life: We have animal instincts. We thus can call this place where
> we survive "the jungle." Nothing's perfect: Things could be worse, but
> we can move up from the jungle and reach CIVILIZATION. I tell you
> more, it gives you a solution: unlike the Christian story where
> there's only one path to salvation, IN THE JUNGLE YOU HAVE MANY PATHS.
> There's one sure path to the cliff, though, and that is being HUNGRY
> toward nature.
>
> So if you think we need a metaphor to live by, this is it. Actually it
> doesn't contradict any of the laws of nature or science. And best of
> all, it can get you out of harm's way, or solve conflicts where you
> are ignored because of your lower status in the food chain.
>
> Hey, WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE!
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> THE WISE TIBETAN MONKEY SAYS:
>
> "A perfect balance in the jungle is found when you are neither hungry
> beast nor lunch"
>
> WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE
>
> http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote

Why do people always insist that we are above the animals - eg.
"civilized". We are animals. We belong to mother nature (or the
evolutionary tree if you prefer, or God for that matter, whichever
philosophy tickles your nuts) just as much as any other animal. Just
because we use tools and have developed language and some technology
doesn't negate the fact that we are part of the natural world. We do
what we do because we are what we are. That is how we are built.

We look at exploiting our surroundings just like every other living
creature does. No different, no better, no worse. There is no morality
involved. A lion kills to eat. We kill to eat. Elephants will destroy
trees for miles around to get enough to eat. Some animals will play
with their prey when they become satiated. There is no morality
involved. That is how the world is.

Green Turtle
2010-03-03 15:52:27 EST
"TheTibetanMonkey" <comandante.banana@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ef12347e-f21b-485b-9777-aa6bd4efdc80@b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> I don't expect myself to go unchallenged, but the more you think about
> it, the more it makes sense...
>
> It seems every primitive culture has a metaphor about creation, and
> the Christians have their own inherited from sheep herders. Perfect
> scenario: the Garden of Eden, Adam & Eve... and Evil (the Serpent).
> Everything goes wrong because A&E don't follow God's command. Moral of
> the story? Follow the leader!

I think the ones telling us to follow the great Al Gore the preacher as he
flies around in his private jet and preaches and teaches us how you should
live your life. It sure as the hell not the Christians that are preaching
here how we should live our lives. It's the likes of the U.N., and you left
social engineering people that are preaching. Heck, even PETA jumped in and
stated that eating meat is worse than driving cars for global warming.

On the other hand, it's probably best to some distinguishing here. There's
probably as many religions as are as books it been written, the differences
there's only one of them that make any logical and philosophical sense.

Perhaps the most interesting and uniqueness of the Christian point of view
of the universe is that concept of what we call a caused universe

The problem here is you somehow think that the science you so much
place of your faith is in is in fact a act of faith on your part!

In the case of AGW since you've not done the experiments yourself, and since
you don't know the mechanics of this at the molecular level, the only thing
you can do is make an act of faith to accept what is being taught to you.
How is this any different than any other kind of act of faith here? Simply
putting the label science on this and then making a complete act of faith on
your part makes this no different then any other act of faith that a human
can make. You've not done the science nor understand the quantum mechanics
of this stuff, and therefore you're making an act of faith.

Ask yourself the following question?

Why was it nations like France and Germany and today in North America are
the leaders in technology of the world? These nations also happen to be the
very same nations with the highest percentage of people who are of a
religious faith (that being a Christian faith). They have the best
universities and educational systems of the world.

In other words if these nations like the US is so backwards in terms of its
religion, then why are these very same nations the leader in terms of its
universities, technologies, and just about everything else?

When the great catholic theologian saint Thomas Aquinas put forth his proofs
for god he didn't go to some Bible. He used reason and philosophy to make
his point. In fact he used the scientific process to make his proofs.

Saint Thomas Aquinas states:

I observe motion, and yet objects cannot move themselves.

Does that the sound like a religious statement to you? In fact it sounds
like he's laying down the laws of motion.

saint Thomas Aquinas then goes on to state:

Since objects cannot move themselves, then how can we make the observation
of objects moving through space? We thus now have to ask the question who or
what is the first mover then?

In effect saint Thomas is talking about the laws of motion. His proves are
not based on religious concepts, but based on sound logical reasoning and
that of the scientific process of observation.

The above very much explains why we we're walking on the moon and most
nations of the world were cooking their dinners with camel dung.

Remember there was no major religion of the world that actually had the
concept of a caused universe. The exception to this rule was the Christian
religion. By "caused" we mean the idea that the universe itself did not
always exist. In other words the Christians were very much against
superstitions and things like vudu. Note that the instant you realize the
Christian view of the universe and there's not a wind god, a water god, or
love god, or whatever all of other type of Roman gods or insert your "favor
of view" of the universe god view.

I mean the native culture of north
America used to tell stories about how the continent of north America
content was created by a great giant turtle that came from the north.
Looking at most cultures of the world, you can see that the scientific
process is very difficult to put forth, and yet look at the sound and
logical reasoning of saint Thomas Aquinas proof for god. Cntrast the
Christian philosophy and view and scientific processed compared to that of
the other cultures.

So, this Christian few of the universe is the exact opposite of pantheism
(so there's no god in grass or rocks or the water).

It's interesting to note that the philosophers over most of man's history
taught the idea of a static and always existing universe. If the universe
are always existed, then everything had to be the way it has to be. In other
words the great philosophers like Plato and Aristotle were trying to analyze
the universe just like we know for fact that a triangle must have three
sides. A triangle can't be any other way. It HAS TO be that way. If the
universe was never caused, then it's ALWAYS going to be the way it is. In
fact everything HAS TO be the way it is. This would mean that you don't need
a science experimental process or observational process to determine how the
universe exists. You could use pure reason just like we can to determine
that a triangle must have three sides. we don't need to use a scientific
experiments, nor do we even have to use the process of discovery and data
gathering to determine or even make an experiment to prove that a triangle
has three sides. The great philosophers of the past actually believed that
they could use reason and logic to determine everything in the universe and
not have to have the scientific process. (this actually makes sense if the
universe was not caused and everything had to be the way a was just like
that triangle).

However the instant you adopt a Christian view of a caused universe, or you
accept the idea that the universe does not have to exist, then you HAVE to
begin the scientific process to discover how things exits and function
through observation. Logic and reason can NOT tell us what the speed of
light is. There's no particular reason why light is the speed it is.
Therefore we are forced to use observation and the scientific process. We
can not deduce why the speed of light is what it is like we can for 2 + 2 =
4. Or that our triangles must have three sides.

The idea of a caused universe, or one that didn't have to exist is a
uniquely Christian view of things (at least for any mainstream religion that
had great influence on people).

Note that up to about the nineteen twenties the scientific community held
onto this idea and concept of a static universe. As we started deploying
better telescopes and discovery things like fusion, we realized that those
stars in the sky who are not points of light, but in that in fact tanks of
"fuel" that are constantly being used up. If the stars fuel tank is
constantly being used up, then logic dictates that those stars could not
always been there. They had to have a start and therefore a MUST have been
caused. It is this marriage of logic and correct philosophy combined with
observation of the world around us that gives use the scientific process.
You can't have science without reason and logic, and you can make any use of
observations you make without correct sound reasoning and logic
(philosophy).

If I walk into a room and see a lit candle, then I can deduce logically that
the candle could NOT always been burning forever because we know that candle
has a limited life Span and limited amount of fuel.

This crushing blow of logic and discovery by the scientific community means
they were now forced to accept the Christian view of a caused universe! This
was a huge blow, and many a scientists actual refused to accept this point
view of a caused universe (the scientists well knew that accepting this
point of view was playing into the hands of the philosophical order of
things and view that the Christians held for the universe). In other words,
science was proving our view to be correct. Many a scientists went to their
graves refusing to accept this idea of a caused universe.

There is often the question in philosophy who created god then? Well the
simple logic here is that something that is eternal does not have a start
and therefore does is not caused. It thus does not have a beginning. So the
great philosophers of previous times didn't believe in a caused universe.
They had the same view of God (no beginning) and the a static universe was
easy to accept here. Again no beginning means there is NO need for a cause.
So the Christian view of god is that god is not caused, and that is the very
definition of something that is eternal (something that is eternal does not
have a start nor cause).

Thus as scientific evidence poured in, the science community now has to
accept the Christian view of a caused universe. Of course today we see a
laughable patchwork of theory's to explain the big bang. Of course we do
have to ask what was happening few years before the big bang!

It's quite laughable to see some of these new theories being proposed such
as a singularity. At the end of the day the theories solve nothing about the
issue of something can start itself nor can something move itself.

The absolute fairy tales and theories and ideas being put forth as for this
starting process are so funny and so nonscientific as to make the ark story
sound far more plausible!

With the above in mind it is no small wonder that most of our science
heritage much based on the Christian philosophical view of things. Our
science heritage is from our western culture. Be it Planks law, Newton's
law, Ohms law, Faraday law, Kepler law...I can go on for listing hundreds
and hundreds of scientists and "laws" that these people created and the vast
majority of these "laws" are all from the west and our Christian culture.

The Christians of the west don't have better brains than other people and
other faiths of the world. The only differentiating factor here was the
adoption of a different view of the universe and the adoption of the
scientific process. This scientific process can't occur in most religions
other than that of the particular Christian view of the world that we see
today. (the caused universe).

Most physics books today to refer to the motion system that of the planets
around the sun as the Copernican motion system. It is not widely reported
that history records that the Copernicus was a catholic priest.

> Real life: We have animal instincts. We thus can call this place where
> we survive "the jungle." Nothing's perfect: Things could be worse, but
> we can move up from the jungle and reach CIVILIZATION. I tell you
> more, it gives you a solution: unlike the Christian story where
> there's only one path to salvation, IN THE JUNGLE YOU HAVE MANY PATHS.
> There's one sure path to the cliff, though, and that is being HUNGRY
> toward nature.

If you're telling me that you just a sack of molecules that are randomly
arranged, then why is your opinion or your values any more valuable than
anybody else's? Why, should we listen to you then?

Super Turtle



TheTibetanMonkey
2010-03-03 18:49:43 EST
On Mar 3, 3:16 pm, tunderbar <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 2:03 pm, TheTibetanMonkey <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I don't expect myself to go unchallenged, but the more you think about
> > it, the more it makes sense...
>
> > It seems every primitive culture has a metaphor about creation, and
> > the Christians have their own inherited from sheep herders. Perfect
> > scenario: the Garden of Eden, Adam & Eve... and Evil (the Serpent).
> > Everything goes wrong because A&E don't follow God's command. Moral of
> > the story? Follow the leader!
>
> > Real life: We have animal instincts. We thus can call this place where
> > we survive "the jungle." Nothing's perfect: Things could be worse, but
> > we can move up from the jungle and reach CIVILIZATION. I tell you
> > more, it gives you a solution: unlike the Christian story where
> > there's only one path to salvation, IN THE JUNGLE YOU HAVE MANY PATHS.
> > There's one sure path to the cliff, though, and that is being HUNGRY
> > toward nature.
>
> > So if you think we need a metaphor to live by, this is it. Actually it
> > doesn't contradict any of the laws of nature or science. And best of
> > all, it can get you out of harm's way, or solve conflicts where you
> > are ignored because of your lower status in the food chain.
>
> > Hey, WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE!
>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­--------
>
> > THE WISE TIBETAN MONKEY SAYS:
>
> > "A perfect balance in the jungle is found when you are neither hungry
> > beast nor lunch"
>
> > WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE
>
> >http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
>
> Why do people always insist that we are above the animals - eg.
> "civilized". We are animals. We belong to mother nature (or the
> evolutionary tree if you prefer, or God for that matter, whichever
> philosophy tickles your nuts) just as much as any other animal. Just
> because we use tools and have developed language and some technology
> doesn't negate the fact that we are part of the natural world. We do
> what we do because we are what we are. That is how we are built.
>
> We look at exploiting our surroundings just like every other living
> creature does. No different, no better, no worse. There is no morality
> involved. A lion kills to eat. We kill to eat. Elephants will destroy
> trees for miles around to get enough to eat. Some animals will play
> with their prey when they become satiated. There is no morality
> involved. That is how the world is.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Elephants and SUVs can be a very real threat to their environment...

But if you try to play it safe on our roads, you better drive
something big, right? Instead of our roads being smart, they are
Darwinistic, thus crating an arms race.

It seems like our roads can benefit from my metaphor. ;)

TheTibetanMonkey
2010-03-03 18:55:19 EST
On Mar 3, 3:52 pm, "Green Turtle" <SuperTur...@greenpiece.com> wrote:
> "TheTibetanMonkey" <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ef12347e-f21b-485b-9777-aa6bd4efdc80@b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I don't expect myself to go unchallenged, but the more you think about
> > it, the more it makes sense...
>
> > It seems every primitive culture has a metaphor about creation, and
> > the Christians have their own inherited from sheep herders. Perfect
> > scenario: the Garden of Eden, Adam & Eve... and Evil (the Serpent).
> > Everything goes wrong because A&E don't follow God's command. Moral of
> > the story? Follow the leader!
>
> I think the ones telling us to follow the great Al Gore the preacher as he
> flies around in his private jet and preaches and teaches us how you should
> live your life.  It sure as the hell not the Christians that are preaching
> here how we should live our lives.  It's the likes of the U.N., and you left
> social engineering people that are preaching. Heck, even PETA jumped in and
> stated that eating meat is worse than driving cars for global warming.
>
> On the other hand, it's probably best to some distinguishing here.  There's
> probably as many religions as are as books it been written, the differences
> there's only one of them that make any logical and philosophical sense.
>
> Perhaps the most interesting and uniqueness of the Christian point of view
> of the universe is that concept of what we call a caused universe
>
> The problem here is you somehow think that the science you so much
> place of your faith is in is in fact a act of faith on your part!
>
> In the case of AGW since you've not done the experiments yourself, and since
> you don't know the mechanics of this at the molecular level, the only thing
> you can do is make an act of faith to accept what is being taught to you.
> How is this any different than any other kind of act of faith here? Simply
> putting the label science on this and then making a complete act of faith on
> your part makes this no different then any other act of faith that a human
> can make. You've not done the science nor understand the quantum mechanics
> of this stuff, and therefore you're making an act of faith.
>
> Ask yourself the following question?
>
> Why was it nations like France and Germany and today in North America are
> the leaders in technology of the world?  These nations also happen to be the
> very same nations with the highest percentage of people who are of a
> religious faith (that being a Christian faith). They have the best
> universities and educational systems of the world.
>
> In other words if these nations like the US is so backwards in terms of its
> religion, then why are these very same nations the leader in terms of its
> universities, technologies, and just about everything else?
>
> When the great catholic theologian saint Thomas Aquinas put forth his proofs
> for god he didn't go to some Bible. He used reason and philosophy to make
> his point. In fact he used the scientific process to make his proofs.
>
> Saint Thomas Aquinas states:
>
>        I observe motion, and yet objects cannot move themselves.
>
> Does that the sound like a religious statement to you? In fact it sounds
> like he's laying down the laws of motion.
>
> saint Thomas Aquinas then goes on to state:
>
> Since objects cannot move themselves, then how can we make the observation
> of objects moving through space? We thus now have to ask the question who or
> what is the first mover then?
>
> In effect saint Thomas is talking about the laws of motion. His proves are
> not based on religious concepts, but based on sound logical reasoning and
> that of the scientific process of observation.
>
> The above very much explains why we we're walking on the moon and most
> nations of the world were cooking their dinners with camel dung.
>
> Remember there was no major religion of the world that actually had the
> concept of a caused universe. The exception to this rule was the Christian
> religion. By "caused" we mean the idea that the universe itself did not
> always exist. In other words the Christians were very much against
> superstitions and things like vudu. Note that the instant you realize the
> Christian view of the universe and there's not a wind god, a water god, or
> love god, or whatever all of other type of Roman gods or insert your "favor
> of view" of the universe god view.
>
> I mean the native culture of north
> America used to tell stories about how the continent of north America
> content was created by a great giant turtle that came from the north.
> Looking at most cultures of the world, you can see that the scientific
> process is very difficult to put forth, and yet look at the sound and
> logical reasoning of saint Thomas Aquinas proof for god. Cntrast the
> Christian philosophy and view and scientific processed compared to that of
> the other cultures.
>
> So, this Christian few of the universe is the exact opposite of pantheism
> (so there's no god in grass or rocks or the water).
>
> It's interesting to note that the philosophers over most of man's history
> taught the idea of a static and always existing universe. If the universe
> are always existed, then everything had to be the way it has to be. In other
> words the great philosophers like Plato and Aristotle were trying to analyze
> the universe just like we know for fact that a triangle must have three
> sides. A triangle can't be any other way. It HAS TO be that way. If the
> universe was never caused, then it's ALWAYS going to be the way it is. In
> fact everything HAS TO be the way it is. This would mean that you don't need
> a science experimental process or observational process to determine how the
> universe exists. You could use pure reason just like we can to determine
> that a triangle must have three sides. we don't need to use a scientific
> experiments, nor do we even have to use the process of discovery and data
> gathering to determine or even make an experiment to prove that a triangle
> has three sides. The great philosophers of the past actually believed that
> they could use reason and logic to determine everything in the universe and
> not have to have the scientific process. (this actually makes sense if the
> universe was not caused and everything had to be the way a was just like
> that triangle).
>
> However the instant you adopt a Christian view of a caused universe, or you
> accept the idea that the universe does not have to exist, then you HAVE to
> begin the scientific process to discover how things exits and function
> through observation. Logic and reason can NOT tell us what the speed of
> light is. There's no particular reason why light is the speed it is.
> Therefore we are forced to use observation and the scientific process. We
> can not deduce why the speed of light is what it is like we can for 2 + 2 =
> 4. Or that our triangles must have three sides.
>
> The idea of a caused universe, or one that didn't have to exist is a
> uniquely Christian view of things (at least for any mainstream religion that
> had great influence on people).
>
> Note that up to about the nineteen twenties the scientific community held
> onto this idea and concept of a static universe. As we started deploying
> better telescopes and discovery things like fusion, we realized that those
> stars in the sky who are not points of light, but in that in fact tanks of
> "fuel" that are constantly being used up. If the stars fuel tank is
> constantly being used up, then logic dictates that those stars could not
> always been there. They had to have a start and therefore a MUST have been
> caused. It is this marriage of logic and correct philosophy combined with
> observation of the world around us that gives use the scientific process.
> You can't have science without reason and logic, and you can make any use of
> observations you make without correct sound reasoning and logic
> (philosophy).
>
> If I walk into a room and see a lit candle, then I can deduce logically that
> the candle could NOT always been burning forever because we know that candle
> has a limited life Span and limited amount of fuel.
>
> This crushing blow of logic and discovery by the scientific community means
> they were now forced to accept the Christian view of a caused universe! This
> was a huge blow, and many a scientists actual refused to accept this point
> view of a caused universe (the scientists well knew that accepting this
> point of view was playing into the hands of the philosophical order of
> things and view that the Christians held for the universe). In other words,
> science was proving our view to be correct. Many a scientists went to their
> graves refusing to accept this idea of a caused universe.
>
> There is often the question in philosophy who created god then? Well the
> simple logic here is that something that is eternal does not have a start
> and therefore does is not caused. It thus does not have a beginning. So the
> great philosophers of previous times didn't believe in a caused universe.
> They had the same view of God (no beginning) and the a static universe was
> easy to accept  here. Again no beginning means there is NO need for a cause.
> So the Christian view of god is that god is not caused, and that is the very
> definition of something that is eternal (something that is eternal does not
> have a start nor cause).
>
> Thus as scientific evidence poured in, the science community now has to
> accept the Christian view of a caused universe. Of course today we see a
> laughable patchwork of theory's to explain the big bang. Of course we do
> have to ask what was happening few years before the big bang!
>
> It's quite laughable to see some of these new theories being proposed such
> as a singularity. At the end of the day the theories solve nothing about the
> issue of something can start itself nor can something move itself.
>
> The absolute fairy tales and theories and ideas being put forth as for this
> starting process are so funny and so nonscientific as to make the ark story
> sound far more plausible!
>
> With the above in mind it is no small wonder that most of our science
> heritage much based on the Christian philosophical view of things. Our
> science heritage is from our western culture. Be it Planks law, Newton's ...
>
> read more »

I appreciate all the trouble you go through to explain away things,
but in my jungle language I'll put it nice and clear:

YOU EITHER BELIEVE IN THOSE WHO STUDY OR YOU BELIEVE IN THE IGNORANTS.

That's assuming you are a perfect ignorant, but if you add your own
knowledge and common sense, the balance tilts quickly toward science
and GW.

Green Turtle
2010-03-03 20:05:09 EST
"TheTibetanMonkey" <comandante.banana@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42cf525f-2ecf-4e06-9e2f-

>
> I appreciate all the trouble you go through to explain away things,
> but in my jungle language I'll put it nice and clear:
>
> YOU EITHER BELIEVE IN THOSE WHO STUDY OR YOU BELIEVE IN THE IGNORANTS.
>

All well, we've gone from science, to now either you believe or you don't.
In other words you're telling us to make an act of faith here. What's even
more interesting, is you're asking us to make an act of your faith in this
matter.

> That's assuming you are a perfect ignorant, but if you add your own
> knowledge and common sense, the balance tilts quickly toward science
> and GW.

Actual we're not talking about global warming, we're talking about the
contribution of man's carbon dioxide, and how much affect that co2 has on
warming. That you don't have the science and you don't have numbers as to
what the contributions are. In fact if you look at the new numbers coming
out, the numbers even look more weak, and the last what 15 years has a far
higher correlation between things like volcanoes and the sun then it does
for mans co2.

That's exactly the problem here, you're asking us to believe the in the guys
like Al Gore, and the IPCC.

This whole mess is unraveling because these guys have been a bunch of
prostitutes and liars, it is these folks who been running around telling
these wild and fantastical and fake Biblical like stories of doom and gloom.

This debate centers around if man's contribution to carbon dioxide is
causing a damaging warming trend to the environment. Your science does NOT
show this. So, that's why we have the hysterically funny and wild claims
from the likes of Al Gore and the likes of the IPCC.

Their numbers and claim of warming are off by about a factor of 600%.

So, in lieu of scientific facts, you are asking us all to make a wild act of
faith, and accept a massive redistribution of wealth based on that false
claim and false science. You don't have the science to back up the numbers
and increasing temperatures as a result of mans co2 that your side is
claiming.

The problem here is the science does NOT support the IPCC or Gores numbers.
Your side is making the claim that the numbers and amounts of warming due to
man's co2 is settled here. That's exactly the whole problem with this whole
matter. You don't have that signs, and that explains all the lying and
deceit that's going on right now.

It's YOUR SIDE that's asking us to make an act of blind faith here. Were
just asking for the science and the numbers.

It is that science and MORE SO THE NUMBERS that you don't have that is the
problem here.


Super Turtle.


TheTibetanMonkey
2010-03-03 21:17:37 EST
On Mar 3, 8:05 pm, "Green Turtle" <SuperTur...@greenpiece.com> wrote:
> "TheTibetanMonkey" <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:42cf525f-2ecf-4e06-9e2f-
>
>
>
> > I appreciate all the trouble you go through to explain away things,
> > but in my jungle language I'll put it nice and clear:
>
> > YOU EITHER BELIEVE IN THOSE WHO STUDY OR YOU BELIEVE IN THE IGNORANTS.
>
> All well, we've gone from science, to now either you believe or you don't.
> In other words you're telling us to make an act of faith here.  What's even
> more interesting, is you're asking us to make an act of your faith in this
> matter.
>
> > That's assuming you are a perfect ignorant, but if you add your own
> > knowledge and common sense, the balance tilts quickly toward science
> > and GW.
>
> Actual we're not talking about global warming, we're talking about the
> contribution of man's carbon dioxide, and how much affect that co2 has on
> warming.  That you don't have the science and you don't have numbers as to
> what the contributions are. In fact if you look at the new numbers coming
> out, the numbers even look more weak, and the last what 15 years has a far
> higher correlation between things like volcanoes and the sun then it does
> for mans co2.
>
> That's exactly the problem here, you're asking us to believe the in the guys
> like Al Gore, and the IPCC.
>
> This whole mess is unraveling because these guys have been a bunch of
> prostitutes and liars, it is these folks who been running around telling
> these wild and fantastical and fake Biblical like stories of doom and gloom.
>
> This debate centers around if man's contribution to carbon dioxide is
> causing a damaging warming trend to the environment. Your science does NOT
> show this. So, that's why we have the hysterically funny and wild claims
> from the likes of Al Gore and the likes of the IPCC.
>
> Their numbers and claim of warming are off by about a factor of 600%.
>
> So, in lieu of scientific facts, you are asking us all to make a wild act of
> faith, and accept a massive redistribution of wealth based on that false
> claim and false science.  You don't have the science to back up the numbers
> and increasing temperatures as a result of mans co2 that your side is
> claiming.
>
> The problem here is the science does NOT support the IPCC or Gores numbers.
> Your side is making the claim that the numbers and amounts of warming due to
> man's co2 is settled here. That's exactly the whole problem with this whole
> matter. You don't have that signs, and that explains all the lying and
> deceit that's going on right now.
>
> It's YOUR SIDE that's asking us to make an act of blind faith here. Were
> just asking for the science and the numbers.
>
> It is that science and MORE SO THE NUMBERS that you don't have that is the
> problem here.
>
> Super Turtle.

I use my COMMON SENSE to trust that scientists know better than
herders, then I filter the information. I figure that almost 7 billion
human beings inhabiting this little planet will eventually overwhelm
the balance.

Even a monkey understands that. Probably 3 monkeys is too much for a
cage. ;)

Green Turtle
2010-03-04 04:54:58 EST
"TheTibetanMonkey" <comandante.banana@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4aa5eee0-eb73-4535-a77c-8ecba9248432@i25g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> It is that science and MORE SO THE NUMBERS that you don't have that is
>> the
>> problem here.
>>
>> Super Turtle.
>
> I use my COMMON SENSE to trust that scientists know better than
> herders, then I filter the information. I figure that almost 7 billion
> human beings inhabiting this little planet will eventually overwhelm
> the balance.
>
> Even a monkey understands that. Probably 3 monkeys is too much for a
> cage. ;)

Well what exactly is the numbers in regards to co2 output by man in one
year, compared to nature? Have you bothered to look or is that too much of
an intellectual challenge for you?

Man = 3%
nature = 97%

By the way, in case you didn't know, carbon dioxide is food for plants, and
producing more of that means you love plants and are giving them more food.
You do realize that we have more trees and green foliage in North American
now than we did 100 years ago?

You know this is all about how fast how and how far. You know simple common
sense here. Exactly how big is the planet? Did you ever ask?

If you take 40 square miles, you can place EVERY man, woman and child on
the WHOLE planet within that 40 square miles with more than foot between
each person! Driving between two sleepy towns in America, you'll likely
drive past many 40 square mile plots of land!

We don't have a population problem, we simply have too many places in the
world that not running themselves in the same way that we people in the west
run things. All they have to do is adopt our western value system based on
our European Christian heritage, and they will not have near the problems
they have now. We've tried all the socialism, and every time we've tried
it, it's failed and caused people to starve. The socialist BS crap simply
doesn't work. The farther away a society moves from our western value
system, the worse off they become.

Super Turtle.


Patrick Volk
2010-03-15 00:21:39 EST
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 12:16:14 -0800 (PST), tunderbar
<*u@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 3, 2:03 pm, TheTibetanMonkey <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>> I don't expect myself to go unchallenged, but the more you think about
>> it, the more it makes sense...
>>
>> It seems every primitive culture has a metaphor about creation, and
>> the Christians have their own inherited from sheep herders. Perfect
>> scenario: the Garden of Eden, Adam & Eve... and Evil (the Serpent).
>> Everything goes wrong because A&E don't follow God's command. Moral of
>> the story? Follow the leader!
>>
>> Real life: We have animal instincts. We thus can call this place where
>> we survive "the jungle." Nothing's perfect: Things could be worse, but
>> we can move up from the jungle and reach CIVILIZATION. I tell you
>> more, it gives you a solution: unlike the Christian story where
>> there's only one path to salvation, IN THE JUNGLE YOU HAVE MANY PATHS.
>> There's one sure path to the cliff, though, and that is being HUNGRY
>> toward nature.
>>
>> So if you think we need a metaphor to live by, this is it. Actually it
>> doesn't contradict any of the laws of nature or science. And best of
>> all, it can get you out of harm's way, or solve conflicts where you
>> are ignored because of your lower status in the food chain.
>>
>> Hey, WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE!
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> THE WISE TIBETAN MONKEY SAYS:
>>
>> "A perfect balance in the jungle is found when you are neither hungry
>> beast nor lunch"
>>
>> WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE
>>
>> http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
>
>Why do people always insist that we are above the animals - eg.
>"civilized". We are animals. We belong to mother nature (or the
>evolutionary tree if you prefer, or God for that matter, whichever
>philosophy tickles your nuts) just as much as any other animal. Just
>because we use tools and have developed language and some technology
>doesn't negate the fact that we are part of the natural world. We do
>what we do because we are what we are. That is how we are built.
>
>We look at exploiting our surroundings just like every other living
>creature does. No different, no better, no worse. There is no morality
>involved. A lion kills to eat. We kill to eat. Elephants will destroy
>trees for miles around to get enough to eat. Some animals will play
>with their prey when they become satiated. There is no morality
>involved. That is how the world is.

Hate to deflate your idea, but it's not just surroundings. It's
security.
Do you have a physical contest with your boss to get his job?
Do you fuck your brothers wives after you drive them off?
Do you fight with your brothers and sisters when one of them makes
dinner?
Have you ever eaten one of your children because it is sickly, or one
of your friends or family's children?

Silly questions maybe, but the real question is.... why not?

;)
(Spare me the pseudo-Nietzche crap!)


TheTibetanMonkey Showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
2010-03-15 10:44:31 EST
On Mar 14, 9:21 pm, Patrick Volk <pjv...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 12:16:14 -0800 (PST), tunderbar
>
>
>
>
>
> <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Mar 3, 2:03 pm, TheTibetanMonkey <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com>
> >wrote:
> >> I don't expect myself to go unchallenged, but the more you think about
> >> it, the more it makes sense...
>
> >> It seems every primitive culture has a metaphor about creation, and
> >> the Christians have their own inherited from sheep herders. Perfect
> >> scenario: the Garden of Eden, Adam & Eve... and Evil (the Serpent).
> >> Everything goes wrong because A&E don't follow God's command. Moral of
> >> the story? Follow the leader!
>
> >> Real life: We have animal instincts. We thus can call this place where
> >> we survive "the jungle." Nothing's perfect: Things could be worse, but
> >> we can move up from the jungle and reach CIVILIZATION. I tell you
> >> more, it gives you a solution: unlike the Christian story where
> >> there's only one path to salvation, IN THE JUNGLE YOU HAVE MANY PATHS.
> >> There's one sure path to the cliff, though, and that is being HUNGRY
> >> toward nature.
>
> >> So if you think we need a metaphor to live by, this is it. Actually it
> >> doesn't contradict any of the laws of nature or science. And best of
> >> all, it can get you out of harm's way, or solve conflicts where you
> >> are ignored because of your lower status in the food chain.
>
> >> Hey, WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE!
>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­--------
>
> >> THE WISE TIBETAN MONKEY SAYS:
>
> >> "A perfect balance in the jungle is found when you are neither hungry
> >> beast nor lunch"
>
> >> WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE
>
> >>http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
>
> >Why do people always insist that we are above the animals - eg.
> >"civilized". We are animals. We belong to mother nature (or the
> >evolutionary tree if you prefer, or God for that matter, whichever
> >philosophy tickles your nuts) just as much as any other animal. Just
> >because we use tools and have developed language and some technology
> >doesn't negate the fact that we are part of the natural world. We do
> >what we do because we are what we are. That is how we are built.
>
> >We look at exploiting our surroundings just like every other living
> >creature does. No different, no better, no worse. There is no morality
> >involved. A lion kills to eat. We kill to eat. Elephants will destroy
> >trees for miles around to get enough to eat. Some animals will play
> >with their prey when they become satiated. There is no morality
> >involved. That is how the world is.
>
> Hate to deflate your idea, but it's not just surroundings. It's
> security.
> Do you have a physical contest with your boss to get his job?
> Do you fuck your brothers wives after you drive them off?
> Do you fight with your brothers and sisters when one of them makes
> dinner?
> Have you ever eaten one of your children because it is sickly, or one
> of your friends or family's children?
>
> Silly questions maybe, but the real question is.... why not?
>
> ;)
> (Spare me the pseudo-Nietzche crap!)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I know this much in the news today: WE ARE DRIVING THE TIGER INTO
EXTINCTION!

Climate Change, overpopulation and OVERCONSUMPTION are wiping out
another Haiti at a global scale.
Page: 1   (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron