homersapien

Maybe, but one of those problems is imminent and most likely irreversible.

Guess that proves that when it comes to the Bible, there's "good" cherry-picking and "bad" cherry-picking.

He's already started: https://nypost.com/2024/05/18/us-news/trump-demands-drug-test-for-biden-before-first-presidential-debate/

I know this won't affect MAGAs but there is a scientific difference between dementia and common memory issues from aging. Not that I am arguing Biden is not too old to run again, I think he is. He shouldn't be running IMO. But he is capable of doing the job. Trump? Not so much. Anyway, we'll see if my prediction is right soon enough. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/bidens-memory-issues-draw-attention-neurologists-weigh-rcna138135 As Biden’s memory issues draw attention, neurologists weigh in Forgetting the names of acquaintances or having difficulty remembering dates from the past doesn’t affect decision-making or judgment, brain experts say. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13241435/Bidens-brain-aging-Trumps-dementing-Experts-analyze-series-gaffes-aging-presidents-recent-months-reveal-REALLY-means-health.html 'Biden's brain is aging, Trump's is dementing': Experts analyze series of gaffes made by aging presidents in recent months - and reveal what it REALLY means for their health "One psychologist called the situation 'a tale of two brains,' claiming: 'Biden's brain is aging. Trump's brain is dementing.' " https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2024/05/18/biden-trump-age-cognitive-decline/ What science tells us about Biden, Trump and evaluating an aging brain

They had a full, unedited transcript. They clearly are looking for audio clips to use in oppositional commercials. No president would agree to that.

LOL. Classic "argument from authority" logical fallacy.

Rudy's fall in esteem since 9/11 has been Shakespearean. Trump has the equivalent of the "Midas" touch in that respect.

Never was a problem with (regulated) drugs. And even with vehicles you have to register the transaction and return the tag.

I'm sure the people who personally lost money as a result see that as a distinction without a difference.

I think his dementia is advancing and he won't risk it. (But I hope he does.) https://news.cornell.edu/media-relations/tip-sheets/cornell-expert-says-trumps-frequent-phonemic-paraphasia-are-signs-early https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-dementia-evidence-overwhelming-top-psychiatrist-1881247 https://wamu.org/story/24/03/28/donald-trumps-family-history-with-alzheimers-disease/

Well, just so you understand, I am using "fear" in the literal sense, as in 'fear of death'. Sounds to me that the Biblical definition is a little contrived - respect, awe .... Undoubtedly contrived by some interpreter along the line to spin it away from the literal definition. (But who knows how it was originally intended - or even stated - in a manuscript thousands of years old, written by who-knows-who, and continuously edited?) And I never said fear was the only motivation, just a very common one. (I wish I had a dime for every time "judgement day" was brought up in association with my disbelief. Even you have to admit its a common Christian theme - "Jesus saves" (you from hell). Heck you regularly see signs on back roads that say as much. If only "love your neighbor" or the golden rule were such common themes. Your probably right about faith cannot be "adopted" - at least by those who don't have the natural proclivity to need it.

The psychological draw - power and control - for such weapons is powerful. Especially for people who lack power and control.

Well (speaking for myself), any technically and economically feasible technology that serves to reduce total carbon usage. Granted, they will undoubtedly come with their own set of issues/problems, which will need to be addressed in turn. That is what scientists and engineers are for. Will we be successful? Frankly, I am very skeptical. It wouldn't surprise me if many climate scientists are also skeptical.

"still at it"?? I am simply posting and Salty responded (in his typically vague way). I'm not calling anyone out. Heck, I'm not even arguing with him because I don't understand his argument - other than it has something to do with the bible.

As cryptic and nonsensical as ever. In what "sense" am I using it? Fear is fear. And fear is something natural to every (normal) person - and no doubt to the species of ape that preceded us - as it is inherent to most animals. And fear of death is the most basic fear. And you apparently misunderstand my evolutionary reference (which is sort of hard to believe). That second sentence is a non-sequitur. As far as knowing what motivates others, all I can do is just listen to what they say and take them seriously. The existence of heaven and hell, and a "afterlife" is a very common belief with self-described Christians - and thus, a common and obvious motivator to adopt that faith. Same is true for Islam.

First, the bible is not needed to understand fear. I am (obviously) referring to the fear of death, which serves a basic evolutionary purpose, as well as fueling the desire to believe otherwise, such as in religious myth/superstition. I thought it rather obvious, even to those who think differently.

Strictly speaking, you are correct. (They are still testing the Theory of Relativity, for example.) But the physics of greenhouse gases is practically established as valid. It's not as esoteric as relativity. (I modified my post to better reflect that.) The scientific evidence for AGW is far beyond the minimum amount of scientific evidence required to accept it as an actual problem that demands a reaction. This is not just an academic question, it's about our very environment.

A religion based on such superstitious fear is a non-starter for me. In terms of Christianity, it basically undermines or devalues everything else Jesus taught IMO. Those values naturally become secondary to the formal acceptance of it, as so many self-defined Christians demonstrate.

Well, the competition that would supposedly drive government efficiency is the election of replacement politicians who direct government. Unfortunately, that electoral system has been corrupted by those same politicians.

Typical DKW. Where did Stiglitz say "all government is good government."

Franklin specialized in condemning Jews to hell or anyone else who didn't accept Jesus as their savior. I heard it first hand on one of his radio shows. Saving yourself from eternal hell was a major theme with both of them - and evangelicals in general for that matter.

Yep. "Unscientific". What would you expect from a hoax?

I agree. IMO that compromise will never come from the gun fetishist side. Not only from a philosophical standpoint, but a financial standpoint. Our government is for sale. Perhaps the threat to abolish the 2nd all together is needed to create that compromise.

I've always laughed at the "you can kill someone with any type of gun - much less a knife - argument to justify the mass marketing of military weaponry that was actually and specifically designed for efficient mass killing.

Possess guns. Legal or otherwise. But you bring up another interesting question. What percent of homicides are committed with guns? But my point is that asking what percentage of gun owners commit homicides is as irrational as asking what percentage of knife - or hammer owners - commit homicides?