- "j." sakai
They are either worried about having to compromise their lifestyle, or worried about how to snag research dollars by being as alarmist as possible, or worried about how to use it to their political advantage
No-one actually lies awake at night shaking with anxiety about anthropogenic climate change, except maybe the kids of some liberal parents who think that it makes a good bogeyman.
Ironicwarcriminal posted:No-one is actually “worried” about global warming
They are either worried about having to compromise their lifestyle, or worried about how to snag research dollars by being as alarmist as possible, or worried about how to use it to their political advantage
No-one actually lies awake at night shaking with anxiety about anthropogenic climate change, except maybe the kids of some liberal parents who think that it makes a good bogeyman.
it's basically genocide against polynesian peoples though
Ironicwarcriminal posted:No-one is actually “worried” about global warming
They are either worried about having to compromise their lifestyle, or worried about how to snag research dollars by being as alarmist as possible, or worried about how to use it to their political advantage
No-one actually lies awake at night shaking with anxiety about anthropogenic climate change, except maybe the kids of some liberal parents who think that it makes a good bogeyman.
im literally shakign here
swirlsofhistory posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:
No-one is actually “worried” about global warming
They are either worried about having to compromise their lifestyle, or worried about how to snag research dollars by being as alarmist as possible, or worried about how to use it to their political advantage
No-one actually lies awake at night shaking with anxiety about anthropogenic climate change, except maybe the kids of some liberal parents who think that it makes a good bogeyman.
it's basically genocide against polynesian peoples though
No
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/nz-research-shows-pacific-islands-not-shrinking-3577883
An Auckland University researcher has offered new hope to the myriad small island nations in the Pacific which have loudly complained their low-lying atolls will drown as global warming boosts sea levels.
Geographer Associate Professor Paul Kench has measured 27 islands where local sea levels have risen 120mm - an average of 2mm a year - over the past 60 years, and found that just four had diminished in size.
Working with Arthur Webb at the Fiji-based South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission, Kench used historical aerial photographs and high-resolution satellite images to study changes in the land area of the islands.
They found that the remaining 23 had either stayed the same or grown bigger, according to the research published in a scientific journal, Global and Planetary Change.
"It has been thought that as the sea level goes up, islands will sit there and drown," Prof Kench told the New Scientist. "But they won't.
"The sea level will go up and the island will start responding.
One of the highest profile islands - in a political sense - was Tuvalu, where politicians and climate change campaigners have repeatedly predicted it will be drowned by rising seas, as its highest point is 4.5 metres above sea level. But the researchers found seven islands had spread by more than 3 percent on average since the 1950s.
One island, Funamanu, gained 0.44 hectares or nearly 30 percent of its previous area.
And the research showed similar trends in the Republic of Kiribati, where the three main urbanised islands also "grew" - Betio by 30 percent (36ha), Bairiki by 16.3 percent (5.8ha) and Nanikai by 12.5 percent (0.8ha).
Webb, an expert on coastal processes, told the New Scientist the trend was explained by the fact the islands mostly comprised coral debris eroded from encircling reefs and pushed up onto the islands by winds and waves.
The process was continuous, because the corals were alive, he said.
In effect the islands respond to changes in weather patterns and climate - Cyclone Bebe deposited 140ha of sediment on the eastern reef of Tuvalu in 1972, increasing the main island's area by 10 percent.
Sounds like shoddy research to me mate
That’ll go down like a big mac at Varanasi.
Ironicwarcriminal posted:To paraphrase Hitler,
mods change my naem to
Ironicwarcriminal posted:The process was continuous, because the corals were alive, he said.
not for long lol
can be to give a child up for adoption? Or do you just not care about any of that, which proves that your views on this issue are incredibly hateful? I do care about any of that. I do care about all of that. I do care about complications in pregnancy, I do care about the physical and emotional distress pregnancy can bring, I do care about the health issues that pregnancy can involve, and yes, I do care about the difficulty of giving a child up for adoption. I do care about rape, I do care about mothers who find themselves abandoned by the fathers of their children. I do care about that, and more. I also care about the child that is growing in a mother’s womb. I care about protecting a human being’s right to live. I care about the third of our generation that is not standing with us because they were never given the chance to live. I care about defending the defenseless against “choice”, because a human being, even a mother, should never be able to choose whether another person is worthy of life, should never be able to define and judge whether another person is a human being based on the color of their skin, or where they live, or how old they are (three weeks or 85 years). I care that the nature of our common humanity defends our unalienable right to life, and that life is worthy of being defended, even against our own mothers. Why would you think that being pro-life means that we are anti-woman? Why would you suppose that being pro-life is a hateful stance? I care about everything that you said; there is nothing about being pro-life that discounts or disregards any of the issues with pregnancy. I care about all those issues, and want to do my best to anyone going through them. If you have sat down to talk with pro-lifers and they have given you an impression that we do not care about mothers, that we don’t care about whether they live or die or that we don’t care about their mental states, then you have clearly been talking with the wrong group. Most that I have met want to support mothers in choosing life, through complications and through the emotions and through the distress. I care about women and I care about mothers. What makes me pro-life and anti-abortion is that I care about the children too. I will leave most of the philosophy and thought-exercises to Henry and Ben, but I offer a simple one. It is not that we don’t care about emotional distress or physical complications; we do. But under what sort of emotional and physical conditions is it permissible to kill another human being? What qualifies as a human being? Those are the real questions that divide us and that we must address. To address those questions, we must bury the temptation to demonize one another and accuse each other of heartlessness. Peace be with you. -Peter Before I answer the very legitimate points you bring up, I hope we can agree on a few things. First, that abortion in of itself isn’t something that is good that women in their right minds try to get pregnant just so they can have an abortion. Second, all of us on both sides, pro-choice and pro-life are trying to do what’s good for people in general in the best way that we believe. So, I can understand that from your perspective, you may see the pro-life ethics as hurtful towards women, but I think it’s a bit too far to say it is “hateful.” Secondly, I hope I can speak for pro-life people in that I understand that pro-choice people seek to help women and try to defend what some see as a woman’s “right.” On the flip side, I hope I can ask that pro-choice people can try and understand the other side, that we hold as true that the growing cells we call a zygote and then later a fetus is a whole and unique human person, just younger and harder to see. On that note, if we can at least agree that we’re both looking for what both sides believe to be the best for women we can at least sit and start a dialogue about the real issues instead of descending into a name-calling shouting match. As to your questions regarding the risks and pains of pregnancy, I looked up a few of the terms and I am made more aware of them than I was before. Thank you for that. I have to admit that as a man, I will never know the fear, the anxiety, the mood swings, the pain of physically bearing a child and bringing them into the world. But neither will I ever know the depth of joy and satisfaction of bringing that same child into the world. At the same time, I will never know the emotional, physical, psychological and spiritual pain, anguish, despair, regret, loneliness, self-hate and depression of a woman that has suffered through an abortion. However, I can say that I have seen and experienced it first hand through more than one woman that I consider close and know it that way. This brings me to your first question: Why be pro-life? Simply, because of my answers to the questions Peter posed above. I believe that the fetus inside a woman when she is pregnant is a unique human person with their own DNA just like you and me. And I believe that they have a right to a chance at life and to be protected and spoken for because they can’t do it themselves. But I’m also pro-life because I don’t want any woman to ever have to experience what I’ve seen happen after an abortion. I’m pro-life precisely because I don’t hate women and I don’t hate the children that these women gave up, though I’m sure not as much as they didn’t hate their unborn children. I find it sadly ironic that all these women say they felt as though they had to abort their child because they had no choice and now suffer because of this “choice” offered as a solution. -Henry To briefly contribute to the philosophical side of this topic, I want to bring our attention to the concept of personhood (or concept of the person). We have to ask: What is a person? This is a complex question to tackle, and instead of addressing it positively (as in, providing a concrete answer/understanding of the person), I think a negative answer (an understanding of what a person is not) would perhaps be more understandable and useful here. Tragically, our modern society (if not our modern world in general) has adopted the thinking that a human person is defined by his/her function, that is, what he/she can do, provide, or accomplish. In other words, someone only has value if he/she is useful for some purpose or can be used for some purpose. This idea is know as utilitarianism, and Blessed John Paul II speaks at length about this mindset/philosophy in his book “Love and Responsibility” (which precedes his great Theology of the Body) while comparing it to his view of personalism. A key idea from that work that is important for what we are talking about here is that when we view everything in terms of value based on its utility, or usefulness, we come to objectify the human person, seeing and treating him/her the same as, say, a hardware tool that is only valuable inasmuch as it serves a purpose of ours. But what we need to realize is that a human person is not primarily an object but a subject. Fundamentally, a person is not an object that we use and manipulate for our own benefit (or else we disregard him/her), but instead a person is a subject, who is made in the image of God, and thus has his/her own dignity and value. On the idea of the value of human life, the Catholic philosophical tradition also clarifies that fundamentally the value of a life doesn’t depend on what one can do because nothing one does can add to or take away from who God is since He is perfect, complete, independent, lacking nothing, needing nothing. Instead then, the value of a human life, or even the value of our own lives, comes from the fact that God, who is Love and who is the ground of all existence, is loving all of us (every single individual) into existence (He has loved us into existence and is still loving us and thus keeping us in existence). And so one’s value ultimately doesn’t depend on what one can do, but one inherently has value because one exists by God’s love. Now this was only a brief look at the philosophical side of the topic at hand, but with such clarifications on the fundamental value of the human person and life, we can begin to realize why it is so important (and necessary) for us to be pro-life. -Ben
tpaine posted:and, ultimately, who gives a fuck anyway?
Ironicwarcriminal posted:But sure, you guys go on and tell the 700 million people of the Gangetic Plain that they don’t deserve refrigeration or reliable electricity
they dont. neither do we
