PDA

View Full Version : 'Christmas Village' but without the sign



Gingersnap
12-01-2010, 10:31 AM
'Christmas Village' but without the sign

By Marcia Gelbart and Stephen Jiwanmall

Inquirer Staff Writers

http://i54.tinypic.com/30x7xp4.jpg

It began when word got to Managing Director Rich Negrin that some city workers and residents were offended by the giant "Christmas Village" sign erected on Dilworth Plaza's northwest corner.

After all, there are a few Jewish and Muslim vendors among the nearly 50 wooden booths that make up Philadelphia's version of the traditional German Christmas village, which officially opened here Thursday.

There was also a story that reached Negrin about a little Jewish girl walking with her father who asked, according to Negrin: "Dad, don't we get a village?"

The upshot was the private organizer, Thomas Bauer, agreed with Negrin during the day on Tuesday to remove the word Christmas and replace it with Holiday.

But then Tuesday night, Bauer issued a statement that said the sign would be completely removed. The event will continue to be called "Christmas Village in Philadelphia."

"People have to go to public buildings. They shouldn't feel offended," Bauer, president of German American Marketing Inc., said in the statement Tuesday night. "We want to stress that the name was not intended to upset anyone."

Negrin confirmed Tuesday night that he had been told the sign would be taken down rather than have the site named "Holiday Village."

But getting rid of the word Christmas left Negrin with more holiday woes Tuesday as new complaints reached the mayor's office and stories about the Christmas Village controversy appeared on the Drudge Report, a website that aggregates news items from around the country.

"This is not about taking Christmas out of the holiday. It's about being more inclusive," Negrin told reporters outside the mayor's office Tuesday afternoon, before the second change. "I expected some complaints. Sometimes you have to make tough choices."

He added that the sign's first change was not a move in the name of political correctness, but rather one of "common sense."

Some vendors were disheartened to hear about the original change to Holiday Village and argued that the name now fails to reflect the event's European origins and heritage.

"This is a Christmas village," linens vendor Jack Boyd said as he pointed to the word Christmas on a brochure from Augsburg, Germany, that was on the counter of an adjacent candle vendor. "That's what they call it over there. Last year, nobody had a problem here."

Other vendors and shoppers, however, argued that the first change to Holiday reflected the religious and ethnic diversity of the city. "They needed to tweak the name a little bit, something more generic and open nowadays," shopper Phyllis Grove said.

"This is an international assembly point," said Sheikha Maryam Kabeer Faye, a Sufi Muslim vendor. "It's like a little United Nations here. Let's truly make it a city of brotherly and sisterly love that transcends religious distinctions."

This is the third year for Christmas Village, which is presented by a company named German American Marketing. Partners include The Inquirer, the Philadelphia Daily News, and Philly.com.

Open through Dec. 24, the village is modeled on German farmers markets, which date to the 15th century and, in the days leading up to the holiday, sell Christmas-specific toys, ornaments, and foods. The most famous is the Christkindlmarket in Nuremberg.


Read more: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_top_left_story/20101201__Christmas_Village__but_without_the_sign. html#ixzz16sH0egKn
Watch sports videos you won't find anywhere else

noonwitch
12-01-2010, 12:41 PM
It's silly to change the name of the Christmas Village. I really don't know any jewish people who find Christmas offensive, and many who enjoy the cookies and carols. There aren't too many muslims who are offended, either, since they own stores and make money this time of year, too.

The only people offended are atheists and agnostics, and I have to wonder what they would be doing at a Christmas Village, anyway. If I had my way, I'd send them all tacky figurines of Santa bowing before the baby Jesus.

AmPat
12-01-2010, 06:12 PM
I propose, nay, DEMAND that Ramadan be changed to Dan!:mad::rolleyes:

If they don't like it here, GTHO!:mad:

hampshirebrit
12-01-2010, 06:25 PM
The only people offended are atheists and agnostics.

I've got to tell you, as an atheist, I am not, in any way, offended at the use- or non-use of the Christmas Village name.

It might even surprise you to know that, as a secularist/humanist, I would actually FAVOR its retention, not oppose it.

I would really like it if CU in particular, and American Conservatism in general, would move away from this constant temptation to yield to knee-jerk bashing of us atheists in instances that are instead clearly related to, orchestrated and inspired by overzealous leftists.

AmPat
12-01-2010, 06:29 PM
OK Hamps, you get one free get out of jail card. We'll be watching you closely though.

Kay
12-01-2010, 10:08 PM
This kind of crap is just so ridiculous.

It's not the fact some atheist leftwing nut non-Hampslike heathern
demands the word Christmas be removed that riles me. It the city
officials that give in to that demand and remove it that outrage me.
Every city official that went along with it should be tarred & feathered
and run out of town on a rail.

Odysseus
12-02-2010, 10:43 AM
I propose, nay, DEMAND that Ramadan be changed to Dan!:mad::rolleyes:

If they don't like it here, GTHO!:mad:
Can we call it Danny if we are on familiar terms with the holiday?

I've got to tell you, as an atheist, I am not, in any way, offended at the use- or non-use of the Christmas Village name.

It might even surprise you to know that, as a secularist/humanist, I would actually FAVOR its retention, not oppose it.

I would really like it if CU in particular, and American Conservatism in general, would move away from this constant temptation to yield to knee-jerk bashing of us atheists in instances that are instead clearly related to, orchestrated and inspired by overzealous leftists.

Unfortunately, you and I are lumped in with the likes of Wilbur, Wei and Krushchevsshoe, who give atheists a bad name. I avoid it because I don't identify with the atheists (being a wishy-washy agnostic), and I tend to side with the believers in these arguments. But, as a cultural Jew, I don't find the celebration of Christmas offensive. OTOH, anyone who demands equal time for Kwanzaa needs a serious introduction to African culture and history.

wilbur
12-02-2010, 11:09 AM
Can we call it Danny if we are on familiar terms with the holiday?

Unfortunately, you and I are lumped in with the likes of Wilbur, Wei and Krushchevsshoe, who give atheists a bad name. I avoid it because I don't identify with the atheists (being a wishy-washy agnostic), and I tend to side with the believers in these arguments. But, as a cultural Jew, I don't find the celebration of Christmas offensive. OTOH, anyone who demands equal time for Kwanzaa needs a serious introduction to African culture and history.

Meh.

I like Christmas decorations, and don't at all mind any that say "Christmas". Most atheists I know, or have spoken too, don't care either. I am perfectly fine with religious scenes on public property as long as no group is given special privilege.

Certain media sources love to sell the image that atheists everywhere are angry Grinches hellbent on stealing Christmas... and of course, certain people are enthusiastic to believe that image, but it just aint true.

noonwitch
12-02-2010, 12:00 PM
I've got to tell you, as an atheist, I am not, in any way, offended at the use- or non-use of the Christmas Village name.

It might even surprise you to know that, as a secularist/humanist, I would actually FAVOR its retention, not oppose it.

I would really like it if CU in particular, and American Conservatism in general, would move away from this constant temptation to yield to knee-jerk bashing of us atheists in instances that are instead clearly related to, orchestrated and inspired by overzealous leftists.


I guess I should have been more specific. I didn't mean all atheists. I just figured the only people who are offended by Christmas are atheists, that doesn't mean that all atheists are offended by Christmas.

hampshirebrit
12-02-2010, 03:13 PM
I guess I should have been more specific. I didn't mean all atheists. I just figured the only people who are offended by Christmas are atheists, that doesn't mean that all atheists are offended by Christmas.

Plenty of Muslims are offended by Christmas. It's not just a minority of atheists.

I'd even go as far as to say, there are likely to be far more persons of religious inclination offended by Christmas than there are atheists offended by Christmas.

Anyway, like I said, I fuckin' love Christmas. :D I've been to evensong services. I like the pageantry, I like the the place it occupies in Western culture, I like being in European and American cities during very cold December days.

I don't actually have to believe in any of the underlying theology to enjoy it. If someone sends me a Christmas card with a picture of Jesus in a crib and some angels and whatnot, that's fine by me. What kind of idiot would I be to disrespect them for that?

Odysseus
12-02-2010, 03:57 PM
Plenty of Muslims are offended by Christmas. It's not just a minority of atheists.

I'd even go as far as to say, there are likely to be far more persons of religious inclination offended by Christmas than there are atheists offended by Christmas.

Anyway, like I said, I fuckin' love Christmas. :D I've been to evensong services. I like the pageantry, I like the the place it occupies in Western culture, I like being in European and American cities during very cold December days.

I don't actually have to believe in any of the underlying theology to enjoy it. If someone sends me a Christmas card with a picture of Jesus in a crib and some angels and whatnot, that's fine by me. What kind of idiot would I be to disrespect them for that?

I don't see many Hindus or Buddhists who get offended by Christmas. The Buddhists even seem to share the iconography of a cheerful guy with a big belly, although with substantially less hair. I had to dime out my own people, but in the US, the religious groups most likely to complain about a Christian symbol in public or a Christmas celebration are secular Jews and pious Muslims.

Personally, I like Christmas, even though Mrs. O insists that I deocrate the house with lights (nobody ever fell off of their roof while lighting a Menorah, damn it!).

AmPat
12-02-2010, 05:54 PM
I've got to tell you, as an atheist, I am not, in any way, offended at the use- or non-use of the Christmas Village name.

It might even surprise you to know that, as a secularist/humanist, I would actually FAVOR its retention, not oppose it.

I would really like it if CU in particular, and American Conservatism in general, would move away from this constant temptation to yield to knee-jerk bashing of us atheists in instances that are instead clearly related to, orchestrated and inspired by overzealous leftists.
Oh Hampster??????????? Take a look at this.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/18003483/detail.html
These atheists just can't seem to understand the reason Christians would be offended. :rolleyes:Apparently the timing doesn't occur to them.


"We don't even mention Christianity on the billboard," said Guttormson. "I would like to know what they're offended by. It's not even targeted to them. For instance, if there's a billboard talking about Migraines and it says, "Have a Migraine? Try Aspirin." Or something to that effect. People who don't have Migraines shouldn't be offended."People who don't have faith shouldn't be offended either.

hampshirebrit
12-02-2010, 08:22 PM
Oh Hampster??????????? Take a look at this.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/18003483/detail.html
These atheists just can't seem to understand the reason Christians would be offended. :rolleyes:Apparently the timing doesn't occur to them.

People who don't have faith shouldn't be offended either.

Oh please. We're fucked three ways if we put up posters like this, depending on the timing.

Passover the Jews will hate us, Christmas the Christians will and god forbid we would do such a thing during Eid al Fitr.

Some of your religious types have been fucking up atheists and getting away with it for centuries. Why shouldn't we put a poster up if we want to, now that we actually can?

This is the modern world. Deal with it.

You know what I hate most about religious zealots? How goddamn easily offended they are at shit like this.

Gingersnap
12-02-2010, 10:28 PM
This has gotten some play out here, obviously. The big issue is that the sign company refused to take money from people wanting Obama Birth Certificate signs but do take atheist money for similar signs objecting to "birth credentials". :rolleyes:

Atheists objecting to Christmas (or any holiday) are pathetic. You will be the first up against the wall if Islam gets it's way. From a purely rational perspective, nothing is worth celebrating as a society. Neither personal birthdays nor national founding anniversaries are "worth" celebrating.

Neither have any relationship to personal action or decision-making. You could celebrate a one-time event but commemorating the change of seasons or any repetitive event (anniversaries, birthdays, etc.) makes no sense.

wilbur
12-02-2010, 10:48 PM
... From a purely rational perspective, nothing is worth celebrating as a society. Neither personal birthdays nor national founding anniversaries are "worth" celebrating.

Neither have any relationship to personal action or decision-making. You could celebrate a one-time event but commemorating the change of seasons or any repetitive event (anniversaries, birthdays, etc.) makes no sense.

I disagree - I don't think there is anything irrational about an atheist placing value on positive emotions, like the kind that holidays can inspire.

Gingersnap
12-02-2010, 10:50 PM
I disagree - I don't think there is anything irrational about an atheist placing value on positive emotions, like the kind that holidays can inspire.

Sounds like a good new thread in GD to me. ;)

Rockntractor
12-02-2010, 10:52 PM
I disagree - I don't think there is anything irrational about an atheist placing value on positive emotions, like the kind that holidays can inspire.

One sentence?:confused: Where is Wilbur, what have you done to him, why are you using his account?:mad:

wilbur
12-02-2010, 10:53 PM
Oh Hampster??????????? Take a look at this.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/18003483/detail.html
These atheists just can't seem to understand the reason Christians would be offended. :rolleyes:Apparently the timing doesn't occur to them.


On a road trip over thanksgiving, I actually lost count of the Christian billboards along all those state roads. Literally every batch of billboards would contain AT LEAST one. Usually more than.

Atheists *finally* get a few for themselves and people's heads start exploding....

Rockntractor
12-02-2010, 10:55 PM
On a road trip over thanksgiving, I actually lost count of the Christian billboards along all those state roads. Literally every batch of billboards would contain AT LEAST one. Usually more than.

Atheists *finally* get a few for themselves and people's heads start exploding....

Don't read them, I hate crowds!:rolleyes:

AmPat
12-03-2010, 02:32 PM
On a road trip over thanksgiving, I actually lost count of the Christian billboards along all those state roads. Literally every batch of billboards would contain AT LEAST one. Usually more than.

Atheists *finally* get a few for themselves and people's heads start exploding....

My head is just fine Wilbur. The point is that atheists shouldn't be so concerned about or offended by something they don't believe anyway. If you don't believe it, why are you wanting to protest it? As for the bill boards, the timing is an issue. If atheists feel so strongly about their non-beliefs, why don't they have these expensive bill boards throughout the year? Strange how it is only offensive during the Christmas Holiday season.:rolleyes:

wilbur
12-03-2010, 02:39 PM
My head is just fine Wilbur. The point is that atheists shouldn't be so concerned about or offended by something they don't believe anyway.


Right back at ya. Why are your knickers in a twist over a billboard that doesnt even address you or your beliefs?



If you don't believe it, why are you wanting to protest it?


The billboards were appealing to unbelievers, not protesting religion. I believe the message was:

"Don't believe in God? You are not alone".

Doesnt sound like a protest to me.



As for the bill boards, the timing is an issue. If atheists feel so strongly about their non-beliefs, why don't they have these expensive bill boards throughout the year? Strange how it is only offensive during the Christmas Holiday season.:rolleyes:

In many places they do. But perhaps they wanted to reach out to some atheists who may be feeling alone or disincluded during the holiday season.

AmPat
12-03-2010, 02:44 PM
Right back at ya. Why are your knickers in a twist over a billboard that doesnt even address you or your beliefs?



The billboards were appealing to unbelievers, not protesting religion. I believe the message was:

"Don't believe in God? You are not alone".

Doesnt sound like a protest to me.



In many places they do. But perhaps they wanted to reach out to some atheists who may be feeling alone or disincluded during the holiday season.
I have yet to protest an atheist. I don't believe in the flying purple spaghetti monster, to this minute I don't feel the need to protest it.:rolleyes:

The protest is in the timing. Also, if these poor dear babies are feeling so "disincluded," isn't that what they want? They can't very well be included in something they resist and don't believe in. It's like me protesting that I didn't get a huge pile of Chow Mein for lunch. I hate Chow Mein so how can I miss it or protest that I didn't eat what I detest?

hampshirebrit
12-03-2010, 02:49 PM
Well I'm not bloody well offended. It looks to me like you're the one who's getting upset, not us atheists (not us CU atheists, at least).

Like I said earlier, there is probably no point in the calendar year that some religiously inclined individual or group of individuals isn't going to take offence at an atheist poster ad campaign. You, for instance, would no doubt get equally huffy if they went up during Easter as you are getting now.

The Jewish faith has key dates that we would be best avoiding, the Hindus have 30,000 gods in their pantheon each with his/her/its birthday, and did I mention the Muslims ... you know, the folk who really get bent out of shape at us atheists? You've probably heard of them, at least. They love getting offended.

Anyway, Christmas is an obvious time for an atheist recruitment drive in a Christian dominant country. It is also an obvious time for all manner of other ad campaigns and commercial crassness, which I'm guessing you don't mind so much. I personally wouldn't waste my money on a poster drive, but that's just me.

KhrushchevsShoe
12-03-2010, 02:51 PM
Jeez Ody, I havent even broached this and you want to call me out? I Just dont care about this. At all.

I dont think anybody should. If it says Christmas, well, OK it say Christmas. Big deal. Either way, the PC religion arena is one I am happy not having any part of.

wilbur
12-03-2010, 02:57 PM
I have yet to protest an atheist. I don't believe in the flying purple spaghetti monster, to this minute I don't feel the need to protest it.:rolleyes:


Then why are bitching about the billboard? That's what you've been doing this whole thread!!



The protest is in the timing. Also, if these poor dear babies are feeling so "disincluded," isn't that what they want? They can't very well be included in something they resist and don't believe in. It's like me protesting that I didn't get a huge pile of Chow Mein for lunch. I hate Chow Mein so how can I miss it or protest that I didn't eat what I detest?

First off, the heritage of the celebrations over the winter's solstice are wide and varied... and *older* than Christianity. Christianity doesnt *own* this time of year, and never has.

Whether an atheist *wants* to be included in religious celebrations and holidays or not, it does not necessarily take away from loneliness or feelings of disenfranchisement from the culture at large.

It seems that you just want special treatment. No atheist billboards, messages, or speech at any time of year or during a Christian holiday. That's fucking absurd. You want some cheese with that whine?

CaughtintheMiddle1990
12-03-2010, 05:23 PM
Then why are bitching about the billboard? That's what you've been doing this whole thread!!



First off, the heritage of the celebrations over the winter's solstice are wide and varied... and *older* than Christianity. Christianity doesnt *own* this time of year, and never has.

Whether an atheist *wants* to be included in religious celebrations and holidays or not, it does not necessarily take away from loneliness or feelings of disenfranchisement from the culture at large.

It seems that you just want special treatment. No atheist billboards, messages, or speech at any time of year or during a Christian holiday. That's fucking absurd. You want some cheese with that whine?

Militant Atheist: "Death to Christianity!"

We get it. You want religion to disappear. Shoo, angry little Atheist who hates Christianity.

AmPat
12-04-2010, 01:21 AM
Then why are bitching about the billboard? That's what you've been doing this whole thread!!



First off, the heritage of the celebrations over the winter's solstice are wide and varied... and *older* than Christianity. Christianity doesnt *own* this time of year, and never has.

Whether an atheist *wants* to be included in religious celebrations and holidays or not, it does not necessarily take away from loneliness or feelings of disenfranchisement from the culture at large.

It seems that you just want special treatment. No atheist billboards, messages, or speech at any time of year or during a Christian holiday. That's fucking absurd. You want some cheese with that whine?

I'm making a point on a board that generally consists of CONSERVATIVE opinions. Bitching is what bitches like you do. You don't like my opinion, leave. I won't miss your little b#### @$$ one whit.

Why are godless little bitches like you complaining about Christmas? If God doesn't exist, it shouldn't matter to you at all. You believe in a man's right to swallow a phallus, yet you cannot bring yourself to allow a Christian a right to believe in God.

Are you too stupid to see the absurd argument you are making. How can an atheist feel disenfranchised over something they don't believe in?

Nice try with the "winter solstice" crap. I asked why atheists chose this Christmas season to post their billboards. Are you suggesting it was coincidental? Puhleeze! Atheists chose this particular time as a direct affront to Christianity and you well know that. Let's see little brave Sir Robin Atheist picket the local mosque during ramadan. I guess that would be coincidental timing also?:rolleyes:

PoliCon
12-04-2010, 08:46 AM
Ya know - if you're offended by Christmas as a retailer, it's massively hypocritical to take our money during the Christmas season. I for one would refuse to shop there until the sign was replaced and then I would screen from whom I made purchase.

PoliCon
12-04-2010, 08:48 AM
Then why are bitching about the billboard? That's what you've been doing this whole thread!!



First off, the heritage of the celebrations over the winter's solstice are wide and varied... and *older* than Christianity. Christianity doesnt *own* this time of year, and never has.

Whether an atheist *wants* to be included in religious celebrations and holidays or not, it does not necessarily take away from loneliness or feelings of disenfranchisement from the culture at large.

It seems that you just want special treatment. No atheist billboards, messages, or speech at any time of year or during a Christian holiday. That's fucking absurd. You want some cheese with that whine?

OH FUN! Are you going to make the false claim that Christianity co-opted a pagan holiday and that Christmas was originally feast of sol invictus? :rolleyes:

CaughtintheMiddle1990
12-04-2010, 09:58 AM
OH FUN! Are you going to make the false claim that Christianity co-opted a pagan holiday and that Christmas was originally feast of sol invictus? :rolleyes:

His hatred for Christianity knows no bounds, I think. You can feel it through his posts, it's an ugly, seething hatred of all things Christian.

Odysseus
12-04-2010, 10:15 AM
Jeez Ody, I havent even broached this and you want to call me out? I Just dont care about this. At all.

I dont think anybody should. If it says Christmas, well, OK it say Christmas. Big deal. Either way, the PC religion arena is one I am happy not having any part of.

Sorry, but you're on the wrong side of so many other issues, that I just assumed that you'd be on the wrong side of this one. My apologies.

wilbur
12-05-2010, 01:47 PM
I'm making a point on a board that generally consists of CONSERVATIVE opinions. Bitching is what bitches like you do. You don't like my opinion, leave. I won't miss your little b#### @$$ one whit.


Yes, this is a conservative message board... not a Christian theist message board.



Why are godless little bitches like you complaining about Christmas?

Uhhh.... they/we arent.



If God doesn't exist, it shouldn't matter to you at all. You believe in a man's right to swallow a phallus, yet you cannot bring yourself to allow a Christian a right to believe in God.


WTF are you talking about? I suggest you take a breath, and re-read this thread, because quite clearly it seems as if its *you* who cannot bring yourself to abide an atheist the right to reach out to other atheists - not the other way around.



Are you too stupid to see the absurd argument you are making. How can an atheist feel disenfranchised over something they don't believe in?

Nice try with the "winter solstice" crap. I asked why atheists chose this Christmas season to post their billboards. Are you suggesting it was coincidental? Puhleeze! Atheists chose this particular time as a direct affront to Christianity and you well know that. Let's see little brave Sir Robin Atheist picket the local mosque during ramadan. I guess that would be coincidental timing also?:rolleyes:

The billboard was clearly made by atheists, for atheists. Its not always all about you, or your religion.

As for the talk of disenfranchisement or loneliness,I have to think you are just being deliberately obtuse. Put the shoe on the other foot. Imagine yourself as a small minority in a largely atheist culture and the few people who actually share your values and beliefs about God unknown to one another, for the most part. Imagine there is some major secular holiday celebrated by this atheist culture. While some of it is enjoyable, it really makes you feel lonely and disenfranchised because it draws attention to the fact that this entire culture seems to adhere a set of values that you do not believe in. Now imagine that you decide to put up a billboard during this holiday that you hope will lift the spirits of those who share your values? It reads: "Believe in God? You are not alone". Well, that would be a vicious attack against atheism, clearly :rolleyes:

Rockntractor
12-05-2010, 01:53 PM
Yes, this is a conservative message board... not a Christian theist message board.





Oh my, Wilbur lecturing someone that this is a conservative board, I'll remind you next time you try to sell us on Global Warming Climate Changing Catastrophic Change!:rolleyes:

wilbur
12-05-2010, 01:53 PM
OH FUN! Are you going to make the false claim that Christianity co-opted a pagan holiday and that Christmas was originally feast of sol invictus? :rolleyes:

I wouldn't put it like that. Christmas is just one holiday in a long tradition of holiday celebrations over the winter solstice, many of which predate Christianity.

And that is a fact.

wilbur
12-05-2010, 01:54 PM
Oh my, Wilbur lecturing someone that this is a conservative board, I'll remind you next time you try to sell us on Global Warming Climate Changing Catastrophic Change!:rolleyes:

Scientific realities are apolitical.

Rockntractor
12-05-2010, 01:55 PM
Scientific realities are apolitical.

This one is a political hot potato and you dam well know it!

CaughtintheMiddle1990
12-05-2010, 04:26 PM
Yes, this is a conservative message board... not a Christian theist message board.



Uhhh.... they/we arent.



WTF are you talking about? I suggest you take a breath, and re-read this thread, because quite clearly it seems as if its *you* who cannot bring yourself to abide an atheist the right to reach out to other atheists - not the other way around.



The billboard was clearly made by atheists, for atheists. Its not always all about you, or your religion.

As for the talk of disenfranchisement or loneliness,I have to think you are just being deliberately obtuse. Put the shoe on the other foot. Imagine yourself as a small minority in a largely atheist culture and the few people who actually share your values and beliefs about God unknown to one another, for the most part. Imagine there is some major secular holiday celebrated by this atheist culture. While some of it is enjoyable, it really makes you feel lonely and disenfranchised because it draws attention to the fact that this entire culture seems to adhere a set of values that you do not believe in. Now imagine that you decide to put up a billboard during this holiday that you hope will lift the spirits of those who share your values? It reads: "Believe in God? You are not alone". Well, that would be a vicious attack against atheism, clearly :rolleyes:

Why feel lonely and disenfranchised? After all, life is just a random cluster of cells and everything means nothing in your world view.

hampshirebrit
12-05-2010, 04:38 PM
Why feel lonely and disenfranchised? After all, life is just a random cluster of cells and everything means nothing in your world view.

Even us wicked atheists need a hug every now and then.

Odysseus
12-05-2010, 04:44 PM
Scientific realities are apolitical.

Yes, but a massive hoax in support of a global power grab is nothing but political.

wilbur
12-05-2010, 06:12 PM
Why feel lonely and disenfranchised? After all, life is just a random cluster of cells and everything means nothing in your world view.

Thanks for telling me and the rest of us atheists what we think, believe, and feel! That's very helpful!

Rockntractor
12-05-2010, 06:14 PM
Thanks for telling me what I think, believe, and feel! That's very helpful!

It certainly wouldn't take much imagination!:rolleyes:

PoliCon
12-05-2010, 06:34 PM
I wouldn't put it like that. Christmas is just one holiday in a long tradition of holiday celebrations over the winter solstice, many of which predate Christianity.

And that is a fact.

specifically?

CaughtintheMiddle1990
12-05-2010, 06:57 PM
Thanks for telling me and the rest of us atheists what we think, believe, and feel! That's very helpful!

Just as helpful as you trying to rid the world of what I believe in! ;)

hampshirebrit
12-05-2010, 07:13 PM
Just as helpful as you trying to rid the world of what I believe in! ;)

I really think you're overstating the case. He may be an atheist, but I don't think he's on a crusade to rid the world of what you believe in, any more than I am.

Rockntractor
12-05-2010, 07:18 PM
I really think you're overstating the case. He may be an atheist, but I don't think he's on a crusade to rid the world of what you believe in, any more than I am.

Actually Hamps, I think he is. The two of you are not at all alike.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
12-05-2010, 08:42 PM
Thanks for telling me and the rest of us atheists what we think, believe, and feel! That's very helpful!


I really think you're overstating the case. He may be an atheist, but I don't think he's on a crusade to rid the world of what you believe in, any more than I am.

There's a difference between you and him. You're an atheist, and that's cool. I don't see you aggressively going against Christianity, or defaming it. Plus, you're not a Marxist as far as I know. Wilbur, however, seems to be, and in order for that world view to work, religion has to be wiped out.

So, it's nothing toward you when I go off on him or Atheists. I don't mean people like you, I mean the militant "Christianity must die/Anything Christian is offensive/Let's piss off the Christians as much as possible at their most sacred holiday" people like Wilbur and his ilk.

wilbur
12-05-2010, 09:05 PM
There's a difference between you and him. You're an atheist, and that's cool. I don't see you aggressively going against Christianity, or defaming it. Plus, you're not a Marxist as far as I know. Wilbur, however, seems to be, and in order for that world view to work, religion has to be wiped out.

So, it's nothing toward you when I go off on him or Atheists. I don't mean people like you, I mean the militant "Christianity must die/Anything Christian is offensive/Let's piss off the Christians as much as possible at their most sacred holiday" people like Wilbur and his ilk.

Dude, you are on crack - Couldnt be farther from a Marxist.

Its pretty obvious you don't actually read anything that I write.

Rockntractor
12-05-2010, 09:07 PM
Dude, you are on crack - Couldnt be farther from a Marxist.

Its pretty obvious you don't actually read anything that I write.
What are you Wilbur?

AmPat
12-05-2010, 09:28 PM
Scientific realities are apolitical.

We'll not be lining up at the Church of Al Gore for our "scientific realities" nor will I be lining Al Gore's pockets anymore than I'm forced to.

wilbur
12-05-2010, 09:30 PM
We'll not be lining up at the Church of Al Gore for our "scientific realities" nor will I be lining Al Gore's pockets anymore than I'm forced to.

That's great - I don't either.

Odysseus
12-06-2010, 10:44 AM
Dude, you are on crack - Couldnt be farther from a Marxist.

Its pretty obvious you don't actually read anything that I write.

Actually, we do.

Perhaps if you took the time to delineate your positions on key issues, rather than simply lording your superiority over us, we'd have a better idea of what you believe in? As it is, we do have some keys, which do put you to the left of center:

Anthropogenic Global Warming: Pro, beyond any rational measure.
Gay Marriage: Emphatically in favor, and anyone opposed is a bigoted troglodyte.
Gays in the military: Ditto.
Death Penalty: Opposed.
Abortion: Pro.
Religion: Adamantly opposed, well beyond the point of tedium. In fact, it's one of your hot button issues, along with gay issues and global warming.
Welfare and other social programs: You favor and defend them.
The conservative anger towards relatively successfull social programs like welfare is woefully stupid.
Drug legalization: Pro.
American Exceptionalism: Against, but unwilling to come out and say so.

And so on. Does that make you a Marxist? Not necessarily, but those positions are mostly leftist positions, and the ones that aren't exclusively so, such as drug legallization, tend to be the few areas where the left/right dichotomy breaks down between libertarians of both sides, which would make you a leftist in some areas and libertarian in others. Hard to say, given your

Now, since you are constantly whining about how we perhaps you would be so kind as to tell us just what you do believe? Maybe do one of those introductory threads and lay out your overarching philosophy and explain how it drives your views of these issues. Just a thought. Or, you could just whine and complain about how we don't understand you, which also has its own appeal.

wilbur
12-06-2010, 03:22 PM
Actually, we do.

Actually, I was addressing CITM.



Perhaps if you took the time to delineate your positions on key issues, rather than simply lording your superiority over us, we'd have a better idea of what you believe in? As it is, we do have some keys, which do put you to the left of center:

...

Now, since you are constantly whining about how we perhaps you would be so kind as to tell us just what you do believe? Maybe do one of those introductory threads and lay out your overarching philosophy and explain how it drives your views of these issues. Just a thought. Or, you could just whine and complain about how we don't understand you, which also has its own appeal.

I have a better idea. Stop being reckless with assumptions.

Not only will you keep the egg off your face in discussions with people on forums, it will help you in real life too!

Odysseus
12-06-2010, 04:01 PM
Actually, I was addressing CITM.
Sorry, I wasn't aware that it was a private message. Pardon me for hacking your account and reading your intimate correspondence. :rolleyes:


I have a better idea. Stop being reckless with assumptions.

Not only will you keep the egg off your face in discussions with people on forums, it will help you in real life too!

I have no egg on my face, but you do whine quite a bit about how all of us keep mistaking your positions on things, so I'd say that I'm not the one with the problem. If you aren't forthcoming about where you stand, then don't complain when we assume that you hold an opinion that is consistent with your other opinions, but not the one that you hold. Nature abhors a vacuum, especially one between the ears, so if you won't tell people what your positions are, they will make assumptions based on the positions that they do know.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
12-06-2010, 05:42 PM
Wilbur, why does people believing in God offend you so much?

Odysseus
12-06-2010, 07:51 PM
Wilbur, why does people believing in God offend you so much?

It's not that people believing in God offends him, it's people believing in anything but him that offends him.

wilbur
12-06-2010, 08:22 PM
Wilbur, why does people believing in God offend you so much?

Let me introduce you to the logical fallacy called the "complex question".

Here is the definition:


Complex Question: the fallacy of phrasing a question that, by the way it is worded, assumes something not contextually granted, assumes something not true, or assumes a false dichotomy. To be a fallacy, and not just a rhetorical technique, the conclusion (usually the answer to the question) must be present either implicitly or explicitly.


You can learn more about them here (http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/complex.html)

Rockntractor
12-06-2010, 08:22 PM
Actually, I was addressing CITM.



I have a better idea. Stop being reckless with assumptions.

Not only will you keep the egg off your face in discussions with people on forums, it will help you in real life too!

Do you honestly believe it is Ody that leaves your discussions with egg on his face, why don't you post a poll Wilbur and we'll find out?

wilbur
12-07-2010, 09:56 AM
Sorry, I wasn't aware that it was a private message. Pardon me for hacking your account and reading your intimate correspondence. :rolleyes:

Since when can public messages on the forum not be directed at a single person? This is normal as can be. Now, interjecting in a public conversation is totally fine, as long as one respects the context and intended meaning of the original message.

My comments made the most sense targeted at CITM at this particular moment.

And given the list of positions in which I believe (you listed many of them), it quite clearly isnt *my bad* if somebody calls me Marxist - its theirs. Its not an issue of clarity on my part if one is so muddled and confused as to equate belief in the scientific case for global warming or mere atheism with Marxism.

NJCardFan
12-07-2010, 10:51 AM
Originally Posted by wilbur
The conservative anger towards relatively successfull social programs like welfare is woefully stupid.

Wait, what? Successful? If by successful you mean keeping people in poverty and giving them no incentive to provide for themselves, then you're right. Otherwise, you're as deluded in this as you are in the global warming farce.

Odysseus
12-08-2010, 08:49 PM
Since when can public messages on the forum not be directed at a single person? This is normal as can be. Now, interjecting in a public conversation is totally fine, as long as one respects the context and intended meaning of the original message.

My comments made the most sense targeted at CITM at this particular moment.
You tend to have an overinflated sense of how much sense your comments make in any context, but regardless, it's an open thread. If you post in an open thread, you have to expect that others will respond. Don't like it, don't post, or put me on your ignore list.


And given the list of positions in which I believe (you listed many of them), it quite clearly isnt *my bad* if somebody calls me Marxist - its theirs. Its not an issue of clarity on my part if one is so muddled and confused as to equate belief in the scientific case for global warming or mere atheism with Marxism.

Marxists routinely claim that their positions are based on science, and the whole Anthropogenic Global Warming "crisis" is simply a scam to redistribute wealth from the west to the third world, and such schemes are, at best, socialist, but those who embrace them tend to be Marxists. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt as to your motives, since I assumed that you'd rather be seen as a cynical manipulator of politicized science than a clueless dupe of cynical manipulators, but if you want us to think of you as a useful idiot in thrall to the latest scam, rather than a scammer, be my guest.

BTW, don't take my word for it. Here are the redistributors in their own words:

UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy': http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/11/18/un-ipcc-official-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-climate-policy#ixzz17RguXZ00

NASA's Hansen to Obama: Use Global Warming to Redistribute Wealth: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/01/01/nasas-hansen-obama-use-global-warming-redistribute-wealth#ixzz17Rh5x8Tl

wilbur
12-09-2010, 10:39 AM
Marxists routinely claim that their positions are based on science,

wow.... many of my positions are based on science... darn, i must be a marxist!



and the whole Anthropogenic Global Warming "crisis" is simply a scam to redistribute wealth from the west to the third world, and such schemes are, at best, socialist, but those who embrace them tend to be Marxists. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt as to your motives, since I assumed that you'd rather be seen as a cynical manipulator of politicized science than a clueless dupe of cynical manipulators, but if you want us to think of you as a useful idiot in thrall to the latest scam, rather than a scammer, be my guest.


faulty assumption (surprise, surprise): that I support policy initiatives relating to AGW.

see what i'm talking about yet? faulty assumptions.... its just what you do. on this particular point, i've always been exceedingly clear, too.

certain policy initiatives surrounding AGW surely have Marxist leanings. but so? irrelevant.

policy. science.

they are different things, and don't have to come in pairs. its perfectly possible to be persuaded by a scientific case, and unpersuaded by cases for policy initiatives related to the science.

who woulda thunk?!

Odysseus
12-09-2010, 03:55 PM
wow.... many of my positions are based on science... darn, i must be a marxist!
No, you make the claim that many of your positions are based on science, when in fact they are based on your prejudices. Doesn't make you a Marxist, but to claim scientific infallibility, as they do, doesn't exactly work in your defense.


faulty assumption (surprise, surprise): that I support policy initiatives relating to AGW.

see what i'm talking about yet? faulty assumptions.... its just what you do. on this particular point, i've always been exceedingly clear, too.

certain policy initiatives surrounding AGW surely have Marxist leanings. but so? irrelevant.

policy. science.

they are different things, and don't have to come in pairs. its perfectly possible to be persuaded by a scientific case, and unpersuaded by cases for policy initiatives related to the science.

who woulda thunk?!
Ah, so you are saying that you do not support socialist policies that are supposedly meant to mitigate Global Warming, but in fact transfer income? For example, you have never argued in favor of Cap and Trade? I wonder who wrote this, then:


Sort of, but I don't think its quite right. C&T policies are meant to actually force the market to react to true scarcity, which they otherwise are not reacting too. Think about it... hypothetically, if carbon emissions above X amount, will eventually result in global economy wrecking disaster, then you better believe there is scarcity there. Our carbon emissions would be incurring a cost that is not being paid. And the theory so goes, that we will come out ahead if we pay some now, rather than wait till later.

I see two separate issues. They are below, and here is where I stand:

1) Are the principles of C&T, generally speaking,, sound principles?
- Yes, absolutely they are. They aren't central planning. They are very minimally regulatory (in theory), and very much within the spirit of free market economics.

2) Is C&T plan X as proposed by Y a good policy?
- Not sure, maybe I'll figure it out soon.

Taxes are fees paid to the government, so we can't just call any raised price a tax. Again, think of the hypothetical - if carbon really is going to wreak major economic havoc (through environmental disaster), would you agree now, that we aren't paying for the true cost of the good?

Clearly, to read that and assume that you were arguing in favor of cap and trade is the kind of faulty reasoning that you disdain.:rolleyes: So, just what did you mean when you said that C&T was a sound principle? And who, but a person completely divorced from the idea of free market economics would claim that a government policy that entails a massive redistribution of revenues is witin the spirit of free market economics?

You favor government manipulation of markets in order to achieve an outcome that is driven by politics. That is not free market economics.

But, it is fun listening to you repeat the word "science" over and over again, as if it were a mantra. Perhaps you can sing backup on Thomas Dolby's reunion tour.

hampshirebrit
12-09-2010, 04:20 PM
OK, all this talk about AGW and C&T is fun (and if anyone still has the energy to debate it, I'll split this part of the thread off to form a new one if people want and the OP wishes it), but in the meantime, can we try to keep this sort-of-on topic?

Let me drag it back, if I may:

Wilbur was challenged on, or rather, actually accused of being, anti-Christian, by one of our younger CUers, at, I believe, post 26 (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=340771&postcount=26) on this thread.

I did defend him at the time (post 44), but perhaps the contents of post 26 should be put to Wilbur..


Militant Atheist: "Death to Christianity!"
We get it. You want religion to disappear. Shoo, angry little Atheist who hates Christianity.

... and he answers the points raised therein.

wilbur
12-10-2010, 04:22 PM
No, you make the claim that many of your positions are based on science, when in fact they are based on your prejudices. Doesn't make you a Marxist, but to claim scientific infallibility, as they do, doesn't exactly work in your defense.

really. at this point its proper to stop giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you are genuinely mistaken about my various beliefs or sloppy in their interpretation.

the major is a bald faced liar.

you seem to be fond of digging up old posts. dig the post up where i make the above claim. you won't because you can't. you lied.



Ah, so you are saying that you do not support socialist policies that are supposedly meant to mitigate Global Warming, but in fact transfer income? For example, you have never argued in favor of Cap and Trade? I wonder who wrote this, then:

Clearly, to read that and assume that you were arguing in favor of cap and trade is the kind of faulty reasoning that you disdain.:rolleyes:


yes. it is. read it again, major. and again. read it till it sinks in and you can recapitulate my points without lying about them.



So, just what did you mean when you said that C&T was a sound principle? And who, but a person completely divorced from the idea of free market economics would claim that a government policy that entails a massive redistribution of revenues is witin the spirit of free market economics?


divorced from free market economics?!?! oh boy...

c&t polices are supposed to fix to negative externalities.

negative externalities hurt free markets. they make markets less free. in the presence of negative externalities, costs of a good are artificially low, so it is over produced and over consumed. c&t policies are meant to fix free markets damaged by externalities... to bring them closer to true equilibrium.

c&t is so completely opposite of Marxism, it isn't even funny. free market econimics is at the *heart* of c&t.

now if you read that thread more carefully, you'll notice i expressed skepticism towards specific agw c&t policies. principles of c&t are sound (and proven) as i said. however, that doesn't mean that all c&t policy initiatives are good, or on the up and up.

hampshirebrit
12-10-2010, 04:44 PM
Oh well. :rolleyes:

I did at least try to drag this thread back on topic.

wilbur
12-10-2010, 05:17 PM
Oh well. :rolleyes:

I did at least try to drag this thread back on topic.

sorry, sometimes I just can't let his bullshit stand - if you want to split the thread, go for it.

hampshirebrit
12-10-2010, 08:29 PM
sorry, sometimes I just can't let his bullshit stand - if you want to split the thread, go for it.

Nah, you guys knock yourselves out on this one. It's much less effort for us mods that way, provided you keep things reasonably civil. :cool:

Odysseus
12-11-2010, 01:03 AM
really. at this point its proper to stop giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you are genuinely mistaken about my various beliefs or sloppy in their interpretation.

the major is a bald faced liar.
And Wilbur is lucky that he said that from the safety of his basement, rather than to my face. Or, should I say that he knows that he would never have the courage to say that within my reach?

you seem to be fond of digging up old posts. dig the post up where i make the above claim. you won't because you can't. you lied.
I'm not so much "fond of digging up old posts" as I am thorough. Believe me when I say that there are few things less pleasant than reading your old posts, unless it is reading your new ones. In fact, the only thing that I can imagine that would be worse would be dealing with you in person.

Read what I said again. You are constantly wrapping yourself in the mantle of science, often without any foundation, while deriding us as scientific illiterates. In another thread on gay marriage, you tried to use formulas designed to predict random event in order to predict behaviors. On Global Warming, you often hurl insults based on your supposed superiority in the sciences, and deride those who draw other conclusions as "denialists," putting AGW on the same level of historical proof as the Holocaust, and lumping those who disagree with Holocaust deniers. You have not actually used the word "infallible," but you have repeatedly acted as if you are. Here are, as you asked, the quotes:



But the difference between you and me is.. and this is key… this explains (once again) why your opinion is worth less than a pile of dog shit… is that I (and most other reasonably intelligent people) display some basic competence at assimilating and understanding information about science, while you display only abject incompetence. Some of the things you fail to understand are so foundational and elementary, that if you don't get them, you won't be able to get anything science related. Full stop, as they say...


The "Coverup in the CRU emails" that the denialists were in such a tizzy about was from the "hide the decline" email exchange - which incidentally had nothing to do with average global temperature, and was completely unrelated.


yes. it is. read it again, major. and again. read it till it sinks in and you can recapitulate my points without lying about them.
I don't have to lie. Your point is plain, for all to see. Now, I'm sorry that I've embarrassed you by, well, quoting you, but the fact is, you came out and plainly argued for cap and trade. Sucks to be you.


divorced from free market economics?!?! oh boy...

c&t polices are supposed to fix to negative externalities.
A negative externality is a cost incurred by a party who did not agree to the action causing the cost.
The "negative externality" that you are claiming that cap and trade is supposed to address is carbon, which is not proven to be the catalyst of global warming, nor has global warming been proven to have occurred. In short, cap and trade is simply a solution in search of a problem, that allows government to regulate the economy in ways that it would never dare to propose if there were not a massive "crisis."


negative externalities hurt free markets. they make markets less free. in the presence of negative externalities, costs of a good are artificially low, so it is over produced and over consumed. c&t policies are meant to fix free markets damaged by externalities... to bring them closer to true equilibrium.
Negative externalities assume that social costs will be greater than private costs. but the social costs associated with atmospheric carbon are unproven, while the manipulation of markets by governments, especially governments that do not answer to anyone, such as the UN, will produce proven reductions in global economic activity, while redistributing wealth to politically connected interests. That's not a free market solution, it's graft.


c&t is so completely opposite of Marxism, it isn't even funny. free market econimics is at the *heart* of c&t.
No, cap and trade is a scam masquerading as a market solution.

now if you read that thread more carefully, you'll notice i expressed skepticism towards specific agw c&t policies. principles of c&t are sound (and proven) as i said. however, that doesn't mean that all c&t policy initiatives are good, or on the up and up.
But you do, in fact, endorse them. I did not lie when I quoted you, nor did I misrepresent your position.

Nah, you guys knock yourselves out on this one. It's much less effort for us mods that way, provided you keep things reasonably civil. :cool:

Wilbur has called me a liar. I would not call that civil. However, that particular canard is common among people who are losing a fight and are secure in the knowledge that nothing will happen to them for their slander. Everyone here knows that I am not a liar, but we now know that Wilbur is, in addition to his other obvious character deficiencies, a skulking coward.

AmPat
12-11-2010, 09:49 AM
Wilbur, once again making himself into a :


http://i54.tinypic.com/a58biv.jpg

He's easy to spot in any crowd.

wilbur
12-11-2010, 02:10 PM
And Wilbur is lucky that he said that from the safety of his basement, rather than to my face. Or, should I say that he knows that he would never have the courage to say that within my reach?

if you had the audacity to so blatantly and purposefully "argue" (if one can call it that) in such bad faith within MY reach, you bet your ass i would call you a liar 'within your reach'.


Read what I said again. You are constantly wrapping yourself in the mantle of science, often without any foundation, while deriding us as scientific illiterates. In another thread on gay marriage, you tried to use formulas designed to predict random event in order to predict behaviors. On Global Warming, you often hurl insults based on your supposed superiority in the sciences, and deride those who draw other conclusions as "denialists," putting AGW on the same level of historical proof as the Holocaust, and lumping those who disagree with Holocaust deniers. You have not actually used the word "infallible," but you have repeatedly acted as if you are. Here are, as you asked, the quotes:


heh - i stand by those quotes. they express no such sentiment, that either I or science, are infallible. not even close.

not all of science is controversial, or debatable.

those quotes in question were over such an issue - the definition of scientific theory. sonnabend's misunderstanding of the term was as absurd and on par with such absurdities as claiming the moon is made of green cheese. one is right to point out his misunderstanding with confidence - no infallibility required (or claimed).



I don't have to lie. Your point is plain, for all to see. Now, I'm sorry that I've embarrassed you by, well, quoting you, but the fact is, you came out and plainly argued for cap and trade. Sucks to be you.

A negative externality is a cost incurred by a party who did not agree to the action causing the cost.
The "negative externality" that you are claiming that cap and trade is supposed to address is carbon, which is not proven to be the catalyst of global warming, nor has global warming been proven to have occurred. In short, cap and trade is simply a solution in search of a problem, that allows government to regulate the economy in ways that it would never dare to propose if there were not a massive "crisis."

Negative externalities assume that social costs will be greater than private costs. but the social costs associated with atmospheric carbon are unproven, while the manipulation of markets by governments, especially governments that do not answer to anyone, such as the UN, will produce proven reductions in global economic activity, while redistributing wealth to politically connected interests. That's not a free market solution, it's graft.


you must not realize.

c&t is a general regulatory strategy... not a specific policy initiative aimed at global warming. c&t policies are in effect for all kinds of pollutants around the country, and provide a nice alternative to other types of regulatory mechanisms - such as straight up fines, or creation of new crimes. they seem to work well in some cases, not so well in others.

i expressed nothing but skepticism when it came to c&t as applied to global warming. i made it * abundantly* clear, that i wasn't endorsing the latest particular c&t bill aimed at c02, but was simply talking about the general regulatory strategy of c&t.

you claimed i supported c&t in response to global warming. the quoted bits clearly did not show that. the thread you pulled them from clearly did not show that.



No, cap and trade is a scam masquerading as a market solution.

But you do, in fact, endorse them. I did not lie when I quoted you, nor did I misrepresent your position.


as should be obvious by now, you distorted and misrepresented my position to an absurd - *absurd* - degree.



Wilbur has called me a liar. I would not call that civil. However, that particular canard is common among people who are losing a fight and are secure in the knowledge that nothing will happen to them for their slander. Everyone here knows that I am not a liar, but we now know that Wilbur is, in addition to his other obvious character deficiencies, a skulking coward.

the term liar is also commonly used when people fucking lie.

Odysseus
12-11-2010, 07:13 PM
if you had the audacity to so blatantly and purposefully "argue" (if one can call it that) in such bad faith within MY reach, you bet your ass i would call you a liar 'within your reach'.
Doubtful. Your courage doesn't extend beyond your monitor.


heh - i stand by those quotes. they express no such sentiment, that either I or science, are infallible. not even close.

not all of science is controversial, or debatable.

those quotes in question were over such an issue - the definition of scientific theory. sonnabend's misunderstanding of the term was as absurd and on par with such absurdities as claiming the moon is made of green cheese. one is right to point out his misunderstanding with confidence - no infallibility required (or claimed).

More like insufferable arrogance than confidence. But wait, there's more. You claim that you expressed "nothing but skepticism" about cap and trade as a solution to global warming?


you must not realize.

c&t is a general regulatory strategy... not a specific policy initiative aimed at global warming. c&t policies are in effect for all kinds of pollutants around the country, and provide a nice alternative to other types of regulatory mechanisms - such as straight up fines, or creation of new crimes. they seem to work well in some cases, not so well in others.

i expressed nothing but skepticism when it came to c&t as applied to global warming. i made it * abundantly* clear, that i wasn't endorsing the latest particular c&t bill aimed at c02, but was simply talking about the general regulatory strategy of c&t.

you claimed i supported c&t in response to global warming. the quoted bits clearly did not show that. the thread you pulled them from clearly did not show that. [/QUOTE]

Now who's lying? In fact, you expressed skepticism only about which version of cap and trade you'd endorse, but you were quite happy to use it in relation to global warming. In your own words:



Well, if you look back, I have been reluctant to support any particular C&T proposal to respond to global warming. The types of problems raised by some of the links ( the stuff about Goldman Sachs, especially) would cause problems for me. It may be that any such proposal for something as large as oil is doomed to fall to such corruption and greed, etc... but I'm not ready to write of the concept of C&T - if you have better ideas that can seriously address the issue of AGW, I'm all ears (lets get past the denial already;))


Oh I got it, Nubs, believe me. You are right, there is no shortage of fossil fuel... but that over-abundance of fossil fuels creates a shortage of atmosphere with healthy levels of C02. The market has not adjusted to account for that shortage, for a number of reasons. So, an honest and well designed C&T policy should correct the artificial over-abundance of atmosphere with healthy levels of C02. Its that artificial abundance that drives prices lower than the should be, and kills demand for innovative, clean alternative energy sources.

Sounds like you're endorsing cap and trade to me. Anyone else get that impression? And if you're not endorsing it, then, you don't feel that it is a good thing to make carbon more expensive, in order to promote greater efficiency in carbon reductions (the purpose of cap and trade)? Again, from your own posts in the same thread:



Yes, some will - but its not the government. The hope is, that carbon efficient businesses will profit the most... thats the whole idea. Prices do get raised, which then creates a demand for carbon efficiency... There is no demand for it now, because market forces don't always act rationally in response to long term threats.

Now, in that last paragraph, you explicitly state that you want price manipulation in order to ration carbon emissions. This is exactly what you claimed you didn't want in the post above.


as should be obvious by now, you distorted and misrepresented my position to an absurd - *absurd* - degree.

the term liar is also commonly used when people fucking lie.
Except that what is obvious is that everything that I said about your position on cap and trade is not only true, but based entirely on your own statements. In short, Wilbur, you're lying about something that is easily verified, namely your own words. And you've got the nerve to call me a liar?

Game, set and match, Wilbur. You lose.

hampshirebrit
12-11-2010, 07:21 PM
Game, set and match, Wilbur. You lose.

Wilbur, either you cede (you lose) or you do not, and if not, this should be made a dome thread. It's Christmas, so god knows we could use the entertainment.

Forgive me asking, but it's starting to look a lot like a Wilbur/Ody grudge-fest, one that belongs in the dome.

Up to both of you, obviously, but let me know.

Zathras
12-11-2010, 09:00 PM
Game, set and match, Wilbur. You lose.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v602/HeroesAtWork/clapping.gif

Rockntractor
12-11-2010, 09:10 PM
Ody rules!
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/Applause.gif

wilbur
12-11-2010, 10:03 PM
Un-fucking-believable. Notice how Ody doesnt actually link to the threads in question... nor does he include whole posts.

Perhaps if he did, it wouldn't work out so well for his misrepresentations and false accusations. Perhaps if he did, it would be obvious that he lies.

Here's the link, in case anyone cares to see what a dishonest hack he really is.

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=27826&highlight=government

And here is the major disclaimer posted on my last entry in that thread, which he carefully copied and pasted around, when selecting tid bits for this thread.



Well, I'll readily admit I don't fully understand what a cap & trade system would to the economy - since I really only know the basics of what the policy is meant to accomplish, but have no knowledge of the details of any particular proposals out there. None of my comments were really aimed at any particular counter-measure, but were more about principle.

I will say that I agree with the sorts of economic policies, when implemented correctly and reasonably, that require producers to bear the burden of the externalities that they generate - there's nothing wrong with making sure a business pays for its true cost of doing business.


Game, set, match? Keep dreaming.

I invite everyone to read the thread in question....

wilbur
12-11-2010, 10:09 PM
Here's another "gotcha" quote that Ody tried to use:



Yes, some will - but its not the government. The hope is, that carbon efficient businesses will profit the most... thats the whole idea. Prices do get raised, which then creates a demand for carbon efficiency... There is no demand for it now, because market forces don't always act rationally in response to long term threats.


But here is what it was responding too:



Originally Posted by Loogie
Cap and trade is simply a tax in disguise. The end result, no matter how cleverly the program is organized, is that the people pay more for everything...and some will profit from this "non-tax."


Ody dishonestly tries to make it look like I'm endorsing a particular c&t policy, when in fact, I am trying to honestly present the rationale behind it - as applied to global warming.

Rockntractor
12-11-2010, 10:33 PM
Un-fucking-believable. Notice how Ody doesnt actually link to the threads in question... nor does he include whole posts.

Perhaps if he did, it wouldn't work out so well for his misrepresentations and false accusations. Perhaps if he did, it would be obvious that he lies.

Here's the link, in case anyone cares to see what a dishonest hack he really is.

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=27826&highlight=government

And here is the major disclaimer posted on my last entry in that thread, which he carefully copied and pasted around, when selecting tid bits for this thread.



Game, set, match? Keep dreaming.

I invite everyone to read the thread in question....

Poor Wilbur, you feel left out so here is one for you.
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/obama_applause_2.gif

Odysseus
12-12-2010, 11:56 AM
Un-fucking-believable. Notice how Ody doesnt actually link to the threads in question... nor does he include whole posts.

Un-F***ing-believable. Wilbur doesn't know that the little arrow next to the quote tag is a link to the post. I guess we know what your BS in computer science really stands for, don't we?


Perhaps if he did, it wouldn't work out so well for his misrepresentations and false accusations. Perhaps if he did, it would be obvious that he lies.

Here's the link, in case anyone cares to see what a dishonest hack he really is.

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=27826&highlight=government

And here is the major disclaimer posted on my last entry in that thread, which he carefully copied and pasted around, when selecting tid bits for this thread.

Copied and pasted around? Oh please...

Here is what I said:
Now who's lying? In fact, you expressed skepticism only about which version of cap and trade you'd endorse, but you were quite happy to use it in relation to global warming. In your own words:

Now, let's place the whole quote there, and see if it changes the meaning:


Well, I'll readily admit I don't fully understand what a cap & trade system would [do] to the economy - since I really only know the basics of what the policy is meant to accomplish, but have no knowledge of the details of any particular proposals out there. None of my comments were really aimed at any particular counter-measure, but were more about principle.

I will say that I agree with the sorts of economic policies, when implemented correctly and reasonably, that require producers to bear the burden of the externalities that they generate - there's nothing wrong with making sure a business pays for its true cost of doing business.

Do you, as I said, express skepticism only about which version of cap and trade you'd endorse? Do you, in fact, state that you agree with cap and trade in principle? Yes, and yes. Am I lying when I point this out? Only if you consider the definition of a lie to be anything that makes Wilbur look like more of a tool than anyone ought to be allowed to be.


Game, set, match? Keep dreaming.

I invite everyone to read the thread in question....

Yes, by all means, please, everyone read the thread in question. Here is the link again, in case anyone has as much trouble with the little arrow thingies as Wilbur, our resident computer scientist, does: http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=344439

wilbur
12-13-2010, 10:49 AM
Do you, as I said, express skepticism only about which version of cap and trade you'd endorse?


and this is where you are wrong. there *may not be* any possible properly-conceived, well-functioning c&t policity initiative that can work well for global warming. the resounding message from me, in that thread, was that c&t has worked for other things - it *could* work for global warming, but with an obvious "i'm not sure" addendum.

and EVEN SO, this is all besides the point. you tried (and failed) to make a case that i had some suspiciuosly marxist leanings. my argument for c&t was one of your cited evidences.

well, the other take home message from me in the thread in question, is that c&t style policies are free-market preserving, when they work. can you spot the marxism in that argument? no?! didnt think so.

so again, its absurd and unwarranted to even suggest that i have any marxist leanings, based on the issues i've posted about on this board.

game. set. match (again) - as they say...

Odysseus
12-13-2010, 12:18 PM
and this is where you are wrong. there *may not be* any possible properly-conceived, well-functioning c&t policity initiative that can work well for global warming. the resounding message from me, in that thread, was that c&t has worked for other things - it *could* work for global warming, but with an obvious "i'm not sure" addendum.

You are quibbling. I said that you favored cap and trade in principle. You do. Your skepticism was confined to which version would be applied. Again, in your own words:

I see two separate issues. They are below, and here is where I stand:

1) Are the principles of C&T, generally speaking,, sound principles?
- Yes, absolutely they are. They aren't central planning. They are very minimally regulatory (in theory), and very much within the spirit of free market economics.

2) Is C&T plan X as proposed by Y a good policy?
- Not sure, maybe I'll figure it out soon.


and EVEN SO, this is all besides the point. you tried (and failed) to make a case that i had some suspiciuosly marxist leanings. my argument for c&t was one of your cited evidences.
No, I said that one could construe that you had leftist leanings because you favored a number of policies which were normally associated with, well, leftists. Your repetition of science as a mantra was evocative of arguments that Marxists routinely make, and that your support of cap and trade was, in the context of Global Warming, a position that was consistent with Marxists and socialists of every stripe. You singled out cap and trade as proof of your free market leanings, when, in this case, it is in support of a power grab that would have made Marx giggle like a schoolgirl. As I said several times, it doesn't make you a Marxist, but it does make it difficult to take your claims of being a free marketeer seriously.


well, the other take home message from me in the thread in question, is that c&t style policies are free-market preserving, when they work. can you spot the marxism in that argument? no?! didnt think so.

so again, its absurd and unwarranted to even suggest that i have any marxist leanings, based on the issues i've posted about on this board.

Once again, I didn't call you a Marxist, I said that those who read only what you wrote here could reasonably construe to you be a leftist. And, in the context of Global Warming, the cap and trade policies under discussion are specifically meant to increase government control over the economy. By allowing government to set carbon values, and to regulate its production, even picking winners and losers by allocating carbon, you are allowing government to take de facto control of whole segments of the economy, while allowing business owners to retain titular ownership, which is a halmark, not of Marxism, but of fascism. Now, I will explicitly make the point that I am not calling you, or even implying, that you are a fascist, although I am sure that you will hysterically make the claim that I am, but I digress. My original point, which you derided, was that you are on the left of many issues, and that those of us who have had the displeasure of repeated contact with you have come to the conclusion that you are a leftist, and that a simple statement of where you stand on most issues would put this to rest. However, since it's obvious that you would rather complain that we don't understand you, rather than simply come out and comprehensively explain yourself, you have no one to blame but yourself when we assume that you are what you appear to be. As you so ably put it (when you quoted me):


game. set. match (again) - as they say...