On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:21:27 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:26:33 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>>
>> Han, global warming alarmism (AGWK) is indeed a hoax. It has lies,
>> misread data, imperfect models, and exaggerations all rolled into one
>> nasty True Belief religion. It's sorta like Obamunism.
>
><http://news.yahoo.com/skeptic-finds-now-agrees-global-warming-
>real-142616605.html>
>
>I'm sure you won't believe him either :-).
Geeze, Larry, we (Wreck) just had this discussion. Pay attention.
--
When we are planning for posterity, we ought
to remember that virtue is not hereditary.
-- Thomas Paine
(comparing Paine to the current CONgress <deep sigh>)
Han wrote:
>
> While I am for gun control, I think that the NRA has driven too many
> people to buy guns, so that I am almost feeling forced to go and get
> some too. I'll let you all know when I do, so you can get body armor
>
Now that has to be the first time I've ever heard that statement. I like
you Han, but I have to say - you publish some weird ideas here. The NRA has
driven too many people to buy guns? That's certainly a novel thought. I'm
no huge fan of the NRA, though I am a gun owner. I'd have to believe you
have never even looked at what the NRA is all about.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 7/29/2012 7:04 AM, Han wrote:
> Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 29 Jul 2012 01:04:52 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> http://screen.yahoo.com/quot-door-to-hell-quot-burns-for-over-40-year
>>>> s- 30115437.html?pb_list=23dce613-c500-43f0-9134-70e58b73187a
>>>
>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-
>>> change-skeptic.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all>
>>> and for another commentary:
>>> <http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/28/602151/bombshell-koch-fund
>>> ed-
>>> study-finds-global-warming-is-real-on-the-high-end-and-essentially-all-
>>> due- to-carbon-pollution/>
>>
>> Jeeze, is it April 1st again already?
>
> Sorry, Larry. This is an early birthday present for you.
>
> The latest Koch brothers-financed study to definitively demonstrate that
> global warming is a hoax has found exactly the opposite of what they
> wanted:
> Global warming is real, and at least 70% if not all is caused by man.
> At least that is what I gather from all the buzz about this indeed
> definitive study by reputable scientists (AFAIKT).
>
I can assure you 99.999999999999999999999999% of global warming is
caused by the sun.
Take away the sun and see how much of the heat we have now remains.
On 29 Jul 2012 01:04:52 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> http://screen.yahoo.com/quot-door-to-hell-quot-burns-for-over-40-years-
>> 30115437.html?pb_list=23dce613-c500-43f0-9134-70e58b73187a
>
><http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-
>change-skeptic.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all>
>and for another commentary:
><http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/28/602151/bombshell-koch-funded-
>study-finds-global-warming-is-real-on-the-high-end-and-essentially-all-due-
>to-carbon-pollution/>
Jeeze, is it April 1st again already?
--
It takes as much energy to wish as to plan.
--Eleanor Roosevelt
On 7/28/2012 1:01 PM, Dave wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 13:23:04 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> http://screen.yahoo.com/quot-door-to-hell-quot-burns-for-over-40-years-30115437.html?pb_list=23dce613-c500-43f0-9134-70e58b73187a
> The "REAL" reason for global warming is the French. European French,
> Quebec French, take your pick.
Nah, it's all the hot air and flatulence Congress puts out.
On 07/29/2012 12:59 PM, Han wrote:
> Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 7/29/2012 11:28 AM, Han wrote:
>>
>>> Let me know when you find reliable reports denying the Muller paper.
>>
>> Available for anyone who bothers to read their FAQ?
>>
>> http://berkeleyearth.org/faq/
>>
>> Can look no further than their own words to understand that they
>> themselves imply their guess is apparently as good as any other, and
>> to also understand that thus far their study is taking into account
>> land data ONLY and is, by their own admission, far from complete:
>>
>> <quote>
>>
>> Berkeley Earth has not yet begun to analyze ocean temperatures (we
>> hope to do this in the next year), so the plotted data is land only.
>> Land warms more than oceans, so when we include the ocean we expect
>> the total global warming to be less.
>>
>> </quote>
>>
>> Has Global Warming Stopped?
>>
>> <quote>
>>
>> This exercise simply shows that the decadal fluctuations are too large
>> to allow us to make decisive conclusions about long term trends based
>> on close examination of periods as short as 13 to 15 years.
>>
>> </quote>
>>
>> Do Judith Curry and Richard Muller disagree?
>>
>> <quote>
>>
>> Below is a joint statement by Judith Curry and Richard Muller:
>>
>> In recent days, statements we've made to the media and on blogs have
>> been characterized as contradictory. They are not.
>>
>> We have both said that the global temperature record of the last 13
>> years shows evidence suggesting that the warming has slowed. Our new
>> analysis of the land-based data neither confirms nor denies this
>> contention. If you look at our new land temperature estimates, you can
>> see a flattening of the rise, or a continuation of the rise,
>> _depending on the statistical approach you take_
>>
>> Continued global warming "skepticism" is a proper and a necessary part
>> of the scientific process. The Wall St. Journal Op-Ed by one of us
>> (Muller) seemed to take the opposite view with its title and subtitle:
>> "The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism -- There were good reasons
>> for doubt, until now." But those words were not written by Muller. The
>> title and the subtitle of the submitted Op-Ed were "Cooling the
>> Warming Debate - Are you a global warming skeptic? If not, perhaps you
>> should be. Let me explain why." The title and subtitle were changed by
>> the editors without consulting or seeking permission from the author.
>> Readers are encouraged to ignore the title and read the content of the
>> Op-Ed.
>>
>> We do not agree with each other on every feature of climate change. We
>> have had vigorous discussions, for example, on the proper way to
>> analyze hurricane records. Such disagreements are an essential part of
>> the scientific process.
>>
>> </quote>
>>
>> So much for putting your faith in incomplete studies. LOL
>>
>>
>> www.eWoodShop.com
>> Last update: 4/15/2010
>> KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
>> http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
>
> OK. At least there is still room for debate, and it isn't a closed deal
> that global warming is a hoax.
>
That would be man caused global warming. Global warming in general has
been occurring for the last 10,000 years or so since the last major ice
age. Since ice ages occur cyclically and have a tendency to scrape a
lot of stuff off land, it might be nice if we were able to prevent the
next one so that cities like New York, Chicago, etc aren't erased.
Well, maybe New York ;-)
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill
On 07/29/2012 05:50 PM, Han wrote:
> Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han, global warming alarmism (AGWK) is indeed a hoax. It has lies,
>> misread data, imperfect models, and exaggerations all rolled into one
>> nasty True Belief religion. It's sorta like Obamunism.
>
> I'm really not sure whether whether alarm is necessary. I think there is
> a real heads up, that we can't go on the way we have been going. I'm
> sure that some of that has to do with presentation and interpretation -
> on the sides of both alarmists and denyers/deniers.
>
> I am trying to read Ron Paul's book Liberty defined, and have gotten to
> the E(ducation). So far it is to me a mixture of naive belief in the
> good of the natural mechanisms of free trade and laissez faire that human
> interactions will always lead to the best, although there are some tenets
> of Paul's that I could agree with. I'll have to see how much further I
> can get through the book. As far as Obamunism is concerned, Romneycare
> in Mass was the example, and by all accounts that I have rather
> successful, including the mandate and the penalties. Is the ACA a good
> compromise? It is a compromise. On all sides there has been give and
> take, and as usual (give Paul his due), the medical industry has
> influenced through lobbying the law WAY too much. Since Congress lives
> by slogans, bribery and sleight of hand, it is difficult to see how it
> can be rectified. I hope it will self-adjust once in effect, but in
> spite of my hope, I am a doubting Thomas as well.
According to the 10th amendment, Romney-care done by a state, or several
states or all states is fine, but Obama-care is not in the purview of
the Federal Government.
>
>> I'm with you in wanting CO2 emissions considerably reduced, but I
>> don't believe humans need to change their way of life to do it; Only
>> their attitude.
>
> That's a start. But I do believe that an attitude adjustment comes darn
> close to a change in the way of life. One good thing of this recession
> is that we are learning to be more frugal (overall, some more than
> others, and some very, very painfully).
We are being frugal, but the Federal Government isn't. It's going to
lead to much worse conditions for individuals than a little frugality.
>
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill
On 07/30/2012 05:02 AM, Han wrote:
> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 07/29/2012 05:50 PM, Han wrote:
>>> Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> Han, global warming alarmism (AGWK) is indeed a hoax. It has lies,
>>>> misread data, imperfect models, and exaggerations all rolled into
>>>> one nasty True Belief religion. It's sorta like Obamunism.
>>>
>>> I'm really not sure whether whether alarm is necessary. I think
>>> there is a real heads up, that we can't go on the way we have been
>>> going. I'm sure that some of that has to do with presentation and
>>> interpretation - on the sides of both alarmists and denyers/deniers.
>>>
>>> I am trying to read Ron Paul's book Liberty defined, and have gotten
>>> to the E(ducation). So far it is to me a mixture of naive belief in
>>> the good of the natural mechanisms of free trade and laissez faire
>>> that human interactions will always lead to the best, although there
>>> are some tenets of Paul's that I could agree with. I'll have to see
>>> how much further I can get through the book. As far as Obamunism is
>>> concerned, Romneycare in Mass was the example, and by all accounts
>>> that I have rather successful, including the mandate and the
>>> penalties. Is the ACA a good compromise? It is a compromise. On
>>> all sides there has been give and take, and as usual (give Paul his
>>> due), the medical industry has influenced through lobbying the law
>>> WAY too much. Since Congress lives by slogans, bribery and sleight
>>> of hand, it is difficult to see how it can be rectified. I hope it
>>> will self-adjust once in effect, but in spite of my hope, I am a
>>> doubting Thomas as well.
>>
>> According to the 10th amendment, Romney-care done by a state, or
>> several states or all states is fine, but Obama-care is not in the
>> purview of the Federal Government.
>
> It was only a 5-4 decision by the SCOTUS, but it was ruled
> constitutional, so your opinion is only that, your opinion, not legally
> useful (sorry).
It was a narrow ruling on the mandate as unconstitutional under the
commerce clause but valid as a tax (which the authors explicitly
denied). The validity of the whole law under the 10th wasn't part of
the pleadings.
>
>>>> I'm with you in wanting CO2 emissions considerably reduced, but I
>>>> don't believe humans need to change their way of life to do it; Only
>>>> their attitude.
>>>
>>> That's a start. But I do believe that an attitude adjustment comes
>>> darn close to a change in the way of life. One good thing of this
>>> recession is that we are learning to be more frugal (overall, some
>>> more than others, and some very, very painfully).
>>
>> We are being frugal, but the Federal Government isn't. It's going to
>> lead to much worse conditions for individuals than a little frugality.
>
> Yes, indeed. We are frugal too, and Congress isn't. That is because too
> many "constituents" scream when their earmarks are attacked. So it is
> almost everyone around that is NOT frugal when congressional largesse is
> seen as a handout.
Earmarks are to satisfy a relatively small number of folks who give big
campaign bucks. The "constituents" you mention get frightened when any
talk of social program reforms are mentioned, even though our current
tax receipts don't cover SS, Medicare and Mediacaid. Some of these and
all other Federal spending are borrowed including Obaba-care.
>
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill
On 7/31/2012 10:57 AM, Han wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The amount of sunlight striking the Earth is not the issue. The issue
>> is that there is no proven technology for utilizing it that has been
>> developed to a point where we can start construction on 1000 GW worth
>> of new plants this year.
>>
>> If we're going to do what the global warming people calculate that we
>> need to do and solar is part of the package we need to put real effort
>> into developing the technology to that level. But we can't wait for
>> that to happen.
>>
>> And another issue is that somebody has to figure out how to do
>> something about China. Even if the entire rest of the world stops
>> producing CO2 at all, the Chinese will still be producing nearly as
>> much as the rest of the world combined was when China signed Kyoto.
> I fully agree. But should that absolve us of the responsibility to do
> what we reasonably can do??
>
I have yet to see a persuasive argument disputing the concept that, on a
global scale, a little global warming would be a GOOD thing.
Arguments for local disruptions, yes. Arguments for global catastrophe, no.
Han wrote:
>
> I fully agree. But should that absolve us of the responsibility to do
> what we reasonably can do??
The point where things blurr is on what the definition of "reasonably" is.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 29 Jul 2012 19:59:02 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>OK. At least there is still room for debate, and it isn't a closed deal
>that global warming is a hoax.
Han, global warming alarmism (AGWK) is indeed a hoax. It has lies,
misread data, imperfect models, and exaggerations all rolled into one
nasty True Belief religion. It's sorta like Obamunism.
I'm with you in wanting CO2 emissions considerably reduced, but I
don't believe humans need to change their way of life to do it; Only
their attitude.
--
It takes as much energy to wish as to plan.
--Eleanor Roosevelt
CW wrote:
> While I am for gun control
> =======================================================================
> So am I. Sight picture, breath control and trigger squeeze. Done
> correctly, these things increase control dramatically.
On this point, we are in violent agreement!
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Larry Blanchard wrote:
>
> The article is from today's newspaper. Here's the difference:
>
> "Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen
> scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the
> prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm now going a
> step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."
I had a good friend who introduced me to the concept of "Quality Control
Thinking," which consisted of asking the appropriate, simple, question. In
this case, the question is:
"So what?"
Just Wondering wrote:
> On 7/31/2012 10:57 AM, Han wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> The amount of sunlight striking the Earth is not the issue. The
>>> issue is that there is no proven technology for utilizing it that
>>> has been developed to a point where we can start construction on
>>> 1000 GW worth of new plants this year.
>>>
>>> If we're going to do what the global warming people calculate that
>>> we need to do and solar is part of the package we need to put real
>>> effort into developing the technology to that level. But we can't
>>> wait for that to happen.
>>>
>>> And another issue is that somebody has to figure out how to do
>>> something about China. Even if the entire rest of the world stops
>>> producing CO2 at all, the Chinese will still be producing nearly as
>>> much as the rest of the world combined was when China signed Kyoto.
>> I fully agree. But should that absolve us of the responsibility to
>> do what we reasonably can do??
>>
> I have yet to see a persuasive argument disputing the concept that,
> on a global scale, a little global warming would be a GOOD thing.
> Arguments for local disruptions, yes. Arguments for global
> catastrophe, no.
Right.
* More people die from the effects of cold than of heat.
* Growing seasons in much of the world would be extended.
* An ice-free Northwest Passage would foster considerably more economical
trade routes. Europe could, for instance, revel in cheap Chinese imports.
* Some cities, i.e., San Francisco, New York, etc., might have to be
abandoned.
On 7/30/2012 11:21 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:26:33 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>>
>> Han, global warming alarmism (AGWK) is indeed a hoax. It has lies,
>> misread data, imperfect models, and exaggerations all rolled into one
>> nasty True Belief religion. It's sorta like Obamunism.
>
> <http://news.yahoo.com/skeptic-finds-now-agrees-global-warming-
> real-142616605.html>
>
> I'm sure you won't believe him either :-).
Too bad you didn't bother to read the thread, or Muller's study.
Admittedly incomplete, it was thoroughly discussed a few posts back. :)
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On 7/28/2012 2:56 PM, Han wrote:
> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 7/28/12 1:23 PM, Leon wrote:
>>> http://screen.yahoo.com/quot-door-to-hell-quot-burns-for-over-40-years
>>> -30115437.html?pb_list=23dce613-c500-43f0-9134-70e58b73187a
>>>
>>
>> There's an underground coal mine fire in New Straitsville, OH which
>> has been burning for 120 years.
>
> And Centralia, PA ...
>
>
And one that has been burning in NJ I believe Jersey City for 30 or 40 years
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
> >
> > The article is from today's newspaper. Here's the difference:
> >
> > "Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen
> > scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the
> > prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm now going a
> > step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."
>
> I had a good friend who introduced me to the concept of "Quality Control
> Thinking," which consisted of asking the appropriate, simple, question. In
> this case, the question is:
>
> "So what?"
If you push the global warming people for what to do about it, most say
"well start building solar".
If you actually check their numbers you find that we have to clean up
200 gigawatts worth of production every year for the next half century.
If they're right this isn't something we can be half-assed about. We
have one technology that produces no carbon emissions, and that is fully
developed and ready for production. But the greenies like it even less
than they like global warming, and so nothing has been done.
McCain listened to the global warming people and in his campaign he said
what he was going to do about it and his numbers were spot on. We saw
where that got him.
Personally I don't give a crap anymore. It's clear that nobody is going
to do anything about it except posture and use it as an excuse for more
taxes. So either it's going to happen or it's not and either it's the
end of the world or it's not, and putting energy into whining about it
is a waste of effort.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> J. Clarke wrote:
> >>
> >> "So what?"
> >
> > If you push the global warming people for what to do about it, most
> > say "well start building solar".
> >
> > If you actually check their numbers you find that we have to clean up
> > 200 gigawatts worth of production every year for the next half
> > century.
> >
>
> Yep. The amount of solar radiation hitting the earth is about 3KW/sq meter.
> At the equator. At noon. With no clouds.
>
> Adjusting for latitude, clouds, pollution, twelve hours of darkness, and 50%
> efficiency, California would need a solar collection farm the size of the
> Los Angeles basin (1200 sq miles) for its daily needs of about 50GW. Imagine
> the cost to build and maintain something 1200 square miles in extent!
>
> The only way to improve on the above is to move the orbit of the earth
> closer to the sun. Absent that, folks have to come to grips with the idea
> that we can't run this country off of sunbeams.
>
> It's not all bad, though. The citizens of Los Angeles would be living in the
> shade.
The amount of sunlight striking the Earth is not the issue. The issue
is that there is no proven technology for utilizing it that has been
developed to a point where we can start construction on 1000 GW worth of
new plants this year.
If we're going to do what the global warming people calculate that we
need to do and solar is part of the package we need to put real effort
into developing the technology to that level. But we can't wait for
that to happen.
And another issue is that somebody has to figure out how to do something
about China. Even if the entire rest of the world stops producing CO2
at all, the Chinese will still be producing nearly as much as the rest
of the world combined was when China signed Kyoto.
J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> "So what?"
>
> If you push the global warming people for what to do about it, most
> say "well start building solar".
>
> If you actually check their numbers you find that we have to clean up
> 200 gigawatts worth of production every year for the next half
> century.
>
Yep. The amount of solar radiation hitting the earth is about 3KW/sq meter.
At the equator. At noon. With no clouds.
Adjusting for latitude, clouds, pollution, twelve hours of darkness, and 50%
efficiency, California would need a solar collection farm the size of the
Los Angeles basin (1200 sq miles) for its daily needs of about 50GW. Imagine
the cost to build and maintain something 1200 square miles in extent!
The only way to improve on the above is to move the orbit of the earth
closer to the sun. Absent that, folks have to come to grips with the idea
that we can't run this country off of sunbeams.
It's not all bad, though. The citizens of Los Angeles would be living in the
shade.
On 7/30/2012 12:47 PM, Han wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 7/30/2012 7:12 AM, Han wrote:
>>
>>> Didn't know you were a Keynesian spendthrift <grin>! Spend and
>>> inflate, or spend and tax? which will it be? While I do think that
>>> just firing everyone who could possibly be missed might also not be a
>>> good thing, going the Spanish route of (very temporary) "prosperity"
>>> by borrowing and spending on all kinds of luxuries is definitely a
>>> recipe for disaster. That is playing out in Europe and Florida.
>>>
>>> One can be frugal without being miserly, methinks. We are being
>>> frugal by only having 1 car, a 2005 Grand (well ...) Caravan, but we
>>> went on an Alaska vacation earlier this year ...
>>>
>>
>>
>> No need to be frugal if you have always lived with in your means and
>> planed for times like these.
>>
>> My wife and I lived in our first starter home for 30 years. We
>> refinanced it 6 years in and paid an additional $300 per month for 6
>> years. The house was paid for in 1995 and as a result we have been
>> debt free ever since.
>>
>> We always looked around us and wondered why we were still in this same
>> starter house 25+ years after moving in and saw people driving very
>> expensive cars and buying huge homes.
>>
>> Well back in 2008 the answer came and as a result we were able to
>> finally afford/pay cash for a bigger new home.
>>
>> We are still debt free.
>>
>> It is a great feeling owing no one, but that only comes from only
>> buying what we can truly afford. I will add that we will finance
>> short term if the interest rate is "Zero" and if we can pay cash to
>> begin with. We have been very lucky to have had the wisdom and
>> patience to wait until we have truly earned what we choose to buy,
>> this methodology has been rewarding.
>
> I am keeping the HELOC with $75K outstanding and 2.24% interest, for the
> moment. I'm ready to pay it off when I decide to. That and the revolving
> charge cards that get paid off every month is what I owe. It is indeed a
> good feeling to not be in hock. Now I have to get the kids in that same
> situation/frame of mind. Of course, we have been very lucky with well-
> paying employment, but we did spend according to income, while saving up
> for this retirement thing ...
>
If you pay it off today you will be earning 2.24% more on that money.
-MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 7/28/12 1:23 PM, Leon wrote:
>> http://screen.yahoo.com/quot-door-to-hell-quot-burns-for-over-40-years
>> -30115437.html?pb_list=23dce613-c500-43f0-9134-70e58b73187a
>>
>
> There's an underground coal mine fire in New Straitsville, OH which
> has been burning for 120 years.
And Centralia, PA ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> http://screen.yahoo.com/quot-door-to-hell-quot-burns-for-over-40-years-
> 30115437.html?pb_list=23dce613-c500-43f0-9134-70e58b73187a
<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-
change-skeptic.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all>
and for another commentary:
<http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/28/602151/bombshell-koch-funded-
study-finds-global-warming-is-real-on-the-high-end-and-essentially-all-due-
to-carbon-pollution/>
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Larry Jaques wrote:
>
> Here's the text of Muller's NYT article, since, apparently, nobody but
> Swingy and I have read it:
Not so apparent. It's just that not everyone who read it posted anything
about it here.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 23:30:41 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 09:44:23 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>>>I'm sure you won't believe him either :-).
>>
>> Geeze, Larry, we (Wreck) just had this discussion. Pay attention.
>
>My bad - I clicked on the wrong reference. I'll try harder :-). Here's
>the right reference:
>
><http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/jul/30/climate-change-skeptic-
>reverses-course/>
>
>The article is from today's newspaper. Here's the difference:
>
>"Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen
>scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior
>estimates of the rate of warming were correct. Im now going a step
>further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
OK, I repeat:
Geeze, Larry, we (Wreck) just had this discussion. Pay attention.
<deep sigh> (Reread Swingy's earlier swat, too.)
So, Muller's report is due to be released today. Let's wait until
some folks (both Believers and Deniers) have a chance to take a closer
look and do peer reviews/critiques of it before we go anywhere with
it, eh?
The missing datasets (solar and oceanic?) bother me a whole lot. And
I'd like to see his temperature station list to see if he is accepting
the limited set now available which automatically skews the data
higher. BTW, this report is being released with an open request for
peer review. It's not a done deed until everyone has checked his
work, Mr. True Believer. I'm also iffy about the use of CO2 in ice
samples since there is still a good possibility that it follows warmth
rather than leading it.
Here's the text of Muller's NYT article, since, apparently, nobody but
Swingy and I have read it:
--snip--
July 28, 2012
The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic
By RICHARD A. MULLER
Berkeley, Calif.
CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in
previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very
existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive
research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global
warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming
were correct. Im now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely
the cause.
My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful
and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature
project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show
that the average temperature of the earths land has risen by two and
a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an
increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years.
Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase
results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.
These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the
scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In its 2007
report, the I.P.C.C. concluded only that most of the warming of the
prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible,
according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before
1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a
substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural.
Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methods
developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed
us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We
carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating
(we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data
selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the
available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from
poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor
ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is
completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that
none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our
conclusions.
The historic temperature pattern we observed has abrupt dips that
match the emissions of known explosive volcanic eruptions; the
particulates from such events reflect sunlight, make for beautiful
sunsets and cool the earths surface for a few years. There are small,
rapid variations attributable to El Niño and other ocean currents such
as the Gulf Stream; because of such oscillations, the flattening of
the recent temperature rise that some people claim is not, in our
view, statistically significant. What has caused the gradual but
systematic rise of two and a half degrees? We tried fitting the shape
to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials), to solar
activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far
the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide,
measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice.
Just as important, our record is long enough that we could search for
the fingerprint of solar variability, based on the historical record
of sunspots. That fingerprint is absent. Although the I.P.C.C. allowed
for the possibility that variations in sunlight could have ended the
Little Ice Age, a period of cooling from the 14th century to about
1850, our data argues strongly that the temperature rise of the past
250 years cannot be attributed to solar changes. This conclusion is,
in retrospect, not too surprising; weve learned from satellite
measurements that solar activity changes the brightness of the sun
very little.
How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve
gives a better match than anything else weve tried. Its magnitude is
consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect extra warming from
trapped heat radiation. These facts dont prove causality and they
shouldnt end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered
seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as
well as carbon dioxide does. Adding methane, a second greenhouse gas,
to our analysis doesnt change the results. Moreover, our analysis
does not depend on large, complex global climate models, the huge
computer programs that are notorious for their hidden assumptions and
adjustable parameters. Our result is based simply on the close
agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the
known greenhouse gas increase.
Its a scientists duty to be properly skeptical. I still find that
much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is
speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. Ive analyzed some of
the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasnt changed.
Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming. The number
of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down, not up;
likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears arent dying from receding
ice, and the Himalayan glaciers arent going to melt by 2035. And its
possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years
ago, during the Medieval Warm Period or Medieval Optimum, an
interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect
evidence like tree rings. And the recent warm spell in the United
States happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the
world, so its link to global warming is weaker than tenuous.
The careful analysis by our team is laid out in five scientific papers
now online at BerkeleyEarth.org. That site also shows our chart of
temperature from 1753 to the present, with its clear fingerprint of
volcanoes and carbon dioxide, but containing no component that matches
solar activity. Four of our papers have undergone extensive scrutiny
by the scientific community, and the newest, a paper with the analysis
of the human component, is now posted, along with the data and
computer programs used. Such transparency is the heart of the
scientific method; if you find our conclusions implausible, tell us of
any errors of data or analysis.
What about the future? As carbon dioxide emissions increase, the
temperature should continue to rise. I expect the rate of warming to
proceed at a steady pace, about one and a half degrees over land in
the next 50 years, less if the oceans are included. But if China
continues its rapid economic growth (it has averaged 10 percent per
year over the last 20 years) and its vast use of coal (it typically
adds one new gigawatt per month), then that same warming could take
place in less than 20 years.
Science is that narrow realm of knowledge that, in principle, is
universally accepted. I embarked on this analysis to answer questions
that, to my mind, had not been answered. I hope that the Berkeley
Earth analysis will help settle the scientific debate regarding global
warming and its human causes. Then comes the difficult part: agreeing
across the political and diplomatic spectrum about what can and should
be done.
Richard A. Muller, a professor of physics at the University of
California, Berkeley, and a former MacArthur Foundation fellow, is the
author, most recently, of Energy for Future Presidents: The Science
Behind the Headlines.
( http://tinyurl.com/blvkg68 copyright New York Times newspaper)
--snip--
Two paragraphs are key, too. They begin with "It's a scientist's
duty" and "Hurricane Katrina". They show that his skepticism is still
with him for most things. Why don't you Libs ever read or research
_any_ of the articles you tout, anyway? Crikey!
--
When we are planning for posterity, we ought
to remember that virtue is not hereditary.
-- Thomas Paine
(comparing Paine to the current CONgress <deep sigh>)
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 29 Jul 2012 01:04:52 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> http://screen.yahoo.com/quot-door-to-hell-quot-burns-for-over-40-year
>>> s- 30115437.html?pb_list=23dce613-c500-43f0-9134-70e58b73187a
>>
>><http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-
>>change-skeptic.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all>
>>and for another commentary:
>><http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/28/602151/bombshell-koch-fund
>>ed-
>>study-finds-global-warming-is-real-on-the-high-end-and-essentially-all-
>>due- to-carbon-pollution/>
>
> Jeeze, is it April 1st again already?
Sorry, Larry. This is an early birthday present for you.
The latest Koch brothers-financed study to definitively demonstrate that
global warming is a hoax has found exactly the opposite of what they
wanted:
Global warming is real, and at least 70% if not all is caused by man.
At least that is what I gather from all the buzz about this indeed
definitive study by reputable scientists (AFAIKT).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 29 Jul 2012 12:04:22 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 29 Jul 2012 01:04:52 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> http://screen.yahoo.com/quot-door-to-hell-quot-burns-for-over-40-ye
>>>>> ar s- 30115437.html?pb_list=23dce613-c500-43f0-9134-70e58b73187a
>>>>
>>>><http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climat
>>>>e- change-skeptic.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all>
>>>>and for another commentary:
>>>><http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/28/602151/bombshell-koch-fu
>>>>nd ed-
>>>>study-finds-global-warming-is-real-on-the-high-end-and-essentially-al
>>>>l- due- to-carbon-pollution/>
>>>
>>> Jeeze, is it April 1st again already?
>>
>>Sorry, Larry. This is an early birthday present for you.
>
> Gee, thanks. <g> It's next week, BTW. (59)
I know. Somehow my FB tells me it is soon. Btw, you're too young to be
so curmudgeonly <grin>.
>>The latest Koch brothers-financed study to definitively demonstrate
>>that global warming is a hoax has found exactly the opposite of what
>>they wanted:
>>Global warming is real, and at least 70% if not all is caused by man.
>>At least that is what I gather from all the buzz about this indeed
>>definitive study by reputable scientists (AFAIKT).
>
> The ThinkProgress site is suspect: liberals twisting facts once again.
> The hockey stick graph is a real good clue to that without research.
> Their "study" indicating that "NRA Members Agree: More Gun Regulation
> Makes Sense" is such bullshit I can't stand it. I wonder how long it
> took them to find that many liberals with guns who were NRA members-
> in-name-only. Or did they just have liberals buy memberships to
> support that "study"?
While I am for gun control, I think that the NRA has driven too many
people to buy guns, so that I am almost feeling forced to go and get some
too. I'll let you all know when I do, so you can get body armor ...
<grin>
> And if AGWK is at the high end of predictions, why has each IPCC study
> since the first shown -less- warming than first reported? They
> stairstep down. My guess is that the computer models are being
> updated as they find new data to make them more, or at least
> _somewhat_, reliable.
>
> Have you read the Koch report on their server or Muller's report, or
> just this completely cooked-up page at TP? (Fitting initials. I think
> of toilet paper when reading their dung.) I'm off to find the real
> reports now. It's no wonder that TP didn't link it, and I'm surprised
> that they linked Muller's.
Let me know when you find reliable reports denying the Muller paper.
> --
> It takes as much energy to wish as to plan.
> --Eleanor Roosevelt
Sometimes it is better to plan and act on your suspicions, than to just
sit and wait.
-- Han Broekman
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
CW wrote:
> He fully understood. He is a pro lifer that believes that abortion
> should never be an option and pregnant woman should give birth no
> matter what. The fact that the kid might be born no matter what the
> problem, including cases where the mothers life is in danger. Pro
> life? No, it's anti woman.
Most of what you said is uninformed. Your last comment shows what you are.
It earned you the famous "fuck off" award.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
CW wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> CW wrote:
>
>> He fully understood. He is a pro lifer that believes that abortion
>> should never be an option and pregnant woman should give birth no
>> matter what. The fact that the kid might be born no matter what the
>> problem, including cases where the mothers life is in danger. Pro
>> life? No, it's anti woman.
>
> Your last comment shows what you are.
> ================================================================================
> Yes, it does. I'm one of those people that don't want to turn time
> back 50 years. I'm one that doesn't believe that woman should be
> subservient to men. I'm one that does not see woman as baby
> factories. I'm one that believes that woman have a right to run their
> own lives. Don't bother replying. You have been plonked.
Yawn....
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 01 Aug 2012 17:21:24 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>-MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:jvbl7f$3ge$1
>@speranza.aioe.org:
>
>> The human being inside
>> the womb will never get a chance to see how difficult or easy life is.
>> Bottom line, it is a life.
>
>The fetus is a /potential/ life. There is a difference. There is no
>guarantee that pregnancy and birth will happen without danger to mother or
>fetus. Many times there is a need for intensive medical intervention.
>Perhaps that is why "nature" made fecundity so much greater than
>"necessary" for maintaining population.
>
>I know it sounds very bad (and I don't really think it is good) to end a
>potential life. But, sorry to say, I insist that the wishes of the
>potential mother rate far above those of the potential of a fetus. The
>better of 2 bad alternatives.
How does the convenience of one human trump the life of another?
Han wrote:
> Thanks, CW. I don't think that Mike Marlow unsderstood fully what I
> was trying to say. At "worst" I am advocating that a couple who know
> they /may/ (note emphasis) be getting a child with a dreaded disease
> such as Huntington's get counseling and testing done. With an eye on
> not implanting an embryo that tests positive, or aborting in an early
> first trimester abortion a fetus like that. Knowing they have
> another chance for a child without the problems. And I know this is
> easy talk for someone who hasn't had to make the decisions. As I
> said, I would respect ANY decision such a couple make.
>
> There are indeed children all around with problems. I am NOT going
> out of my way to find them to help them, but the few who are around
> near us I help as I can. I also contribute to worthwhile
> organizations of my choice.
I may come across as harsh Han, but I'm one who has a problem with the whole
abortion thing and that included - or maybe even is more intense, when it
comes to aborting "defective fetuses". Personal opinion, I realize but I
have a big issue with that line of thinking. Does not matter to me what
trimester it is in.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 7/31/2012 4:09 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> Han wrote:
>> One last remark. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Everyone
>> should act as their conscience/morality/whatever directs them.
>>
>> But NO ONE should impose their view on someone who does NOT share that
>> view. In the case of childbearing, pregnancy, contraception and
>> related subjects it is the WOMAN who is ultimately in charge and who
>> should make her INFORMED decision. To me THAT is an absolute.
> Does the fetus get to vote?
>
> Here's the drill: Actions have consequences. If a woman has unprotected sex,
> she should accept the results.
>
> Just man-up, woman. Take your humps and get on with your life.
>
>
Correct. Choices have consequences. Pregnancy is a potential
consequence of every act of sexual intercourse. A woman makes her
choice by either spreading her legs or crossing her knees.
One reason abortion is legal is that an aborted fetus doesn't get to
vote. She can't, y'know, being dead and all.
"Just Wondering" wrote:
> Correct. Choices have consequences. Pregnancy is a potential
> consequence of every act of sexual intercourse. A woman makes her
> choice by either spreading her legs or crossing her knees.
> One reason abortion is legal is that an aborted fetus doesn't get to
> vote. She can't, y'know, being dead and all.
--------------------------------
What a crock.
It still takes TWO to tango.
Trying to avoid responsibility by blaming your female partner is a
joke.
Lew
On 7/31/2012 7:05 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Just Wondering" wrote:
>
>> Correct. Choices have consequences. Pregnancy is a potential
>> consequence of every act of sexual intercourse. A woman makes her
>> choice by either spreading her legs or crossing her knees.
>> One reason abortion is legal is that an aborted fetus doesn't get to
>> vote. She can't, y'know, being dead and all.
> --------------------------------
> What a crock.
>
> It still takes TWO to tango.
>
> Trying to avoid responsibility by blaming your female partner is a
> joke.
>
> Lew
>
>
YOU, not I, are the one who advocates that women be entitled to avoid
responsibility. Men and women are equally responsible for the choices
they make. But that unborn daughter doesn't have a choice. Her mother
is free to kill her, and the father cannot save her.
On 7/31/2012 8:45 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>> Han wrote:
>>> One last remark. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Everyone
>>> should act as their conscience/morality/whatever directs them.
>>>
>>> But NO ONE should impose their view on someone who does NOT share that
>>> view. In the case of childbearing, pregnancy, contraception and
>>> related subjects it is the WOMAN who is ultimately in charge and who
>>> should make her INFORMED decision. To me THAT is an absolute.
>> Does the fetus get to vote?
>>
>> Here's the drill: Actions have consequences. If a woman has unprotected sex,
>> she should accept the results.
>>
>> Just man-up, woman. Take your humps and get on with your life.
> That's easy for someone who can't get pregnant to say.
>
> People of good will are in disagreement on the right thing to do about
> abortion, and a lot of the most vociferous participants in the
> discussion are people who are biologically incapable of being at risk.
Physical risk, perhaps. Men have no say in whether their their unborn
daughter's mother can take her life, but if the mother chooses to let
the daughter live, the father has financial and legal responsibility.
Han wrote:
>
> Now you are imposing your opinion as a law on someone else. Would you
> like a law that says you, -MIKE-, have to pray in this church, on that
> street corner? The woman's body is not something you have
> jurisdiction over. I respect your right to have an opinion that may
> say, for instance, "I do not think you have the right to terminate
> that pregnancy of yours", but it has to be followed by "but I will
> respect your right to do as you see fit". Then, of course you have
> the right to end any relationship with the woman, unless she is your
> responsibility as a minor. But even then, it is her body, and she
> needs to live with the consequences.
Pandora's box. Thought you were not going to go there Han...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Han wrote:
> Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 30 Jul 2012 12:21:24 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:06:20 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Larry Jaques
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> P.S: I think you'd like _Hard Green_ by Peter Huber. Let's do
>>>>>>> the most good with the least cost now, then work on the rest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DAGS "Bjorn Lomborg"... not a denier, but a voice of reason with
>>>>>> regard to policies concerning changing global climate, reviled
>>>>>> and almost professionally ruined by the AGW crowd in a most
>>>>>> repulsive manner. If you can't grasp that these alarmist' are
>>>>>> very often blind, bigoted, and totally without scruples, you're
>>>>>> part of the problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> His _Skeptic_ book adorns my shelf. He's the opposite of Muller,
>>>>> in that he was a greenie and became a skeptic.
>>>>
>>>> Lomborg is rational. In essence, most of his work centers around
>>>> priorities.
>>
>> Ditto Huber. If I had to choose a "best book" regarding ecology and
>> sanity, it would have to be Huber's _Hard Green_.
>>
>>
>>>> For example, the amount of money spent to prevent 3 cancer deaths a
>>>> year by eliminating some obscure chemical from refinery smokestacks
>>>> would be enough to test EVERY newborn black baby for sickle-cell
>>>> anemia, thereby saving THOUSANDS of lives per year.
>>>
>>> I like that idea of testing for hemoglobin S. I did that in a
>>> research project in the middle '60s, I believe in 1967. it is
>>> really cheap. Now what are you going to do when you find HbS in a
>>> baby? There still is no good cure or treatment for sickle cell
>>> anemia ...
>>
>> Some people abort when they test early and find gross genetic flaws.
>> I'd be pissed forever at my parents if they'd allowed me to be born
>> with 3 legs, no eyes, or a lead crowbar in my back pocket.
>
> This is out of the realm of prenatal testing. It was a research
> project to see whether sickle cell hemoglobin had independently
> evolved in tropical America, as it had in Africa. The theory was
> (and is) that HbS in heterozygotes (1 normal gene, 1 for HbS) affords
> a defense against malaria, which also occurred in the Americas. We
> tested indigenous Indians in Surinam who had had little if any
> exposure to whites or African blacks. None tested had HbS,
> indicating that HbS is an "African" "disease". While there have been
> many attempts with treatments to correct in one way or another HbS,
> or to prevent the sickling of the red cells that is the hallmark of
> the sickle cell disease, none that I know of have really succeeded.
> It is a horrible disease when you get really afflicted.
Despite all of that - which I'm not sure I understand the way that it ties
into Larry's statement... I find Larry's statment to be quite unaware of
anything besides his own thinking. I know many children who have been born
with many crippling conditions. One in particular had broken over 200 bones
before he was 5 years old (OI - whatever that stands for...). Yet - that
child is very much alive and happy for that. Larry's statements do nothing
to reflect what people who are living and breathing air feel, and probabaly
do nothing more than to reflect what he would really feel if he was in fact
born with a condition of any sort.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Larry Jaques
> P.S: I think you'd like _Hard Green_ by Peter Huber. Let's do the
> most good with the least cost now, then work on the rest.
DAGS "Bjorn Lomborg"... not a denier, but a voice of reason with regard to
policies concerning changing global climate, reviled and almost
professionally ruined by the AGW crowd in a most repulsive manner. If you
can't grasp that these alarmist' are very often blind, bigoted, and totally
without scruples, you're part of the problem.
--
www.ewoodshop.com
Han wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> My personal feeling is that if there is a chance you can prevent a
>>> lifetime of suffering, for instance by in vitro fertilization and
>>> checking whether the embryo does suffer from a genetic defect, then
>>> you should consider that.
>>
>>
>> The point is... what is that "lifetime of suffering" that you and
>> Larry talk about? Fine for you to think about that in the context of
>> your own perfect lives, but do your really know anyone who lives
>> these conditions? Have you really ever met and gotten to know
>> anyone who is really living through this stuff - or are you guys
>> just "deciding" for them what should be, based on what you think,
>> but do not know? I think both you and Larry have a lot to learn...
>
> I have not been personally involved, and once there is a child I'd
> likely do anything to help that child,
Well - they are all around you, so why not go and do all of that "anything
to help that child"? Sorry Han - but this is just so much BS. These people
are all around us. To say "if...." is just a bluff. I really do not see
you as that kind of guy...
> but read up on OI, and the
> suffering involved.
"suffering"? As in the use of that term to justify your killing off of
those people? How about - they do suffer through things, but suffering is
not a word that they would apply to their own lives - that is you word to
make yourself feel comfortable in killing them off before they are born.
They would tell you that life sucks for them in some respects, but that life
is very good for them in others. You really need to research OI more Han.
Like everything else you "research" here... Look deeper.
> I am not sure that the disease is really
> inherited, more likely a "sporadic" mutation, so you wouldn't know
> until it is too late.
So what - big deal. It is what it is.
> OTOH, there are tests for Huntington's and
> other diseases. If that were to run in a family, I'd want to know
> and take precautions so my children wouldn't get it.
And so - would you kill those children just so you did not have one with
that condition?
> As I said, I'm
> beyond the stage where would need to make decisions (even my kids are
> finished procreating, AFAIK). But I'd urge people with family
> history to do some planning.
And just what do you define "planning" as? You are starting to sound like
Hitler.
> Then they have the facts to make their
> own decisions,
Oh geezus - nice politically correct sounding bullshit phrase. "to make
their own decisions". On this particular point Han, - you are screwed up!
> and they should be respected no matter what.
Yup - they should be respected for making a decision that is more
comfortable for them - regardless of the life they are throwing away. Good
thing your own parents did not think that way Han. They might have made a
mistake and have terminated you...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 22:45:43 -0400, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>>
>> Han wrote:
>> >
>> > One last remark. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Everyone
>> > should act as their conscience/morality/whatever directs them.
>> >
>> > But NO ONE should impose their view on someone who does NOT share that
>> > view. In the case of childbearing, pregnancy, contraception and
>> > related subjects it is the WOMAN who is ultimately in charge and who
>> > should make her INFORMED decision. To me THAT is an absolute.
>>
>> Does the fetus get to vote?
>>
>> Here's the drill: Actions have consequences. If a woman has unprotected sex,
>> she should accept the results.
>>
>> Just man-up, woman. Take your humps and get on with your life.
>
>That's easy for someone who can't get pregnant to say.
>
>People of good will are in disagreement on the right thing to do about
>abortion, and a lot of the most vociferous participants in the
>discussion are people who are biologically incapable of being at risk.
>In this circumstance the government should just plain stay out of it--if
>there are laws against it they should be repealed, if there are laws
>requiring it they should be repealed, the government should simply not
>be involved.
In your opinion. Others believe it's a human, therefore murder. The only way
both of you can have it your way is to legalize killing people. Obama is all
for that.
wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 22:45:43 -0400, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>>
>> Han wrote:
>> >
>> > One last remark. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Everyone
>> > should act as their conscience/morality/whatever directs them.
>> >
>> > But NO ONE should impose their view on someone who does NOT share that
>> > view. In the case of childbearing, pregnancy, contraception and
>> > related subjects it is the WOMAN who is ultimately in charge and who
>> > should make her INFORMED decision. To me THAT is an absolute.
>>
>> Does the fetus get to vote?
>>
>> Here's the drill: Actions have consequences. If a woman has unprotected
>> sex,
>> she should accept the results.
>>
>> Just man-up, woman. Take your humps and get on with your life.
>
>That's easy for someone who can't get pregnant to say.
>
>People of good will are in disagreement on the right thing to do about
>abortion, and a lot of the most vociferous participants in the
>discussion are people who are biologically incapable of being at risk.
>In this circumstance the government should just plain stay out of it--if
>there are laws against it they should be repealed, if there are laws
>requiring it they should be repealed, the government should simply not
>be involved.
In your opinion. Others believe it's a human, therefore murder. The only
way
both of you can have it your way is to legalize killing people. Obama is
all
for that.
Right! Osama Bin Laden is D E A D along with a couple of dozen other
Alqueda types (including two or three American-born jihadists) and that
sorry, Muslim-in-Christian clothing, foreign-born, socialist Obama is all
for that.
Dave in Texas
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:06:20 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques
>
>> P.S: I think you'd like _Hard Green_ by Peter Huber. Let's do the
>> most good with the least cost now, then work on the rest.
>
>DAGS "Bjorn Lomborg"... not a denier, but a voice of reason with regard to
>policies concerning changing global climate, reviled and almost
>professionally ruined by the AGW crowd in a most repulsive manner. If you
>can't grasp that these alarmist' are very often blind, bigoted, and totally
>without scruples, you're part of the problem.
His _Skeptic_ book adorns my shelf. He's the opposite of Muller, in
that he was a greenie and became a skeptic.
--
It takes as much energy to wish as to plan.
--Eleanor Roosevelt
Han wrote:
>
> Now you are imposing your opinion as a law on someone else. Would you
> like a law that says you, -MIKE-, have to pray in this church, on that
> street corner? The woman's body is not something you have
> jurisdiction over. I respect your right to have an opinion that may
> say, for instance, "I do not think you have the right to terminate
> that pregnancy of yours", but it has to be followed by "but I will
> respect your right to do as you see fit". Then, of course you have
> the right to end any relationship with the woman, unless she is your
> responsibility as a minor. But even then, it is her body, and she
> needs to live with the consequences.
There are heartfelt and rational arguments on both sides of the abortion
debate. After much thoughtful study, I've come down on the side of
unrestricted termination of pregnancy.
Why?
Unfettered abortions will reduce the number of liberals amongst us!
A "Progressive" woman who terminate her pregnancy is similar to her eating
the seed corn. This phenomenon actually has a name: It's called "The Roe
Effect." Here's how it works.
In 1982, it was estimated there were 72,000 abortions in Florida. If not for
the abortion, those fetuses would have been eligible to vote in 2000. Some
would have moved out of state, some would be dead, some would have been
incarcerated. A large percentage would not have bothered to go to the polls.
That still leaves many thousands who would go to the polls and mimic their
mom's inclinations.
George Bush won Florida, and hence the presidency, by 585 votes.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Han wrote:
> >
> > One last remark. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Everyone
> > should act as their conscience/morality/whatever directs them.
> >
> > But NO ONE should impose their view on someone who does NOT share that
> > view. In the case of childbearing, pregnancy, contraception and
> > related subjects it is the WOMAN who is ultimately in charge and who
> > should make her INFORMED decision. To me THAT is an absolute.
>
> Does the fetus get to vote?
>
> Here's the drill: Actions have consequences. If a woman has unprotected sex,
> she should accept the results.
>
> Just man-up, woman. Take your humps and get on with your life.
That's easy for someone who can't get pregnant to say.
People of good will are in disagreement on the right thing to do about
abortion, and a lot of the most vociferous participants in the
discussion are people who are biologically incapable of being at risk.
In this circumstance the government should just plain stay out of it--if
there are laws against it they should be repealed, if there are laws
requiring it they should be repealed, the government should simply not
be involved.
Dave wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 06:03:43 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> Not emotionally involved at all Dave - in fact if you note, I have
>> not commented on the emotional apects of this discussion at all. CW
>> took it upon himself to presume what my beliefs were, but I have not
>> expressed them at all. As I have said, that would be too complex.
>
> You don't usually lapse into cursing and swearing rhetoric. You've
> said your beliefs are too complex.
>
> It doesn't take a great deal of intellect to see that you feel
> strongly about the subject. So strongly in fact that you don't want to
> expound your beliefs.
>
> Not emotionally involved? Give me a break.
And... time has proven that this is a topic that is very difficult to
discuss "rationally". Each side believes they are being rational, but just
look at the positional statements that have taken place in this thread - far
from rational. Lots of emotional statements from each side. That's the way
this and similar sorts of topics go. Then you get a guy like me throwing
stuff into the mix, trying to talk about the manner of logic and argument...
I'd say there is no shortage of emotional investment on both sides already,
without me adding my convoluted thoughts into the topic.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Dave wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 06:03:43 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> Not emotionally involved at all Dave - in fact if you note, I have
>> not commented on the emotional apects of this discussion at all. CW
>> took it upon himself to presume what my beliefs were, but I have not
>> expressed them at all. As I have said, that would be too complex.
>
> You don't usually lapse into cursing and swearing rhetoric. You've
> said your beliefs are too complex.
>
> It doesn't take a great deal of intellect to see that you feel
> strongly about the subject. So strongly in fact that you don't want to
> expound your beliefs.
>
> Not emotionally involved? Give me a break.
No really - not emotionally involved - at least not on the topic at hand.
My own thoughts are too conflicting for that to be the case. You are right
that I probably stepped out of character a bit - or stepped further out of
character in my post, but that was really based more on how I wanted to
discuss things with Han than on my thoughts on the matter. The thing I feel
much more strongly about is the nature of the argument presented than the
topic at hand in this case - again, because this is a topic that holds too
many conflicts for me to weigh in absolutely in short concise statements.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 8/2/12 1:33 PM, Dave wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 09:58:14 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>> How rational is it for the highest evolved species to get to the point
>> where it kills its own offspring out of convenience?
>
> That "convenience" you state is not nearly as cut and dried as you
> would suggest.
>
> The only thing I know is that if I was a woman, (young, old, healthy,
> disabled, professional, whatever category you care for), I'd want to
> have the option of terminating a pregnancy if thought it was the best
> choice for me.
>
When does the baby get a choice in the matter.
Even pro-choice statistics show that more than 95 percent of abortions
are for convenience. There hasn't been an abortion restrictive
legislation written that didn't contain exemptions for rape, incest,
danger to the life of the mother.
> And that being so, who am I or you for that matter, to dictate or
> mandate what someone else should do?
>
That's exactly what every law does.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 09:58:14 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>How rational is it for the highest evolved species to get to the point
>where it kills its own offspring out of convenience?
That "convenience" you state is not nearly as cut and dried as you
would suggest.
The only thing I know is that if I was a woman, (young, old, healthy,
disabled, professional, whatever category you care for), I'd want to
have the option of terminating a pregnancy if thought it was the best
choice for me.
And that being so, who am I or you for that matter, to dictate or
mandate what someone else should do?
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 06:03:43 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>Not emotionally involved at all Dave - in fact if you note, I have not
>commented on the emotional apects of this discussion at all. CW took it
>upon himself to presume what my beliefs were, but I have not expressed them
>at all. As I have said, that would be too complex.
You don't usually lapse into cursing and swearing rhetoric. You've
said your beliefs are too complex.
It doesn't take a great deal of intellect to see that you feel
strongly about the subject. So strongly in fact that you don't want to
expound your beliefs.
Not emotionally involved? Give me a break.
"Han" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
>
> "Mike Marlow" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> Han wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Han wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> My personal feeling is that if there is a chance you can prevent a
>>>> lifetime of suffering, for instance by in vitro fertilization and
>>>> checking whether the embryo does suffer from a genetic defect, then
>>>> you should consider that.
>>>
>>>
>>> The point is... what is that "lifetime of suffering" that you and
>>> Larry talk about? Fine for you to think about that in the context
>>> of your own perfect lives, but do your really know anyone who lives
>>> these conditions? Have you really ever met and gotten to know
>>> anyone who is really living through this stuff - or are you guys
>>> just "deciding" for them what should be, based on what you think,
>>> but do not know? I think both you and Larry have a lot to learn...
>>
>> I have not been personally involved, and once there is a child I'd
>> likely do anything to help that child,
>
> Well - they are all around you, so why not go and do all of that
> "anything to help that child"? Sorry Han - but this is just so much
> BS. These people are all around us. To say "if...." is just a bluff.
> I really do not see you as that kind of guy...
>
>
>
>> but read up on OI, and the
>> suffering involved.
>
> "suffering"? As in the use of that term to justify your killing off
> of those people? How about - they do suffer through things, but
> suffering is not a word that they would apply to their own lives -
> that is you word to make yourself feel comfortable in killing them off
> before they are born. They would tell you that life sucks for them in
> some respects, but that life is very good for them in others. You
> really need to research OI more Han. Like everything else you
> "research" here... Look deeper.
>
>
>> I am not sure that the disease is really
>> inherited, more likely a "sporadic" mutation, so you wouldn't know
>> until it is too late.
>
> So what - big deal. It is what it is.
>
>
>> OTOH, there are tests for Huntington's and
>> other diseases. If that were to run in a family, I'd want to know
>> and take precautions so my children wouldn't get it.
>
> And so - would you kill those children just so you did not have one
> with that condition?
> =================================================================
> At no point did he advocate killing anyone. I don't agree with Han a
> lot of the time but in this case, he makes perfect sense.
Thanks, CW. I don't think that Mike Marlow unsderstood fully what I was
trying to say.
======================================================================
He fully understood. He is a pro lifer that believes that abortion should
never be an option and pregnant woman should give birth no matter what. The
fact that the kid might be born no matter what the problem, including cases
where the mothers life is in danger. Pro life? No, it's anti woman.
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 01 Aug 2012 11:15:08 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Perhaps, but what gets me is that so many people are having
>>> unprotected sex, in this day of so many untreatable STDs, plus
>>> life-threatening AIDS! Pregnancy is the least of their possible
>>> troubles.
>>
>>There is a lesson that probably doesn't get emphasized enough:
>>When you are having sex with that person, you automagically have sex
>>with EVERY OTHER person that person has had sex with. Pause for
>>emphasis. Is that REALLY what you want?
>
> Han! That's *not* a liberal concept! Use a Condom! ;-)
Just quoting an Ann Landers truism, krw! Or do you have a real name I
can call you? And, perhaps, there are a few things that transcend
liberal<>conservative.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 01 Aug 2012 11:15:08 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Perhaps, but what gets me is that so many people are having
>> unprotected sex, in this day of so many untreatable STDs, plus
>> life-threatening AIDS! Pregnancy is the least of their possible
>> troubles.
>
>There is a lesson that probably doesn't get emphasized enough:
>When you are having sex with that person, you automagically have sex with
>EVERY OTHER person that person has had sex with. Pause for emphasis.
>Is that REALLY what you want?
Han! That's *not* a liberal concept! Use a Condom! ;-)
On Wed, 1 Aug 2012 07:37:47 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>"Dave" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 02:18:08 -0600, Just Wondering
>>Physical risk, perhaps. Men have no say in whether their their unborn
>>daughter's mother can take her life, but if the mother chooses to let
>>the daughter live, the father has financial and legal responsibility.
>
>It's the woman's body that is of concern here. I wonder how quickly
>opinions would change if men who were the ones that gave birth?
>====================================================================
>Very quickly.
By that logic, your position is that there are *no* no right-to-life women? I
know one who would talk you ear off (and then work down from there).
Han wrote:
>
> One last remark. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Everyone
> should act as their conscience/morality/whatever directs them.
>
> But NO ONE should impose their view on someone who does NOT share that
> view. In the case of childbearing, pregnancy, contraception and
> related subjects it is the WOMAN who is ultimately in charge and who
> should make her INFORMED decision. To me THAT is an absolute.
Does the fetus get to vote?
Here's the drill: Actions have consequences. If a woman has unprotected sex,
she should accept the results.
Just man-up, woman. Take your humps and get on with your life.
On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:16:05 -0600, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 8/1/2012 2:15 PM, Han wrote:
>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 01 Aug 2012 18:40:08 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> On 01 Aug 2012 11:15:08 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps, but what gets me is that so many people are having
>>>>>>> unprotected sex, in this day of so many untreatable STDs, plus
>>>>>>> life-threatening AIDS! Pregnancy is the least of their possible
>>>>>>> troubles.
>>>>>> There is a lesson that probably doesn't get emphasized enough:
>>>>>> When you are having sex with that person, you automagically have sex
>>>>>> with EVERY OTHER person that person has had sex with. Pause for
>>>>>> emphasis. Is that REALLY what you want?
>>>>> Han! That's *not* a liberal concept! Use a Condom! ;-)
>>>> Just quoting an Ann Landers truism, krw! Or do you have a real name I
>>>> can call you?
>>> True, for sure. True <> PC
>>>
>>> Keith. I haven't hidden it but my sig got dropped long ago (I think).
>>>
>>>> And, perhaps, there are a few things that transcend
>>>> liberal<>conservative.
>>> Except that it doesn't. That message is quite anti-PC.
>> Well, Keith, I don't care whether that message is politically correct. It
>> is factually correct, and it may matter a great deal:
>> "When you are having sex with another person, you automagically have sex
>> with EVERY OTHER person that person has had sex with."
>>
>I would add, every act of consensual sex between a fertile male and a
>fertile female is an act of consent to a potential pregnancy.
Absolutely. Anyone who can't (doesn't want to) handle the "worst case"
scenario has no business trying to get on base.
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:06:20 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Larry Jaques
>>>
>>>> P.S: I think you'd like _Hard Green_ by Peter Huber. Let's do the
>>>> most good with the least cost now, then work on the rest.
>>>
>>> DAGS "Bjorn Lomborg"... not a denier, but a voice of reason with
>>> regard to policies concerning changing global climate, reviled and
>>> almost professionally ruined by the AGW crowd in a most repulsive
>>> manner. If you can't grasp that these alarmist' are very often
>>> blind, bigoted, and totally without scruples, you're part of the
>>> problem.
>>
>> His _Skeptic_ book adorns my shelf. He's the opposite of Muller, in
>> that he was a greenie and became a skeptic.
>
> Lomborg is rational. In essence, most of his work centers around
> priorities.
>
> For example, the amount of money spent to prevent 3 cancer deaths a
> year by eliminating some obscure chemical from refinery smokestacks
> would be enough to test EVERY newborn black baby for sickle-cell
> anemia, thereby saving THOUSANDS of lives per year.
I like that idea of testing for hemoglobin S. I did that in a research
project in the middle '60s, I believe in 1967. it is really cheap. Now
what are you going to do when you find HbS in a baby? There still is no
good cure or treatment for sickle cell anemia ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 19:34:30 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Han" wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Mike Marlow" wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> Han wrote:
>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> Han wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My personal feeling is that if there is a chance you can prevent
>>>>>> a lifetime of suffering, for instance by in vitro fertilization
>>>>>> and checking whether the embryo does suffer from a genetic
>>>>>> defect, then you should consider that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The point is... what is that "lifetime of suffering" that you and
>>>>> Larry talk about? Fine for you to think about that in the context
>>>>> of your own perfect lives, but do your really know anyone who
>>>>> lives these conditions? Have you really ever met and gotten to
>>>>> know anyone who is really living through this stuff - or are you
>>>>> guys just "deciding" for them what should be, based on what you
>>>>> think, but do not know? I think both you and Larry have a lot to
>>>>> learn...
>>>>
>>>> I have not been personally involved, and once there is a child I'd
>>>> likely do anything to help that child,
>>>
>>> Well - they are all around you, so why not go and do all of that
>>> "anything to help that child"? Sorry Han - but this is just so much
>>> BS. These people are all around us. To say "if...." is just a
>>> bluff. I really do not see you as that kind of guy...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> but read up on OI, and the
>>>> suffering involved.
>>>
>>> "suffering"? As in the use of that term to justify your killing off
>>> of those people? How about - they do suffer through things, but
>>> suffering is not a word that they would apply to their own lives -
>>> that is you word to make yourself feel comfortable in killing them
>>> off before they are born. They would tell you that life sucks for
>>> them in some respects, but that life is very good for them in
>>> others. You really need to research OI more Han. Like everything
>>> else you "research" here... Look deeper.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I am not sure that the disease is really
>>>> inherited, more likely a "sporadic" mutation, so you wouldn't know
>>>> until it is too late.
>>>
>>> So what - big deal. It is what it is.
>>>
>>>
>>>> OTOH, there are tests for Huntington's and
>>>> other diseases. If that were to run in a family, I'd want to know
>>>> and take precautions so my children wouldn't get it.
>>>
>>> And so - would you kill those children just so you did not have one
>>> with that condition?
>>> =================================================================
>>> At no point did he advocate killing anyone. I don't agree with Han a
>>> lot of the time but in this case, he makes perfect sense.
>>
>> Thanks, CW. I don't think that Mike Marlow unsderstood fully what I
>> was trying to say.
>> ======================================================================
>> He fully understood. He is a pro lifer that believes that abortion
>> should never be an option and pregnant woman should give birth no
>> matter what. The fact that the kid might be born no matter what the
>> problem, including cases where the mothers life is in danger. Pro
>> life? No, it's anti woman.
>
> +1, CW.
-1 or -10 or whatever you facebook idiots use. It's no surprise that Larry
would post such a thing.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 19:34:30 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>"Han" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>>
>> "Mike Marlow" wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Han wrote:
>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> Han wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My personal feeling is that if there is a chance you can prevent a
>>>>> lifetime of suffering, for instance by in vitro fertilization and
>>>>> checking whether the embryo does suffer from a genetic defect, then
>>>>> you should consider that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The point is... what is that "lifetime of suffering" that you and
>>>> Larry talk about? Fine for you to think about that in the context
>>>> of your own perfect lives, but do your really know anyone who lives
>>>> these conditions? Have you really ever met and gotten to know
>>>> anyone who is really living through this stuff - or are you guys
>>>> just "deciding" for them what should be, based on what you think,
>>>> but do not know? I think both you and Larry have a lot to learn...
>>>
>>> I have not been personally involved, and once there is a child I'd
>>> likely do anything to help that child,
>>
>> Well - they are all around you, so why not go and do all of that
>> "anything to help that child"? Sorry Han - but this is just so much
>> BS. These people are all around us. To say "if...." is just a bluff.
>> I really do not see you as that kind of guy...
>>
>>
>>
>>> but read up on OI, and the
>>> suffering involved.
>>
>> "suffering"? As in the use of that term to justify your killing off
>> of those people? How about - they do suffer through things, but
>> suffering is not a word that they would apply to their own lives -
>> that is you word to make yourself feel comfortable in killing them off
>> before they are born. They would tell you that life sucks for them in
>> some respects, but that life is very good for them in others. You
>> really need to research OI more Han. Like everything else you
>> "research" here... Look deeper.
>>
>>
>>> I am not sure that the disease is really
>>> inherited, more likely a "sporadic" mutation, so you wouldn't know
>>> until it is too late.
>>
>> So what - big deal. It is what it is.
>>
>>
>>> OTOH, there are tests for Huntington's and
>>> other diseases. If that were to run in a family, I'd want to know
>>> and take precautions so my children wouldn't get it.
>>
>> And so - would you kill those children just so you did not have one
>> with that condition?
>> =================================================================
>> At no point did he advocate killing anyone. I don't agree with Han a
>> lot of the time but in this case, he makes perfect sense.
>
>Thanks, CW. I don't think that Mike Marlow unsderstood fully what I was
>trying to say.
>======================================================================
>He fully understood. He is a pro lifer that believes that abortion should
>never be an option and pregnant woman should give birth no matter what. The
>fact that the kid might be born no matter what the problem, including cases
>where the mothers life is in danger. Pro life? No, it's anti woman.
+1, CW.
--
When we are planning for posterity, we ought
to remember that virtue is not hereditary.
-- Thomas Paine
(comparing Paine to the current CONgress <deep sigh>)
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 30 Jul 2012 12:21:24 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:06:20 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Larry Jaques
>>>>>
>>>>>> P.S: I think you'd like _Hard Green_ by Peter Huber. Let's do
>>>>>> the most good with the least cost now, then work on the rest.
>>>>>
>>>>> DAGS "Bjorn Lomborg"... not a denier, but a voice of reason with
>>>>> regard to policies concerning changing global climate, reviled and
>>>>> almost professionally ruined by the AGW crowd in a most repulsive
>>>>> manner. If you can't grasp that these alarmist' are very often
>>>>> blind, bigoted, and totally without scruples, you're part of the
>>>>> problem.
>>>>
>>>> His _Skeptic_ book adorns my shelf. He's the opposite of Muller,
>>>> in that he was a greenie and became a skeptic.
>>>
>>> Lomborg is rational. In essence, most of his work centers around
>>> priorities.
>
> Ditto Huber. If I had to choose a "best book" regarding ecology and
> sanity, it would have to be Huber's _Hard Green_.
>
>
>>> For example, the amount of money spent to prevent 3 cancer deaths a
>>> year by eliminating some obscure chemical from refinery smokestacks
>>> would be enough to test EVERY newborn black baby for sickle-cell
>>> anemia, thereby saving THOUSANDS of lives per year.
>>
>>I like that idea of testing for hemoglobin S. I did that in a
>>research project in the middle '60s, I believe in 1967. it is really
>>cheap. Now what are you going to do when you find HbS in a baby?
>>There still is no good cure or treatment for sickle cell anemia ...
>
> Some people abort when they test early and find gross genetic flaws.
> I'd be pissed forever at my parents if they'd allowed me to be born
> with 3 legs, no eyes, or a lead crowbar in my back pocket.
This is out of the realm of prenatal testing. It was a research project
to see whether sickle cell hemoglobin had independently evolved in
tropical America, as it had in Africa. The theory was (and is) that HbS
in heterozygotes (1 normal gene, 1 for HbS) affords a defense against
malaria, which also occurred in the Americas. We tested indigenous
Indians in Surinam who had had little if any exposure to whites or
African blacks. None tested had HbS, indicating that HbS is an
"African" "disease". While there have been many attempts with
treatments to correct in one way or another HbS, or to prevent the
sickling of the red cells that is the hallmark of the sickle cell
disease, none that I know of have really succeeded. It is a horrible
disease when you get really afflicted.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Despite all of that - which I'm not sure I understand the way that it
> ties into Larry's statement... I find Larry's statment to be quite
> unaware of anything besides his own thinking. I know many children
> who have been born with many crippling conditions. One in particular
> had broken over 200 bones before he was 5 years old (OI - whatever
> that stands for...). Yet - that child is very much alive and happy
> for that. Larry's statements do nothing to reflect what people who
> are living and breathing air feel, and probabaly do nothing more than
> to reflect what he would really feel if he was in fact born with a
> condition of any sort.
OI likely stands for Osteogenesis imperfecta. Osteo- means bone-
related, genesis means formation, imperfecta means it doesn't work
properly. See
<http://teacherlink.ed.usu.edu/tlresources/units/champions/PaulHearne.PDF
>. Paul grew up in the house next to the one we occupied for 18 years.
He was the cheeriest of people (or however you'd like to express that).
He died rather horribly, but the ADA is his legacy ... And that has done
a lot of mostly good to a lot of people.
My personal feeling is that if there is a chance you can prevent a
lifetime of suffering, for instance by in vitro fertilization and
checking whether the embryo does suffer from a genetic defect, then you
should consider that. But it is REALLY FAR from me to say anything more,
considering the luck that we have had in our lives.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>
>
>>
>> My personal feeling is that if there is a chance you can prevent a
>> lifetime of suffering, for instance by in vitro fertilization and
>> checking whether the embryo does suffer from a genetic defect, then
>> you should consider that.
>
>
> The point is... what is that "lifetime of suffering" that you and
> Larry talk about? Fine for you to think about that in the context of
> your own perfect lives, but do your really know anyone who lives these
> conditions? Have you really ever met and gotten to know anyone who is
> really living through this stuff - or are you guys just "deciding" for
> them what should be, based on what you think, but do not know? I
> think both you and Larry have a lot to learn...
I have not been personally involved, and once there is a child I'd likely
do anything to help that child, but read up on OI, and the suffering
involved. I am not sure that the disease is really inherited, more
likely a "sporadic" mutation, so you wouldn't know until it is too late.
OTOH, there are tests for Huntington's and other diseases. If that were
to run in a family, I'd want to know and take precautions so my children
wouldn't get it. As I said, I'm beyond the stage where would need to
make decisions (even my kids are finished procreating, AFAIK). But I'd
urge people with family history to do some planning. Then they have the
facts to make their own decisions, and they should be respected no matter
what. You'll find no inducement for eugenics from me.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 7/31/2012 6:08 PM, Dave wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 17:09:12 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
>> Here's the drill: Actions have consequences. If a woman has unprotected sex,
>> she should accept the results.
>
> Yeah, right! Perhaps you should also include a little of that "accept
> the results" to the men who were part of that equation.
>
> I'm willing to bet that's there's many more men who have refused
> responsibility than women who have refused the responsibility.
Yep ... and well said.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 17:09:12 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
>Here's the drill: Actions have consequences. If a woman has unprotected sex,
>she should accept the results.
Yeah, right! Perhaps you should also include a little of that "accept
the results" to the men who were part of that equation.
I'm willing to bet that's there's many more men who have refused
responsibility than women who have refused the responsibility.
On 02 Aug 2012 01:32:23 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 01 Aug 2012 20:15:44 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 01 Aug 2012 18:40:08 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 01 Aug 2012 11:15:08 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Perhaps, but what gets me is that so many people are having
>>>>>>>> unprotected sex, in this day of so many untreatable STDs, plus
>>>>>>>> life-threatening AIDS! Pregnancy is the least of their possible
>>>>>>>> troubles.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There is a lesson that probably doesn't get emphasized enough:
>>>>>>>When you are having sex with that person, you automagically have
>>>>>>>sex with EVERY OTHER person that person has had sex with. Pause
>>>>>>>for emphasis. Is that REALLY what you want?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Han! That's *not* a liberal concept! Use a Condom! ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>Just quoting an Ann Landers truism, krw! Or do you have a real name
>>>>>I can call you?
>>>>
>>>> True, for sure. True <> PC
>>>>
>>>> Keith. I haven't hidden it but my sig got dropped long ago (I
>>>> think).
>>>>
>>>>>And, perhaps, there are a few things that transcend
>>>>>liberal<>conservative.
>>>>
>>>> Except that it doesn't. That message is quite anti-PC.
>>>
>>>Well, Keith, I don't care whether that message is politically correct.
>>>It is factually correct, and it may matter a great deal:
>>>"When you are having sex with another person, you automagically have
>>>sex with EVERY OTHER person that person has had sex with."
>>
>> I didn't say it wasn't the truth (within limits), I said it wasn't
>> "liberal" (liberal == PC).
>
>You are calling me NOT liberal???
Shocking, isn't it. It only took to posts for it to sink in, too.
> I have to hang that on the fridge!!
Don't get used to it. ;-)
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
>
> "Mike Marlow" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> Han wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Han wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> My personal feeling is that if there is a chance you can prevent a
>>>> lifetime of suffering, for instance by in vitro fertilization and
>>>> checking whether the embryo does suffer from a genetic defect, then
>>>> you should consider that.
>>>
>>>
>>> The point is... what is that "lifetime of suffering" that you and
>>> Larry talk about? Fine for you to think about that in the context
>>> of your own perfect lives, but do your really know anyone who lives
>>> these conditions? Have you really ever met and gotten to know
>>> anyone who is really living through this stuff - or are you guys
>>> just "deciding" for them what should be, based on what you think,
>>> but do not know? I think both you and Larry have a lot to learn...
>>
>> I have not been personally involved, and once there is a child I'd
>> likely do anything to help that child,
>
> Well - they are all around you, so why not go and do all of that
> "anything to help that child"? Sorry Han - but this is just so much
> BS. These people are all around us. To say "if...." is just a bluff.
> I really do not see you as that kind of guy...
>
>
>
>> but read up on OI, and the
>> suffering involved.
>
> "suffering"? As in the use of that term to justify your killing off
> of those people? How about - they do suffer through things, but
> suffering is not a word that they would apply to their own lives -
> that is you word to make yourself feel comfortable in killing them off
> before they are born. They would tell you that life sucks for them in
> some respects, but that life is very good for them in others. You
> really need to research OI more Han. Like everything else you
> "research" here... Look deeper.
>
>
>> I am not sure that the disease is really
>> inherited, more likely a "sporadic" mutation, so you wouldn't know
>> until it is too late.
>
> So what - big deal. It is what it is.
>
>
>> OTOH, there are tests for Huntington's and
>> other diseases. If that were to run in a family, I'd want to know
>> and take precautions so my children wouldn't get it.
>
> And so - would you kill those children just so you did not have one
> with that condition?
> =================================================================
> At no point did he advocate killing anyone. I don't agree with Han a
> lot of the time but in this case, he makes perfect sense.
Thanks, CW. I don't think that Mike Marlow unsderstood fully what I was
trying to say. At "worst" I am advocating that a couple who know they
/may/ (note emphasis) be getting a child with a dreaded disease such as
Huntington's get counseling and testing done. With an eye on not
implanting an embryo that tests positive, or aborting in an early first
trimester abortion a fetus like that. Knowing they have another chance
for a child without the problems. And I know this is easy talk for
someone who hasn't had to make the decisions. As I said, I would respect
ANY decision such a couple make.
There are indeed children all around with problems. I am NOT going out
of my way to find them to help them, but the few who are around near us I
help as I can. I also contribute to worthwhile organizations of my
choice.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 23:22:43 -0500, "Dave in Texas"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 22:45:43 -0400, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>[email protected] says...
>>>
>>> Han wrote:
>>> >
>>> > One last remark. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Everyone
>>> > should act as their conscience/morality/whatever directs them.
>>> >
>>> > But NO ONE should impose their view on someone who does NOT share that
>>> > view. In the case of childbearing, pregnancy, contraception and
>>> > related subjects it is the WOMAN who is ultimately in charge and who
>>> > should make her INFORMED decision. To me THAT is an absolute.
>>>
>>> Does the fetus get to vote?
>>>
>>> Here's the drill: Actions have consequences. If a woman has unprotected
>>> sex,
>>> she should accept the results.
>>>
>>> Just man-up, woman. Take your humps and get on with your life.
>>
>>That's easy for someone who can't get pregnant to say.
>>
>>People of good will are in disagreement on the right thing to do about
>>abortion, and a lot of the most vociferous participants in the
>>discussion are people who are biologically incapable of being at risk.
>>In this circumstance the government should just plain stay out of it--if
>>there are laws against it they should be repealed, if there are laws
>>requiring it they should be repealed, the government should simply not
>>be involved.
>
>In your opinion. Others believe it's a human, therefore murder. The only
>way
>both of you can have it your way is to legalize killing people. Obama is
>all
>for that.
>
> Right! Osama Bin Laden is D E A D along with a couple of dozen other
>Alqueda types (including two or three American-born jihadists) and that
>sorry, Muslim-in-Christian clothing, foreign-born, socialist Obama is all
>for that.
Please don't drink and post.
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:16:21 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>>On 7/30/2012 12:47 PM, Han wrote:
>>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 7/30/2012 7:12 AM, Han wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Didn't know you were a Keynesian spendthrift <grin>! Spend and
>>>>> inflate, or spend and tax? which will it be? While I do think
>>>>> that just firing everyone who could possibly be missed might also
>>>>> not be a good thing, going the Spanish route of (very temporary)
>>>>> "prosperity" by borrowing and spending on all kinds of luxuries is
>>>>> definitely a recipe for disaster. That is playing out in Europe
>>>>> and Florida.
>>>>>
>>>>> One can be frugal without being miserly, methinks. We are being
>>>>> frugal by only having 1 car, a 2005 Grand (well ...) Caravan, but
>>>>> we went on an Alaska vacation earlier this year ...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No need to be frugal if you have always lived with in your means
>>>> and planed for times like these.
>>>>
>>>> My wife and I lived in our first starter home for 30 years. We
>>>> refinanced it 6 years in and paid an additional $300 per month for
>>>> 6 years. The house was paid for in 1995 and as a result we have
>>>> been debt free ever since.
>>>>
>>>> We always looked around us and wondered why we were still in this
>>>> same starter house 25+ years after moving in and saw people driving
>>>> very expensive cars and buying huge homes.
>>>>
>>>> Well back in 2008 the answer came and as a result we were able to
>>>> finally afford/pay cash for a bigger new home.
>>>>
>>>> We are still debt free.
>>>>
>>>> It is a great feeling owing no one, but that only comes from only
>>>> buying what we can truly afford. I will add that we will finance
>>>> short term if the interest rate is "Zero" and if we can pay cash to
>>>> begin with. We have been very lucky to have had the wisdom and
>>>> patience to wait until we have truly earned what we choose to buy,
>>>> this methodology has been rewarding.
>>>
>>> I am keeping the HELOC with $75K outstanding and 2.24% interest, for
>>> the moment. I'm ready to pay it off when I decide to. That and the
>>> revolving charge cards that get paid off every month is what I owe.
>>> It is indeed a good feeling to not be in hock. Now I have to get
>>> the kids in that same situation/frame of mind. Of course, we have
>>> been very lucky with well- paying employment, but we did spend
>>> according to income, while saving up for this retirement thing ...
>>>
>>
>>If you pay it off today you will be earning 2.24% more on that money.
>>
> ...or you could buy California municipal bonds.
Ha!!!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>
>> Thanks, CW. I don't think that Mike Marlow unsderstood fully what I
>> was trying to say. At "worst" I am advocating that a couple who know
>> they /may/ (note emphasis) be getting a child with a dreaded disease
>> such as Huntington's get counseling and testing done. With an eye on
>> not implanting an embryo that tests positive, or aborting in an early
>> first trimester abortion a fetus like that. Knowing they have
>> another chance for a child without the problems. And I know this is
>> easy talk for someone who hasn't had to make the decisions. As I
>> said, I would respect ANY decision such a couple make.
>>
>> There are indeed children all around with problems. I am NOT going
>> out of my way to find them to help them, but the few who are around
>> near us I help as I can. I also contribute to worthwhile
>> organizations of my choice.
>
> I may come across as harsh Han, but I'm one who has a problem with the
> whole abortion thing and that included - or maybe even is more
> intense, when it comes to aborting "defective fetuses". Personal
> opinion, I realize but I have a big issue with that line of thinking.
> Does not matter to me what trimester it is in.
I appreciate that, Mike, and I honor it as well. As I said, I have not
been in the position (knock on wood), and would not now know what I'd
have done. Of course it would have been my wife who would have had to
make the decision, not me. But, theoretically, let us go back to the
sickle cell example. If both parents are heterozygote, the theoretical
chance of getting a baby who is homozygous (and who would likely get into
real big trouble at some point) is 1 in 4, as is the chance of a baby
without sickle cell at all. Theoretically, it is possible to do in vitro
fertilization and choose the embryo with the best chances for a healthy
life for implantation. Just an example of possibilities. I am agnostic,
but I could say that God has given us the ability to do the best
possible. Is it necessary to throw that ability away and just go with
the throw of the dice?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
<snip>
> Thanks for understanding Han. What you raise above is not for this
> group! That conversation could go on to what would likely be the
> longest thread in the history of this newsgroup - and we've had some
> pretty long ones here. We clearly think differently and I would enjoy
> discourse in that area, it's just that I don't believe we ought to
> open that Pandora's box here. Email me if you want and we can bat it
> around a bit - and if you'd prefer not, that's ok too.
OK, but thanks, I'm pretty well done discussing it. :)
All the best to you and yours!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> CW wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> CW wrote:
>>
>>> He fully understood. He is a pro lifer that believes that abortion
>>> should never be an option and pregnant woman should give birth no
>>> matter what. The fact that the kid might be born no matter what the
>>> problem, including cases where the mothers life is in danger. Pro
>>> life? No, it's anti woman.
>>
>> Your last comment shows what you are.
>> ======================================================================
>> ========== Yes, it does. I'm one of those people that don't want to
>> turn time back 50 years. I'm one that doesn't believe that woman
>> should be subservient to men. I'm one that does not see woman as baby
>> factories. I'm one that believes that woman have a right to run their
>> own lives. Don't bother replying. You have been plonked.
>
> Yawn....
One last remark. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Everyone should
act as their conscience/morality/whatever directs them.
But NO ONE should impose their view on someone who does NOT share that
view. In the case of childbearing, pregnancy, contraception and related
subjects it is the WOMAN who is ultimately in charge and who should make
her INFORMED decision. To me THAT is an absolute.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 01 Aug 2012 20:15:44 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 01 Aug 2012 18:40:08 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 01 Aug 2012 11:15:08 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps, but what gets me is that so many people are having
>>>>>> unprotected sex, in this day of so many untreatable STDs, plus
>>>>>> life-threatening AIDS! Pregnancy is the least of their possible
>>>>>> troubles.
>>>>>
>>>>>There is a lesson that probably doesn't get emphasized enough:
>>>>>When you are having sex with that person, you automagically have sex
>>>>>with EVERY OTHER person that person has had sex with. Pause for
>>>>>emphasis. Is that REALLY what you want?
>>>>
>>>> Han! That's *not* a liberal concept! Use a Condom! ;-)
>>>
>>>Just quoting an Ann Landers truism, krw! Or do you have a real name I
>>>can call you?
>>
>> True, for sure. True <> PC
>>
>> Keith. I haven't hidden it but my sig got dropped long ago (I think).
>>
>>>And, perhaps, there are a few things that transcend
>>>liberal<>conservative.
>>
>> Except that it doesn't. That message is quite anti-PC.
>
>Well, Keith, I don't care whether that message is politically correct. It
>is factually correct, and it may matter a great deal:
>"When you are having sex with another person, you automagically have sex
>with EVERY OTHER person that person has had sex with."
I didn't say it wasn't the truth (within limits), I said it wasn't "liberal"
(liberal == PC).
Dave wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Aug 2012 13:42:55 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> All right - I cannot sit back any longer. Han - both you and CW are
>> full of shit. I won't elaborate on my own beliefs because that
>> would take more discussion than either of you want to believe, but
>> what you say above is just ludicrous.
>
> Obviously, you're too emotionally invested in this topic to discuss it
> rationally. And, rationality is the *only* platform under which this
> topic should be discussed.
Not emotionally involved at all Dave - in fact if you note, I have not
commented on the emotional apects of this discussion at all. CW took it
upon himself to presume what my beliefs were, but I have not expressed them
at all. As I have said, that would be too complex. Needless to say, they
would surprise those who just presume to know. I have limited myself to
only commenting on the logic and the arguments that have been presented.
How is it that such is too emotionally involved?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 01 Aug 2012 20:15:44 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 01 Aug 2012 18:40:08 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> On 01 Aug 2012 11:15:08 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps, but what gets me is that so many people are having
>>>>>>> unprotected sex, in this day of so many untreatable STDs, plus
>>>>>>> life-threatening AIDS! Pregnancy is the least of their possible
>>>>>>> troubles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There is a lesson that probably doesn't get emphasized enough:
>>>>>>When you are having sex with that person, you automagically have
>>>>>>sex with EVERY OTHER person that person has had sex with. Pause
>>>>>>for emphasis. Is that REALLY what you want?
>>>>>
>>>>> Han! That's *not* a liberal concept! Use a Condom! ;-)
>>>>
>>>>Just quoting an Ann Landers truism, krw! Or do you have a real name
>>>>I can call you?
>>>
>>> True, for sure. True <> PC
>>>
>>> Keith. I haven't hidden it but my sig got dropped long ago (I
>>> think).
>>>
>>>>And, perhaps, there are a few things that transcend
>>>>liberal<>conservative.
>>>
>>> Except that it doesn't. That message is quite anti-PC.
>>
>>Well, Keith, I don't care whether that message is politically correct.
>>It is factually correct, and it may matter a great deal:
>>"When you are having sex with another person, you automagically have
>>sex with EVERY OTHER person that person has had sex with."
>
> I didn't say it wasn't the truth (within limits), I said it wasn't
> "liberal" (liberal == PC).
You are calling me NOT liberal??? I have to hang that on the fridge!!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 8/2/12 1:37 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Aug 2012 13:42:55 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> All right - I cannot sit back any longer. Han - both you and CW are full of
>> shit. I won't elaborate on my own beliefs because that would take more
>> discussion than either of you want to believe, but what you say above is
>> just ludicrous.
>
> Obviously, you're too emotionally invested in this topic to discuss it
> rationally. And, rationality is the *only* platform under which this
> topic should be discussed.
>
How rational is it for the highest evolved species to get to the point
where it kills its own offspring out of convenience?
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On Wed, 1 Aug 2012 13:42:55 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>All right - I cannot sit back any longer. Han - both you and CW are full of
>shit. I won't elaborate on my own beliefs because that would take more
>discussion than either of you want to believe, but what you say above is
>just ludicrous.
Obviously, you're too emotionally invested in this topic to discuss it
rationally. And, rationality is the *only* platform under which this
topic should be discussed.
-MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 7/31/12 6:44 AM, Han wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> CW wrote:
>>>> "Mike Marlow" wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> CW wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> He fully understood. He is a pro lifer that believes that abortion
>>>>> should never be an option and pregnant woman should give birth no
>>>>> matter what. The fact that the kid might be born no matter what
>>>>> the problem, including cases where the mothers life is in danger.
>>>>> Pro life? No, it's anti woman.
>>>>
>>>> Your last comment shows what you are.
>>>> ====================================================================
>>>> == ========== Yes, it does. I'm one of those people that don't want
>>>> to turn time back 50 years. I'm one that doesn't believe that woman
>>>> should be subservient to men. I'm one that does not see woman as
>>>> baby factories. I'm one that believes that woman have a right to
>>>> run their own lives. Don't bother replying. You have been plonked.
>>>
>>> Yawn....
>>
>> One last remark. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Everyone
>> should act as their conscience/morality/whatever directs them.
>>
>> But NO ONE should impose their view on someone who does NOT share
>> that view.
>
> We do that with every law we make, or we wouldn't need the laws.
You can make laws that give a personal choice. Obviously, that can't be
done with laws that impose a tax. But the law can say that you are free
to choose between these health insurance policies.
>> In the case of childbearing, pregnancy, contraception and related
>> subjects it is the WOMAN who is ultimately in charge and who should
>> make her INFORMED decision. To me THAT is an absolute.
>>
>
> I guess we all have out own absolutes, then.
> To me, the absolute if the life inside the woman.
> We cannot talk about human rights without the right to be human.
Now you are imposing your opinion as a law on someone else. Would you
like a law that says you, -MIKE-, have to pray in this church, on that
street corner? The woman's body is not something you have jurisdiction
over. I respect your right to have an opinion that may say, for
instance, "I do not think you have the right to terminate that pregnancy
of yours", but it has to be followed by "but I will respect your right to
do as you see fit". Then, of course you have the right to end any
relationship with the woman, unless she is your responsibility as a
minor. But even then, it is her body, and she needs to live with the
consequences.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Han" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> CW wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> CW wrote:
>>
>>> He fully understood. He is a pro lifer that believes that abortion
>>> should never be an option and pregnant woman should give birth no
>>> matter what. The fact that the kid might be born no matter what the
>>> problem, including cases where the mothers life is in danger. Pro
>>> life? No, it's anti woman.
>>
>> Your last comment shows what you are.
>> ======================================================================
>> ========== Yes, it does. I'm one of those people that don't want to
>> turn time back 50 years. I'm one that doesn't believe that woman
>> should be subservient to men. I'm one that does not see woman as baby
>> factories. I'm one that believes that woman have a right to run their
>> own lives. Don't bother replying. You have been plonked.
>
> Yawn....
One last remark. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Everyone should
act as their conscience/morality/whatever directs them.
But NO ONE should impose their view on someone who does NOT share that
view. In the case of childbearing, pregnancy, contraception and related
subjects it is the WOMAN who is ultimately in charge and who should make
her INFORMED decision. To me THAT is an absolute
==========================================================================================
Agreed.
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
CW wrote:
> He fully understood. He is a pro lifer that believes that abortion
> should never be an option and pregnant woman should give birth no
> matter what. The fact that the kid might be born no matter what the
> problem, including cases where the mothers life is in danger. Pro
> life? No, it's anti woman.
Your last comment shows what you are.
================================================================================
Yes, it does. I'm one of those people that don't want to turn time back 50
years. I'm one that doesn't believe that woman should be subservient to men.
I'm one that does not see woman as baby factories. I'm one that believes
that woman have a right to run their own lives.
Don't bother replying. You have been plonked.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
HeyBub wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>
>> I would add, every act of consensual sex between a fertile male and a
>> fertile female is an act of consent to a potential pregnancy.
>
> Unless one of the parties lies.
In the most traditional sense, both parties lie...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Han wrote:
>
> Well, Keith, I don't care whether that message is politically
> correct. It is factually correct, and it may matter a great deal:
> "When you are having sex with another person, you automagically have
> sex with EVERY OTHER person that person has had sex with."
I'm sorry Han but that is not at all factually correct. It's a nice
euphamism for people who like to throw out meaningless things, but think
about it - just for a moment. Now - think about it for a moment longer.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 01 Aug 2012 18:40:08 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 01 Aug 2012 11:15:08 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> Perhaps, but what gets me is that so many people are having
>>>> unprotected sex, in this day of so many untreatable STDs, plus
>>>> life-threatening AIDS! Pregnancy is the least of their possible
>>>> troubles.
>>>
>>>There is a lesson that probably doesn't get emphasized enough:
>>>When you are having sex with that person, you automagically have sex
>>>with EVERY OTHER person that person has had sex with. Pause for
>>>emphasis. Is that REALLY what you want?
>>
>> Han! That's *not* a liberal concept! Use a Condom! ;-)
>
>Just quoting an Ann Landers truism, krw! Or do you have a real name I
>can call you?
True, for sure. True <> PC
Keith. I haven't hidden it but my sig got dropped long ago (I think).
>And, perhaps, there are a few things that transcend
>liberal<>conservative.
Except that it doesn't. That message is quite anti-PC.
On 8/1/2012 2:15 PM, Han wrote:
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 01 Aug 2012 18:40:08 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 01 Aug 2012 11:15:08 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps, but what gets me is that so many people are having
>>>>>> unprotected sex, in this day of so many untreatable STDs, plus
>>>>>> life-threatening AIDS! Pregnancy is the least of their possible
>>>>>> troubles.
>>>>> There is a lesson that probably doesn't get emphasized enough:
>>>>> When you are having sex with that person, you automagically have sex
>>>>> with EVERY OTHER person that person has had sex with. Pause for
>>>>> emphasis. Is that REALLY what you want?
>>>> Han! That's *not* a liberal concept! Use a Condom! ;-)
>>> Just quoting an Ann Landers truism, krw! Or do you have a real name I
>>> can call you?
>> True, for sure. True <> PC
>>
>> Keith. I haven't hidden it but my sig got dropped long ago (I think).
>>
>>> And, perhaps, there are a few things that transcend
>>> liberal<>conservative.
>> Except that it doesn't. That message is quite anti-PC.
> Well, Keith, I don't care whether that message is politically correct. It
> is factually correct, and it may matter a great deal:
> "When you are having sex with another person, you automagically have sex
> with EVERY OTHER person that person has had sex with."
>
I would add, every act of consensual sex between a fertile male and a
fertile female is an act of consent to a potential pregnancy.
"Han" wrote:
> Well, Keith, I don't care whether that message is politically
> correct. It
> is factually correct, and it may matter a great deal:
> "When you are having sex with another person, you automagically have
> sex
> with EVERY OTHER person that person has had sex with."
------------------------------------
Han,
You keep buying them books, they keep eating the covers.
Lew
On Aug 1, 5:16=A0pm, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 8/1/2012 2:15 PM, Han wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >news:[email protected]:
>
> >> On 01 Aug 2012 18:40:08 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >>>news:[email protected]:
>
> >>>> On 01 Aug 2012 11:15:08 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
> >>>>>news:[email protected]:
>
> >>>>>> Perhaps, but what gets me is that so many people are having
> >>>>>> unprotected sex, in this day of so many untreatable STDs, plus
> >>>>>> life-threatening AIDS! =A0Pregnancy is the least of their possible
> >>>>>> troubles.
> >>>>> There is a lesson that probably doesn't get emphasized enough:
> >>>>> When you are having sex with that person, you automagically have se=
x
> >>>>> with EVERY OTHER person that person has had sex with. =A0Pause for
> >>>>> emphasis. =A0Is that REALLY what you want?
> >>>> Han! =A0That's *not* a liberal concept! =A0Use a Condom! =A0;-)
> >>> Just quoting an Ann Landers truism, krw! =A0Or do you have a real nam=
e I
> >>> can call you?
> >> True, for sure. True <> PC
>
> >> Keith. =A0I haven't hidden it but my sig got dropped long ago (I think=
).
>
> >>> And, perhaps, there are a few things that transcend
> >>> liberal<>conservative.
> >> Except that it doesn't. That message is quite anti-PC.
> > Well, Keith, I don't care whether that message is politically correct. =
It
> > is factually correct, and it may matter a great deal:
> > "When you are having sex with another person, you automagically have se=
x
> > with EVERY OTHER person that person has had sex with."
>
> I would add, every act of consensual sex between a fertile male and a
> fertile female is an act of consent to a potential pregnancy.
Too much information. No one, but you is interested in your crap.
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 01 Aug 2012 18:40:08 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 01 Aug 2012 11:15:08 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps, but what gets me is that so many people are having
>>>>> unprotected sex, in this day of so many untreatable STDs, plus
>>>>> life-threatening AIDS! Pregnancy is the least of their possible
>>>>> troubles.
>>>>
>>>>There is a lesson that probably doesn't get emphasized enough:
>>>>When you are having sex with that person, you automagically have sex
>>>>with EVERY OTHER person that person has had sex with. Pause for
>>>>emphasis. Is that REALLY what you want?
>>>
>>> Han! That's *not* a liberal concept! Use a Condom! ;-)
>>
>>Just quoting an Ann Landers truism, krw! Or do you have a real name I
>>can call you?
>
> True, for sure. True <> PC
>
> Keith. I haven't hidden it but my sig got dropped long ago (I think).
>
>>And, perhaps, there are a few things that transcend
>>liberal<>conservative.
>
> Except that it doesn't. That message is quite anti-PC.
Well, Keith, I don't care whether that message is politically correct. It
is factually correct, and it may matter a great deal:
"When you are having sex with another person, you automagically have sex
with EVERY OTHER person that person has had sex with."
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Han wrote:
> I appreciate that, Mike, and I honor it as well. As I said, I have
> not been in the position (knock on wood), and would not now know what
> I'd have done. Of course it would have been my wife who would have
> had to make the decision, not me. But, theoretically, let us go back
> to the sickle cell example. If both parents are heterozygote, the
> theoretical chance of getting a baby who is homozygous (and who would
> likely get into real big trouble at some point) is 1 in 4, as is the
> chance of a baby without sickle cell at all. Theoretically, it is
> possible to do in vitro fertilization and choose the embryo with the
> best chances for a healthy life for implantation. Just an example of
> possibilities. I am agnostic, but I could say that God has given us
> the ability to do the best possible. Is it necessary to throw that
> ability away and just go with the throw of the dice?
Thanks for understanding Han. What you raise above is not for this group!
That conversation could go on to what would likely be the longest thread in
the history of this newsgroup - and we've had some pretty long ones here.
We clearly think differently and I would enjoy discourse in that area, it's
just that I don't believe we ought to open that Pandora's box here. Email
me if you want and we can bat it around a bit - and if you'd prefer not,
that's ok too.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:16:21 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>On 7/30/2012 12:47 PM, Han wrote:
>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 7/30/2012 7:12 AM, Han wrote:
>>>
>>>> Didn't know you were a Keynesian spendthrift <grin>! Spend and
>>>> inflate, or spend and tax? which will it be? While I do think that
>>>> just firing everyone who could possibly be missed might also not be a
>>>> good thing, going the Spanish route of (very temporary) "prosperity"
>>>> by borrowing and spending on all kinds of luxuries is definitely a
>>>> recipe for disaster. That is playing out in Europe and Florida.
>>>>
>>>> One can be frugal without being miserly, methinks. We are being
>>>> frugal by only having 1 car, a 2005 Grand (well ...) Caravan, but we
>>>> went on an Alaska vacation earlier this year ...
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No need to be frugal if you have always lived with in your means and
>>> planed for times like these.
>>>
>>> My wife and I lived in our first starter home for 30 years. We
>>> refinanced it 6 years in and paid an additional $300 per month for 6
>>> years. The house was paid for in 1995 and as a result we have been
>>> debt free ever since.
>>>
>>> We always looked around us and wondered why we were still in this same
>>> starter house 25+ years after moving in and saw people driving very
>>> expensive cars and buying huge homes.
>>>
>>> Well back in 2008 the answer came and as a result we were able to
>>> finally afford/pay cash for a bigger new home.
>>>
>>> We are still debt free.
>>>
>>> It is a great feeling owing no one, but that only comes from only
>>> buying what we can truly afford. I will add that we will finance
>>> short term if the interest rate is "Zero" and if we can pay cash to
>>> begin with. We have been very lucky to have had the wisdom and
>>> patience to wait until we have truly earned what we choose to buy,
>>> this methodology has been rewarding.
>>
>> I am keeping the HELOC with $75K outstanding and 2.24% interest, for the
>> moment. I'm ready to pay it off when I decide to. That and the revolving
>> charge cards that get paid off every month is what I owe. It is indeed a
>> good feeling to not be in hock. Now I have to get the kids in that same
>> situation/frame of mind. Of course, we have been very lucky with well-
>> paying employment, but we did spend according to income, while saving up
>> for this retirement thing ...
>>
>
>If you pay it off today you will be earning 2.24% more on that money.
>
...or you could buy California municipal bonds.
Han wrote:
>
> My personal feeling is that if there is a chance you can prevent a
> lifetime of suffering, for instance by in vitro fertilization and
> checking whether the embryo does suffer from a genetic defect, then
> you should consider that.
The point is... what is that "lifetime of suffering" that you and Larry talk
about? Fine for you to think about that in the context of your own perfect
lives, but do your really know anyone who lives these conditions? Have you
really ever met and gotten to know anyone who is really living through this
stuff - or are you guys just "deciding" for them what should be, based on
what you think, but do not know? I think both you and Larry have a lot to
learn...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 31 Jul 2012 11:44:57 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>One last remark. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Everyone should
>act as their conscience/morality/whatever directs them.
>
>But NO ONE should impose their view on someone who does NOT share that
>view. In the case of childbearing, pregnancy, contraception and related
>subjects it is the WOMAN who is ultimately in charge and who should make
>her INFORMED decision. To me THAT is an absolute.
+1
--
When we are planning for posterity, we ought
to remember that virtue is not hereditary.
-- Thomas Paine
(comparing Paine to the current CONgress <deep sigh>)
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" wrote:
>> Most of what you said is uninformed. Your last comment shows what
>> you are. It earned you the famous "fuck off" award.
> ----------------------------------
> Truth hurts HUH?
>
Nope.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:06:20 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Larry Jaques
>>
>>> P.S: I think you'd like _Hard Green_ by Peter Huber. Let's do the
>>> most good with the least cost now, then work on the rest.
>>
>> DAGS "Bjorn Lomborg"... not a denier, but a voice of reason with
>> regard to policies concerning changing global climate, reviled and
>> almost professionally ruined by the AGW crowd in a most repulsive
>> manner. If you can't grasp that these alarmist' are very often
>> blind, bigoted, and totally without scruples, you're part of the
>> problem.
>
> His _Skeptic_ book adorns my shelf. He's the opposite of Muller, in
> that he was a greenie and became a skeptic.
Lomborg is rational. In essence, most of his work centers around priorities.
For example, the amount of money spent to prevent 3 cancer deaths a year by
eliminating some obscure chemical from refinery smokestacks would be enough
to test EVERY newborn black baby for sickle-cell anemia, thereby saving
THOUSANDS of lives per year.
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:16:21 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 7/30/2012 12:47 PM, Han wrote:
>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 7/30/2012 7:12 AM, Han wrote:
>>>
>>>> Didn't know you were a Keynesian spendthrift <grin>! Spend and
>>>> inflate, or spend and tax? which will it be? While I do think that
>>>> just firing everyone who could possibly be missed might also not be a
>>>> good thing, going the Spanish route of (very temporary) "prosperity"
>>>> by borrowing and spending on all kinds of luxuries is definitely a
>>>> recipe for disaster. That is playing out in Europe and Florida.
>>>>
>>>> One can be frugal without being miserly, methinks. We are being
>>>> frugal by only having 1 car, a 2005 Grand (well ...) Caravan, but we
>>>> went on an Alaska vacation earlier this year ...
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No need to be frugal if you have always lived with in your means and
>>> planed for times like these.
>>>
>>> My wife and I lived in our first starter home for 30 years. We
>>> refinanced it 6 years in and paid an additional $300 per month for 6
>>> years. The house was paid for in 1995 and as a result we have been
>>> debt free ever since.
>>>
>>> We always looked around us and wondered why we were still in this same
>>> starter house 25+ years after moving in and saw people driving very
>>> expensive cars and buying huge homes.
>>>
>>> Well back in 2008 the answer came and as a result we were able to
>>> finally afford/pay cash for a bigger new home.
>>>
>>> We are still debt free.
>>>
>>> It is a great feeling owing no one, but that only comes from only
>>> buying what we can truly afford. I will add that we will finance
>>> short term if the interest rate is "Zero" and if we can pay cash to
>>> begin with. We have been very lucky to have had the wisdom and
>>> patience to wait until we have truly earned what we choose to buy,
>>> this methodology has been rewarding.
>>
>> I am keeping the HELOC with $75K outstanding and 2.24% interest, for the
>> moment. I'm ready to pay it off when I decide to. That and the revolving
>> charge cards that get paid off every month is what I owe. It is indeed a
>> good feeling to not be in hock. Now I have to get the kids in that same
>> situation/frame of mind. Of course, we have been very lucky with well-
>> paying employment, but we did spend according to income, while saving up
>> for this retirement thing ...
>>
>
>If you pay it off today you will be earning 2.24% more on that money.
>
It's amazing what you can do if ;you live within your income and don't
carry debt. Paid my house off in 10 years, though it's not fancy I
have acreage to grow food, But I've watched neighbors with $1800 plus
a months payment just consumed with survival.
Mike M
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Han wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> My personal feeling is that if there is a chance you can prevent a
>>> lifetime of suffering, for instance by in vitro fertilization and
>>> checking whether the embryo does suffer from a genetic defect, then
>>> you should consider that.
>>
>>
>> The point is... what is that "lifetime of suffering" that you and
>> Larry talk about? Fine for you to think about that in the context of
>> your own perfect lives, but do your really know anyone who lives
>> these conditions? Have you really ever met and gotten to know
>> anyone who is really living through this stuff - or are you guys
>> just "deciding" for them what should be, based on what you think,
>> but do not know? I think both you and Larry have a lot to learn...
>
> I have not been personally involved, and once there is a child I'd
> likely do anything to help that child,
Well - they are all around you, so why not go and do all of that "anything
to help that child"? Sorry Han - but this is just so much BS. These people
are all around us. To say "if...." is just a bluff. I really do not see
you as that kind of guy...
> but read up on OI, and the
> suffering involved.
"suffering"? As in the use of that term to justify your killing off of
those people? How about - they do suffer through things, but suffering is
not a word that they would apply to their own lives - that is you word to
make yourself feel comfortable in killing them off before they are born.
They would tell you that life sucks for them in some respects, but that life
is very good for them in others. You really need to research OI more Han.
Like everything else you "research" here... Look deeper.
> I am not sure that the disease is really
> inherited, more likely a "sporadic" mutation, so you wouldn't know
> until it is too late.
So what - big deal. It is what it is.
> OTOH, there are tests for Huntington's and
> other diseases. If that were to run in a family, I'd want to know
> and take precautions so my children wouldn't get it.
And so - would you kill those children just so you did not have one with
that condition?
=================================================================
At no point did he advocate killing anyone. I don't agree with Han a lot of
the time but in this case, he makes perfect sense.
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 14:59:59 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>> So - let's look at a place where your argument breaks down Han. Our
>> youngest daughter was not planned. Just sorta happend - got no idea
>> how such a thing could have happened... But - it did. According to
>> your logic - she should have been terminated because she was not
>> planned
>
> That has no bearing on the discussion. Nobody is trying to force
> others to have an abortion. It's the "pro-life" folks who are trying
> to use the law to force their beliefs on others. The "pro-choice"
> group want to leave the decision up to you and your wife.
>
> Funny how folks who spout "freedom" at every opportunity seem to lose
> that conviction when it comes to abortion, gay marriage, etc..
>
> "When fascism comes to America, it will arrive wrapped in the flag and
> carrying a cross."
Han wrote:
>
> The fetus is a /potential/ life. There is a difference. There is no
> guarantee that pregnancy and birth will happen without danger to
> mother or fetus. Many times there is a need for intensive medical
> intervention. Perhaps that is why "nature" made fecundity so much
> greater than "necessary" for maintaining population.
All right - I cannot sit back any longer. Han - both you and CW are full of
shit. I won't elaborate on my own beliefs because that would take more
discussion than either of you want to believe, but what you say above is
just ludicrous.
The fetus is a potential life? By what freaking definition do you arrive at
that conclusion? So what if there are no guarantees - does that define life
to you? If so, then what are the qualities that you hold as the definition
of guarantee? A certain degree of intelligence? A specific physical
capability? Think about that before you answer it. Intensive medical
care - that should be a qualifier? Think about that one. So - by what
means - according to your logic above - could we ever gurantee that
pregnancy and birth will happen without danger to mother and fetus? Han -
you do not think through your own arguments very well. If you have any
valid points - they are not well represented in what you state.
>
> I know it sounds very bad (and I don't really think it is good) to
> end a potential life.
Again - a "potential life", yet if that same degree of cellular formation
were to be discovered on Mars, you would be among the first to declare that
life has been found on Mars - wouldn't you?
> But, sorry to say, I insist that the wishes of
> the potential mother rate far above those of the potential of a
> fetus.
Ok - as an opinion, I can understand that you say that. My question is...
why?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 17:17:21 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
>There are heartfelt and rational arguments on both sides of the abortion
>debate. After much thoughtful study, I've come down on the side of
>unrestricted termination of pregnancy.
Who gives a shit! It's really none of your business.
CW wrote:
> "Dave" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 02:18:08 -0600, Just Wondering
>> Physical risk, perhaps. Men have no say in whether their their
>> unborn daughter's mother can take her life, but if the mother
>> chooses to let the daughter live, the father has financial and legal
>> responsibility.
>
> It's the woman's body that is of concern here. I wonder how quickly
> opinions would change if men who were the ones that gave birth?
> ====================================================================
> Very quickly.
It may seem that way to you - but that's only because you presume what
people's opinions are. So short-sighted of you.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 14:59:59 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>> So - let's look at a place where your argument breaks down Han. Our
>> youngest daughter was not planned. Just sorta happend - got no idea
>> how such a thing could have happened... But - it did. According to
>> your logic - she should have been terminated because she was not
>> planned
>
> That has no bearing on the discussion. Nobody is trying to force
> others to have an abortion. It's the "pro-life" folks who are trying
> to use the law to force their beliefs on others. The "pro-choice"
> group want to leave the decision up to you and your wife.
>
> Funny how folks who spout "freedom" at every opportunity seem to lose
> that conviction when it comes to abortion, gay marriage, etc..
>
> "When fascism comes to America, it will arrive wrapped in the flag and
> carrying a cross."
Well - that all depends on how one views their participation in the
discussion. I do not view mine as an active participant in the abortion/no
abortion discourse - or perhaps you did not bother to read that. My comment
to Han was more centered on his arugment - or his logic. Seems the
proponents of either side do not want to see that, and want to see
adversaries. Too bad. That would be your loss. All of the rest of the
rhetoric on either side is just that - rhetoric. No matter which side you
are on.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 8/1/2012 11:21 AM, Han wrote:
> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:jvbl7f$3ge$1
> @speranza.aioe.org:
>
>> The human being inside
>> the womb will never get a chance to see how difficult or easy life is.
>> Bottom line, it is a life.
> The fetus is a /potential/ life. There is a difference.
A fertilized ovum is a life, genetically different from either parent.
The question is not whether it is life -- it unquestionably is. The
question is when that life becomes a human, or is otherwise entitled to
protection by law. After birth, you can end a human life if the
person's brain ceases to function, or in defense of self or others. The
same test should be applied to life before birth, with the burden on the
person seeking to end the life to prove that it does not have a
functioning brain (this usually commences around week 8-10) or is
necessary to save the mother's life.
Mike Marlow wrote:
> CW wrote:
>> "Han" wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:jvbl7f$3ge$1
>> @speranza.aioe.org:
>>
>>> The human being inside
>>> the womb will never get a chance to see how difficult or easy life
>>> is. Bottom line, it is a life.
>>
>> The fetus is a /potential/ life. There is a difference. There is no
>> guarantee that pregnancy and birth will happen without danger to
>> mother or fetus. Many times there is a need for intensive medical
>> intervention. Perhaps that is why "nature" made fecundity so much
>> greater than "necessary" for maintaining population.
>>
>> I know it sounds very bad (and I don't really think it is good) to
>> end a potential life. But, sorry to say, I insist that the wishes of
>> the potential mother rate far above those of the potential of a
>> fetus. The better of 2 bad alternatives.
>> ===================================================================
>> +1
>
> What??? You are giving yourself a +1 (facebook stupidity...), for
> your own post? Come on Han...
Han - my bad. CW does not know how to post and I apparently do not know how
to read. His post made it look like it was you replying to yourself. I am
sorry for my reply.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Han wrote:
>
> It would be ideal if we could just make life so that pregnancy would
> result ONLY from a conscious decision made with total consent between
> 2 people. Unless we find a way to sterilize people in a reversible
> manner, that will not always happen.
So - let's look at a place where your argument breaks down Han. Our
youngest daughter was not planned. Just sorta happend - got no idea how
such a thing could have happened... But - it did. According to your
logic - she should have been terminated because she was not planned by a
concious decision made with total consent between 2 people. Do you even
read the stuff you write, brother? Sometimes it just makes no sense because
it is borderline crazy. Hell Han - we were just having sex - no consent
between us to have another kid. Just raw sex! And by your formula which
you clearly have not thought well through, she might well have been
justifiably terminated - only because it was not a conscious decision. Do
you really think that is what you meant to say?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>>
>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 14:59:59 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>>> So - let's look at a place where your argument breaks down Han. Our
>>> youngest daughter was not planned. Just sorta happend - got no
>>> idea how such a thing could have happened... But - it did.
>>> According to your logic - she should have been terminated because
>>> she was not planned
>>
>> That has no bearing on the discussion. Nobody is trying to force
>> others to have an abortion. It's the "pro-life" folks who are
>> trying to use the law to force their beliefs on others. The
>> "pro-choice" group want to leave the decision up to you and your
>> wife.
>>
>> Funny how folks who spout "freedom" at every opportunity seem to lose
>> that conviction when it comes to abortion, gay marriage, etc..
>>
>> "When fascism comes to America, it will arrive wrapped in the flag
>> and carrying a cross."
>
> My problem with "gay marriage" is that it's basically redefining a
> word to mean what gays want it to mean.
>
> If gays want to live together and screw their brains out that's their
> business. If they want the state to sanction their activities I'm
> fine with that too. Where I have a problem is with the use of the
> word "marriage" to describe it.
>
> I understand the arguments about survivor benefits and tax status and
> DNRs and so on and think they can be handled in some fashion other
> than by redefining the word "marriage".
>
It goes way beyond a "relationship." Our criminal and civil laws are
saturated with "spouse," "married," and so on. Consider these examples:
* A "spouse" cannot be compelled to testify against a defendant in a
criminal trial;
* A "spouse" automatically inherits upon the death of the principal;
* A "spouse" can legally bind one to a contract (in community property
states);
And so on. Enlarging the definition of marriage and spouse brings a whole
new group of people into those covered (and excluded) in thousands of laws,
people not envisioned when the subject law was originally passed.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "Dave" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 02:18:08 -0600, Just Wondering
> >Physical risk, perhaps. Men have no say in whether their their unborn
> >daughter's mother can take her life, but if the mother chooses to let
> >the daughter live, the father has financial and legal responsibility.
>
> It's the woman's body that is of concern here. I wonder how quickly
> opinions would change if men who were the ones that gave birth?
> ====================================================================
> Very quickly.
There's an old saying: "If men got pregnant, abortion would be a
sacrament."
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "Han" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:jvbl7f$3ge$1
> @speranza.aioe.org:
>
> > The human being inside
> > the womb will never get a chance to see how difficult or easy life is.
> > Bottom line, it is a life.
>
> The fetus is a /potential/ life. There is a difference. There is no
> guarantee that pregnancy and birth will happen without danger to mother or
> fetus. Many times there is a need for intensive medical intervention.
> Perhaps that is why "nature" made fecundity so much greater than
> "necessary" for maintaining population.
>
> I know it sounds very bad (and I don't really think it is good) to end a
> potential life. But, sorry to say, I insist that the wishes of the
> potential mother rate far above those of the potential of a fetus. The
> better of 2 bad alternatives.
> ===================================================================
> +1
Personally I would prefer a world in which nobody ever got pregnant who
didn't want to. We don't inhabit such a world so we have to do the best
we can with what we've got. And giving women the choice of being nuns
or mothers with no other options just doesn't work for me.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 14:59:59 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:
>
> > So - let's look at a place where your argument breaks down Han. Our
> > youngest daughter was not planned. Just sorta happend - got no idea how
> > such a thing could have happened... But - it did. According to your
> > logic - she should have been terminated because she was not planned
>
> That has no bearing on the discussion. Nobody is trying to force others
> to have an abortion. It's the "pro-life" folks who are trying to use the
> law to force their beliefs on others. The "pro-choice" group want to
> leave the decision up to you and your wife.
>
> Funny how folks who spout "freedom" at every opportunity seem to lose
> that conviction when it comes to abortion, gay marriage, etc..
>
> "When fascism comes to America, it will arrive wrapped in the flag and
> carrying a cross."
My problem with "gay marriage" is that it's basically redefining a word
to mean what gays want it to mean.
If gays want to live together and screw their brains out that's their
business. If they want the state to sanction their activities I'm fine
with that too. Where I have a problem is with the use of the word
"marriage" to describe it.
I understand the arguments about survivor benefits and tax status and
DNRs and so on and think they can be handled in some fashion other than
by redefining the word "marriage".
Personally I think the government should be out of the marriage game
altogether. If they want to have a form that some couple or triple or
quadruple or however many want to fill out saying that they're planning
to live together and that they have certain rights and privileges with
regard to each other's property and whatnot I'm fine with it. If they
want to give people who have filled out such a form special tax
treatment and make them go through Hell if they decide they want to
dissolve the contract, I'm fine with that too. What I'm not fine with
is calling it "marriage", unless there's at least one person involved
who in principle can or could at one time have gotten pregnant and at
least one person who in principle can or could at one time have gotten
them pregnant. And I don't want to hear about border cases.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> > says...
> >>
> >> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 14:59:59 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:
> >>
> >>> So - let's look at a place where your argument breaks down Han. Our
> >>> youngest daughter was not planned. Just sorta happend - got no
> >>> idea how such a thing could have happened... But - it did.
> >>> According to your logic - she should have been terminated because
> >>> she was not planned
> >>
> >> That has no bearing on the discussion. Nobody is trying to force
> >> others to have an abortion. It's the "pro-life" folks who are
> >> trying to use the law to force their beliefs on others. The
> >> "pro-choice" group want to leave the decision up to you and your
> >> wife.
> >>
> >> Funny how folks who spout "freedom" at every opportunity seem to lose
> >> that conviction when it comes to abortion, gay marriage, etc..
> >>
> >> "When fascism comes to America, it will arrive wrapped in the flag
> >> and carrying a cross."
> >
> > My problem with "gay marriage" is that it's basically redefining a
> > word to mean what gays want it to mean.
> >
> > If gays want to live together and screw their brains out that's their
> > business. If they want the state to sanction their activities I'm
> > fine with that too. Where I have a problem is with the use of the
> > word "marriage" to describe it.
> >
> > I understand the arguments about survivor benefits and tax status and
> > DNRs and so on and think they can be handled in some fashion other
> > than by redefining the word "marriage".
> >
>
> It goes way beyond a "relationship." Our criminal and civil laws are
> saturated with "spouse," "married," and so on. Consider these examples:
> * A "spouse" cannot be compelled to testify against a defendant in a
> criminal trial;
> * A "spouse" automatically inherits upon the death of the principal;
> * A "spouse" can legally bind one to a contract (in community property
> states);
>
> And so on. Enlarging the definition of marriage and spouse brings a whole
> new group of people into those covered (and excluded) in thousands of laws,
> people not envisioned when the subject law was originally passed.
And I don't have any problem with two gays (or an Arab and 4 women or
whatever) being accorded those privileges and obligations.
Purging the civil and criminal laws of "spouse" and "marriage" and
changing it to "party in a civil union" sounds like an excellent way to
keep Congress out of trouble for a while.
"Han" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
-MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:jvbl7f$3ge$1
@speranza.aioe.org:
> The human being inside
> the womb will never get a chance to see how difficult or easy life is.
> Bottom line, it is a life.
The fetus is a /potential/ life. There is a difference. There is no
guarantee that pregnancy and birth will happen without danger to mother or
fetus. Many times there is a need for intensive medical intervention.
Perhaps that is why "nature" made fecundity so much greater than
"necessary" for maintaining population.
I know it sounds very bad (and I don't really think it is good) to end a
potential life. But, sorry to say, I insist that the wishes of the
potential mother rate far above those of the potential of a fetus. The
better of 2 bad alternatives.
===================================================================
+1
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Perhaps, but what gets me is that so many people are having
> unprotected sex, in this day of so many untreatable STDs, plus
> life-threatening AIDS! Pregnancy is the least of their possible
> troubles.
There is a lesson that probably doesn't get emphasized enough:
When you are having sex with that person, you automagically have sex with
EVERY OTHER person that person has had sex with. Pause for emphasis.
Is that REALLY what you want?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
-MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 8/1/12 9:37 AM, CW wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Dave" wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 02:18:08 -0600, Just Wondering
>>> Physical risk, perhaps. Men have no say in whether their their
>>> unborn daughter's mother can take her life, but if the mother
>>> chooses to let the daughter live, the father has financial and legal
>>> responsibility.
>>
>> It's the woman's body that is of concern here. I wonder how quickly
>> opinions would change if men who were the ones that gave birth?
>> ====================================================================
>> Very quickly.
>
>
> That doesn't explain the millions of pro-life women.
> I bet the woman inside the womb would be pro-life if she had a choice
> in the matter.
It would be ideal if we could just make life so that pregnancy would
result ONLY from a conscious decision made with total consent between 2
people. Unless we find a way to sterilize people in a reversible manner,
that will not always happen.
As of now, use of effective contraceptives could and should be higher.
Since totally effective contraception is a(?n?) utopian illusion as well,
we get collectively saddled with unwanted pregnancies. Fortunately, with
increasing education and availability of contraceptives, the number of
unwanted pregnancies is decreasing. There is hope!
While the preferable solution to an unwanted pregnancy would be a birth
at full-term with adoption by a loving family, that isn't always possible
(even if the paperwork was easier). Moreover, using any female as a
forced upon incubator is reprehensible. Even considering that she might
have gotten pregnant by "negligence". Also, there are many medical
reasons for terminating a dangerous condition, which unfortunately almost
every pregnancy can turn into.
So pregnancy is a blessed state, but only if consciously conceived (pun
intended).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Dave wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:05:35 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>> There are those who honestly believe a woman should have the right to
>> "terminate pregnancy" all the way up until the point of delivery.
>> I'm just trying to see what camp you're in.
>
> Ok, an honest question, then I'll give you an honest answer to the
> best of my ability.
>
> Barring health or genetic reasons, I would be all right with
> terminating pregnancy hopefully within the first trimester and at the
> latest up to four months. Canada has no law at all restricting
> abortions, but no Canadian doctors would perform abortions after the
> fourth month.
>
> And that generally backs up my accepting the medical profession's
> chosen level for terminating pregnancy. And, to answer your question
> directly, I give more weight to a woman who wants to terminate
> pregnancy than I'd give to the fetus' right to life. It all comes down
> to at what point is that fetus actually considered a human baby. I'm
> not qualified to answer that and I don't attempt to do so.
>
> All that being said, I've never been married and I don't have any
> children, so I can't say I've had any personal experience with any
> facet of this discussion. Maybe my viewpoint might be different if I
> had, but I don't believe so.
>
> I live my life by my own set of ethics and they usually rule over any
> emotional involvement I've had in other areas. I don't think it would
> be any different here. But, then I can only can only guess.
But Dave - you do have an emotional involvement. By your own admission -
you have decided to simply trust in the "medical" decision (which I believe
is really more of a legal decision - even less trustworthy...), rather than
to have delved into your own philosophy and made your own informed decision.
That is indeed an emotional decision. Not the same, I agree as what zealots
on either side of the arguement might put forward, but emotional all the
same in that it is not an intelectual decision - by your own statement. If
you had been marrierd and experienced anything that brought you closer to
this topic, I don't know if it would change your thoughts. My involvement
in this thread is not to affect any such change. I'm just kind of surprised
at how absolute people on either side can be. Maybe more so when it comes
to the pro-abortion side, but it does apply to both sides for me.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
-MIKE- wrote:
>
> So at some point in development in the womb, you agree that a fetus
> becomes human. As science progresses and we can learn, know, see,
> measure more about human life, this tipping point will get shorter and
> shorter. There will come a point when it will be as obvious as night
> and day that, very early in pregnancy, the only difference between the
> human inside the womb and outside, is location.
>
I'm going to fall back on what I said the other day. If the amount of
cellular "mass" that occurs within a 2 week old fetus were to be found on
Mars tomorrow, the world would be proclaiming "Life found on Mars...".
Hell - we already did that with less evidence in some stupid stones up in
Alaska. So - what is life?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 8/2/2012 9:50 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 8/2/12 9:46 PM, Dave wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:05:35 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>> There are those who honestly believe a woman should have the right to
>>> "terminate pregnancy" all the way up until the point of delivery. I'm
>>> just trying to see what camp you're in.
>>
>> Ok, an honest question, then I'll give you an honest answer to the
>> best of my ability.
>>
>> Barring health or genetic reasons, I would be all right with
>> terminating pregnancy hopefully within the first trimester and at the
>> latest up to four months. Canada has no law at all restricting
>> abortions, but no Canadian doctors would perform abortions after the
>> fourth month.
>>
>> And that generally backs up my accepting the medical profession's
>> chosen level for terminating pregnancy. And, to answer your question
>> directly, I give more weight to a woman who wants to terminate
>> pregnancy than I'd give to the fetus' right to life. It all comes down
>> to at what point is that fetus actually considered a human baby. I'm
>> not qualified to answer that and I don't attempt to do so.
>>
>
> That's kind of where the rubber hits the road, huh? It wasn't too
> long ago that science thought the smallest thing in existence was the
> amoeba and that it was just a blob. Along come better microscopes and
> they realize how *big* an amoeba actually is compared to what we can
> now see and measure.
>
> Medical science is constantly growing, too. They know more and more
> everyday about how unique each fetus is and they are independently
> viable earlier and earlier in pregnancy. But what makes it a human
> life? Unique DNA? Brain waves? Heartbeat? Feeling pain? Self
> recognition? A soul?
>
> So at some point in development in the womb, you agree that a fetus
> becomes human. As science progresses and we can learn, know, see,
> measure more about human life, this tipping point will get shorter and
> shorter. There will come a point when it will be as obvious as night
> and day that, very early in pregnancy, the only difference between the
> human inside the womb and outside, is location.
>
> It is my fear that when these facts are indisputable, there will still
> be millions and millions of people who will refuse to accept it,
> simply because they want abortions.
>
>
Brain function is the scientific criterion for determining when a human
life ends after birth. If the same measure was used before birth to
determine when the life becomes a human being, that would give a woman
until about the 9th to 10th week of pregnancy to exercise her so called
right to abort. That would not be best for those who support the right
to life, but it's better for the unborn than what they currently face.
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:05:35 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>There are those who honestly believe a woman should have the right to
>"terminate pregnancy" all the way up until the point of delivery. I'm
>just trying to see what camp you're in.
Ok, an honest question, then I'll give you an honest answer to the
best of my ability.
Barring health or genetic reasons, I would be all right with
terminating pregnancy hopefully within the first trimester and at the
latest up to four months. Canada has no law at all restricting
abortions, but no Canadian doctors would perform abortions after the
fourth month.
And that generally backs up my accepting the medical profession's
chosen level for terminating pregnancy. And, to answer your question
directly, I give more weight to a woman who wants to terminate
pregnancy than I'd give to the fetus' right to life. It all comes down
to at what point is that fetus actually considered a human baby. I'm
not qualified to answer that and I don't attempt to do so.
All that being said, I've never been married and I don't have any
children, so I can't say I've had any personal experience with any
facet of this discussion. Maybe my viewpoint might be different if I
had, but I don't believe so.
I live my life by my own set of ethics and they usually rule over any
emotional involvement I've had in other areas. I don't think it would
be any different here. But, then I can only can only guess.
Mike Marlow wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:05:35 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>> There are those who honestly believe a woman should have the right
>>> to "terminate pregnancy" all the way up until the point of delivery.
>>> I'm just trying to see what camp you're in.
>>
>> Ok, an honest question, then I'll give you an honest answer to the
>> best of my ability.
>>
>> Barring health or genetic reasons, I would be all right with
>> terminating pregnancy hopefully within the first trimester and at the
>> latest up to four months. Canada has no law at all restricting
>> abortions, but no Canadian doctors would perform abortions after the
>> fourth month.
>>
>> And that generally backs up my accepting the medical profession's
>> chosen level for terminating pregnancy. And, to answer your question
>> directly, I give more weight to a woman who wants to terminate
>> pregnancy than I'd give to the fetus' right to life. It all comes
>> down to at what point is that fetus actually considered a human
>> baby. I'm not qualified to answer that and I don't attempt to do so.
>>
>> All that being said, I've never been married and I don't have any
>> children, so I can't say I've had any personal experience with any
>> facet of this discussion. Maybe my viewpoint might be different if I
>> had, but I don't believe so.
>>
>> I live my life by my own set of ethics and they usually rule over any
>> emotional involvement I've had in other areas. I don't think it would
>> be any different here. But, then I can only can only guess.
>
> But Dave - you do have an emotional involvement. By your own
> admission - you have decided to simply trust in the "medical"
> decision (which I believe is really more of a legal decision - even
> less trustworthy...), rather than to have delved into your own
> philosophy and made your own informed decision. That is indeed an
> emotional decision. Not the same, I agree as what zealots on either
> side of the arguement might put forward, but emotional all the same
> in that it is not an intelectual decision - by your own statement. If you
> had been marrierd and experienced anything that brought you
> closer to this topic, I don't know if it would change your thoughts. My
> involvement in this thread is not to affect any such change. I'm
> just kind of surprised at how absolute people on either side can be. Maybe
> more so when it comes to the pro-abortion side, but it does
> apply to both sides for me.
Have to edit my own post above. Where it says "Not the same, I agree as
what zealots on either side...." should have better been stated as "Not the
same I agree, as what zealots on either side...".
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 8/2/12 9:46 PM, Dave wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:05:35 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>> There are those who honestly believe a woman should have the right to
>> "terminate pregnancy" all the way up until the point of delivery. I'm
>> just trying to see what camp you're in.
>
> Ok, an honest question, then I'll give you an honest answer to the
> best of my ability.
>
> Barring health or genetic reasons, I would be all right with
> terminating pregnancy hopefully within the first trimester and at the
> latest up to four months. Canada has no law at all restricting
> abortions, but no Canadian doctors would perform abortions after the
> fourth month.
>
> And that generally backs up my accepting the medical profession's
> chosen level for terminating pregnancy. And, to answer your question
> directly, I give more weight to a woman who wants to terminate
> pregnancy than I'd give to the fetus' right to life. It all comes down
> to at what point is that fetus actually considered a human baby. I'm
> not qualified to answer that and I don't attempt to do so.
>
That's kind of where the rubber hits the road, huh? It wasn't too long
ago that science thought the smallest thing in existence was the amoeba
and that it was just a blob. Along come better microscopes and they
realize how *big* an amoeba actually is compared to what we can now see
and measure.
Medical science is constantly growing, too. They know more and more
everyday about how unique each fetus is and they are independently
viable earlier and earlier in pregnancy. But what makes it a human
life? Unique DNA? Brain waves? Heartbeat? Feeling pain? Self
recognition? A soul?
So at some point in development in the womb, you agree that a fetus
becomes human. As science progresses and we can learn, know, see,
measure more about human life, this tipping point will get shorter and
shorter. There will come a point when it will be as obvious as night
and day that, very early in pregnancy, the only difference between the
human inside the womb and outside, is location.
It is my fear that when these facts are indisputable, there will still
be millions and millions of people who will refuse to accept it, simply
because they want abortions.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
-MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:jvbl7f$3ge$1
@speranza.aioe.org:
> The human being inside
> the womb will never get a chance to see how difficult or easy life is.
> Bottom line, it is a life.
The fetus is a /potential/ life. There is a difference. There is no
guarantee that pregnancy and birth will happen without danger to mother or
fetus. Many times there is a need for intensive medical intervention.
Perhaps that is why "nature" made fecundity so much greater than
"necessary" for maintaining population.
I know it sounds very bad (and I don't really think it is good) to end a
potential life. But, sorry to say, I insist that the wishes of the
potential mother rate far above those of the potential of a fetus. The
better of 2 bad alternatives.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 8/2/2012 10:26 PM, Dave wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 22:50:11 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>> It is my fear that when these facts are indisputable, there will still
>> be millions and millions of people who will refuse to accept it, simply
>> because they want abortions.
> And to that I say, so what? I don't revere life like many pro lifers
> do. Barring something that kills off the human species first, we will
> probably give birth at an unsustainable rate until the planet can't
> support humans. There's many, many countries where children are born
> into poverty, famine and starvation. How about worrying about the
> children that are here now before you start worrying about the ones
> that you feel should have the right to be here.
>
> Very obviously, you've been hedging around the fact that life is
> sacred and begins much earlier than many will admit. Hell, if you want
> to go that route then we might as well outlaw male masturbation and
> the loss of all that sperm. They're part of the building blocks of
> life aren't they? Don't they have a right to live too?
>
> The fact is, that there needs to be a line drawn somewhere. Right now,
> in our society, that's the one laid out by our medical professionals.
That's not true. The line has been drawn by legislators (i.e.
politicians), not by the medical profession.
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 22:50:11 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>It is my fear that when these facts are indisputable, there will still
>be millions and millions of people who will refuse to accept it, simply
>because they want abortions.
And to that I say, so what? I don't revere life like many pro lifers
do. Barring something that kills off the human species first, we will
probably give birth at an unsustainable rate until the planet can't
support humans. There's many, many countries where children are born
into poverty, famine and starvation. How about worrying about the
children that are here now before you start worrying about the ones
that you feel should have the right to be here.
Very obviously, you've been hedging around the fact that life is
sacred and begins much earlier than many will admit. Hell, if you want
to go that route then we might as well outlaw male masturbation and
the loss of all that sperm. They're part of the building blocks of
life aren't they? Don't they have a right to live too?
The fact is, that there needs to be a line drawn somewhere. Right now,
in our society, that's the one laid out by our medical professionals.
Yup, it might change at some point, but for now, I agree with what is,
not what might our should be.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>
>>
>> It would be ideal if we could just make life so that pregnancy would
>> result ONLY from a conscious decision made with total consent between
>> 2 people. Unless we find a way to sterilize people in a reversible
>> manner, that will not always happen.
>
> So - let's look at a place where your argument breaks down Han. Our
> youngest daughter was not planned. Just sorta happend - got no idea
> how such a thing could have happened... But - it did. According to
> your logic - she should have been terminated because she was not
> planned by a concious decision made with total consent between 2
> people. Do you even read the stuff you write, brother? Sometimes it
> just makes no sense because it is borderline crazy. Hell Han - we
> were just having sex - no consent between us to have another kid.
> Just raw sex! And by your formula which you clearly have not thought
> well through, she might well have been justifiably terminated - only
> because it was not a conscious decision. Do you really think that is
> what you meant to say?
Obviously that is NOT what I meant. At least, I infer from your answer
that your daughter although not "planned" was indeed welcomed into the
family. Congratulations on a happy family! I apologize that you took my
"unplanned" phrase in such an absolute way. That was totally not my
intention.
As I said, I have never had to face the situation myself. I struggle
with how to address it and have the utmost respect for anyone's opinion
and deeds (as I have said before). I hope that you will also.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>> CW wrote:
>>> "Han" wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:jvbl7f$3ge$1
>>> @speranza.aioe.org:
>>>
>>>> The human being inside
>>>> the womb will never get a chance to see how difficult or easy life
>>>> is. Bottom line, it is a life.
>>>
>>> The fetus is a /potential/ life. There is a difference. There is
>>> no guarantee that pregnancy and birth will happen without danger to
>>> mother or fetus. Many times there is a need for intensive medical
>>> intervention. Perhaps that is why "nature" made fecundity so much
>>> greater than "necessary" for maintaining population.
>>>
>>> I know it sounds very bad (and I don't really think it is good) to
>>> end a potential life. But, sorry to say, I insist that the wishes
>>> of the potential mother rate far above those of the potential of a
>>> fetus. The better of 2 bad alternatives.
>>> ===================================================================
>>> +1
>>
>> What??? You are giving yourself a +1 (facebook stupidity...), for
>> your own post? Come on Han...
>
> Han - my bad. CW does not know how to post and I apparently do not
> know how to read. His post made it look like it was you replying to
> yourself. I am sorry for my reply.
No problem - sometimes I overreact too!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
CW wrote:
> "Han" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:jvbl7f$3ge$1
> @speranza.aioe.org:
>
>> The human being inside
>> the womb will never get a chance to see how difficult or easy life
>> is. Bottom line, it is a life.
>
> The fetus is a /potential/ life. There is a difference. There is no
> guarantee that pregnancy and birth will happen without danger to
> mother or fetus. Many times there is a need for intensive medical
> intervention. Perhaps that is why "nature" made fecundity so much
> greater than "necessary" for maintaining population.
>
> I know it sounds very bad (and I don't really think it is good) to
> end a potential life. But, sorry to say, I insist that the wishes of
> the potential mother rate far above those of the potential of a
> fetus. The better of 2 bad alternatives.
> ===================================================================
> +1
What??? You are giving yourself a +1 (facebook stupidity...), for your own
post? Come on Han...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
in 1534599 20120803 235327 "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>>
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>> > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>> > says...
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 14:59:59 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> So - let's look at a place where your argument breaks down Han. Our
>> >>> youngest daughter was not planned. Just sorta happend - got no
>> >>> idea how such a thing could have happened... But - it did.
>> >>> According to your logic - she should have been terminated because
>> >>> she was not planned
>> >>
>> >> That has no bearing on the discussion. Nobody is trying to force
>> >> others to have an abortion. It's the "pro-life" folks who are
>> >> trying to use the law to force their beliefs on others. The
>> >> "pro-choice" group want to leave the decision up to you and your
>> >> wife.
>> >>
>> >> Funny how folks who spout "freedom" at every opportunity seem to lose
>> >> that conviction when it comes to abortion, gay marriage, etc..
>> >>
>> >> "When fascism comes to America, it will arrive wrapped in the flag
>> >> and carrying a cross."
>> >
>> > My problem with "gay marriage" is that it's basically redefining a
>> > word to mean what gays want it to mean.
>> >
>> > If gays want to live together and screw their brains out that's their
>> > business. If they want the state to sanction their activities I'm
>> > fine with that too. Where I have a problem is with the use of the
>> > word "marriage" to describe it.
>> >
>> > I understand the arguments about survivor benefits and tax status and
>> > DNRs and so on and think they can be handled in some fashion other
>> > than by redefining the word "marriage".
>> >
>>
>> It goes way beyond a "relationship." Our criminal and civil laws are
>> saturated with "spouse," "married," and so on. Consider these examples:
>> * A "spouse" cannot be compelled to testify against a defendant in a
>> criminal trial;
>> * A "spouse" automatically inherits upon the death of the principal;
>> * A "spouse" can legally bind one to a contract (in community property
>> states);
>>
>> And so on. Enlarging the definition of marriage and spouse brings a whole
>> new group of people into those covered (and excluded) in thousands of laws,
>> people not envisioned when the subject law was originally passed.
>
>And I don't have any problem with two gays (or an Arab and 4 women or
>whatever) being accorded those privileges and obligations.
>
>Purging the civil and criminal laws of "spouse" and "marriage" and
>changing it to "party in a civil union" sounds like an excellent way to
>keep Congress out of trouble for a while.
You then need a definition of "civil union".
On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 02:18:08 -0600, Just Wondering
>Physical risk, perhaps. Men have no say in whether their their unborn
>daughter's mother can take her life, but if the mother chooses to let
>the daughter live, the father has financial and legal responsibility.
It's the woman's body that is of concern here. I wonder how quickly
opinions would change if men who were the ones that gave birth?
In the end, a man is in control of his own actions. That makes him
just as responsible for financial and legal responsibility.
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 13:55:15 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>When does the baby get a choice in the matter.
I'm comfortable with the medical profession's opinion of when a fetus
becomes a formed, developed, cognitive baby. Before then, I'm quite
fine with termination.
Go ahead please, hit me with your best response about the sanctity of
taking life at any point and 'killing' it. I'm quite prepared to shoot
you down in flames.
On 8/2/12 3:19 PM, Dave wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 13:55:15 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>> When does the baby get a choice in the matter.
>
> I'm comfortable with the medical profession's opinion of when a fetus
> becomes a formed, developed, cognitive baby. Before then, I'm quite
> fine with termination.
>
Ok, if "the medical profession's opinion of when a fetus becomes a
formed, developed, cognitive baby" was 7 months, would you be fine with
termination? What about 5 months? 3? 2? 1? Seriously, if they came out
tomorrow and said that a baby is a completely sustainable life outside
the womb at 3 weeks, would you still be fine with termination?
> Go ahead please, hit me with your best response about the sanctity of
> taking life at any point and 'killing' it. I'm quite prepared to shoot
> you down in flames.
>
Oh, in flames is it? Oh no.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
Han wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It would be ideal if we could just make life so that pregnancy would
>>> result ONLY from a conscious decision made with total consent
>>> between 2 people. Unless we find a way to sterilize people in a
>>> reversible manner, that will not always happen.
>>
>> So - let's look at a place where your argument breaks down Han. Our
>> youngest daughter was not planned. Just sorta happend - got no idea
>> how such a thing could have happened... But - it did. According to
>> your logic - she should have been terminated because she was not
>> planned by a concious decision made with total consent between 2
>> people. Do you even read the stuff you write, brother? Sometimes it
>> just makes no sense because it is borderline crazy. Hell Han - we
>> were just having sex - no consent between us to have another kid.
>> Just raw sex! And by your formula which you clearly have not thought
>> well through, she might well have been justifiably terminated - only
>> because it was not a conscious decision. Do you really think that is
>> what you meant to say?
>
> Obviously that is NOT what I meant. At least, I infer from your
> answer that your daughter although not "planned" was indeed welcomed
> into the family. Congratulations on a happy family! I apologize
> that you took my "unplanned" phrase in such an absolute way. That
> was totally not my intention.
Then... I think you need to think through your thoughts a bit more before
you post them. (a prolem common to all usenet posters...)
>
> As I said, I have never had to face the situation myself.
And having <not> experienced it, you still feel so comfortable in forming
such a concrete opinion? Don't you base your thoughts on anything more
substantial than that?
> I struggle
> with how to address it and have the utmost respect for anyone's
> opinion and deeds (as I have said before). I hope that you will also.
Yeah - it is a very difficult topic to address which is why I declined to
take it up in detal here. For me (despite what idiots like CW want to
think...), is very complex. Here, I elect only to speak to the things
people say about their beliefs rather than the belief itself. If that makes
any sense...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
CW wrote:
> "Han" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It would be ideal if we could just make life so that pregnancy would
>>> result ONLY from a conscious decision made with total consent
>>> between 2 people. Unless we find a way to sterilize people in a
>>> reversible manner, that will not always happen.
>>
>> So - let's look at a place where your argument breaks down Han. Our
>> youngest daughter was not planned. Just sorta happend - got no idea
>> how such a thing could have happened... But - it did. According to
>> your logic - she should have been terminated because she was not
>> planned by a concious decision made with total consent between 2
>> people. Do you even read the stuff you write, brother? Sometimes it
>> just makes no sense because it is borderline crazy. Hell Han - we
>> were just having sex - no consent between us to have another kid.
>> Just raw sex! And by your formula which you clearly have not thought
>> well through, she might well have been justifiably terminated - only
>> because it was not a conscious decision. Do you really think that is
>> what you meant to say?
>
> Obviously that is NOT what I meant.
> =======================================================================
> I knew exactly what you meant and so and so did he. He is, as usual,
> being the argumentative asshole that has earned him a place in many
> kill files.
Argumentative is the phrase that assholes like you apply to others who bring
up points that show you how hollow your statements are. That's ok - you
provide a great deal of humor with your posts...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
CW wrote:
> "Han" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It would be ideal if we could just make life so that pregnancy would
>>> result ONLY from a conscious decision made with total consent
>>> between 2 people. Unless we find a way to sterilize people in a
>>> reversible manner, that will not always happen.
>>
>> So - let's look at a place where your argument breaks down Han. Our
>> youngest daughter was not planned. Just sorta happend - got no idea
>> how such a thing could have happened... But - it did. According to
>> your logic - she should have been terminated because she was not
>> planned by a concious decision made with total consent between 2
>> people. Do you even read the stuff you write, brother? Sometimes it
>> just makes no sense because it is borderline crazy. Hell Han - we
>> were just having sex - no consent between us to have another kid.
>> Just raw sex! And by your formula which you clearly have not thought
>> well through, she might well have been justifiably terminated - only
>> because it was not a conscious decision. Do you really think that is
>> what you meant to say?
>
> Obviously that is NOT what I meant.
> =======================================================================
> I knew exactly what you meant and so and so did he. He is, as usual,
> being the argumentative asshole that has earned him a place in many
> kill files.
I thought you plonked me asshole... Just can't resist, can you?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 8/1/12 9:37 AM, CW wrote:
>
>
> "Dave" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 02:18:08 -0600, Just Wondering
>> Physical risk, perhaps. Men have no say in whether their their unborn
>> daughter's mother can take her life, but if the mother chooses to let
>> the daughter live, the father has financial and legal responsibility.
>
> It's the woman's body that is of concern here. I wonder how quickly
> opinions would change if men who were the ones that gave birth?
> ====================================================================
> Very quickly.
That doesn't explain the millions of pro-life women.
I bet the woman inside the womb would be pro-life if she had a choice in
the matter.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 8/1/12 10:22 AM, Han wrote:
> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 8/1/12 9:37 AM, CW wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Dave" wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 02:18:08 -0600, Just Wondering
>>>> Physical risk, perhaps. Men have no say in whether their their
>>>> unborn daughter's mother can take her life, but if the mother
>>>> chooses to let the daughter live, the father has financial and legal
>>>> responsibility.
>>>
>>> It's the woman's body that is of concern here. I wonder how quickly
>>> opinions would change if men who were the ones that gave birth?
>>> ====================================================================
>>> Very quickly.
>>
>>
>> That doesn't explain the millions of pro-life women.
>> I bet the woman inside the womb would be pro-life if she had a choice
>> in the matter.
>
> It would be ideal if we could just make life so that pregnancy would
> result ONLY from a conscious decision made with total consent between 2
> people. Unless we find a way to sterilize people in a reversible manner,
> that will not always happen.
>
> As of now, use of effective contraceptives could and should be higher.
> Since totally effective contraception is a(?n?) utopian illusion as well,
> we get collectively saddled with unwanted pregnancies. Fortunately, with
> increasing education and availability of contraceptives, the number of
> unwanted pregnancies is decreasing. There is hope!
>
> While the preferable solution to an unwanted pregnancy would be a birth
> at full-term with adoption by a loving family, that isn't always possible
> (even if the paperwork was easier).
Yes, adoption should be made easier. It should be made easier for the
thousands of couples waiting to adopt a baby of any color or race.... or
with down's syndrome, or born addicted to crack. There are waiting
lists, people at my church on on them. We agree, adoption should be
made easier.
> Moreover, using any female as a
> forced upon incubator is reprehensible. Even considering that she might
> have gotten pregnant by "negligence". Also, there are many medical
> reasons for terminating a dangerous condition, which unfortunately almost
> every pregnancy can turn into.
>
> So pregnancy is a blessed state, but only if consciously conceived (pun
> intended).
>
The vast majority of abortions are performed for convenience. Abortions
due to non-consensual sex or danger to the mother's life account for
less than 1/10 of one percent, so that argument has never held water.
Any and all abortion restricting legislation that gotten any traction
contained exemptions for rape/incest and danger to the life of the mother.
Nothing in your argument negates the fact that we are talking about a
human life. Life is difficult. Life is more difficult with an unintended
pregnancy. We were never promised an easy life. The human being inside
the womb will never get a chance to see how difficult or easy life is.
Bottom line, it is a life.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 8/1/12 12:21 PM, Han wrote:
> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:jvbl7f$3ge$1
> @speranza.aioe.org:
>
>> The human being inside
>> the womb will never get a chance to see how difficult or easy life is.
>> Bottom line, it is a life.
>
> The fetus is a /potential/ life. There is a difference.
Modern science has shown that the only difference between the life of a
fetus and the life of any other human, is real estate. The baby inside
the womb has unique dna, brainwaves, beating heart, feels pain, etc,
etc, etc. premature birth babies are surviving earlier and earlier
every year with advances in medical science. Yet, with all our advances
in science, with our species supposedly evolving and improving, we
blindly and foolishly, because of the choice agenda, refer to a living
human being inside a womb as just a blob of tissue.
> There is no
> guarantee that pregnancy and birth will happen without danger to mother or
> fetus.Many times there is a need for intensive medical intervention.
You keep bringing that up and I already explained how those abortions
account for such a such a small percentage that it's a moot point. I
also explained that every abortion restrictive legislation has included
exemptions for that. Why do you use 1/10 of 1 percent of cases to argue
the other 99.9 percent?
> Perhaps that is why "nature" made fecundity so much greater than
> "necessary" for maintaining population.
>
> I know it sounds very bad (and I don't really think it is good) to end a
> potential life. But, sorry to say, I insist that the wishes of the
> potential mother rate far above those of the potential of a fetus. The
> better of 2 bad alternatives.
>
It is a moral dilemma, for sure.
I would rather grant the same basic human rights to both humans.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 8/1/12 1:47 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> "Dave" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>
>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 02:18:08 -0600, Just Wondering
>>> Physical risk, perhaps. Men have no say in whether their their unborn
>>> daughter's mother can take her life, but if the mother chooses to let
>>> the daughter live, the father has financial and legal responsibility.
>>
>> It's the woman's body that is of concern here. I wonder how quickly
>> opinions would change if men who were the ones that gave birth?
>> ====================================================================
>> Very quickly.
>
> There's an old saying: "If men got pregnant, abortion would be a
> sacrament."
>
Quaint... were it not for the millions of pro-life women.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 8/1/12 10:42 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> "Han" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>
>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:jvbl7f$3ge$1
>> @speranza.aioe.org:
>>
>>> The human being inside
>>> the womb will never get a chance to see how difficult or easy life is.
>>> Bottom line, it is a life.
>>
>> The fetus is a /potential/ life. There is a difference. There is no
>> guarantee that pregnancy and birth will happen without danger to mother or
>> fetus. Many times there is a need for intensive medical intervention.
>> Perhaps that is why "nature" made fecundity so much greater than
>> "necessary" for maintaining population.
>>
>> I know it sounds very bad (and I don't really think it is good) to end a
>> potential life. But, sorry to say, I insist that the wishes of the
>> potential mother rate far above those of the potential of a fetus. The
>> better of 2 bad alternatives.
>> ===================================================================
>> +1
>
> Personally I would prefer a world in which nobody ever got pregnant who
> didn't want to. We don't inhabit such a world so we have to do the best
> we can with what we've got. And giving women the choice of being nuns
> or mothers with no other options just doesn't work for me.
>
Yes, because motherhood is such a horrible thing.
I don't think there's ever been a mother on her deathbed who regretted
having children.
It's a human life. Choosing to kill your baby in favor of a more
convenient life just don't work for me.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 14:59:59 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:
> So - let's look at a place where your argument breaks down Han. Our
> youngest daughter was not planned. Just sorta happend - got no idea how
> such a thing could have happened... But - it did. According to your
> logic - she should have been terminated because she was not planned
That has no bearing on the discussion. Nobody is trying to force others
to have an abortion. It's the "pro-life" folks who are trying to use the
law to force their beliefs on others. The "pro-choice" group want to
leave the decision up to you and your wife.
Funny how folks who spout "freedom" at every opportunity seem to lose
that conviction when it comes to abortion, gay marriage, etc..
"When fascism comes to America, it will arrive wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross."
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 14:59:59 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>>> So - let's look at a place where your argument breaks down Han. Our
>>> youngest daughter was not planned. Just sorta happend - got no idea
>>> how such a thing could have happened... But - it did. According to
>>> your logic - she should have been terminated because she was not
>>> planned
>>
>> That has no bearing on the discussion. Nobody is trying to force
>> others to have an abortion. It's the "pro-life" folks who are trying
>> to use the law to force their beliefs on others. The "pro-choice"
>> group want to leave the decision up to you and your wife.
>>
>> Funny how folks who spout "freedom" at every opportunity seem to lose
>> that conviction when it comes to abortion, gay marriage, etc..
>>
>> "When fascism comes to America, it will arrive wrapped in the flag
>> and carrying a cross."
>
> Well - that all depends on how one views their participation in the
> discussion. I do not view mine as an active participant in the
> abortion/no abortion discourse - or perhaps you did not bother to read
> that. My comment to Han was more centered on his arugment - or his
> logic. Seems the proponents of either side do not want to see that,
> and want to see adversaries. Too bad. That would be your loss. All
> of the rest of the rhetoric on either side is just that - rhetoric.
> No matter which side you are on.
Let me say it again. I respect anyone's opinion. I am only saying that
in my very personal opinion, the decision whether or not to abort an
(apparently) unwanted pregnancy should be made by the pregnant woman.
Many, many factors may affect that decision. But no one should force the
woman to decide one way or another.
I had more here, but I'll leave it to this. I don't know whether or not
I should be sorry to have instigated this discussion ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Han wrote:
>
> Let me say it again. I respect anyone's opinion. I am only saying
> that in my very personal opinion, the decision whether or not to
> abort an (apparently) unwanted pregnancy should be made by the
> pregnant woman. Many, many factors may affect that decision. But no
> one should force the woman to decide one way or another.
>
Hey Han - I understand your position - and you don't have to either explain
it again or even defend it (if you so chose) to me. I'm not sure what you
saw in my reply to Dave that caused you to make the above statement, but it
was not my intent to cause that in you.
> I had more here, but I'll leave it to this. I don't know whether or
> not I should be sorry to have instigated this discussion ...
Like I said - Pandora's box...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 19:09:42 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 7/31/2012 6:08 PM, Dave wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 17:09:12 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
>>> Here's the drill: Actions have consequences. If a woman has unprotected sex,
>>> she should accept the results.
>>
>> Yeah, right! Perhaps you should also include a little of that "accept
>> the results" to the men who were part of that equation.
>>
>> I'm willing to bet that's there's many more men who have refused
>> responsibility than women who have refused the responsibility.
>
>Yep ... and well said.
Perhaps, but what gets me is that so many people are having
unprotected sex, in this day of so many untreatable STDs, plus
life-threatening AIDS! Pregnancy is the least of their possible
troubles.
--
Another belief of mine: that everyone else my age is an adult,
whereas I am merely in disguise.
-- Margaret Atwood
"Han" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>
>>
>> It would be ideal if we could just make life so that pregnancy would
>> result ONLY from a conscious decision made with total consent between
>> 2 people. Unless we find a way to sterilize people in a reversible
>> manner, that will not always happen.
>
> So - let's look at a place where your argument breaks down Han. Our
> youngest daughter was not planned. Just sorta happend - got no idea
> how such a thing could have happened... But - it did. According to
> your logic - she should have been terminated because she was not
> planned by a concious decision made with total consent between 2
> people. Do you even read the stuff you write, brother? Sometimes it
> just makes no sense because it is borderline crazy. Hell Han - we
> were just having sex - no consent between us to have another kid.
> Just raw sex! And by your formula which you clearly have not thought
> well through, she might well have been justifiably terminated - only
> because it was not a conscious decision. Do you really think that is
> what you meant to say?
Obviously that is NOT what I meant.
=======================================================================
I knew exactly what you meant and so and so did he. He is, as usual, being
the argumentative asshole that has earned him a place in many kill files.
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 18:05:35 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Just Wondering" wrote:
>
>> Correct. Choices have consequences. Pregnancy is a potential
>> consequence of every act of sexual intercourse. A woman makes her
>> choice by either spreading her legs or crossing her knees.
>> One reason abortion is legal is that an aborted fetus doesn't get to
>> vote. She can't, y'know, being dead and all.
>--------------------------------
>What a crock.
>
>It still takes TWO to tango.
>
>Trying to avoid responsibility by blaming your female partner is a
>joke.
>
>Lew
>
>
I still remember being 16 years old riding to work with my father. He
was explaining that in life you have choices and they all effect your
future and your freedom to do as you please. We were expected to be
responsible for problems we might cause. That seems to have been
totally lost in todays culture. I have my theories as to why, but see
no point in trying to close the barn door at this point. The question
would be how do you try to make people assume responsibility in our
current society and politcal arena. I'm just glad I'm not 20 years
old in this society.
Mike M
"Dave" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 02:18:08 -0600, Just Wondering
>Physical risk, perhaps. Men have no say in whether their their unborn
>daughter's mother can take her life, but if the mother chooses to let
>the daughter live, the father has financial and legal responsibility.
It's the woman's body that is of concern here. I wonder how quickly
opinions would change if men who were the ones that gave birth?
====================================================================
Very quickly.
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:26:07 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>Ok, if "the medical profession's opinion of when a fetus becomes a
>formed, developed, cognitive baby" was 7 months, would you be fine with
>termination? What about 5 months? 3? 2? 1? Seriously, if they came out
>tomorrow and said that a baby is a completely sustainable life outside
>the womb at 3 weeks, would you still be fine with termination?
You see Mike, the countries with live in, (Canada and the US in this
case) have what most would call enlightened, educated medical
professionals. For the most part, we have the best educated doctors in
the world. That means I trust them their guidelines in this case.
They didn't just choose an arbitrary stage age of development as
you're attempting to suggest above.
Try again Mike.
On 8/2/12 3:40 PM, Dave wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:26:07 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>> Ok, if "the medical profession's opinion of when a fetus becomes a
>> formed, developed, cognitive baby" was 7 months, would you be fine with
>> termination? What about 5 months? 3? 2? 1? Seriously, if they came out
>> tomorrow and said that a baby is a completely sustainable life outside
>> the womb at 3 weeks, would you still be fine with termination?
>
> You see Mike, the countries with live in, (Canada and the US in this
> case) have what most would call enlightened, educated medical
> professionals. For the most part, we have the best educated doctors in
> the world. That means I trust them their guidelines in this case.
>
> They didn't just choose an arbitrary stage age of development as
> you're attempting to suggest above.
>
> Try again Mike.
>
No, I'm trying to see if it's simply the medical professionals' opinions
that determine your opinion in the matter. Because at this point,
medical science has made it almost routine for 6 month old premature
birthed babies to survive. There have been preemies who survived much
earlier. Medical science will only improve making the viability of life
outside the womb, sooner and sooner.
There are those who honestly believe a woman should have the right to
"terminate pregnancy" all the way up until the point of delivery. I'm
just trying to see what camp you're in.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 18:05:35 -0700, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Just Wondering" wrote:
>
>> Correct. Choices have consequences. Pregnancy is a potential
>> consequence of every act of sexual intercourse. A woman makes her
>> choice by either spreading her legs or crossing her knees.
>> One reason abortion is legal is that an aborted fetus doesn't get to
>> vote. She can't, y'know, being dead and all.
>--------------------------------
>What a crock.
>
>It still takes TWO to tango.
>
>Trying to avoid responsibility by blaming your female partner is a
>joke.
I don't believe anyone wants to let the other half off with a slap on the
wrist.
On 7/30/12 10:37 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" wrote:
>> Most of what you said is uninformed. Your last comment shows what
>> you are. It earned you the famous "fuck off" award.
> ----------------------------------
> Truth hurts HUH?
>
> Lew
>
Yes, it does... but in this case you have it backwards.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 7/31/12 6:44 AM, Han wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> CW wrote:
>>> "Mike Marlow" wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> CW wrote:
>>>
>>>> He fully understood. He is a pro lifer that believes that abortion
>>>> should never be an option and pregnant woman should give birth no
>>>> matter what. The fact that the kid might be born no matter what the
>>>> problem, including cases where the mothers life is in danger. Pro
>>>> life? No, it's anti woman.
>>>
>>> Your last comment shows what you are.
>>> ======================================================================
>>> ========== Yes, it does. I'm one of those people that don't want to
>>> turn time back 50 years. I'm one that doesn't believe that woman
>>> should be subservient to men. I'm one that does not see woman as baby
>>> factories. I'm one that believes that woman have a right to run their
>>> own lives. Don't bother replying. You have been plonked.
>>
>> Yawn....
>
> One last remark. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Everyone should
> act as their conscience/morality/whatever directs them.
>
> But NO ONE should impose their view on someone who does NOT share that
> view.
We do that with every law we make, or we wouldn't need the laws.
> In the case of childbearing, pregnancy, contraception and related
> subjects it is the WOMAN who is ultimately in charge and who should make
> her INFORMED decision. To me THAT is an absolute.
>
I guess we all have out own absolutes, then.
To me, the absolute if the life inside the woman.
We cannot talk about human rights without the right to be human.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 7/31/12 11:55 AM, Han wrote:
> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 7/31/12 6:44 AM, Han wrote:
>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> CW wrote:
>>>>> "Mike Marlow" wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>> CW wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> He fully understood. He is a pro lifer that believes that abortion
>>>>>> should never be an option and pregnant woman should give birth no
>>>>>> matter what. The fact that the kid might be born no matter what
>>>>>> the problem, including cases where the mothers life is in danger.
>>>>>> Pro life? No, it's anti woman.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your last comment shows what you are.
>>>>> ====================================================================
>>>>> == ========== Yes, it does. I'm one of those people that don't want
>>>>> to turn time back 50 years. I'm one that doesn't believe that woman
>>>>> should be subservient to men. I'm one that does not see woman as
>>>>> baby factories. I'm one that believes that woman have a right to
>>>>> run their own lives. Don't bother replying. You have been plonked.
>>>>
>>>> Yawn....
>>>
>>> One last remark. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Everyone
>>> should act as their conscience/morality/whatever directs them.
>>>
>>> But NO ONE should impose their view on someone who does NOT share
>>> that view.
>>
>> We do that with every law we make, or we wouldn't need the laws.
>
> You can make laws that give a personal choice. Obviously, that can't be
> done with laws that impose a tax. But the law can say that you are free
> to choose between these health insurance policies.
>
>>> In the case of childbearing, pregnancy, contraception and related
>>> subjects it is the WOMAN who is ultimately in charge and who should
>>> make her INFORMED decision. To me THAT is an absolute.
>>>
>>
>> I guess we all have out own absolutes, then.
>> To me, the absolute if the life inside the woman.
>> We cannot talk about human rights without the right to be human.
>
> Now you are imposing your opinion as a law on someone else. Would you
> like a law that says you, -MIKE-, have to pray in this church, on that
> street corner? The woman's body is not something you have jurisdiction
> over. I respect your right to have an opinion that may say, for
> instance, "I do not think you have the right to terminate that pregnancy
> of yours", but it has to be followed by "but I will respect your right to
> do as you see fit". Then, of course you have the right to end any
> relationship with the woman, unless she is your responsibility as a
> minor. But even then, it is her body, and she needs to live with the
> consequences.
>
I hold the same high regard for the rights of the woman inside the
woman's womb.
Plain and simple.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 7/31/12 6:47 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:50:19 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:
>
>> I hold the same high regard for the rights of the woman inside the
>> woman's womb.
>> Plain and simple.
>
> No, you hold the rights of a potential human over those of an actual
> human.
>
Funny, with all the advances in science that the field in which people
still want to stay in the stone ages is the area of fetal development.
At the moment of conception, it has its own unique dna, has a beating
heart by the time the mother misses her period, has measurable brain
waves in about 40 days, about seventh, when the majority of abortions
are performed, has fingers and genitals and the childâs face is
recognizably human, yet Planned Parenthood wants you to believe it's
just a blob of tissue.
It's a life, it's a person.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 30 Jul 2012 12:21:24 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:06:20 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Larry Jaques
>>>>
>>>>> P.S: I think you'd like _Hard Green_ by Peter Huber. Let's do the
>>>>> most good with the least cost now, then work on the rest.
>>>>
>>>> DAGS "Bjorn Lomborg"... not a denier, but a voice of reason with
>>>> regard to policies concerning changing global climate, reviled and
>>>> almost professionally ruined by the AGW crowd in a most repulsive
>>>> manner. If you can't grasp that these alarmist' are very often
>>>> blind, bigoted, and totally without scruples, you're part of the
>>>> problem.
>>>
>>> His _Skeptic_ book adorns my shelf. He's the opposite of Muller, in
>>> that he was a greenie and became a skeptic.
>>
>> Lomborg is rational. In essence, most of his work centers around
>> priorities.
Ditto Huber. If I had to choose a "best book" regarding ecology and
sanity, it would have to be Huber's _Hard Green_.
>> For example, the amount of money spent to prevent 3 cancer deaths a
>> year by eliminating some obscure chemical from refinery smokestacks
>> would be enough to test EVERY newborn black baby for sickle-cell
>> anemia, thereby saving THOUSANDS of lives per year.
>
>I like that idea of testing for hemoglobin S. I did that in a research
>project in the middle '60s, I believe in 1967. it is really cheap. Now
>what are you going to do when you find HbS in a baby? There still is no
>good cure or treatment for sickle cell anemia ...
Some people abort when they test early and find gross genetic flaws.
I'd be pissed forever at my parents if they'd allowed me to be born
with 3 legs, no eyes, or a lead crowbar in my back pocket.
--
When we are planning for posterity, we ought
to remember that virtue is not hereditary.
-- Thomas Paine
(comparing Paine to the current CONgress <deep sigh>)
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 7/29/2012 11:28 AM, Han wrote:
>
>> Let me know when you find reliable reports denying the Muller paper.
>
> Available for anyone who bothers to read their FAQ?
>
> http://berkeleyearth.org/faq/
>
> Can look no further than their own words to understand that they
> themselves imply their guess is apparently as good as any other, and
> to also understand that thus far their study is taking into account
> land data ONLY and is, by their own admission, far from complete:
>
> <quote>
>
> Berkeley Earth has not yet begun to analyze ocean temperatures (we
> hope to do this in the next year), so the plotted data is land only.
> Land warms more than oceans, so when we include the ocean we expect
> the total global warming to be less.
>
> </quote>
>
> Has Global Warming Stopped?
>
> <quote>
>
> This exercise simply shows that the decadal fluctuations are too large
> to allow us to make decisive conclusions about long term trends based
> on close examination of periods as short as 13 to 15 years.
>
> </quote>
>
> Do Judith Curry and Richard Muller disagree?
>
> <quote>
>
> Below is a joint statement by Judith Curry and Richard Muller:
>
> In recent days, statements we've made to the media and on blogs have
> been characterized as contradictory. They are not.
>
> We have both said that the global temperature record of the last 13
> years shows evidence suggesting that the warming has slowed. Our new
> analysis of the land-based data neither confirms nor denies this
> contention. If you look at our new land temperature estimates, you can
> see a flattening of the rise, or a continuation of the rise,
> _depending on the statistical approach you take_
>
> Continued global warming "skepticism" is a proper and a necessary part
> of the scientific process. The Wall St. Journal Op-Ed by one of us
> (Muller) seemed to take the opposite view with its title and subtitle:
> "The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism -- There were good reasons
> for doubt, until now." But those words were not written by Muller. The
> title and the subtitle of the submitted Op-Ed were "Cooling the
> Warming Debate - Are you a global warming skeptic? If not, perhaps you
> should be. Let me explain why." The title and subtitle were changed by
> the editors without consulting or seeking permission from the author.
> Readers are encouraged to ignore the title and read the content of the
> Op-Ed.
>
> We do not agree with each other on every feature of climate change. We
> have had vigorous discussions, for example, on the proper way to
> analyze hurricane records. Such disagreements are an essential part of
> the scientific process.
>
> </quote>
>
> So much for putting your faith in incomplete studies. LOL
>
>
> www.eWoodShop.com
> Last update: 4/15/2010
> KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
> http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
OK. At least there is still room for debate, and it isn't a closed deal
that global warming is a hoax.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han, global warming alarmism (AGWK) is indeed a hoax. It has lies,
> misread data, imperfect models, and exaggerations all rolled into one
> nasty True Belief religion. It's sorta like Obamunism.
I'm really not sure whether whether alarm is necessary. I think there is
a real heads up, that we can't go on the way we have been going. I'm
sure that some of that has to do with presentation and interpretation -
on the sides of both alarmists and denyers/deniers.
I am trying to read Ron Paul's book Liberty defined, and have gotten to
the E(ducation). So far it is to me a mixture of naive belief in the
good of the natural mechanisms of free trade and laissez faire that human
interactions will always lead to the best, although there are some tenets
of Paul's that I could agree with. I'll have to see how much further I
can get through the book. As far as Obamunism is concerned, Romneycare
in Mass was the example, and by all accounts that I have rather
successful, including the mandate and the penalties. Is the ACA a good
compromise? It is a compromise. On all sides there has been give and
take, and as usual (give Paul his due), the medical industry has
influenced through lobbying the law WAY too much. Since Congress lives
by slogans, bribery and sleight of hand, it is difficult to see how it
can be rectified. I hope it will self-adjust once in effect, but in
spite of my hope, I am a doubting Thomas as well.
> I'm with you in wanting CO2 emissions considerably reduced, but I
> don't believe humans need to change their way of life to do it; Only
> their attitude.
That's a start. But I do believe that an attitude adjustment comes darn
close to a change in the way of life. One good thing of this recession
is that we are learning to be more frugal (overall, some more than
others, and some very, very painfully).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 07/29/2012 05:50 PM, Han wrote:
>> Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Han, global warming alarmism (AGWK) is indeed a hoax. It has lies,
>>> misread data, imperfect models, and exaggerations all rolled into
>>> one nasty True Belief religion. It's sorta like Obamunism.
>>
>> I'm really not sure whether whether alarm is necessary. I think
>> there is a real heads up, that we can't go on the way we have been
>> going. I'm sure that some of that has to do with presentation and
>> interpretation - on the sides of both alarmists and denyers/deniers.
>>
>> I am trying to read Ron Paul's book Liberty defined, and have gotten
>> to the E(ducation). So far it is to me a mixture of naive belief in
>> the good of the natural mechanisms of free trade and laissez faire
>> that human interactions will always lead to the best, although there
>> are some tenets of Paul's that I could agree with. I'll have to see
>> how much further I can get through the book. As far as Obamunism is
>> concerned, Romneycare in Mass was the example, and by all accounts
>> that I have rather successful, including the mandate and the
>> penalties. Is the ACA a good compromise? It is a compromise. On
>> all sides there has been give and take, and as usual (give Paul his
>> due), the medical industry has influenced through lobbying the law
>> WAY too much. Since Congress lives by slogans, bribery and sleight
>> of hand, it is difficult to see how it can be rectified. I hope it
>> will self-adjust once in effect, but in spite of my hope, I am a
>> doubting Thomas as well.
>
> According to the 10th amendment, Romney-care done by a state, or
> several states or all states is fine, but Obama-care is not in the
> purview of the Federal Government.
It was only a 5-4 decision by the SCOTUS, but it was ruled
constitutional, so your opinion is only that, your opinion, not legally
useful (sorry).
>>> I'm with you in wanting CO2 emissions considerably reduced, but I
>>> don't believe humans need to change their way of life to do it; Only
>>> their attitude.
>>
>> That's a start. But I do believe that an attitude adjustment comes
>> darn close to a change in the way of life. One good thing of this
>> recession is that we are learning to be more frugal (overall, some
>> more than others, and some very, very painfully).
>
> We are being frugal, but the Federal Government isn't. It's going to
> lead to much worse conditions for individuals than a little frugality.
Yes, indeed. We are frugal too, and Congress isn't. That is because too
many "constituents" scream when their earmarks are attacked. So it is
almost everyone around that is NOT frugal when congressional largesse is
seen as a handout.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>> Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Han, global warming alarmism (AGWK) is indeed a hoax. It has lies,
>>> misread data, imperfect models, and exaggerations all rolled into
>>> one nasty True Belief religion. It's sorta like Obamunism.
>>
>> I'm really not sure whether whether alarm is necessary. I think
>> there is a real heads up, that we can't go on the way we have been
>> going. I'm sure that some of that has to do with presentation and
>> interpretation - on the sides of both alarmists and denyers/deniers.
>
> Why can't we go on the way we have been going? Either GW is beyond our
> capacity to influence it and we have to adjust to the result or we
> have to revert to a time of lesser energy use.
>
> If the former, we build dikes around costal cities and take similar
> steps to mitigate the effects. If the latter, we regress to a time
> when life was painful, brutal, and short.
>
> The WORST reaction is to act as if GW was caused by civilization but
> find out later that GW is natural and beyond our ability to do
> anything about it.
How about a middle way? We WILL need to build defenses like the Dutch
around some of our habitats. But we can also try to minimize the CO2
(etc, etc) we produce.
>> That's a start. But I do believe that an attitude adjustment comes
>> darn close to a change in the way of life. One good thing of this
>> recession is that we are learning to be more frugal (overall, some
>> more than others, and some very, very painfully).
>
> I'll play: Why is living frugally a Good Thing(tm)?
>
> Consider the chap who harkens to your definition by buying a canoe
> instead of a yacht. Dozens of yacht builders don't get the work,
> ship's chandlers, able-bodied seamen, and others are likewise missing
> out on employment, and so on.
>
> Or perhaps the family who opt for a teepee instead of a mansion;
> again, no home builders, suppliers of materials, no tax revenue,
> on-and-on.
>
> Bottom line: If one is convinced that living off of nuts and berries
> is sufficient, what happens to innovation, improvements in the human
> condition, and the future of humanity?
Didn't know you were a Keynesian spendthrift <grin>! Spend and inflate,
or spend and tax? which will it be? While I do think that just firing
everyone who could possibly be missed might also not be a good thing,
going the Spanish route of (very temporary) "prosperity" by borrowing and
spending on all kinds of luxuries is definitely a recipe for disaster.
That is playing out in Europe and Florida.
One can be frugal without being miserly, methinks. We are being frugal
by only having 1 car, a 2005 Grand (well ...) Caravan, but we went on an
Alaska vacation earlier this year ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 07/30/2012 05:02 AM, Han wrote:
>> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 07/29/2012 05:50 PM, Han wrote:
>>>> Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> Han, global warming alarmism (AGWK) is indeed a hoax. It has lies,
>>>>> misread data, imperfect models, and exaggerations all rolled into
>>>>> one nasty True Belief religion. It's sorta like Obamunism.
>>>>
>>>> I'm really not sure whether whether alarm is necessary. I think
>>>> there is a real heads up, that we can't go on the way we have been
>>>> going. I'm sure that some of that has to do with presentation and
>>>> interpretation - on the sides of both alarmists and
>>>> denyers/deniers.
>>>>
>>>> I am trying to read Ron Paul's book Liberty defined, and have
>>>> gotten to the E(ducation). So far it is to me a mixture of naive
>>>> belief in the good of the natural mechanisms of free trade and
>>>> laissez faire that human interactions will always lead to the best,
>>>> although there are some tenets of Paul's that I could agree with.
>>>> I'll have to see how much further I can get through the book. As
>>>> far as Obamunism is concerned, Romneycare in Mass was the example,
>>>> and by all accounts that I have rather successful, including the
>>>> mandate and the penalties. Is the ACA a good compromise? It is a
>>>> compromise. On all sides there has been give and take, and as
>>>> usual (give Paul his due), the medical industry has influenced
>>>> through lobbying the law WAY too much. Since Congress lives by
>>>> slogans, bribery and sleight of hand, it is difficult to see how it
>>>> can be rectified. I hope it will self-adjust once in effect, but
>>>> in spite of my hope, I am a doubting Thomas as well.
>>>
>>> According to the 10th amendment, Romney-care done by a state, or
>>> several states or all states is fine, but Obama-care is not in the
>>> purview of the Federal Government.
>>
>> It was only a 5-4 decision by the SCOTUS, but it was ruled
>> constitutional, so your opinion is only that, your opinion, not
>> legally useful (sorry).
>
> It was a narrow ruling on the mandate as unconstitutional under the
> commerce clause but valid as a tax (which the authors explicitly
> denied). The validity of the whole law under the 10th wasn't part of
> the pleadings.
The SCOTUS (Roberts) bent backwards to make the law constitutional. I
believe that the generalities of the law are good, while some specifics
couls probably be done better, but that's my "leftists" opinion, as well
as Romney's on the Mass law that served as example. You are correct that
the 10th amendment has been successfully outmaneuvered/evaded. While I
agree that the US is a Republic of States, it's been some 150 years ago
that the opponents lost in a damn bloody war. Get over it. We are
better off as a single country rather than conflicting states. Ask the
Europeans how that feels nowadays. Sorry if I have offended sensitive
souls.
>>>>> I'm with you in wanting CO2 emissions considerably reduced, but I
>>>>> don't believe humans need to change their way of life to do it;
>>>>> Only their attitude.
>>>>
>>>> That's a start. But I do believe that an attitude adjustment comes
>>>> darn close to a change in the way of life. One good thing of this
>>>> recession is that we are learning to be more frugal (overall, some
>>>> more than others, and some very, very painfully).
>>>
>>> We are being frugal, but the Federal Government isn't. It's going
>>> to lead to much worse conditions for individuals than a little
>>> frugality.
>>
>> Yes, indeed. We are frugal too, and Congress isn't. That is because
>> too many "constituents" scream when their earmarks are attacked. So
>> it is almost everyone around that is NOT frugal when congressional
>> largesse is seen as a handout.
>
> Earmarks are to satisfy a relatively small number of folks who give
> big campaign bucks. The "constituents" you mention get frightened
> when any talk of social program reforms are mentioned, even though our
> current tax receipts don't cover SS, Medicare and Mediacaid. Some of
> these and all other Federal spending are borrowed including
> Obaba-care.
Earmarks I mentioned as an example of Congressional largesse. The whole
budget is nowadays made up out of whole cloth. In spite of all the
screaming about responsible spending etc. We need to stop pandering to
the unions for their featherbedding (if ny), we need to stop spending on
unnecessary bureaucracies (wherever they are), and we need to make
everyone more responsible for their actions (with effective penalties,
not slaps on the wrist and bailouts). And paying for what we do indeed
want will require raising taxes. Can't be any other way.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 7/30/2012 7:12 AM, Han wrote:
>
>> Didn't know you were a Keynesian spendthrift <grin>! Spend and
>> inflate, or spend and tax? which will it be? While I do think that
>> just firing everyone who could possibly be missed might also not be a
>> good thing, going the Spanish route of (very temporary) "prosperity"
>> by borrowing and spending on all kinds of luxuries is definitely a
>> recipe for disaster. That is playing out in Europe and Florida.
>>
>> One can be frugal without being miserly, methinks. We are being
>> frugal by only having 1 car, a 2005 Grand (well ...) Caravan, but we
>> went on an Alaska vacation earlier this year ...
>>
>
>
> No need to be frugal if you have always lived with in your means and
> planed for times like these.
>
> My wife and I lived in our first starter home for 30 years. We
> refinanced it 6 years in and paid an additional $300 per month for 6
> years. The house was paid for in 1995 and as a result we have been
> debt free ever since.
>
> We always looked around us and wondered why we were still in this same
> starter house 25+ years after moving in and saw people driving very
> expensive cars and buying huge homes.
>
> Well back in 2008 the answer came and as a result we were able to
> finally afford/pay cash for a bigger new home.
>
> We are still debt free.
>
> It is a great feeling owing no one, but that only comes from only
> buying what we can truly afford. I will add that we will finance
> short term if the interest rate is "Zero" and if we can pay cash to
> begin with. We have been very lucky to have had the wisdom and
> patience to wait until we have truly earned what we choose to buy,
> this methodology has been rewarding.
I am keeping the HELOC with $75K outstanding and 2.24% interest, for the
moment. I'm ready to pay it off when I decide to. That and the revolving
charge cards that get paid off every month is what I owe. It is indeed a
good feeling to not be in hock. Now I have to get the kids in that same
situation/frame of mind. Of course, we have been very lucky with well-
paying employment, but we did spend according to income, while saving up
for this retirement thing ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 7/30/2012 12:47 PM, Han wrote:
>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 7/30/2012 7:12 AM, Han wrote:
>>>
>>>> Didn't know you were a Keynesian spendthrift <grin>! Spend and
>>>> inflate, or spend and tax? which will it be? While I do think
>>>> that just firing everyone who could possibly be missed might also
>>>> not be a good thing, going the Spanish route of (very temporary)
>>>> "prosperity" by borrowing and spending on all kinds of luxuries is
>>>> definitely a recipe for disaster. That is playing out in Europe and
>>>> Florida.
>>>>
>>>> One can be frugal without being miserly, methinks. We are being
>>>> frugal by only having 1 car, a 2005 Grand (well ...) Caravan, but
>>>> we went on an Alaska vacation earlier this year ...
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No need to be frugal if you have always lived with in your means and
>>> planed for times like these.
>>>
>>> My wife and I lived in our first starter home for 30 years. We
>>> refinanced it 6 years in and paid an additional $300 per month for 6
>>> years. The house was paid for in 1995 and as a result we have been
>>> debt free ever since.
>>>
>>> We always looked around us and wondered why we were still in this
>>> same starter house 25+ years after moving in and saw people driving
>>> very expensive cars and buying huge homes.
>>>
>>> Well back in 2008 the answer came and as a result we were able to
>>> finally afford/pay cash for a bigger new home.
>>>
>>> We are still debt free.
>>>
>>> It is a great feeling owing no one, but that only comes from only
>>> buying what we can truly afford. I will add that we will finance
>>> short term if the interest rate is "Zero" and if we can pay cash to
>>> begin with. We have been very lucky to have had the wisdom and
>>> patience to wait until we have truly earned what we choose to buy,
>>> this methodology has been rewarding.
>>
>> I am keeping the HELOC with $75K outstanding and 2.24% interest, for
>> the moment. I'm ready to pay it off when I decide to. That and the
>> revolving charge cards that get paid off every month is what I owe.
>> It is indeed a good feeling to not be in hock. Now I have to get the
>> kids in that same situation/frame of mind. Of course, we have been
>> very lucky with well- paying employment, but we did spend according
>> to income, while saving up for this retirement thing ...
>>
>
> If you pay it off today you will be earning 2.24% more on that money.
I am still getting 3.9% on my TIAA money ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "So what?"
>> >
>> > If you push the global warming people for what to do about it, most
>> > say "well start building solar".
>> >
>> > If you actually check their numbers you find that we have to clean
>> > up 200 gigawatts worth of production every year for the next half
>> > century.
>> >
>>
>> Yep. The amount of solar radiation hitting the earth is about 3KW/sq
>> meter. At the equator. At noon. With no clouds.
>>
>> Adjusting for latitude, clouds, pollution, twelve hours of darkness,
>> and 50% efficiency, California would need a solar collection farm the
>> size of the Los Angeles basin (1200 sq miles) for its daily needs of
>> about 50GW. Imagine the cost to build and maintain something 1200
>> square miles in extent!
>>
>> The only way to improve on the above is to move the orbit of the
>> earth closer to the sun. Absent that, folks have to come to grips
>> with the idea that we can't run this country off of sunbeams.
>>
>> It's not all bad, though. The citizens of Los Angeles would be living
>> in the shade.
>
> The amount of sunlight striking the Earth is not the issue. The issue
> is that there is no proven technology for utilizing it that has been
> developed to a point where we can start construction on 1000 GW worth
> of new plants this year.
>
> If we're going to do what the global warming people calculate that we
> need to do and solar is part of the package we need to put real effort
> into developing the technology to that level. But we can't wait for
> that to happen.
>
> And another issue is that somebody has to figure out how to do
> something about China. Even if the entire rest of the world stops
> producing CO2 at all, the Chinese will still be producing nearly as
> much as the rest of the world combined was when China signed Kyoto.
I fully agree. But should that absolve us of the responsibility to do
what we reasonably can do??
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>
>>
>> I fully agree. But should that absolve us of the responsibility to
>> do what we reasonably can do??
>
> The point where things blurr is on what the definition of "reasonably"
> is.
Of course, what is reasonable to one person may not be so to another. Good
thing we respect one another's opinions!! (and that is meant exactly the
way it sounds).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>>>
>>> And another issue is that somebody has to figure out how to do
>>> something about China. Even if the entire rest of the world stops
>>> producing CO2 at all, the Chinese will still be producing nearly as
>>> much as the rest of the world combined was when China signed Kyoto.
>>
>> I fully agree. But should that absolve us of the responsibility to do
>> what we reasonably can do??
>
> Yes. It's called "futility."
>
> Your efforts could be put to better use than being part of the bucket
> brigade trying to bail the Titanic.
You're right. If the Titanic has indeed already hit the iceberg. If that
hasn't yet happened, maybe we can reason with the captain, or fix the bad
design.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 7/30/2012 7:12 AM, Han wrote:
> Didn't know you were a Keynesian spendthrift <grin>! Spend and inflate,
> or spend and tax? which will it be? While I do think that just firing
> everyone who could possibly be missed might also not be a good thing,
> going the Spanish route of (very temporary) "prosperity" by borrowing and
> spending on all kinds of luxuries is definitely a recipe for disaster.
> That is playing out in Europe and Florida.
>
> One can be frugal without being miserly, methinks. We are being frugal
> by only having 1 car, a 2005 Grand (well ...) Caravan, but we went on an
> Alaska vacation earlier this year ...
>
No need to be frugal if you have always lived with in your means and
planed for times like these.
My wife and I lived in our first starter home for 30 years. We
refinanced it 6 years in and paid an additional $300 per month for 6
years. The house was paid for in 1995 and as a result we have been debt
free ever since.
We always looked around us and wondered why we were still in this same
starter house 25+ years after moving in and saw people driving very
expensive cars and buying huge homes.
Well back in 2008 the answer came and as a result we were able to
finally afford/pay cash for a bigger new home.
We are still debt free.
It is a great feeling owing no one, but that only comes from only buying
what we can truly afford. I will add that we will finance short term if
the interest rate is "Zero" and if we can pay cash to begin with. We
have been very lucky to have had the wisdom and patience to wait until
we have truly earned what we choose to buy, this methodology has been
rewarding.
Han wrote:
> Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han, global warming alarmism (AGWK) is indeed a hoax. It has lies,
>> misread data, imperfect models, and exaggerations all rolled into one
>> nasty True Belief religion. It's sorta like Obamunism.
>
> I'm really not sure whether whether alarm is necessary. I think
> there is a real heads up, that we can't go on the way we have been
> going. I'm sure that some of that has to do with presentation and
> interpretation - on the sides of both alarmists and denyers/deniers.
Why can't we go on the way we have been going? Either GW is beyond our
capacity to influence it and we have to adjust to the result or we have to
revert to a time of lesser energy use.
If the former, we build dikes around costal cities and take similar steps to
mitigate the effects. If the latter, we regress to a time when life was
painful, brutal, and short.
The WORST reaction is to act as if GW was caused by civilization but find
out later that GW is natural and beyond our ability to do anything about it.
>
> That's a start. But I do believe that an attitude adjustment comes
> darn close to a change in the way of life. One good thing of this
> recession is that we are learning to be more frugal (overall, some
> more than others, and some very, very painfully).
I'll play: Why is living frugally a Good Thing(tm)?
Consider the chap who harkens to your definition by buying a canoe instead
of a yacht. Dozens of yacht builders don't get the work, ship's chandlers,
able-bodied seamen, and others are likewise missing out on employment, and
so on.
Or perhaps the family who opt for a teepee instead of a mansion; again, no
home builders, suppliers of materials, no tax revenue, on-and-on.
Bottom line: If one is convinced that living off of nuts and berries is
sufficient, what happens to innovation, improvements in the human condition,
and the future of humanity?
On 29 Jul 2012 12:04:22 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 29 Jul 2012 01:04:52 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> http://screen.yahoo.com/quot-door-to-hell-quot-burns-for-over-40-year
>>>> s- 30115437.html?pb_list=23dce613-c500-43f0-9134-70e58b73187a
>>>
>>><http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-
>>>change-skeptic.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all>
>>>and for another commentary:
>>><http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/28/602151/bombshell-koch-fund
>>>ed-
>>>study-finds-global-warming-is-real-on-the-high-end-and-essentially-all-
>>>due- to-carbon-pollution/>
>>
>> Jeeze, is it April 1st again already?
>
>Sorry, Larry. This is an early birthday present for you.
Gee, thanks. <g> It's next week, BTW. (59)
>The latest Koch brothers-financed study to definitively demonstrate that
>global warming is a hoax has found exactly the opposite of what they
>wanted:
>Global warming is real, and at least 70% if not all is caused by man.
>At least that is what I gather from all the buzz about this indeed
>definitive study by reputable scientists (AFAIKT).
The ThinkProgress site is suspect: liberals twisting facts once again.
The hockey stick graph is a real good clue to that without research.
Their "study" indicating that "NRA Members Agree: More Gun Regulation
Makes Sense" is such bullshit I can't stand it. I wonder how long it
took them to find that many liberals with guns who were NRA members-
in-name-only. Or did they just have liberals buy memberships to
support that "study"?
And if AGWK is at the high end of predictions, why has each IPCC study
since the first shown -less- warming than first reported? They
stairstep down. My guess is that the computer models are being
updated as they find new data to make them more, or at least
_somewhat_, reliable.
Have you read the Koch report on their server or Muller's report, or
just this completely cooked-up page at TP? (Fitting initials. I think
of toilet paper when reading their dung.) I'm off to find the real
reports now. It's no wonder that TP didn't link it, and I'm surprised
that they linked Muller's.
--
It takes as much energy to wish as to plan.
--Eleanor Roosevelt
"Leon" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 7/29/2012 7:04 AM, Han wrote:
> Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 29 Jul 2012 01:04:52 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> http://screen.yahoo.com/quot-door-to-hell-quot-burns-for-over-40-year
>>>> s- 30115437.html?pb_list=23dce613-c500-43f0-9134-70e58b73187a
>>>
>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-
>>> change-skeptic.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all>
>>> and for another commentary:
>>> <http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/28/602151/bombshell-koch-fund
>>> ed-
>>> study-finds-global-warming-is-real-on-the-high-end-and-essentially-all-
>>> due- to-carbon-pollution/>
>>
>> Jeeze, is it April 1st again already?
>
> Sorry, Larry. This is an early birthday present for you.
>
> The latest Koch brothers-financed study to definitively demonstrate that
> global warming is a hoax has found exactly the opposite of what they
> wanted:
> Global warming is real, and at least 70% if not all is caused by man.
> At least that is what I gather from all the buzz about this indeed
> definitive study by reputable scientists (AFAIKT).
>
I can assure you 99.999999999999999999999999% of global warming is
caused by the sun.
Take away the sun and see how much of the heat we have now remains.
When a boy scout uses a magnifying glass to start a fire "I can assure
you 99.999999999999999999999999% of the heat needed to ignite the fuel is
caused by the sun." I doubt some dumb magnifying glass plays ANY role.
Dave in Texas
On 7/28/12 1:23 PM, Leon wrote:
> http://screen.yahoo.com/quot-door-to-hell-quot-burns-for-over-40-years-30115437.html?pb_list=23dce613-c500-43f0-9134-70e58b73187a
>
There's an underground coal mine fire in New Straitsville, OH which has
been burning for 120 years.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 7/28/2012 7:21 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 7/28/2012 1:01 PM, Dave wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 13:23:04 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> http://screen.yahoo.com/quot-door-to-hell-quot-burns-for-over-40-years-30115437.html?pb_list=23dce613-c500-43f0-9134-70e58b73187a
>>>
>> The "REAL" reason for global warming is the French. European French,
>> Quebec French, take your pick.
>
> Nah, it's all the hot air and flatulence Congress puts out.
I think it is caused by the flatulence from the trillions of animals on
earth.
On 7/29/12 2:59 PM, Han wrote:
> Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 7/29/2012 11:28 AM, Han wrote:
>>
>>> Let me know when you find reliable reports denying the Muller paper.
>>
>> Available for anyone who bothers to read their FAQ?
>>
>> http://berkeleyearth.org/faq/
>>
>> Can look no further than their own words to understand that they
>> themselves imply their guess is apparently as good as any other, and
>> to also understand that thus far their study is taking into account
>> land data ONLY and is, by their own admission, far from complete:
>>
>> <quote>
>>
>> Berkeley Earth has not yet begun to analyze ocean temperatures (we
>> hope to do this in the next year), so the plotted data is land only.
>> Land warms more than oceans, so when we include the ocean we expect
>> the total global warming to be less.
>>
>> </quote>
>>
>> Has Global Warming Stopped?
>>
>> <quote>
>>
>> This exercise simply shows that the decadal fluctuations are too large
>> to allow us to make decisive conclusions about long term trends based
>> on close examination of periods as short as 13 to 15 years.
>>
>> </quote>
>>
>> Do Judith Curry and Richard Muller disagree?
>>
>> <quote>
>>
>> Below is a joint statement by Judith Curry and Richard Muller:
>>
>> In recent days, statements we've made to the media and on blogs have
>> been characterized as contradictory. They are not.
>>
>> We have both said that the global temperature record of the last 13
>> years shows evidence suggesting that the warming has slowed. Our new
>> analysis of the land-based data neither confirms nor denies this
>> contention. If you look at our new land temperature estimates, you can
>> see a flattening of the rise, or a continuation of the rise,
>> _depending on the statistical approach you take_
>>
>> Continued global warming "skepticism" is a proper and a necessary part
>> of the scientific process. The Wall St. Journal Op-Ed by one of us
>> (Muller) seemed to take the opposite view with its title and subtitle:
>> "The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism -- There were good reasons
>> for doubt, until now." But those words were not written by Muller. The
>> title and the subtitle of the submitted Op-Ed were "Cooling the
>> Warming Debate - Are you a global warming skeptic? If not, perhaps you
>> should be. Let me explain why." The title and subtitle were changed by
>> the editors without consulting or seeking permission from the author.
>> Readers are encouraged to ignore the title and read the content of the
>> Op-Ed.
>>
>> We do not agree with each other on every feature of climate change. We
>> have had vigorous discussions, for example, on the proper way to
>> analyze hurricane records. Such disagreements are an essential part of
>> the scientific process.
>>
>> </quote>
>>
>> So much for putting your faith in incomplete studies. LOL
>>
>>
>> www.eWoodShop.com
>> Last update: 4/15/2010
>> KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
>> http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
>
> OK. At least there is still room for debate, and it isn't a closed deal
> that global warming is a hoax.
>
The onus does not fall on us to prove that something does *not* exist.
It is always the responsibility of those who say the sky is falling to
prove it is.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:26:33 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
> Han, global warming alarmism (AGWK) is indeed a hoax. It has lies,
> misread data, imperfect models, and exaggerations all rolled into one
> nasty True Belief religion. It's sorta like Obamunism.
<http://news.yahoo.com/skeptic-finds-now-agrees-global-warming-
real-142616605.html>
I'm sure you won't believe him either :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 09:44:23 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>I'm sure you won't believe him either :-).
>
> Geeze, Larry, we (Wreck) just had this discussion. Pay attention.
My bad - I clicked on the wrong reference. I'll try harder :-). Here's
the right reference:
<http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/jul/30/climate-change-skeptic-
reverses-course/>
The article is from today's newspaper. Here's the difference:
"Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen
scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior
estimates of the rate of warming were correct. Iâm now going a step
further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.â
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 29 Jul 2012 12:04:22 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 29 Jul 2012 01:04:52 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> http://screen.yahoo.com/quot-door-to-hell-quot-burns-for-over-40-year
>>>> s- 30115437.html?pb_list=23dce613-c500-43f0-9134-70e58b73187a
>>>
>>><http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-
>>>change-skeptic.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all>
>>>and for another commentary:
>>><http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/28/602151/bombshell-koch-fund
>>>ed-
>>>study-finds-global-warming-is-real-on-the-high-end-and-essentially-all-
>>>due- to-carbon-pollution/>
>>
>> Jeeze, is it April 1st again already?
>
>Sorry, Larry. This is an early birthday present for you.
Gee, thanks. <g> It's next week, BTW. (59)
>The latest Koch brothers-financed study to definitively demonstrate that
>global warming is a hoax has found exactly the opposite of what they
>wanted:
>Global warming is real, and at least 70% if not all is caused by man.
>At least that is what I gather from all the buzz about this indeed
>definitive study by reputable scientists (AFAIKT).
The ThinkProgress site is suspect: liberals twisting facts once again.
The hockey stick graph is a real good clue to that without research.
Their "study" indicating that "NRA Members Agree: More Gun Regulation
Makes Sense" is such bullshit I can't stand it. I wonder how long it
took them to find that many liberals with guns who were NRA members-
in-name-only. Or did they just have liberals buy memberships to
support that "study"?
And if AGWK is at the high end of predictions, why has each IPCC study
since the first shown -less- warming than first reported? They
stairstep down. My guess is that the computer models are being
updated as they find new data to make them more, or at least
_somewhat_, reliable.
Have you read the Koch report on their server or Muller's report, or
just this completely cooked-up page at TP? (Fitting initials. I think
of toilet paper when reading their dung.) I'm off to find the real
reports now. It's no wonder that TP didn't link it, and I'm surprised
that they linked Muller's.
To wit:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=1&hp
On 29 Jul 2012 16:28:36 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 29 Jul 2012 12:04:22 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 29 Jul 2012 01:04:52 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://screen.yahoo.com/quot-door-to-hell-quot-burns-for-over-40-ye
>>>>>> ar s- 30115437.html?pb_list=23dce613-c500-43f0-9134-70e58b73187a
>>>>>
>>>>><http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climat
>>>>>e- change-skeptic.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all>
>>>>>and for another commentary:
>>>>><http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/28/602151/bombshell-koch-fu
>>>>>nd ed-
>>>>>study-finds-global-warming-is-real-on-the-high-end-and-essentially-al
>>>>>l- due- to-carbon-pollution/>
>>>>
>>>> Jeeze, is it April 1st again already?
>>>
>>>Sorry, Larry. This is an early birthday present for you.
>>
>> Gee, thanks. <g> It's next week, BTW. (59)
>
>I know. Somehow my FB tells me it is soon. Btw, you're too young to be
>so curmudgeonly <grin>.
Hah! Curmudgeonliness knows no age barriers. (new word!)
>>>The latest Koch brothers-financed study to definitively demonstrate
>>>that global warming is a hoax has found exactly the opposite of what
>>>they wanted:
>>>Global warming is real, and at least 70% if not all is caused by man.
>>>At least that is what I gather from all the buzz about this indeed
>>>definitive study by reputable scientists (AFAIKT).
>>
>> The ThinkProgress site is suspect: liberals twisting facts once again.
>> The hockey stick graph is a real good clue to that without research.
Oops, valid and linear graph. I misread it at first.
>> Their "study" indicating that "NRA Members Agree: More Gun Regulation
>> Makes Sense" is such bullshit I can't stand it. I wonder how long it
>> took them to find that many liberals with guns who were NRA members-
>> in-name-only. Or did they just have liberals buy memberships to
>> support that "study"?
>
>While I am for gun control, I think that the NRA has driven too many
>people to buy guns, so that I am almost feeling forced to go and get some
>too. I'll let you all know when I do, so you can get body armor ...
><grin>
I think I'd feel safe if you had a weapon, Han. I don't think you'd
be swiss-cheesing the neighborhood with it. Besides, nothing on the
market could shoot all the way from NY/NJ to OR. I'm safe.
BUT, Hayseuss Crisco. Why do so many people lose these concepts?
1) Gun ownership does -not- equate to criminality. NRA members and
concealed weapon licensees commit far fewer crimes than the average
American. It's not the number of guns one owns, it's what they do
with them. A gun is just a tool.
2) The NRA is a business which does things only for itself. It exists
to make money for its owners, period. Occasionally, what it does is
good for the country and for gun owners. This is a good thing.
3) Criminals commit crimes with legal and illegal weapons. Some are
guns. Gun owners are responsible for REDUCING crime, not committing
it. Figures between 1 and 3 million per year are attributed here.
4) Gun control increases crime by taking (defensive) weapons out of
the hands of responsible people (NON-criminals) and leaving them in
the hands of criminals (who use them offensively.) England and
Australia are prime examples of this.
>> And if AGWK is at the high end of predictions, why has each IPCC study
>> since the first shown -less- warming than first reported? They
>> stairstep down. My guess is that the computer models are being
>> updated as they find new data to make them more, or at least
>> _somewhat_, reliable.
>>
>> Have you read the Koch report on their server or Muller's report, or
>> just this completely cooked-up page at TP? (Fitting initials. I think
>> of toilet paper when reading their dung.) I'm off to find the real
>> reports now. It's no wonder that TP didn't link it, and I'm surprised
>> that they linked Muller's.
>
>Let me know when you find reliable reports denying the Muller paper.
The report isn't out yet, due to be released tomorrow. I read his
article, though. While I am apt to disagree with his outcome, I find
that he's not in the alarmist group yet. Please read his article,
where he says things like "Its a scientists duty to be properly
skeptical. I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed
to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong.
Ive analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism
about them hasnt changed." That doesn't sound like something TP
would like, does it? TP makes him sound like a full convert, but he's
nothing of the sort.
P.S: I think you'd like _Hard Green_ by Peter Huber. Let's do the
most good with the least cost now, then work on the rest.
>> --
>> It takes as much energy to wish as to plan.
>> --Eleanor Roosevelt
>
>Sometimes it is better to plan and act on your suspicions, than to just
>sit and wait.
>-- Han Broekman
Good'un.
--
It takes as much energy to wish as to plan.
--Eleanor Roosevelt
On 7/29/2012 11:28 AM, Han wrote:
> Let me know when you find reliable reports denying the Muller paper.
Available for anyone who bothers to read their FAQ?
http://berkeleyearth.org/faq/
Can look no further than their own words to understand that they
themselves imply their guess is apparently as good as any other, and to
also understand that thus far their study is taking into account land
data ONLY and is, by their own admission, far from complete:
<quote>
Berkeley Earth has not yet begun to analyze ocean temperatures (we hope
to do this in the next year), so the plotted data is land only. Land
warms more than oceans, so when we include the ocean we expect the total
global warming to be less.
</quote>
Has Global Warming Stopped?
<quote>
This exercise simply shows that the decadal fluctuations are too large
to allow us to make decisive conclusions about long term trends based on
close examination of periods as short as 13 to 15 years.
</quote>
Do Judith Curry and Richard Muller disagree?
<quote>
Below is a joint statement by Judith Curry and Richard Muller:
In recent days, statements we've made to the media and on blogs have
been characterized as contradictory. They are not.
We have both said that the global temperature record of the last 13
years shows evidence suggesting that the warming has slowed. Our new
analysis of the land-based data neither confirms nor denies this
contention. If you look at our new land temperature estimates, you can
see a flattening of the rise, or a continuation of the rise, _depending
on the statistical approach you take_
Continued global warming "skepticism" is a proper and a necessary part
of the scientific process. The Wall St. Journal Op-Ed by one of us
(Muller) seemed to take the opposite view with its title and subtitle:
"The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism -- There were good reasons
for doubt, until now." But those words were not written by Muller. The
title and the subtitle of the submitted Op-Ed were "Cooling the Warming
Debate - Are you a global warming skeptic? If not, perhaps you should
be. Let me explain why." The title and subtitle were changed by the
editors without consulting or seeking permission from the author.
Readers are encouraged to ignore the title and read the content of the
Op-Ed.
We do not agree with each other on every feature of climate change. We
have had vigorous discussions, for example, on the proper way to analyze
hurricane records. Such disagreements are an essential part of the
scientific process.
</quote>
So much for putting your faith in incomplete studies. LOL
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
Han wrote:
>>
>> And another issue is that somebody has to figure out how to do
>> something about China. Even if the entire rest of the world stops
>> producing CO2 at all, the Chinese will still be producing nearly as
>> much as the rest of the world combined was when China signed Kyoto.
>
> I fully agree. But should that absolve us of the responsibility to do
> what we reasonably can do??
Yes. It's called "futility."
Your efforts could be put to better use than being part of the bucket
brigade trying to bail the Titanic.