|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
Why is it that many who subscribe to "compassionate" politics are often so rude to people when discussing politics? Isn't it a bit ironic that somebody wants the government to take from one person in order to feed another, doesn't show respect to the people he disagrees with?
I'm not saying all bleeding-hearts are rude, or that non bleeding-hearts are all nice, but how can someone who cares so much about people not show respect?
Say you lived in a world surrounded by suffering that hurt you deeply beyond your ability to fix and that every day you were confronted by this horror at every turn where even your greatest efforts are just a drop in an ocean knowing that millions of lives are at stake and you know how to save them but unable to do so for the obstinance, arrogance and ignorance of others...
Knowing that hundreds of people will die in Mexico this year after being deported.
Knowing that 45 000 Americans die every single year from not being insured.
Knowing that the drug war will cost thousands of lives every year.
Knowing that there is no scientific doubt of the damage being done by global warming and the millions of lives it will affect.
Place yourself in that position (if you can) and see how long you stay patient.
Your greatest efforts, which are largely spent browsing and posting on the internet? If it's so bad, get off the internet and help more people.
Oh, and thank you for proving that you don't understand the scientific process with your comment about global warming.
Edit: and again with the insulting, just have to throw that in there right? Why do you assume I don't care?
Sorry what were you saying about insulting?
If you were to look at my activity you would see I haven't been on hub pages for several months from a few days ago, as it happens I do charity stuff continuously, but as it stands I am in a foreign country between meetings stuck in a hotel so yeah..
I work from my computer so hubpages running at the same time for when there is nothing to do between emails etc is pretty convenient.
I have a pretty simple philosophy that involves showing the same respect to people that they show to others.
You could be writing hubs instead, making more money to help more people, instead of insulting my education and compassion.
I don't run an advertising thing from my hubpages, that has always struck me as strange to make money from giving an amateur opinion. I have a moral objection to forcing advertising on people anyhow.
Ok, then do something else that is productive to make money or help people.
You obviously aren't in that same position (being as the fact as you presented this viewpoint as different in your own post) I think you are just being hypersensitive..
What viewpoint did I present as different? My post about the ironic behavior of some?
"Why is it that many who subscribe to "compassionate" politics are often so rude to people when discussing politics?" heavily implies that you aren't one of those people.
I also know from other discussions that you are not.
SO obviously it's a different perspective you have to put yourself in. You need a thicker skin man, you take offense at everything including someone asking you to walk in different shoes apaprently.
Yes, I'm not one of "those" people. I don't automatically start insulting people who disagree with me. Those are the people I was describing, which you should have been able to understand, considering that is what I wrote.
Secondly, do you not understand that compassion can be expressed in other ways than politics? I don't have to support forced redistribution of wealth to be compassionate.
I don't take offense, I just don't understand the need to insult at every turn. Don't worry, I promise you haven't caused any tears on my part.
You don't know from other discussions, you are simply reading your own bias.
Yeah I do understand compassion can be expressed differently... ineffectually. But yes I do that too.
Well, at least you're consistent. It's amazing that you think you know so much about me.
Why don't you tell me how much I make and how much money and time I donate?
Wait the comment you replied this too is purely about me what are you on about? you aren't even mentioned in that comment so how can it be presuming anything about you?
The amount of imaginary slights you suffer is prodigious.
The amount of meaning you pretend is in my writings is astonishing.
I really am curious to see your estimation, since you are so good at telling who is compassionate and who isn't over the internet.
You replied to a comment purely about me saying that it made assumptions about you thus you claimed an impossibility... Is that simple enough?
I never said you weren't compassionate. I did note you don't subscribe to compassionate politics, you noted the same. In my opinion that makes your compassion meaningless and without value in the grand scheme of actually affecting others but that's different.
Oh and btw if you think that the empirical method means things can't be proven beyond present doubt then it's you who doesn't understand it. The empirical method holds that all things should be continuously exposed to testing not that they cannot be considered beyond doubt given the available data.
I was commenting on your claim that global warming(AGW, I assume) is settled science, when ironically it is the greatest example in modern times of pseudo-science.
The empirical method doesn't have anything to do with proving anything. The only proof that belongs in science is the mathematical kind. It's partially an issue of semantics, and partially an issue of common misconceptions about science, largely driven by poor reporting by the media.
The difference between actual science and what the public hears is, well, night and day.
Yeah obviously you don't understand the empirical method.
As for proof obviously proof in the scientific field is not only mathematical, hell the Euclidean assumption makes almost all mathematics un-provable anyway.
But if you hold (incorrectly) that mathematics can form absolute proofs then there are quantum mathematical proofs of global warming using the photon to heat equation.
Yeah obviously I do, but you assume that AGW is valid which would make me wrong.
If you really want, we can discuss that in another topic.
Why don't you tell me what you mean by a mathematical proof?
I would love to see you prove AGW with the photon to heat equation. So would the rest of the scientific community.
The empirical method proves nothing. You demonstrate perfectly the ignorance about true science that makes people believe garbage like AGW. Science isn't about proving anything. If you set out to prove something, you've already screwed up.
Actually the scientific method holds that you should always set out to prove or disprove a hypothesis though manipulation of variables.
A mathematical proof is simply an equation that demonstrates the validity of the claim by finding a absolute to link it to. Usually Euclidean geometry. Which we now know is not an absolute...
I can send you the photon to heat equation proof later. I have it written down somewhere. I will post it on this thread. The scientific community has already accepted global warming it's not awaiting any proofs.
Lol. No. The scientific method holds that you should test falsifiable hypothesis and gather data. You absolutely should not set out to prove or disprove something, as that automatically injects bias.
Besides, you can't prove a hypothesis by testing, even if your predictions are met. All you can do is show that your predictions are met. You might find out later that your hypothesis was wrong, but you arrived at the "correct" answer anyway.
Does your equation factor in variation in earth-sun distance, solar output, magnetic field fluctuations, natural earth patterns, plant and plankton populations, and the entier hydrologic system? If so, then you have in your possession a better model than the IPCC uses.
Your responses perfectly explain why you agree with the AGW hypothesis.
Prove or disprove as I said.
You can show a hypothesis to be consistent with all trials at which point it becomes a theory and with peer review an accepted theory and thus proven until such a time as evidence comes along which disproves it which is why it should be continuously tested.
The photon heat equation is independent of all those factors actually which shows you don't even understand what I am talking about.
Yes my understanding of the Scientific method is why 99.9% of the scientific community (the people who actually have an education in and understanding of these issues) agrees with Global warming theory and with me. Your's on the other hand is wrong, which is why global warming skepticism is a scientific laughing stock (again amongst the people who actually know the issue).
But of course you know better based on your what... 0 years of scientific education?
Also you are JaxsonRaine.
Round and round.
You said you can prove global warming with the photon to heat equation. How do you expect to prove global warming if you don't account for the entire system? Just more nonsense, it doesn't prove that I don't know what you are talking about, it proves that you don't know what you are talking about.
That would be like proving that the lightbulb in your refrigerator was causing the temperature to go up, without considering any other variables, like the refrigeration system, or any air leaks. You can't prove global warming without considering the entire system, which is exactly why the IPCC is such a joke. Their models don't even accurately model the past, let alone the future.
99.9%. Wow, that's a big percentage. That would be great if it were true, and even better if it actually meant anything. Consensus doesn't prove science, and people only rely on consensus when they can't rely on research.
Seriously, if you want a laughing stock, look no further than a political(not scientific) committee uses a model to predict the future and influence politics, yet that model not only has a 0% prediction track record, but also fails to retroactively predict the past.
Please Josak, answer this question for me. If I told you I had a thermometer for sale, and we took it into a freezer where it read 60 degrees F, then took it outside in the summer where it read 20 degrees F(on a sweltering day), would you think the thermometer was useful as a tool?
You can prove that human behavior is causing a heating effect using the photon to heat equation, that is independent of all the factors you mention. Which is in itself sufficient to point a significant ecological issue.
It was a figure of speech, it may as well be true and ALL of the research backs it, not a single major research body has failed to support the theory. Not a single large scale study has either.
That thermometer would not be useful, it also has no relevance to the global warming debate.
I love how you continue to argue against the huge mass of people who actually know what they are talking about from your zero expertise, it's hilarious. Really. How you can be daft enough to look at a scientific issue and then decide that all the scientists and accepted science are wrong and you are right is just so hilarious.
I guess eventually you'll grow up and learn to learn from those with actual expertise.
I'm just going to add to Josak's point.
My sister has something called Spina Bifida. It's a spinal disease. She can walk, but she has a lot of health problems. Currently, her kidneys are failing (For those who aren't aware, there are many stages to kidney failure, and she isn't to the worst parts yet).
To hear Tea Partiers and some conservatives say health care isn't a human right would sentence my sister to die if we didn't have insurance, and there were no charities or government programs to cover the costs. (Right now, she is insured).
I've also seen my dad treated very poorly throughout his entire working life. The corporations he's worked for have no respect for him as a human being, forcing him to work erratic hours and not taking into consideration he is getting older, in addition to passing him up when higher positions open. He is the most hard-working man I know. Pathetic really.
But you don't need anyone else to tell you this. Just imagine a member of your own family starving to death, because the CEO of Exxon wants his absurd salary to be even more absurd. It just doesn't strike me as moral to defend such an arrangement.
One more point. I also have a gay brother. I've read a lot about homosexuality, and there's no compelling evidence to show it is immoral in any way, or unnatural, or some sort of gateway to bestiality or pedophilia. Opposition is just plain bigotry. I've imagined what would happen to my brother if he lived in an even less tolerant society than the United States. Would he have killed himself? Gotten in with the wrong crowd? I don't know, but the fact that there are a sizable number of people that are still opposed to homosexuality continually upsets me.
So, because of the seeming (and I emphasize seeming, because I don't believe most conservatives or libertarians really are like this) callous disregard for the well-being of others, this leads some liberals to be rather sarcastic and sanctimonious when talking to conservatives, the way a person would be when Truman ordered the atomic bombs to be dropped on Japan, and then expected to be taken seriously as a moral agent.
I think it's useful to take the view that most of us are just mere mortals trying to make our way in the world and thinking of ways to make it better. If you don't believe that the person you are arguing with is actually evil and doesn't want to see humanity get better, then there is no reason at all to use aggressive tactics.
by Credence216 months ago
Dangerous slippery slope sponsored by your strident reactionary neighbors and this current administration, have a read if you please....https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gu … democracy/Rightwingers: be on the...
by College politico10 years ago
I'm just wondering if anybody watched The compassion forum last week? It was held at my school...
by thirdmillenium3 years ago
It is quite understandable for the rationals to pity the believers for their purported ignorance and obstinate adherence to their religious beliefs. They think they know the truth which may well be the case. What I do...
by mbuggieh4 years ago
In May of 1950 President Harry Truman signed a bill---passed by Congress, that created the National Science Foundation. In signing the bill, Truman noted:"Throughout our history, scientists and scientific knowledge...
by Nickny799 years ago
Why Climate Change is ALL about politics and NOTHING about Science.http://blog.heritage.org/2008/12/12/mor … /#comments
by Jack Lee5 months ago
It is 1 year into the Trump administration. A year end summary is in order.I am going to list a few things that Trump was right about this past year.Some of you TDS will not like what I have to say. That’s OK.They...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.