MtnGoat

I can see I was not specific enough. I'll amend my statement. The idea that a majority of scientists feel warming is driven by human CO2 emissions is a fiction. Then we'll deal with the fact that what actually occurs in the physical world is entirely independent of what any number of humans feels is correct or how many believe any particular thing. The world was still round when a majority of scientists felt it wasn't, and the continents were busy moving about underfoot when a majority of scientists felt it was impossible. What is important is not what any number of people agree on, but what is provable. "A thermometer is a pretty low-tech instrument," And it's very liable to heat island effects.

The idea that a "majority" of scientists agree warming is occurring, is a fiction actively encouraged by warming proponents. Climate models don't even include solar variability or possible solar wind interactions with cloud formation if I understand correctly, so whatever predictions they make without including such variables are innately flawed. The most common misconception I see perpetrated is that lacking CO2 production, climate change would somehow cease, when it's provably intrinsically variable to begin with wether or not people produce CO2.

Hey JayB, thanks for the nice words. I have no idea wether our political bents are the same, nor do I care, as you've shown yourself to appreciate something more than soundbite answers and one liners, wether we agree or not. Good on ya! RobBob, what "personality profile" are you talking about? The personal info stuff? I haven't looked at *anyone's* here, mainly because I really don't care. You could be a 5 year old savant or a 98 year woman from Zimbabwe, what i expect to engage you on is the quality and nature of what you post!

so now it's more important who i am, than the quality, or lack of it, in my posts? Or the content and nature of my arguments and evidence? Now thats a shining example of evaluating substance instead of looking at personality. Pretty telling that supposedly open minded people need externalities to judge ideas and evidence instead of the ideas themselves. Besides, you'll never be able to keep it up. Sooner or later I'll post something that you can't stand not to respond to, and if it's not you, it'll be someone else. And since some have claimed I only post for my own words in print, how will your not responding change that? Nice try though.

"I think that Peter's summary of some fanatic Islamic interpretation of of the Koran are prime examples of reglion used for slanted purposes, I would argure that there is nothing inherent in Islam, or any other religion. Just lots of folks willing to justify their actions." It doesn't matter how slanted we find it, or that some other Muslims don't agree with them, because those bent on slaughtering us *do* believe it, for whatever reason. We are in a religious war, between some believers of a violent interpretation of Islam and those who do not wish to live under that interpretation.

"And actually Islam has no corner on the violence market." Not historically, no. But since the reformation of Christianity began in the middle ages, with the birth of humanistic thought in beginning to influence what were then Christian radicals like St Francis, Christianity has changed. Whatever parity existed in violence of either religion in the past, has long since faded, especially in the 20th century where violence *specifically* called for by the bulk of members of Christianity has basically dropped off the charts. A few isolated instances of lone wackos killing abortion doctors, or even the atrocities in the Balkans, simply does not match the proven propensity of modern Muslims to continue to wage large scale violence, against each other *and* against Christians, notably in Africa and now against the "infidel" west. We can discuss historical actions of centuries all we like, but IMO what remains germane today is who we must deal with today under the conditions we must deal with them today. Christianity has changed, yet enough Muslims clearly exist who support war for Islam right now, today, on terms consistent with their view of Islam as the only proper religion. You will find precious few, if any, Christians who support war against Muslims simply because of their Muslim views, instead of because of Muslim violence which must be stopped. As with other issues, we're not here on this planet able to work with the perfect vs the imperfect, we're stuck choosing between bad, or worse. And right now, the acts being committed and sanctioned by many Muslim followers, based on *their* interpretation of Islam, reveal precisely what that interpretation is. Wether or not it includes all Muslims is a side issue, because wether or not all Muslims believe in these fundamental interpretations, some of them do, and those people are killing us.

"On the contrary, I said that assessing human rights violation had nothing to do with morality." Now this is an interesting statement. How can you possibly assess violations if you're not going to use morality to determine what the violations are? "I am asking you again: does a slave need morality to decide whether his condition is wrong?" Yes, he does. Wrong is a moral value, so is finding ones situation unjust even in ones own eyes, so morality again becomes the central point. "(and don't obfuscate by asking the meaning of wrong!)" Don't obfuscate by claiming "wrong" has an absolute meaning. What was wrong for the slave, was right for the slave owner. What is OK for a thief is not OK for his victim, and they're both viewing the same act. "His statement amounted to a justification for slavery. This much is clear enough .... " Yes, it was a justification for slavery.....from the slaveowners perspective, which he never claimed to share.

"everybody can read by themselves what you wrote about slavery: "from a white owner's standpoint it sounds right to me: I'm getting my fields harvested, putting some people to work........" Everybody can also read he never claimed to be a slaveowner, want to be a slaveowner, nor support this viewpoint, it only serves to illustrate subjectivity of the subject. If what you are "bringing to full light" is based on this kind of misreading of someones conversation with you, maybe it's time to actually ask the person if they believe that.

"But it is always a pleasure to expose in full light what they really stand for." And what would that be, exactly? What do we "really" stand for? Tell us what we're hiding, what we won't actually say but you "really" know what another person means. Lay it out for us, and if you're right about me, I'll own right up to it, because I'll gladly take responsibility for my own beliefs publicly. Are you bringing into "full light" some are standing up to your interpretation of morality being objective and innate, while you use this basis to jusitify imposing it on others, wether or not you *personally* threaten others? I'll bring that to full light right now! No lines no waiting. We have a claimant here saying his morality is objective, and non relative morality, just like the pope says his morality is neither subjective nor relative. And yet you do not share the same exact value system. That's (at least) one too many objective, non relative value systems.

"so are you entitled to the labor of your slaves? hypothetically speaking" In my religion, no. Nor are you entitled to my labor.

"Good job missing MtnGoat's point that, you, as one who feels entitled to a part of the fruits of my labor without my consent are indeed enslaving me." Some not only feel entitled to force you to spend a portion of your irretrievable lifespan funding what they wish to have paid for using their belief system as the standard, they also feel entitled to compel you to act in ways that serve their beliefs other than just taking your money.

"but now you show yourself to be an apologist for slavery." I would posit you yourself lean in that direction, the more actions you are support compelling free individuals to act in service of, without their explicit and free consent, the more slavery you support.

"rights of the individual are not an abstract idea that one can relatively agree with or not. They are fact." yet you have not shown this. these "rights" are not written on an atom somewhere nor can you sit down with a person of another culture and prove these rights exist objectively like you can can prove that a circle has a fixed ratio of radius to circumference with a string and something to draw with. We can decide what we believe rights are, and decide to act as if they exist, but go a nation where Sharia is implemented and you will see a completely different set of "rights" being observed, with every bit as much fervent belief and intensity as anyone here believes in our "rights". So when we come to religion, slavery, and your view of my rights versus my view of my rights, we get into a pretty big problem. I choose to act as if certain rights are innate, while realizing they are not, because it provides a framework for moral judgements. If you claim rights are objective and non relative, how is it you and I have different views of them?

"You are making the assertion that it being wrong is based on morals/faith, which you have to support. " There is no physical evidence that slavery is morally right or wrong. Does that count as support? "I only see an 'objective material decision'. Where is your premise?" That abortion is a material decision is a given. That it has moral dimension is external to it's physicality. My premise shall be that only the person making this material decison can actually know what it's moral value is to themselves.

Ok, robbob, good enough. When I'm out and it's raining on a crappy fogged in ridgeline and the rocks are all slippery....I think, damn it's cold. I feel cold and thats good enough for me, and i don't need to decide to legislate someone else must feel cold the same way I feel it, or view it the same way I view it, or try and deal with it how I deal with it.

"Secondly, there may well have been a religious background to the founders but the case is pretty strong that they made every effort to prevent official recognition of any religion, namely, Christianity. " Had the founders seen the platform of the modern Dems OR Repubs, I posit that they would have been seen just how powermad for individual compliance non supernatural moral systems can get and added more restrictions to the state. IMO, that's because they had not been exposed to the degree to which humanism would assume the gap left by the decline of classical religion. Had they seen the assumption of religions role by the left in determining right and wrong. Using arbitrary unprovables every bit as baseless as anything Christians believe. And it's justification in taking control from individuals just as they described for classical religion, you would have seen a far more detailed inclusion of libertarian and classically liberal idelogy in the constitution. Modern "progressivism" has every hallmark of religion. it assumes universal application of it's principles based on no moral objectivity about right and wrong, but the say so of it's adherents. It assumes everyone must serve that which the whole determines, assumes that their lives should be ordered by it's unprovable morality, gives us saints and sins, demands control of individuals bodies, choices, and lives, and in fact encompasses every area of life, just like the church did before it.

"you'd first have to prove that slavery being wrong is based on faith and not experimental evidence." great! now we're getting somewhere. define "wrong" so we can procede on how to evaluate the experimental evidence. you can tell me how many were slaves, you can tell me what happened to them and how hard they worked and why they died or lived, but I'm interested in the objective, non societally based "wrong" we'll use for the determination of the physical evidence showing it is. Same goes for abortion. It can be done, it can be measured, every physical issue surrounding it can be quanitified and measured.... but give me the gold standard for wether it is right or wrong so we can evaluate what is seen in the experiments.

"I just read your "red is blue" post, and I do not understand how you get off challenging others to name and defend their religions, saying that you have done so. " When you critique others based in their unprovable moral beliefs, that opens you to precisely the same critique, it's that simple. It doesn't take any brazen affrontery, only realization that we're each in the same boat when it comes to morality, instead of the persistent and convenient method of ignoring this for political advantage. "other than the recent post about how you stand on abortion, I have no idea what your religion and belief system is....it's not a part of this debate.Neither is mine. " The instant you brought in religion, you made it part of the argument. Using your unprovable morals to critique theirs on the basis *they* are arbitrary, leaves me wanting to see how your morals are not. That's all I'm asking. "The issue that I have focused on, since I started posting, is how our Attorney General performs based on what the framers of the constitution had in mind. I think that matters, but you think only the last 15 minutes of history are important when it comes to government." Anyone and everyone here most likely judges the constitution with yet another value system external to it. I do so with reference to the principles they held as well as their oversights, such as slavery. I don't find this radical. "You have, among other things, tried to sully the reputation of Jefferson and others by bringing up slavery." I respect the man and his achievements and thinking, but the fact remains they left out blacks. No human is a god, no human can think of everything, and the power of the intent and structure in the document they wrote was sufficient for it to eventually include what logic dictates should be included, since the very beginning states all are created equal. I can respect the man and his achievements while bringing up tragic oversights. "Others may think that you are a keen debater, but verbosity doesn't mean shit if it's not backed up by clear thinking." I don't care who thinks what, as I think I demonstrate. When bringing up history is "sullying" instead of recognition of history.... and religion is intolerable in govt because it is arbitrary and unprovable.....but your arbitraries and unprovables are not and you will neither admit them or discuss them..... an interesting view of "clear thinking".

"Rational/analytical people don't have to prove faith-based types wrong because the onus is on faith-based people to prove belief in the supernatural is a possible basis for a rational decision (basic scientific method). " If you're talking about an objective material decision, surely. When you're making moral distinctions, I challenge you to prove *one* moral issue is deterministic using scientific method. That's the problem. "Anyhow we'd first need a premise (i.e. suggestive experimental data) to make the question of a faith-based morality worth considering. Is this clear enough?" Crystal clear. An experimental premise for you.. prove that the morality that slavery is wrong is not faith based, wether or not it contains any reference whatsoever to supernatural beings. The problem here to me is the fixation people have with deciding others morals are illegitimate due to supernatural means, when supernatural or not, your morals are in *precisely* the same boat, which boils down to you say so. Well, so do they say so, and so do I, and I don't need to look to far to see that *none* of us has a corner on morality, supernatural or not. All it takes to get past this is the self realization we need not serve their god and they need not serve ours, wether it's society or science.

"Goat, you just seem too intelligent to honestly believe this "bend-over" philosophy. " So now you're telling me people are not appointed to office to bring their ideology and views with them? Am I reading this correctly? "You support him, and this is your word-game to defend his appointment." I am defending his appointment, yup, I'm glad it's finally become clear. I've never said anything different, I can't for the life of me figure out why me defending his appointment or his right to hold views, or be appointed for them, is a "word game". Wether I agree with everything he believes, is another issue, just like I would defend the appointment of Janet Reno on a procedural basis, while opposing her on an ideological one.

waaa, what a bunch of crying. folks get called on their belief systems and start dodging and avoiding the issue. robbob engages the beliefs of those darned religious people, but cannot and will not defend his own belief system, insisting that doing so means red is blue. but I'm "narrowminded" because I expect a cogent defense. Now that's some kind of open minded viewpoint at work there, it can't even tolerate examination of it's own first principles. How enlightened can you get, self knowledge and open mindedness is what everyone *else* needs!

Thanks for putting in some time Iain, though we disagree I respect that. "I am not suggesting for a second that he is not entitled to these opinions. I am just saying it is not appropriate to have an attorney general who is so extreme on such delicate hot-button issues that clearly divide this country, enforcing our laws through the department of justice." I don't agree with him on any of his abortion stances, first off, but as you point out it is his right to hold them, and it's also his right to use use his views within the boundary of law, to work towards them. Wether or not they are extreme, as even I believe they are, does not make his appointment innapropriate in my eyes, because thats the nature of politics. Extreme is in the eyes of the beholder, myself included, and while I find the religious extremism inherent in progressive politics for example, indefensible for myself, I would never claim religion should disqualify them or that it's inappropriate to appoint them. Changing the nature and content of govt is what appointing people with ideologies is all about! That's why we must have a clearer idea of why to argue policy, using what means, and what we intend to force other citizens to do. All this "you're extreme and we're not" is, is arguing over who holds the whip, using arguments that can never be resolved as long as they remain in faith from either side. I disagree with Ashcroft on abortion because my faith says he does not own any humans body, or mind, save his own. I disagree with progressive politics for *precisely* the same reasons whenever they decide who shall be forced to serve their end goals. "I would just say I am a bit of a realist and I'm not going to do anything because some ancient dusty book or scrolls of commandments told me to. I would expect the same from my government, but that doesn't seem to be the case here." I can appreciate that entirely, I would like to be able to be free from dusty scrolls *and* those who made up their belief system 100, 50, or 10 years ago as well where it relates to my service to their ends.

"Anybody notice that it looks like the folks who are so staunchly defending Ashcroft appear to be the fundamentalists here, and are attempting to do so by telling us the sky is green and the grass is blue?" Who is telling you the sky is green here? We're asking you for actual evidence your belief his religion conflicts with his job, not your assertion of same based in your view of his views, and thats "fundamentalist"? Fundamentally reasonable, in my world. "I'd be more inclined to listen to someone who is not staunchly religious use practical logic in defending Ashcroft and his record." That's what I'm trying to do, and I'm seeing precious little actual reference to any record anyone actually has, of his illegally using religion in his job. When one persists in ignoring the role of their arbitrary, unprovable belief system, in critiquing those of others, they leave a pretty gaping hole in their argument.

"I will try to line-item in a tedious fashion as you love," just one or two will do. "Would you mind being tried for manslaughter by a judge who's kid was killed by an unsecured handgun? Is there direct evidence that he will be biased against you, a gun owner?" No, there is not. Since trials are open and recorded his actions would show evidence if there was bias or not, and it's precisely such direct actions I am asking for with regard to Ashcroft. Additionally, since juries make the decisions, but their deliberations are secret, in that case since no actions could be reviewed, I would have such a juror dismissed.

j_b "He is not the one making an irrational claim entirely based on faith. " Who is making what irrational claim based entirely on faith? I can't figure out what you're referencing here. "I am sure you'd look favorably upon anyone making governmental decisions based on a system of belief without any factual basis (like say aliens are prominently among us today or cabbage is the only food you need)." Of course I wouldn't. But I don't need to use their "religous" nature to argue policy, because I'll be using mine to do so. What is provable and objective stands apart from religion, and can be debated on that basis between equals *both* with their own faith based morality, whatever it is. I will not rest my arguments on my accusation of their religion, but what is observable. "After all according to your standards you could not 'prove' him wrong either ..." Precisely, which is why all I would ask is that they support growing the cabbage for the aliens and not tell me I must do so as well. I can't prove they're wrong but neither can they prove they're right, and in the absence of proof lives faith. Which is where each should be able to serve their own gods, wether Christian, alien, or "progressive".