There is not a significant amount of difference between the two groups in some respects. For one thing, if you disagree with the Taliban, they threaten to kill you. If you disagree with conservative talking points, they threaten to kill you.
Jill has the story. The conservative method of trying to win a scientific debate on climate change is to threaten to kill those they disagree with as a way to try and shut them up.[1]
Here is my tip to conservatives: If the only argument you can make is "shut up or I'll kill you", then you have already lost the argument.
Here is a tip to the scientists: If you seriously think that people are going to try to kill you, take some security precautions. And buy a fucking gun, learn how to use it and carry the gun with you!
[1] To the extent that there is any significant debate about climate change. On the one side, there are the climate scientists. On the other side, there are the shills funded by the coal, oil and gas industries and their various sock-puppets.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The gentle man here seems to have hit an idea that has merit.
http://denbeste.nu/external/Harris01.html
That being war and the fantasy of magical powers (doG?) are different.
When we look at both groups neither have touch in reality or cause and effect and both believe in princes and evil entities.
Its a disease, a psyhcosis, reality is cause and effect not something random and doG will make it so. The sickness is that the player gives not a rats ass for the target as someone interactive save for it is a manifestation of their wishful action.
Ah, shoot the basterds, all of them.
Eck!
Post a Comment