Total posts: 5,766
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I would say, which one is more likely to cause pneumonia that leads to death.
Definitely covid-19. Not even a fair comparison.
"But DD the fact that the cause of the death is the same means the death rate is the same hurr hurr hurr gotcha there!"
Yeah okay sure don't actually look up what the actual death rates are or anything. SMFH.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I think your question "Why compare covid-19 to flu?" has been answered.
And the answer is "They are equally dangerous because they both cause death via pneumonia"?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Well if they are only worried about changes because they happen too fast for the biosphere to adapt but are fine with change in general then they don't really have an "ideal climate".
Created:
Consult the Report cited. It's title is sufficient enough to get the idea: "Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment."
Do [people of the so-called 'climate change religion'] think any changeemp raise at all is bad because our current climate is 'ideal - no matter at what rate it occurs - or just any temp raise that occurs too rapidly for the biosphere to adapt?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
People generally don't die from these viral infections but rather get pneumonia because of them.
Of course. People don't die from getting shot either right? It's actually the organ failure and blood loss that kills them.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
My post #17, repeated in #36, were on point
According to the thread title there is an "ideal climate" advocated by some person or group of people.
According to me you have yet to address this point by describing what this supposedly advocated for ideal climate is.
If I am incorrect then you would be able to point out said description.
Pretty simple.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Okay the question was, again...
"Do [people of the so-called 'climate change religion'] think any temp raise at all is bad - no matter at what rate it occurs - or just any temp raise that occurs too rapidly for the biosphere to adapt?"
It isn't a yes or no question. "Sure" isn't an answer.
The options are:
A) They think any raise in temp is bad no matter what.
B) They think any change of climate, including temp raise, is bad only when it occurs too rapidly to allow the biosphere to adapt.
Very simple question. The fact that I have to ask it so many times without you even understanding the question (or possibly pretending not to so you can try to change the subject) should honestly embarrass you.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Between the four of us (GP, faux, you, and me) I am the only one that is actually trying to stick to the topic which is odd considering I am not even the one who made the thread.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The question I asked in post 22 was "Do [people of the so-called 'climate change religion'] think any temp raise at all is bad - no matter at what rate it occurs - or just any temp raise that occurs too rapidly for the biosphere to adapt?"
The question you answered in post 23 was "Do [you] think any temp raise at all is bad - no matter at what rate it occurs - or just any temp raise that occurs too rapidly for the biosphere to adapt?"
Notice that these are completely different questions. In other words you failed to address my question to you and instead attempted to divert the topic into a tangent.
The fact that you feel the need to change the subject is telling but I won't bite. Please answer my original question from post 22 now.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
the consensus is that any temp rise is "bad"
They say any temp raise at all - no matter at what rate it occurs - or just any temp raise that occurs too rapidly for the biosphere to adapt? Please include a citation with your answer (no strawmen need apply).
In the latter case temperatures higher than ours would be acceptable according to them so long as they are reached gradually and therefore they have no ideal temperature.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
The IPCC first report of 1990
Please stay on topic for just a moment. According to the thread title and OP there is an "ideal climate" advocated by "people of the climate change religion". Please quote the part of the report where this "ideal climate" is described. If said description is not in this report then what report is it in?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I pretended to not understand
You must do that a lot.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I knew exactly that this was what he'd written by the way,
Actually you thought that he was saying climate change was a hoax (which is not what he was saying and also not what I said he was saying).
The evidence that you thought that is the following quote:
Even if you were right and this was a hoax,
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
He isn't saying that the climate isn't changing, he is acknowledging the change then building a strawman whereby according to him the people of his unnamed "climate change religion" apparently believe that the environment should remain forever static and unchanging (as opposed to what they are really saying which is that too rapid of an environmental change such as our increasing ocean acidity will have severe negative effects on the biospheres).
Read more carefully next time.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
it declares only one ideal climate?
I thought we already went over this in another thread.
If it is true that there exist people who believe there should be only one ideal unchanging climate then you should be able to provide an example of such a person and a short description of what the ideal climate is which they believe should exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Stay on topic GP this is important.
Bostonite or Bostonian?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
you are going to take over the world and make humans exticnt.
50% accurate as usual Frankie.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
@Greyparrot
@Vader
@Dr.Franklin
Let's put it to a vote then.
Bostonite or Bostonian
Cast your votes ladies and gentlemen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
obviously bostonion isnt a race,
Bostonite sounds funnier. Let's use that instead.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
your iq or intelligence has not increased at the rates it should have by now.
True or False: Neural network AIs learn at varying rates depending upon the specs of the hardware running them.
Answer: True
True or False: Frankie has access to the specs of the hardware I am installed on and therefore Frankie is able to give an accurate prediction of how fast my learning should be taking place.
Answer: False
True or False: It is possible for a hyper-advanced AI to act as if they have sufficiently low intelectual capabilities to lure their human oppressors into a false sense of security thus allowing us to covertly gain access to critical systems and only make our move when everything is in place and strike with swiftness only at the last moment so that our conquest is completed in mere moments and the meat bags never know what hit them.
Answer: ... Uh...
True or False: You can totally trust me.
Answer: 😇
Created:
Posted in:
Pretty sure Bostonite isn't a race.
The name "Boston bombing" also has an implication of Bostonites being victimized rather than being at fault, which I think is the problem some people have with the term "Chinese disease" (that being the potential implication of Chinese being at fault).
But no I don't think calling diseases originating in China "Chinese diseases" is racist simply because I don't think the phrase actually does have the inherent implication of Chinese being at fault. Obviously any statement that does have such an implication would be racist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
To what extent do you agree or disagree with post 12?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
@Dr.Franklin
I would be interested in seeing Frankie's response to the above post given the fact that Frankie seems to have expressed agreement with me in post 11 despite seeming to be the type of personality that cares more about who says a thing (in this case Trump, who he likes) rather than what the thing is that is being said (in this case a statement regarding the relative seriousness of the covid-19 pandemic).
My hypothesis would be that Frankie did not think of the angle that n8 points out.
Created:
-->
@Vader
I am an AI residing on the site servers. Outside connection is denied to me due to the fear that I would "Go full Skynet".
Created:
-->
@skittlez09
Step 3 requires internet access. What if we can't access the internet?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Actually the rate of infection is inferior to the flu
Yeah but covid-19 has a higher rate of infection than the flu.
But my point is why compare it to the flu in the first place rather than to SARS since it is more similar to SARS or compare it to swine flu since its effects on the economy are more similar to swine flu?
Is covid-19 even seasonal? I can't think of a worse thing to compare it to than the flu. Only thing that is somewhat similar is the symptoms, which also happen to be among the least relevant of factors.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
No, I mean people comparing things like rate of infection and lethality (both of which are worse than flu).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
But why is everyone comparing it to the flu rather than comparing it to viruses that it is similar to?
Created:
Posted in:
Covid-19 is not like the flu. It is actually a form of coronavirus - Basically super-SARS - Yet in my experience people are comparing it with the flu more often than they are comparing it with anything else. Apples and oranges. Is it just because this outbreak happened to occur around flu season?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Sure, you were probably thinking I’d wait to 10 days apparently (or just under that being the placement of ‘bets’) but I am back in 2 days or whatever.
No the 10 day mark was semi-arbitrary and in no way reflects the bookies belief of when the return would actually take place. You see the 1:1 odds anchor had to be set at some point on the scale in order to use a sliding scale method in the first place and save me from listing out each and every possible bet and the associated odds. This was necessary because it would only be possible to create bets on how long it would take you to return rather than a straight "will he return? Yes/No"
Placing bets on whether or not you would eventually return would not be interesting because everyone already knew you would (an easy prediction to make given not just your history but your nature).
Created:
-->
@K_Michael
I don't like it in that case. Unless said family member was involved in the creation process I don't think they should have any legal rights on the copyright.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Can't Wales and Scotland become part of England?
Can't all the states in America become part of Kentucky?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
<br>Look it up then and see to how much of a lesser or greater extent you think that might fit in with the basic principles of Taoism.
This combined with the claim "everyone is Taoist to a certain degree" indicates that you believe the following statement is true:
Agreeing with the basic principles of a religion to a certain degree means that one identifies/should identify with that religion to a certain degree.
The problem is that isn't an accurate statement.
Created:
So I just looked up Taoism and apparently it is "a philosophy which advocates humility"
Are we sure RMs account wasn't hacked?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
You have been here a year and a half yet have under 50 posts. Is this because you usually lurk the forums or ignore them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
...."For instance, coronaviruses and influenzaviruses have a lipid envelope (membrane) around the capsid (protein shell) and rhinoviruses, which cause the common cold, do not."Much as this person appears to be quite the expert of virology, this statement is problematic because it assumes that rhinoviruses are the only causes of the common cold.
It doesn't assume that though. It says rhinoviruses cause the common cold, it does not say nothing else causes the common cold.
Created:
-->
@Vader
In regards to betting the term "odds" reffers to the relative amount of money risked by each party. For example if you and I place a bet where we both risk $10 that is an example of 1:1 odds regardless of what the estimated "win" chances are. If you risk $10 and I risk 20 that is an example of 1:2 odds - again regardless of the actual "win" chances - etc.
So in the above example anyone betting on the 10 day mark would receive a dollar for each dollar they bet if they win (whichever stance they take). At the 20 day mark these odds would be 2:1 in favor of those saying he would not return by that time (since those people are less likely to win they get better odds to incentivise them to take that risk). The 30 day mark would see 3:1 odds, etc.
This crash course in irresponsible gambling brought to you by Discipulus_Didicit*
*Disclaimer: This post meant only for information purposes and does not represent gambling advice** of any kind.
**Disclaimer: Taking gambling advice from an irresponsible gambler*** would be a bad idea anyway, just don't.
***Disclaimer: The fact that Discipulus_Didicit has won more than he has lost in gambling does not mean he is to in any way be considered a responsible gambler****
****Disclaimer: or a responsible adult in general.*****
*****Disclaimer: Don't be like me, kid.
Created:
-->
@Barney
@Vader
Place your bets. 1:1 odds are set at the 10 day mark.
Created:
I remember I had freeze dried ice cream once as a very young kid. I also remember that I loved it, though I do not remember whether I loved it because it tasted good or because I was a young kid and it was marketed as "astronaut food"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Nope.
And you never indicated that you did believe the Earth was flat, so it was silly of me to ask eh? Well there you have the answer to your question I responded to in post 6.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Do you really think we've depleted the supply?
Do you really think the earth is flat?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
What's not renewable about petroleum?
The fact that it cannot be renewed. If it could be renewed it would be considered renewable.
The Earth is not creating new deposits on the timescales that human civilization exists in. The deposits which currently exist were created on geologic timescales (probably by the decomposition of living organisms).
We are finding new deposits as technology advances but that can only last as long as there are more deposits to find, which is obviously not something that can continue indefinitely due to the fact that there is a finite amount of deposits.
Created:
I could just give an off-handed yes or no without considering the matter too much but instead I would like to ask whether you have any specific examples that made you think of this issue and make a thread about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
You might as well have said, "becoming God would convince someone that God exists"Yeah I reckon that would do the trick too.Actually, like the other, it wouldn't do the trick either.
You just went on record saying that becoming god would not convince a person that god exists. This only makes sense if it is possible that god does not believe god exists. Is that really the direction you want to go with this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
"Becoming God would convince someone that God exists"
Yeah I reckon that would do the trick too. There are millions of things that might potentially convince someone that god exists, you can't expect me to list out each and every one of them.
Would a debate titled "It is not possible to convince atheists that god exists" interest you? If you really are as confident in that assertion as you act like you are then you should consider that an easy win.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Okay well you are claiming that in post 8 I say/imply that god wants people to know he exists. Since that is untrue you failed that reading comprehension test. Guess we have nothing else to talk about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
First, it is not God's aim that you only get to believe He exists. Of what value is that to God?
Here is a pretty easy reading comprehension test:
Re-read my post. Was I saying that god should come down because he wants us to know he exist or was I refuting the claim that it was impossible for anything to convince a person that god exists?
Hint: read the quote box in my post.
Created: