Global Warming Fanatics Shoot Children, Themselves in Attempt to Save Earth

[...] might as well give up and die: everything you do causes global warming (at least in the eyes of socialist propaganda artists). [...]

You make a good point, Mr. Ellis, and it's got me thinking. If liberals believed what they say and acted with logic and consistency they would eagerly give their money, time and energy to solving the social injustices that they are so ready to take from me in order to solve. They would give up their positions and their promotions to disadvantaged minorities. They would eschew energy-wasting things like hot water (well, yes I know, some do), electricity, automobiles, computers, concerts, restaurants, etc. Except for his penchant for blowing up other people, Ted Kaczynski is a good model of what American liberalism could be were it carried to logical ends.

What I find incongruous in Bob's and dr theo's comments is that two raging nut cases are mentioned( the murdering Argentinians and Ted Kaczynski) and then somehow relating these nut's logic to ' liberals ' in general, calling 'liberals' irrational and should be eschewing things like automobiles.

That would be like saying that if you took Christian logic all the way out to it's final conclusion, that Christians should not ever receive medical care and let their lives end naturally, because the final goal is heaven and the sooner you get there, the better.

Maybe you should use the term radical, extremist,illogical environmenal,twisted liberals rather just 'liberals' that believe in logic and limits

Brian, the kind of “Christians” who completely eschew medical treatment make me question their clear-mindedness. God gave us knowledge, medical technology, and the ability to affect wonderous cures with marvelous, lifesaving procedures. These discoveries are gifts given to us. Nowhere in the Bible are we instructed to die a natural death as soon as possible. In fact, Paul writes that he would really love to go be with the Lord, but he knows he must remain here alive to spread the Word.

It is quite appropriate for Bob and Dr. Theo to point out that these loons “put their money where their mouth is,” so to speak. Of course, it's a terrible thing they did, but Bob's point is that they cannot be accused of being hypocrites. And, Bob is right–the raging leftists who rail against mankind for “causing global warming” ARE deranged, as are most hardcore leftists, in my opinion. Yes, they are. And, if they practiced what they preach, they would do without those modern comforts that they claim are so evil to “Mother Earth.”

“Liberalism is a Mental Disorder” ~Michael Savage. And, I completely agree!

Gina,

You, like Bob and dr theo, start out by talking about the raging loon 'liberals', but then drop the 'raging' and 'loon' adjectives and start just using the term 'liberal' to mean things like mental disorders and irrationality. I believe the dictionary definition of liberal may be different from your perception of what liberal means.Look it up.

My point is that mental disorders, radicalism and irrational thought are always found at the extremes of any ideology, whether it be conservative or liberal and examples are easy to find that misrepresent both actual definitions of conservative and liberal.

Right-e-o, Brian!

I believe that “super-right-wing” and “super-left-wing” are both members of “Camp B.” It just so happens that more on the “general” left are loons than the mainstream conservative American citizen is a loon. That's just the way it is.

It really isn't necessary for the writers here to throw around words like “raging loons,” etc., when you have a story like this that so much speaks for itself. Wrong thinking, as in the man-made global warming scam (and so many other areas), always leads to tragic consequences when taken directly to its logical conclusion. Yet as the exchange between Brian & Gina demonstrates, you simply can't take Christianity to some similar “logical conclusion” because it is NOT wrong thinking; you could only take some messed-up version of it there.

dcm

You make a good distinction in saying that the 'wrong thinking' associated with the global warming scam can not be compared to those who have some messed up version of Christianity.

My concern is when people comment that if you take 'liberalism' to it's natural conclusion, that it leads to such things as global warming scamming.I only ask that these same people look up the definition of 'liberalism' in Websters etc, rather than use their own definition of it.

Take any ideology-conservative,liberal, religious- and pervert their definition and precepts, scamming will surely follow.

I don't know if one could make the direct assertion that “that if you take 'liberalism' to it's natural conclusion, that it leads to such things as global warming scamming.” However, if one takes the (frequent, but not universal) liberal contention that human life is no more distinct or sacred than any other “animal” to its natural conclusion, then it makes perfect sense to eradicate as many human animals as possible to ensure there are adequate resources for the remaining human animals (that is, if one accepts the liberal contention that humans are destroying our planet). And if a particular human animal is so concerned that the planet is being destroyed by their presence, and if they value the inanimate planet more than human life, then it is logical for them to lead by example by killing themselves and removing their personal threat to the planet.

” However, if one takes the frequent liberal contention that human life is no more distinct or sacred than any other animal to its natural conclusion, then it makes perfect sense to eradicate as many human animals as possible to ensure there are adequate resources for the remaining human animals “

Then you must also believe that a frequent liberal contention( since these liberals don't discrimante between mankind and other animals), that the liberal would flip a coin in deciding who to eradicate— 1000 Americans at large, includung family, or 1000 cows in Argentina if resources started drying up.They are the same, after all.

I have read and read on the precepts, concepts and ideology of' 'liberalism' and no where have I come across the idea that it stands for the idea that humans and the animal kingdom have the same inherent rights or distinctiveness . A few twisted nuts may pervert it that way just like some twisted nuts pervert the precepts of conservatism and religion, but we will just have to forgive them for their ignorance, to say it kindly.

If I am wrong, maybe you could direct me to the source that states the concept and definition liberalism promotes the idea that humans equate to parameciums

In a moral sense, yes, there's no difference (for the aforementioned liberal) in eradicating 1000 Americans at large, includung family, or 1000 cows in Argentina. However, since many liberals have included that humanity's intelligence allows them to do much greater damage to Mother Gaia, it makes more sense to eradicate the 1,000 Americans.

You're right that, outside some extremist circles (like the president's “science” advisor, the president's regulatory czar, etc.) you won't find much in published liberal doctrine that says humans and animals have the same rights and distinctiveness. But again, taking atheism (which is most often found on the Left) to its logical conclusions, then the reasonable end of a contention which claims humans are only the random end product of a long chain of random events is that humans and animals indeed on the same plain of rights and value. That conclusion would also fit well with another beloved liberal philosophy: Marxism. Marxism claims to seek egalitarianism, usually on the basis that just because one individual worked harder, was smarter, or inherited more, that individual should not be entitled to anything that any other individual doesn't have. So just because humans were lucky enough to inherit intelligence at the end of a long chain of random biological events shouldn't give them more rights than a cow or a flea.

Ideas have consequences, and liberal ideas almost always logically lead to some awful ugly places (which is why liberals have a strong tendency to borrow from other philosophies to help avert these logical conclusions while pretending they didn't borrow from the outside)

Bob

I don't understand why you think atheism and it's belief that we originated from a non-supernatural source would lead to the idea that atheists equate humans and bacteria as equal. For whatever reason, believers, non-believrs alike tend to look after, love, cherish those of their own kind. By far and away, if you look at the actions of man and other species, they tend to defend and feel strong emotions over their own kind. The lion pride nor the human pride , by the far, far majority, doesn't equally love and defend bacteria over it's own. That is the proof of the puddin

Again, it's all about logical consistency in the philosophy. Atheists have no basis for even the low state of morality we see in our contemporary setting, much less the higher Judeo-Christian moral code. There is simply no objective basis upon which to say “treat fellow human beings nicely” is “right.” And as I've already pointed out, if the only difference between a human being and a bacteria is that the human is the big prize winner of a long chain of random but beneficial changes to a higher order, there is no objective reason to say the human animal is more deserving of rights, respect, kindness, life, etc. than the bacteria–both are simply organisms that (a) have no real purpose, (b) are not held transcendently and eternally accountable for moral action or inaction, and (c) when they die will only be come worm food. There is simply nothing intrinsically or objectively more noble or sacred about the human animal over the bacteria.

It's not about feelings; it's about logical consistency.

Well I would say it is all about feelings—a deep, deep instinct for love and compassion that overrides human cognition and logic which you feel should reign supreme. There are around 10 million atheists in the US and the large, large majority go to work, treat people fairly, save lives as physicians, help people with personal problems, love their family,children and friends and put others first.

If what you say is true, why do the large, large majority of non-believers feel pain,loss of a loved one, love their spouses as you do? That is where your logic breaks down because we don't act as you say we should. Maybe it is a disconnect between logic and emotions, but I assure you the love, respect and emotions are there. That is the proof that totally disproves your assumption based on logical consistency.

Maybe it is illogical. I'll accept that. I would much rather feel these intense emotions that we nonbelievers feel, than be logically consistent.Like I said, your argument breaks down because the proof IS our capacity to feel intensely about our kind- mankind.

Whether it is God or instinct, these illogical tears are real

But feelings are totally irrelevant in your philosophy (to be logically consistent, anyway). Feelings and emotions are nothing but chemical responses to certain stimuli based on how your physical form has ended up at the end of a long chain of random evolutionary changes. The fact that those biological impulses generate comfortable or uncomfortable sensations is really irrelevant to anything.

I think you should be asking yourself why non-believers even care about feelings of pain and loss–especially in others. In my philosophy, these emotions are perfectly logical and rational, and have connection to transcendent, eternal ramifications. In yours, it's all nothing but chemical reactions that will all end when you die.

I see that you may be starting to realize that these are illogical by your admission in your third paragraph. I think that's an important realization for you. But rather than be content living an illogical life, why not see if there is a philosophy where those things DO fit logically?

Like I said, there may well be a disconnect between philosophic logic and chemically induced emotions. Maybe your God uses these same chemicals to induce your intense emotions as well.Your soul is your eternal spirit, but the physical sensation of emotions is God's chemicals.

You have always said that Jesus was God is spirit, but could feel human, physical emotions and pain. Could it not be that God used these same chemicals we have to allow Jesus to feel human emotions and pain ? I assure you if all the serotonin were depleted from your brain, you would be emotionless and still could believe in God

Appreciate your last pargraph muchly

I'm pretty sure God does indeed use those chemicals to induce those emotions. However, in my philosophy, there is a purpose behind those chemical reactions. Our emotions were designed to operate much like God's emotions; he gets angry, experiences joy, sadness, etc. Unfortunately ours don't operate in a morally upright fashion because of our inherited sin nature, going back to Adam and Eve.

But they, like everything about our existence, have design and purpose, and how we react to them –giving in to them or resisting them in varying circumstances–has bearing on our eternal destiny.

So, you see, they have importance, purpose, and eternal bearing in my philosophy, where they are only chemical reactions derived from a long chain of random biological developments in the atheistic/evolutionary philosophy. So considering them to be important is logical in my philosophy, but not in the latter.

I hope you may give some consideration to that, and to the possibilities that may come with choosing a philosophy that is logical. I don't expect anything tonight, but hopefully this discussion will provide food for thought.

Bob

If you get the chance and are inclined, you tube Haley Westenra singing Pie Jesu

I just did. Beautiful! Very beautiful!