Also I don't know if cookies solves things, but I've yet to see them start large scale wars...unless someone eats all of them first.
I prefer Raisin but that's because it's a tradition in my home. I'm not against Chocolate Chip Oatmeal cookies.
Another example from everyday life:
Last gaming session my cousin informed me late that I would need to fend entirely for myself (as opposed to the usual pot luck affair at his games). Buying myself some vittles before arriving caused me to come at his apartment from the opposite direction, through the garbage and recycling...
I was walking past a couple of guys on the beach in 1901 who were trying to get some contraption to fly and they couldn't make it a couple feet without crashing and damaging their vehicle. How are we ever supposed to make it to the moon by the year 2000 if we can't even fly the length of a football field?
I'm not pointing this out to say that we will solve the issue, but rather that your statement has an obvious hole in it's logic. Prior to solving a problem, if we look at the state of things, the problem is always impossible to solve... because we haven't solved it yet, therefore we can never solve it.
No, my example is spot on. You are claiming that because we haven't done something yet, it is therefore impossible. Maybe you should take a logic course at school next semester. It would help you a lot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You literally just continued making the same argument. At the point, I can only surmise that you don't understand why the thing you are saying is illogical. On the other hand, if I were to play armchair psychologist, you're so invested in being smarter than me (and others) that you can't admit when you're wrong, since that would admit that it might not be true all the time. Either way. Good luck, sport.
So no cookies then Iron?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So no cookies then Iron?
The building manager had some on a table, I grabbed an extra one for you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You literally just continued making the same argument. At the point, I can only surmise that you don't understand why the thing you are saying is illogical. On the other hand, if I were to play armchair psychologist, you're so invested in being smarter than me (and others) that you can't admit when you're wrong, since that would admit that it might not be true all the time. Either way. Good luck, sport.You're funny like Grandpa Simpson.
:D
You're not interesting enough to be on the Simpsons.
|
Whenever in the course of human events there is something we need to pull together and do we always wait til the last ####### moment.
Nonsense.
The very document you are plagiarizing there was an example of people coming together to take needed action in due time. There are countless others...
The Kyoto Protocols to protect the ozone layer (and incidentally slow global warming). Russia and the US coming together during the Cold War to protect polar bears from over-hunting. International bans on DDT, whaling, and other idiocy.
Heck, sometimes people over-react and do too much too soon... Y2K.
Your insistence that people never act to solve problems in time is false... and inappropriate to this issue as 'in time' is entirely subjective. We couldn't have taken any action to entirely prevent global warming because by the time we knew it was a possibility it had already begun. At the other extreme, we have already started taking action to stop global warming long before it has even approached the point of wiping out the human race (i.e. 'the last moment').
In any case, you continue to ignore the fact that selfish interest argues FOR mitigating global warming. Solar and Wind power are cheaper than fossil fuels. We will solve this problem BECAUSE we are selfish.
The selfish argument also prioritizes psychology/sociology theory that is over 30 years old describing the species as selfish, and ignores new, more well-founded theories of the species as fundamentally cooperative.
Whatever you have to tell yourself, sport.
|
|
So you get to redefine words now?
Unless you are claiming that you actually wrote the Declaration of Independence OR that you did not 'borrow a phrase' from it w/o saying so, no redefinition of terms is required.
...and if you are claiming either of those things then you're obviously crazy.
So confident there are no Tipping Element/Points in our future are you?
Confident that we are nowhere near any climate tipping points that could wipe out the human race? Yes, absolutely. If you believe otherwise... you're the one out on the lunatic fringe.
You did see the links up thread pointing to the fact that someone <cough>China</cough> is still damaging the ozone layer even now?
So... a treaty that successfully stopped and even reversed ozone depletion for thirty years is not an example of human beings working together to address a problem before the last minute because someone is now violating it... at levels which might eventually become a problem? Who is it that is redefining terms here?
We couldn't have taken any action to entirely prevent global warming because by the time we knew it was a possibility it had already begun.Except that's grossly misleading. We have been using inefficient tech for decades after we had acquired a better substitute (e.g. incandescent vs LED).
The fact that we have not done everything possible to mitigate climate change does not make it "grossly misleading" to say that we were causing climate change before we had any idea it was a possibility. Unless 'grossly misleading' is synonymous with 'unquestionably true' in your lexicon.
Wait Telsa builds cookies???
|
|
I think only you would accuse someone of purposefully trying to pass of as ones own the opening phrase of perhaps the most recognized document in the English language.
I made no such accusation.
As expected... you are indeed redefining words. Plagiarism does not require that the act be 'purposeful'... only that it be committed.
You assumed everyone would recognize the source? Ok, but guess what? That's plagiarism.
If you will recall the phrasing I was responding to in the relevant post of yours was:
"{W}e have already started taking action to stop global warming long before it has even approached the point of wiping out the human race (i.e. 'the last moment')."So causing only a billion or so deaths from the interactions of human cultures would be by you considered as "not even approaching"? How about 500 million; is that "approaching"? At what point are we no longer "approaching" the death of our species?
What if the permafrost melts? How deadly will that be?
The deaths of 500 million or a billion people are obviously 'bad things'... but no, such events would not 'approach the point of wiping out the human race'.
I also note that you attribute these hypothetical deaths to "the interactions of human cultures". We were actually talking about deaths from climate change. If humanity were, for example, to engage in nuclear war, even if in part due to stresses from climate change, that would result in deaths from 'interactions of human cultures'... not climate change itself.
You've essentially switched from arguing that climate change is approaching the point of wiping out the human race (which is nonsense) to that humanity itself is now capable of wiping itself out at any time (which is obvious, but unrelated).
|
|
And since you like being pedantic over irrelevant points in the discussion (which incidentally can explain a number of other things I've noticed about you and at least one other detractor in this thread), paraphrase, rather than plagiarism, is a far better description of what I did there.
Uh huh.
You know what uncited paraphrasing is called?
Here let me spoon this to you.
In the absence of AGW there will be hundreds of millions, perhaps even a billion or two, fewer premature human deaths over the coming decades.
Great. Thank you for conceding the point.
The Koch brothers and other oil giants have spent hundreds of millions on climate denial propaganda, funding shady pseudoscience groups who tell you things like "the Earth is actually getting colder," when it isn't, or "climate change is natural, and we're stupid to think we can affect it," when that, too is a lie.
We are already headed towards 2 degrees C. If we did everything possible to stop it right this very second, it would still be too late. Maybe if we'd started 30 years ago, but we didn't.
When all the arctic ice is almost gone, and the permafrost is belching long-sequestered CO2 and methane into an already damaged atmosphere, it will become difficult to breathe. Weather will be so screwed up that seasonal cycles will make the life of plants impossible. These are "feedback loops" that will only intensify.
We're already seeing these effects. Cherry blossoms in December in England. https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/630063/weather-winter-temperatures-uk-war m-blossom-trees
People fleeing Central America, due to the weather. Farmers can't farm. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/30/migrant-caravan-causes-climat e-change-central-america
It will only get worse and worse. We must learn to accept that we, along with 98% of all species on earth are going to go extinct very soon. There is no magic bullet. There is no Planet B.
https://imgur.com/a/ZsX7sEC
And, we're off...
Warming Arctic permafrost releasing large amounts of potent greenhouse gas
Date:
April 15, 2019
Source:
Harvard University
Summary:
A recent study shows that nitrous oxide emissions from thawing Alaskan permafrost are about twelve times higher than previously assumed. About one fourth of the Northern Hemisphere is covered in permafrost, which is thawing at an increasing rate. As temperatures increase, the peat releases more and more greenhouse gases. And, even though researchers are monitoring carbon dioxide and methane, no one seems to be watching the most potent greenhouse gas: nitrous oxide.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190415090848.htm
The two primary drivers of the "faster than expected" phenomenon are scientific reticence (scientists preferring to err on the conservative side) and corporate/governmental interference in things like IPCC reports to tamp down the worst case scenarios.
There is also a great deal of money spent by the fossil extraction cartels on PR/propaganda to forestall meaningful change and to punish those raising alarms.
Well I guess I don't have to worry about dieting any more then or getting to 175 lb before Christmas 2020...
No. You'll lose plenty of weight before it's all over.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It will only get worse and worse. We must learn to accept that we, along with 98% of all species on earth are going to go extinct very soon.
I tell you what... you accept that.
I'll be happy to take any of the stuff you won't be needing, due to the impending End, off your hands.
CB,
So you're saying I can keep my Pathfinder collection AND my love of chocolate and/or not dieting in 2020?
|
|
CB,
So you're saying I can keep my Pathfinder collection AND my love of chocolate and/or not dieting in 2020?
Absolutely.
For the planet, the human race, life on Earth, etc... it won't matter one way or another whether you do or not.
Thank you for conceding the point.OMG!! Plagiarism!
Really?
Use of common phrases / cliches is not plagiarism.
By their very nature, common phrases inherently occur in communication without any copying being involved, and in any case, without a known 'original source' there is no one to have been 'plagiarized'.
I attribute a lot of insight that I got into humans from Shakespeare, Terry Pratchett and Douglas Adams.
|
|
This is an even stupider argument than the usual climate change stuff. And worse, he's right here. Whatever the technical definition, no one considers using famous phrases to be plagiarism, even when not quoted or attributed.
Outside of academia that is largely true... but, for the same reasons, people don't usually get so upset when 'casual plagiarism' is pointed out in an everyday setting.
Otherwise we'd have to attribute damn near every cliche to Shakespeare. :)
There is pretty solid evidence that Shakespeare himself plagiarized many of his works... but you could still get expelled (or at the least a severe warning) from many colleges for writing, 'To be or not to be' in a paper without attributing it to him.
Well, more likely for something like that... losing a full letter grade, or if your professor is a brutal stickler to the rules discarding your paper. It would take a more serious example of plagiarism to result in expulsion.
Not a chance. The real #### won't hit the fan until 2050 or so. You'll be long dead by then.It will only get worse and worse. We must learn to accept that we, along with 98% of all species on earth are going to go extinct very soon.I tell you what... you accept that.
I'll be happy to take any of the stuff you won't be needing, due to the impending End, off your hands.
CBDunkerson could live till his 80s pretty easily... unless you are planning on murdering him soon =p
This thread is still going on ?
...
I get it: the plan is to get the thread going till the turn of the 21st century, so we can finally see what it's all about this climate change thingie, right ?
Brilliant ;-) !
Would someone like to talk to me about the insecurities surrounding these plagiarism issues ?
Come on: you know you want to...
Well, more likely for something like that... losing a full letter grade, or if your professor is a brutal stickler to the rules discarding your paper. It would take a more serious example of plagiarism to result in expulsion.As I said, it's been a long time. Maybe things have changed. Maybe I'm misremembering.
In my day, things like QB's "in the course of human events" or my "protest too much" were references, not plagiarism. It would be assumed that it would be recognized.
And honestly, poking around at some college sites plagiarism pages, I still wouldn't expect that to count.
Yes, particularly depending on context. Referencing Shakespeare without attribution in a geography class is probably not even going to raise an eyebrow.
I referenced a MLK quote as a paper title recently and the professors didn't notice.