Merlyn_LeRoy

Since we have examples of scouting associations in other countries that allow gays (Canada, UK, Netherlands, etc), why not look at what has happened in the real world elsewhere instead of making up stuff? Or is that cheating?

vol_scouter writes: Read what the scientists write in papers and remember that consensus opinions are required when the science is NOT settled, i.e. it is not scientifically shown which side is correct. Science doesn't show "which side is correct." It's all consensus opinions.

HICO_Eagle writes: "Would excluding blacks from scouting decrease in a statistically significant manner, the number of thefts?" That seems pretty clear-cut in analogizing theft with the crime vol_scouter was referring to. And notice that it doesn't suggest anywhere that the crimes are of the same severity. Well, no, apparently you don't notice that. vol_scouter writes: I agree that you should quit trying to argue weak points where you always lose, get angry, and attack others. fortunately, I don't do that. Have fun beating up straw men, though.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

vol_scouter writes: Merlyn, Argue the point. You did equate theft to molestation. No, I didn't. It's useless to try and argue with someone like you.

vol_scouter writes: Once again the left avoids the issue because they cannot argue it. Well, that can't refer to me; I always argue the issues. First, I do not believe that blacks are more likely than any other group to commit theft. Got any statistics to back up your beliefs, or are they baseless? It is truly amazing that even the left could possibly equate theft to sexual molestation of a child. Nobody has done that; now you're just arguing dishonestly. You are vile to equate the two. You are vile to falsely suggest I equated the two. Clearly, you do not realize how such actions permanently scar people and make long term relationships difficult, they suffer from depression, alcoholism, and suicide. Such a statement is incredibly callous and wrong. Clearly, you toss out red herrings because you can't argue the issues. Are you suggesting that being robbed is something good? I doubt that, but for some reason you dislike applying your same faulty "reasoning " to theft as you do to molestation. No, I'm certainly not equating the two beyond the fact that they are both undesirable. But you refuse to even address using your same sort of reasoning to other problems. Why not reduce theft by barring people who belong to any group that disproportionately commits theft? Whether you can categorize people as "black" or "poor" or "uneducated" or whatever, I'm sure there are some statistics that show some groups of people commit theft more often than the general public. So, using your reasoning, excluding people in that group will help reduce theft. Unless you're just special pleading.

vol_scouter writes: As usual, the left resorts to ad hominem attacks rather argue the salient point: Would allowing homosexuals in scouting increase in a statistically significant manner, the number of sexual l molestations? Oddly enough, the BSA never argued that supposedly "salient point" in court. Would excluding blacks from scouting decrease in a statistically significant manner, the number of thefts?

skeptic, for all your talk about little recognition of realities in the world, many european countries have had gays and/or atheists as members for quite a while.

Ed, if you had bothered to read the thread, I was responding to these statements, which suggested the VFW and/or Am. Legion doesn't admit gays or atheists now, and might not charter BSA units if they started. I was pointing out they already admit gays and atheists. What happens when (Or maybe I should say if?) the military stand on gays is changed and the VFW has openly gay members? Will they want to charter a Scouting unit that wouldn't allow them to serve? The VFW and the American Legion have been willing to pick up dropped charters, indeed their National bodies tell the local posts to be Chartered Partners when other folks drop Scouting. That said, they are also strong on the values of America, and that includes faith. BSA opens the door, this support may also evaporate.

While both the VFW and American Legion are very religiously conservative, neither one appears to exclude atheists. The VFW removed their "believe in god" requirement about 5 years ago. I also don't see that either organization prohibits gays, for that matter.

vol_scouter writes: Please take the time to read the article, the sodomy was performed with a broomstick. Yeah. So? Lots of rapes are committed using objects. So using GaHillBilly's bizarre reasoning, Justin Volpe must be gay.

So GaHillBilly, this describes a homosexual assault? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abner_Louima

vol_scouter, I notice that people say I'm "wrong" without quoting me and stating exactly what I'm wrong about. For example, in your case, I quoted the definition of "consensus" to show that you were using it wrong. If I've stated something that's wrong, QUOTE WHAT I WROTE and point out exactly what you disagree with. I've done that with your misuse of words, and that only appeared to make you annoyed.

GaHillBilly, you haven't come close to showing a global conspiracy of thousands of people are deliberately the cause of a global warming hoax. Your silly street fight metaphor is typical for your level of argument. You can continue to believe there's a global conspiracy. I'll just laugh. PS: vol_scouter, the IPCC isn't the only organization saying AGW is happening; yes, you DO need thousands in on an actual hoax. And no, I haven't refused to admit it's possible, I'm saying that nobody here has presented anything remotely convincing that it IS a hoax.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

vol_scouter writes: If the people who have controlled most of the global warming debate have mislead the rest of the field, then AGW is a hoax. Now all you need to do is show this. I don't think anyone has come close. There is some reason to believe that this is the case. Like I said, for this to be a hoax requires a global conspiracy of thousands of people. I'm not buying that. Unlike some others on this group, I am not certain that AGW has been proven to be a hoax but there is certainly enough evidence to bring it under scrutiny. Well, like I've said too many times already, I'm disagreeing with people who say it's a hoax. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings in pointing out your misuse of the word "consensus," but words mean things, and I didn't address your argument otherwise because, as I keep pointing out to you and you keep ignoring, I'm arguing that AGW is not a deliberate hoax. Since, as you state, you haven't been arguing that, I've been ignoring your arguments. But that's because you haven't been arguing that AGW is a hoax.

vol_scouter, in case you hadn't noticed, I've been arguing against the assertion that AGW is a hoax. I haven't been debating AGW per se, but I do object to your oxymoronic use of "minority consensus." HICO_Eagle, like I said, even fraud on the part of some people is not sufficient to establish that AGW is a hoax. You'd need to establish that ALL organizations involved are deliberately conspiring in a hoax, and you haven't come close to that. Piltdown Man was a hoax, but that didn't (and doesn't) show that evolution is a hoax.

HICO_Eagle, you still aren't establishing a HOAX. Keep in mind that an incorrect theory does not establish a hoax -- the phlogiston theory of heat was wrong, but it wasn't a hoax. Even incidents of fraud don't establish that AGW as a theory is a hoax, as (as I've pointed out) you'd need a conspiracy of thousands of people around the world to make it an actual hoax. vol_scouter writes: There are professional climate experts who dispute AGW. I know that. That doesn't make AGW a hoax, either. Also, there is a consensus opinion from climatologists that there is no AGW - they are in the minority Consensus: 1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month. 2. general agreement or concord; harmony. I don't agree with your use of the word "consensus" to describe a minority opinion.

HICO_Eagle writes: His remark suggesting that the phrase "sensitive dependence on initial conditions" was something I manufactured because it was "sciency-sounding" was simply asinine. I didn't suggest that at all. You'll note I quoted this from you: "So far as I know, those claims that weather and climate are chaotic (in the mathematical sense) have not been repudiated or discredited." It's a sciency-sounding non-sequitur. Weather can be chaotic, but that doesn't make global warming a hoax. And it seems that statements about weather 20 years ago (about it being chaotic, etc) is something you're willing to accept merely because you can try to use it to argue against statements being made today about the weather (global warming, etc). But then you just appear to be cherry-picking what science you accept based on whether it agrees with your predetermined assumptions.

HICO_Eagle writes: I spoke of him doing some research and reading since he claimed I hadn't presented any data on the hoax. Your phrasing is misleading, since "data on the hoax" of course assumes that there IS a hoax. And, of course, you haven't shown there's a hoax. You can claim it all you like, but that requires a conspiracy of thousands of people all over the world. Merlyn, you still haven't addressed the point that none of what we are laying out requires a conspiracy of thousands. To be an actual hoax, yes, it does. Thousands of people would have to be knowingly lying for it to be a deliberate hoax. I pointed out for you that many of the "thousands" don't even have any expertise in the causal physics There's no problem pointing to thousands of OTHERS who aren't experts, but that just means you're ignoring lots of experts. And your own statements like "As a pure matter of physics, the amount of energy contained in solar storms impacting the Earth and the gaseous content in volcanic eruptions simply overwhelm manmade sources by orders of magnitude" is a ridiculous statement; you can't just compare how much energy is released. A hurricane has more energy than a nuclear bomb, but you can't use that comparison to argue that somehow a nuclear explosion will cause less damage to a city. vol_scouter writes: I wrote a long discussion about the folly of consensus opinion in science and the pressures to conform that addresses some of your questions. Yeah, but listening to amateurs is no improvement, and listening to people with degrees in unrelated fields is often worse. Lots of creationists have engineering degrees, but there aren't many biologists in that group.

Neither one of you "geniuses" appear to have even noticed that I haven't stated anything about global warming itself, just your bizarre assertions that imply some kind of global conspiracy between thousands of people, and how neither of you are exactly experts but are ready to cry "hoax." I'd ask you what the color of the sky is in your world, but that would just perpetuate this idiocy.

CO2 levels may, or may not have changed. So, you don't know, but you're willing to give your opinion on AGW, eh? Beyond that, the integrity of the data regarding BOTH CO2 and temperature measurements is seriously in doubt, due to the recent CRU email release. No, not the raw data. You don't appear to know where the raw data is from. There is NO proof that CO2 levels have significant effect on global temperatures. Now you aren't even talking science; science doesn't deal with "proof," it deals with data, evidence, and models. So far as I know, those claims that weather and climate are chaotic (in the mathematical sense) have not been repudiated or discredited. Well, now you're just cherry-picking whatever sciency-sounding phrase you like, in order to reach a predetermined conclusion.

HICO_Eagle, instead of sniping, how about something fairly directly measurable like carbon dioxide levels? Or are they part of a hoax, too?

HICO_Eagle writes: I don't think there are quite as many gays among us as Gern and Merlyn would have us believe Refresh my memory here, HICO_Eagle -- when have I ever made a statement as to how many gays are "among us"? I count.... hmm.... never.

HICO_eagle, you haven't presented anything showing an actual "hoax." If you want to discuss some of the science, what's you view about carbon dioxide levels? Or are they a hoax too?

HICO_Eagle writes: I see Merlyn is doing exactly what Schneider hoped for which is jump into a numbers game without any regard for the population of those numbers People like you who claim it's an actual "hoax" are claiming that, literally, thousands of scientists all over the world are part of a conspiracy. By the way, what degrees do you have related to climatology/weather/meteorology?

Can you identify ANYONE who says either of those things? The evolution canard is so frequent it's in the talk.origins FAQ. You may have heard of Mother Angelica, a nun on the Eternal Word Television Network, a Catholic organization that she founded: http://www.keenzo.com/showproduct.asp?ID=3165289 ... "There is nothing in Scripture against evolution, so long as you recognize that God is the Prime Mover. Although in my ignorant mind I've often wondered, "Why are there still apes around if we came from them?" Somewhere along the line if apes became man, wouldn't all the apes be men by now?" Here are a few more examples: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/204ff49411bae36f?hl=en ... "If we evolved from lets say apes then why are there still apes?" http://www.city-data.com/forum/religion-philosophy/78482-america-evolution-3.html ... "Also, if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" http://www.giveittomeraw.com/forum/topics/what-the-monkeys-eat ... "If we evolved from apes - why are there still apes?" You can find thousands of examples with google. As for moon landing hoax nuts, here's one: http://letsrollforums.com/moon-landing-hoax-t18942.html?s=073f2925ae608292794222b8281da1d3 ... "NASA claims that the spacecraft was slowly rotated causing the shadowed side to be cooled by the intense cold of space an intense cold that DOES NOT EXIST. In fact the only thing that could have been accomplished by a rotation of the spacecraft is a more even and constant heating such as that obtained by rotating a hot dog on a spit. In reality a dish called Astronaut a la Apollo would have been served. At the very least you would not want to open the hatch upon the crafts return." By the way, what are some of my earlier "fancy fantasies"?