The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Why "Mankind" Isn't the Real Problem Options
FounDit
Posted: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 11:41:37 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,115
Neurons: 48,840
I've been thinking about the posts on the "Mankind" topic, and thought to add a bit to why I take the position I do on the subject. I also moved it to the Politics section since that is where it really belongs.

No society simply exists passively, resting and evolving, on its own. Among its members are those who long to be teachers, some who desire to be healers, some who want to be artisans, and some who long for power and control. Some of those who long for power and control want to do what is best for their society and its members. However, there are also among those members, people whose desires are not so altruistic. These types are the ones who, like Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s Chief of Staff, reportedly said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste”.

There are extremists on both the political Left and Right whose desire is to push society in their direction for the purpose of political power. It is true in every country, and in every society that there are always opposing political forces at work in a never-ending battle for control.

A favorite tactic is to look for just such an opportunity as Emanuel described to create a crisis in order to gain an advantage. A tiny flaw, a social injustice, any group who feels a victim of circumstance or design is an opportunity to drive a wedge between people so a political opportunity can result.

In the middle of this are the majority of the population who are usually only marginally involved in the political struggle. They just want to live their lives in a measure of peace and safety while taking care of themselves and their families.

When political issues arise, it may take some time before the greater number of society members really become involved in trying to determine the best outcome. This is when problems often arise, and why I say our postings on the use of the word “Mankind” is not really the problem.

It doesn’t really matter whether it is the political Left or Right that is in ascendancy, the tactic is the same: reduce all discussions or conversations down to the level of personal offense. So it was with the attempted discussion of the use of the word “Mankind”. Anyone who doesn’t agree with the current political position or opinion being put forth (politically correct thinking) is to be considered as having insulted the individual, and is therefore to be insulted in return. The purpose is, of course, to force agreement, or shout down any disagreement, as we so often see on college campuses today. This truncates any possibility of having a reasoned, objective discourse on any subject, which, of course, is the goal. “Our way, and no other way” becomes the central thinking process. Words and definitions in a society certainly do change, but punishing people, such is done now for students for not obeying the demand for change, is not the way to go.

For too long, it was the ingrained civility of most of the population to yield to such tactics, to demure in the face of insults such as racism, homophobia, xenophobia, misogyny, etc., but at some point, it simply becomes too much to tolerate. A civil discussion on a social topic may be attempted, but it generally becomes impossible when one side reduces the discussion to the level of personal offense and insult, and most folks finally yield to that bullying tactic.

Yet continually yielding cannot be tolerated either. That leads to tyranny. Any group, given too much power, or power held for too long a time, always wields it badly for the society in the end. The political Left here in the U.S. has been in ascendancy for almost the last 60 years, and was close to achieving its goal of unified power. President Obama stated that he wanted “to fundamentally transform the United States”. The election of Hillary would almost certainly have accomplished that, or brought it very close to fruition. Unfortunately, most of us don’t want the United States to be transformed. We want to improve it, not transform it.

I think most people instinctively understood this, and the election of Hillary was not to be. Trump was elected, and this is not to be tolerated by the political Left. Even a great many on the political Right opposed him because he wasn’t a member of the political Establishment. He was an “outsider”. He must therefore be destroyed, by constant attacks on his character (since his policies seem to be very popular. They are, after all what got him elected), and all who support him must be attacked as well.

Unfortunately, that isn’t working out, and is in the process of failing. That is why there is such vitriol in the public discourse. Their attacks on his character are failing for one simple reason: the folks who support Trump do not do so because of his past behavior. They voted for him and supported him not for his past, but for what he said he would do in the future — after his inauguration. The fact that he is doing his best to keep his word only cements his support.

But the harder they push, the more they insult, the greater their demand to be obeyed, the greater grows the distance as the political pendulum moves away from the Left, back towards the center. It’s a v-e-r-y slow process, but it is, I believe, inexorable.


A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
BobShilling
Posted: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 3:00:45 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 290
Neurons: 2,284
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
I agree with most of what you said in the first part of your post FD. I stopped agreeing when you wrote this:

Quote:
It doesn’t really matter whether it is the political Left or Right that is in ascendancy, the tactic is the same: reduce all discussions or conversations down to the level of personal offense. So it was with the attempted discussion of the use of the word “Mankind”. Anyone who doesn’t agree with the current political position or opinion being put forth (politically correct thinking) is to be considered as having insulted the individual, and is therefore to be insulted in return.


Let's recall how the discussion started. Following the original question and three responses, Romany wrote:

Whatever one's private thought about the subject, gendered language is old-fashioned and considered by many to be insulting.

So, rather than using "manhttp://forum.thefreedictionary.com/editors/yafEditor/quote.gifkind", nowadays you could choose between:-
"Humankind would not...."
"Humans would not...."
"Our species would not..."

in this sentence.


Now, I admit that my eyesight is not what it used to be, but I don't see any sign of anybody claiming that any individual has been insulted. Romany pointed out that gendered language is old-fashioned and considered by many to be insulting. That it is so considered by many is a fact, and one that learners should be aware of.

After a couple of posts about Romany's comment, Wilmar wrote Oh, my! Caving into the PC garbage, I see. I am so sad to see you attempt to "correct" anyone into giving into that CRAP. So, the first negative response to Romany's suggestion involves the words garbage and CRAP. After a few more posts, you joined in with It is exclusively the political "Left" here in the U.S., i.e., the "Progressives" who enforce the idea of political correctness, and seek to change the language. Any right-wing woman who would "take your head off" has merely adopted the attitude of the Progressives on that subject. You supported your rather sweeping first statement with the words I underlined, a classic example of the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy, as I pointed out in my response (with a link to explain what it meant for those who had not heard of this).

Enough of that. Let's move on. You wrote:

Quote:
The purpose is, of course, to force agreement, or shout down any disagreement, as we so often see on college campuses today. This truncates any possibility of having a reasoned, objective discourse on any subject, which, of course, is the goal. “Our way, and no other way” becomes the central thinking process.


There are, of course, people on both sides of any argument who have this aim. However, in the thread you refer to, I don't see any sign of those who were talking about the inappropriate use of 'mankind' for all people trying to'shout down any disagreement'. They/we were simply trying to point out why many people today feel gendered language is inappropriate.

Quote:
Words and definitions in a society certainly do change, but punishing people, such is done now for students for not obeying the demand for change, is not the way to go.


There have always been rules in academic institutions, government bodies and most companies about the language that is expected within those institutions. People who do not abide by the rules have always been penalised in some way. That is how we have (largely) got rid of offensive ways of referring to people who do not have the same skin colour, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, etc. I am sure that you would not consider it acceptable these days for a light-skinned person to refer to a dark-skinned person as a n***er with the excuse that no offense was intended and that if any were taken that was because the n***er was hyper-sensitive. Well, you personally do not find gendered language offensive, but many people these days do consider it shows a lack of awareness of the disadvantages many people of one gender (i.e. women) still suffer in today's world. The attempt to change disadvantaging vocabulary is one of the many attempts by many people to remove disadvantage from out world. I for one am happy to think that people who refuse to go along with this after they have been made aware of the reality should be penalised.

Quote:
For too long, it was the ingrained civility of most of the population to yield to such tactics, to demure in the face of insults such as racism, homophobia, xenophobia, misogyny, etc., but at some point, it simply becomes too much to tolerate.


While there are almost certainly some instances of people who have misused such terms, there are still millions of people in the world who do suffer as a result of racism, homophobia, xenophobia, misogyny, etc., If we stop drawing attention to these things, the perpetrators will thrive.

Quote:
A civil discussion on a social topic may be attempted, but it generally becomes impossible when one side reduces the discussion to the level of personal offense and insult, and most folks finally yield to that bullying tactic.


I have seen some pretty warm discussion in the tfd forums over the years. My impression (you almost certainly won't agree) is that most of the claims of racism, sexism, etc, have been supported by fairly clear evidence, and that most of the claims of bullying have been made by those who have been presented with evidence of their -isms.

Quote:
The political Left here in the U.S. has been in ascendancy for almost the last 60 years,

If the people in power have been of the political left (not very left by European standards), they have been in power as a result of democratic elections. You don't object to the democratic process, do you?1

Quote:
President Obama stated that he wanted “to fundamentally transform the United States”.

I seem to recall that Donald Trump said similar things. Obama wanted to change it in one direction = a bad thing. Trump wanted to change it in another direction = good. Is that right?

Quote:
The election of Hillary would almost certainly have accomplished that, or brought it very close to fruition. Unfortunately, most of us don’t want the United States to be transformed.


Most? I seem to recall that 48.2% of those who voted voted for Clinton and 46.1% voted for Trump. These figures suggest to me that 'most' is not exactly the right word.

Quote:
I think most people instinctively understood this, and the election of Hillary was not to be. Trump was elected, and this is not to be tolerated by the political Left.


Trump was elected, but on nearly 3 million fewer votes that Clinton received. I am not disputing the legality of his election under the American system, but you simply cannot claim that his election was the result of most people insticyively opposing what Clinton would have accomplished.

Even a great many on the political Right opposed him because he wasn’t a member of the political Establishment. He was an “outsider”. He must therefore be destroyed, by constant attacks on his character (since his policies seem to be very popular. They are, after all what got him elected), and all who support him must be attacked as well.

You have no more hard evidence for your opinion than I have for mine that some, at least, on the right opposed and continue to oppose Trump because of his past and continuing lack of candour, honour and honesty, his past and continuing attitude towards many groups of people, his attitude towards many other nations traditionally friendly towards the USA, and/or the potential harm to the USA and the world that some of his policies would cause if carried through. However, opinions carry no weight in debate.

The fact that he [color=blue][Trump] is doing his best to keep his word only cements his support.

Which word? he does appear to change it quite a bit.
Hope123
Posted: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 11:53:36 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,946
Neurons: 45,769
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
'Mankind' used as a generic term, while correct, is merely out of fashion. Choices in fashion are individual.

However, in a broader discussion, as stated in the title it is not just the one word 'mankind' that is at issue.

The basic issue with gender language is that ALL language has been, and mostly still is, geared to a patriarchal society reflecting the undeniable truth that men have had power over women for centuries.

Gender equality and sexism in society are complex issues which are influenced by far more than just our use of language. But by focusing on how we use language as inherent symbols, we think about and discuss our own attitudes and behaviours, and that becomes a start for changing inequities in a society.

On a different tack, People have a history of using words to harm and hurt others. Hence the poem we recited as children - "Sticks and stones etc. - But words DO hurt. Although it is getting better, there are still ethnic, minority, gender, and blonde jokes, the disabled are mimicked right on TV, and name calling is prevalent on Twitter. There is an uptick in bullying, hate crimes, violence, even death. There is even a prominent man who has made name calling a public art form in the last couple of years. Whistle

Those who have been on the receiving end are pushing back. That is the pushback that you seem to be finding onerous, FD.


::::::::

FounDit wrote: However, there are also among those members, people whose desires are not so altruistic. These types are the ones who, like Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s Chief of Staff, reportedly said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste”.

Since many may not check for accuracy, this is exactly how Conway's 'alternate facts' are perpetuated, and innocent people are maligned.

Even though the qualifier "reportedly" was used, the incorrect innuendo rings through for this post. This purposely misleading statement with the whole concept missing is that the "Left" and Obama, along with Emmanuel through his one sentence, supposedly want to exploit circumstances to ram their agenda through and therefore they, by association, are "not so altruistic" either.

But - What Emmanuel actually said was, "Never allow a good crisis to go to waste when it's an opportunity to do things that you had never considered, or that you didn't think were possible." A whole new meaning!

Furthermore, all politicians try to ram their agenda through by using a crisis. Trump is the most tone deaf ever when he uses for example the deaths in the UK to tweet about them for his own political purposes. Creating a crisis like starting a war to take the eyes off domestic problems is quite another topic.

Emmanuel's policies support affordable healthcare for all, same sex marriage and LGBT rights, he supports pro choice for women, and is for sensible gun control laws of CERTAIN rifles.

So if these are not altruistic, what exactly ARE the policies YOU see as altruistic, FD?

But more importantly, one of your concepts in this thread is that people are always looking for "an opportunity to drive a wedge between people so a political opportunity can result". I assume you think this is not ok and is a major problem in the US.

Since driving a wedge, and in this case it's even worse as it's an untruth through spin, is exactly what you have tried to do here, this is just one example that you do exactly what you accuse others of doing.



The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do. Anon
Lotje1000
Posted: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 3:40:06 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 941
Neurons: 452,244
Location: Gent, Flanders, Belgium
There is one thing I have to agree on that FounDit said:
FounDit wrote:
A civil discussion on a social topic may be attempted, but it generally becomes impossible when one side reduces the discussion to the level of personal offense and insult, and most folks finally yield to that bullying tactic.


It's something I see a lot when the subject of political correctness comes up. To use the example from the grammar forums, Romany suggests a change and there is instant pushback. Political correctness is about finding terms that work for everyone, about making people aware that what they are saying might not be interpreted the way they intended it. About opening people's eyes to different perspectives.

But somehow, these suggestions are received with aggression and that level of personal offense that FounDit talks about. Suddenly, there is talk of imposing "garbage", about "caving" to these demands, about men as "perpetrators". maltliquor87 made a very interesting point:

Quote:
However, I would not automatically presume that even a native speaker using the word "mankind" harbors prejudice against women.


I agree completely. And I may go out on a limb here, but I'm pretty sure Romany did not presume that anyone was harboring prejudice by using the word. She merely pointed out that people might find the word offensive, because these days it does not seem to include everyone. That does not say anything of the intentions of the speaker! What Romany is doing here, is merely pointing out to a potential speaker that the word might not convey the message they were going for.

So I'll take maltliquor87's quote and add to it. I would not automatically presume that even a native speaker using the word "mankind" harbors prejudice against women. And I would not automatically presume that anyone pointing out potential offensive language is claiming that you are harboring prejudice.

On an important side note, I also want to agree with maltliquor87's assessment of the Ghandi quote. I think it is sexist to claim that women are more superior somehow. I also want to point out that the left-leaning people I know do not have a definition of sexism that includes "men only as perpetrators, as surely it will often do". They are aware that a lot of sexism is also done by women. Perhaps it's reassuring to know that they also agree "that it is at least scientifically innacurate to claim that one sex is superior to the other."
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 6:13:02 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 29,422
Neurons: 169,482
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Hello Lotje.

There are a few things you have wrong here (well, not really that you are wrong, but you are using different definitions than 'the All-American People' use).

You say that Political Correctness "is about finding terms that work for everyone, about making people aware that what they are saying might not be interpreted the way they intended it. About opening people's eyes to different perspectives".
From the 'anti-PC wing', the definition would be more like "being forced to conform to a particular sociopolitical ideology or point of view, especially to a liberal point of view - where 'liberal' really means 'Communist' and 'anti-American'."

You are basing your arguments on your definition (which is the normal one outside of the USA), while FounDit is basing his arguments on his definition (which is a commonly accepted one within the USA, even if it is not in any dictionary).
Such a discussion, based on different definitions of terms, cannot be fruitful - and will never gain any agreement.


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Lotje1000
Posted: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 6:26:29 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 941
Neurons: 452,244
Location: Gent, Flanders, Belgium
You make a fair point, Drag0onspeaker. However, there are more people who read this forum than just FounDit.

My post was mainly a general comment about what Romany said and about PC as I experience it, and also something to discuss with maltliquor87 who said some interesting things. Both of them are not from the US, so perhaps with them some fruitful discussion and, who knows, even agreement can be found!
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 7:09:48 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 29,422
Neurons: 169,482
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Lotje1000 wrote:
Both of them are not from the US, so perhaps with them some fruitful discussion and, who knows, even agreement can be found!
Applause Applause
"Propaganda by redefinition of words" was a subject my English teacher had us study briefly fifty years ago - and I have been somewhat interested in the subject ever since.
It is not only fiction (as in "1984"), but in everyday marketing and advertising.
In about 1950 the techniques started to be used in politics (Hollywood 'PR Men' were first hired in about 1954 for the lead-in to the 1956 presidential election).

Since then, many words have become unrecognisable.
Try speaking to any American (not only right-wing or left-wing, but ordinary 'not really political' people) about what 'republic', 'democracy', 'liberal', 'socialist' or 'capitalist' really mean - the actual 'world-wide' definitions - and you will hit a blank wall. Those are not the definitions taught in American infant schools, secondary schools or colleges; they are not the way those words are used in normal conversation in America. They have been totally re-defined deliberately by politicians, the media and 'spin-doctors'. And this applies to hundreds of words besides those.


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Lotje1000
Posted: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 7:43:04 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 941
Neurons: 452,244
Location: Gent, Flanders, Belgium
Different cultures, different interpretations of a word. And yes, political spin. It makes everything so complicated (and also very interesting!). It still amazes me that someone can utter the words "fake news" and be taken seriously. That was such a drastic shift in what I thought was possible in the world but I guess 1984 isn't so far away after all.

I like to think I'm a feminist, but saying that can cause all sorts of reactions. The definitions of feminism are so diverse it becomes difficult to predict who's going to nod and say "me too" and who's going to think I now hate all men by default. As FounDit said: "A civil discussion on a social topic may be attempted, but it generally becomes impossible when one side reduces the discussion to the level of personal offense and insult".
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 8:35:31 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,946
Neurons: 45,769
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
I agree with Lotje, and Drago, here, and a lot of what Maltliquor said on the other thread, but especially with Drago's two definitions. We had a whole thread on PC before trying to do just that. I also agree with the statement "impossible when one side reduces the discussion to personal offense and insult."

But put that statement into context of the whole paragraph and previous ones and see that it is already an accusatory statement naming the one side that is always the perp as far as FD is concerned, ignoring any insults and bullying by the other side. I already listed a whole paragraph of how that side has also contributed to hatred of anyone different from them. But I never mean to give either side a pass for ethical or moral indiscretions.

At first FD says both sides do it, and then he evokes the Leftist name he mentioned above as non altruistic in the same sentence as creating a crisis to gain political advantage. Then he goes on to indict the side that uses terms such as racism etc. as insults saying it is too much to tolerate. And we know from previous posts he means Progressives, ignoring the physical attacks such as on gays at Atlanta and elsewhere, on mosques and the shooting in the back of blacks. Edited to add with breaking news - And in the marketplace, first it is Starbucks and now Nordstrom Rack treating blacks like second class citizens. And these are not just one offs. There are plenty examples and even a term to describe it of blacks being afraid to "shop or drive while black". Three black teens just shopped, were followed everywhere, but nervously bought and paid for prom clothes but the police still were called and met them in the parking lot, where they were "released".

So let's indict both sides for this mess that is now creeping around the world, Canada first, and have a good discussion trying to ignore the political aspects and accusations with ideas to help come up with middle ground.

FounDit Wrote: There are extremists on both the political Left and Right whose desire is to push society in their direction for the purpose of political power. It is true in every country, and in every society that there are always opposing political forces at work in a never-ending battle for control.

A favorite tactic is to look for just such an opportunity as Emanuel described to create a crisis in order to gain an advantage. A tiny flaw, a social injustice, any group who feels a victim of circumstance or design is an opportunity to drive a wedge between people so a political opportunity can result...

For too long, it was the ingrained civility of most of the population to yield to such tactics, to demure in the face of insults such as racism, homophobia, xenophobia, misogyny, etc., but at some point, it simply becomes too much to tolerate. A civil discussion on a social topic may be attempted, but it generally becomes impossible when one side reduces the discussion to the level of personal offense and insult, and most folks finally yield to that bullying tactic."



The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do. Anon
Romany
Posted: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 6:17:29 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 14,141
Neurons: 43,706
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

To me - as always - it the language question that vexes me for, as Drago points out, without a common understanding of what the other is saying, communication is meaningless.

Those who identify as Trump-supporters on this site are the only ones whose politics I'm aware of: I have absolutely no idea which of the other American posters are Republicans or Democrats - and of course those of us who aren't American are neither Republicans or Democrats.Yet FD and Co know the politics of the vast majority of us: we are the ones who don't speak the way they do!

When the rest of the world uses the words Drago listed, or words like Humanist,education, objective/subjective, philosophy, debate, disagreement, facts, truth, egalitarianism, science, gender, we are using words that are constructed negatively by one small and isolated group in America, who perceive them as negatives. Red flags. Bad words which render us all Other. In a world of black and white; friend or foe; "Other" puts one on the other side of the Us and Them divide.

The thing is that, by now, we have all been made aware of this degradation of the words which have always represented what is good in our societies; and and which enable humankind to claim the title 'civillised'. Yet, at no time, during all the time they have been posting, have They appeared to try to understand Us. No discussion has ever taken place which seeks to try to get a handle on what is being said from a world-view which reads and understands these words from a common understanding of such concepts as being good and not bad.

You can't talk to someone who speaks in another language. In fact this is a site which epitomizes thisDancing How can anyone "discuss" something with another when even the way they understand what this word means and encompasses is completely different to one's own.
FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 10:05:30 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,115
Neurons: 48,840
Romany wrote:


To me - as always - it the language question that vexes me for, as Drago points out, without a common understanding of what the other is saying, communication is meaningless.

Those who identify as Trump-supporters on this site are the only ones whose politics I'm aware of: I have absolutely no idea which of the other American posters are Republicans or Democrats - and of course those of us who aren't American are neither Republicans or Democrats.Yet FD and Co know the politics of the vast majority of us: we are the ones who don't speak the way they do!
It’s fairly easy to know the politics of most posters here. When anyone supports the political agenda and ideology of the Progressive Left here in the U.S., that puts you in their camp. What is that ideology, you ask? Basically, the same philosophy as Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, self-professed Progressives. Understand, however, that that term "Progressives" is anathema to those of us who have observed politics for over 50 years, or anyone who understands what they stand for. For us, "Progressive" is synonymous with Socialist/Communist; political systems we have no love for, and which we cannot, and will not, support.

I’m an Independent. I’ve voted for Democrats and I’ve voted for Republicans. It all depends on the person and what I hope to see them accomplish. I’ve usually been disappointed in both, sad to say. When I first began voting, I voted Democrat, but they gradually left me. So I switched and voted for Independents and Republicans. Both, as I say, were disappointing, with the exception of Reagan. I didn't like everything he did, but I did like most of it.

So when Trump came along, I didn’t know him or like him at first, until I heard him say what he wanted to do. It was a breath of fresh air not hearing the same old Pablum from politicians. And I liked the idea of making America great, again. And why should I not? It’s my country and I want it to be strong and a force for good in the world. And like it or not, I believe Trump will do that better than Hillary could, or would.

When the rest of the world uses the words Drago listed, or words like Humanist,education, objective/subjective, philosophy, debate, disagreement, facts, truth, egalitarianism, science, gender, we are using words that are constructed negatively by one small and isolated group in America, who perceive them as negatives. Red flags. Bad words which render us all Other. In a world of black and white; friend or foe; "Other" puts one on the other side of the Us and Them divide.
Who is this small, isolated group that constructs these words negatively in America? I know of no such group. None of these words are BAD. Do you have evidence of this or is this just your assertion?
There is a divide between political factions here, just as there is in most countries. And there are many factions. It’s just the Democrats and Republicans are the two largest and have views and goals that are often in variance with one another. But does this fact of political factions not render the whole world a camp of friend or foe — of “Other” — camps of “Us” and “Them”? For every political party in any country in the world, there is always an "Other", and opposing party. Why do you seem to think this is a bad thing only for our country?

The thing is that, by now, we have all been made aware of this degradation of the words which have always represented what is good in our societies; and and which enable humankind to claim the title 'civillised'. Yet, at no time, during all the time they have been posting, have They appeared to try to understand Us. No discussion has ever taken place which seeks to try to get a handle on what is being said from a world-view which reads and understands these words from a common understanding of such concepts as being good and not bad.
So am I to understand that the degradation of words is the fault of anyone who is not a member of your “civilized” group; meaning us here in the U.S.? And that “we” make no effort to understand your words?

I don’t know about that. Let’s see:
Romany wrote:

“Ironic: Trump likes to invent boogie-men and chimera to frighten people into submission and acceptance. What has happened is that he has made himself into the boogie-man now; and instead of just having to negotiate with one or two politicians, he has the entire country (Except for some equally insane fringe party of lunatics) united in ridicule and determination, against him.
Help me out here, since, apparently, I can’t understand your words. Am I and the others here you mention, who are not members of your “civilized” group, members of the “insane fringe party of lunatics”?

He's [Trump] revealed the full, abysmal and unplumbed depths of his ignorance and self-involvement. Not a single person capable of rational thought will ever give him the benefit of the doubt again. He's done.”
And again, does this mean I’m not capable of rational thought if I give him the benefit of the doubt?

“You're also the only industrial nation which allows hate-speech - so I guess you truly and honestly believe that the 1st Amendment means you can be as racist as you like.”

And we allow hate speech? Really? The 1st Amendment gives us the right to be as racist as we like?


You can't talk to someone who speaks in another language. In fact this is a site which epitomizes this. How can anyone "discuss" something with another when even the way they understand what this word means and encompasses is completely different to one's own.
I don’t know about that. Your words above seem clear to me. If I have misinterpreted them, please clarify them for me because I really do want to understand you and the other members of your “civilized” group.

I may be way of base here, but isn’t classifying “Us”, the party of lunatics, as not being part of your “civilized” group’s thinking engaging in the same kind of division you accuse us of? I’m just asking, since we don’t appear to speak the same language.

Most of this is tongue-in-cheek because it is obvious to any reasonable person that there is an attitude of “You must believe the way we do, or you are not one of us. We are ‘civilized’, you are not. We have the only correct view, the "world-view", and if you disagree, you are wrong. You are not permitted to have a different opinion”.

If none of you can see this, then your own political bias is blinding you to the truth, and we truly are not speaking the same language.




A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
maltliquor87
Posted: Thursday, May 10, 2018 11:39:08 AM

Rank: Member

Joined: 11/29/2017
Posts: 74
Neurons: 46,068
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
Since the current debate largely involves such a galvanizing topic as politics, one can spend hours laying out arguments for their side. For now I want to quickly draw your attention to two claims that merit further consideration.

1) The first claim is "gendered language is old-fashioned".
To understand that this claim is erroneous one can hardly do better than look at some recent dictionary additions that include such words as "mansplain", "manterrupt", and "manspread". This demonstrates that it's not that gendered language is old-fashioned. The problem lies with language purportedly demeaning women. Taking this point into consideration, we should drop the initial claim, which I suspect is made to create a certain veneer of inclusivity.

2) The second claim is "Many women consider the word mankind to be offensive".
There's very little in the way of evidence pertaining to this claim. We simply don't have enough data. Nor do we have a yardstick by which we could measure how many is "many". It may be true that this word is offensive to the vast majority of women and they would support some form of penalty for using it. The opposite may very well be true -- the vast majority of women would not find the word offensive and vote against a penalty.

As I pointed out, I would not use this word for two reasons. First, "humankind" sounds better to me. Second, I do not want to offend anybody, especially when no serious issue is at stake. However, if a person insists that he or she will always use "mankind", I will not automatically suspect that something is wrong with them.
Hope123
Posted: Thursday, May 10, 2018 11:57:55 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,946
Neurons: 45,769
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Ah so. And wow, FD. A big jump from a to e. No wonder we can't communicate.

Premise - Communist equals Socialist equals Progressive equals
Obama/Clinton equals "liberals" on the forum. = BAD

Conclusion - Therefore Obama/Clinton/Progressives (a liberal
who believes in moderate social policies within a democratic
capitalistic system - such as me on the Forum) are
Communists. Therefore = BAD.

"That puts you" is passive tense. Uh uh. You put us. Therefore it is always YOU vs US - and never shall those above ideas ever change for you. And I will never agree that I'm a Communist!

FYI only - My definitions of a couple of the types of governments (not necessarily the dictionary versions):

Progressivism is the support for improvement of society as a whole.

(BTW - Obama's general agenda was to revive the economy, provide affordable and accessible health care to all, strengthen public education and social security systems, define a clear path to energy independence, tackle climate change, end the War in Iraq responsibly, finish the mission in Afghanistan, and work with allies to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. How is this communism?)

Democracy - a government that is representative of the people. In order to operate for many people, it needs checks and balances such as in a republic or constitutional monarchy.

Socialism is on a continuum and has many varieties. To ignore that continuum is another reason Americans think of it as bad.

Communism - authoritarian government where people have no representation or control. That is authoritarian, not representative government. It is dictatorship or despotism or autocracy. Trump warned before the election he alone can effect change and that is what he is doing with attacks on the media, everybody and everything that says anything negative about him, pitting the the other systems against the executive branch. He just defined fake news as being (negative) in a tweet yesterday. He wants complete control. Whether or not he gets it - time will tell.

Therefore the the US is slowly becoming Communist - a proclaimed anathema! That's the part I don't get - that T supporters don't see it coming.


The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do. Anon
Hope123
Posted: Thursday, May 10, 2018 12:03:02 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,946
Neurons: 45,769
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
There are two parts to this - government type and economic system type...

As opposed to what T supporters are against, what are they for?

To me (correct me if I'm wrong in my assumption) what's left is a Laissez-faire (small government) Capitalistic Economic System and it seems to be what the US already had and Trump is taking it back to that after Obama tried to ameliorate some of the criticisms of the system, not change the whole system.

An economic system is a social system of production, resource allocation, and distribution of goods and services within a society.

Capitalism has its good points - if regulated somewhat.

Common Criticisms of Laissez-faire Capitalism:

Profit and materialism are the only gods in capitalism and one's identity is bound forever to amount of wealth.

Since money is god, governments govern as such and there is a potential for collusion and corruption between business and government. (Is the current Administration with its lack of transparency and not being at arms length not making that even worse, not better? ) Therefore it is anti democratic because it is not representative of the worker, only the owner. The role of government is discouraged even when it may be helpful.

Capitalism not only allows inequality, but encourages it. Some get rich, others poor. Money is needed to make money. The rise of the 1% is proof. Those without are looked down upon as undeserving of help, so there are no government programs to help the poor. Basic needs for all are not met. Nobody cares whether or not everyone has healthcare for instance.

Businesses can act in destructive ways, causing depressions. We saw that quite well in 2008.

Companies produce products that are not in the public good. Toxic emissions from cars is an example. The nest is fouled.

With no regulations companies can pollute the world. For instance they dump toxic waste into a river, harming the health of the animals and people downstream.

Resources may be used inefficiently.

?


The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do. Anon
FounDit
Posted: Thursday, May 10, 2018 10:16:26 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,115
Neurons: 48,840
No, Hope, I don’t think you are BAD. Nor do I think you are a bad person. I do, however, have some sympathy for you because of the troubles you’ve experienced; issues which you have detailed here on the forum with your health.

I’m of the opinion that these, and no doubt many other experiences, have placed you in a position whereby you found yourself drawn to the ideas of the Progressives. That’s why you expressed such adoration for Obama and Hillary.

I’ve no doubt you find people such as them as filling something of a savior role; people who will make life more pleasant and bearable for all who see themselves as “victims” of circumstance, in one form or another; banishing inequality (which is impossible under our economic system) and riding strict herd on businesses, all of whom you seem to think want to poison everyone, including their own families.

And I have no animosity for anyone who feels that way. I do, however, refuse to be told I must agree see life from that perspective and live under that scenario. My life’s experiences have provided me with a different perspective, different desires, and a different philosophical outlook, and I think it is a shame you feel you can’t permit me to have that difference of opinion. But I’m going to hold it anyway. So we’ll just have to agree to disagree.


A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
FounDit
Posted: Thursday, May 10, 2018 10:17:11 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,115
Neurons: 48,840
BTW, palapaguy, I got distracted and forgot to thank you for your kind words on the other “Mankind” post.

Thanks, I appreciate it.


A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
philips daughter
Posted: Friday, May 11, 2018 7:03:32 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/21/2017
Posts: 209
Neurons: 43,526
Like I said, there is no room to talk with Trump’s supporters. They have no doubt they are right and do not care what pain they inflict. Don’t talk to them. It only encourages them.
Hope123
Posted: Friday, May 11, 2018 8:17:33 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,946
Neurons: 45,769
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
FD,

I appreciate your empathy but I made two objective "academic" posts with definitions thinking it might start a discussion about governments and economic systems, only to have them once again made into personal psychoanalyses about my motivations instead of explaining what those definitions mean to you. It was unexpected because I just asked you to stop doing that and I felt blindsided and sad when I think you were just trying to show empathy. Besides language meaning differences that's also why we never get anywhere in our discussions. I don't need patronising psychoanalyzing instead of objective discussions. I've been trying to tell you that for years. You don't do that to others such as Drago when he says we have differing definitions.

I even put FYI Only so everyone would know they are only MY opinions and others are entitled to theirs. "Ah so" simply means I now see very clearly what the problem is as to communication when we try to discuss. The BAD refers to all in the list, not just me. I am only an example.

Am I not entitlted to profess what I think and my definitions without being accused of trying to shut you down all the time? If you have better arguments than mine then by all means post them in rebuttal. I have never accused you of trying to shut me down which is what the personal comments are meant to do, I guess.

BTW - It is preposterous that I need anyone including Hillary and Obama or even God to "save" me. I save myself. I wouldn't be alive today if I had not been proactive about my own health and I have no financial worries about healthcare since I live in Canada. I have had a lot of health struggles but there are actual pluses in that my family and myself are much healthier in many ways because of lifestyle changes I was forced to make. My respect for Hillary and Obama is based on their accomplishments and the kind of people they are. Although they are human and made mistakes, both cared about children and their country and were not out to use their power just to further their own business interests as this current WH family is doing. My rejection of Conservatives in Canada came after I observed their destructive policies a few years ago in Ontario where we are still suffering those effects.

So that's it. Don't bother to respond to my posts unless it is completely objective with no personal comments. I've already done that and have been rereading everything I write to you to try to make sure I am not misunderstood and yet it is. Those posts were not attacks on you or your ideas. Maybe I should take PD's advice.

Where is your difference of opinion rebuttal or additions to ideas and concepts about the pros and cons of capitalism? Maybe Drago will join in with some objective ideas.


The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do. Anon
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Friday, May 11, 2018 8:49:02 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 425
Neurons: 2,220
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
philips daughter wrote:
Like I said, there is no room to talk with Trump’s supporters.


I understand this is at least half of the country? d'oh!
Hope123
Posted: Friday, May 11, 2018 11:24:30 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,946
Neurons: 45,769
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
In many ways the original topic of this thread has some similarities to a much broader world aspect of an ebook from our library that I am 1/3 of the way through. "The Age of Anger". It is reading to be done and absorbed only if the reader has interest and time but I thought I'd include it here in case anyone is interested in all the many historical factors interwoven to make sense of what is happening world wide today with details about situations in most countries.

The author, Pankaj Mishra, uses books and references from historians, ancient philosophers, and authors of literature in a world discussion about the progression and emergence of what is being called the "Age of Anger" in the present. I will be interested to see if it just explains how it built up and happened, or if the author has any suggestions for solutions for our young who are inheriting this world today. It seems to me there have been many ages of anger in the past as well.

The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do. Anon
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Sunday, May 13, 2018 10:11:19 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 29,422
Neurons: 169,482
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
philips daughter wrote:
Like I said, there is no room to talk with Trump’s supporters.

I understand this is at least half of the country? d'oh!

Sorry, you have been misinformed.
Of the people who managed to have their votes counted, 46.1% voted for Trump. 48.1% voted for Clinton. I guess 5.8% voted for independent non-Republican, non-Democrats.

62,979,879 votes for Trump, 65,844,954 for Clinton.

Out of 325.7 million citizens in the USA, that means about 19.3% voted for Trump.

Edited to correct my maths (see below)



Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Y111
Posted: Sunday, May 13, 2018 11:30:21 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/25/2017
Posts: 193
Neurons: 939
Location: Kurgan, Kurgan, Russia
Drag0nspeaker wrote:

62,979,879 votes for Trump, 65,844,954 for Clinton.

Out of 325.7 million citizens in the USA, that means about 5.1% voted for Trump.

I'm afraid something is wrong in your calculation.
63 / 326 * 100 = 19%
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Monday, May 14, 2018 12:22:38 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 29,422
Neurons: 169,482
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Y111 wrote:
63 / 326 * 100 = 19%

Oops, I got my fraction the wrong way up.

Out of 325.7 million citizens in the USA, that means about 19% voted for Trump.

Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Lotje1000
Posted: Monday, May 14, 2018 3:16:53 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 941
Neurons: 452,244
Location: Gent, Flanders, Belgium
maltliquor87 wrote:
Since the current debate largely involves such a galvanizing topic as politics, one can spend hours laying out arguments for their side. For now I want to quickly draw your attention to two claims that merit further consideration.

1) The first claim is "gendered language is old-fashioned".
To understand that this claim is erroneous one can hardly do better than look at some recent dictionary additions that include such words as "mansplain", "manterrupt", and "manspread". This demonstrates that it's not that gendered language is old-fashioned. The problem lies with language purportedly demeaning women. Taking this point into consideration, we should drop the initial claim, which I suspect is made to create a certain veneer of inclusivity.

2) The second claim is "Many women consider the word mankind to be offensive".
There's very little in the way of evidence pertaining to this claim. We simply don't have enough data. Nor do we have a yardstick by which we could measure how many is "many". It may be true that this word is offensive to the vast majority of women and they would support some form of penalty for using it. The opposite may very well be true -- the vast majority of women would not find the word offensive and vote against a penalty.

As I pointed out, I would not use this word for two reasons. First, "humankind" sounds better to me. Second, I do not want to offend anybody, especially when no serious issue is at stake. However, if a person insists that he or she will always use "mankind", I will not automatically suspect that something is wrong with them.


Hi maltliquor87, your points got a little lost in the debate so I thought I'd bring them forward some.

1) I can see why you'd disagree with that. I think it was called "old-fashioned" because the original poster wanted to point out it's an old habit to use words like "mankind" (they're used out of habit, not out of conscious desire to be demeaning to women). But the concept of gendered language is indeed not old, as your examples show. I think words like "mansplain" are quite interesting, personally. I'm conflicted on them. On the one hand, I think they're offensive because they're so obviously gendered and pejorative. On the other hand, I think they have value in pointing out some habits in society. I certainly hope that, after they've served their purpose, they'll disappear from common use.

2) I have very little issue with the word "mankind", personally - maybe because I automatically equate it with the Dutch version, which just means "humankind". I agree that the "many women" statement is vague, though I doubt it was Romany's intention to give an accurate number. I believe she just wanted to point out that there are people who dislike the word, enough people that it's worth making an informed decision on whether or not to use the word. Turns out, people have opinions about it so it seems it was quite a good thing to point out - even if the original statement was vague.
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Monday, May 14, 2018 5:51:35 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 425
Neurons: 2,220
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
philips daughter wrote:
Like I said, there is no room to talk with Trump’s supporters.

I understand this is at least half of the country? d'oh!

Sorry, you have been misinformed.
Of the people who managed to have their votes counted, 46.1% voted for Trump. 48.1% voted for Clinton. I guess 5.8% voted for independent non-Republican, non-Democrats.

62,979,879 votes for Trump, 65,844,954 for Clinton.

Out of 325.7 million citizens in the USA, that means about 19.3% voted for Trump.

Edited to correct my maths (see below)



Alright, I was wrong with "half of the country" and "at least". The correct statement then is that it is 63 mil. people, versus about 66 mil who voted for Clinton.
Still, suggesting the 66 mil. shouldn't even talk to the other 63 mil? d'oh!
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Monday, May 14, 2018 3:34:55 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 29,422
Neurons: 169,482
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
Still, suggesting the 66 mil. shouldn't even talk to the other 63 mil? d'oh!

Oh no - not that they shouldn't talk.
It would be great if meaningful conversation could occur!

I was not agreeing with the "don't talk to them". However, I do agree with "They have no doubt they are right".
The trouble is that many of Trump's opponents also have no doubt that they are right.
Two people (or groups) who have closed minds (no doubts that they are right and no intention of listening to any disagreement) cannot have a meaningful conversation. It just doesn't work.



Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
FounDit
Posted: Monday, May 14, 2018 4:56:55 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,115
Neurons: 48,840
What about the other 197 million people in the country who also have opinions, but didn't vote for either Trump or Clinton? Some voted for Bernie, some for other candidates. That doesn't mean they don't have opinions, or that they don't support what they see happening in the country. We have to wonder about them, I think.

Regardless, the popular vote doesn't really matter. That's why we have the electoral college, to provide some weight to every state's voters, whatever their number.


A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Romany
Posted: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 10:08:41 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 14,141
Neurons: 43,706
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Kirril -

Is it my comments you're referring to? If so, you have misunderstood me.

Talking together and discussing things is the only way people will ever get to understand each other. That's what these forums are for.

But "talking" TO someone isn't helpful on its own. One also has to listen.And in order to "discuss" one has to consider what the other person is saying and move the discussion on with the new information and understanding in play.

Over the years, if a poster keeps bringing up the same points time after time, many people respond. They present facts which clearly contradict a particular premise. They spend hours and hours searching for proofs, for facts, for public information which demonstrate a flawed understanding by the poster, of certain key points.

But if the poster refuses to read these facts and proofs, and counters only with the same - disproved - misunderstandings from sources which are known to be partisan and which support the posters misinformation...THEN it is not worthwhile continuing the discussion: they have made up their minds and no proof or facts will ever move them from their position.

Life is too short and our time on earth is but the blink of an eyelid in the grand scheme of things.

To spend that time doing what one can to help, to engage, to get things done, to learn, to understand, are the most positive ways to make one's life meaningful. To keep on and on trying to present facts to people who don't really care and who won't listen to one, is a huge waste of one's limited time: it never accomplishes anything and causes stress and anxiety and negativity and frustration.

It's more useful to cut one's losses and get on with stuff you know is going to have a positive impact instead.

That was what I was saying. It's not a slur on Foundit - we discuss other things on other threads and agree on many. But Foundits politics are all-encompassing and provide the foundation behind his whole world-view.

So going over and over the same ground, knowing that all the words and research and ideas one provides will never be listened to or acknowledged or considered? That's just time-wasting and futile. Best not to keep on engaging - unless one likes to feel frustrated and hopeless and depressed.

FounDit
Posted: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 12:21:58 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,115
Neurons: 48,840
Romany,

There is a huge difference between questioning and refusing to listen. I do listen, but I also evaluate; and often, I present alternative views on a subject because I don’t simply accept what I’m told without question. I’ve done this my whole life, often being labeled as “rebellious”, “stubborn”, or “uncooperative”.

It seems I’ve spent my whole life asking “why?” When I was growing up, human behavior always fascinated me. In my youth, the rigidity of the political Right was in full sway, and when I questioned why things were done a certain way, the response of “because I said so”, or “because this is the way it is done” was never quite satisfying. Responding with "why?" both aggravated my parents and annoyed my teachers. The military wasn’t too fond of that attitude either, but it is my nature, and I don’t apologize for it.

Today, the rigidity of the political Left is in full sway. It didn’t begin with a glorious start. The attitude of “Tune in, turn on, and drop out”, “trust no one over 30”, and blowing one’s mind on drugs, didn’t seem to be an intelligent way to solve society’s problems. I was skeptical.

So when the movement advanced to being told that humans cause global warming, for example, that we were alternately going to either freeze to death or die of starvation, I questioned that. When I’m told I must accept a particular idea as the only way to see things, I question that, too.

Questioning the necessity of changing the language, or offering what I think might be a better way to make changes in society for women is simply that: questioning an approach. Yet, it is treated as if I had spit in someone’s face. But that seems to be the attitude today. No one is permitted to have an opinion that doesn’t harmonize with the orthodoxy of the political Left.

Eventually, I often settle on a final result I believe to be true, but I’m always open to new facts. But they must be facts, not simply opinion. That’s not to say I object to opinion. Quite the opposite. I enjoy debating and discussing ideas. That was what inspired me to join TFD in the first place, and I quite enjoyed the discussions with Epiphileon, LeonAzul, and all the others on many topics. But it seems that when it comes to politics, only one view was permitted. BTW, that reminds me (speaking of global warming), I saw several reports just yesterday that said the computer models may have been exaggerated, by as much as 45% (http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/05/14/global-warming-new-study-says-models-exaggerate-warming-by-up-to-45/). So the science isn’t “settled”, and I think I was right to question it. If you have some scientific evidence that this is wrong, feel free to present it.

You say you, and others, have often provided me with facts to dispute what I question. I challenge you to present those facts and prove what I have said to be false, on any subject; but I want facts, not opinion. Such facts should refute something I said was true, not simply my opinion. I look forward to reading those facts.

Until such time, I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t accuse me of things I haven’t done, such as refusing to listen to opposing views. I’ve been presented with them daily in the news for years, and just as often here, and have discussed them just as often. And again, questioning is vastly different than refusing to listen.


A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Hope123
Posted: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 8:17:46 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,946
Neurons: 45,769
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
No sense starting a new thread as I answer your digression, FD, even though it was Romany you told to feel free to present evidence re climate change being settled. Since it is your thread I guess you won't mind me answering on it here.

FD, I hope your January 2015 study is correct. Instead of 3.3 degrees the models show that it would ONLY be 2.2 degrees so maybe we still have a chance at and time for mitigation. But as you have pointed out to me before, it is only one study of many. It is also so simple that someone with a pocket calculator can make a prediction. I have seen many of the factors that need to be considered and calculations made. This sounds too good to be true. Nevertheless I reiterate that I hope they are correct. "MailOnline has contacted the IPCC for comment." They've had time to comment. Wonder what they said.

Even if that study is correct, "They should only be predicting 2.2°C,' said the researchers."

Read More About FD's Study

So exactly what differences in actual conditions can we hope for between 3.3 and 2.2 C? Will the effects be gone? Does that mean we should continue business as usual? No. There are already disturbing disturbances in the weather patterns. The study is already 3 years old.


Facts That Have Nothing to Do With Models that Prove it is Real and Anthropogenic.

1. The overall pattern of levels of CO2 has been gradually increasing over the years until the CO2 level is higher now than it has been in 800,000 years. And the level is rising FAST.

2. The earth's orbit NOW is NOT in the right phase to trigger excess CO2 and thus temperature raises from the sun as a reason are eliminated.

3. Air contains carbon atoms with different numbers of neutrons depending upon the age of the carbon being released, so the ratio of carbon atoms can determine if the source is ancient or not.

Coal and oil form from plants and algae that have been underground for millions of years and thus the substances are ancient. And they are mostly carbon. When burned, the carbon and oxygen unite forming CO2.

This carbon dioxide leaves a distinct chemical imprint or fingerprint and those measurements show ratios that it is indeed ancient CO2 mostly in the greenhouse gases.

WE ARE responsible as WE burn those fossil fuels. This is observational - and is NOT THEORY.


The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do. Anon
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 6:15:48 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 425
Neurons: 2,220
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
Romany wrote:
Kirril -

Is it my comments you're referring to?


No, I was just surprised at Philips Daughter' post (ten posts above or so). A quick remark. It's spread way beyond what it was worth, as some math arguments arose, etc. Sorry.
philips daughter
Posted: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 11:20:55 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/21/2017
Posts: 209
Neurons: 43,526
I will attempt a small apologeia but defending one’s self is often counterproductive. I don’t think any amount of facts will ever change FD. And I agree he can hate me. That is not my opinion but what he has said. He says he can hate because of my color, religion or politics. If I don’t agree with him it equals my being bad. If I am poor I deserve less protection. If I am sick I don’t deserve to live. I don’t think I’m bad. My existence isnt a crime. I ask that no one try to discuss with him because it allows him to continue his hate speech. He has no desire to progress in his thinking so he isn’t really discussing but using this forum to spread his hate speech. If I don’t make my point or if I don’t say it right I am sorry. I am not sorry for being alive.
maltliquor87
Posted: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 12:35:27 PM

Rank: Member

Joined: 11/29/2017
Posts: 74
Neurons: 46,068
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
I'm relatively new to this forum, so I may have missed something. I've so far seen many FounDit's messages in which he's answered questions about English grammar. He does not come across as hateful. If his willingness to help with English is anything to go by, he seems to be a nice person. Nor do his posts about politics that I've read constitute anything even remotely approaching hate speech.
BobShilling
Posted: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 3:21:33 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 290
Neurons: 2,284
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
maltliquor87 wrote:
I've so far seen many FounDit's messages in which he's answered questions about English grammar. He does not come across as hateful. If his willingness to help with English is anything to go by, he seems to be a nice person.


He is certainly knowledgeable about the language, willing to help, and able to provide very useful responses.


Quote:
Nor do his posts about politics that I've read constitute anything even remotely approaching hate speech.


I don't think anybody has suggested they do (though I have to admit that I don't read every word of every post in some of the longer threads).
maltliquor87
Posted: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 3:42:09 PM

Rank: Member

Joined: 11/29/2017
Posts: 74
Neurons: 46,068
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
philips daughter's words above can be construed as implying that we have elements of hate speech right in this thread. She wrote earlier that "there's no room to talk with Trump's supporters". And today she wrote "I ask that no one try to discuss with him because it allows him to continue his hate speech." Of course, these words leave some wiggle room and can mean "he hasn't yet said anything hateful in the current discussion, but he might have continued and may continue the hate speech he spread in some unspecified earlier posts". I believe that neither attitude towards FD's posts is justified.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.