Bunny Trails

When it just doesn't fit anywhere else.
lesterb
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:41 pm
Location: Alberta
Affiliation: Western Fellowship
Contact:

Re: Bunny Trails

Post by lesterb »

appleman2006 wrote:Keeping in mind Lester that even in our country with very strict gun laws it is not that hard for a person to get a gun if he wants one for illegal means. It happens every day I suspect. Remember Montreal just the other month.
I know that's true. But something just doesn't ring right about the reasoning that people use. I have a hard time understanding the way Americans worship the right to own guns. :-|
0 x
appleman2006
Posts: 2455
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 1:50 pm
Affiliation: Midwest Mennonite

Re: Bunny Trails

Post by appleman2006 »

lesterb wrote:
appleman2006 wrote:Keeping in mind Lester that even in our country with very strict gun laws it is not that hard for a person to get a gun if he wants one for illegal means. It happens every day I suspect. Remember Montreal just the other month.
I know that's true. But something just doesn't ring right about the reasoning that people use. I have a hard time understanding the way Americans worship the right to own guns. :-|
I understand. I just think we have to be careful that we do not blame legal gun owners for the criminal acts of those that obviously misuse guns. . Not saying that you are doing that but some may understand it that way.

This is coming from a guy that does not get guns at all. That does not own a gun. That could not shoot a gun straight if his life depended on it (let's say a rabid dog was headed my direction). But just as some people myself included have a great fascination of trains that are almost a thing of the past but were very useful back in the day so I guess some people might view other tools that were a necessity for life in days gone by such as guns.
0 x
User avatar
Robert
Site Janitor
Posts: 8522
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 4:16 pm
Affiliation: Anabaptist

Re: Bunny Trails

Post by Robert »

lesterb wrote:I know that's true. But something just doesn't ring right about the reasoning that people use. I have a hard time understanding the way Americans worship the right to own guns. :-|
The reason why it is in the constitution was the framers did not trust government. They wanted to keep the power with the people. Innocent until proven guilty means you can not stop thoughts, only punish actions. Down side, but the up side is I can not get arrested for the thoughts I just had about my middle boy who started a fire right outside the house earlier. If it was not raining and my daughter did not come by, the house could have burned.

Now I have to punish the actions of him, but my thoughts did not put me in jail before I could calm down and deal with this appropriately.

Many more would get arrested if we were arrested for our thoughts instead of our actions.
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are not after you.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23827
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Bunny Trails

Post by Josh »

lesterb wrote:
appleman2006 wrote:Keeping in mind Lester that even in our country with very strict gun laws it is not that hard for a person to get a gun if he wants one for illegal means. It happens every day I suspect. Remember Montreal just the other month.
I know that's true. But something just doesn't ring right about the reasoning that people use. I have a hard time understanding the way Americans worship the right to own guns. :-|
U.S. states with very strict gun laws are no safer than ones with loose laws. So there is really no political reason to oppose gun ownership, other than to try to consolidate power with the government and away from the people.

As a kingdom Christian of course I don't participate in this since I wouldn't use a gun in armed defence or offence.
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Bunny Trails

Post by Bootstrap »

Robert wrote:
Bootstrap wrote:I'm tempted to say that we need a thread where only people who have passed a basic comprehension test can participate.
Calling others stupid is right at the edge too. Just saying. :)
I suspect that most of us can't read and comprehend scientific papers on this subject. That's what I meant by the comprehension test - many intelligent people can't read scientific papers. But it's hard to have that conversation without that ability.

You are claiming to more than the scientific community. I don't think you do. Most people don't. That doesn't make you stupid, but it doesn't make you a scientist either. And it doesn't mean you know more that the scientific community. If you know as much as you claim, please be prepared to give scientific evidence for your views. No scientist would expect anyone to believe what they say just because they say it.

Many people don't know the difference between local temperature variation and global climate change, but you were responding to a post in which I tried to explain it, and I'm not at all sure that you took the time to grasp the distinction I was making. Or if I was not clear, you did not ask questions to try to understand the difference. I have no idea if you understood what I was saying or not.

Or maybe this is all just too hard for a forum that isn't about these things, with a group of people with no particular expertise in the subject matter.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
Robert
Site Janitor
Posts: 8522
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 4:16 pm
Affiliation: Anabaptist

Re: Bunny Trails

Post by Robert »

Bootstrap wrote:I suspect that most of us can't read and comprehend scientific papers on this subject. That's what I meant by the comprehension test - many intelligent people can't read scientific papers. But it's hard to have that conversation without that ability.
Thank you for clarifying that. Your statement was very ambiguous and easily read into.
Bootstrap wrote:You are claiming to more than the scientific community.
I have said this before, and will say it again. Please pay attention. it seems you miss many things I do say.

I am not a scientist nor are you, but I find things that bring established concepts into question. I enjoy that. I like to read about it and when I find something that brings doubt to the established concept of human caused global change, I like to present it. Asking questions is a good and healthy thing. Challenging the status quo is healthy too. I am sorry you do not like that I do this, but I have a right to speak my mind and share my opinions. If I am wrong, it will not be the first time, nor the last. I learn more from pressing the boundaries of accepted concepts. I am not making policy, nor is anyone on this forum, even you. It is okay for us to be whimsical and explore the fringes. If you do not like it, feel free to ignore those threads. You are not required to read or post in them.
Bootstrap wrote:Many people don't know the difference between local temperature variation and global climate change, but you were responding to a post in which I tried to explain it, and I'm not at all sure that you took the time to grasp the distinction I was making.
Yes, I did. I also do not think you are correct in it. I stated my opinion. Feel free to critic it. You never tried that. You just stated I needed a comprehension test. That was actually demeaning.
Bootstrap wrote:Or maybe this is all just too hard for a forum that isn't about these things, with a group of people with no particular expertise in the subject matter.
Exactly. This just a place for people to share their opinions. Feel free to share yours. I will continue to ask questions of the established concepts. I will continue to doubt. I am not trying to convince to believe my way. I am just sharing what I find as questionable. Feel free to refute it. Just know when you do, I will continue to question things. I spend hours a day learning about this and many other concepts. Most is boring, but some makes me say, "Hey. That doesn't fit the established concept." I have not even gotten started on human origins! Now that I can really dig my teeth into. 8-)

PS - I really enjoy your input in many things. I don't mind you challenging me on climate change either. I don't take it personally ... most the time. :hug:
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are not after you.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Bunny Trails

Post by Bootstrap »

Robert wrote:I am not a scientist nor are you, but I find things that bring established concepts into question. I enjoy that. I like to read about it and when I find something that brings doubt to the established concept of human caused global change, I like to present it. Asking questions is a good and healthy thing. Challenging the status quo is healthy too.
OK. My opinion is that the oceans are going to turn to chocolate syrup in the next 20 years. And I'd like to see anyone try to refute that theory. I bet I could make it hard on anyone who tries. And I think a lot of our discussions are on that level.

You can't really question established concepts until you can summarize what those established concepts are. You don't think scientists are right about the fingerprints of global warming. Do you know what they say those fingerprints are, and why? I haven't seen evidence that you do. You're a smart guy, but I have never seen you take the time to summarize the global warming theories that you are disproving. And I don't see you giving a lot of evidence for your conclusions.
Robert wrote:Yes, I did. I also do not think you are correct in it. I stated my opinion. Feel free to critic it. You never tried that. You just stated I needed a comprehension test. That was actually demeaning.
Your response seemed to ignore the distinction as though I had said nothing, repeating what you had said in the earlier post as though there were no difference between local weather and global climate change.
Robert wrote:
Bootstrap wrote:Or maybe this is all just too hard for a forum that isn't about these things, with a group of people with no particular expertise in the subject matter.
Exactly. This just a place for people to share their opinions. Feel free to share yours.
I'm sticking with the chocolate syrup hypothesis.
Robert wrote:PS - I really enjoy your input in many things. I don't mind you challenging me on climate change either. I don't take it personally ... most the time. :hug:
I enjoy your opinions most of the time too.

But on the climate change issue in particular, I would like to be able to ask for the evidence for your opinions, and the extent to which you think you know something or are just throwing something out as a possibility. To me, stating something strongly as established fact is more than just "offering opinions". And claiming that scientists don't know is really claiming that you know more than they do.

Or maybe I've just lived in the research world too long. To me, truth is important, and evidence for opinions is important.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
PeterG
Posts: 894
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 4:52 pm
Location: Central PA
Affiliation: Conserv. Mennonite

Re: Bunny Trails

Post by PeterG »

Wayne in Maine wrote:I doubt there's anybody on MennoNet qualified then to discuss this topic.
[snip]
Maybe we should not be afraid of common sense while realizing at the same time that the real "global climate change" debate has little to do with science and more to do with wealth transfer, politics, economics and religion.
I think this is exactly right, along with much else that's been said along the same lines. I only wish that more people would recognize that the underlined part applies to them as much as it applies to those who take an opposing view on the issue. If you can forgive the Al Gore allusion, the truth about climate change—whatever it turns out to be—will be extremely inconvenient for an awful lot of people. Non-scientists, in particular, shouldn't be so sure that they won't be among the inconvenienced.
0 x
"It is a weird" —Ken
User avatar
Robert
Site Janitor
Posts: 8522
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 4:16 pm
Affiliation: Anabaptist

Re: Bunny Trails

Post by Robert »

Bootstrap wrote:My opinion is that the oceans are going to turn to chocolate syrup in the next 20 years. And I'd like to see anyone try to refute that theory.
If it does, I will be bringing pancakes!!

I doubt it will. There is not enough cocoa to make it chocolate. It would more likely be regional for the chocolate syrup. also think it will take longer than 20 years, because as ambient temperature goes up, syrup thins.

See, we can both have out opinions. It really doesn't affect me if you believe that. It does bring light to your fanatic belief in human cased climate change though. :P
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are not after you.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Bunny Trails

Post by Bootstrap »

Robert wrote:
Bootstrap wrote:My opinion is that the oceans are going to turn to chocolate syrup in the next 20 years. And I'd like to see anyone try to refute that theory.
If it does, I will be bringing pancakes!!

I doubt it will. There is not enough cocoa to make it chocolate. It would more likely be regional for the chocolate syrup. also think it will take longer than 20 years, because as ambient temperature goes up, syrup thins.
At one point, there was 20x as much cocoa as today, and we are rapidly approaching those levels again. Paleoclimatologists have found that the "tar" in the La Brea Tar Pits is actually fossilized chocolate syrup. Recently, it was discovered that several "dinosaurs" were actually models constructed of fossilized maraschino cherries and toothpicks.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Post Reply