Is The World Getting Better Or Worse?

True, it is the current lawless situation that's creating this crisis and many others which endanger not only our country but also the world.That is why we need to impeach and remove the Crook-in-Chief and then to prosecute him for his many crimes and his cronies for theirs.

Non sequitur. Why are you trying to change the subject? Evasive much?Plants are not responsible for carbon emissions, but rather can serve to reverse that process. Deforestation does not increase carbon emissions, outside of the smoke from burning down the forests. Reforestation will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions, but rather would help to reduce the effects of carbon emissions (albeit not enough).Think of the earth as a ship at sea. Think of the carbon emissions as a hole in the hull. Thinking of the increasing carbon levels as the amount of water rushing in through that hole threatening to sink the ship and drown us all.Now think of plants, your "greenery", as pumps working to pump that water out of the ship, trying to keep us afloat and alive. They're keeping us afloat longer and could counter small leaks effectively, but they're no match for that gaping hole in the hull, a hole that keeps getting ever bigger.Now think of deforestation as the act of not only shutting down those pumps, but also tearing them out and dumping them overboard. Suicide, basically.Finally, think of reforestation as reinstalling pumps and working to get them back on-line and pumping again. Not only will those new pumps not be enough to save the ship, but there's also all that extra water they have to deal with that had rushed in in the meantime.Now are you beginning to understand?

There was a single-frame cartoon (From the New Yorker? The artwork had that general feel) that comes to mind. The remnants of humanity are huddled around a fire in a cave listening to the stories of "Earth that was" being told by a surviving capitalist (identified by the raggedy remnants of a suit) who told the next generation: "Then even though it destroyed the environment and humanity, for three glorious quarters straight we were able to give our investors half a percent higher profits."Let's face it, Faith. You're a creationist. You hate science. For you, it's an article of faith.

Which is one reason why almost every atheist has a different perspective. Different forms and extents of religious indoctrination in our youth. Different experiences leading us to start to question our indoctrination. Different responses to our questionings and our own different responses to those responses of others. Plus the influence of the experiences and thoughts of other atheists. I believe that the form of each of our individual atheisms are shaped or at least strongly influenced by those factors.What theists think of atheism is largely a mystery. For one thing, it far too often proves nearly impossible to discuss theists' ideas about atheism with theists. They have their own beliefs about atheism, most of them false, but which seems to be very important to them -- eg, how could anyone who had accepted Christ in his heart ever become an atheist (eg, Dan Barker) and because that violates the belief that theist was taught that that would be impossible therefore that atheist never was a "true Christian" to begin with, etc, etc, etc, in a frantic effort to define that negative evidence against the theist's beliefs away.For literally decades I've been trying to engage creationists in discussion. All they ever want to do is attack, attack, attack, and convert me. How could anyone ever have a discussion with such people?Example: The arguments over the evolution of the eye. The main creationist arguments against that is that you need to have every piece in place being functional every step of the way. The classic creationist model is to take a modern mammalian eye and take a razor blade to it cutting pieces away thus rendering that eye inoperative. What good is an eye without a retina (the part that most commonly is first to get excised)? Without a lens? Etc. The argument boils down to the extreme improbability of each of those essential parts of the eye all evolving independently and just happening to come together in the end with something that's actually useful.Of course, that is not at all how the eye would have evolved. In The Blind Watchmaker Richard Dawkins followed the exact same line of reasoning that Charles Darwin himself had followed in On The Origin of Species regarding the evolution of complex organs. Start with a photo-sensitive cell with a single nerve attached to it, which would confer some benefit. Expand that patch of photo-sensitive cells along with neural support and that would confer more benefit. Form a pit for those photo-sensitive cells and you can get directional information. And so on and so on (go read the sources; I'm not going to transcribe everything here) with the nascent eye being functional every step of the way. IOW, the creationist model of the evolution of the eye is nonsense so of course it fails, whereas the evolutionary model not only makes sense but also is able to succeed. The creationists require that the model must fail, so they ensure that it does by presenting a nonsensical model.A co-worker (before I retired) mentioned that the probability of the eye evolving was extremely small, so I tried to discuss it with him. At first I tried to determine whether he was using the razor-blade model, but I couldn't even get that far. At every step of the way, he kept trying to turn the discussion into an argument. I finally had to give up.Just to make my definitions clear. A discussion is an exchange of ideas, an opportunity to share ideas so that both sides can understand each other better. An argument is an attempt to convince the other side. They are not interested in discussion, but only in argument.Edited by dwise1, : Question mark added where needed

That position is what I would call agnosticism. There is a proposed dichotomy between the natural and the supernatural. The natural we can detect and observe and learn things about. But the supernatural we cannot detect nor observe nor learn anything about, except for what some religious "authorities" say has been "revealed" to them. So then basically anybody can make whatever supernatural claim they'd want to make and nobody can refute that. And that does not matter how many supernaturalists may agree or disagree with them. We quite simply cannot know about such things. Period. My following of Doonesbury has been interrupted several times. When Mike Doonesbury had a young daughter, he sent her to church. When she protested, he informed her that her duty was to "to do her pew time".In the same spirit during my time of Boy Scouts of America having cast me out for being an atheist (the fucking religious bigots sabotaging Scouting!) while I continued to run our Cub Scout and Webelos programs with great success (BSA claimed that my mere presence would have a devastatingly disruptive effect, whereas until my leadership our unit prospered, according to one of our Den Leaders). For that matter, until I arrived we didn't even have a Webelos program and I ran it all on my own.One of my policies in running our public school-sponsored pack was to promote BSA's Religious Medals program. The actual programs were run by the religious denominations, not by BSA. As an atheist, I believe strongly that every theist should know and understand the basis of their beliefs. Sadly, far too few do. I went the same route only to find that there's nothing unique to Christianity.My experience counters yours. You have nothing. Yes. And we have gone through the mathematics of such probabilities, though you have very selectively and extremely arbitrarily chosen to ignore all the inconvenient mathematics and facts that demonstrate your position to be complete and utter bollocks. They exist, yes. They were "designed"? SHOW US!You want to claim that they were "designed"? OK, the onus is on you to show us that that is the case.At the very least, at least make some kind of attempt to support your "point". Oh! You cannot even begin to support your "point" and are completely unwilling to even begin to attempt to do so? OK, we know exactly what kind of crap you are trying to pull here. BULLSHIT! SHOW US!!!Of course, you cannot. You never can. So why should anyone ever believe anything you ever say?

Faith's source is committing one of the most basic forms of quote-mining: quoting out of context. Whether that was done on purpose or out of simple ignrance is not clear.The context here is historical context, more specifically the question of what "bigot" meant at the time. The meanings of words as well as all the ways in which they are used change over time through usage. Because of that, reading past writings without bearing in mind how those words were used can lead to misinterpretation."Bigot" is a French word meaning "religionist", which is a fervent adherent to a particular religion, a religious zealot. The French word "fanatique" has similar meaning. It's only been in more recent times (over several decades) that both words have been expanded in their usage.Therefore with the original French meaning in mind, I see Washington as saying that he is not a religious zealot and, having no fervent adherence on one particular form of religion (very much unlike our Faith), has no objection to the various forms of Christianity. If anything, he was expressing his neutrality regarding Christianity, which could not be misinterpreted as opposition to Christianity. Except by a fanatique religionist like Faith who apparently applies the Gospel teaching, "If you are not for me, then you are against me", and who is adamant in redefining Christianity so as to exclude the majority of Christians as being either non-Christians or anti-Christian (and there are plenty more like her, which makes that situation even sadder).

What I've read about Martin Luther's view of Jews is that he was at first tolerant of them and sympathetic towards them, but then when it became clear to him that he had no chance of converting them to Christianity (not to any form of Christianity, but much more painfully for him not to his form) he then became virulently anti-Semitic.In our travels in Germany, we visited Bacharach, a beautiful German town on the Rhein that I would recommend to everybody -- yes, that is the same as Burt Bacharach's name, but it's actually pronounced very differently such that on the train when I saw it and heard the voice say it there was a momentary disconnect. Wandering along the streets and alleys of Bacharach was the very first time I had ever encountered Stolpersteine, "stumbling stones", cobblestone replacements which document what Jewish family had lived here, when they were arrested, and when and where they either died or were murdered. Some homes had that kind of history painted into their faades. In other municipalities, I saw memorials to local concentration camps. All of that spoke to me of attempts to atone for past sins, of accepting responsibility.The reason I brought up Bacharach is because of what happened in 1287 in which the disappearance of a 16-year-old Werner led to accusations against the Jewish community of having killed him to obtain blood for their Passover observances. Those accusations led to a vicious pogram that wiped out Jewish communities in the Middle and Lower Rhine and Moselle regions. In folk Christianity arose the cult of Werner, which was only stricken from the Bishopric of Trier calendar in 1963. When I transferred from community college to California State College, Fullerton (later elevated to a California State University before my graduation) one of my first classes was in Rabbinic Literature, a class which was taught by one Rabbi Kalir. He mentioned that tradition of Christian blood libel and that it's the reason for the tradition of opening the door during the Passover Seder for the Prophet Elijah (for whom an empty setting is always set). So that every Jewish family can freely show the Gentiles exactly what they are doing.

Which proves what we've been telling you all along, that you are depending on sources that are misleading and deceiving you. Your "well known right wing pundit" is either lyiing to you outright or else is simply just as ignrant as you are.Funding for both Social Security and Medicare Part A comes directly from very specific payroll taxes which are matched by employers. Those specific tax revenues go into special funds which can only be used to pay benefits. All excess money goes into special trust funds for paying benefits in the future; in the meantime trustees are expected to invest that money wisely, which means buying government bonds.None of that has anything at all to do with the deficit (with the sole exception being that what the government owes the trust funds for those bonds shows up on the books as debt, but that also has nothing whatsoever to do with actual spending).Please start learning how things actually work. You would be amazed at how many right-wing-pundit liies you will stop falling for. 
{ABE:
Instead of relying on your right-wing-pundit lyiers, go to the source: The Social Security Administration's FAQs at faq.ssa.gov.For example, What are the Social Security Trust Funds? (go to that page to use its links):

quote:

---

The Social Security Trust Funds include:

• The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund; and
• The Disability Insurance Trust Fund.

The Department of the Treasury manages these funds. The law requires us to invest trust fund assets we don’t need to pay current benefits and administrative expenses. We invest them in interest-bearing obligations of the United States. These special obligations, issued exclusively to the Trust Funds, must pay interest equal to the prevailing rate on outstanding federal securities.

​

See Social Security Trust Funds for more information.

---

The "more information" link takes you to a page listing a number of answers to frequently asked questions about the trust funds at https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html#a0=7. }Edited by dwise1, : modified sub-titleEdited by dwise1, : ABE

To add to jar's extremely reasonable request that you name the entitlements, please also add the following information about those entitlements:

1. Name the source of their funding; eg, from which government funds, from which taxes or other revenue sources.
   ​
2. List how much is allotted to them.
   ​
3. Tell us what percentage of total government expenditures goes to those entitlements.
   ​
4. Explain to us the effect that eliminating those entitlements would have on the deficit. Use specific numbers.
   

We are giving you the straight facts from our sources which includes the Social Security Administration, the people who actually work with SS for a living. You haven't even bothered to name your sources nor what their "sources" are supposed to be.

We're still waiting. Message 747
Message 748
Message 749
Message 750
Message 752
Yet again it turns out that you were just blowing smoke.Edited by dwise1, : Changed sub-topic title to explicitly name Faith

So in other words you have no idea what you are talking about!You should have some clue if you had done any of the research yourself, but you haven't. Instead, you depend on shysters telling you that they had done the research, but how could you know that what they are telling you is correct? FOR THAT MATTER, you hypocrite! You took us to task for "assuming" which entitlements you were talking about. But now it turns out that you yourself have absolutely no idea which entitlements you were talking about! HYPOCRITE! And if you had ever actually read the Gospels, you would know what Jesus thought of you hypocrites. I've been dealing with creationists since the late 1980's. I have seen that particular liie far too many times, so I know exactly what dishonest trick you are trying to pull. You are just trying to beat a hasty retreat covered by a smoke screen. In over three decades of dealing with creationists, not a single promise of further research has ever been honored. Every single such promise has been nothing but an outright and deliberate liie. As is your own that you just gave us. We all know all too well the deliberate liie that you are practicing here. 
In those over-three-decades of dealing with creationists online I have noticed some very definite patterns.For one thing, the absolutely worst thing you could do to a creationist would be to take his claims at face value and try to discuss them with him. Doing that would trigger very or extremely offensive behavior from that creationist. The basic reason was that none of those creationists had any clue what they were talking about, so they were completely unable to discuss their own claims which pushed them to use other disgusting means of avoiding discussion.Here's the situation, which should be very familiar for you regarding your parroting of right-wingnut talking points. Those creationists were well studied in what the creationist arguments said, but they had no understanding of how those arguments had been constructed nor any knowledge of the underlying science that supposedly supported those arguments. Because they had never thought any of those claims and arguments through, they were completely unprepared to discuss those claims and arguments. As a result, their only option was to kill the discussion by any means possible regardless of how vicious. My page of Encounters with Creationists describes it better as well as sharing the experience of others.That is why I took you to task for your misapplied reference to "normal thinking people" in an earlier message (tracking it down would be a waste of effort because of what you are). You are not a thinking person. You never think through anything that you parrot here. If you had thought any of it through, then you would be able to discuss or defend or even just support what you parrot. But you are completely incapable of doing so, which means that you have indeed not thought any of it through.Think about what you are being told. Question it. Verify it. At the very least, you would be better able to defend it. Ideally, you will see how they are deceiving you.

"legitimate" is a banned word? Well bugger me!The comparison is not between creationism and politics, but rather in the commonality of the practitioners. Whenever you have proponents for any possible position who know nothing more than what the pushers of that position have to say, then this same situation will arise. That is what I was describing, followers who know nothing more than what they had been told and have never thought any of it through and thus are incapable of discussing nor defending any of it.Not "different categories of thought", but rather the Same Old Situation (SOS, AKA "Same Old Shite"). No you won't. You never have and you never will. We already know your wicked ways far too well.Also, your handlers (the "people you trust") will never give you the details nor tell you the truth. For to do so would educate you and thus reduce their ability to deceive you. Such as WHAT???Have they presented any of that evidence to you? So then present it to us!Oh, they only tell you that they have all this evidence but they don't present it to you. Yeah, we've seen that before.True story. In the early 1980's, Charles Lang was a contract technical writer working with us on a military contract. He was the first young-earth creationist I had met. I talk about this in my 1990 essay for CompuServe, Why I Oppose Creation Science (or, How I got to Here from There) (my initial reasons for creating a web page was dual: 1) to learn HTML, and 2) to repost my uploads to CompuServe's Religion and Science Library).Charles Lang and I attended a "creation/evolution debate" together:

quote:

---

All that I was learning came in handy, because on 28 September 1985, both Henry Morris and Duane Gish came to Long Beach to debate Frank Awbrey and William Thwaites (frequent contributors to C/E who together taught a Two-Model class at San Diego State University in which half the lectures were given by the ICR -- it was in this class that Gish's false claims about the bombardier beetle were exposed). In all, it went almost exactly as I had come to expect from the debates reported in Creation/Evolution Newsletter.

---

The punch line is that as we were leaving the "debate", Charles was almost literally in shock. He kept mumbling, "We have mountains of evidence that would blow the evolutionists away. Why didn't they present it? We have mountains of evidence. ... " These were his idols, Gish and H. Morris, who basically just caved when confronted by two university professors (San Diego State University).The explanation of the punch line is that the creationists never had any such "mountains of evidence", but rather that was all just a massive liie they kept telling their followers.You are now in the same situation. You have been fed all kinds of liies by the Trumpist right wingnuts, none of which are true. If you had even a sixteenth of the awareness that Charles Lang had had, you would also be wander about in shock that the liies you had been fed all this time were indeed liies.BTW, an interesting bit of trivia: in the UK, "trump" means "fart". Oddly appropriate, don't you think?