Climate change as a tool of tyranny

[Ebionite]

Correct me if I'm mistaken but what I got was that when he considered the possibility of rising land masses he deemed that it is "just ridiculous. Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that.

What he found ridiculous was an implications arising from the IPCC position that sea level rise could be accurately measured from tide gauges located in an area where land subsidence was known to exist.

Are we saying that tide gage measurements taken where there is a "proximity to geologic fault zone"?

If there's crustal displacement up or down then that introduces error for tide gauges.

 

[Ebionite]

That's incorrect.

It's correct because the greatest good depends on a value system, and the value system of humanism is conditional on UN policy.

 

[Ebionite]

False, humanism values all humans, and advocates for the welfare and health of all humans regardless of status.

It's true became humanism isn't a universal condition. Cicero made that cleat from the outset.

 

[F1fan]

It's true became humanism isn't a universal condition.

Humanism is an ethical/social/philosophical attitude, not a condition.

You seem to have some sort of prejudice against what humansim stands for, assuming you understand it at all.

Humanism​

Stance​

​

Description​

Humanism is a philosophical stance that emphasizes the individual and social potential, and agency of human beings, whom it considers the starting point for serious moral and philosophical inquiry. Wikipedia​

Cicero made that cleat from the outset.

Your debate opponents have made it clear that this is irrelevant.

 

[Ebionite]

Humanism is an ethical/social/philosophical attitude, not a condition.

It's a condition because it's based on error. The error is prejudice against those who do not hold to the values of Rome, as illustrated by Cicero.

 

[F1fan]

It's a condition because it's based on error. The error is prejudice against those who do not hold to the values of Rome, as illustrated by Cicero.

Incoherent. Can you explain clearly how humanism is based on an actual error?

 

[Ebionite]

Incoherent. Can you explain clearly how humanism is based on an actual error?

The actual error was expressed by Cicero as the idea that those outside of "civilized" Rome were subhuman, i.e. of lower status than the humans of Rome. It was an error because the barbarity of of the Roman empire was comparable to anything the "barabarians" who fought against Rome committed.

Also from a religious perspective the Roman pantheon and church was deficient in the currency of truth when compared to competing religions like Judaism and Islam. This claim is borne out by the canonical texts of the Roman church, which can be interpreted in favour of the Torah and the Quran when approached in terms of the issue of religious prejudice.

 

[F1fan]

The actual error was expressed by Cicero as the idea that those outside of "civilized" Rome were subhuman, i.e. of lower status than the humans of Rome. It was an error because the barbarity of of the Roman empire was comparable to anything the "barabarians" who fought against Rome committed.

None of this is relevant to humanism in the 21st century. You keep mentioning this citation as if humanists follow Cicero. They don't. The error is you continuing to bring this up, and not addressing the real substance of humanism.

Also from a religious perspective the Roman pantheon and church was deficient in the currency of truth when compared to competing religions like Judaism and Islam. This claim is borne out by the canonical texts of the Roman church, which can be interpreted in favour of the Torah and the Quran when approached in terms of the issue of religious prejudice.

More irrelevant references. None of this is relevant to what humanists value. You seem lost in your own set of definitions and assumptions that are incorrect.

 

[Ebionite]

None of this is relevant to humanism in the 21st century.

It's relevant because humanism was adopted by the Roman church and an re-expressed as part of its universal religion. The union of the Roman church and state implies that this idea became incorporated as part of the civil system of Rome. Modern humanism draws from this as the Christian idea that human affairs are distinguished from the divine and the Roman idea that the civilized are distinguished from the barbaric.

 

[F1fan]

It's relevant because humanism was adopted by the Roman church and an re-expressed as part of its universal religion. The union of the Roman church and state implies that this idea became incorporated as part of the civil system of Rome. Modern humanism draws from this as the Christian idea that human affairs are distinguished from the divine and the Roman idea that the civilized are distinguished from the barbaric.

Humanists aren't the Catholic Church. If you have a gripe with them, then focus on them. Humansists are something altogether different than what you are addressing.

 

[Ebionite]

Humanists aren't the Catholic Church.

So what? The point is that the error of humanism is relevant to today's world.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So what? The point is that the error of humanism is relevant to today's world.

And you have yet to show an error in humanism.

 

[F1fan]

So what? The point is that the error of humanism is relevant to today's world.

It's a point you claim is true, but can't back up with evidence and a coherent explanation. None of what you go on about has any relevancy to how humanists think.

 

[Ebionite]

It's a point you claim is true, but can't back up with evidence and a coherent explanation.

Any relevant rational argument is a form of evidence.
In what way do you think that my #407 was incoherent?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Any relevant rational argument is a form of evidence.
In what way do you think that my #407 was incoherent?

Easy, it was largely an equivocation fallacy where you assumed that the humanism of ancient Rome was the same as the humanism of today.

 

[Pete in Panama]

What he found ridiculous was an implications arising from the IPCC position that sea level rise could be accurately measured from tide gauges located in an area where land subsidence was known to exist.

If there's crustal displacement up or down then that introduces error for tide gauges.

My thinking is that any discussion of whether ice caps are melting and filling the oceans should require accurate ocean volume measurements. Sure it's a lot of work but hey, sometimes science is a lot of work and short cuts is just too sloppy to be believable.

 

[Ebionite]

My thinking is that any discussion of whether ice caps are melting and filling the oceans should require accurate ocean volume measurements. Sure it's a lot of work but hey, sometimes science is a lot of work and short cuts is just too sloppy to be believable.

The question then becomes: who pays for this work?

 

[Subduction Zone]

My thinking is that any discussion of whether ice caps are melting and filling the oceans should require accurate ocean volume measurements. Sure it's a lot of work but hey, sometimes science is a lot of work and short cuts is just too sloppy to be believable.

No, you are just looking for excuses. By doing very accurate surveyor work it can be determined if an area is undergoing uplift or subsidence. There is no need to run a super accurate measurement of the volume of the oceans. We know from the past that melting and freezing icecaps have changed sea level. If you want to claim that melting ice would not change sea levels the burden of proof would be upon you.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The error is prejudice against those who do not hold to the values of Rome, as illustrated by Cicero. The actual error was expressed by Cicero as the idea that those outside of "civilized" Rome were subhuman, i.e. of lower status than the humans of Rome. It's relevant because humanism was adopted by the Roman church.

It looks like your problem is with Cicero and Catholicism. You don't know what humanism is or what humanists believe and advocate. It's not that non-Romans are subhuman. That could be called subhumanism.

My thinking is that any discussion of whether ice caps are melting and filling the oceans should require accurate ocean volume measurements.

Then you should make them, because others won't and don't need to. You're playing a favorite game among creationists attempting to both repudiate science while giving the impression that evidence is critical to them before believing, and then rejecting what is offered. That's fine. I understand the game, but am not interested in playing. I'm perfectly content with you being a creationist as are you.

 

[Ebionite]

It looks like your problem is with Cicero and Catholicism.

Things are not always as they seem. Perhaps you are simply unwilling to accept the historical baggage that comes with identifying as a humanist?

You don't know what humanism is or what humanists believe and advocate. It's not that non-Romans are subhuman. That could be called subhumanism.

Classic projection. Humanism is defined by the forces which brought it into being and those that shaped it's development over time. Cicero and the Roman church were undeniably a part of that, and they identified with Rome, not outsiders, so your position is untenable.