"Wind is God’s way of balancing heat. Wind is the way you shift heat from areas where it’s hotter to areas where it’s cooler. That’s what wind is. Wouldn’t it be ironic if in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to wind energy, which is a finite resource, which slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up? Now, I’m not saying that’s going to happen, Mr. Chairman, but that is definitely something on the massive scale. I mean, it does make some sense. You stop something, you can’t transfer that heat, and the heat goes up. It’s just something to think about." - Wiki.
Originally posted by NephthysThat's... that is just, so... This man was elected?
"Wind is God’s way of balancing heat. Wind is the way you shift heat from areas where it’s hotter to areas where it’s cooler. That’s what wind is. Wouldn’t it be ironic if in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to wind energy, which is a finite resource, which slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up? Now, I’m not saying that’s going to happen, Mr. Chairman, but that is definitely something on the massive scale. I mean, it does make some sense. You stop something, you can’t transfer that heat, and the heat goes up. It’s just something to think about." - Wiki.
Beefy, you're not from Texas' 6th district are you? Did you vote for him?
Dave
I've seen the list, but yet to review the sources. Yet the other 10-20 say 200k to 3 million. So....Quite the jump don't you think?
So clarify that for me, and I'll take look at the rest later. While you're at it, what are these other sources?
edit:
YouTube video
And do your 10-20 sources consider the Crusades the only religious conflict or cause of grievance in the history of the entire world?
The point is, if you're claiming the 60-80 million figure for religious violence, it's on you to prove it.
And these sources are books on the Crusades. IF you want me to list them I will.
Beefy, you're not from Texas' 6th district are you? Did you vote for him?
Dave
No, why would they when we're strictly discussing the Crusades and my sources are only about the Crusades?
top of page 1931
[quote]Lucien
Beefy, if you had to estimate, how many people do you think were killed throughout history at the behest of religious violence?
Tempest
Like 2 or 3, tops.
Dave
Completely agree. I think the 60-80 million mark is only set by Wikipedia but I've seen 10-15 sources that range anywhere from 200k to 3 million, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say 3 million. Hardly comparable to the atrocities by Stalin, Mao, or Pot.
Dave
I'd also like to point out that all the deaths committed in the name of "God', throughout history (if we're to take 3 million as the high point), still pales in comparison to the Holocaust. JUUUUUST saying.
Dave[/quote]
I meant to edit but too late. Three million for the Middle Ages, which is what we were discussing. Although I can't imagine it being more than a million or two more before that time period because of population shortages.
Eminence
That depends on your methods of and criteria for attribution of blame, which are obviously wildly different from mine. But literally the first entry on Wikipedia's list (links are bad) of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll is the long campaign of Muslim conquest in South Asia and the Indian subcontinent. Casualty estimates for that alone are—get this—60 to 80 million.
The page I linked you to on Wikipedia seems to have very recently been edited by a persistent, mysterious stranger to remove the pertinent entry, thereby dramatically eroding my faith in unsecured pages. I'll look into the particulars later this month, I have some scholarly books of my own coming back that have relevant stuff. To quickly sum up the rest:
1) Concerning atheism vs religion and intelligence: it's been pretty thoroughly studied, and there are strong correlations between IQ or education and irreligious inclinations. I'll poke around for the abstract of a solid meta-analysis I read a couple years ago. Shouldn't be that surprising of a result given all of the variables involved, several of which have been invoked or alluded to during this debate.
edit: This might serve in the meanwhile. The paper referenced isn't what I was thinking of, but it seems solid.
edit2: The paper itself.
edit3: goddamn links. Here. Just click on the first result under "Scholarly articles," literally the first link on the page.
edit4: le sigh. I'll have to figure out what this problem is. Just Google "The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations." Again, first result.
2) For my purposes, arguing when you don't actually care about the process of changing the other person's opinion has generally always turned out badly, or at least failed to accomplish anything remotely productive. If I'm in control of my faculties and going to devote critical thought and analysis to any sort of debate, I'm going to be dissecting the best argument/position presented to me to evaluate it for its merits relative to my own; if I find the case made is flawed, I make that clear.
Responding to what you believe to be a dumb argument with a position that is probably only slightly differently dumb—hard to say because the parameters are all so muddled—is neither an expedient way to bring a conflict to resolution nor likely to see you or the offending party actually learn anything useful. Anyone willing to make the blanket association you're attacking has ignored some very obvious and illuminating flaws in the argument. If you point those out and get the feeling that this individual's apparent ignorance is actually obduracy, then you're dealing with someone with an agenda, and, having done your part in making a measured argument, should just disengage instead of succumbing to belligerence. Unless you're trolling, I guess.
Originally posted by Eminence
Because we weren't strictly discussing the Crusades
The page I linked you to on Wikipedia seems to have very recently been edited by a persistent, mysterious stranger to remove the pertinent entry, thereby dramatically eroding my faith in unsecured pages. I'll look into the particulars later this month, I have some scholarly books of my own coming back that have relevant stuff. To quickly sum up the rest:
1) Concerning atheism vs religion and intelligence: it's been pretty thoroughly studied, and there are strong correlations between IQ or education and irreligious inclinations. I'll poke around for the abstract of a solid meta-analysis I read a couple years ago. Shouldn't be that surprising of a result given all of the variables involved, several of which have been invoked or alluded to during this debate.
2) For my purposes, arguing when you don't actually care about the process of changing the other person's opinion has generally always turned out badly, or at least failed to accomplish anything remotely productive. If I'm in control of my faculties and going to devote critical thought and analysis to any sort of debate, I'm going to be dissecting the best argument/position presented to me to evaluate it for its merits relative to my own; if I find the case made is flawed, I make that clear.
Responding to what you believe to be a dumb argument with a position that is probably only slightly differently dumb—hard to say because the parameters are all so muddled—is neither an expedient way to bring a conflict to resolution nor likely to see you or the offending party actually learn anything useful. Anyone willing to make the blanket association you're attacking has ignored some very obvious and illuminating flaws in the argument. If you point those out and get the feeling that this individual's apparent ignorance is actually obduracy, then you're dealing with someone with an agenda, and, having done your part in making a measured argument, should just disengage instead of succumbing to belligerence. Unless you're trolling, I guess. [/B]
Edit: The link to the paper itself says document has been removed.