OpinionAre there authentic magicians out there? I mean, true teleportation, levitation, telekinesis, etc.
      – BorgClown, 2009-10-01 at 03:40:53   (16 comments)

On 2009-10-01 at 03:42:51, BorgClown wrote...
What do you think? I find it really interesting how people can use their common sense to disqualify magic as fantasy and tricks, yet they keep believing in magical superbeings.
On 2009-10-01 at 17:57:30, DigitalBoss wrote...
Teleport this.
On 2009-10-01 at 20:16:00, BorgClown wrote...
. Done
On 2009-10-01 at 21:59:54, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Essentially magic cannot exist by definition - if it exists, it's not magic. Magnetism appears magical, but we don't call it magic because it's easily reproducible. By the same token, supernatural entities cannot exist - if they existed in nature then we'd call them natural, not supernatural. Of course plenty of people would argue that not being able to reproduce any evidence of something isn't proof against it, but that's just linguistic handwaving. If there's no firm evidence for something then why would you let yourself believe in it?
On 2009-10-02 at 00:13:31, DigitalBoss wrote...
Indoctrination.
On 2009-10-02 at 00:15:08, DigitalBoss wrote...
"If there's no firm evidence for something then why would you let yourself believe in it?" My argument against global warming. I could not have said it better myself. Thank you LeeJ.
On 2009-10-02 at 03:36:58, BorgClown wrote...
@DigitalBoss: What about the risk of global warming? In our solar system we have examples of nasty atmospheres caused by greenhouse gases, so it isn't a fantasy.
On 2009-10-02 at 09:08:00, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@DigitalBoss: Except that you don't have any arguments - you simply pretend that the science for climate change doesn't exist, or is a plot against you. You ought to be focusing on specific parts of the science and saying exactly what's wrong with them, but instead just dismiss the whole thing and continually repeat yourself.
On 2009-10-02 at 11:32:28, DigitalBoss wrote...
I repeat myself because you seem to not be listening. All I ask is that you prove it. Should not be hard for you smart young fellows. The whole thing needs to be dismissed, it is simply not true. We had periods of greenhouse effect on this planet millions of years ago, the carbon dioxide levels were in the 5% to 10% range, WAY above our 0.03% level now. I am sorry, I did not drink your leftist Koolaid.
On 2009-10-02 at 11:41:42, DigitalBoss wrote...
@LeeJ: I have pointed to specific parts of the science. Yes, humans have added about 0.01% to the carbon dioxide level of the atmosphere, I agree with you there. And, yes, there have been small fluctuations, up and down, in the average global temperatures, I agree with that. There is NOTHING that ties the two together. There is nothing that shows that the latter is caused by the former. If you know of it, show it to me. Even if there was a causal link, you can't even tell me if it would be beneficial to humans as a whole over the long run, or not. I certainly will not have my politicians creating more government, raising taxes, and causing higher energy costs because of it. Not if I have any say so.
On 2009-10-02 at 11:54:23, Lee J Haywood wrote...
That's not the case - I've already given a detailed response to your comments and you failed to identify a specific point that you disagree with. You simply dismiss the entire concept because it disagrees with your preconceptions. Once again you ask for 'proof' which I've already pointed out, several times, is a ridiculous notion. Millions of years ago the planet underwent dramatic climate change that re-wrote the species present on the planet and had a massive impact on sea-levels, changing the face of the planet. Humans weren't around, and our ancestors were few in number. Now even apparently small changes will affect millions. And small changes are rapidly amplified as we quickly and unexpectedly reach tipping points - it's no good waiting to see if we're affecting the environment, because by the time we see that change has taken effect it will be too late to reverse it. And I'm not 'leftist' - acceptance of climate change has absolutely nothing to do with politics.
On 2009-10-02 at 11:58:19, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Saying that CO₂ makes up a small part of the atmosphere and the increased amount also makes up a small part is silly - we know this. The increase to the whole atmosphere may well be small, but the increase to CO₂ itself is significant. CO₂ is transparent to visible light so it is difficult to appreciate its importance in the infrared, yet ignoring the fact that we have over 1% more CO₂ in the atmosphere is just ridiculous. If you insist on saying it's 'only' an 0.01% increase then your opinions are truly worthless.
On 2009-10-02 at 13:16:32, DigitalBoss wrote...
You still have not proven that an increase from 0.02% to 0.03% has made any climate change. You are making nothing but ad hominem comments now. It is true, whether you want to admit it, that a 30% increase in nothing, is still nothing.
On 2009-10-02 at 13:18:44, DigitalBoss wrote...
"acceptance of climate change has absolutely nothing to do with politics." It does when your politicians are trying to take advantage of it to increase the size of government and raise taxes and the cost of energy.
On 2009-10-02 at 13:21:12, DigitalBoss wrote...
You have spewed all kinds of numbers of metric tons of carbon and such, but you have never mentioned anything to tie the small increase of carbon to climate change.
On 2009-10-02 at 14:05:22, Lee J Haywood wrote...
I wasn't making an ad hominem comment, I was pointing out that your argument is flawed - and yet you're still making it. The carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is emphatically not 'nothing' as you call it - it's a vital part of the Earth's life support system! Saying that the 1% plus increase in CO₂ levels cannot be linked with temperature rise is akin to saying that the flame under a hot air balloon isn't responsible for the balloon rising - that I cannot 'prove' it. Unlike the balloon, however, we're not about to try switching off the flame and to see the balloon falls. We will, however, keep on turning up the flame and see how fast it rises. When we rise too high, we won't be able to come down safely. Your interest in politics may prompt an interest in climate change, and climate change ought to influence politics. But the climate change is a reality or it isn't, and that's 100% independent of any politics. Don't use politics as an excuse for your beliefs, because it makes no sense to do so.