Will our Church get involved in a big Christian issue?

[Kemara]

2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Global Warming is real and dangerous.. 

Who exactly said it wasn't?

Quote

My mind is very flexible, let me do some reading first. 

You do not need to do any reading to answer the following question. For the fifth time:

• The title of your thread implies that the Church has never got involved in a big Christian issue. I believe that it is involved in the biggest most important Christian issue of them all, how do you justify your position?
   

Quote

Give me a break, I don´t have to be an expert to read some papers

Who exactly said you had to be? Please pay closer attention to what I write.

Edited March 7, 2016 by Kemara

[Kenngo1969]

On 3/4/2016 at 9:07 AM, TheSkepticChristian said:

Our church likes to get involved in political issues like gay marriage, medical marijuana, and religious freedom. ...

 

On 3/4/2016 at 11:41 AM, Sleeper Cell said:

Religious freedom is a mere “political issue?”  

 

On 3/6/2016 at 6:07 PM, Russell C McGregor said:

Yes, what business has a church got, being concerned about something like that?

 

On 3/6/2016 at 8:20 PM, TheSkepticChristian said:

None. Religious Freedom is already protected in the constitution. The church is getting involved in gay vs "religious freedom" issues. 

Oh.   So you're telling me that I have nothing to worry about concerning the decision of a majority of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges, in which its members, rather than writing, "Nothing in our decision today disturbs our previous precedents with respect to Free Exercise," instead, did violence to Free Exercise by "magnanimously" (my word, scare quotes deliberate) granting the devout the narrower privileges of being allowed to continue to "believe" and to "teach" as we wish regarding homosexual conduct and gay marriage?

Well.  

Thank you very much.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm certainly reassured. 

[thesometimesaint]

6 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

 

Oh.   So you're telling me that I have nothing to worry about concerning the decision of a majority of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges, in which its members, rather than writing, "Nothing in our decision today disturbs our previous precedents with respect to Free Exercise," instead, did violence to Free Exercise by "magnanimously" (my word, scare quotes deliberate) granting the devout the narrower privileges of being allowed to continue to "believe" and to "teach" as we wish regarding homosexual conduct and gay marriage?

Well.  

Thank you very much.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm certainly reassured. 

In Obergefell v. Hodges the Supremes essentially decided that the states right to determine legal marriage didn't exclude the Feds from the Supremacy Clause. You are free to exercise your rights, but your rights can't prevent others from exercising theirs.

[Kenngo1969]

30 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

In Obergefell v. Hodges the Supremes essentially decided that the states right to determine legal marriage didn't exclude the Feds from the Supremacy Clause. You are free to exercise your rights, but your rights can't prevent others from exercising theirs.

Thank you for letting me know how sanguine you are about the Court's treatment of the rights of religions and of their adherents in Obergefell v. Hodges, and how you apparently believe the Court's magnanimously granting the faithful the rights to continue to "believe" and to "teach" as they wish regarding homosexuality and gay marriage is sufficient, and that there's no fundamental difference between "Nothing in today's decision disturbs our precedents with respect to Free Exercise," on the one hand, and the Court's "believe and teach" language in Obergefell, on the other  I'm sure it won't shock you to know that I'm not nearly as sanguine as you are, nor do I believe the Court's recasting of the Free Exercise Clause is faithful to the Founders' vision of it (heck, it's not even faithful to the Court's own prior precedents regarding it).

To each, his own. 

Edited March 7, 2016 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

3 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Burp!

 

Edited March 7, 2016 by Kenngo1969
Rather than editing my post, the damn software quoted it in a reply.

[TheSkepticChristian]

6 hours ago, Kemara said:

Who exactly said it wasn't?

I give you a point for that. I didn't say that you said it wasn't. I just hope you soon accept the scientific consensus that GM food is safe. 

6 hours ago, Kemara said:

Who exactly said you had to be? Please pay closer attention to what I write.

No, you pay closer attention to what I write, I never said I was an expert. You said, " And after reading some papers you are now an expert in the field. " 

I do think reputable encyclopedia articles are written by experts, I take them seriously, the scientific consensus is that GM food is safe. 

6 hours ago, Kemara said:

• The title of your thread implies that the Church has never got involved in a big Christian issue. I believe that it is involved in the biggest most important Christian issue of them all, how do you justify your position?

It does in some, but not all of them. It tells us nothing about the rise of CO2 emissions, and climate change that hurts the poor and the weak. It tells us nothing about pollutants that cause respiratory disease.  

 

 

Edited March 7, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

12 hours ago, Kemara said:

2. Since the advanced indoor growing systems are...well...you know....indoors, and in a climate controlled environment, how will global warming affect this operation.

Give me a break, how can entire fields be inside? Would that be possible everywhere? 

For the third time, please answer the following questions:

1. Due to you being made aware of the latest scientific advancements in food production, do you maintain the position that climate change will necessarily make food scarcity worse?    

I am still reading, I don't like to jump to important conclusions quickly. I will get back to you on that. 

For the second time, please answer the following questions:

1. Have a guess which Missouri headquartered corporation funded that study?

lol I can point to many studies that prove GM food is safe. I don't even know where to start. Here is the list. 
http://genera.biofortified.org/viewall.php

Here is a specific paper, read it 
http://genera.biofortified.org/view/Atkinson2004

You said, "Have you actually read any of the articles you have linked too? "  Some, but you obviously read none. 
 

 

Edited March 7, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Kemara]

2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I just hope you soon accept the scientific consensus that GM food is safe. 

No thanks I will stick to the actual science on the matter, not some public relations spin.

2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

No, you pay closer attention to what I write, I never said I was an expert. You said, " And after reading some papers you are now an expert in the field. " 

I base my statement on an observation. You made some very specific and clear claims regarding GMO, you presented yourself as an expert in the manner that you made your very matter of fact claims...in other words you looked like a duck and you walked like a duck, therefore I called you a duck.

Now lets get serious for a second. You made some very specific matter of fact claims. You made these claims based on having read "some papers". Do you really believe that you know enough of the GMO issue, after having read "some papers", to make the matter of fact statements you did? Do you seriously not think that anyone with a computer, an internet connection and a spare 5 minutes cant find a report or an article that will state that there is no consensus of GMO safety. Got a stop watch? Ok, time me from...............NOW..........it took me about 20 seconds, which included typing the words.

http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/

The following article provides a summary of the report linked above - http://www.mintpressnews.com/hundreds-of-scientists-warn-no-consensus-on-safety-of-genetically-modified-crops/206427/ - some key points:
 

Quote

 

...hundreds of scientists have signed an open letter from the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER) that warns there is no scientific consensus on GMO safety. Originally issued in October 2013, the statement was republished in January by the open access scientific journal Environmental Sciences Europe. The letter was jointly written by over a dozen scientists from throughout Europe and a variety of scientific fields.

The authors argue that the idea of universal consensus on the safety of GMO crops is a myth created by a small group of “stakeholders,” such as scientists funded by the agribusiness industry, claiming there’s been “a concerted effort by genetically modified (GM) seed developers and some scientists, commentators, and journalists to construct claims that there is a ‘scientific consensus’ on GMO safety and that the debate on this topic is ‘over.’”

Over 300 scientists have endorsed the original ENSSER statement, which “clearly demonstrates that the claimed consensus on GMO safety does not exist outside of the above depicted internal circle of stakeholders,” write the authors, further nothing: “The health, environment, and agriculture authorities of most nations recognize publicly that no blanket statement about the safety of all GMOs is possible and that they must be assessed on a ‘case-by-case’ basis.”

Dozens of countries already require GMO-labelling on food, and officials of both the European Union and the French government have called for more research into GMO safety.

While Brody concedes that, “A legitimate safety concern involves possible delayed deleterious effects of genetically modified products on consumers, the environment or the ‘balance’ of nature,” the authors of the open letter warn that almost no studies are being done into these long-term effects: [which is a point that I raised in relation to the studies you linked too, but of course you ignored me] “[N]o epidemiological studies in human populations have been carried out to establish whether there are any health effects associated with GM food consumption. As GM foods and other products are not monitored or labelled after release in North America, a major producer and consumer of GM crops, it is scientifically impossible to trace, let alone study, patterns of consumption and their impacts.”

 

And that my unlearned friend is why there cannot possibly be a legitimate consensus of the safety of GMO foods..."no studies are done on these long-term effects" and "no epidemiological studies" have been carried out.  And that is why the authors of the article I linked too are correct in their assessment that there is no consensus on the safety of GMO foods.  Or, in your expert opinion, do you believe that the safety of food can be established without studies on the long term effects and epidemiological analysis? Do you think any scientist can make the legitimate claim that GMO foods are safe if there have been no studies on long term effects and no epidemiological analysis? These are not rhetorical questions, do not ignore them. 

2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I do think reputable encyclopedia articles are written by experts, I take them seriously, the scientific consensus is that GM food is safe.

You have a lot to learn about the practical realities of science. Please see my comments above.

2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

It does in some, but not all of them. It tells us nothing about the rise of CO2 emissions, and climate change that hurts the poor and the weak. It tells us nothing about pollutants that cause respiratory disease.  

So you admit that the Church has got involved in a big Christian issue and that you cant justify the implication of your thread title - well done. The Church doesn't need to tell us about CO2 emission, climate change, respiratory disease etc. in order to invalidate the implication of your thread title, you have plainly admitted that the Church "does in some". Case closed. 

How are you going on those answers to my previous questions?

[Kemara]

20 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Give me a break, how can entire fields be inside?

I thought you were going to do some research on this matter? Like I said, I knew you wouldn't and now you are going to end up looking stupid. I have attached a picture of a greenhouse facility in Spain, it covers an area of 100,000 ha. In your view does 100,000 ha qualify as an entire field?  If not, then two could be build or three or four etc. Please stop pretending that you know anything about this matter.

You avoided answering one of the questions and instead posted a link to a study on GMO safety. On a previous post you specifically said,

Quote

I will get back to you to answer all your questions

Please keep your word. Now stop avoiding the issue and answer the following question:

1. Have a guess which Missouri headquartered corporation funded that study?

38 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

You said, "Have you actually read any of the articles you have linked too? "  Some, but you obviously read none.

If you had been paying attention, which you very clearly have not been doing, you would have noticed that I spoke directly to some of the articles and pointed out some problematic issues. Please pay more attention from now on.  Since you have read some of these articles can you advise the results of the studies on long term effects and epidemiological analysis? 

Did you read my summary of the paper I referenced regarding the scientific technology? It seems to me that either you haven't read it or you simply cannot comprehend it. So lets break it down very simply for you - if an area the size of 1 ha can produce 600 tons of fruit and vegetables and 200 tons of meat and fish products then what will 2 ha produce? What will 3 ha product? What will 300 ha produce? What will 100,000 ha produce? 

[Kenngo1969]

9 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

In Obergefell v. Hodges the Supremes essentially decided that the states right to determine legal marriage didn't exclude the Feds from the Supremacy Clause. ...

In my previous reply to the (originally) two-sentence assessment above, I focused on your (now omitted) final sentence, rather than on the one above.  Please forgive my confusion, but, what, exactly, do you mean by, "the states right to determine legal marriage didn't exclude the Feds from the Supremacy clause"?  I'm not sure that's logically coherent, but perhaps I'm missing something. Thanks in advance.

P.S.: In my book, what the majority did in Obergefell v. Hodges (at least with respect to marriage) is to turn the Supremacy Clause on its head, or to assign it a meaning that, heretofore, it had never had previously.  It'd be useful for the discussion to know exactly what you think the Supremacy Clause means.

Edited March 7, 2016 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

Kemara,

I value your contributions to the Board, respect your erudition, and am extremely likely to defer to you in matters within the scope of your expertise.  That said, I value care and precision in expression to such an extent that if I see a careless error in elementary usage, I wonder, no matter how erudite or expert the user, if s/he cannot be bothered to get the "little things" right, how much am I sure I can trust what s/he says about the "big things"?

To =/= Too.

Sincerely,

The Board's Resident Grammar and Usage Nazi

[thesometimesaint]

8 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Thank you for letting me know how sanguine you are about the Court's treatment of the rights of religions and of their adherents in Obergefell v. Hodges, and how you apparently believe the Court's magnanimously granting the faithful the rights to continue to "believe" and to "teach" as they wish regarding homosexuality and gay marriage is sufficient, and that there's no fundamental difference between "Nothing in today's decision disturbs our precedents with respect to Free Exercise," on the one hand, and the Court's "believe and teach" language in Obergefell, on the other  I'm sure it won't shock you to know that I'm not nearly as sanguine as you are, nor do I believe the Court's recasting of the Free Exercise Clause is faithful to the Founders' vision of it (heck, it's not even faithful to the Court's own prior precedents regarding it).

To each, his own. 

Who said I was sanguine? I don't like the decision, but can think of no legal justification to deny SSM for those that want it. The courts' decision was based on Loving v Virginia, and the Fourteenth Amendment. The First Amendment may have had some impact. I don't know. I'm not a lawyer let alone a USSC Judge and am not privy to their internal deliberations.

[TheSkepticChristian]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

In my previous reply to the (originally) two-sentence assessment above,.

Please keep your gay marriage apocalypse out of this thread, we are talking about important issues that affect humanity and the planet.  We already know how much you are against gay marriage, but please respect that. 

Edited March 7, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

6 hours ago, Kemara said:

No thanks I will stick to the actual science on the matter

Why ignore what reputable encyclopedias like Britannica are saying? Have you ever listen to relevant scientists on the field? Did you really read the scientific papers? Here is a debate.

It is just a quick response, I have to go, but i'll be back. 

 

[Sleeper Cell]

15 hours ago, Kemara said:

You do not need to do any reading to answer the following question. For the fifth time:

• The title of your thread implies that the Church has never got involved in a big Christian issue. I believe that it is involved in the biggest most important Christian issue of them all, how do you justify your position?

All he has to do to is add one word to the title of his thread to clarify his meaning.  It should read: “Will our Church get involved in a big Skeptic Christian Issue?”   

Problem solved.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Just now, Sleeper Cell said:

All he has to do to is add one word to the title of his thread to clarify his meaning.  It should read: “Will our Church get involved in a big Skeptic Christian Issue?”   

Problem solved.

Look at a definition of Christian in the Oxford dictionary. Christian - "informal Having or showing qualities associated with Christians, especially those of decency, kindness, and fairness." 

[TheSkepticChristian]

7 hours ago, Kemara said:

I thought you were going to do some research on this matter? Like I said, I knew you wouldn't and now you are going to end up looking stupid. I have attached a picture of a greenhouse facility in Spain, it covers an area of 100,000 ha. In your view does 100,000 ha qualify as an entire field?  If not, then two could be build or three or four etc. Please stop pretending that you know anything about this matter.

I am still reading on the subject, it is not like I have a lot of time. Examples are not the answer, how can you make a giant greenhouse facility everywhere? 

It just doesn't make sense. However, if we reach a 5 degree warming, we will probably be forced to make them everywhere. 

7 hours ago, Kemara said:

Please keep your word. Now stop avoiding the issue and answer the following question:

1. Have a guess which Missouri headquartered corporation funded that study?

Why should I answer that question? I didn't start talking about that Paper, it was you. There are thousands of other studies that say GM food is safe. 

Why do you keep ignoring the reputable encyclopedias?

7 hours ago, Kemara said:

 Please pay more attention from now on.  Since you have read some of these articles can you advise the results of the studies on long term effects and epidemiological analysis? 

We been GM food for 2 decades. Where is the evidence that it is harmful? Are you saying we have to wait like 50 years?

7 hours ago, Kemara said:

Did you read my summary of the paper I referenced regarding the scientific technology? It seems to me that either you haven't read it or you simply cannot comprehend it. So lets break it down very simply for you - if an area the size of 1 ha can produce 600 tons of fruit and vegetables and 200 tons of meat and fish products then what will 2 ha produce? What will 3 ha product? What will 300 ha produce? What will 100,000 ha produce? 

First of all I am looking for your paper that I cannot find. Anyways, I am still reading on the subject because I know very little about modern agriculture. You need to wait for me to keep up. Just give me more time and I will let you know if I agree or disagree. 

Edited March 7, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

8 hours ago, Kemara said:

So you admit that the Church has got involved in a big Christian issue and that you cant justify the implication of your thread title - well done.

What? I never said the church has never been involved in any big Christian issue. I am glad our church sometimes help hurricane victims. 

When I say a Christian issue, I am talking about climate change. Part of the problem is that you misunderstand what I say, and I don't have the time to read everything you say. 

8 hours ago, Kemara said:

Now lets get serious for a second. You made some very specific matter of fact claims. You made these claims based on having read "some papers". Do you really believe that you know enough of the GMO issue, after having read "some papers", to make the matter of fact statements you did? Do you seriously not think that anyone with a computer, an internet connection and a spare 5 minutes cant find a report or an article that will state that there is no consensus of GMO safety. Got a stop watch? Ok, time me from...............NOW..........it took me about 20 seconds, which included typing the words.

http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/

Of course there are many internet articles, but the internet if full of it. I verify stuff in reputable encyclopedias. 

I don't know enough about the GMO issue, all I know is that reputable encyclopedias say there is a consensus. I also heard relevant scientists say the same thing.  Did you bother to watch the debate? What is ensser? Is that a reputable scientific society?

88% of AAAS scientists agree GM Food is safe. 

 

 

 

[volgadon]

2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

What? I never said the church has never been involved in any big Christian issue. I am glad our church sometimes help hurricane victims. 

When I say a Christian issue, I am talking about climate change. Part of the problem is that you misunderstand what I say, and I don't have the time to read everything you say. 

Of course there are many internet articles, but the internet if full of it. I verify stuff in reputable encyclopedias. 

I don't know enough about the GMO issue, all I know is that reputable encyclopedias say there is a consensus. I also heard relevant scientists say the same thing.  Did you bother to watch the debate? What is ensser? Is that a reputable scientific society?

88% of AAAS scientists agree GM Food is safe. 

 

 

 

Could you be a little more specific regarding reputable encyclopedias?

[volgadon]

2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Look at a definition of Christian in the Oxford dictionary. Christian - "informal Having or showing qualities associated with Christians, especially those of decency, kindness, and fairness." 

Is overpopulation part of the issue in your opinion?

[Kemara]

5 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Why ignore what reputable encyclopedias like Britannica are saying?

I have already explained why. Please address the issues I have raised. 

5 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Have you ever listen to relevant scientists on the field? Did you really read the scientific papers? Here is a debate.

Why are you providing a link 2 a debate that is entirely irrelevant 2 the issues I have raised? Please address the issues I raised by providing studies on the long-term effects of GMO that includes epidemiological analysis. 

3 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Examples are not the answer, how can you make a giant greenhouse facility everywhere? 

Please provide evidence for your entirely baseless assertion. Of course greenhouse facilities can be built everywhere, I can build one in my back yard, or like the facility in Spain it can be built over a very large area. Are you seriously unable 2 comprehend mankinds ability 2 build a greenhouse in practically any location? Where is your faith in science now?

3 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

It just doesn't make sense. However, if we reach a 5 degree warming, we will probably be forced to make them everywhere. 

You just contradicted yourself. First you say it doesn't make sense, then you say we could be forced 2 do it. Please make up your mind.

3 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Why should I answer that question? I didn't start talking about that Paper, it was you.

I can think of two reasons why you should answer the question:

1. You said you would answer all my questions. Can I believe you?
2. In response 2 the linked articles you provided I brought up this paper as an example of the problems that are found in pro-GMO papers. As such, it goes directly 2 the issue we are discussing, but if you don't want 2 discuss issues that are relevant 2 the articles that you introduced 2 the discussion then that is fine, I will simply take your refusal as you having conceded the point.

3 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Why do you keep ignoring the reputable encyclopedias?

I have already explained my position on this matter, please address the issues I raised instead of simply repeating your position. Why are you ignoring the obvious flaws in the reports? Why are you ignoring reputable reports that say GMO is not safe? Please don't engage in circular reasoning if you attempt to answer this question. 

3 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

We been GM food for 2 decades. Where is the evidence that it is harmful?

And that my unlearned and illogical friend is the problem. There is no evidence either way. There is no evidence that it is safe and no evidence that it is harmful because no studies on the long term effects have been done and no epidemiological analysis has been conducted. This is not the way legitimate science works.

3 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Are you saying we have to wait like 50 years?

 I am saying that the science needs to be done. Are you saying that the science doesn't need 2 be done? Should we instead just have faith? Do you believe that science should be limited by how long it takes 2 come up with the answers?

Does it matter how long it takes to scientifically determine the safety of GMO? In any case GMO is now yesterdays technology, far better food production methodologies are available, even within systems that use a conventional farming framework.

3 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Anyways, I am still reading on the subject because I know very little about modern agriculture.

Why do you feel you have the ability to argue about a subject that you fully admit you "know very little" about? Are you arguing just for the sake of being argumentative, are you arguing because of a preconceived idea or bias, or are you arguing simply because you don't want 2 admit that you are wrong yet again?

3 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I don't know enough about the GMO issue

So you admit you don't know enough about the issue, then why on earth do you feel you are in a position to argue about it?   

3 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

..all I know is that reputable encyclopedias say there is a consensus.

And now you know that there are other reputable sources that disagree with the position that there is a consensus. But how did you react 2 this new information? Did you act in a scientific manner and actually investigate the issue? No, you dogmatically held 2 your position without even attempting 2 address the new information. Cognitive dissonance perhaps? What you need 2 do, what intellectual honesty requires from you, is 2 address the issue raised in the paper that I linked 2; specifically you need to address the fact that no long-term studies have been conducted and no epidemiological analysis has been performed. Unless you and your sources can present that data your entire position is groundless. 

3 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

What is ensser? Is that a reputable scientific society? ...88% of AAAS scientists agree GM Food is safe.

The article authored by ENSSER was published by a very reputable peer reviewed scientific journal so you can draw your own conclusions from that. However, this is really beside the point. You can reference an article supporting GMO safety, I can reference an article supporting the opposite position, you can reference another article, I can do the same and round and round we go. We can argue about which organisation is more reputable than the other, and round and round we go. You can talk to a scientist who agrees with you and I can do the same and round and round we go. The matter comes down to one simple thing - missing data. Conclusions about GMO safety have been made using inadequate data. Do you dispute this point? If by some small miracle you agree with something this logical then you will have to admit that the jury is still out on GMO safety despite what anybody says, and that the "consensus" is based on inadequate data. Yes, 88% of AAAS scientists (who are mainly theists and deists  ) agree that GMO food is safe but they come 2 that conclusion based on inadequate data. I want 2 be clear that I am not arguing for ENSSER or its article. I made the point about inadequate data, which you ignored, a few posts before I referenced ENSSER. Remember I only bought up ENSSER's paper 2 demonstrate that anybody could reference scientific articles with conflicting views on GMO safety, so lets not get in2 a debate about which organisation is more reputable than that other, or which organisation is more well known, or which organisation has published more articles than the other, or which organisation has the better scientists etc etc etc.

I will concede one point though. I will concede that if there is in fact a scientific consensus then it is a consensus concerning short-term health impacts of GMO.

Kenngo1969, I want 2 tell you that I appreciated your comments.

Sincerely

The Boards least likely person 2 give a stuff about grammar  .........

but I will try harder, from 2day....oops I mean twoday.

Edited March 7, 2016 by Kemara

[thesometimesaint]

6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

In my previous reply to the (originally) two-sentence assessment above, I focused on your (now omitted) final sentence, rather than on the one above.  Please forgive my confusion, but, what, exactly, do you mean by, "the states right to determine legal marriage didn't exclude the Feds from the Supremacy clause"?  I'm not sure that's logically coherent, but perhaps I'm missing something. Thanks in advance.

P.S.: In my book, what the majority did in Obergefell v. Hodges (at least with respect to marriage) is to turn the Supremacy Clause on its head, or to assign it a meaning that, heretofore, it had never had previously.  It'd be useful for the discussion to know exactly what you think the Supremacy Clause means.

It is really pretty simple in my non-lawyer mind. The individual states do not have the legal authority to contradict federal authority when that federal authority has spoken. IE; It is doubtful that the framers of the Constitution had the internet in mind when they wrote it. We're still trying to figure out how and to what extent state and federal regulations intersect and where they diverge. However there really is no question that if and when the Feds decide it will be applicable to all the states.

Back to SSM; Though I doubt the USSC had SSM in mind in deciding the Loving case. Precedent was set for requiring states to recognize different races intermarrying. It is simple extrapolation of intent in the 14th Amendment to allow for legal SSM.  

[mnn727]

On 3/4/2016 at 11:07 AM, TheSkepticChristian said:

Please don't talk to me like that, I am not ignorant on this subject. 

Humans have never experienced a rapid climate change, never. Earth is warming 50x faster than when it comes out of an ice age. That rapid climate destabilization is what has climate scientists worried.

Climate Scientists, meaning I suppose, those that believe in 'Global Warming'

Yawn, Climate changes, mankind adapts.

 

Edited March 7, 2016 by mnn727

[TheSkepticChristian]

3 hours ago, volgadon said:

Could you be a little more specific regarding reputable encyclopedias?

Britannica for example. Go to your local library to look at other reputable encyclopedias. 

http://global.britannica.com/science/genetically-modified-organism

1 hour ago, mnn727 said:

Climate Scientists, meaning I suppose, those that believe in 'Global Warming'

Yawn, Climate changes, mankind adapts.

You  did not read what I just said, humanity has never ever experienced a rapid global climate change warming. The climate scientists are the people that use advanced technology and sophisticated methods to study the climate. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

3 hours ago, Kemara said:

I have already explained why. Please address the issues I have raised. 

No you didn't, and I did. 

3 hours ago, Kemara said:

Why are you providing a link 2 a debate that is entirely irrelevant 2 the issues I have raised? Please address the issues I raised by providing studies on the long-term effects of GMO that includes epidemiological analysis. 

What long-term effects? You can't do long-term studies on a human, and your question is also meaningless. There is no long-term studies that laptops cause cancer. Here is a very important paper 

An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research

3 hours ago, Kemara said:

. Of course greenhouse facilities can be built everywhere

Listen dude, it would be very hard to replace all fields with greenhouse facilities. I don't think many countries in Africa can afford to make them everywhere. . 

 

3 hours ago, Kemara said:

You just contradicted yourself. First you say it doesn't make sense, then you say we could be forced 2 do it. Please make up your mind.

It doesn't make sense because it would be extraordinarily expensive and hard, but we will be force to do it if our planet becomes 5 degrees warmer. 

Nice try. 

I am busy, I will get back to you later. 

 

Edited March 8, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian