Global Warming A Back Door To Socialism - And Now Even The UN Admits It

So, investigations happen (ie whitewater) and then we find out. When this investigation is over, we will find out. That in and of itself makes that investigation worthwhile. On the surface though, a hostile foreign state unquestionably attacked us. Then trump fired someone for investigating it. That's more than enough reason to investigate him.

 

No, not in the least. I'll try to go slow. FIRST, a crime occurs. THEN we investigate. That's how Nixon, Clinton, Plame, and every other special prosecutor went -- started with a known crime that had some connection to individuals and investigated to see if those individuals really were active participants in the crime. That you think otherwise means, I assume, that you think a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate Pence, Hillary, Pelosi, Schumer, McConnell, Podesta, the head of the DNC and the RNC, the Director and former Director of the FBI, and maybe even my politically active neighbor, Charlie. That would be taking police state witch hunts, like Mueller, to its logical conclusion.

A government using law enforcement officials and justice departments to further its political policies and ends is the definition of a police state.

 

Evidently, the conversation is going well over your head. If smoking causes cancer, it causes cancer. It doesn't just "increase the risk of you getting cancer". It does. Its like dropping a glass. It falls to the earth. The glass falls. There isn't an "increased likely hood of it". It falls. I don't dispute that millions and millions of folks who smoke also have developed cancer. But there are also millions and millions of folks who smoke/d that haven't. Which means that if, statistically, the likelihood isn't 100%. Frankly, we don't actually know what the number is. And that is the observation. You believe in the correlation though. Which still doesn't prove there is actual causality. You believe that there is a statistical link. Fine. But your belief and actual proof aren't the same thing.

 

So, just to be clear, you don't investigate the possibility of a crime unless we know the crime ocurred?

 

You did. The observation is still the same. There are millions and millions of examples where that pathology didn't result in the development of cancer. Or do you now dispute that.

On bullets. A bullet, by itself cannot kill you. A bullet shot at you from a weapon can kill you, but doesn't always do that, right? It's dependent on the skill and the luck you have when you get shot, or even that you might be shot. So, the bullet, by itself isn't the thing that caused the death. It has to be married with the actions of something external to the bullet as well as your luck. But, a bullet, sitting in a box of shells at the Walmart isn't killing you, is it?

On asbestos, I'm so confused these days. Are we trying to not make things fire retardant anymore? Does the long term health risk potential from fire retardant overcome the risk of death from fire? Why juxtapose these two harms? Or, does it simply make sense financially to attack both and give liability lawyers a bigger slice of the liability market? Just recently, we've learned that chemical flame retardants and some kinds of non stick coatings (also fire resistant) are also perhaps carcinogens. I think it's an apt question to ask then, what do lawyers have against non stick pots and pans? Or are liberals just looking to build the market for unskilled dish washer servants in our homes?

 

Ok, lets try to clarify a bit. Would you encourage, or at least be ambivalent of your children, or someone you care about starting to smoke, or chew tobacco? Or, if there are too many variables there, how about using asbestos?

 

No, you do not. More to the point the law on appointing special prosecutors says, "....The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated." (emphasis mine)

 

Personally, I wouldn't advocate for my kids to smoke. Not because of the health risk, but for the obvious disgusting habit of it, the smell, the annoying behavior, the cost. I can think of a multitude of reasons I wouldn't want them to smoke. That also includes smoking other things, like ecigs, or pot. (Queue the pot backlash....)

On asbestos. I remember that once upon a time, building codes required the use of flame retardant materials (including asbestos) for public safety. Imagine, lots of "progressive" finger prints all over requiring asbestos products in the homes of literally hundreds of millions of Americans. Cause they cared then.. right? So this is what? Guilt? Progressive folk have been quick to mandate for our safety. And equally as quick to wring their hands collectively at the alter of product liability litigation. Why is that? Don't you folks care about safety now? Or your own culpability in demanding that everyone be put at this kind of risk?

 

So, in your estimation then, can we have any effect on the chance of developing cancer?

 

So, if there is a good reason to expect that a president is under significant influence from a hostile state, what path or recourse should be taken?

 

IIRC flame retardant was not put on the mid-level and upper steel beams of the WTC, which is why a two story fire caused the beams to melt and the WTC to collapse.

 

That is a moot question as there was/is no such good reason, only hyperbolic paranoia and hatred.

 

I think it's an open question. And I point to the ping pong science regarding the consumption of chicken eggs. Good? Bad? Both? the science here is all over the board.

The very obvious reality is that if you can get someone "scientific" to tell you something is harmful, the litigation flood gates open. Everything becomes attachable and tortable at that point. And isn't that really the point? Lawyers having to make a living??

As has always been the case in studies that find "links" to cancer, the consumption has had to be so excessive, or unrealistic that the likelihood of the actual thing being over consumed being the trigger is much less likely than the overconsumption causing the cancer. So, in that light, the behavior may prove more likely the trigger than other reasons.

 

Let's call it a hypothetical.

 

A hypothetical is also a no-good reason for any investigation, let alone a special prosecutor. Picture a cop sitting around and wondering if someone might be trying to rob a bank across town. Think his sergeant is going to let him go investigate?

 

So, two more questions: is there anything that science says or does that is correct? And: let's suppose that every day for a month, you must draw a card. If you draw the ace of spades, you are executed on the spot. Now, if you wear a red shirt, all of the hearts are taken out of the deck. Now, we can't say that wearing red 'causes' you to be executed, that's only caused by drawing the ace of spades. Also, the only way you can be assured of getting that ace is drawing all of the cards, or on average half, but nobody takes more than one per day. Are you ambivalent about wearing a red shirt? (for this scenario, you really think you look good in red shirts)

 

I mean, if we have a president that is a puppet of a hostile state, shouldn't we at least have a plan or idea of how we are going to determine that and handle it?

 

So if we did a formal experiment where the independent variable is either a blank or a bullet fired from a gun you're saying that there will be no difference in the dependent variable which is the rate of death caused by the blanks or bullets? Remember, we are controlling only for the bullet so all variables such as the type of gun, the skill of the person shooting it, etc. are held constant.

If a bullet results in a higher death rate than the blank then the effect of the bullet is death. Period. That is the definition of cause and effect.

I think what you're doing is changing the mean of "cause". I think what you're doing is saying that "cause" only applies to something which always results in a specific outcome even when the other variables aren't controlled. If this is how you are thinking of things then it's no wonder why you think there is no causal link between anything. I mean if we're going to use your definition then medication does not cause a decrease in hypertension, or electron arrangement does not cause chemical reactions, or gravity does not cause the Moon to orbit around the Sun, and a bunch of other wildly ridiculous ideas.

So yeah, I totally get why you don't believe that CO2 causes warming.

 

It is not an open question. Smoking causes cancer. Period. You are in denial.

 

Hmmm.. so you revert back to a situation that does, in fact, have absolutes. The ace kills you. And then, you apply qualifiers that can be demonstrated. Ok, how does this scenario then reflect the cancer risk? You can't demonstrate that you understand that the act of smoking is the same as removing 13 potential other outcomes, can you?

 

Ok, let's exchange 'kills you' for 'gives you cancer.' And instead of removing a suit, let's just say if you wear the red shirt, you have to pick two cards per day instead of 1.

 

Why limit the scope? Oh, right... because you have to at least try to demonstrate that you have some logical authority here. Why not just let life be the answer. There are far more variables than blank or bullet. Try this.. ingesting a gram of fentanyl kills you. It always kills you. Only if you control the target so it cannot move, only if you control the wind speed so it doesn't effect trajectory, only if you calculate the distance to always produce an exactly lethal injury does you experiment have what you would consider to be an effective demonstration result from the test. Of course, the real world is different. If I gave a gun to say, you, your ability to aim is inconsistent at best, the conditions surrounding your environment always change, and I doubt that you could, consistently, always produce a lethal injury. So, why does your method induce any credible merit?

So, you contrive methods that are simple that don't reflect the variability of our environment, and then expect folks to find your output credible and authoritative. I think that's laughable.

I get you have deep belief in correlation. That just isn't the same as demonstrable proof, is it? But you go ahead.. believe...

 

Ok, so when folks who smoke don't get cancer, how is that possible?

 

Ok, so you admit your method was unlikely to demonstrate anything useful. So, now we're moving the goal post on the off chance you think your new version is going to demonstrate anything more useful. I have doubts...

If, as you say, the "ace gives you cancer", how? And what difference would it then make if you reduce the total number of variables? You still haven't demonstrated that the ace gave you cancer. And then, every person who draws the ace then must develop cancer. As in all of them. Not some of them, or only when the moon is red, or all the other window dressing BS you're attempting to obfuscate the investigation with.

 

Also, I'm going to take that as you would avoid that red shirt as much as possible, and feel it legitimate to encourage others to do the same. And you didn't answer the first question.