Here is a source quoting Sheik Abanona as saying "they hate gays and will kill them on site.
And it quotes Disney as saying -" we are doing it for the cash but we hate gays"
You’re combining unrelated topics with sarcastic fabrications as if that proves something. The Them.us article is a breakdown of the DeSantis vs. Disney situation in Florida—about state retaliation for political speech. That’s the issue I was addressing.
The Variety article you linked says nothing about Disney saying “we hate gays,” nor does it quote “Sheik Abanona” making death threats. That’s not in the article because it didn’t happen—you’re just making stuff up to stir outrage.
If you’re serious about journalism vs. commentary, start by not spreading fake quotes. Then we can talk.
Except. They were. The quote I referenced was right in the article. What I messed up was who said it. I apologized and you can’t let up. Now you’re just gaslighting and trying to bullying me.
Oh nacho1. The The supreme leader of SOH and all that is holy great. I supremely apologize from the bottom of my worthless shoes. I am not worthy of your greats and utter likeness. Please do not look up upon me as I am worthless to your greatness.
How’s that? Is does that rub your ego into ecstasy?
Nacho1. - sincerely get your head out of your a$$. The only thing I did was mess a quote up. Then go back and fix it. You added the rest of the bullshizer. Even when I apologized you needed more. You are a narcissistic fanatic. You need people to pet your ego and stroke it to your desire. When they don’t you stalk them until they do. You need a shrink not a social platform.
Is that a true statement / please show me the line # and paragraph #
You just didn't mess up a quote - you insisted the quote WWs in ten sources you posted and it's not - you double done on the lie - now you refuse to own it
You can post it as many times as you want. It doesn’t change the fact that you are trying to have me stroke your ego…again and again. Give a bully what they want and they will comeback for another and another.
Go along little doggie. You’re Nachoing really hard right now.
It is though. It is in the article. The fact you can’t see and read that is not my fault. The exact words are in the article! I’m not asking for an apology for your insanity on the fact. I really would like it if you would stop harassing me on other threads about it!
Yale story! Quoting the article itself! I misquoted Hay!. It does not undermine what I was saying at all! I’m sorry I misquoted her! For ducks sake you are actually insane!
Naomi Oreskes: Well, I wouldn’t really say I was inspired to do it. I would say it was more like I tripped over something that I realized was important.
When I first started doing this work nearly 25 years ago, my goal was to investigate the relationship between scientific knowledge and funding. I was specifically looking at the impact of U.S. military funding on oceanography because oceanography went from being an extremely underfunded science in the early 20th century to being a very abundantly funded science when the U.S. Navy realized that better oceanographic information could help them do their job better.
In the process of doing that research, I stumbled across the story of a group of oceanographers talking about the threat of human-made climate change from burning fossil fuels. I learned that these scientists had a pretty good grasp of this problem. Even in 1958, they already understood that when we burn fossil fuels, we put greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and those gases heat the atmosphere, and it was extremely likely that in the fullness of time, burning fossil fuels would lead to global climate change.
Oreskes: If we’re asking people to support policy action, or asking people to make changes in their own lives, then I think they have a right to demand that the basis for that should be very solid in exchange. We shouldn’t be asking people to make big changes or spend money on solar panels or whatever it is if we aren’t sure what’s going on is well understood.
So I think it’s very important for the American people to understand that this really is settled science. We know that the Earth is warming because of human activities as well as we know that there’s gravity, as well as we know that DNA carries hereditary information. This is very well-established science.
[Another reason concerns] the legal context as we fight for policy actions. We’re seeing the EPA endangerment finding is now being endangered, and as we have to fight for action on this issue, one of the questions that comes up is, “What is the legal basis for action about climate change?” And my group has done some work on the history of the Clean Air Act. There have been debates both in Congress and in the courts about whether or not the Clean Air Act applies to carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases.
In 2006, the International Astronomical Union, a global group of astronomy experts, established a definition of a planet that required it to "clear" its orbit, or in other words, be the largest gravitational force in its orbit.
Since Neptune's gravity influences its neighboring planet Pluto, and Pluto shares its orbit with frozen gases and objects in the Kuiper belt, that meant Pluto was out of planet status
I already said I misquoted Hayhoe. You continue to beat a dead horse. What exactly are you trying to accomplish here?
The original statement was that settled science is used in a way when things have an outstanding amount of proof for them. That is exactly what that is saying. .
Now you’re going into other things in a very crazy manner. Is this what nachoing is?
Referring to something over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again in nausea ? Go spend time with your kids or something.
No, those are examples of how science actually works that even though it might be settled science they can still find things that are updated. You are making a case for science!
the problem with this is youre trying to treat leftists like they have any principles. their opinion shifts to whatever is politically expedient for them.
I would say more that the left has a larger variety of individuals that fight with each other about any one topic. Creating a more diverse culture of something. The right is more unified in their hate and vitriol for things they refuse to try and understand.
“Why not just say the left is morally and intellectually superior.”
You said it not me. “Settled Science” needs to be put into context. Is it “all but settled science” referring to us putting more research on how to fix a problem instead of debating if the same results that keep coming up are actually true? Then yes it’s all but settled science.
In the little research I did, it is apparent, that area is in somewhat of a cultural change. Who knows where this goes. I admit, on the surface it does not appear to be a Disney destination.
Show of Hands
Comments: Add Comment