Should Dragons have rights?

[Deleted member 113259]

Woo 10 pages for some reason.

 

[Placeholder]

It's because all the solutions involve giving government more power to control all our lives, and unless people are afraid enough of climate change no one in their right mind is going to accept global tyranny for that.

I think you're claiming it's been a conspiracy to sell electric cars and destroy civil liberties since the 1960s.

this is a highly politicized topic since the 1960's

Now, why would Big Oil and the car industry politicize a scientific topic?

Are you suggesting they have financial motives increating discord and a smokescreen for you to point at, to claim that politics has occured and therefore the scientific findings can no longer be trusted.

I mean, that's a real-world conspiracy that's actually happened.

You don't need to make up another one, in order to pretend to superior wisdom.

look more into the numbers

That's peer-reviewers' job. Their grad students, postdocs, undergraduate interns, hallmates, and so on. They keep each other honest. 4 parts love for the truth, 1 part getting a stiffy when they prove someone was wrong.

‍?Science! ‍?

Also satellites. We can use satellites to observe, well, everything.

Woo 10 pages for some reason.

The dragons would have had it no other way. It's their right.

 

[Deleted member 113259]

The dragons would have had it no other way. It's their right.

Dragons.
Rights.
Hey, remember what the thread was about?

 

[Placeholder]

Dragons' relationship to humanity, floods, and God?

> "In the past, there used to be Dragon King miao shrines all over China, for the folk to engage in the worship of dragon kings, villages in farm countries would conduct rites dedicated to the Dragon Kings seeking rain.[7]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_King#:~:text=In the past, there used to be Dragon King miao shrines all over China, for the folk to engage in the worship of dragon kings, villages in farm countries would conduct rites dedicated to the Dragon Kings seeking rain.[7]

 

[AnonUnlimited]

I think you're claiming it's been a conspiracy to sell electric cars and destroy civil liberties since the

Now, why would Big Oil and the car industry politicize a scientific topic?

This right here shows your complete inability to understand both sides. Big oil sure, they want to profit, but green energy investors want to profit too.

Why is one somehow more virtuous than the other when neither one is better on emissions? Why is one company profiting off us better than the other in some way when it’s a near zero sum game considering the environment?

Civil liberties don’t really matter, we have had monarchies and peasants for many years, I guess I’ll just live as a peasant the rest of my life. I just absolutely hate when people think they somehow have the answer, and it’s mostly the side that can’t accept anything except ‘it’s man made climate change’ that act like drones.

for the record, I do believe man has an impact on the climate, how much impact is debatable and I’m not sure of it, therefore I always use the word ‘may’ because I’m open to whatever information is available. I don’t put faith in other humans.

The point is unless we go back to the Stone Age, we don’t have any viable solutions.
Satellites? Equipment? CO2 measuring? The average person doesn’t have this, so we are constantly told to belief wHat others are saying about what is happening.

Also, can you tell me with 100% certainty that every peer reviewing scientist are not biased? Methodology is more important than peer review, because even peer reviewed articles can be passed if the majority of scientists themselves, who receive funding from politicians who want to prove a narrative, have even a shred of bias.

Therefore, I don’t consider extrapolation to be proof, it might be evidence that points in a direction but it is not proof.

In reality, there are no good guys.

 

[Deleted member 113259]

Dragons' relationship to humanity, floods, and God?

> "In the past, there used to be Dragon King miao shrines all over China, for the folk to engage in the worship of dragon kings, villages in farm countries would conduct rites dedicated to the Dragon Kings seeking rain.[7]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_King#:~:text=In the past, there used to be Dragon King miao shrines all over China, for the folk to engage in the worship of dragon kings, villages in farm countries would conduct rites dedicated to the Dragon Kings seeking rain.[7]

shush

 

[Agentt]

Is this your original copy pasta?

Ain't no one got time for that

 

[RepresentingWrath]

Ain't no one got time for that

Hey! I know you!

 

[laccoff_mawning]

In terms of where dragons stand on the morality scale of things, I think the west tends to use them as evil creatures that need slaying, while in the east, dragons wer deified.

Personally, I don't like sentient dragons. Dragons being sentient aren't what makes them cool. Dragons are cool because they breathe fire, fly, eat sheep and terrify people.
I guess dragons became popular for a similar reason lions became popular (although lions don't have anywhere near the same popularity as dragons, I'm sure we call all agree they are overrated.)- they have very memorable traits. The lion has its mane, and the dragon has its fire.
As such, no. dragons don't deserve rights, because they aren't sentient.

 

[Placeholder]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

> Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago
> A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation

...

> Experts, however, aren’t terribly surprised. “It’s never been remotely plausible that they did not understand the science,” says Naomi Oreskes, a history of science professor at Harvard University. But as it turns out, Exxon didn’t just understand the science, the company actively engaged with it. In the 1970s and 1980s it employed top scientists to look into the issue and launched its own ambitious research program that empirically sampled carbon dioxide and built rigorous climate models. Exxon even spent more than $1 million on a tanker project that would tackle how much CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. It was one of the biggest scientific questions of the time, meaning that Exxon was truly conducting unprecedented research.

for the record, I do believe man has an impact on the climate, how much impact is debatable and I’m not sure of it, therefore I always use the word ‘may’ because I’m open to whatever information is available.

Ah, from all that the mud you were slinging at the earth scientists, I ... misunderstood.

Especially when you were claiming the results were politcized, so both sides must be wrong.

Becuase you're enthusiastically pushing both-sides-are-wrong smokescreen, and then accusing both the left and environmentalists of green fascism, or something.

And making noises about being open to information, while perpetuating a 40 year old, multi-million dollar misinformation campaign.

Also, can you tell me with 100% certainty that every peer reviewing scientist are not biased? Methodology is more important than peer review,

Yup, happily, physicists and chemists keep the earth scientists and bio people honest. Sit on each others' dissertation committees. Literal truth. One which completely nullifies your arguments.

There's a cross-linking system of reviewing intradepartmemtal peers, interdepartmental peers, data, observations, methodology, instrumentation, models, and conclusions.

In reality, there are no good guys.

You're half right. Exxon has blood on its hands.

You're half wrong. And shouldn't baselessly smear crap on the academics just for cynicism's sake. (Or allege a green conspiracy. ) I'm pretty sure evil starts with contempt for others, or, at the very least, a lack of compassion.

Cynicism for the sake of cynicism, I wouldn't say it's evil, but no good comes of it.

Personally, I don't like sentient dragons. Dragons being sentient aren't what makes them cool.

If a dragon isn't sentient, it's just a beast. It can't outsmart you.

Or consent, McAfee notwithstanding. ?‍?

 

[RepresentingWrath]

Dragons should have rights.

 

[Placeholder]

Even non-sentient ones?

Also, which rights? (Marriage would be a biggie.)

And, if they accidentally eat their conjugal partner, is that cannibalism?

More importantly, should they pay taxes?

 

[RepresentingWrath]

More importantly, should they pay taxes?

Yes.

 

[NotaNuffian]

Still not locked.
So on the topic of dragons and gods (plural, not to the big G).

If dragon = god, what is a dragon god then? A god that is also a dragon? A god god or a dragon dragon?

 

[Placeholder]

Well, certainly a dragon might achieve (or feign) godhood for tax reasons.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

Well, certainly a dragon might achieve (or feign) godhood for tax reasons.

Probably.

 

[ThrillingHuman]

how is it 10 pages long?

 

[laccoff_mawning]

If dragon = god, what is a dragon god then? A god that is also a dragon? A god god or a dragon dragon?

Now this is a trail of thought I think is meritable to expand on.

Firstly, lets assume = means "equals" (which it usually does, but in this particular case I'd suggest it doesn't). Then, dragon god = dragon dragon = god god, which I'd assume means "a dragon of the dragons" or "god of the gods"- that is, whatever a dragon is to humans, a dragon god would be to gods.

However, i would probably suggest = here means "is a subclass of". that is, all dragons are gods, but not all gods are dragons. That thing.

In this particular case, I would suggest either "dragon god" is redundant, and simply means "dragon", or case 1 holds, and "dragon god" means a god of the dragons, which would mean a god of a subcategory of gods.

Note: I say "god of dragons" and not "dragon of gods" because dragon would be the adjective; there is a difference. Hence dragon god would be a god first and foremost, not a dragon. Hence "dragon god" is a god of *something* not a dragon of *something*

edit: if you were to say dragon-god, with a hyphon, then that would be entirely different. As that would suggest dragons and gods have different properties, and a dragon-god is a being which could be classified as both a dragon and a god. This in turn implies dragon would not be a subcatagory of gods, since then all dragons would be dragon-gods and this would be redundant.

 

[Placeholder]

Isn't this just setting up and knocking down definitions?

 

[RepresentingWrath]

Isn't this just setting up and knocking down definitions?

Yes.