Well, of course ATS has a lot of liberal members!

a reply to: Sargeras

I didn't say Global warming. VERY FEW say global warming anymore - I would say you just practiced being ignorant.

Not being offensive, though! We are all in one way or another.

Climate change is PROVEN.

Ice ages, warming ages, ice age again. The records can be found in so many places, the temperature data just over the last decades show us global climate variations.

The cause and correlation of our actions and it's impact on these changes can certainly be debated. I don't think the model for predicting the impact of pollution is perfect - I personally believe it has a fair impact - If not on air quality, and health especially.

But Climate change is a definite.

originally posted by: eNumbra

Lots of people don't simply disagree with opinions though, lots of them disagree with facts; and that definitely makes them ignorant.

I disagree.

a reply to: deadlyhope

I admit my ignorance on subjects all the time. Plus I'm always open to new evidence. I have a strict standard FOR that evidence, but that is only because I prefer following the scientific method and that is a very precise procedure. However, if you can achieve that standard for evidence I will admit my ignorance. I may not be happy about it, but I'll come around. I've done it many times on ATS.

a reply to: deadlyhope

Great post! S&F!

I think people who are conservative see ATS as a hotbed of liberalism (or Democrats or progressives) and people who are liberal see ATS as a hotbed of conservatives (or Neocons or Republicans). LOL!

Truth is, if you (or anyone) really look objectively, it's probably a mix of both with every color in between.

I think it's more important to judge each other as individuals, rather than try to see everyone as fitting nicely into a labelled box, which most of us simply don't fit into.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm writing my opinion on what this websites "Deny ignorance" means.

You just apparently depicted it as.. Not meaning anything. It's a free for all on what ignorance covers.

I think the problem might be that your definition of "Deny ignorance" is too narrow and to dependent on your own beliefs being the “Correct” beliefs.

Wouldn’t it be better to define "Deny ignorance" as simply the pursuit of finding, absorbing and contemplating all available information before you make an informed decision about a subject?

For but a minor example; a theistic scholar and deeply Christina person may have sought out and absorbed every piece of information surrounding the issue of Gay Marriage both secular, religious, scientific and philosophical … and after all that they may still come to the opinion that Gay people should not be allowed to marry.

It would be illogical to label this person “Ignorant” on the subject just because your personal views differ from his.

An ignorant person is one who puts his fingers in his ears and closes his eyes in order to shut out the world in the pursuit never having to compromise on or defend his opinion. That surly should be denied. Having a different of opinion among people with open minds should be celebrated even if we don’t like all the opinions that come out as a result.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I've been logically countered and proven wrong here on ATS a few times, but it's a good thing! I'm not here to stand on some throne and speak down to anyone, I'm here to learn and exchange thoughts and ideas. If the thoughts and ideas are contrary to what I learned as a child - Not having the mental faculties to find my own way, have my own thoughts as much as now - Even better.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I remember when we were a hotbed of conspiracy theories, UFO and alien topics, and Bigfoot sightings. Or as I like to say, the good old days.

a reply to: DanDanDat

You bring up a good point - Observing all data and coming to a conclusion is definitely what I advocate.

The priest is great in his own beliefs. He has that right, that freedom.

However, I would call a law-maker ignorant to pass laws rejecting the freedom of gay marriage, based on the opinion of said scholar. Why? It's against our constitution, and I have to assume that those men have great enough minds to have had great ideas - In fact, I see the evidence of those great ideas all around me.

a reply to: deadlyhope

Yea. We're here to learn, not yell our beliefs at each other. Too many forget that.

a reply to: yeahright

The reason why I post is that I think the biggest conspiracies are political in nature.

originally posted by: yeahright
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I remember when we were a hotbed of conspiracy theories, UFO and alien topics, and Bigfoot sightings. Or as I like to say, the good old days.

I blame Obama. it was ok till he came along

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I definitely think it's a mix of both and every color in between, I really personally dislike these terms we use to define people, it's actually the least percentage of people I know that are far-leaning towards one side of political ideology. The majority of people I know are a mix, and I think as such, people could find a lot more common ground than they think. ATS is more civil than other places I've seen, and I believe anywhere could become as civil, knowing that people like you and I can get along after a few slightly aggressive exchanges some time ago XD

It is interesting how people choose to see the opposite of what they identify with, though. I think this is one big reason why the Fed can just do whatever it wants - People are always looking for that fight against the people they deem opposite them.

a reply to: yeahright

I think that's actually what brought me to ATS a long time ago.

Watching movies on mysterious things...

Deep-ocean noises and radar readings.
Mysterious sightings, radio signals, transmissions, and the like.
Strange creature stories with hundreds of reports and no evidence of it being a hoax.

Yeah, I think I came here for different reasons, and now mostly talk politics. I should get out there and go into the crypto-zoology forums some more, read more about fascinating and thrilling experiences of other people.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: deadlyhope

Yea. We're here to learn, not yell our beliefs at each other. Too many forget that.

BUT MY BELIEFS ARE RIGHT DANGIT!!1!1

a reply to: deadlyhope

The problem I've noticed is the universal application of liberal principles, choosing only to apply them to one group or another, while denying them to others likely for political reasons.

From what i've seen, we approach these issues with caveats:

Anti-gay discrimination - unless Islam is doing it.
Minority discrimination - applies only to certain minorities while excluding others.
Racism/Bigotry - applies only to the underprivileged.
Infringement of privacy concerning health, sexual relations/preference, religion. - Unless they're religious.
State-sponsored religion - unless it is Islam
Disagreeing with separation of church and state - unless it is Islam
Denying beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt scientific evidence. - Unless it could be used to promote racism, misogyny, or to affect political agendas, ie. the history of socialism, crime statistics, domestic violence perpetrated by women, etc.

I know there are many who hold universal liberal principles to everyone, but then again, there are those who utilize them only when it suits them.

Nm

There could also be a some old school and Reagan "BIg Tent" conservatives here. Not all the conservatives have been racing to the far right. LIkewise there could be moderates/independents here that lean conservative, but also support some progressive social safety net programs.

a reply to: TheTory

Such things can be said about any topic, I mean capitalism, free market, etc can be said to be amazing! Can be said to cause a "trickle down" effect..

On the other hand, what you get is the money all funneling towards the top, and not coming back down.

You can take most any principle, and in the hands of the wrong people, it will be contorted to be detrimental.

I do agree with what you're saying, though.

originally posted by: Annee
One example: atheist threads used to get shut down. Equal Rights was fought for. And now I think we have it.

I can tell you for certain, threads were never shut down because they were 'atheist threads'. But that's a whole other kettle of Mulligatawny soup.

a reply to: yeahright

I'd assume that "atheist threads" used to more like... Islam threads were a few months ago.

Very over the top, extreme, people getting very upset, even "violent" as far as that can go within a forum.

We can now write threads that talk about radical islam - It's calmed down to where less people are posting pro-genocide topics, and more people are discussing the issue at hand.