'Checkmate' is both written and pronounced as one word. How you've written it is presumably a Freudian slip instructing yourself to check your homosexual lover.
(Edited 32 seconds later.)
Metæ joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#725,594
I just realized something funny: the evangelicals think it happened because man sinned in allowing gay marriage, while the environmentalists think it happened because man sinned by burning fossil fuels.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#725,598
@previous (Metæ)
You're right. Both of those ideas are equally plausible.
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#725,599
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I don't think either is plausible because Florida isn't above average in either fossil fuel consumption or gay marriage per capita.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#725,600
@previous (Metæ)
I forgot that burning fossil fuels neatly respects state and national borders such that the amount a place suffers from climate change is directly proportional to the amount of greenhouse gasses they emit.
(Edited 30 seconds later.)
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#725,601
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Or the amount of gay marriages they have, for that matter.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 10 years ago, 11 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#725,603
@previous (Metæ)
Look this is one of those times i can't tell if.you are trolling or genuinely believing this dumb shit. You are an atheist who rejects all supernatural claims as false and yet you think climate change is equally implausible, despite at least.in theory agreeing that greenhouse gases can in principle raise the temperature of.a planet. Ill try.to illustrate this point with an analogy.
Suppose there is a lightbulb flickering overhead, and you ask me what causes it. I offer two possible solutions
A. Angry gremlins are attacking the light
B. The water pipe running above the light is leaking slightly.
You happen to think the solution is C. The lightbulb is old and failing. Let's assume that we cannot determine which one of the three is actually correct. According to you, option A and B are EQUALLY implausible, despite option A relying on the existence of beings that you are sure do not exist. Whatever the failings of B are, since it at least contains only things that you think exist and could theoretically cause the outcome, it is inherently more plausible to you. To say otherwise is to be irrational.
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 2 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#725,614
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I'm sorry. I thought the ridiculousness of me comparing gay marriage and global warming would give it away as a joke. No, I don't believe god is punishing Florida for gay marriage. Yes, I'm quite sure human activity is contributing to climate change. > think climate change is equally implausible, despite at least.in theory agreeing that greenhouse gases can in principle raise the temperature of.a planet.
I've never said climate change is implausible, on the contrary I've said many times that earth's climate is always changing and always will change until the sun finally turns into a red giant and swallows it up. I know about greenhouse gases and I've seen An Inconvenient Truth. I think humans will adapt to and/or mitigate global warming. I'm just skeptical that it will be "the end of the world as we know it". I also think Al Gore and the climate change celebrities are hypocrites and total shitbags zooming around in private jets with beachfront mansions lecturing the plebs about their carbon footprint.
(Edited 23 seconds later.)
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 36 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#725,619
@previous (Metæ)
so because of some dramatic word choices by people who aren't even the scientists, your skepticism orientation goes full tilt?
I never bothered to watch Inconvenient Truth and I can't be bothered to mention Al Gore's name anymore, yet his name keeps coming up and up again by people who are mostly skeptical of the actual science, or who have unwisely stuck the science into a political choice like every other god damn thing in their lives and repeat very wrong nonsense that they hear on the retard radio every day