|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 01 2017 11:06 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2017 08:33 sc-darkness wrote:
It's probably not getting easier with global warming. Comments like these are as dumb as the it's snowing and -14, so my anecdotal retort about climate is right. There's a difference between weather and climate. Over the last 20 years, there has been no increase in # or severity of Hurricanes (compared to historical data). Keep peddling the bullshit though.
I think you've just made the same mistake you accused sc-darkness of in the same post - taking the last 20 years is both not a particularly large sample set and not necessarily representative of what can be expected in the future.
That being said, AFAIK the current state of scientific knowledge on the subject is "we don't have any particularly good reason to believe that current projections of global warming/climate change will lead to more, or more severe, hurricanes".
|
On October 01 2017 05:40 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2017 05:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 01 2017 05:25 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 01 2017 05:18 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 01 2017 05:16 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 01 2017 05:14 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2017 05:13 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 01 2017 05:07 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2017 05:04 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 01 2017 04:51 zlefin wrote:
There's no lesson to be learned by us, you're the one who needs to learn the lesson: don't choose to hurt people; you willingly chose to cause suffering to others and yourself out of spite and foolishness; that's entirely on you.
You don't like being called out on the facts; you don't like facts at all; because the reality and facts are, that you were wrong, and you chose evil, and it was obvious that you chose evil. Let's go back to logic shall we instead of posting here only to piss people off. The dems and GOP were both trying to get the White House. GOP got it and DNC didn't. So by reasoning, ofc the DNC needs to reflect on themselves in comparison to the GOP. Its common sense. If the goal is to win at all costs, regardless of the suffering it causes to the world or to yourself; then yes that's true. But there's a larger questoin of whether the stance of winning regardless of the suffering you cause is appropriate or not. Do you have an opinion on that question? I got to admit, the Left's aggrandizing victimhood industry have definitely been suffering after Trump's victory. are you still on that nonsense abotu their being an actual serious industry of significant size on the left? (and seemingly ignoring that for what industry there is, there'es just as much of it on the right) You also didn't answer the question asked. I just did, it isn't healthy to have a system where racists/sexists scam artists can run rampant. So it is definitely appropriate for Trump to make a dent to them. You elected a racist, sexist, scam artist as president. If that's not running rampant, I don't know what is. Trump probably employed way more women than Hillary ever did so there goes the sexist argument. Regarding race though, being against illegal immigration just means that he wants to help out hard working immigrant workers to get paid deservedly at minimum wage and have a good system at reducing criminals from coming in. Well, at least you admit he's a scam artist. I think there are some things he is walking back on from his campaign promises after gaining new information as our President but that's just being proper smart on his part.
His big 3 promises: ACA repeal, the wall, tax reform. 0/3 so far. What new information are you talking about that wasn't available before? Maybe make that 0/4 if you count lock her up.
The only thing hes won so far is the supreme court which was easy.
|
On October 01 2017 08:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2017 08:04 ChristianS wrote:On October 01 2017 07:44 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2017 07:26 LegalLord wrote:On October 01 2017 06:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 01 2017 06:37 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2017 06:33 LegalLord wrote:On October 01 2017 05:33 sc-darkness wrote:
How is Trump's approval in the US nowadays? Any prospect of him getting impeached or resignation before his term ends?
Obama wasn't great but he looks like a titan compared to Trump. Low approval. But you don't get impeached for being unpopular, you only get impeached for breaking the law. He doesn't look like the kind of person to resign from an ego trip like this. That not how impeachment works. I would think this would have been sorted out by now, but I keep hearing it from both sides. I said it from when the impeachment talk first started criminality is not in any way a requirement for impeachment. They could impeach him for wearing a tan suit if they wanted to, or he could hang an innocent person from the white house steps and not be impeached. All that matters is whether Republicans think it is acceptable behavior (so long as Dem's don't have 66 seats) for a president representing their party. So far, they still do. So how new is the Uganda flair? I'm guessing it has to do with a suggestion for moving arrangements previously made. In principle yes, you could get impeached for anything. But given that even Andrew Johnson survived impeachment it is definitely not just that simple. It's baffling to me how you can make an utterly false statement as if it were fact, get publicly corrected by people who know you're ignorant, and then you still come back and try to clarify what they meant. Is there any subject on which you do not believe yourself to be an expert? Is there any amount of ignorance you could display that would make you stop posting the way you do? Two posts ago you didn't know what impeachment was. Hush. He knew what it was. The process even nominally requires "high crimes and misdemeanors." But if the whole country felt as Danglars did, Obama would have been impeached for unconstitutional EOs, even though that's not theoretically an impeachable offense. If the whole country felt like Doodsmack, Trump would have been impeached on the testimony of Tony Schwartz, even though none of that is impeachable either. So yes, it winds up as just a political process, but if someone thought otherwise it wouldn't mean they "didn't know what it was," If we look at what he said Show nested quote +On October 01 2017 06:33 LegalLord wrote:On October 01 2017 05:33 sc-darkness wrote:
How is Trump's approval in the US nowadays? Any prospect of him getting impeached or resignation before his term ends?
Obama wasn't great but he looks like a titan compared to Trump. Low approval. But you don't get impeached for being unpopular, you only get impeached for breaking the law. He doesn't look like the kind of person to resign from an ego trip like this. He said specifically that it isn't about popularity, it is about breaking the law, ie criminal convictions. So let's examine that claim a little from a political and constitutional perspective. Firstly, let us ask ourselves which branch of government it is that brings criminal charges against an individual. It's actually the executive branch. The justice department, the FBI, prosecutors etc, they're all part of the executive branch. So, if impeachment were to require lawbreaking (which in turn requires a criminal conviction to have any legal existence) that would require the executive to impeach itself. Doesn't sound very plausible. Secondly, let us ask ourselves which branch of government actually brings impeachment proceedings against the executive. It is the legislative. The House votes on it and the Senate then tries the case before itself. They do not require a criminal conviction, and again, it would make very little sense from a constitutional perspective if they did because they have no powers of conviction, those lie with the executive. The question is entirely decided by whether the legislative collectively believe that the head of the executive should be impeached. And the silly thing is this should be pretty apparently to any individual, even one lacking a rudimentary understanding of the US constitutional structure. The role of the executive as the head of the investigative and prosecuting departments has been front page news throughout the Comey firing, the threat of Sessions being dismissed, the threat of McCabe being fired, and so forth. The idea that impeachment requires breaking the law should just sound wrong to anyone who says it, they should think "wait a second, but that means... that can't be right". It is decided by popularity within the legislative, and therefore within the electorate of the legislative. Always has been. It is a constitutional check on the power of the executive by the elected representatives of the people. LegalLord's post wasn't just wrong, it was the complete opposite of right. He didn't just state 1+1=3 with certainty, he stated 1+1=potato. I'm sufficiently tired of his shit that I stopped simply at telling him that it was wrong but GH generously decided to try and teach LegalLord the extremely obvious fundamentals of how impeachment works. At which point LegalLord shows up and pretends that he got it all along but that GH isn't quite right and he'll add to what GH said. We've all met someone like LegalLord before. Someone who will spout something incomprehensibly wrong and then when corrected will try to pass it off as if they knew what they meant all along, and even try to add something inane to what the person corrected them said in order to get the last word.
And what if his actual belief is something like "the actual decision is made politically, but there's a prevailing understanding among the political class that you should only impeach if someone breaks the law?" I'm not saying it's right, but it's not 1+1=potato either.
That you're sick of his shit has become especially apparent in the last week, but grudge holding like this doesn't seem very good for the thread.
|
On October 01 2017 11:06 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2017 08:33 sc-darkness wrote:
It's probably not getting easier with global warming. Comments like these are as dumb as the it's snowing and -14, so my anecdotal retort about climate is right. There's a difference between weather and climate. Over the last 20 years, there has been no increase in # or severity of Hurricanes (compared to historical data). Keep peddling the bullshit though.
first of all, people do assume storms to get more severe with rising temperature levels since they only form over warm water. So at the very least the opposite seems to be true. If it's colder they're less likely to happen.
Also, if you don't believe that part of it rising sea levels do make them more severe when it comes to effects even if the storms themselves happen to be on the same scale. When people talk about "sea levels are going to be 2cm higher" (or whatever) the 2cm higher on average really isn't what people are scared about. But 2cm higher sealevels means so much more damage because so much more water gets over your dyke's and whatnot
|
On October 01 2017 11:16 Plansix wrote:
Who needs bullshit when there is overwhelming scientific evidence that the temperature of the earth is rising?
So? It does not follow that armageddon follows it; in fact, historically, the climate right now (and projected) isn't outside the normal fluctuations in Earth's history. We've had periods in our history where temperatures rose more than 12 F in a few years and the biggest impact was on the mega-fauna (partially also because they were highly specialized). We've had periods where CO2 was much much higher and life continued (in fact, these periods tend to be some of the best for vegetation). Climate always changes - the Mediterranean is not that old, the Great Lakes formed 12,000 years ago, etc. You can say, yeah, but it'd be less worse if we weren't making things hotter, but the fact is, that the solutions to this question is worse than the status-quo in nearly all cases (economically, utilitarian cost: benefit, etc.). I wouldn't have as much of a problem in this area if it also didn't accompany 1:1 with ideological goals of radical environmentalists/socialists. If all the movement was trying to do is get rid of Oil subsidies, then sure, let's get that done, but that's not what it is about. It's about total lifestyle change, forced urbanization, etc. Anyways, I'm ready to be attacked by the "consensus".
|
On October 01 2017 11:45 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2017 11:06 Wegandi wrote:On October 01 2017 08:33 sc-darkness wrote:
It's probably not getting easier with global warming. Comments like these are as dumb as the it's snowing and -14, so my anecdotal retort about climate is right. There's a difference between weather and climate. Over the last 20 years, there has been no increase in # or severity of Hurricanes (compared to historical data). Keep peddling the bullshit though. first of all, people do assume storms to get more severe with rising temperature levels since they only form over warm water. So at the very least the opposite seems to be true. If it's colder they're less likely to happen. Also, if you don't believe that part of it rising sea levels do make them more severe when it comes to effects even if the storms themselves happen to be on the same scale. When people talk about "sea levels are going to be 2cm higher" (or whatever) the 2cm higher on average really isn't what people are scared about. But 2cm higher sealevels means so much more damage because so much more water gets over your dyke's and whatnot
Oddly enough, there is a paradox here. The warmer the waters and more storms, the less severe the storms are. The fewer storms there are, but colder waters, the more severe the storms are. The research has been done here: https://phys.org/news/2017-01-frequent-hurricanes-necessarily-stronger-atlantic.html
Regardless, we're not outside historical norms for Hurricanes. Using a contemporary Hurricane to push climate change is anti-science. Just like the people who say, see, we had snow in August and it was cold well into June, so climate change does not exist are the same ilk of people. I'm just tired of the hyperbolic doomness whenever climate change comes up. If you guys were more reasonable, maybe you might get things done.
|
On October 01 2017 11:58 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2017 11:45 Toadesstern wrote:On October 01 2017 11:06 Wegandi wrote:On October 01 2017 08:33 sc-darkness wrote:
It's probably not getting easier with global warming. Comments like these are as dumb as the it's snowing and -14, so my anecdotal retort about climate is right. There's a difference between weather and climate. Over the last 20 years, there has been no increase in # or severity of Hurricanes (compared to historical data). Keep peddling the bullshit though. first of all, people do assume storms to get more severe with rising temperature levels since they only form over warm water. So at the very least the opposite seems to be true. If it's colder they're less likely to happen. Also, if you don't believe that part of it rising sea levels do make them more severe when it comes to effects even if the storms themselves happen to be on the same scale. When people talk about "sea levels are going to be 2cm higher" (or whatever) the 2cm higher on average really isn't what people are scared about. But 2cm higher sealevels means so much more damage because so much more water gets over your dyke's and whatnot Oddly enough, there is a paradox here. The warmer the waters and more storms, the less severe the storms are. The fewer storms there are, but colder waters, the more severe the storms are. The research has been done here: https://phys.org/news/2017-01-frequent-hurricanes-necessarily-stronger-atlantic.htmlRegardless, we're not outside historical norms for Hurricanes. Using a contemporary Hurricane to push climate change is anti-science. Just like the people who say, see, we had snow in August and it was cold well into June, so climate change does not exist are the same ilk of people. I'm just tired of the hyperbolic doomness whenever climate change comes up. If you guys were more reasonable, maybe you might get things done.
weird, most of the stuff I've read on this says the exact opposite. Is that one of those "99% of the studies shows A but I link the 1% that says B" cases?
and you completly ignored the second, more important point
|
On October 01 2017 11:34 CorsairHero wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2017 05:40 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 01 2017 05:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 01 2017 05:25 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 01 2017 05:18 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 01 2017 05:16 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 01 2017 05:14 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2017 05:13 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 01 2017 05:07 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2017 05:04 RealityIsKing wrote:
[quote]
Let's go back to logic shall we instead of posting here only to piss people off.
The dems and GOP were both trying to get the White House.
GOP got it and DNC didn't.
So by reasoning, ofc the DNC needs to reflect on themselves in comparison to the GOP.
Its common sense. If the goal is to win at all costs, regardless of the suffering it causes to the world or to yourself; then yes that's true. But there's a larger questoin of whether the stance of winning regardless of the suffering you cause is appropriate or not. Do you have an opinion on that question? I got to admit, the Left's aggrandizing victimhood industry have definitely been suffering after Trump's victory. are you still on that nonsense abotu their being an actual serious industry of significant size on the left? (and seemingly ignoring that for what industry there is, there'es just as much of it on the right) You also didn't answer the question asked. I just did, it isn't healthy to have a system where racists/sexists scam artists can run rampant. So it is definitely appropriate for Trump to make a dent to them. You elected a racist, sexist, scam artist as president. If that's not running rampant, I don't know what is. Trump probably employed way more women than Hillary ever did so there goes the sexist argument. Regarding race though, being against illegal immigration just means that he wants to help out hard working immigrant workers to get paid deservedly at minimum wage and have a good system at reducing criminals from coming in. Well, at least you admit he's a scam artist. I think there are some things he is walking back on from his campaign promises after gaining new information as our President but that's just being proper smart on his part. His big 3 promises: ACA repeal, the wall, tax reform. 0/3 so far. What new information are you talking about that wasn't available before? Maybe make that 0/4 if you count lock her up. The only thing hes won so far is the supreme court which was easy.
Tax reform is coming though.
ACA didn't get repealed yet because of that McCain guy who let the whole country down.
The wall could arrive sooner but we have to deal with NK dictatorship waging war against our allies. Let's take care of that son of a bitch first and then we can allocate more resources into internal construction.
And yeah I have to say that I'm DEEPLY disappointed that Trump let Hillary go off so easily. BUT Hillary have been spreading fake news again these days on her book tour so maybe that will get Trump going again on her.
|
On October 01 2017 11:54 Wegandi wrote:...
So? It does not follow that armageddon follows it; in fact, historically, the climate right now (and projected) isn't outside the normal fluctuations in Earth's history. We've had periods in our history where temperatures rose more than 12 F in a few years and the biggest impact was on the mega-fauna (partially also because they were highly specialized). We've had periods where CO2 was much much higher and life continued (in fact, these periods tend to be some of the best for vegetation). Climate always changes - the Mediterranean is not that old, the Great Lakes formed 12,000 years ago, etc.
This doesn't mean that it is not in our best interest as a civilisation and a species to avoid putting the Earth's climate in a state which it has previously been in. Just because the Earth's been in a given state before doesn't mean that that state is not inimical to current ideas of what human civilisation should look like.
You can say, yeah, but it'd be less worse if we weren't making things hotter, but the fact is, that the solutions to this question is worse than the status-quo in nearly all cases (economically, utilitarian cost: benefit, etc.).
They are worse than the status-quo in the short term, that's true (probably). Do you disagree with the proposition that the world will be a much better place for those living 100 or 200 years from now if we act to limit climate change now?
|
On October 01 2017 12:01 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2017 11:58 Wegandi wrote:On October 01 2017 11:45 Toadesstern wrote:On October 01 2017 11:06 Wegandi wrote:On October 01 2017 08:33 sc-darkness wrote:
It's probably not getting easier with global warming. Comments like these are as dumb as the it's snowing and -14, so my anecdotal retort about climate is right. There's a difference between weather and climate. Over the last 20 years, there has been no increase in # or severity of Hurricanes (compared to historical data). Keep peddling the bullshit though. first of all, people do assume storms to get more severe with rising temperature levels since they only form over warm water. So at the very least the opposite seems to be true. If it's colder they're less likely to happen. Also, if you don't believe that part of it rising sea levels do make them more severe when it comes to effects even if the storms themselves happen to be on the same scale. When people talk about "sea levels are going to be 2cm higher" (or whatever) the 2cm higher on average really isn't what people are scared about. But 2cm higher sealevels means so much more damage because so much more water gets over your dyke's and whatnot Oddly enough, there is a paradox here. The warmer the waters and more storms, the less severe the storms are. The fewer storms there are, but colder waters, the more severe the storms are. The research has been done here: https://phys.org/news/2017-01-frequent-hurricanes-necessarily-stronger-atlantic.htmlRegardless, we're not outside historical norms for Hurricanes. Using a contemporary Hurricane to push climate change is anti-science. Just like the people who say, see, we had snow in August and it was cold well into June, so climate change does not exist are the same ilk of people. I'm just tired of the hyperbolic doomness whenever climate change comes up. If you guys were more reasonable, maybe you might get things done. weird, most of the stuff I've read on this says the exact opposite. Is that one of those "99% of the studies shows A but I link the 1% that says B" cases? and you completly ignored the second, more important point
2CM sea level rise is not going to be catastrophic. The biggest areas of concern on sea-level rise is not dykes and levies via storm surges, but the islands in the south pacific that are much more profoundly impacted. As for the study - no, it correlates to historical data as well. It just goes against the hysteria and anecdotal narrative, so it doesn't really get much publication and media (plus it doesn't confirm the media's ideological base). DOOOM, Hysteria, death, better do what we say or else.
|
So, humans that consume much more than anything in the world, living 1-1.5 hours outside of where they work, being "forced" into urbanization is a bad thing if everything they need is within walking/short drive distance? It's convenient more than anything else, for people to be clumped together, as long as health and welfare are maintained.
|
On October 01 2017 12:09 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2017 12:01 Toadesstern wrote:On October 01 2017 11:58 Wegandi wrote:On October 01 2017 11:45 Toadesstern wrote:On October 01 2017 11:06 Wegandi wrote:On October 01 2017 08:33 sc-darkness wrote:
It's probably not getting easier with global warming. Comments like these are as dumb as the it's snowing and -14, so my anecdotal retort about climate is right. There's a difference between weather and climate. Over the last 20 years, there has been no increase in # or severity of Hurricanes (compared to historical data). Keep peddling the bullshit though. first of all, people do assume storms to get more severe with rising temperature levels since they only form over warm water. So at the very least the opposite seems to be true. If it's colder they're less likely to happen. Also, if you don't believe that part of it rising sea levels do make them more severe when it comes to effects even if the storms themselves happen to be on the same scale. When people talk about "sea levels are going to be 2cm higher" (or whatever) the 2cm higher on average really isn't what people are scared about. But 2cm higher sealevels means so much more damage because so much more water gets over your dyke's and whatnot Oddly enough, there is a paradox here. The warmer the waters and more storms, the less severe the storms are. The fewer storms there are, but colder waters, the more severe the storms are. The research has been done here: https://phys.org/news/2017-01-frequent-hurricanes-necessarily-stronger-atlantic.htmlRegardless, we're not outside historical norms for Hurricanes. Using a contemporary Hurricane to push climate change is anti-science. Just like the people who say, see, we had snow in August and it was cold well into June, so climate change does not exist are the same ilk of people. I'm just tired of the hyperbolic doomness whenever climate change comes up. If you guys were more reasonable, maybe you might get things done. weird, most of the stuff I've read on this says the exact opposite. Is that one of those "99% of the studies shows A but I link the 1% that says B" cases? and you completly ignored the second, more important point 2CM sea level rise is not going to be catastrophic. The biggest areas of concern on sea-level rise is not dykes and levies via storm surges, but the islands in the south pacific that are much more profoundly impacted. As for the study - no, it correlates to historical data as well. It just goes against the hysteria and anecdotal narrative, so it doesn't really get much publication and media (plus it doesn't confirm the media's ideological base). DOOOM, Hysteria, death, better do what we say or else.
Two centimetres? By when? Can you cite that?
edit: oh right, it was an arbitrary number made up by somebody else. never mind
|
On October 01 2017 12:05 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2017 11:54 Wegandi wrote:...
So? It does not follow that armageddon follows it; in fact, historically, the climate right now (and projected) isn't outside the normal fluctuations in Earth's history. We've had periods in our history where temperatures rose more than 12 F in a few years and the biggest impact was on the mega-fauna (partially also because they were highly specialized). We've had periods where CO2 was much much higher and life continued (in fact, these periods tend to be some of the best for vegetation). Climate always changes - the Mediterranean is not that old, the Great Lakes formed 12,000 years ago, etc. This doesn't mean that it is not in our best interest as a civilisation and a species to avoid putting the Earth's climate in a state which it has previously been in. Just because the Earth's been in a given state before doesn't mean that that state is not inimical to current ideas of what human civilisation should look like. Show nested quote +You can say, yeah, but it'd be less worse if we weren't making things hotter, but the fact is, that the solutions to this question is worse than the status-quo in nearly all cases (economically, utilitarian cost: benefit, etc.). They are worse than the status-quo in the short term, that's true (probably). Do you disagree with the proposition that the world will be a much better place for those living 100 or 200 years from now if we act to limit climate change now?
No. If we believe the hysteria narrative, the impacts of climate change will be felt within 50 years, not 200 years, and thus, the greatest impact will be on the people <50 years. In 200 years, if all the land ice that can flow into the ocean is melted, there's no more ocean rise. The study I linked, actually determined more storms = less severe (if we assume, climate change = more storms). After the initial impact on coastal communities and land ice melt, things get better, not worse. What I'm saying, is that even in some of the more worst case imagination, more people will be impacted on the proposed "solutions" to the problem, than the problem itself. I know I'm in the minority here, but really, there will be some benefits, some negatives, but that's much more preferable to the authoritarian environmental solutions.
|
On October 01 2017 12:11 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
So, humans that consume much more than anything in the world, living 1-1.5 hours outside of where they work, being "forced" into urbanization is a bad thing if everything they need is within walking/short drive distance? It's convenient more than anything else, for people to be clumped together, as long as health and welfare are maintained.
I see freedom never entered into your equation. Color me unsurprised.
|
On October 01 2017 12:13 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2017 12:05 Aquanim wrote:On October 01 2017 11:54 Wegandi wrote:...
So? It does not follow that armageddon follows it; in fact, historically, the climate right now (and projected) isn't outside the normal fluctuations in Earth's history. We've had periods in our history where temperatures rose more than 12 F in a few years and the biggest impact was on the mega-fauna (partially also because they were highly specialized). We've had periods where CO2 was much much higher and life continued (in fact, these periods tend to be some of the best for vegetation). Climate always changes - the Mediterranean is not that old, the Great Lakes formed 12,000 years ago, etc. This doesn't mean that it is not in our best interest as a civilisation and a species to avoid putting the Earth's climate in a state which it has previously been in. Just because the Earth's been in a given state before doesn't mean that that state is not inimical to current ideas of what human civilisation should look like. You can say, yeah, but it'd be less worse if we weren't making things hotter, but the fact is, that the solutions to this question is worse than the status-quo in nearly all cases (economically, utilitarian cost: benefit, etc.). They are worse than the status-quo in the short term, that's true (probably). Do you disagree with the proposition that the world will be a much better place for those living 100 or 200 years from now if we act to limit climate change now? No. If we believe the hysteria narrative, the impacts of climate change will be felt within 50 years, not 200 years, and thus, the greatest impact will be on the people <50 years. In 200 years, if all the land ice that can flow into the ocean is melted, there's no more ocean rise. The study I linked, actually determined more storms = less severe (if we assume, climate change = more storms). After the initial impact on coastal communities and land ice melt, things get better, not worse. What I'm saying, is that even in some of the more worst case imagination, more people will be impacted on the proposed "solutions" to the problem, than the problem itself. I know I'm in the minority here, but really, there will be some benefits, some negatives, but that's much more preferable to the authoritarian environmental solutions.
To the best of my knowledge you are greatly underestimating the effect that temperature rises and melting all the land ice in the world would have on human civilisation and global ecology. I'm not sure if this thread is the best place to have it out in detail though and I would need to do a fair bit of reading to lay the evidence out conclusively.
EDIT: I also think you're probably overselling how bad the present-day measures to deal with the problem are. If you lay out some specifics then maybe that can be discussed.
|
On October 01 2017 12:15 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2017 12:11 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
So, humans that consume much more than anything in the world, living 1-1.5 hours outside of where they work, being "forced" into urbanization is a bad thing if everything they need is within walking/short drive distance? It's convenient more than anything else, for people to be clumped together, as long as health and welfare are maintained. I see freedom never entered into your equation. Color me unsurprised.
You started with the hyperbole. And what the fuck does that even mean? Freedom to do what? What they've always been doing and will continue to do, no matter what we experts tell them? Where the fuck do you get your statements from that says urbanization is a bad thing?
|
Calling newspaper articles based on internal administration leaks fake news without providing counter evidence, well, at least I can see why some people would want believe that even though I think it's a very bad practice.
But can someone explain to me why he is now calling reporters on scene in Puerto Rico talking to people and visiting sites fake news as well? Is he now just going to call everything fake news that he doesn't like? Is that the new M.O.? Don't believe that guy standing in this destroyed village, I know much better here from the golf course, believe me? It just doesn't make any sense.
He manages to take someone that says 'these people here really need help' and turn it into 'fake news disrespecting the military and coastguard don't believe them'
|
On October 01 2017 13:42 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Calling newspaper articles based on internal administration leaks fake news without providing counter evidence, well, at least I can see why some people would want believe that even though I think it's a very bad practice.
But can someone explain to me why he is now calling reporters on scene in Puerto Rico talking to people and visiting sites fake news as well? Is he now just going to call everything fake news that he doesn't like? Is that the new M.O.? Don't believe that guy standing in this destroyed village, I know much better here from the golf course, believe me? It just doesn't make any sense.
This has been a constant thing for a while now.
|
On October 01 2017 13:42 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Calling newspaper articles based on internal administration leaks fake news without providing counter evidence, well, at least I can see why some people would want believe that even though I think it's a very bad practice.
But can someone explain to me why he is now calling reporters on scene in Puerto Rico talking to people and visiting sites fake news as well? Is he now just going to call everything fake news that he doesn't like? Is that the new M.O.? Don't believe that guy standing in this destroyed village, I know much better here from the golf course, believe me? It just doesn't make any sense.
He manages to take someone that says 'these people here really need help' and turn it into 'fake news disrespecting the military and coastguard don't believe them'
I see that you're one of those people that was still giving Trump the benefit of the doubt.
It's much easier just to stop doing that.
|
On October 01 2017 05:51 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2017 03:16 micronesia wrote:
The main concern is not with Trump acting the way he is, but with people still supporting him.
I mean, if a goat was elected president but had trouble getting any major legislation pushed through since all it does is eat plants, we wouldn't blame the goat, we'd blame the people who thought it was a good idea to elect the goat, and even more so, we'd blame the people who give the goat high marks and plan to re-elect the goat for its role in rescuing Puerto Rico from the ongoing disaster over there (not that we should blame the goat either, but you get the idea).
Kind of the same thing here... Trump didn't do much to hide what he was before he was elected. People voted for him, and they are predominantly the problem. Other parties (e.g., Hillary) are also at fault for the way things turned out, but the most fundamental blame, in my opinion, points at people who voted for the person doing things like today's tweets. I don’t think the President retains support for his brilliant job at passing legislation or his vocal response to Puerto Rico. I do have a problem with people that think Trump is performing in his role well (or will drain the swamp and pass great tax reform). Don’t conflate that with the original decision to vote for him. Nobody listened when Americans were fed up with Obamacare, immigration policy, and legislation by technocratic elite. We (They) sent Trump to office to send the message that the status quo must end, this kind of bipartisan DC consensus in rejection of campaign promises to the contrary. It’s not an endorsement of the messenger or all the misdeeds and harm he will do in office. It’s that you didn’t get the message and still refuse to see why Trump got elected, preferring to engage in defamation of his base. I really wish it didn’t come down to this. We learned that the fiction of a ‘United’ states was only indulged if you voted the way elite opinion wanted you to vote. I'm gonna leave the question alone of what Trump supporters as a whole intended when they voted for him. Trump supporters have had so many motives read onto them at this point you'd think they were all schizophrenic. But did you expect Trump to turn out better than this? Because you're railing against "elite opinion," presumably the same elite opinion that said that Trump was unprecedented and terrible, but then you got your way, and he did a bunch of unprecedented and terrible things. Doesn't that seem to prove the "elite opinion" at least partially right? People are drawing comparisons to Katrina, but even Bush didn't get in a Twitter flame war with the mayor of New Orleans when the levies broke. This really is uniquely awful. If someone thinks that voting for Trump was a mistake, and then he does some new terrible thing, why is it not fair for them to point to the new terrible thing as further evidence for their hypothesis?
I'm specifically talking about policy and the direction of the US. I don't think we'll get very far about Clinton's uniquely terrible things vs Trump's uniquely terrible things. Hell, even talking about Obama's unprecedented and terrible things.
On October 01 2017 06:43 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2017 03:16 micronesia wrote:
The main concern is not with Trump acting the way he is, but with people still supporting him.
I mean, if a goat was elected president but had trouble getting any major legislation pushed through since all it does is eat plants, we wouldn't blame the goat, we'd blame the people who thought it was a good idea to elect the goat, and even more so, we'd blame the people who give the goat high marks and plan to re-elect the goat for its role in rescuing Puerto Rico from the ongoing disaster over there (not that we should blame the goat either, but you get the idea).
Kind of the same thing here... Trump didn't do much to hide what he was before he was elected. People voted for him, and they are predominantly the problem. Other parties (e.g., Hillary) are also at fault for the way things turned out, but the most fundamental blame, in my opinion, points at people who voted for the person doing things like today's tweets. I don’t think the President retains support for his brilliant job at passing legislation or his vocal response to Puerto Rico. I do have a problem with people that think Trump is performing in his role well (or will drain the swamp and pass great tax reform). Don’t conflate that with the original decision to vote for him. Nobody listened when Americans were fed up with Obamacare, immigration policy, and legislation by technocratic elite. We (They) sent Trump to office to send the message that the status quo must end, this kind of bipartisan DC consensus in rejection of campaign promises to the contrary. It’s not an endorsement of the messenger or all the misdeeds and harm he will do in office. It’s that you didn’t get the message and still refuse to see why Trump got elected, preferring to engage in defamation of his base. I really wish it didn’t come down to this. We learned that the fiction of a ‘United’ states was only indulged if you voted the way elite opinion wanted you to vote. I don't have a problem, in principle, with folks voting for the reasons you gave. However, those voters shouldn't try to simultaneously justify the reasoning for wanting to vote against certain people like Hillary and take no responsibility for the bad actions of the person they chose to vote for. It's one or the other. Either people voted for Trump knowing he would do embarrassing/harmful things like what we've been discussing here, and decided that was worth it to send a message that the status quo must end, or they shouldn't have voted for him. I'll make an exception for those too simple-minded to understand the ramifications of their vote (whole separate problem), but the majority of voters, like I said before, should have known exactly what they were getting as most of the people who voted for Hillary did once the election was over. If you voted for the current president, you are in part responsible for his actions. That's of course always true to some extent, but it's especially true when the candidate did such a good job of telegraphing exactly what type of a person he was and how that would not change when he got into office.
You're somewhat right and somewhat wrong. A primary process that ended in Trump should be mitigated by the opposing party's nomination, but this time they picked someone worse than Trump. That doesn't absolve a voter from having weighed the positive message Trump sent against all the buffoonery, incompetency, and twitter/speech behavior. You accepted the good with the bad in the vote, and should somewhat stand by it. If you've been reading the thread, maybe you got the perspective from the country standpoint and from a within-party standpoint:
+ Show Spoiler +On November 10 2016 01:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 01:11 WhiteDog wrote:On November 10 2016 01:08 ACrow wrote:On November 10 2016 01:05 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2016 00:58 Logo wrote:3) Abortion rights aren't going anywhere. Gay rights aren't going anywhere. You've won on these issues. Even if Trump gets capped and Pence takes over, there's nothing that the president can do to unwind the progress that's been made. Virtually no judge that Trump may appoint will overturn the precedents that have been set. Judges are egotistical assholes, and they'd rather not tarnish their reputations (see John Roberts). And the American people don't have the appetite for a protracted cultural war on these issues right now. Trump didn't even run on those issues. There are bigger fish to fry. Which takes me to my last point.... This one seems incorrect (the abortion part)? There's already a bunch of states chipping away at abortion rights by imposing overly strict regulations on where abortions can be performed or allowing shady centers to operate that appear to be about family planning or offer abortions but then really hammer anti-abortion messages into you. See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/01/14-states-have-passed-laws-making-it-harder-to-get-an-abortion-already-this-year/ among others. Anyone can get an abortion in this country. Unless you're an advocate for late term abortions, the battle is being fought at the margins over convenience. This is a non-issue that is blown out of proportion by the left. That is so egotistical it is disgusting. "I'm male, so I'm not affected, so I don't care". Jerk. Keep your nose out of women's affairs and let them decide you control freak. Come on that's not what he said ... I truly wonder : is the vote Trump some kind of millenarism ? Did US citizens showed their desire for the end of the world ?I've had some tough discussion with students this morning. The media attacked their brains so much they actually thought Trump meant WW3. Like I've said for a long time (and you have said the same), what exactly did Trump supporters have to lose? What was their alternative? They've been maligned culturally for so long, that a populist revolt was inevitable. On November 09 2016 13:11 LegalLord wrote:
On my drive home (at long last) I was looking for what I could use as my personal description of what's happening here. Ultimately, I came up with "the fuck-you to Hillary and the establishment that I was not willing to risk my own skin to send."
Trump is now favored to win, and we are favored to see four very interesting years. If that is what happens, I really hope that at the very least the Democrats understand exactly why it is that this happened. Their attitude towards this was absolutely not acceptable.
We have some very deep issues in this country that will extend beyond Puerto Rico and Trump's twitter feed that are absolutely core to civic peace and future harmony. I do have a lot of sympathy for people like you, micronesia, that don't grasp the ramifications of the culture wars, or the media-Clinton(Democratic) establishment, or the forgotten white/other working class. Obviously you're ranking the current trauma as eclipsing all these, and it's absolutely not the case. Clinton did a great job telegraphing why she was the worse choice. The existing division prevented a good recap of that fact, so oh well. He will probably continue to do badly in office. He will also prove how rotten the DC core and media are in their response, and that's a very valuable reminder to Americans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
