|
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 November 03 2017 20:44 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 19:11 Nebuchad wrote:On November 03 2017 19:10 bo1b wrote:On November 03 2017 19:09 Nebuchad wrote:On November 03 2017 19:04 bo1b wrote:On November 03 2017 19:01 Nebuchad wrote:On November 03 2017 18:55 bo1b wrote:On November 03 2017 18:52 Nebuchad wrote:On November 03 2017 18:48 bo1b wrote:On November 03 2017 18:39 Nebuchad wrote: [quote]
This apparently wise outlook starts to become criticizable when one of the side is actually deserving of a ridiculous portrayal. Would that be the side running around burning universities down? Very easy to pretend one side is dramatically worse if you ignore all of your own sides sins. Everything is easy. It's also super easy to convince yourself that both sides are equally problematic and that you're the enlightened person in the middle who can see it. Facts is a much better medium than ease when discussing this. Sure, I guess you don't have a rebuttal to me pointing out the fairly astonishing hypocrisy of the left? If the left has done one thing to make me appreciate how clever they are, it's the way they've managed to sweep the absolute horrors of Marxism under the rug while simultaneously giving a platform to the current batch of geniuses who espouse it. My rebuttal is that they're mostly correct about the right being worse than them, which makes their hypocrysy a little less "fairly astonishing". I thought my position was self-evident. Marxism? Brrrr. Can you give me a list of riots the right has enacted, and a list of riots the left has enacted, total up the damage in both columns (including property damage, injuries etc), and tell me that there's really a good side to this? And yes, Marxism is the right term for this. I would imagine the left has done more riots recently, yeah. There is really a good side to this. And no, marxism is not the right term for this. First of all because it doesn't really scare me in the way that you apparently want it to, and second because the two main categories of the left in the US are liberals and social democrats, both of whom are capitalist factions. I have doubts that the people rioting are the main make up of either liberals or social democrats. Your doubts are justified, they aren't. Are we done with the leading questions already? Ok then, my turn. This conversation started from you being annoyed at Stratos_spear's portrayal of Nettles. Stratos_spear isn't antifa, and Nettles isn't a nazi. I can have both discussions cause I also happen to believe that antifas are better than nazis, but if I may ask, what was your motive for immediately shifting a discussion on the left and the right in America and whether it makes sense to be in the center between those two and to criticize their hypocrysy as equal, to a discussion of antifa and nazis? I did not, I made fun of a user venting his frustration for something that he himself does in reverse, and if you see the original post, you'll note that the quote brings up white supremacists etc.
On November 03 2017 20:44 Nixer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 20:32 bo1b wrote:On November 03 2017 20:30 Nixer wrote:On November 03 2017 20:28 bo1b wrote:On November 03 2017 20:24 Nixer wrote: By bad I mean synonymous with evil, not bad as in faulty or inadequate. One of the problems I have with your original statement is it conflates two seperate genres of political ideology. For example, to me the proper comparison wouldn't be nazism and communism but instead capitalism or fascism. So instead of comparing one with the other, we compare a vague outline of something with the absolute worst implementation of another. Perhaps a fairer comparison would be Stalinism and Nazism etc. I think you missed my point then. I'm saying you can't really compare the two. I'm pretty sure you did compare them though. Yeah I did, but not as ideologies per se, but ethically. Different worlds. See the difference or do I still need to hold your hand and explain things to you word for word? I was just concurring with Drone, no need to be a smart-arse. My apologies then, I didn't realise that a direct comparison was not a direct comparison, ethical or otherwise.
I'll keep this in mind though, so that the next time someone argues that they find apples to be tastier then oranges, they are not actually comparing their satisfaction with the two fruits.
|
On November 03 2017 20:48 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 20:44 Nebuchad wrote:On November 03 2017 19:11 Nebuchad wrote:On November 03 2017 19:10 bo1b wrote:On November 03 2017 19:09 Nebuchad wrote:On November 03 2017 19:04 bo1b wrote:On November 03 2017 19:01 Nebuchad wrote:On November 03 2017 18:55 bo1b wrote:On November 03 2017 18:52 Nebuchad wrote:On November 03 2017 18:48 bo1b wrote: [quote] Would that be the side running around burning universities down? Very easy to pretend one side is dramatically worse if you ignore all of your own sides sins. Everything is easy. It's also super easy to convince yourself that both sides are equally problematic and that you're the enlightened person in the middle who can see it. Facts is a much better medium than ease when discussing this. Sure, I guess you don't have a rebuttal to me pointing out the fairly astonishing hypocrisy of the left? If the left has done one thing to make me appreciate how clever they are, it's the way they've managed to sweep the absolute horrors of Marxism under the rug while simultaneously giving a platform to the current batch of geniuses who espouse it. My rebuttal is that they're mostly correct about the right being worse than them, which makes their hypocrysy a little less "fairly astonishing". I thought my position was self-evident. Marxism? Brrrr. Can you give me a list of riots the right has enacted, and a list of riots the left has enacted, total up the damage in both columns (including property damage, injuries etc), and tell me that there's really a good side to this? And yes, Marxism is the right term for this. I would imagine the left has done more riots recently, yeah. There is really a good side to this. And no, marxism is not the right term for this. First of all because it doesn't really scare me in the way that you apparently want it to, and second because the two main categories of the left in the US are liberals and social democrats, both of whom are capitalist factions. I have doubts that the people rioting are the main make up of either liberals or social democrats. Your doubts are justified, they aren't. Are we done with the leading questions already? Ok then, my turn. This conversation started from you being annoyed at Stratos_spear's portrayal of Nettles. Stratos_spear isn't antifa, and Nettles isn't a nazi. I can have both discussions cause I also happen to believe that antifas are better than nazis, but if I may ask, what was your motive for immediately shifting a discussion on the left and the right in America and whether it makes sense to be in the center between those two and to criticize their hypocrysy as equal, to a discussion of antifa and nazis? I did not, I made fun of a user venting his frustration for something that he himself does in reverse, and if you see the original post, you'll note that the quote brings up white supremacists etc.
You did not what? Make this about antifa and nazis when it was about the left and the right? Cause I'm pretty sure you did that. White supremacy doesn't mean nazism in the context of this conversation.
|
On November 03 2017 20:50 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 20:48 bo1b wrote:On November 03 2017 20:44 Nebuchad wrote:On November 03 2017 19:11 Nebuchad wrote:On November 03 2017 19:10 bo1b wrote:On November 03 2017 19:09 Nebuchad wrote:On November 03 2017 19:04 bo1b wrote:On November 03 2017 19:01 Nebuchad wrote:On November 03 2017 18:55 bo1b wrote:On November 03 2017 18:52 Nebuchad wrote: [quote]
Everything is easy. It's also super easy to convince yourself that both sides are equally problematic and that you're the enlightened person in the middle who can see it. Facts is a much better medium than ease when discussing this. Sure, I guess you don't have a rebuttal to me pointing out the fairly astonishing hypocrisy of the left? If the left has done one thing to make me appreciate how clever they are, it's the way they've managed to sweep the absolute horrors of Marxism under the rug while simultaneously giving a platform to the current batch of geniuses who espouse it. My rebuttal is that they're mostly correct about the right being worse than them, which makes their hypocrysy a little less "fairly astonishing". I thought my position was self-evident. Marxism? Brrrr. Can you give me a list of riots the right has enacted, and a list of riots the left has enacted, total up the damage in both columns (including property damage, injuries etc), and tell me that there's really a good side to this? And yes, Marxism is the right term for this. I would imagine the left has done more riots recently, yeah. There is really a good side to this. And no, marxism is not the right term for this. First of all because it doesn't really scare me in the way that you apparently want it to, and second because the two main categories of the left in the US are liberals and social democrats, both of whom are capitalist factions. I have doubts that the people rioting are the main make up of either liberals or social democrats. Your doubts are justified, they aren't. Are we done with the leading questions already? Ok then, my turn. This conversation started from you being annoyed at Stratos_spear's portrayal of Nettles. Stratos_spear isn't antifa, and Nettles isn't a nazi. I can have both discussions cause I also happen to believe that antifas are better than nazis, but if I may ask, what was your motive for immediately shifting a discussion on the left and the right in America and whether it makes sense to be in the center between those two and to criticize their hypocrysy as equal, to a discussion of antifa and nazis? I did not, I made fun of a user venting his frustration for something that he himself does in reverse, and if you see the original post, you'll note that the quote brings up white supremacists etc. You did not what? Make this about antifa and nazis when it was about the left and the right? Cause I'm pretty sure you did that. White supremacy doesn't mean nazism in the context of this conversation. People talking about resurgence of white supremacist rallies and a president who panders to the kkk? It's not a huge leap.
|
Cuba has the highest literacy rate in the world and free healthcare. That's one 'good' thing communism has done. Of course Cuba isn't communist really, and I'm sure bo1b will object and use some phrase that includes the words 'Scotsman' and 'fallacy', but that only serves to underline ignorance of the subject.
|
On November 03 2017 20:56 kollin wrote: Cuba has the highest literacy rate in the world and free healthcare. That's one 'good' thing communism has done. Of course Cuba isn't communist really, and I'm sure bo1b will object and use some phrase that includes the words 'Scotsman' and 'fallacy', but that only serves to underline ignorance of the subject. Free healthcare isn't limited to Cuba, and according to this: http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-highest-literacy-rates-in-the-world.html
they don't have the highest literacy rate either. More over, I don't think you can claim that modern education is a consequence of communism.
|
On November 03 2017 20:53 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 20:50 Nebuchad wrote:On November 03 2017 20:48 bo1b wrote:On November 03 2017 20:44 Nebuchad wrote:On November 03 2017 19:11 Nebuchad wrote:On November 03 2017 19:10 bo1b wrote:On November 03 2017 19:09 Nebuchad wrote:On November 03 2017 19:04 bo1b wrote:On November 03 2017 19:01 Nebuchad wrote:On November 03 2017 18:55 bo1b wrote: [quote] Sure, I guess you don't have a rebuttal to me pointing out the fairly astonishing hypocrisy of the left?
If the left has done one thing to make me appreciate how clever they are, it's the way they've managed to sweep the absolute horrors of Marxism under the rug while simultaneously giving a platform to the current batch of geniuses who espouse it. My rebuttal is that they're mostly correct about the right being worse than them, which makes their hypocrysy a little less "fairly astonishing". I thought my position was self-evident. Marxism? Brrrr. Can you give me a list of riots the right has enacted, and a list of riots the left has enacted, total up the damage in both columns (including property damage, injuries etc), and tell me that there's really a good side to this? And yes, Marxism is the right term for this. I would imagine the left has done more riots recently, yeah. There is really a good side to this. And no, marxism is not the right term for this. First of all because it doesn't really scare me in the way that you apparently want it to, and second because the two main categories of the left in the US are liberals and social democrats, both of whom are capitalist factions. I have doubts that the people rioting are the main make up of either liberals or social democrats. Your doubts are justified, they aren't. Are we done with the leading questions already? Ok then, my turn. This conversation started from you being annoyed at Stratos_spear's portrayal of Nettles. Stratos_spear isn't antifa, and Nettles isn't a nazi. I can have both discussions cause I also happen to believe that antifas are better than nazis, but if I may ask, what was your motive for immediately shifting a discussion on the left and the right in America and whether it makes sense to be in the center between those two and to criticize their hypocrysy as equal, to a discussion of antifa and nazis? I did not, I made fun of a user venting his frustration for something that he himself does in reverse, and if you see the original post, you'll note that the quote brings up white supremacists etc. You did not what? Make this about antifa and nazis when it was about the left and the right? Cause I'm pretty sure you did that. White supremacy doesn't mean nazism in the context of this conversation. People talking about resurgence of white supremacist rallies and a president who panders to the kkk? It's not a huge leap.
So it's a small leap? How about we make no leap at all and discuss the topic of your original post?
(edit: aw come on guys, that's a bad ban timing :/ )
|
On November 03 2017 20:58 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 20:56 kollin wrote: Cuba has the highest literacy rate in the world and free healthcare. That's one 'good' thing communism has done. Of course Cuba isn't communist really, and I'm sure bo1b will object and use some phrase that includes the words 'Scotsman' and 'fallacy', but that only serves to underline ignorance of the subject. Free healthcare isn't limited to Cuba, and according to this: http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-highest-literacy-rates-in-the-world.htmlthey don't have the highest literacy rate either. More over, I don't think you can claim that modern education is a consequence of communism. On any country it is about the quality of their public education and a consequence of socialism or communism, never about market forces providing the best educational system (for some). That's sure for certain. And a country like Cuba with its GDP is pretty much in the run.
It's not hard to see, you can check your very own link and look at the countries names by yourself.
|
It's also strange to label education in Cuba "modern" when many facets of Cuban civil society remain quite old-fashioned, approach to technology and innovation in the classroom included. That'll likely change as time goes on, but still.
|
|
Such an interesting conversation and I missed it. Oh well.
As for education in relation to the "communism" vs "capitalism", one only needs to take a look at the costs of going to a US college to know which approach is better (or at least which is more flawed than the other).
|
|
like KwarK pointed out yesterday, they're basically gutting everything that helps you if you have some kind of disadvantage, from being a single mother to having emergency medical bills to being disabled (or wanting to help the disabled).
|
If only these departments had a boss, say a President, that could tell them to start such an investigation. Oh right, while highly unethical, its not actually illegal.
|
the fuck he doing calling someone Pocahontas..Christ, what an undignified presidency.
|
I'm at the point of fuck us we deserve it stage, especially in this country.
Hundreds of millions of urban dwellers around the world face their cities being inundated by rising seawaters if latest UN warnings that the world is on course for 3C of global warming come true, according to a Guardian data analysis.
Famous beaches, commercial districts and swaths of farmland will be threatened at this elevated level of climate change, which the UN warned this week is a very real prospect unless nations reduce their carbon emissions.
Data from the Climate Central group of scientists analysed by Guardian journalists shows that 3C of global warming would ultimately lock in irreversible sea-level rises of perhaps two metres. Cities from Shanghai to Alexandria, and Rio to Osaka are among the worst affected. Miami would be inundated - as would the entire bottom third of the US state of Florida.
The Guardian has found, however, that local preparations for a 3C world are as patchy as international efforts to prevent it from happening. At six of the coastal regions most likely to be affected, government planners are only slowly coming to grips with the enormity of the task ahead - and in some cases have done nothing.
This comes ahead of the latest round of climate talks in Bonn next week, when negotiators will work on ways to monitor, fund and ratchet up national commitments to cut CO2 so that temperatures can rise on a safer path of between 1.5 and 2C, which is the goal of the Paris agreement reached in 2015.
The momentum for change is currently too slow, according to the UN Environment Programme. In its annual emissions gap report, released on Tuesday, the international body said government commitments were only a third of what was needed. Non-state actors such as cities, companies and citizens can only partly fill this void, which leaves warming on course to rise to 3C or beyond by the end of this century, the report said.
The UN’s environment chief, Erik Solheim, said progress in the year since the Paris agreement entered into force has been inadequate. “We still find ourselves in a situation where we are not doing nearly enough to save hundreds of millions of people from a miserable future,” he said.
Nature’s ability to help may also be diminishing. On Monday, the World Meteorological Organisation said concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rose last year at a record speed to reach 403.3 parts per million - a level not seen since the Pliocene era three to five million years ago.
A 3C rise would lead to longer droughts, fiercer hurricanes and lock in sea-level rises that would redraw many coastlines. Depending on the speed at which icecaps and glaciers melt, this could take decades or more than a century. Colin Summerhayes of the Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge said three-degrees of warming would melt polar and glacier ice much further and faster than currently expected, potentially raising sea levels by two metres by 2100.
At least 275 million city dwellers live in vulnerable areas, the majority of them in Asian coastal megacities and industrial hubs such as Shanghai, Shenzhen, Bangkok and Tokyo.
Japan’s second biggest city, Osaka, is projected to lose its business and entertainments districts of Umeda and Namba unless global emissions are forced down or flood defences are built up. Officials are reluctantly accepting they must now put more effort into the latter.
“In the past our response was focused on reducing the causes of global warming, but given that climate change is inevitable, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), we are now discussing how to respond to the natural disasters that will follow,” said Toshikazu Nakaaki of the Osaka municipal government’s environment bureau.
In Miami - which would be almost entirely below sea level even at 2C warming - the sense of urgency is evident at city hall, where commissioners are asking voters to approve a “Miami Forever” bond in the November ballot that includes $192m for upgrading pump stations, expanding drainage systems, elevating roads and building dykes.
Elsewhere, there is less money for adaptation and a weaker sense of urgency. In Rio de Janeiro, a 3C rise would flood famous beaches such as Copacabana, the waterfront domestic airport, and many of the sites for last year’s Olympics. But the cash-strapped city has been slow to prepare. A report compiled for Brazil’s presidency found “situations in which climate changes are not considered within the scope of planning”.
In Egypt, even a 0.5m sea-level rise is predicted to submerge beaches in Alexandria and displace 8 million people on the Nile Delta unless protective measures are taken, according to the IPCC. But local activists say the authorities see it as a distant problem. “As far as I’m concerned, this issue isn’t on the list of government priorities,” said Ahmed Hassan, of the Save Alexandria Initiative, a group that works to raise awareness of the effects of climate change on the city.
The impacts will also be felt on the economy and food production. Among the most vulnerable areas in the UK is Lincolnshire, where swaths of agricultural land are likely to be lost to the sea.
“We’re conscious that climate change is happening and perhaps faster than expected so we are trying to mitigate and adapt to protect people and property. We can’t stop it, but we can reduce the risk.” said Alison Baptiste, director of strategy and investment at the UK Environment Agency. She said the measures in place should protect most communities in the near and medium term, but 50 years from now the situation will become more challenging. “If climate change projections are accurate, we’re going to have to make some difficult decisions.”
Source
|
On November 03 2017 21:38 brian wrote: the fuck he doing calling someone Pocahontas..Christ, what an undignified presidency. Typical bully behavior. using nicknames in an attempt to demean people.
|
Norway28674 Posts
I remember reading a book called Africa Since Independence by Paul Nugent. It was almost a decade ago so my memory is a bit lacking, but it was one of the better attempts at comparing capitalism and communism I've seen - because it focused on three different pairs of African countries that were in rather similar situations before independence but that either went for a soviet-aligned communist system or a USA-aligned capitalistic system.
A couple tendencies manifested for all three pairs : the communistic countries achieved higher literacy rates and better health care services faster than the capitalistic ones. And the communist ones experienced more economic problems, and starvation, than the capitalistic ones, especially from the 80s and onward where support from the Soviet Union was dwindling. All of this happened in a cold war context and there were some various degrees of internal strife provoked by either the US or the Soviet Union, so this study doesn't really 'prove' anything, but none of the countries were really war-torn either. But it seemed to indicate - which I would regard as entirely unsurprising - that attempted capitalism grew the economy faster but that attempted communism led to higher literacy rates and more universal health care.
Also to my knowledge, the countries that turned capitalistic today perform better according to most metrics than the ones who turned communist, but it's hard to really evaluate anything that happened after 1990. Or even before - this book spent 600 pages arguing what I'm trying to condense to 3 paragraphs, and even then it was careful with drawing too significant conclusions.
|
Best he can do is cheerlead the FBI to act? Seems pretty impotent.
|
On November 03 2017 14:33 Uldridge wrote: I really wish this thread would discuss actual relevant stuff (like how to fix problems) or at the very least make some progress with their age old topic of discussion, but alas, we're still at he said she said and mudslinging. I've tried that at times; actual problem solving tends to be fairly boring, and people are seldom interested in going over it in detail. I could never get much response on such topics. Also, for some problems the real problem is how to get the fixes passed into law; as the solutions are known, but unpopular. I'm happy to discuss policy, what problems woudl you like to work on?
|
i’ve read countless posts and articles about trumps call for the terrorist in NY to get the death penalty. but NY doesn’t use the death penalty. none of them address this. am i missing something key here? can he be charged federally and then somehow be subject to being sentenced to death? it has never occurred to me whether there’s a federal statute regarding the death penalty. i was under the impression it was a state thing.
|
|
|
|