|
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 December 11 2017 06:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2017 06:52 Mercy13 wrote:On December 11 2017 06:43 xDaunt wrote:On December 11 2017 06:32 Mercy13 wrote:On December 11 2017 06:17 xDaunt wrote:On December 11 2017 06:07 Grumbels wrote:On December 11 2017 05:22 Nebuchad wrote:On December 11 2017 05:14 Schmobutzen wrote: I was nodding to jockmcplops answer along, up top the point of Charles Murray. Murray is anything but a racist or a right winger. I've read The Bell Curve and was baffled that this book produced that outcry. If you read or hear his interviews, you will quickly see that grew is a very decent guy, that stumbled into an angry hornets nest, which he and his fellow colleague thought that they were circling, because of their carefullness, but never imagined that those were stimmed hornets nests. You're going to need a little more research on Murray if you don't even think that he's a rightwinger. ![[image loading]](https://images.currentaffairs.org/2017/07/humanaccomplishment.jpg) Charles Murray literally took this graph seriously as a sign of the objective cultural superiority of white people. Why wouldn’t you take it seriously? For starters “significant figures” is far too subjective to be meaningfully quantified. Even a cursory understanding of history would tell you that the figures are accurate, regardless of the precise metric used. Haha maybe if you only learn history from reading European history books. Last I checked, western powers owned the world during the 18th-20th centuries and were dominant in arts and science. This isn’t even debatable in my mind.
I can think of reasonable definitions for “significant figure” that don’t only include people who made contributions to the arts and sciences, but even granting you your definition how familiar are you with say, Chinese art history over the last few hundred years?
|
On December 11 2017 07:04 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2017 06:55 xDaunt wrote:On December 11 2017 06:52 Mercy13 wrote:On December 11 2017 06:43 xDaunt wrote:On December 11 2017 06:32 Mercy13 wrote:On December 11 2017 06:17 xDaunt wrote:On December 11 2017 06:07 Grumbels wrote:On December 11 2017 05:22 Nebuchad wrote:On December 11 2017 05:14 Schmobutzen wrote: I was nodding to jockmcplops answer along, up top the point of Charles Murray. Murray is anything but a racist or a right winger. I've read The Bell Curve and was baffled that this book produced that outcry. If you read or hear his interviews, you will quickly see that grew is a very decent guy, that stumbled into an angry hornets nest, which he and his fellow colleague thought that they were circling, because of their carefullness, but never imagined that those were stimmed hornets nests. You're going to need a little more research on Murray if you don't even think that he's a rightwinger. ![[image loading]](https://images.currentaffairs.org/2017/07/humanaccomplishment.jpg) Charles Murray literally took this graph seriously as a sign of the objective cultural superiority of white people. Why wouldn’t you take it seriously? For starters “significant figures” is far too subjective to be meaningfully quantified. Even a cursory understanding of history would tell you that the figures are accurate, regardless of the precise metric used. Haha maybe if you only learn history from reading European history books. Last I checked, western powers owned the world during the 18th-20th centuries and were dominant in arts and science. This isn’t even debatable in my mind. I can think of reasonable definitions for “significant figure” that don’t only include people who made contributions to the arts and sciences, but even granting you your definition how familiar are you with say, Chinese art history over the last few hundred years? I’ve been to China and seen their museums. The Chinese will be the first to admit their comparative inferiority during that time period. They are ashamed of it and have vowed to ensure that it never happens again.
|
On December 11 2017 06:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2017 06:52 Mercy13 wrote:On December 11 2017 06:43 xDaunt wrote:On December 11 2017 06:32 Mercy13 wrote:On December 11 2017 06:17 xDaunt wrote:On December 11 2017 06:07 Grumbels wrote:On December 11 2017 05:22 Nebuchad wrote:On December 11 2017 05:14 Schmobutzen wrote: I was nodding to jockmcplops answer along, up top the point of Charles Murray. Murray is anything but a racist or a right winger. I've read The Bell Curve and was baffled that this book produced that outcry. If you read or hear his interviews, you will quickly see that grew is a very decent guy, that stumbled into an angry hornets nest, which he and his fellow colleague thought that they were circling, because of their carefullness, but never imagined that those were stimmed hornets nests. You're going to need a little more research on Murray if you don't even think that he's a rightwinger. ![[image loading]](https://images.currentaffairs.org/2017/07/humanaccomplishment.jpg) Charles Murray literally took this graph seriously as a sign of the objective cultural superiority of white people. Why wouldn’t you take it seriously? For starters “significant figures” is far too subjective to be meaningfully quantified. Even a cursory understanding of history would tell you that the figures are accurate, regardless of the precise metric used. Haha maybe if you only learn history from reading European history books. Last I checked, western powers owned the world during the 18th-20th centuries and were dominant in arts and science. This isn’t even debatable in my mind. It is not disputed that the West dominated the last three centuries and was at the center of many developments in science, music, arts and so on. This is what accounts for the many “significant figures” originated here. But Charles Murray actually believes that this proves the objective cultural superiority of the West, which is ludicrous.
|
Not that I don't enjoy a bit of xDaunt from time to time (actually there's that too since I, well, don't), the conversations before that at least had the chance of perhaps getting somewhere.
I like that a lot of the thread has the intellectual knowledge that they shouldn't really engage xDaunt but they still can't quite escape it because he's good enough at baiting.
|
On December 11 2017 07:08 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2017 06:55 xDaunt wrote:On December 11 2017 06:52 Mercy13 wrote:On December 11 2017 06:43 xDaunt wrote:On December 11 2017 06:32 Mercy13 wrote:On December 11 2017 06:17 xDaunt wrote:On December 11 2017 06:07 Grumbels wrote:On December 11 2017 05:22 Nebuchad wrote:On December 11 2017 05:14 Schmobutzen wrote: I was nodding to jockmcplops answer along, up top the point of Charles Murray. Murray is anything but a racist or a right winger. I've read The Bell Curve and was baffled that this book produced that outcry. If you read or hear his interviews, you will quickly see that grew is a very decent guy, that stumbled into an angry hornets nest, which he and his fellow colleague thought that they were circling, because of their carefullness, but never imagined that those were stimmed hornets nests. You're going to need a little more research on Murray if you don't even think that he's a rightwinger. ![[image loading]](https://images.currentaffairs.org/2017/07/humanaccomplishment.jpg) Charles Murray literally took this graph seriously as a sign of the objective cultural superiority of white people. Why wouldn’t you take it seriously? For starters “significant figures” is far too subjective to be meaningfully quantified. Even a cursory understanding of history would tell you that the figures are accurate, regardless of the precise metric used. Haha maybe if you only learn history from reading European history books. Last I checked, western powers owned the world during the 18th-20th centuries and were dominant in arts and science. This isn’t even debatable in my mind. It is not disputed that the West dominated the last three centuries and was at the center of many developments in science, music, arts and so on. This is what accounts for the many “significant figures” originated here. But Charles Murray actually believes that this proves the objective cultural superiority of the West, which is ludicrous. What metric would you use then? Or are you one of the cultural relativists who simply refuse to acknowledge that any culture can be superior?
|
Yeah even trying to engage on this is futile
|
Perhaps build more domestic recycling plants? Employment, more domestic money. Are we really this lazy and cheap?
Like many Portland residents, Satish and Arlene Palshikar are serious recyclers. Their house is coated with recycled bluish-white paint. They recycle their rainwater, compost their food waste and carefully separate the paper and plastic they toss out. But recently, after loading up their Prius and driving to a sorting facility, they got a shock.
"The fellow said we don't take plastic anymore," Satish says. "It should go in the trash."
The facility had been shipping its plastic to China, but suddenly that was no longer possible.
The U.S. exports about one-third of its recycling, and nearly half goes to China. For decades, China has used recyclables from around the world to supply its manufacturing boom. But this summer it declared that this "foreign waste" includes too many other nonrecyclable materials that are "dirty," even "hazardous." In a filing with the World Trade Organization the country listed 24 kinds of solid wastes it would ban "to protect China's environmental interests and people's health."
The complete ban takes effect Jan. 1, but already some Chinese importers have not had their licenses renewed. That is leaving U.S. recycling companies scrambling to adapt.
Rogue Waste Systems in southern Oregon collects recycling from curbside bins, and manager Scott Fowler says there are always nonrecyclables mixed in. As mounds of goods are compressed into 1-ton bales, he points out some: a roll of linoleum, gas cans, a briefcase, a surprising number of knitted sweaters. Plus, there are the frozen food cartons and plastic bags that many people think are recyclable but are not.
For decades, China has sorted through all this and used the recycled goods to propel its manufacturing boom. Now it no longer wants to, so the materials sits here with no place to go.
"It just keeps coming and coming and coming," says Rogue employee Laura Leebrick. In the warehouse, she is dwarfed by stacks of orphaned recycling bales. Outside, employee parking spaces have been taken over by compressed cubes of sour cream containers, broken wine bottles and junk mail.
And what are recyclables with nowhere to go?
"Right now, by definition, that material out there is garbage," she says. "It has no value. There is no demand for it in the marketplace. It's garbage."
For now, Rogue Waste says it has no choice but to take all of this recycling to the local landfill. More than a dozen Oregon companies have asked regulators whether they can send recyclable materials to landfills, and that number may grow if they can't find someplace else that wants them.
At Pioneer Recycling in Portland, owner Steve Frank is shopping for new buyers outside of China.
"I've personally moved material to different countries in an effort to keep material flowing," he says.
Without Chinese buyers, Frank says U.S. recycling companies are playing a game of musical chairs, and the music stops when China's ban on waste imports fully kicks in.
"The rest of the world cannot make up that gap," he said. "That's where we have what I call a bit of chaos going on."
Adina Adler, a senior director with the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, says China's new standards are nearly impossible to meet. The group is trying to persuade China to walk back its demanding target for how clean our recycling exports need to be. But Adler doesn't think China's decision is all bad.
"What China's move is doing is probably ushering in a new era of recycling," she says.
Bulk Handling Systems is betting that robots can be the future of recycling. At its research facility, bits of waste pass by on a conveyor belt as robotic arms poke down, sucking up plastic bags and water bottles then dropping them into bins.
CEO Steve Miller says the robot uses cameras and artificial intelligence to separate recycling from trash "in the same way that a person would do it," but faster and more accurately.
"It actually moves at a rate of 80 picks per minute," he says. "A person might only get 30 picks per minute."
Miller believes technology like this could let the U.S. make its recycling clean enough for China. But the robots are expensive, and few companies have them.
For now, the best bet may come back to the curbside bin.
Recycling companies are considering changing the rules for what's allowed in them or adding an additional bin for paper only to help streamline the sorting process. Steve Frank says Pioneer Recycling is even looking into adding cameras to collection trucks to catch people putting trash in their recycling bins.
Source
|
On December 11 2017 07:14 kollin wrote: Yeah even trying to engage on this is futile Don’t bother unless you have the facts. You are just going to get hurt.
|
The largest California wildfire advanced on coastal towns near Santa Barbara on Sunday, stoked by gusty winds and dry conditions that have fueled destructive blazes across the south of the state.
Authorities ordered residents in parts of Carpinteria and Montecito to evacuate early on Sunday as the Thomas fire edged closer to the city of Santa Barbara, about 100 miles west of Los Angeles. The blaze had already blackened 155,000 acres and consumed hundreds of structures.
Half a dozen fires have raged across California since early this week. Governor Jerry Brown issued emergency proclamations for Santa Barbara, San Diego, Los Angeles and Ventura counties, freeing up additional resources to fight the infernos.
Officials said smoke from the fires was causing unhealthy air for large parts of southern California. The flare-up on Sunday in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties sent up a new plume that added to heavy smoke already choking areas around the cities of Ventura, Oxnard and Santa Paula.
The Ventura County Air Pollution Control District said air quality was especially bad in the Ojai Valley, where it has at times reached hazardous levels. To the south-east, regulators warned on Saturday of unhealthy air across parts of greater Los Angeles. The South Coast Air Quality Management District urged residents to avoid vigorous outdoor activities.
Brown visited Ventura County on Saturday and said deadly and destructive wildfires in winter were “the new normal”.
At a news conference, the governor said drought and climate change meant California faces a “new reality” where lives and property are continually threatened by fire, at a cost of billions of dollars. He added that there was a good chance of seeing “firefighting at Christmas” this year.
It will take “heroic” efforts in the US and abroad, Brown said, to stem climate change. The governor, who strongly criticised Donald Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris climate deal in an interview with CBS due to be broadcast on Sunday evening, urged US lawmakers to pay more attention to dealing with natural disasters such as fires, floods and earthquakes.
This week, Trump issued a federal proclamation that enabled agencies to coordinate relief efforts in southern California.
At least one home in Carpinteria burned down on Sunday, the Santa Barbara County fire department said. The fire was only 15% contained as of Sunday morning, according to the California department of forestry and fire protection (Cal Fire).
Top wind speeds were forecast to increase to 55mph on Sunday from 40mph on Saturday, according to the National Weather Service (NWS). Such gusts, coupled with the rugged mountain terrain above Santa Barbara and Ventura counties, have hampered firefighting efforts, authorities said.
The fires have forced the evacuation of some 200,000 people and destroyed nearly 800 structures. A 70-year-old woman died on Wednesday in a car accident as she attempted to flee the flames in Ventura County.
The Thomas fire, the largest blaze, had left nearly 90,000 customers without power as of early Sunday morning, Southern California Edison said on its website.
The 8,5000 firefighters battling the fires that have burned over the past week gained some ground on Saturday. Both the Creek and Rye fires in Los Angeles County were 90% contained by Sunday morning, officials said, while the Skirball fire in Los Angeles was 75% contained. North of San Diego, the 4,100-acre Lilac fire was 60% contained.
A brush fire broke out on Saturday night in the city of Monrovia in Los Angeles County, prompting temporary evacuations, the US Forest Service said on Twitter. A group of Boy Scouts camping in the area were among those evacuated, the Los Angeles Times reported.
Crews knocked down the three-acre blaze and no structures were reported damaged, the city of Monrovia said on its website.
Source
|
United States42021 Posts
How the hell could anyone not see the issue with comparing a static measure of output, significant figures, between completely different populations? I might as well compare total live births in America today with the figure from 1800 and conclude that fertility has gone up.
The author of the graph, and anyone who uses it, are morons.
|
Is " western cultural superiority" the new buzzword in the white supremist sphere or something?
|
'new' would be a stretch. This racism without race has been around since the 60s starting in France under the label Nouvelle Droite. Nothing novel about it.
|
|
For all of the bitching and hand-wringing that I see from you leftists regarding my cultural arguments, what I have not seen are any compelling rebuttals. Why don’t you put down the tissue and get to work? The constant crying is getting old. If you want a hint on where to start, go look at Igne’s posts. However, his posts will only take you so far given that he understands that his critique is grounded in Western culture, which obviously makes arguing against my ultimate point rather difficult.
|
On December 11 2017 08:11 xDaunt wrote: For all of the bitching and hand-wringing that I see from you leftists regarding my cultural arguments, what I have not seen are any compelling rebuttals. Why don’t you put down the tissue and get to work? The constant crying is getting old. If you want a hint on where to start, go look at Igne’s posts. However, his posts will only take you so far given that he understands that his critique is grounded in Western culture, which obviously makes arguing against my ultimate point rather difficult.
Because nobody cares. You might think that you're constructing a sophisticated argument here or something, but nobody is going to go through pages of the same dreg we've been hearing from reactionaries for decades. Nobody is crying or a leftist, most people are just tired of it.
|
On December 11 2017 08:22 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2017 08:11 xDaunt wrote: For all of the bitching and hand-wringing that I see from you leftists regarding my cultural arguments, what I have not seen are any compelling rebuttals. Why don’t you put down the tissue and get to work? The constant crying is getting old. If you want a hint on where to start, go look at Igne’s posts. However, his posts will only take you so far given that he understands that his critique is grounded in Western culture, which obviously makes arguing against my ultimate point rather difficult. Because nobody cares. You might think that you're constructing a sophisticated argument here or something, but nobody is going to go through pages of the same dreg we've been hearing from reactionaries for decades. Nobody is crying or a leftist, most people are just tired of it. No one cares? Seriously? The sheer volume of responses that I receive on this clearly demonstrates otherwise.
|
On December 11 2017 08:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2017 08:22 Nyxisto wrote:On December 11 2017 08:11 xDaunt wrote: For all of the bitching and hand-wringing that I see from you leftists regarding my cultural arguments, what I have not seen are any compelling rebuttals. Why don’t you put down the tissue and get to work? The constant crying is getting old. If you want a hint on where to start, go look at Igne’s posts. However, his posts will only take you so far given that he understands that his critique is grounded in Western culture, which obviously makes arguing against my ultimate point rather difficult. Because nobody cares. You might think that you're constructing a sophisticated argument here or something, but nobody is going to go through pages of the same dreg we've been hearing from reactionaries for decades. Nobody is crying or a leftist, most people are just tired of it. No one cares? Seriously? The sheer volume of responses that I receive on this clearly demonstrates otherwise. The replies are demonstrative of the sort of reaction that might be provoked if I said 'There were no holes in the Birkenau gas chamber' or 'the American Civil War was about states' rights'. You're getting responses because you're being ridiculous, not because the debate has any sort of merit to it.
|
The spin is real. You can make Trump's war with the media a pitiful display, but the means are not rationalizing away the mistakes. You report honestly and take your losses on the chin.
|
Its not unreasonable to say the west has been superior as a culture group the.past.few.hundreds of years but anyone reasonable can see.the reasons why arnt beacuse of some inherent superiority of.western culture. Eastern influences are clear at any level of western sucess in the past few hundred years. They just happened to be taken by a different perspective and improved.
|
Shouldn't it be disconcerting for someone maintaining a certain view if they can't come up with a intellectually rigorous defense of said view? Does that not indicate problems, if not in the underlying position, at least in one's understanding of the position?
Isn't that reason enough to care? If the above is the case, is one doing any more than merely espousing dogma when they defend the position?
|
|
|
|