EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1083
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Kyadytim
United States886 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
micronesia
United States24740 Posts
On January 31 2019 10:01 Wegandi wrote: In fact, if there's something that will dig me in even if I'm wrong (and I freely admit, of course it is a possibility; something that seems very rare for most AGW adherents), it's the smug hypocrites who want to radically re-organize society when the bar of evidence has not remotely been passed to propose such changes. This is a separate, although important topic. Has the bar of evidence been passed to propose sweeping changes to society? My position is, if you separate all the pointing to weather events as we previously discussed, the answer is that yes, the bar of evidence has been passed. One of the reasons why there is not a complete consensus on this is because of the "lumping together" I referred to earlier which serves to muddy the waters. | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
On January 31 2019 10:13 Kyadytim wrote: Wegandi, a question. What level of weather events would persuade you that you're wrong and global warming is a serious issue? Because if you won't be persuaded by anything short of apocalyptic problems, you're essentially holding a non-falsifiable position as well. If the entire Florida peninsula has to be underwater or something outrageous like that before the segment of the population holding similar beliefs to you on this issue is willing to take steps to address global warming, that's a serious problem. Funnily enough, as a Floridian, many many many other Floridians hold Wegandi's belief as well. I've lived here through many hurricanes, and I can definitely tell you each one of them have been worse and worse. The sad thing is, most people won't change their mind about climate change until it literally affects them. Your idea of Florida peninsula has to be underwater before people believe isn't far-fetched at all. Sadly, a lot of people in FL will sink with it because they choose to not believe, or just turn in to stilt culture with all their boats, reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiltsville Also on topic with Venezuela, I watched a lot of corrupt Venezuelan money get transferred here, and used to build lavish outdoor malls in South FL such as: https://www.cityplacedoral.com/ The city of Doral literally got built on corrupt Venezuelan money until "recently". https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article221042865.html | ||
|
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
On January 31 2019 10:35 JimmiC wrote: The acid levels in the ocean might even be scarier than the temps rising, not to mention those garbage islands and all the Micro plastics. Even if you don't believe in the science (which is an odd position to take) of global climate change there are tons of other reasons to work towards a better environment. Pretty much. Even if climate change is a huge scam, most of the measures to combat climate change are still beneficial to society. Things like stricter building regulations to ensure buildings meet specific energy standards are stupidly beneficial from a general comfort perspective. If you've lived in a country with poor building regulations, you'd know just how awful those houses are in weather extremes. Even things like promoting less consumption of red meat is honestly beneficial from a health perspective. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14047 Posts
You're talking denile of basic fields that I don't think wendagi has much faith in flight or electricity. His computer runs on magic smoke and the man telling him when and when he can use his computer. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
You have to deny wide swaths of science and mathematics, let alone every even slightly reputable scientist in the field. It's way simpler. If you deny climate change, you either didn't go to school or you're dumb as toast. There's literally no other way. Here's why. In school, you learn laws of thermodynamics. That's a fundamental, unilaterally accepted law. For Wegandis (and generally that kind of person) arguments to work, laws of thermodynamics would need to be disabled. It's a bit like arguing with someone who thinks that you can put an engine on a windmill, have the engine powered by the same windmill and at some point, if you just accelerate it fast enough - bam. Free energy. These are the same people who think that the EM-Drive works the way fanboys describe it - which of course would lead instantly to power generating perpetual motion machines. If you have a system, any system, and it doesn't matter what kind of system it is, and you pump vast amounts of energy into it, something will give. This "science" doesn't get any more basic, to the point where i'd argue that it isn't even "science" but just common knowledge. I can't wrap my head around how someone would think that blasting energy into a system wouldn't disturb the equilibrium. Considering that you literally see it everywhere, every day. What happens if you introduce energy to water? Indeed, what happens if you introduce energy to literally anything? That's a question everybody should be able to answer, and in the end, there's your answer in regards to climate change. I don't give a shit if current hypothesises could be wrong. On the most fundamental level, it's absolutely undeniable. Except of course you're dumb as toast and "intellekshuals" that have the most basic understanding of physics (on the level of "if i push the round object, it'll roll") are the elitist enemy. | ||
|
assoluto_cosmico
2 Posts
| ||
|
assoluto_cosmico
2 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43212 Posts
On January 31 2019 03:48 Nebuchad wrote: Considering the other answers I've gotten so far I'm not sure I misunderstand. Sounded awfully like all the others were fine with putting me in the system. Or just forcing your parents to get you vaccinated. Vaccinations aren't an ongoing thing. If your parents refused to feed you as an infant you'd be taken away from them because food is required on an ongoing basis. Removal from the neglectful parents isn't required in the case of medical deprivations because with the solution can be implemented without removal. It's not really a child abuse thing though, everyone should be forced to get them on the grounds that we shouldn't trust random members of the public with the decision of whether smallpox deserves to make a comeback tour. The child abuse part comes in when they say "yes, and I offer up my child as the incubator" but even if they were offering up themselves I still wouldn't let them. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On January 31 2019 12:44 m4ini wrote: If you deny climate change, you either didn't go to school or you're dumb as toast. There's literally no other way. Here's why. In school, you learn laws of thermodynamics. That's a fundamental, unilaterally accepted law. For Wegandis (and generally that kind of person) arguments to work, laws of thermodynamics would need to be disabled. This is a bit of an oversimplification, and doesn't serve to help the argument. Wegandi's disagreement isn't with the basic science underlying climatology. His criticisms of the models for climate change e.g. One prediction is that Hurricane strength will increase as AGW accelerates, but when you look at the Atlantic Hurricane data over the past 50 years, that's not true, even while surface temps. are increasing. There must be something else going on. Are real criticisms. There are plenty of imperfections in current climate models, and climate change deniers love to point these out as invalidating. Where Wegandi (and others) go wrong is when he says: it's the smug hypocrites who want to radically re-organize society when the bar of evidence has not remotely been passed to propose such changes Which belies a belief that a "proven" model needs to exist for policy to be made on climate change. That's not how science works, and not how science-related public policy works. His view belies a pre-modern understanding of science, before Bayesian statistics was a core element of literally every experimental science--when science was like math or philosophy and interested in "truth" and "laws" rather than "models" and "95% confidence intervals". That models for climate change have flaws and inaccuracies is real, but also not really relevant when it comes to applying those models and making policy. Proof and certainty are not requirements for the use of scientific models when making public policy because uncertainty and probability are baked into how those models work. What matters is the expected value of public policy decisions based on these models--with the likelihood of the model being right or wrong being a matter of Bayesian inference with current climate data as our prior. The "certainty" and "proof" of these models don't matter in and of themselves, they only matter insofar as they affect the likelihoods of various outcomes, and with them, the expected value of the aforementioned policy decisions. This is where many climate change deniers simply don't understand what the scientific consensus on climate change actually means. The scientific community certainly acknowledges the flaws and imperfections of current climate models. But consensus has more or less been reached on the fact that the models are "good enough" such that making public policy decisions based on them has long since passed the point of having a positive expected value. Even if they models end up being wrong, or even if making said public policy changes leads to a bad outcome, that does not mean that those changes should not be undertaken because the expected value of making those changes is good. It goes back to the coin-flipping analogy I made on the last page. The fact that you can't prove that the coin is weighted towards heads is irrelevant. It's still stupid to bet on anything other than heads based on your priors. The coin might actually be weighted toward tails, but based on your prior information, the likelihood of the coin being heads-weighted is higher than the probability of it being tails-weighted, so logical choice is still to bet on heads, and then adjust as you get more data. But climate change deniers and antivaxxers fixate on that one tails and insist that you should be betting on tails just because you can't prove that the coin is weighted towards heads. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On January 31 2019 13:16 KwarK wrote: Or just forcing your parents to get you vaccinated. Vaccinations aren't an ongoing thing. If your parents refused to feed you as an infant you'd be taken away from them because food is required on an ongoing basis. Removal from the neglectful parents isn't required in the case of medical deprivations because with the solution can be implemented without removal. It's not really a child abuse thing though, everyone should be forced to get them on the grounds that we shouldn't trust random members of the public with the decision of whether smallpox deserves to make a comeback tour. The child abuse part comes in when they say "yes, and I offer up my child as the incubator" but even if they were offering up themselves I still wouldn't let them. make it legal to slap a surcharge for insurance on individuals who don't get vaccinated unless their PCP verifies they have a compelling health reason not to (i could care less about some fringe religious belief in this case). justify it with the fact that people who aren't vaccinated present a very clear burden on the healthcare system. we already do it for tobacco use. | ||
|
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
On January 31 2019 14:23 ticklishmusic wrote: make it legal to slap a surcharge for insurance on individuals who don't get vaccinated unless their PCP verifies they have a compelling health reason not to (i could care less about some fringe religious belief in this case). justify it with the fact that people who aren't vaccinated present a very clear burden on the healthcare system. we already do it for tobacco use. That method works in reminding people to vaccinate their children but it doesn't really deter anti-vaxxers. Australia has a No Jab, No Pay policy where family related tax benefits are cut if your child isn't up to date with certain vaccinations. There are also laws allowing childcare providers to refuse service to unvaccinated children for obvious reasons. Its been pretty successful in reminding families to vaccinate their children. But the most adamant anti-vaxxers in Australia seem to be middle or upper middle class assholes. And the Australian government's No Jab, No Pay policy has encouraged them to organise their own welfare, education and support groups to help fellow anti-vaxxers. They're absolutely insane and financial punishments aren't going to stop anti-vaxxers from taking a dump on society's herd immunity because a lot of them are more than financially secure to eat the fines/fees. Not to mention their ability to make vaccination into an us vs. them situation. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4356 Posts
On January 31 2019 13:16 KwarK wrote: Or just forcing your parents to get you vaccinated. How very authoritarian. And not something i can agree with. Many these days do not have the immune system to cope with vaccines.Heck just two weeks ago one of the top UK cancer researchers died minutes after recieving the yellow fever vaccine! https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jan/11/top-cancer-scientist-prof-martin-gore-dies-after-rare-reaction-to-yellow-fever-vaccination A more moderate position on vaccines is required.Recognising that there are risks.Being on either extreme is not good. To get back on topic here, I’m hopeful that Schultz will run.For the laughs.But he’s dreaming if he thinks republicans will vote for the Starbucks CEO as he claims. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
| ||
|
explosivekangaroo
14 Posts
It's not hard to see why some would be against the state having the authority on medical procedures. | ||
|
Amui
Canada10567 Posts
On January 31 2019 15:46 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: How very authoritarian. And not something i can agree with. Many these days do not have the immune system to cope with vaccines.Heck just two weeks ago one of the top UK cancer researchers died minutes after recieving the yellow fever vaccine! https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jan/11/top-cancer-scientist-prof-martin-gore-dies-after-rare-reaction-to-yellow-fever-vaccination A more moderate position on vaccines is required.Recognising that there are risks.Being on either extreme is not good. To get back on topic here, I’m hopeful that Schultz will run.For the laughs.But he’s dreaming if he thinks republicans will vote for the Starbucks CEO as he claims. Unfortunately(or fortunately, depending on the point of view) the math is ridiculously in favor of vaccinations, even with a very slim possibility of lethal side effects. Yes you can find people who have died from vaccines, but if you compare to the number of lives saved as a result, it's many orders of magnitudes of difference. Smallpox for example had ~30% fatality rate according to wikipedia(and many survivors are permanently disabled). In the 20th century it is estimated that smallpox resulted in 300–500 million deaths. You don't have to prevent everybody from dying for it, or as a consequence of trying to prevent it to be an improvement, you just need the vaccine to kill significantly less than 300-500 million people. | ||
|
MightyBeast
117 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43212 Posts
On January 31 2019 16:03 WolfintheSheep wrote: Yes, and people who don't have the immune system to handle vaccines are the reason why it should not be a choice for anyone else. That's what herd immunity is all about. This. Nobody is saying to vaccinate the immuno compromised. The point is that if you vaccinate the rest you can protect everyone, even the immuno compromised. | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
On January 31 2019 18:17 MightyBeast wrote: Federally subsidized housing should be removed and eliminated all across America. If you can’t or don’t pay rent where you live you have no place bothering those that do. Get out of the country I guess you have no empathy? There are many cases where people can’t afford to rent due to medical issues or disability, or even mental issues. Just because you don’t use it or think it’s not worth it, I think it’s just due to looking at it wrong. Usually federal subsidized housing is for people that seriously need the help. I tried to get it when my mom passed away because I became homeless, and they didn’t even accept me due to not having any of the issues I mentioned. In my area federal housing are pretty much old people homes... | ||
| ||
