EPTThis is not the case here. You can easily make the point that Kanye is wrong and an asshole here, without using nazi terminology. Thus you shouldn't use it.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 843
| 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 | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11825 Posts
This is not the case here. You can easily make the point that Kanye is wrong and an asshole here, without using nazi terminology. Thus you shouldn't use it. | ||
|
ReditusSum
79 Posts
On October 13 2018 06:30 Grumbels wrote: This climate change skepticism is just a veneer for a form of nihilism which doesn’t care the world will end, just as long as you can “own the libs” by being a troll online. Actually, I’m fully expecting that in about twenty years a place like Florida will be home to raving mobs of evangelical lunatics proudly anticipating the end of times, anxious for the great collapse that will wash away humanity’s sins and purge it of homosexuals, liberals and unbelievers, akin to the self-flagellants that sprung up during the Black Plague and combined a ghoulish exhibitionism with pogroms against Jews. Don't know about him but my climate change skepticism is actually a thin veneer of not believing humans cause climate change covering up a belief that humans don't cause climate change. I mean, being a hardcore Catholic traditionalist who thinks we're approaching the end times regardless, I'm more likely to think the second part is true (that mankind's sin causes adverse climate effects) than industrialization causes climate change. Also there is a question of whether or not the specific policies advocated to "combat" climate change, assuming it is caused by industrialization, are effective or even are they worse than the alternative. But really the issue is politicized so much that it's basically useless to argue about it anyway. Believers believe and skeptics are skeptical. It's almost like dealing with religious dogma arguments at this point. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States43970 Posts
On October 14 2018 13:48 ReditusSum wrote: Don't know about him but my climate change skepticism is actually a thin veneer of not believing humans cause climate change covering up a belief that humans don't cause climate change. I mean, being a hardcore Catholic traditionalist who thinks we're approaching the end times regardless, I'm more likely to think the second part is true (that mankind's sin causes adverse climate effects) than industrialization causes climate change. Also there is a question of whether or not the specific policies advocated to "combat" climate change, assuming it is caused by industrialization, are effective or even are they worse than the alternative. But really the issue is politicized so much that it's basically useless to argue about it anyway. Believers believe and skeptics are skeptical. It's almost like dealing with religious dogma arguments at this point. Do you also think mankind's sin causes dogs to die in cars on hot days? How far do you push this? Because the basic theory is that when the sun heats things up and the heat has nowhere to go then it gets hot and that's dangerous. Do you reject that premise entirely or do you accept it for dogs in cars but reject it for dogs on rocks orbiting the sun? | ||
|
Longshank
1648 Posts
On October 14 2018 13:48 ReditusSum wrote: Don't know about him but my climate change skepticism is actually a thin veneer of not believing humans cause climate change covering up a belief that humans don't cause climate change. I mean, being a hardcore Catholic traditionalist who thinks we're approaching the end times regardless, I'm more likely to think the second part is true (that mankind's sin causes adverse climate effects) than industrialization causes climate change. Also there is a question of whether or not the specific policies advocated to "combat" climate change, assuming it is caused by industrialization, are effective or even are they worse than the alternative. But really the issue is politicized so much that it's basically useless to argue about it anyway. Believers believe and skeptics are skeptical. It's almost like dealing with religious dogma arguments at this point. You are free to believe what you want but what if you're wrong on this? Is the alternative worth it or is there anything in your religion prohibiting you from reducing CO2 emissions? I mean it has happened on several occasions in history that the Catholic church has altered their teachings due to discoveries and sience, has it not? Also, if the Pope is wrong on this topic, what else is he wrong about? Sorry but your position raises so many questions. And no, in broad strokes we do know what policies are more effective than the alternative of doing nothing. Edit: scrap the Pope question, Google answered that one. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On October 14 2018 15:34 Longshank wrote: You are free to believe what you want but what if you're wrong on this? Is the alternative worth it or is there anything in your religion prohibiting you from reducing CO2 emissions? I mean it has happened on several occasions in history that the Catholic church has altered their teachings due to discoveries and sience, has it not? Also, if the Pope is wrong on this topic, what else is he wrong about? Sorry but your position raises so many questions. And no, in broad strokes we do know what policies are more effective than the alternative of doing nothing. Edit: scrap the Pope question, Google answered that one. “23. The climate is a common good, belonging to all and meant for all. At the global level, it is a complex system linked to many of the essential conditions for human life. A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system. In recent decades this warming has been accompanied by a constant rise in the sea level and, it would appear, by an increase of extreme weather events, even if a scientifically determinable cause cannot be assigned to each particular phenomenon. Humanity is called to recognize the need for changes of lifestyle, production and consumption, in order to combat this warming or at least the human causes which produce or aggravate it. It is true that there are other factors (such as volcanic activity, variations in the earth’s orbit and axis, the solar cycle), yet a number of scientific studies indicate that most global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides and others) released mainly as a result of human activity. As these gases build up in the atmosphere, they hamper the escape of heat produced by sunlight at the earth’s surface. The problem is aggravated by a model of development based on the intensive use of fossil fuels, which is at the heart of the worldwide energy system. Another determining factor has been an increase in changed uses of the soil, principally deforestation for agricultural purposes. 24. Warming has effects on the carbon cycle. It creates a vicious circle which aggravates the situation even more, affecting the availability of essential resources like drinking water, energy and agricultural production in warmer regions, and leading to the extinction of part of the planet’s biodiversity. The melting in the polar ice caps and in high altitude plains can lead to the dangerous release of methane gas, while the decomposition of frozen organic material can further increase the emission of carbon dioxide. Things are made worse by the loss of tropical forests which would otherwise help to mitigate climate change. Carbon dioxide pollution increases the acidification of the oceans and compromises the marine food chain. If present trends continue, this century may well witness extraordinary climate change and an unprecedented destruction of ecosystems, with serious consequences for all of us. A rise in the sea level, for example, can create extremely serious situations, if we consider that a quarter of the world’s population lives on the coast or nearby, and that the majority of our megacities are situated in coastal areas. 25. Climate change is a global problem with grave implications: environmental, social, economic, political and for the distribution of goods. It represents one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day. Its worst impact will probably be felt by developing countries in coming decades. Many of the poor live in areas particularly affected by phenomena related to warming, and their means of subsistence are largely dependent on natural reserves and ecosystemic services such as agriculture, fishing and forestry. They have no other financial activities or resources which can enable them to adapt to climate change or to face natural disasters, and their access to social services and protection is very limited. For example, changes in climate, to which animals and plants cannot adapt, lead them to migrate; this in turn affects the livelihood of the poor, who are then forced to leave their homes, with great uncertainty for their future and that of their children. There has been a tragic rise in the number of migrants seeking to flee from the growing poverty caused by environmental degradation. They are not recognized by international conventions as refugees; they bear the loss of the lives they have left behind, without enjoying any legal protection whatsoever. Sadly, there is widespread indifference to such suffering, which is even now taking place throughout our world. Our lack of response to these tragedies involving our brothers and sisters points to the loss of that sense of responsibility for our fellow men and women upon which all civil society is founded.” http://m.vatican.va/content/francescomobile/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html | ||
|
Slydie
1935 Posts
On October 14 2018 08:58 Simberto wrote: Even if you have a good point to make, it is generally smart not to use nazi terminology. Especially if the same point can be made without using that terminology. Which it almost always can, and if your point is so linked to nazi terminology that you can't make it without it, then your point is probably pretty full of that shit too. This is not the case here. You can easily make the point that Kanye is wrong and an asshole here, without using nazi terminology. Thus you shouldn't use it. Why not? The absurdity of his comment is on a very similar level imo, and it a reference everyone should be familiar with. | ||
|
Longshank
1648 Posts
On October 14 2018 16:22 Grumbels wrote: + Show Spoiler + “23. The climate is a common good, belonging to all and meant for all. At the global level, it is a complex system linked to many of the essential conditions for human life. A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system. In recent decades this warming has been accompanied by a constant rise in the sea level and, it would appear, by an increase of extreme weather events, even if a scientifically determinable cause cannot be assigned to each particular phenomenon. Humanity is called to recognize the need for changes of lifestyle, production and consumption, in order to combat this warming or at least the human causes which produce or aggravate it. It is true that there are other factors (such as volcanic activity, variations in the earth’s orbit and axis, the solar cycle), yet a number of scientific studies indicate that most global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides and others) released mainly as a result of human activity. As these gases build up in the atmosphere, they hamper the escape of heat produced by sunlight at the earth’s surface. The problem is aggravated by a model of development based on the intensive use of fossil fuels, which is at the heart of the worldwide energy system. Another determining factor has been an increase in changed uses of the soil, principally deforestation for agricultural purposes. 24. Warming has effects on the carbon cycle. It creates a vicious circle which aggravates the situation even more, affecting the availability of essential resources like drinking water, energy and agricultural production in warmer regions, and leading to the extinction of part of the planet’s biodiversity. The melting in the polar ice caps and in high altitude plains can lead to the dangerous release of methane gas, while the decomposition of frozen organic material can further increase the emission of carbon dioxide. Things are made worse by the loss of tropical forests which would otherwise help to mitigate climate change. Carbon dioxide pollution increases the acidification of the oceans and compromises the marine food chain. If present trends continue, this century may well witness extraordinary climate change and an unprecedented destruction of ecosystems, with serious consequences for all of us. A rise in the sea level, for example, can create extremely serious situations, if we consider that a quarter of the world’s population lives on the coast or nearby, and that the majority of our megacities are situated in coastal areas. 25. Climate change is a global problem with grave implications: environmental, social, economic, political and for the distribution of goods. It represents one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day. Its worst impact will probably be felt by developing countries in coming decades. Many of the poor live in areas particularly affected by phenomena related to warming, and their means of subsistence are largely dependent on natural reserves and ecosystemic services such as agriculture, fishing and forestry. They have no other financial activities or resources which can enable them to adapt to climate change or to face natural disasters, and their access to social services and protection is very limited. For example, changes in climate, to which animals and plants cannot adapt, lead them to migrate; this in turn affects the livelihood of the poor, who are then forced to leave their homes, with great uncertainty for their future and that of their children. There has been a tragic rise in the number of migrants seeking to flee from the growing poverty caused by environmental degradation. They are not recognized by international conventions as refugees; they bear the loss of the lives they have left behind, without enjoying any legal protection whatsoever. Sadly, there is widespread indifference to such suffering, which is even now taking place throughout our world. Our lack of response to these tragedies involving our brothers and sisters points to the loss of that sense of responsibility for our fellow men and women upon which all civil society is founded.” http://m.vatican.va/content/francescomobile/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html Uhm yes? The point was that ReditusSum as a traditionalist doesn't buy the Vaticans stance on climate change, hence my questions. | ||
|
nojok
France15846 Posts
On October 14 2018 13:48 ReditusSum wrote: Don't know about him but my climate change skepticism is actually a thin veneer of not believing humans cause climate change covering up a belief that humans don't cause climate change. I mean, being a hardcore Catholic traditionalist who thinks we're approaching the end times regardless, I'm more likely to think the second part is true (that mankind's sin causes adverse climate effects) than industrialization causes climate change. Also there is a question of whether or not the specific policies advocated to "combat" climate change, assuming it is caused by industrialization, are effective or even are they worse than the alternative. But really the issue is politicized so much that it's basically useless to argue about it anyway. Believers believe and skeptics are skeptical. It's almost like dealing with religious dogma arguments at this point. Is this a troll? How can we deal with people who don't want to believe in science? He deliberately decided he would not value dedicated scientists' works more than whoever advocate the opposite. We've just had the craziest technological leap of human history thanks to multiple solid scientific methodologies in every possible field and this guy just comes here and decides it's just a matter of opinion. When did facts become an opinion? How is it possible "alternative facts" became acceptable to hear? First I want to yell at him for being so dense but what I actually want is giving him the will to get out of his ignorance. | ||
|
Slydie
1935 Posts
On October 14 2018 17:25 nojok wrote: Is this a troll? How can we deal with people who don't want to believe in science? He deliberately decided he would not value dedicated scientists' works more than whoever advocate the opposite. We've just had the craziest technological leap of human history thanks to multiple solid scientific methodologies in every possible field and this guy just comes here and decides it's just a matter of opinion. When did facts become an opinion? How is it possible "alternative facts" became acceptable to hear? First I want to yell at him for being so dense but what I actually want is giving him the will to get out of his ignorance. I don't think that many believe humans has had no effect on the climate, but even scientists operate with persentages in the high 90s as there is no way to know for sure, as we can't travel back in time and see how the climate would develop without humans. If climate change is the biggest threat to human sivilisation should be debated, though. It is mostly scary pictures of worst-case scenarios, but noone even knows if many of them are even possible, and there has been very limited damage yet (and even some fantastic harvests due to warm summers.) | ||
|
Longshank
1648 Posts
On October 14 2018 17:39 Slydie wrote: I don't think that many believe humans has had no effect on the climate, but even scientists operate with persentages in the high 90s as there is no way to know for sure, as we can't travel back in time and see how the climate would develop without humans. If climate change is the biggest threat to human sivilisation should be debated, though. It is mostly scary pictures of worst-case scenarios, but noone even knows if many of them are even possible, and there has been very limited damage yet (and even some fantastic harvests due to warm summers.) It's great that you acknowledge the positive effects of climate change, but the bitch about global warming is that it's global, so you will also have to acknowledge the drought and the wildfires in the EU, just to name one example. Local warming would have been so much better, stupid earth. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On October 14 2018 17:25 nojok wrote: Is this a troll? How can we deal with people who don't want to believe in science? He deliberately decided he would not value dedicated scientists' works more than whoever advocate the opposite. We've just had the craziest technological leap of human history thanks to multiple solid scientific methodologies in every possible field and this guy just comes here and decides it's just a matter of opinion. When did facts become an opinion? How is it possible "alternative facts" became acceptable to hear? First I want to yell at him for being so dense but what I actually want is giving him the will to get out of his ignorance. Welcome to dialogue with a religious person. Enjoy your stay. Even if he did believe humans caused climate change, why would he care? It's another sign of the end times, meaning humanity will soon be with God. This is good. So climate change, if it's happening, is a positive. And if it isn't, then there's nothing to do anyway. Win-win! If you're religious enough that you see all natural disasters as god's judgement, then everyone killed deserved it, so why would you do anything about them? Or even better, if you're on the fluffier side and believe God is of a forgiving type, then all those dead people got to go to heaven early! Who wouldn't want that? | ||
|
Slydie
1935 Posts
On October 14 2018 19:02 Longshank wrote: It's great that you acknowledge the positive effects of climate change, but the bitch about global warming is that it's global, so you will also have to acknowledge the drought and the wildfires in the EU, just to name one example. Local warming would have been so much better, stupid earth. The AVERAGE we are usually talking about is global, and calculating it is very complicated, as there will always be all kinds of local variations. One of the fears is be that the Gulf stream halts because of warming, causing a disasterous COOLING in Northern Europe. No scientist in their right mind would try to give an accurate prediction of the Earth's climate in 50 years. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28792 Posts
But even acknowledging that, we know with almost certainty that some regions will be affected in absolutely disastrous ways in the next 20-50 years, that a whole lot of people live in those regions, and that a lot of people from other regions don't want all the people living in those disastrously affected regions to move to the places where 'the consequences might not be all that dire'. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On October 14 2018 20:44 Liquid`Drone wrote: And scientists aren't. They give a bunch of likely scenarios based on percentages followed by possible consequences of those scenarios, and then journalists make a headline touting that possible consequence. But even acknowledging that, we know with almost certainty that some regions will be affected in absolutely disastrous ways in the next 20-50 years, that a whole lot of people live in those regions, and that a lot of people from other regions don't want all the people living in those disastrously affected regions to move to the places where 'the consequences might not be all that dire'. Even in my lifetime things have changed. There weren't yearly hurricanes hitting the US and threatening the UK when I was a kid. Now it's normal. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
On October 14 2018 19:35 iamthedave wrote: Welcome to dialogue with a religious person. Enjoy your stay. Even if he did believe humans caused climate change, why would he care? It's another sign of the end times, meaning humanity will soon be with God. This is good. So climate change, if it's happening, is a positive. And if it isn't, then there's nothing to do anyway. Win-win! If you're religious enough that you see all natural disasters as god's judgement, then everyone killed deserved it, so why would you do anything about them? Or even better, if you're on the fluffier side and believe God is of a forgiving type, then all those dead people got to go to heaven early! Who wouldn't want that? I'd like to point out that "dialogue with a religious person" isn't a linear, binary kind of thing. Plenty of very religious people have no problem acknowledging the truth of science, as reference to some of those papal encyclicals above indicates. I consider myself very religious, and from my vantage, nonsense accelarationist eschatology figures as heretical political sentiment masquerading as genuine religiosity. That's all to say that dialogue with a religious person needn't be some terrible and negative thing, rather that religious dialogue with a specific kind of believer fits that bill better. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On October 14 2018 20:59 farvacola wrote: I'd like to point out that "dialogue with a religious person" isn't a linear, binary kind of thing. Plenty of very religious people have no problem acknowledging the truth of science, as reference to some of those papal encyclicals above indicates. I consider myself very religious, and from my vantage, nonsense accelarationist eschatology figures as heretical political sentiment masquerading as genuine religiosity. That's all to say that dialogue with a religious person needn't be some terrible and negative thing, rather that religious dialogue with a specific kind of believer fits that bill better. True, I was overly pithy there and I shouldn't have been. But nonetheless the central point is that religious arguments operate from a basis of logic that a non-religious, humanist or scientifically-minded person can't interact with in any functional or practical sense. There's a bunch of additional thought processes going on that you only 'get' by being one of the religious crowd (the flip side is not quite as true but it does also work in a lot of cases). | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
| ||
|
Slydie
1935 Posts
On October 14 2018 20:54 iamthedave wrote: Even in my lifetime things have changed. There weren't yearly hurricanes hitting the US and threatening the UK when I was a kid. Now it's normal. Uh... that is anecdotal evidence if I ever saw it. The only tropical storm to hit Ireland did so in 1961. The problem with hurricanes is that we haven't observed them long enough to even know what "normal" is. I look forward to the day when we stop blaming human climate change for all weather we don't like. The science of climate change is about trying to predict the future, which makes it very different from most other sciences. The norm so far has been: -Our models tell us this terrible thing can happen! -Oh, it turned out to be much less dramatic, but the tendency was spot on! -Our new models tell us it can still be terrible! -Oh.. etc | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
| ||
| ||
