There is no such "rule." But showing up just to announce you "don't think this thread is a good idea" is completely pointless. Generally grown adults keep non-constructive comments like that to themselves and simply move on.
Not every opinion needs to be declared. This isn't Twitter.
Biden has been credibly accused of sexual assault. No progressive who cares about women's rights should vote for him until a proper investigation is carried out. Period. And any who do are massive hypocrites.
Reply to Baden Isn't sexually harassing women a precondition to be a president of the US? I guess for American male politicians, who typically are quite old, it's important to show to be virile.
The right to vote includes the right not to vote. And the right not to vote becomes not just morally acceptable but morally obligatory if your choice is between two rapists. Luckily, there are always third party options.
'Swing state' voters MUST vote for the lesser of two rapists: Joe Biden. (I definitely would.) I'm not convinced, however, that he will be the Democratic nominee ... Plenty of time for Gavin Newsome, Gretchen Witmer, Andrew Cuomo or someone else (but for fartin' fuck's sake NOT Shillary!) who hasn't already campaigned & dropped-out to be recruited / dragooned into cleaning-up tRump's disasters. :mask:
Plenty of time for Gavin Newsome, Gretchen Witmer, Andrew Cuomo or someone else (but for fartin' fuck's sake NOT Shillary!) who hasn't already campaigned & dropped-out to be recruited / dragooned into cleaning-up tRump's disasters.
In your dreams.
That would mean that the DNC would a) admit their failure, b) make dramatic changes and c) take risks. The geriatric leadership of the DNC will follow their selected path with Biden while patting themselves on the back just how easily they avoided Bernie being a problem.
Hence the last thing is to hope that they pick a good vice-presidential candidate. When President Biden has to take a "sick leave".
Yes, by voting your conscience like you logically pure humanists. So admirable. Get Trump elected -- but that's beside the point. Biden is just as "evil."
So you vote third party or you don't vote. Very simple.
Yes, very simple: help re-elect Trump, clearly the most evil and most damaging. And why? Because a) it'll make you feel better about yourself, b) Biden is just as bad, or c) Biden is the lesser of the two evils but we don't care about that.
Maybe. It's not just about rape though. It's about things like climate change, which is more important.
This is a very good point indeed, and the most important. It's completely ignored by the likes of "Baden" and others, who are determined to help Trump get re-elected -- all so that they feel better.
New Dem campaign slogan "Some things are more important than rape. Vote Biden".
We don't know if he raped her or not. But if he did, no one is saying that's right. He should be tried and convicted.
There's also a thing called the real world, which you ignore for false equivalence and delusions about taking a righteous stand by throwing away your vote (which is a vote for Trump, by the way).
If you understand the imperative underside of the kind of "democracy" we have, then you understand that not voting, or casting a vote for someone who cannot win, thus possibly in effect voting for the worse candidate, is a statement of ignorance about our system.
It's you and Frank Apisa who are helping to reelect Trump by hurling abuse at anyone who feels like they should vote for someone who actually represents them. What you should be doing is calmly outlining what it is that Biden offers progressives apart from not being Trump. Some of these people don't want your poisonous two-party system and don't feel that in areas that matter, Biden as President will make a substantial difference to their everyday lives, certainly not one substantial enough to allow themselves to be harassed into voting for him. So, why are they wrong. Make the argument. Stop the shouting.
Not voting. Voted every year since I was able to, but this year I accidentally threw away my mail-in ballot. It would have been a superfluous vote anyway as Biden winning California is a foregone conclusion.
It's you and Frank Apisa who are helping to reelect Trump by hurling abuse at anyone who feels like they should vote for someone who actually represents them.
OK, this is actually a valid point. I would hardly say I'm "hurling abuse" though.
What you should be doing is calmly outlining what it is that Biden offers progressives apart from not being Trump.
All right -- yet one can hardly blame someone for getting frustrated when one repeatedly does so and gets ignored. At that point, is there any sense to rational discussion?
Reply to Xtrix They are just as evil. The power of a President will go sofar as the Senate allows and since that's entirely partisan, it's the two parties that are in control. But those are just two sides of the same coin. If you think there's a meaningful policy distinction between Democrats and Republicans then that would just go to show how limited the gamut of policy options is in the USA. From the Netherlands the only meaningful differences between Republicans and Democrats are gay marriage, abortion and a somewhat tougher stance on immigration.
If you live in a safe state, red or blue, you should be voting third party anyway, because to do otherwise is to throw away your vote.
If you live in a swing state, then not voting or voting third party is tantamount to voting for the opposite of the two mainstream candidates you would otherwise have picked if you had to pick one of them. So even if you think Biden is a pile of trash, which he is, if you live in swing state not voting for him has the same effect as voting for Trump, who is a pile of radioactive trash on fire.
Republicans and Democrats are gay marriage, abortion and a somewhat tougher stance on immigration.
*With the caveat that deportation rates under Trump still fail to match that of Obama, and that Biden has flip-flopped on abortion like the flavour of the month. Oh, and best not talk about Biden's vote for DOMA.
even if you think Biden is a pile of trash, which he is, if you live in swing state not voting for him has the same effect as voting for Trump, who is a pile of radioactive trash on fire.
From the Netherlands the only meaningful differences between Republicans and Democrats are gay marriage, abortion and a somewhat tougher stance on immigration.
You leave out the most important: climate change.
It would be nice to have a planet in the future, I think. So yes, I value any chance of making that happen over protests votes that don't do anything and guarantee disaster. Call me crazy.
As far as the OP -- I'm glad to see very few voting for Trump. But those voting third party or not voting, depending on the logic (safe state or not), is a bit higher than I expected.
Reply to Xtrix What is the stellar track record of the Democrats that makes you believe they will actually take action here? Surely you don't mean Obama's plan allowing to replace one carbon fuel for another as long as it is less polluting? That will be a fantastic energy transition to ... nowhere?
No complicated math here, but with 24 votes so far, with 4% voting for Trump, that means only one Trump voter. :chin: Quoting Baden
Biden has been credibly accused of sexual assault. No progressive who cares about women's rights should vote for him until a proper investigation is carried out. Period. And any who do are massive hypocrites.
My issue with the Baden accusation, I mean Biden, is that only FoxNews seems to have heard the charges and everyone else is ignoring it. It is worthy of investigation and supposedly neutral news' outlets should investigate every allegation equally regardless of the political affiliation of the accused.
In terms of whether I would not vote for Biden based upon the charges, I would vote for him if I agreed with his politics, but I don't. That said, an accusation is not proof. This whole thing of guilty until proven innocent is a disgusting recent turn of events and something we will one day hopefully look back upon with regret. The concept of determining guilt only after all the facts are revealed has served us well in matters far worse than sexual harassment or even rape, including such things as murder, mayhem, and terrorism. My presumption at this point is that Biden is not guilty of anything.
We need to take seriously that calling someone a rapist who is not is a vile act in itself.
I'm very happy for not having to choose between Biden and a Third party candidate. :smile:
Happy with my own President, voted for him now twice (and he won both times). Even if I disagree with his stance on NATO, that's peanuts compared to the insane bleach-injector Trump. Rather OK even with the leftist-centrist administration in dealing with the pandemic.
What about climate change? Do you seriously believe governments and corporations and people are competent enough to make a difference?
Yes. If other countries can do it, so can we. Corporations, no -- at least not the ones involved in fossil fuels, of course. And not governments that say it's a Chinese hoax. But otherwise, yes it can be done and has to be done if we want to survive.
Reply to Xtrix I don't care about what people say, I care about what they do. If neither party takes meaningful action but one is marginally better, neither of them are looking after your interests.
I think you're grossly overestimating what other countries are doing. I live in one of the more progressive countries in the world. It's not enough. Corona lock down will be a joke compared to the costs we will be confronted with once climate change really hits. I've already started looking for a plot of land with enough arable land, a self-sufficient modular home and I'll be advising my kids to study agriculture.
I actually went to the Biden site where he lists out his positions. If I had to pick what I didn't particularly like, it would relate to raising taxes specifically on the wealthy and corporations, because I'm tired of the class warfare, which is how this usually plays out. He wants to study the idea of reparations, which I find horribly polarizing and unjust. That alone will cost him my vote. He had an entirely hands off stance with China, and I do see them as a threat and concern. I'm not in principle opposed to tariffs as he is. I didn't like his idea of raising teacher's salaries, as I don't follow how the federal government should have a hand in that very (very very) local issue. He's in favor of 2 years of free college education, which in principle sounds good, but that sounds again like a state issue, considering different state institutions charge differently and private colleges are much more expensive. I'm also opposed to campaign finance reform because I'm close to an absolutist on free speech. His objections to drilling for oil I largely disagree with.
I've already started looking for a plot of land with enough arable land, a self-sufficient modular home and I'll be advising my kids to study agriculture.
Tell me all the things your kids are going to need to sustain themselves so that I can teach my kids to sell it to them. I'm just trying to identify emerging markets.
Reply to Hanover I respect your position. This comes to mind, though, about your view on reparations:
Biden is playing to his base here, just as Trump freely does. Your objection to Biden on this is that it's horribly polarizing and unjust. I could lay out a long list of actions by Trump that were horribly polarizing and viewed as unjust by most people outside Trump's base.
So how do we distinguish between the two here? What if we look at personality? Trump attacks. He antagonizes even when he doesn't really have to. That's just the way he does things. He even routinely attacks people and organization that are supposed to be his allies and subordinates. He eliminates any voice counter to his own in his environment. The result has been that though many might have thought it impossible, trust in the executive has decreased. I think you'd have to agree that in the domain of "horribly polarizing" Trump has taken things to the extreme. And unjust? Biden was just suggesting that we study the question of reparations. That's obviously a gesture. Where's the injustice in studying something?
Let's look at Biden's personality by contrast. He has a long history of working well with people across the aisle. He's well respected across the board. He's a moderate. So even if you don't share his interests, you can feel confident that the government is working well instead of on the verge of running off the rails.
I think you're grossly overestimating what other countries are doing. I live in one of the more progressive countries in the world. It's not enough. Corona lock down will be a joke compared to the costs we will be confronted with once climate change really hits. I've already started looking for a plot of land with enough arable land, a self-sufficient modular home and I'll be advising my kids to study agriculture.
There's nowhere to go or hide from climate change. That's pure delusion.
Helping elect Trump all but guarantees we're going over the edge. We have to make our decisions with this in mind.
I actually went to the Biden site where he lists out his positions. If I had to pick what I didn't particularly like, it would relate to raising taxes specifically on the wealthy and corporations, because I'm tired of the class warfare, which is how this usually plays out. He wants to study the idea of reparations, which I find horribly polarizing and unjust. That alone will cost him my vote. He had an entirely hands off stance with China, and I do see them as a threat and concern. I'm not in principle opposed to tariffs as he is. I didn't like his idea of raising teacher's salaries, as I don't follow how the federal government should have a hand in that very (very very) local issue. He's in favor of 2 years of free college education, which in principle sounds good, but that sounds again like a state issue, considering different state institutions charge differently and private colleges are much more expensive. I'm also opposed to campaign finance reform because I'm close to an absolutist on free speech. His objections to drilling for oil I largely disagree with.
"Absolutist on free speech" is the reason to be against finance reform for campaigns?
Nothing. I'll have gotten it all in place already.
I know very little of your swampy little outpost, but am I correct in stating that property in the Netherlands is fairly expensive and the only crop you can grow is tulips?
The thing is, I could buy acres and acres of land in rural Alabama for next to nothing and I could probably raise pigs and chickens and grow corn pretty easily and could avoid the Armageddon better than you and your shoeless, shirtless kids could under their windmill in their tulip field.
I'm not suggesting you move to Alabama, as you lack the requisite sophistication, but I'm just questioning whether your plan is fully realizable where you are.
Reply to Hanover Maybe don't make so many assumptions. I live in the European Union and can buy land anywhere. Since I speak three languages, I have a couple of options.
But otherwise, yes it can be done and has to be done if we want to survive.
"If we want to survive?" We'll survive climate change easily. Talk to any climate scientist, like actual ones, not activists, and they'll tell you. Sure, it will have an effect, but it's definitely not the hottest climate in the whole history of the climate, and it's also not cataclysmic.
"If we want to survive?" We'll survive climate change easily. Talk to any climate scientist, like actual ones, not activists, and they'll tell you. Sure, it will have an effect, but it's definitely not the hottest climate in the whole history of the climate, and it's also not cataclysmic.
No, they won't "tell you" because there are a number of projections which depend on what we do now. If we do remain with the status quo -- we're toast. Sure, maybe we survive somehow. Maybe some people survive nuclear war too. Not saying much.
Take a look at tipping points and see what happens to food supplies alone.
No, they won't "tell you" because there are a number of projections which depend on what we do now.
Yes, and those number of projections are based on completely faulty and speculative models of how climate has evolved. Most climate data is based on tree rings and glacial mass, stuff that could change for more reasons than merely the climate. And in fact, the only real good solid data on climate that we have is only since the Industrial Revolution.
CO2 emissions are not even remotely the only, or even the primary driver of climate change. And in fact, not even among greenhouse gases.
CO2's role is very overplayed. Methane gas might be worse.
No one is arguing this. Pure straw-man.
Yes, methane is a more potent greenhouse gas, but doesn't last nearly as long as CO2. There's also plenty of other factors of climate change, as you mentioned. Deforestation, agricultural practices, energy sources, industry, etc. All major contributors. What's your point?
Not really. Your article was about CO2. You post an article about CO2, and I replied to it, and then you say it is a strawman. Don't post articles if you haven't read them.
Yes, methane is a more potent greenhouse gas, but doesn't last nearly as long as CO2. There's also plenty of other factors of climate change, as you mentioned. Deforestation, agricultural practices, energy sources, industry, etc. All major contributors. What's your point?
My point is, one measly article about lowering CO2 is about as relevant to curbing climate change as astrology is relevant about finding a planet in the Andromeda galaxy.
No, they won't "tell you" because there are a number of projections which depend on what we do now.
— Xtrix
Yes, and those number of projections are based on completely faulty and speculative models of how climate has evolved.
Lol. Right, and you know because you're a climatologist. Please explain where these "models" go wrong. I myself would love to know -- as I'm sure most climate scientists would as well.
Lol. Right, and you know because you're a climatologist. Please explain where these "models" go wrong. I myself would love to know -- as I'm sure most climate scientists would as well.
They already know. Most climate scientists aren't alarmists.
No, completely wrong. Saying the "only real good solid data" is embarrassing. There's a number of excellent sources of data on the climate, which you would know if you deigned to read anything about the subject.
Lol. Right, and you know because you're a climatologist. Please explain where these "models" go wrong. I myself would love to know -- as I'm sure most climate scientists would as well.
— Xtrix
They already know. Most climate scientists aren't alarmists.
Most climate data is based on tree rings and glacial mass,
Ridiculous claims without any evidence or sources. This last one is especially egregious.
So I think I see where this non-discussion is going. More mouthing off by science ignoramuses who think they know more than people that have studied this their entire lives because they've spent a few minutes thinking about the subject. It's embarrassing.
Richard Lindzen at MIT. That's one climate scientist. I'm not an expert, but he is. And I haven't studied climate science as a layman, in years. So I don't really want to have a debate on this.
Another book I read was by a Swedish guy named Bjorn Lomborg (took me FOREVER to remember this guy and the title of the book,) called Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming another climate scientist.
I'm not an expert, but there's a lot of alarmism going on. Elizabeth Kolbert, who wrote The Sixth Extinction a massive alarmist tome, is a journalist, not a scientist. There are other such books and misinfo/disinfo out there.
Bill Nye, also not a scientist. He's like a Disney character basically. He has no scientific credentials.
No, completely wrong. Saying the "only real good solid data" is embarrassing. There's a number of excellent sources of data on the climate, which you would know if you deigned to read anything about the subject.
The government is not a source. There was a "source" about WMDs in Iraq. It's fake. I don't trust the government "data" on anything. Economics, WMDs, their secret programs and operations destroying other people's countries, creating false flags, lying to the American people, infiltrating groups and manipulating events, mind control programs. Yeah, no. I don't trust the government "data" unless it's methodology is sound. If the methodology is sound, I'll believe it. But I don't take government data at face value.
So I think I see where this non-discussion is going. More mouthing off by science ignoramuses who think they know more than people that have studied this their entire lives because they've spent a few minutes thinking about the subject. It's embarrassing.
Yeah, that's what you're doing. I never did that. I cited two climate scientists who agree with me. And I cited a journalist who would agree with you. You're the one doing what you claim I am.
LOL. Oh, what a shocker. A well known (and well used by deniers) "skeptic." This is your example? Pathetic. Maybe read up on these people before spouting nonsense:
Another book I read was by a Swedish guy named Bjorn Lomborg
So two climate change deniers. This is what you read? Not the IPCC, not NASA, not NOAA, not the thousands of climatologists out there studying this -- you quote two well known liars (Lomborg less so, although his distortions are incredible as well -- although he's been promoted by imbeciles like Jordan Peterson).
I'm not an expert, but there's a lot of alarmism going on. Elizabeth Kolbert, who wrote The Sixth Extinction a massive alarmist tome, is a journalist, not a scientist. There are other such books and misinfo/disinfo out there.
I agree -- Kolbert shouldn't be view as a credible source either. But it's ironic you say that many books of misinformation is out there, after just citing two yourself.
So two climate change deniers. This is what you read? Not the IPCC, not NASA, not NOAA, not the thousands of climatologists out there studying this -- you quote two well known liars (Lomborg less so, although his distortions are incredible as well -- although he's been promoted by imbeciles like Jordan Peterson).
LOL So scientists you disagree with are not worth your time, only ones that already confirm your preconceived bias. That's amazing.
Yeah, this conversation is over. You're just a propagandist, an ideological robot. That's fine, but I'm wasting my time talking. My time is important, yours not so much.
The government is not a source. There was a "source" about WMDs in Iraq. It's fake. I don't the government "data" on anything. Economics, WMDs, their secret programs and operations destroying other people's countries, creating false flags, lying to the American people, infiltrating groups and manipulating events, mind control programs. Yeah, no. I don't trust the government "data" unless it's methodology is sound. If the methodology is sound, I'll believe it. But I don't take government data at face value.
The IPCC is not the US government, it's a number of research institutes and thousands of scientists.
Good to see you're very skeptical about things, yet swallow the bullshit of Lindzen wholesale. Interesting. :roll:
The IPCC is not the US government, it's a number of research institutes and thousands of scientists.
Good to see you're very skeptical about things, yet swallow the bullshit of Lindzen wholesale. Interesting. :roll:
I never "swallowed" anything. His view is one view. IPCC is another. Until there is evidence that can establish the likelihood of one hypothesis over the other, then there is underdetermination of hypothesis. That has always been my position. Always. Never said anything different.
You assume that because I question your assumptions, that I am a "denier" I am not a "denier" I am Agnostic on the question. I don't know, and neither do you and neither do they. There's a just a lot of claims, and nothing to back them up.
So I think I see where this non-discussion is going. More mouthing off by science ignoramuses who think they know more than people that have studied this their entire lives because they've spent a few minutes thinking about the subject. It's embarrassing.
— Xtrix
Yeah, that's what you're doing.
No, I've studied this for years actually. Quoting h060tu
I cited two climate scientists who agree with me.
Yes, you've found two climate deniers who agree with you. There are a handful of others, too. I can find them for you if you'd like. But I asked for credible sources.
LOL So scientists you disagree with are not worth your time, only ones that already confirm your preconceived bias. That's amazing.
No, they're worth my time. I've read both, in fact. I've given sources that go over their points thoroughly. I'd be glad to go over their lies here as well.
Yeah, this conversation is over. You're just a propagandist, an ideological robot. That's fine, but I'm wasting my time talking. My time is important, yours not so much.
Yes, smart move. Word of advice: next time, keep your mouth shut when you don't know what you're talking about. A little research goes a long way.
Bottom line -- 97% (that's misleading -- it's closer to 100%) of climatologists accept climate change is a fact, that we're the cause of it, and that we need to take major steps to do something about it. But you go with Lindzen, by all means.
No, they're worth my time. I've read both, in fact. I've given sources that go over their points thoroughly. I'd be glad to go over their lies here as well.
Bottom line -- 97% (that's misleading -- it's closer to 100%) of climatologists accept climate change is a fact, that we're the cause of it, and that we need to take major steps to do something about it. But you go with Lindzen, by all means.
No they don't. That number is from a comic book writer. It's fallacious.
I never "swallowed" anything. His view is one view. IPCC is another.
Lol. Right, just like creationists have "one side" and "evolutionists" have another view. Or, better, flat-earthers have a view and NASA has another view. Both totally plausible.
For that matter, the homeless man screaming about Jesus has a view too. Maybe you should cite him as a source?
Until there is evidence that can establish the likelihood of one hypothesis over the other, then there is underdetermination of hypothesis.
Now you're just babbling nonsense. Why "hypothesis" are you talking about? There's overwhelming evidence for the effects climate change will have. It's only a matter of degree, which will depend on whether we act or not. We're already seeing the effects, which are WORSE than the scientists predicted years ago.
I don't know, and neither do you and neither do they. There's a just a lot of claims, and nothing to back them up.
No, there's evidence to back them up -- overwhelming evidence which, once it's explained to you, is more than convincing. All you have to do is make a little effort. Even a simple wikipedia search is fine. Or are they part of the global conspiracy too?
Lol. Right, just like creationists have "one side" and "evolutionists" have another view. Or, better, flat-earthers have a view and NASA has another view. Both totally plausible.
Except climate science uses totally different methods than biology or physics. Do you accept mainstream economic theory also? Because it's been wrong... every single time.
So, if you're going to pretend that all things which call themselves "science" are all equally scientific and demonstrable, then you're going to have to rigorously defend that claim.
Now you're just babbling nonsense. Why "hypothesis" are you talking about? There's overwhelming evidence for the effects climate change will have. It's only a matter of degree, which will depend on whether we act or not. We're already seeing the effects, which are WORSE than the scientists predicted years ago.
No, there isn't. Because it has not happened yet. Science is about empirical evidence what is the case. Not what might be the case based on models, predictions, hand waving, media personalities, documentaries, alarmism and a autistic 16 year old. If you don't understand that, I cannot help you. I really cannot.
No, there's evidence to back them up -- overwhelming evidence which, once it's explained to you, is more than convincing. All you have to do is make a little effort. Even a simple wikipedia search is fine. Or are they part of the global conspiracy too?
Right, because Google, Bill Gates, the Rockefellers, the Chinese Communist Party and several others who donate to Wikipedia don't have any influence at all over the content that might be adduced there. None.
No, they're worth my time. I've read both, in fact. I've given sources that go over their points thoroughly. I'd be glad to go over their lies here as well.
— Xtrix
Bottom line -- 97% (that's misleading -- it's closer to 100%) of climatologists accept climate change is a fact, that we're the cause of it, and that we need to take major steps to do something about it. But you go with Lindzen, by all means.
— Xtrix
No they don't. That number is from a comic book writer. It's fallacious.
You've already given yourself away buddy. You've proven you only read fringe bullshit about climate change. This is yet another example.
The 97% number was popularized by two articles, the first by Naomi Oreskes, now Professor of Science History and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University, and the second by a group of authors led by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at The University of Queensland.
It's been attacked by climate deniers like yourself, but later studies have corroborated it. It's based on published articles on climate change, thousands of them. There have also been extensive polling done. Even if the number is 90%, which is extremely unlikely, to have this level of consensus in science is rare. It really tells you something about the level of evidence.
But that's fine -- you ignore NASA, NOAA, the IPCC, the Royal Academy, the entire MIT climatology department (besides Lindzen), etc.. and keep on believing whatever you want to believe.
You've already given yourself away buddy. You've proven you only read fringe bullshit about climate change. This is yet another example.
No. I've read NOAA, I actually have it bookmarked LOL I just don't believe your claims because you have absolutely nothing to substantiate them. Only rhetoric.
It's been attacked by climate deniers like yourself, but later studies have corroborated it. It's based on published articles on climate change, thousands of them. There have also been extensive polling done. Even if the number is 90%, which is extremely unlikely, to have this level of consensus in science is rare. It really tells you something about the level of evidence.
That actual study says nothing about antropogenic climate change. It talks about climate change without qualification. When you actually break down the study into the various ways in which scientists think what is causing climate change, the numbers go way below 70%. I know the study, and it doesn't corroborate anthropogenic climate change. And it CERTAINLY doesn't corroborate alarmism. It's actually SCIENCE, and what you're doing is not science, but does contain BS.
I already explained my view, and you don't understand it. My view is agnosticism. I don't subscribe to ideologies and positions, all knowledge is tentative and always changing. Same as anything.
I'm not a "climate denier" nor am I a "climate skeptic" nor am I a "climate activist" I am not any of these things. I question them all because they are all equally suspect, none of them have made a sufficient case to doxastically believe in. None. That's it.
No, I accept things that have overwhelming evidence -- like a spherical Earth, like that the holocaust happened, like evolution, like gravity, like climate change. Economic or sociology theories have nothing to do with this, although there are some solid ideas even in those fields as well.
Now you're just babbling nonsense. Why "hypothesis" are you talking about? There's overwhelming evidence for the effects climate change will have. It's only a matter of degree, which will depend on whether we act or not. We're already seeing the effects, which are WORSE than the scientists predicted years ago.
— Xtrix
No, there isn't. Because it has not happened yet.
It has happened, it's happening already. Look at the last 10 hottest years on record. This year is shaping up to be one of the hottest as well.
No, there's evidence to back them up -- overwhelming evidence which, once it's explained to you, is more than convincing. All you have to do is make a little effort. Even a simple wikipedia search is fine. Or are they part of the global conspiracy too?
— Xtrix
Right, because Google, Bill Gates, the Rockefellers, the Chinese Communist Party and several others who donate to Wikipedia don't have any influence at all over the content that might be adduced there. None.
LOL. Oh, so they ARE a part of the global conspiracy? Interesting. Tell me more, Dr. Science.
You've already given yourself away buddy. You've proven you only read fringe bullshit about climate change. This is yet another example.
— Xtrix
No. I've read NOAA, I actually have it bookmarked LOL I just don't believe your claims because you have absolutely nothing to substantiate them. Only rhetoric.
That actual study says nothing about antropogenic climate change. It talks about climate change without qualification. When you actually break down the study into the various ways in which scientists think what is causing climate change, the numbers go way below 70%. I know the study, and it doesn't corroborate anthropogenic climate change.
I already explained my view, and you don't understand it. My view is agnosticism. I don't subscribe to ideologies and positions, all knowledge is tentative and always changing. Same as anything.
Good for you. I myself am agnostic about gravity and whether the Earth really is flat. Who knows? Things change. I'm also agnostic about God and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I'm not a "climate denier" nor am I a "climate skeptic" nor am I a "climate activist" I am not any of these things.
You're a climate denier. You've already made that quite clear. You've used standard denialist lines, when asked to cite any sources you provided two well-known climate "skeptics," ignore or dismiss NASA and the IPCC (and apparently even Wikipedia) because of some conspiracy claims about the government, say climate science is based on 'models,' etc.
The fact is that the evidence of climate change is overwhelming. It's already happening, and will continue to get worse unless major changes are enacted. There's consensus from scientists all over the world on this. The evidence is clear and easily understood if we care to understand it, which you clearly do not.
I question them all because they are all equally suspect, none of them have made a sufficient case to doxastically believe in. None. That's it.
Because climate science is "model based"?
Global warming is not an output of computer models; it is a conclusion based on observations of a great many global indicators. By far the most straightforward evidence is the actual surface temperature record. While there are places — in England, for example — that have records going back several centuries, the two major global temperature analyses can only go back around 150 years due to their requirements for both quantity and distribution of temperature recording stations.
These are the two most reputable globally and seasonally averaged temperature trend analyses:
NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis
CRU direct surface temperature analysis
Both trends are definitely and significantly up. In addition to direct measurements of surface temperature, there are many other measurements and indicators that support the general direction and magnitude of the change the earth is currently undergoing. The following diverse empirical observations lead to the same unequivocal conclusion that the earth is warming:
Bottom line -- 97% (that's misleading -- it's closer to 100%) of climatologists accept climate change is a fact, that we're the cause of it, and that we need to take major steps to do something about it. But you go with Lindzen, by all means.
— Xtrix
No they don't. That number is from a comic book writer. It's fallacious.
Sure there are plenty of unsolved problems and active debates in climate science. But if you look at the research papers coming out these days, the debates are about things like why model predictions of outgoing longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere in tropical latitudes differ from satellite readings, or how the size of ice crystals in cirrus clouds affect the amount of incoming shortwave reflected back into space, or precisely how much stratospheric cooling can be attributed to ozone depletion rather than an enhanced greenhouse effect.
No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, or if the current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability, or if sea levels have risen over the last century.
This is where there is a consensus.
Specifically, the “consensus” about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:
the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.
While theories and viewpoints in conflict with the above do exist, their proponents constitute a very small minority. If we require unanimity before being confident, well, we can’t be sure the earth isn’t hollow either.
This consensus is represented in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (TAR WG1), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, and arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history. While this review was sponsored by the UN, the research it compiled and reviewed was not, and the scientists involved were independent and came from all over the world.
The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by …
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
… in either one or both of these documents: PDF, PDF.
In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:
NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
If this is not scientific consensus, what in the world would a consensus look like?
No, I accept things that have overwhelming evidence -- like a spherical Earth, like that the holocaust happened, like evolution, like gravity, like climate change. Economic or sociology theories have nothing to do with this, although there are some solid ideas even in those fields as well.
LOL Don't even get me started.
Anyway, economic and sociology, LIKE climate science, LIKE biology, LIKE physics, [s]pretends[/s] purports to be scientific. I'm asking you, how on Earth are you going to accept one of these as "science" and the rest as not. Or do you? I'm asking you what your criteria is, and how do you demarcate it?
You don't want to answer because you don't have an answer. You cannot establish what is science. You don't even know what science even is.
It has happened, it's happening already. Look at the last 10 hottest years on record. This year is shaping up to be one of the hottest as well.
Yes, climate changes. Water is wet. I don't know what to say. You don't seem to understand that evidence has to be interpreted. It's a massive leap to say, because climate is changing, therefore x, y, z are also true. You have to make the case that x, y and z are true. But you're assuming because climate is changing, a bunch of these claims which you'd assumed and not provided any reason to believe they are genuine are also true. That's not the case.
LOL. Oh, so they ARE a part of the global conspiracy? Interesting. Tell me more, Dr. Science.
No, I'm saying that there is no neutrality when it comes to looking at the world. The Chinese Communist Party could be correct, that's fine. I'm not making an ad hominem, just because they're communists doesn't make them wrong. But I'm pointing out that Wikipedia is not a neutral source. Nothing is.
Good for you. I myself am agnostic about gravity and whether the Earth really is flat. Who knows? Things change. I'm also agnostic about God and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
You seem to be very selective on what you're skeptical about.
You're a climate denier. You've already made that quite clear. You've used standard denialist lines, when asked to cite any sources you provided two well-known climate "skeptics," ignore or dismiss NASA and the IPCC (and apparently even Wikipedia) because of some conspiracy claims about the government, say climate science is based on 'models,' etc.
You can continue to say that, but you're wrong. And that's because you can't reason. You allow your emotions to drive your interpretation of the evidence and the world.
The fact is that the evidence of climate change is overwhelming. It's already happening, and will continue to get worse unless major changes are enacted. There's consensus from scientists all over the world on this. The evidence is clear and easily understand if we care to understand it, which you clearly do not.
Climate change is happening. Yes. It always has. It always will. I've never said otherwise. I'm not arguing that climate doesn't change. I'm arguing against the bunches of other claims you've made, but totally failed to substantiate.
No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, or if the current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability, or if sea levels have risen over the last century.
This is where there is a consensus.
And? Consensus is a fallacy. There was no debate over whether Newtonian mechanics was false, until Einstein... and Quantum Theory. There was no debate whether Ptolemaic Astronomy was false.. until Copernicus. There was no debate over Aristotle's Categories... until Hume, and Descartes and the Enlightenment. You can say "there's no debate" but it doesn't mean a damn thing. Honestly.
I'm asking you, how on Earth are you going to accept one of these as "science" and the rest as not. Or do you? I'm asking you what your criteria is, and how do you demarcate it?
I'm interested in evidence which, in this case, is overwhelming. If you want to debate Keynesian economic policy and its effectiveness, that's fine -- but that's not climatology.
You don't want to answer because you don't have an answer. You cannot establish what is science. You don't even know what science even is.
I never claimed to. In fact I have another thread going right now that discusses the nature of science. But who cares? We're talking about evidence, not the philosophy of science.
But you're assuming because climate is changing, a bunch of these claims which you'd assumed and not provided any reason to believe they are genuine are also true. That's not the case.
The climate is changing, and at a rate beyond natural variability. The reason it's changing is because of the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from fossil fuel use and deforestation, etc. This isn't complicated. The predictions that were made (and documented) in the last 20 years or so have proven remarkably accurate, although they were often too optimistic. This has been extensively documented for years -- and I'm sure you've read all about it.
No, I'm saying that there is no neutrality when it comes to looking at the world. The Chinese Communist Party could be correct, that's fine. I'm not making an ad hominem, just because they're communists doesn't make them wrong. But I'm pointing out that Wikipedia is not a neutral source. Nothing is.
You can continue to say that, but you're wrong. And that's because you can't reason. You allow your emotions to drive your interpretation of the evidence and the world.
Ah, thanks Dr. Freud. Nailed it. I guess I WANT to believe that the climate is changing at an alarming rate because of my "death instinct"? Definitely not the extensive, overwhelming evidence from thousands of scientists around the global that have studied this their whole lives.
I'll go with an ignoramus on the Philosophy Forum! He has the "real" truth! Just like Donald Trump does. Everything else is "fake news."
Climate change is happening. Yes. It always has. It always will. I've never said otherwise. I'm not arguing that climate doesn't change.
Ah, there it is. The new denialist line: "the climate is always changing!"
But don't take it from me:
"So technically that's true. The climate has always been changing. But for various reasons, the current change that we're experiencing now is particularly alarming, and that is because in the history of human civilization, the climate has never changed this rapidly. And that's really what concerns scientists. It's not the fact that there is change, but it's the speed of that change."
--STEPHANIE HERRING, climatologist
No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, or if the current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability, or if sea levels have risen over the last century.
This is where there is a consensus.
— Xtrix
And? Consensus is a fallacy. There was no debate over whether Newtonian mechanics was false, until Einstein... and Quantum Theory.
There was plenty of debate about Newton's theories, but the evidence was overwhelming. Nor was it proven "wrong" by Einstein or quantum theory. Not even close. Leave your simplistic Nickelodeon ideas of the history of science for Twitter.
There was no debate whether Ptolemaic Astronomy was false.. until Copernicus. You can say "there's no debate" but it doesn't mean a damn thing. Honestly.
It does mean something -- it means there's overwhelming evidence, which should be taken seriously by ignoramuses like you. Or you can side with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, who are in your camp.
Regardless, what is your evidence that explains the data, then? What's the alternative that you're offering?
Probability is the language of science. There is no proof; there are no absolute certainties. Scientists are always aware that new data may overturn old theories and that human knowledge is constantly evolving. Consequently, it is viewed as unjustifiable hubris to ever claim one’s findings as unassailable.
But in general, the older and more established a given theory becomes, the less and less likely it is that any new finding will drastically change things. Even the huge revolution in physics brought on by Einstein’s theory of relativity did not render Newton’s theories of classical mechanics useless. Classical mechanics is still used all the time; it is, quite simply, good enough for most purposes.
But how well established is the greenhouse effect?
Greenhouse effect theory is over 100 years old. The first predictions of anthropogenic global warming came in 1896. Time has only strengthened and refined those groundbreaking conclusions. We now have decades of very detailed and sophisticated climate observations, and super computers crunching numbers in one second it would have taken a million 19th century scientists years with a slide rule to match. Even so, you will never ever get a purely scientific source saying “the future is certain.”
But what certainty there is about the basic issue is close enough to 100 percent that for all practical purposes it should be taken as 100 percent. Don’t wait any longer for scientific certainty; we are there. Every major institute that deals with climate-related science is saying AGW is here and real and dangerous, even though they will not remove the “very likely” and “strongly indicated” qualifiers. The translation of what the science is saying into the language of the public is this: Global warming is definitely happening and it is definitely because of human activities and it will definitely continue as long as CO2 keeps rising in the atmosphere.
The rest of the issue — how high will the temperature go, how fast will it get there, and how bad will this be — is much less certain. But no rational human being rushes headlong into an unknown when there is even a 10 percent chance of death or serious injury. Why should we demand 100 percent certainty before avoiding this danger? Science has given the human race a dire warning with all the urgency and certainty we should need to prompt action.
We don’t have time or reason to wait any longer.
___________
The above is from a climatologist, as well. Your arguments are so predictable I can literally copy and paste ready-made responses, because so many ignoramuses make them.
It's quite pathetic. (I know I shouldn't "shame" people, but this level of ignorance is just astounding. The logic used to justify it is even more staggering.)
Reply to Hanover I couldn't rightly say. I had a quick glance at Alabama on wiki and it looks like it used to be rural but now the largest employers are the army and various State or Federal employers. We don't have communist countries in the EU. :razz:
In any case, the most logical place for me would be somewhere in the Elzas/Alsace as I speak French and German, land is cheap and arable. It's also only a 6 hour drive away.
it would relate to raising taxes specifically on the wealthy and corporations, because I'm tired of the class warfare, which is how this usually plays out.
You go from raising taxes on the wealthy and corporation to class warfare without any intermediate steps. Let's assume it's true. What do you think about Warren Buffet when he said this:
“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”?
How do you relate that to the declining labour share of GDP development and income inequality?Or the fact CEO pay has risen by 940% since 1978 but worker pay only by 12%? This while GDP grew with nearly 90% since then?
Do you see all these facts as illustrating a problem or do you think it's fine and normal? If so, what exactly are CEOs doing today that they weren't doing in 1978 that justifies a 940% pay increase? Or that debt funded asset inflation was behind the 2008 recovery leading to big profits for banks and their CEOs even though regular people were no way better off before covid-19 happened than before 2008?
I know we're not going to agree on this in any way, shape or form but at least I'd like to know the thinking behind it.
I'm also opposed to campaign finance reform because I'm close to an absolutist on free speech.
Why should having more money effectively give you a bigger voice and more influence? Shouldn't it just be one man, one vote? Or you don't think there's any tit-for-tat involved with campaign donations? Or do you think because it's legal, it's not corruption?
What is a person voting for if they back Biden on Election Day 2020?
The humiliation of courageous women like Anita Hill who confronted her abuser. You vote for the architects of endless war. You vote for the apartheid state in Israel. Biden supports those things. With Biden you are voting for wholesale surveillance by the government, including the abolition of due process and habeas corpus. You vote for austerity programs. You vote for the destruction of welfare. That was Biden. You vote for cuts to Social Security, which he has repeatedly called for cutting, along with Medicaid. You vote for NAFTA, you vote for "free trade" deals. If you vote for Biden, you are voting for a real decline in wages and the loss of hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs.
With Biden you are also voting for the assault on public education and the transfer of federal funds to Christian "charter schools." With Biden you are voting for more than a doubling of the prison population. With Biden you are voting for the militarized police and against the Green New Deal. You are also voting to limit a woman's right to abortion and reproductive rights. You are voting for a segregated public school system. With Biden you are voting for punitive levels of student debt and the inability of people to free themselves of that debt through bankruptcy. A vote for Biden is a vote for deregulating banking and finance. Biden also supports for-profit insurance and pharmaceutical corporations.
A vote for Biden is also a vote against the possibility of universal health care. You vote for Biden and you are supporting huge, wasteful and bloated defense budgets. Biden also supports unlimited oligarchic and corporate money to buy the elections.
That's what you're voting for. A vote for Joe Biden is a vote for more of the same. The ruling elites would prefer Joe Biden, just like they preferred Hillary Clinton.
You go from raising taxes on the wealthy and corporation to class warfare without any intermediate steps. Let's assume it's true. What do you think about Warren Buffet when he said this:
“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”?
I didn't suggest we needed to increase tax revenues, so I've not advocated for any increases, either on the rich or the middle class. Biden wanting to increase taxes on the wealthy (especially if he is alignment with what you are saying) would be to redistribute the wealth, which is what I was objecting to. Quoting Benkei
How do you relate that to the declining labour share of GDP development and income inequality?Or the fact CEO pay has risen by 940% since 1978 but worker pay only by 12%? This while GDP grew with nearly 90% since then?
What do you think about the increase in salaries of Premier League soccer players over the years compared to whatever the lower level players are now making?Quoting Benkei
Why should having more money effectively give you a bigger voice and more influence? Shouldn't it just be one man, one vote? Or you don't think there's any tit-for-tat involved with campaign donations? Or do you think because it's legal, it's not corruption?
Every person does have one vote. I don't follow your equation of speech to voting.
How much should you be allowed to speak before the government arrests you for speaking too much?
Anyway, money gives you all sorts of things, like better clothes, better food, better schooling, and even a bigger megaphone to scream and yell from. I'm just wondering what it is that you wish to say that isn't being heard. The ability of the average guy to be heard is much higher today than it was when there were just newspapers and a few major television stations. The only way to be heard back then was to write a letter to the editor that might or might not be published. Now, all I have to do is write whatever bullshit I want and some guy in the Netherlands starts offering me his perspective (which I do appreciate). My point is that there isn't this massive group of silenced people who just can't afford a place at the podium to be heard. Your biggest beef, I'd suspect, is the disproportionate power the US has and that it's controlled currently by the conservative micro-majority, thus subjecting the planet to what amounts to be an overall minority opinion. I can only imagine what it feels like to be in your shoes with Trump steering this great big ship we call the world and all you can do is look on in shock and dismay. You call it a tragedy. Me, a comedy.
Reply to Hanover I suggest you read my post again. Slowly this time. And try to filter out the assumptions you're making on what I'm trying to say and then try to reply to what I'm saying. There's too much in your post that has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. Especially what you think "my biggest beef" is. Where did that come from?
How do you relate that to the declining labour share of GDP development and income inequality?Or the fact CEO pay has risen by 940% since 1978 but worker pay only by 12%? This while GDP grew with nearly 90% since then?
Some economists believe that a relatively low growth rate is normal for a rich nation, because there’s less of an incentive to work, people have fewer children, and so on, and that a declining GDP will increase inequality to destabilizing levels if unmitigated by policies that include wealth redistribution. AI development could further sink the divide. Is that an expression? Anyway, some kind of redistribution policy seems inevitable.
"Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan took another step toward running for president on Tuesday, saying he has formed an exploratory committee to look into his chances of winning the Libertarian Party's nomination."
Every person does have one vote. I don't follow your equation of speech to voting.
How much should you be allowed to speak before the government arrests you for speaking too much?
Anyway, money gives you all sorts of things, like better clothes, better food, better schooling, and even a bigger megaphone to scream and yell from. I'm just wondering what it is that you wish to say that isn't being heard. The ability of the average guy to be heard is much higher today than it was when there were just newspapers and a few major television stations. The only way to be heard back then was to write a letter to the editor that might or might not be published. Now, all I have to do is write whatever bullshit I want and some guy in the Netherlands starts offering me his perspective (which I do appreciate). My point is that there isn't this massive group of silenced people who just can't afford a place at the podium to be heard. Your biggest beef, I'd suspect, is the disproportionate power the US has and that it's controlled currently by the conservative micro-majority, thus subjecting the planet to what amounts to be an overall minority opinion. I can only imagine what it feels like to be in your shoes with Trump steering this great big ship we call the world and all you can do is look on in shock and dismay. You call it a tragedy. Me, a comedy.
What do our findings say about democracy in America? They certainly constitute troubling news for advocates of “populistic” democracy, who want governments to respond primarily or exclusively to the policy preferences of their citizens. In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes.
When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it
Me and some rich CEO might both have a vote (and just one vote), but he has the means to meet up with politicians over champagne and hookers and donate $100,000 to their re-election campaign. Guess who has the biggest voice and most influence?
Some economists believe that a relatively low growth rate is normal for a rich nation, because there’s less of an incentive to work, people have fewer children, and so on
A poor country can indeed get more easily higher growth figures. Getting people to earn 2$ a day from 1$ a day is quite easy. Getting people earn from 100$ to 200$ is another thing. What's the "some" here for? I guess that is quite reasonable.
and that a declining GDP will increase inequality to destabilizing levels if unmitigated by policies that include wealth redistribution.
Actually, in an economic recession (declining GDP) income inequality typically decreases. The poor stay poor, but the rich aren't getting the profits. This happened for example in my country when we had a serious economic depression (thanks to speculative bubble and a banking crisis) in the 1990's.
The ability of the average guy to be heard is much higher today than it was when there were just newspapers and a few major television stations. The only way to be heard back then was to write a letter to the editor that might or might not be published. Now, all I have to do is write whatever bullshit I want and some guy in the Netherlands starts offering me his perspective (which I do appreciate).
Is it higher?
If (and that's a big if) you got back then your letter to the editor being published in a major newspaper, I guess you were far more heard than discussing it here with our Dutch companion. You know the time when people read newspapers, the comment section was read by a lot of people.
Actually, in an economic recession (declining GDP) income inequality typically decreases. The poor stay poor, but the rich aren't getting the profits. This happened for example in my country when we had a serious economic depression (thanks to speculative bubble and a banking crisis) in the 1990's.
Having checked the New Yorker article that I was reading this morning it appears that I misread it. :yikes: It says that in many Western countries over the past couple of decades that slower growth has been accompanied by rising political polarization.
I started to read a book about The End of [economic] Growth today. Particularly interesting now that economic growth has truly stopped, if only temporarily.
Basically what happens is that when there is growth in these brave new neoliberal times, the rich take all the cream. When there's then a recession they live on that while the poor are told there's no milk left.
Lol. There was plenty of debate about Newton's theories, but the evidence was overwhelming. Nor was it proven "wrong" by Einstein or quantum theory. Not even close. Leave your simplistic Nickelodeon ideas of the history of science for Twitter.
Yes it was. Einstein completely overturned Newton's theory of gravity. Anyway, I'll respond to whatever nonsense you posted. Then I'm done. I'm not wasting my time anymore.
Lol. There was plenty of debate about Newton's theories, but the evidence was overwhelming. Nor was it proven "wrong" by Einstein or quantum theory. Not even close. Leave your simplistic Nickelodeon ideas of the history of science for Twitter.
— Xtrix
Yes it was. Einstein completely overturned Newton's theory of gravity.
No, it wasn't -- nor does any scientist believe that. Newton's theories are not "wrong," nor were "proven wrong." Yes, it's true that many simpletons like you believe that, but it's not true. What Einstein did was to expand on Newton with new conceptions of space and time. Newton's laws of motion remain absolutely intact, as does the calculations.
Quit while you're behind, buddy. No one, least of all me, thinks you know anything about science. You've repeatedly shown your incompetence and buffoonery. But keep it up for laughs if you'd like.
I shouldn't be shocked that ignorance abounds everywhere, even in philosophy forums.
I guess you are correct...it shouldn't surprise.
But it does. I find it incredible that 5 people intelligent enough to want to engage in discussion in a Philosophy Forum...would still be willing to vote for Trump.
More than surprise me, though...it discouraged me.
I am beginning to think we do not deserve the great gift that has been passed down to us. Our only job was to protect and defend it for the short time it will be in our custody...and instead, MILLIONS of people are shitting on it.
More than surprise me, though...it discouraged me.
Getting discouraged is a surefire way to keep losing. Remember too: Even though 5 will vote for Trump, the large majority will vote for someone else (as was reflected in the 2016 election) with a plurality going to Biden. That's encouraging -- because despite putting up yet another weak candidate, most people are still sensible enough to vote against the sociopath in office.
There are more sane people in this country than not.
Most have no clue what's going on and don't bother with politics or voting at all. That's the largest "voting block" -- non-voters. The ones who do vote are stuck with the information they're given, depending on the geographical and cultural factors, and base their decisions on this information.
If it's conservative radio, it's far more likely you'll have a picture of the world colored by the interpretations of Rush Limbaugh and the rantings of Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, and Dennis Prager. The same is true for liberals in the cities and suburbs listening to NPR, watching MSNBC, and reading the Huffington Post. A certain picture of the world emerges there as well. Decisions get made on this (mis)information. Most of it is propaganda. This creates two pictures that gradually drift farther and farther apart and become more extreme, generating hatred. It's clear that we've now reached a point where's no common set of facts anymore and no notion of "truth" -- there's only pure tribalism: anything my side believes is true, anything we don't like is fake news, and anyone holding opposite views are anti-American traitors. I see it being much more problematic on the right, and it could even lead to a kind of civil war in the not-so-distant future.
But given all this, the more sane party -- the Democratic Party -- still has the advantage. The Republican coalition is dying out. They are old, less diverse, more rural, less educated, and increasingly more working class. It's this last group that the Democrats should focus on winning back with progressive policies -- not the neoliberal Clintonite policies of the 90s (and much of Obama).
I see this advantage more and more, despite how close things are right now (seemingly 50/50 in the key swing states). As years pass, the electorate becomes younger and more diverse. That's worth paying attention to. They're more progressive, have less bias against the evil version of "socialism" from the Cold War era, care deeply about the environment, are more organized and politically engaged than Gen Xers, etc. But will it be too late?
In many respects it will -- they'll have to contend with the damage done by these previous generations, on the environment especially, but also with nuclear weapons, with the US judicial system now stacked with lifetime-tenured reactionary judges, with the weakening of unions, and with the elite control of the educational system, media, campaign funding and lobbying.
I'm old enough to see where this is leading and young enough to care.
I'd say, "We'll see how things go"...but at 83, I most probably will not see how this plays out in the long run. The judiciary has become a political plaything...and THAT is not good.
I'd say, "We'll see how things go"...but at 83, I most probably will not see how this plays out in the long run. The judiciary has become a political plaything...and THAT is not good.
All of these things, as you well know, have been around for decades. But it's the degree to which they've been amped up. They don't even care about pretext anymore -- it's just in-your-face corporatism.
Judging from some recent polls in battleground states, looks like we're in for another four years of Trump -- largely owing to the DNC's putting up terrible candidates, and voters willing to sit out or protest-vote in response and thus helping Trump get another four years of systematically destroying environmental regulations (needed more than ever), accelerating climate change, appointing lifetime judges to the circuit court, giving department heads to his friends, massive tax cuts to the wealthy, etc. etc.
Let's hope the DNC "learns its lesson" this time. Let's also hope our grandkids have a planet to inhabit in 2060.
I think that Donald Trump is a Central Intelligence Agency godsend, and, therefore, a bane of our existence, but I am not voting, in part, because of that the National Security Agency was built under the administration that Joe Biden was the Vice President of, and, in part, because of the total unwillingness on the part of the Democratic Party to either put the Church Committee into effect or acknowledge that Harry S. Truman was one of the worst presidents that we have ever had.
I thought about voting for Howie Hawkins of the Green Party, as I had thought that it would be the last time that I could with any degree of conviction vote Green, as Bernie Sanders had finally done what the Green Party believed to be impossible, which was to more or less run a Democratic Party campaign as if it were a Green Party campaign, thereby making it impossible for the Green Party to take the place of the Democratic Party as the primary opposition to the Republican Party, and, thereby rendering the Green Party totally ineffective, as the only reason a person becomes a Libertarian is so that they can ignore the Republican Party, thereby making an alliance with them unlikely and a multi-party system in the United States as equally unlikely, thereby only leaving the Green Party with the aforementioned plan to replace the Democratic Party as the primary opposition to the Republican Party, which can no longer be done. They can still win elections in local campaigns, but the grand project of the Green Party is no longer tenable. I voted for Barrack Obama twice and have never voted Green. I thought that I should give them a vote as a kind of token of solidarity. I decided not to vote in protest instead.
Reply to Xtrix I voting for Biden, but holding my nose. It is essential to get Trump out of office in November, just as it will be essential to get Biden out of office 4 years later. Bad choices. Bernie Sanders is a more attractive politician, but like most of the candidates, he is too old. So is Trump. So is Biden.
I hear you. It looks like Biden is pretty malleable, and so hopefully we can push him on progressive policies once he's in office. But one thing has become clear: four more years of Trump and we're toast.
Reply to Professor Death
Bernie Sanders jumping off a cliff to sacrifice himself for the younger generation or for the Biden/(and woman soon to be picked) Presidential run?
Biden's lead in the poll average has fallen from 10+ to 7,4+. Not an issue, but notice that at lowest the Biden lead has been only 4+.
"It’s like saying to somebody, ‘You have a bowl of s–t in front of you, and all you’ve got to do is eat half of it instead of the whole thing.’ It’s still s–t’, ” Sanders co-chair Nina Turner told The Atlantic."
I voted Biden mainly as a protest vote to get dumper-trumper out of there (much like many moderate repubs did viz. Hilary). To this end, apparently there are a lot of moderate Republicans supporting the Biden ticket wanting to get back to certain GOP ideals like fiscal restraint and character/leadership/non-racist/non-mysogynist, more honestly, no cheating, flip flops on policy, etc.etc. kinds of ideology.
And/or you can look at it like the lesser of two evils.
The experiment didn't work. When you look at the track record, he's just part of the swamp.
I worry that he's going to run country into the ground with debt similar to his casino's and the university that went bust.... I think he said he was the king of debt during the 2016 campaign. Certainly not a traditional GOP ideal.
You sound like a cuck but it's true, Hillary and dozens of politicians didn't serve jail-time, no tangible illegal immigration restrictions, NAFTA replaced by worse UMSCA, war in the middle east continues, more hyphenated-American politics, and forced vaccine.
The only thing of value he did was building half the wall. That, and he managed to removed the worst aspects of Obamacare such as the required insurance.
What's wrong with that? The Supreme Court ruled in Jacobson v. Massachusetts that states have the authority to enforce compulsory vaccination laws.
The Court held that "in every well ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand" and that "[r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others."
As long as, by accepting that the government can, legally, force a vaccine into you, you no longer live in a free society, then I guess that's that. The state could always do whatever it wanted to citizens, but end the "free country" bit and pursue a "greater good" theme. Accuracy matters.
As long as, by accepting that the government can, legally, force a vaccine into you, you no longer live in a free society, then I guess that's that.
"[r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others."
A free society always has some restrictions and some unavoidable duties. "Complete" freedom is impossible.
...the government can, legally, force a vaccine into you...
I don't think it's the case that they can force a vaccine, it's just that they can punish you for not accepting a vaccine (fines, imprisonment, loss of certain privileges, etc.). For example Jacobson v. Massachusetts was a case where a man was fined for not accepting a vaccine, and immunization of children is mandatory to enroll in public school (with some exceptions).
Reply to Michael I work in acute psychiatry. We force needles and medications into people fairly regularly. Hold them down, poke and inject. We are already doing it to violent patients, so doing it with a vaccine isn't exactly a huge leap.
A free society always has some restrictions and some unavoidable duties.
Ergo: Not a free society.
Just own it.
For example my home runs as a benevolent dictatorship. There is nothing democratic about it. I make the rules, people can make requests, or state their position, but ultimately, everything is on me anyway so I make the final call. Freedoms in this dictatorship have been awarded by me and are based on meeting expectations. If expectations are not met, freedoms are removed. I have no illusions about it, neither does my family. However none of us are delusional enough to say the house runs via democratic process.
What do you understand a free society to be? Anyone can do anything they like? That sounds an awful lot like anarchy, which is inevitably self-defeating as people will either band together for protection, following some set of agreed upon rules, or be oppressed by those who do.
Reply to Michael Because you shouldn't trust that Bill Gates creep. He's pro population reduction and you don't know what he might stick in that vaccine to get his way. The big thing is that this vaccine is going going to be taken by the whole world so they don't have any reason to hold back. I remember as well the H1N1 vaccine was causing people to get the flu.
This whole corona thing is just a bunch of bullshit anyway, with the average dying age older than life expectancy. Also when someone dies and they tested positive for corona, it's automatically labelled a COVID death. The grand stupidity of so many world leaders in their response is mind-boggling.
Because you shouldn't trust that Bill Gates creep. He's pro population reduction and you don't know what he might stick in that vaccine to get his way.
You think he's mixing it in his basement lab or something? At night?
Michael Tomasky: And suddenly, things felt different Tuesday. It was that cowardly GSA woman finally throwing in the towel. It was Laura Ingraham admitting it was over the night before. It was Donald Trump pardoning the turkeys, a self-abasing ritual for a president in the best of circumstances, but these were the worst of circumstances, and it was actually the first time in his presidency that I felt any empathy for him as I sat there imagining for, oh, at least 1.3 seconds what it must have taken for him to haul his lazy septuagenarian girth out there to do that.
But more than any of those images, it was the sight of Joe Biden and his new national security team standing up there and introducing themselves to America. Serious people. Public servants, who are in this for the right reasons. Not a grifter or goner in the bunch. People who are qualified for the jobs to which they’re nominated, and people who will be given rein to do those jobs without having to worry that the president is going to tweet at 5:37 a.m. that he’s been rethinking things and maybe it’s time to sell Alaska after all.
Reply to MichaelReply to EricHReply to Michael Society has rules, I get that. My opinion of these rules is irrelevant. The issue that I take is with the description "free", it is on par with the annoyance I have with the description of "voluntary" traffic fines. Neither appellation is accurate. Society has rules, therefore is not free. Anarchy is free, might not be what most people want, but the description is accurate. And yes, in a free society, you could kill someone you don't like, and someone could then exact revenge upon you, etc. Since we have rules to prevent that...Not Free. Just saying.
If I elect to not pay my "voluntary" fine I will lose my license and eventually end up in jail. Again, not voluntary, as refusing results in punitive measures. So not voluntary. If this version of voluntary can not be used universally without resulting in jail time it is not actually voluntary.
I support accurate word use. Say what you mean, mean what you say.
A freethinking, (economic democracy) left-libertarian interlude:
"Free" of - freedom from -
• ethical responsibility or
• legal accountability or
• evidence-based (more-than-subjective, material (facticity) conditioned) understanding
is notliberty, civil or political. :mask:
By "free society" I understand 'an open, inclusive, tolerant (except of intolerance!), rules-bound, or non-arbitrary, diachronic network of stakeholder-governed social (i.e. institutional) arrangements; in other words, a political-economy which presupposes, and is sustained by, active, vigilant exercises of liberty in the defense of liberty.' Thus, I agree, America is not a "free society" for most of its citizens, in most ways, most of the time; that's because, since the founding of this republic as a compromised slave state (which, through two and a half centuries, has morphed into an apartheid state, then national security military-industrial state, then into the paramilitarized police prison & pharma-industrial state we are today), America has only ever been a plutocratic free-rider state (re: e.g. the US Electoral College system & US Senate ... or effectively tax-free/exempt corporate welfare recipients). On the verge of sliding into oligarchic populism, as indicated by +73 million votes cast in the last election to reelect tr45h, this country is still (barely) "free enough" to Resist ... though maybe not for much longer than the next (couple?) election cycles.
Resistance to il-liberality, (sketched aboved), is what 'American liberty' looks like today, in this moment of existential threat to liberty and its prospects. Not yet "free" but we're free enough for the time being to struggle on and strive for a freer society. The facilely cynical alternative (suggested by e.g. @Book273 et al) will only accelerate our civic self-defeat and social collapse into something like a "Mad Max" version of 'the Hobbesian state-of-nature' in which "freedom" (freeDUMB) amounts to nothing but
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, XIII:... continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
Refusal, during a fucking global pandemic, to wear a mask, socially distance, etc is not substantively different from refusing to e.g. bathe or clean your clothes, wear a seatbelt, drive sober or with auto-insurance, stop @red traffic lights, use toilets, ... which is just being, in a word, an anti-social cunt.
Reply to EricH It's quite simple. Don't tell me I am free to make my choices and then give me a list of things that are not allowed. Skip the bullshit and just tell me what is allowed. Be clear, be honest about it. If something is not permitted do not wait until someone has decided to do it and then say "no". Open with "not this". Clarity.
There are rules in games, which we follow, or we elect no to play. Once alive one is obligated to play, unless on elects to self remove, so we play by certain rules. Saying those rules do not exist is simply false. I am not saying right or wrong, just denying them is inaccurate.
Refusal, during a fucking global pandemic, to wear a mask, socially distance, etc is not substantively different from refusing to e.g. bathe or clean your clothes, wear a seatbelt, drive sober or with auto-insurance, stop red traffic lights, use toilets, ... which is just being an, in a word, anti-social cunt.
Can't be said enough. And how about this for a public ad campaign?
I'm not telling you anything. I understand your definition of the word "free" - and I am not criticizing your definition. OK - at least not yet . . .
But I am not seeing any distinction between your use of the word "free" and how I would use the word "anarchist".
So I'll repeat my question - As you define the words - do you see a distinction between a "free society" vs "anarchist society"? If so, please elaborate.
Reply to EricH Not really. But I am not saying I live in a "free society", It is however, the common rhetoric and is inaccurate, which is what I am saying, in a nutshell.
The question is why you'd think freedom, in a social sense, is the absence of rules. For one, the very nature of a rule is that it assumes you're free.
Reply to Book273
So next - would you personally prefer to live in a free / anarchic society OR would you prefer to live in a society which has clearly defined rules (and for the sake of this thought experiment you can choose the rules)
Comments (180)
I'm registered to vote in a reddish safe state, so most probably I'll vote "third party" like always (except in 2008).
Makes sense I suppose.
Then it's a good thing no one asked you for your opinion about the thread. If you don't like it, don't vote and don't comment.
I wasn't aware there is a rule about commenting. Seems peculiar for a forum like this one. Sorry if I ruffled your feathers.
Your comment on the other thread: "Interesting to read this thread, watching people gradually convincing themselves, once again, to elect Trump"
There is no such "rule." But showing up just to announce you "don't think this thread is a good idea" is completely pointless. Generally grown adults keep non-constructive comments like that to themselves and simply move on.
Not every opinion needs to be declared. This isn't Twitter.
You don't have to vote for evil. You need to get your head around that.
So you vote third party or you don't vote. Very simple.
The right to vote includes the right not to vote. And the right not to vote becomes not just morally acceptable but morally obligatory if your choice is between two rapists. Luckily, there are always third party options.
Probably the only good thing about Dubya was he wasn't a rapist. Far as I know. But yeah it's at least 50/50.
New Dem campaign slogan "Some things are more important than rape. Vote Biden".
:up:
'Swing state' voters MUST vote for the lesser of two rapists: Joe Biden. (I definitely would.) I'm not convinced, however, that he will be the Democratic nominee ... Plenty of time for Gavin Newsome, Gretchen Witmer, Andrew Cuomo or someone else (but for fartin' fuck's sake NOT Shillary!) who hasn't already campaigned & dropped-out to be recruited / dragooned into cleaning-up tRump's disasters. :mask:
In your dreams.
That would mean that the DNC would a) admit their failure, b) make dramatic changes and c) take risks. The geriatric leadership of the DNC will follow their selected path with Biden while patting themselves on the back just how easily they avoided Bernie being a problem.
Hence the last thing is to hope that they pick a good vice-presidential candidate. When President Biden has to take a "sick leave".
Yes, by voting your conscience like you logically pure humanists. So admirable. Get Trump elected -- but that's beside the point. Biden is just as "evil."
Yes, very simple: help re-elect Trump, clearly the most evil and most damaging. And why? Because a) it'll make you feel better about yourself, b) Biden is just as bad, or c) Biden is the lesser of the two evils but we don't care about that.
This is a very good point indeed, and the most important. It's completely ignored by the likes of "Baden" and others, who are determined to help Trump get re-elected -- all so that they feel better.
We don't know if he raped her or not. But if he did, no one is saying that's right. He should be tried and convicted.
There's also a thing called the real world, which you ignore for false equivalence and delusions about taking a righteous stand by throwing away your vote (which is a vote for Trump, by the way).
Yes.
It's you and Frank Apisa who are helping to reelect Trump by hurling abuse at anyone who feels like they should vote for someone who actually represents them. What you should be doing is calmly outlining what it is that Biden offers progressives apart from not being Trump. Some of these people don't want your poisonous two-party system and don't feel that in areas that matter, Biden as President will make a substantial difference to their everyday lives, certainly not one substantial enough to allow themselves to be harassed into voting for him. So, why are they wrong. Make the argument. Stop the shouting.
OK, this is actually a valid point. I would hardly say I'm "hurling abuse" though.
Quoting Baden
All right -- yet one can hardly blame someone for getting frustrated when one repeatedly does so and gets ignored. At that point, is there any sense to rational discussion?
If you live in a safe state, red or blue, you should be voting third party anyway, because to do otherwise is to throw away your vote.
If you live in a swing state, then not voting or voting third party is tantamount to voting for the opposite of the two mainstream candidates you would otherwise have picked if you had to pick one of them. So even if you think Biden is a pile of trash, which he is, if you live in swing state not voting for him has the same effect as voting for Trump, who is a pile of radioactive trash on fire.
*With the caveat that deportation rates under Trump still fail to match that of Obama, and that Biden has flip-flopped on abortion like the flavour of the month. Oh, and best not talk about Biden's vote for DOMA.
I did laugh. :lol:
You leave out the most important: climate change.
It would be nice to have a planet in the future, I think. So yes, I value any chance of making that happen over protests votes that don't do anything and guarantee disaster. Call me crazy.
Yes.
What about climate change? Do you seriously believe governments and corporations and people are competent enough to make a difference?
My issue with the Baden accusation, I mean Biden, is that only FoxNews seems to have heard the charges and everyone else is ignoring it. It is worthy of investigation and supposedly neutral news' outlets should investigate every allegation equally regardless of the political affiliation of the accused.
In terms of whether I would not vote for Biden based upon the charges, I would vote for him if I agreed with his politics, but I don't. That said, an accusation is not proof. This whole thing of guilty until proven innocent is a disgusting recent turn of events and something we will one day hopefully look back upon with regret. The concept of determining guilt only after all the facts are revealed has served us well in matters far worse than sexual harassment or even rape, including such things as murder, mayhem, and terrorism. My presumption at this point is that Biden is not guilty of anything.
We need to take seriously that calling someone a rapist who is not is a vile act in itself.
Happy with my own President, voted for him now twice (and he won both times). Even if I disagree with his stance on NATO, that's peanuts compared to the insane bleach-injector Trump. Rather OK even with the leftist-centrist administration in dealing with the pandemic.
Yes...I should shut up now.
What do you object to the most?
I didn't say they had a stellar track record. Is it better than climate change denial? Yes.
Yes. If other countries can do it, so can we. Corporations, no -- at least not the ones involved in fossil fuels, of course. And not governments that say it's a Chinese hoax. But otherwise, yes it can be done and has to be done if we want to survive.
Quoting Xtrix
I think you're grossly overestimating what other countries are doing. I live in one of the more progressive countries in the world. It's not enough. Corona lock down will be a joke compared to the costs we will be confronted with once climate change really hits. I've already started looking for a plot of land with enough arable land, a self-sufficient modular home and I'll be advising my kids to study agriculture.
I actually went to the Biden site where he lists out his positions. If I had to pick what I didn't particularly like, it would relate to raising taxes specifically on the wealthy and corporations, because I'm tired of the class warfare, which is how this usually plays out. He wants to study the idea of reparations, which I find horribly polarizing and unjust. That alone will cost him my vote. He had an entirely hands off stance with China, and I do see them as a threat and concern. I'm not in principle opposed to tariffs as he is. I didn't like his idea of raising teacher's salaries, as I don't follow how the federal government should have a hand in that very (very very) local issue. He's in favor of 2 years of free college education, which in principle sounds good, but that sounds again like a state issue, considering different state institutions charge differently and private colleges are much more expensive. I'm also opposed to campaign finance reform because I'm close to an absolutist on free speech. His objections to drilling for oil I largely disagree with.
Tell me all the things your kids are going to need to sustain themselves so that I can teach my kids to sell it to them. I'm just trying to identify emerging markets.
Biden is playing to his base here, just as Trump freely does. Your objection to Biden on this is that it's horribly polarizing and unjust. I could lay out a long list of actions by Trump that were horribly polarizing and viewed as unjust by most people outside Trump's base.
So how do we distinguish between the two here? What if we look at personality? Trump attacks. He antagonizes even when he doesn't really have to. That's just the way he does things. He even routinely attacks people and organization that are supposed to be his allies and subordinates. He eliminates any voice counter to his own in his environment. The result has been that though many might have thought it impossible, trust in the executive has decreased. I think you'd have to agree that in the domain of "horribly polarizing" Trump has taken things to the extreme. And unjust? Biden was just suggesting that we study the question of reparations. That's obviously a gesture. Where's the injustice in studying something?
Let's look at Biden's personality by contrast. He has a long history of working well with people across the aisle. He's well respected across the board. He's a moderate. So even if you don't share his interests, you can feel confident that the government is working well instead of on the verge of running off the rails.
True?
There's nowhere to go or hide from climate change. That's pure delusion.
Helping elect Trump all but guarantees we're going over the edge. We have to make our decisions with this in mind.
"Absolutist on free speech" is the reason to be against finance reform for campaigns?
At least I know now to ignore everything you say.
The regulation of financing regulates the speech.
I know very little of your swampy little outpost, but am I correct in stating that property in the Netherlands is fairly expensive and the only crop you can grow is tulips?
The thing is, I could buy acres and acres of land in rural Alabama for next to nothing and I could probably raise pigs and chickens and grow corn pretty easily and could avoid the Armageddon better than you and your shoeless, shirtless kids could under their windmill in their tulip field.
I'm not suggesting you move to Alabama, as you lack the requisite sophistication, but I'm just questioning whether your plan is fully realizable where you are.
I didn't realize that. What's the EU equivalent of Alabama?
Yes, the "speech" of buying elections. Brilliant.
But they can't do it.
Quoting Xtrix
"If we want to survive?" We'll survive climate change easily. Talk to any climate scientist, like actual ones, not activists, and they'll tell you. Sure, it will have an effect, but it's definitely not the hottest climate in the whole history of the climate, and it's also not cataclysmic.
No, they won't "tell you" because there are a number of projections which depend on what we do now. If we do remain with the status quo -- we're toast. Sure, maybe we survive somehow. Maybe some people survive nuclear war too. Not saying much.
Take a look at tipping points and see what happens to food supplies alone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_system
https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
What "actual scientists" are you referring to, exactly? Please name one.
They can, and they have.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/09/climate-change-report-card-co2-emissions/
CO2 emissions are not even remotely the only, or even the primary driver of climate change. And in fact, not even among greenhouse gases.
CO2's role is very overplayed. Methane gas might be worse.
Well, there's a scientist at MIT who's name currently escapes me, but I'll gladly look for his name for you.
Quoting Xtrix
Yes, and those number of projections are based on completely faulty and speculative models of how climate has evolved. Most climate data is based on tree rings and glacial mass, stuff that could change for more reasons than merely the climate. And in fact, the only real good solid data on climate that we have is only since the Industrial Revolution.
No one is arguing this. Pure straw-man.
Yes, methane is a more potent greenhouse gas, but doesn't last nearly as long as CO2. There's also plenty of other factors of climate change, as you mentioned. Deforestation, agricultural practices, energy sources, industry, etc. All major contributors. What's your point?
Not really. Your article was about CO2. You post an article about CO2, and I replied to it, and then you say it is a strawman. Don't post articles if you haven't read them.
Quoting Xtrix
My point is, one measly article about lowering CO2 is about as relevant to curbing climate change as astrology is relevant about finding a planet in the Andromeda galaxy.
Please do, and if you can point me to where he says we'll "easily survive."
Quoting h060tu
Lol. Right, and you know because you're a climatologist. Please explain where these "models" go wrong. I myself would love to know -- as I'm sure most climate scientists would as well.
Quoting h060tu
Wrong.
Quoting h060tu
Completely wrong.
Completely correct.
Quoting Xtrix
They already know. Most climate scientists aren't alarmists.
Yes, really. No one -- not myself, not anything I've cited, is arguing CO2 is the only driver of climate change. It's a complete straw man.
Quoting h060tu
No, it isn't. CO2 is one factor involved, yes. There are others -- including energy sources, energy consumption, climate policy, etc. etc.
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting h060tu
No, completely wrong. Saying the "only real good solid data" is embarrassing. There's a number of excellent sources of data on the climate, which you would know if you deigned to read anything about the subject.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Quoting h060tu
No, they're very alarmed indeed. Rightfully so.
One scientist who you don't remember.
Quoting h060tu
Can't read.
Quoting h060tu
Spinner of straw.
Quoting h060tu
Quoting h060tu
Ridiculous claims without any evidence or sources. This last one is especially egregious.
So I think I see where this non-discussion is going. More mouthing off by science ignoramuses who think they know more than people that have studied this their entire lives because they've spent a few minutes thinking about the subject. It's embarrassing.
Richard Lindzen at MIT. That's one climate scientist. I'm not an expert, but he is. And I haven't studied climate science as a layman, in years. So I don't really want to have a debate on this.
Another book I read was by a Swedish guy named Bjorn Lomborg (took me FOREVER to remember this guy and the title of the book,) called Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming another climate scientist.
I'm not an expert, but there's a lot of alarmism going on. Elizabeth Kolbert, who wrote The Sixth Extinction a massive alarmist tome, is a journalist, not a scientist. There are other such books and misinfo/disinfo out there.
Bill Nye, also not a scientist. He's like a Disney character basically. He has no scientific credentials.
Yes, but the article itself was about CO2. If you want to be dishonest, then be dishonest. I don't really care. Moral anti-realist.
The government is not a source. There was a "source" about WMDs in Iraq. It's fake. I don't trust the government "data" on anything. Economics, WMDs, their secret programs and operations destroying other people's countries, creating false flags, lying to the American people, infiltrating groups and manipulating events, mind control programs. Yeah, no. I don't trust the government "data" unless it's methodology is sound. If the methodology is sound, I'll believe it. But I don't take government data at face value.
They're really not. Political activists, media personalities and the UN and other globalist fronts are. But nobody serious is.
Yeah, that's what you're doing. I never did that. I cited two climate scientists who agree with me. And I cited a journalist who would agree with you. You're the one doing what you claim I am.
LOL. Oh, what a shocker. A well known (and well used by deniers) "skeptic." This is your example? Pathetic. Maybe read up on these people before spouting nonsense:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06032017/climate-change-denial-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump
A number of his lies and distortions are well-documented, point by point.
Quoting h060tu
Good, very wise to keep your mouth shut about things you don't understand.
Quoting h060tu
So two climate change deniers. This is what you read? Not the IPCC, not NASA, not NOAA, not the thousands of climatologists out there studying this -- you quote two well known liars (Lomborg less so, although his distortions are incredible as well -- although he's been promoted by imbeciles like Jordan Peterson).
Quoting h060tu
I agree -- Kolbert shouldn't be view as a credible source either. But it's ironic you say that many books of misinformation is out there, after just citing two yourself.
LOL So scientists you disagree with are not worth your time, only ones that already confirm your preconceived bias. That's amazing.
Yeah, this conversation is over. You're just a propagandist, an ideological robot. That's fine, but I'm wasting my time talking. My time is important, yours not so much.
The IPCC is not the US government, it's a number of research institutes and thousands of scientists.
Good to see you're very skeptical about things, yet swallow the bullshit of Lindzen wholesale. Interesting. :roll:
I never "swallowed" anything. His view is one view. IPCC is another. Until there is evidence that can establish the likelihood of one hypothesis over the other, then there is underdetermination of hypothesis. That has always been my position. Always. Never said anything different.
You assume that because I question your assumptions, that I am a "denier" I am not a "denier" I am Agnostic on the question. I don't know, and neither do you and neither do they. There's a just a lot of claims, and nothing to back them up.
And you definitely know, because you're so very informed.
Quoting h060tu
No, I've studied this for years actually. Quoting h060tu
Yes, you've found two climate deniers who agree with you. There are a handful of others, too. I can find them for you if you'd like. But I asked for credible sources.
Quoting h060tu
No, they're worth my time. I've read both, in fact. I've given sources that go over their points thoroughly. I'd be glad to go over their lies here as well.
Quoting h060tu
Yes, smart move. Word of advice: next time, keep your mouth shut when you don't know what you're talking about. A little research goes a long way.
Bottom line -- 97% (that's misleading -- it's closer to 100%) of climatologists accept climate change is a fact, that we're the cause of it, and that we need to take major steps to do something about it. But you go with Lindzen, by all means.
No you haven't.
No they don't. That number is from a comic book writer. It's fallacious.
Lol. Right, just like creationists have "one side" and "evolutionists" have another view. Or, better, flat-earthers have a view and NASA has another view. Both totally plausible.
For that matter, the homeless man screaming about Jesus has a view too. Maybe you should cite him as a source?
Quoting h060tu
Now you're just babbling nonsense. Why "hypothesis" are you talking about? There's overwhelming evidence for the effects climate change will have. It's only a matter of degree, which will depend on whether we act or not. We're already seeing the effects, which are WORSE than the scientists predicted years ago.
Quoting h060tu
On what question?
Quoting h060tu
No, there's evidence to back them up -- overwhelming evidence which, once it's explained to you, is more than convincing. All you have to do is make a little effort. Even a simple wikipedia search is fine. Or are they part of the global conspiracy too?
Except climate science uses totally different methods than biology or physics. Do you accept mainstream economic theory also? Because it's been wrong... every single time.
So, if you're going to pretend that all things which call themselves "science" are all equally scientific and demonstrable, then you're going to have to rigorously defend that claim.
No, there isn't. Because it has not happened yet. Science is about empirical evidence what is the case. Not what might be the case based on models, predictions, hand waving, media personalities, documentaries, alarmism and a autistic 16 year old. If you don't understand that, I cannot help you. I really cannot.
Quoting Xtrix
Right, because Google, Bill Gates, the Rockefellers, the Chinese Communist Party and several others who donate to Wikipedia don't have any influence at all over the content that might be adduced there. None.
I haven't what? Jesus you're a horrible writer.
Quoting h060tu
You've already given yourself away buddy. You've proven you only read fringe bullshit about climate change. This is yet another example.
The 97% number was popularized by two articles, the first by Naomi Oreskes, now Professor of Science History and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University, and the second by a group of authors led by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at The University of Queensland.
It's been attacked by climate deniers like yourself, but later studies have corroborated it. It's based on published articles on climate change, thousands of them. There have also been extensive polling done. Even if the number is 90%, which is extremely unlikely, to have this level of consensus in science is rare. It really tells you something about the level of evidence.
But that's fine -- you ignore NASA, NOAA, the IPCC, the Royal Academy, the entire MIT climatology department (besides Lindzen), etc.. and keep on believing whatever you want to believe.
No. I've read NOAA, I actually have it bookmarked LOL I just don't believe your claims because you have absolutely nothing to substantiate them. Only rhetoric.
Quoting Xtrix
That actual study says nothing about antropogenic climate change. It talks about climate change without qualification. When you actually break down the study into the various ways in which scientists think what is causing climate change, the numbers go way below 70%. I know the study, and it doesn't corroborate anthropogenic climate change. And it CERTAINLY doesn't corroborate alarmism. It's actually SCIENCE, and what you're doing is not science, but does contain BS.
I'm not a "climate denier" nor am I a "climate skeptic" nor am I a "climate activist" I am not any of these things. I question them all because they are all equally suspect, none of them have made a sufficient case to doxastically believe in. None. That's it.
No, I accept things that have overwhelming evidence -- like a spherical Earth, like that the holocaust happened, like evolution, like gravity, like climate change. Economic or sociology theories have nothing to do with this, although there are some solid ideas even in those fields as well.
Quoting h060tu
It has happened, it's happening already. Look at the last 10 hottest years on record. This year is shaping up to be one of the hottest as well.
Quoting h060tu
Typical climate denial lines. Yawn.
Quoting h060tu
LOL. Oh, so they ARE a part of the global conspiracy? Interesting. Tell me more, Dr. Science.
Quoting h060tu
Glad you've "read NOAA." Was that the book? lol.
Quoting h060tu
What study might that be, exactly?
Good for you. I myself am agnostic about gravity and whether the Earth really is flat. Who knows? Things change. I'm also agnostic about God and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Quoting h060tu
You're a climate denier. You've already made that quite clear. You've used standard denialist lines, when asked to cite any sources you provided two well-known climate "skeptics," ignore or dismiss NASA and the IPCC (and apparently even Wikipedia) because of some conspiracy claims about the government, say climate science is based on 'models,' etc.
The fact is that the evidence of climate change is overwhelming. It's already happening, and will continue to get worse unless major changes are enacted. There's consensus from scientists all over the world on this. The evidence is clear and easily understood if we care to understand it, which you clearly do not.
Because climate science is "model based"?
Global warming is not an output of computer models; it is a conclusion based on observations of a great many global indicators. By far the most straightforward evidence is the actual surface temperature record. While there are places — in England, for example — that have records going back several centuries, the two major global temperature analyses can only go back around 150 years due to their requirements for both quantity and distribution of temperature recording stations.
These are the two most reputable globally and seasonally averaged temperature trend analyses:
NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis
CRU direct surface temperature analysis
Both trends are definitely and significantly up. In addition to direct measurements of surface temperature, there are many other measurements and indicators that support the general direction and magnitude of the change the earth is currently undergoing. The following diverse empirical observations lead to the same unequivocal conclusion that the earth is warming:
Satellite Data
Radiosondes
Borehole analysis
Glacial melt observations
Sea ice melt
Sea level rise
Proxy Reconstructions
Permafrost melt
There is simply no room for doubt: the Earth is undergoing a rapid and large warming trend.
Sure there are plenty of unsolved problems and active debates in climate science. But if you look at the research papers coming out these days, the debates are about things like why model predictions of outgoing longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere in tropical latitudes differ from satellite readings, or how the size of ice crystals in cirrus clouds affect the amount of incoming shortwave reflected back into space, or precisely how much stratospheric cooling can be attributed to ozone depletion rather than an enhanced greenhouse effect.
No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, or if the current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability, or if sea levels have risen over the last century.
This is where there is a consensus.
Specifically, the “consensus” about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:
the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.
While theories and viewpoints in conflict with the above do exist, their proponents constitute a very small minority. If we require unanimity before being confident, well, we can’t be sure the earth isn’t hollow either.
This consensus is represented in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (TAR WG1), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, and arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history. While this review was sponsored by the UN, the research it compiled and reviewed was not, and the scientists involved were independent and came from all over the world.
The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by …
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
… in either one or both of these documents: PDF, PDF.
In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:
NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
If this is not scientific consensus, what in the world would a consensus look like?
LOL Don't even get me started.
Anyway, economic and sociology, LIKE climate science, LIKE biology, LIKE physics, [s]pretends[/s] purports to be scientific. I'm asking you, how on Earth are you going to accept one of these as "science" and the rest as not. Or do you? I'm asking you what your criteria is, and how do you demarcate it?
You don't want to answer because you don't have an answer. You cannot establish what is science. You don't even know what science even is.
Quoting Xtrix
Yes, climate changes. Water is wet. I don't know what to say. You don't seem to understand that evidence has to be interpreted. It's a massive leap to say, because climate is changing, therefore x, y, z are also true. You have to make the case that x, y and z are true. But you're assuming because climate is changing, a bunch of these claims which you'd assumed and not provided any reason to believe they are genuine are also true. That's not the case.
Quoting Xtrix
No, I'm saying that there is no neutrality when it comes to looking at the world. The Chinese Communist Party could be correct, that's fine. I'm not making an ad hominem, just because they're communists doesn't make them wrong. But I'm pointing out that Wikipedia is not a neutral source. Nothing is.
Quoting Xtrix
The website.
Quoting Xtrix
The one you pretended to know about.
Quoting Xtrix
You seem to be very selective on what you're skeptical about.
Quoting Xtrix
You can continue to say that, but you're wrong. And that's because you can't reason. You allow your emotions to drive your interpretation of the evidence and the world.
Quoting Xtrix
Climate change is happening. Yes. It always has. It always will. I've never said otherwise. I'm not arguing that climate doesn't change. I'm arguing against the bunches of other claims you've made, but totally failed to substantiate.
And? Consensus is a fallacy. There was no debate over whether Newtonian mechanics was false, until Einstein... and Quantum Theory. There was no debate whether Ptolemaic Astronomy was false.. until Copernicus. There was no debate over Aristotle's Categories... until Hume, and Descartes and the Enlightenment. You can say "there's no debate" but it doesn't mean a damn thing. Honestly.
Ohhh, I see...tell me more!
Quoting h060tu
I'm interested in evidence which, in this case, is overwhelming. If you want to debate Keynesian economic policy and its effectiveness, that's fine -- but that's not climatology.
Quoting h060tu
I never claimed to. In fact I have another thread going right now that discusses the nature of science. But who cares? We're talking about evidence, not the philosophy of science.
Quoting h060tu
The climate is changing, and at a rate beyond natural variability. The reason it's changing is because of the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from fossil fuel use and deforestation, etc. This isn't complicated. The predictions that were made (and documented) in the last 20 years or so have proven remarkably accurate, although they were often too optimistic. This has been extensively documented for years -- and I'm sure you've read all about it.
Quoting h060tu
Gotcha.
Quoting h060tu
Which was what? Or are you the one pretending?
Quoting h060tu
Ah, thanks Dr. Freud. Nailed it. I guess I WANT to believe that the climate is changing at an alarming rate because of my "death instinct"? Definitely not the extensive, overwhelming evidence from thousands of scientists around the global that have studied this their whole lives.
I'll go with an ignoramus on the Philosophy Forum! He has the "real" truth! Just like Donald Trump does. Everything else is "fake news."
Quoting h060tu
Ah, there it is. The new denialist line: "the climate is always changing!"
But don't take it from me:
"So technically that's true. The climate has always been changing. But for various reasons, the current change that we're experiencing now is particularly alarming, and that is because in the history of human civilization, the climate has never changed this rapidly. And that's really what concerns scientists. It's not the fact that there is change, but it's the speed of that change."
--STEPHANIE HERRING, climatologist
There was plenty of debate about Newton's theories, but the evidence was overwhelming. Nor was it proven "wrong" by Einstein or quantum theory. Not even close. Leave your simplistic Nickelodeon ideas of the history of science for Twitter.
Quoting h060tu
It does mean something -- it means there's overwhelming evidence, which should be taken seriously by ignoramuses like you. Or you can side with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, who are in your camp.
Regardless, what is your evidence that explains the data, then? What's the alternative that you're offering?
Probability is the language of science. There is no proof; there are no absolute certainties. Scientists are always aware that new data may overturn old theories and that human knowledge is constantly evolving. Consequently, it is viewed as unjustifiable hubris to ever claim one’s findings as unassailable.
But in general, the older and more established a given theory becomes, the less and less likely it is that any new finding will drastically change things. Even the huge revolution in physics brought on by Einstein’s theory of relativity did not render Newton’s theories of classical mechanics useless. Classical mechanics is still used all the time; it is, quite simply, good enough for most purposes.
But how well established is the greenhouse effect?
Greenhouse effect theory is over 100 years old. The first predictions of anthropogenic global warming came in 1896. Time has only strengthened and refined those groundbreaking conclusions. We now have decades of very detailed and sophisticated climate observations, and super computers crunching numbers in one second it would have taken a million 19th century scientists years with a slide rule to match. Even so, you will never ever get a purely scientific source saying “the future is certain.”
But what certainty there is about the basic issue is close enough to 100 percent that for all practical purposes it should be taken as 100 percent. Don’t wait any longer for scientific certainty; we are there. Every major institute that deals with climate-related science is saying AGW is here and real and dangerous, even though they will not remove the “very likely” and “strongly indicated” qualifiers. The translation of what the science is saying into the language of the public is this: Global warming is definitely happening and it is definitely because of human activities and it will definitely continue as long as CO2 keeps rising in the atmosphere.
The rest of the issue — how high will the temperature go, how fast will it get there, and how bad will this be — is much less certain. But no rational human being rushes headlong into an unknown when there is even a 10 percent chance of death or serious injury. Why should we demand 100 percent certainty before avoiding this danger? Science has given the human race a dire warning with all the urgency and certainty we should need to prompt action.
We don’t have time or reason to wait any longer.
___________
The above is from a climatologist, as well. Your arguments are so predictable I can literally copy and paste ready-made responses, because so many ignoramuses make them.
It's quite pathetic. (I know I shouldn't "shame" people, but this level of ignorance is just astounding. The logic used to justify it is even more staggering.)
In any case, the most logical place for me would be somewhere in the Elzas/Alsace as I speak French and German, land is cheap and arable. It's also only a 6 hour drive away.
Quoting Hanover
You go from raising taxes on the wealthy and corporation to class warfare without any intermediate steps. Let's assume it's true. What do you think about Warren Buffet when he said this:
“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”?
How do you relate that to the declining labour share of GDP development and income inequality?Or the fact CEO pay has risen by 940% since 1978 but worker pay only by 12%? This while GDP grew with nearly 90% since then?
Do you see all these facts as illustrating a problem or do you think it's fine and normal? If so, what exactly are CEOs doing today that they weren't doing in 1978 that justifies a 940% pay increase? Or that debt funded asset inflation was behind the 2008 recovery leading to big profits for banks and their CEOs even though regular people were no way better off before covid-19 happened than before 2008?
I know we're not going to agree on this in any way, shape or form but at least I'd like to know the thinking behind it.
Quoting Hanover
Why should having more money effectively give you a bigger voice and more influence? Shouldn't it just be one man, one vote? Or you don't think there's any tit-for-tat involved with campaign donations? Or do you think because it's legal, it's not corruption?
:flower:
I didn't suggest we needed to increase tax revenues, so I've not advocated for any increases, either on the rich or the middle class. Biden wanting to increase taxes on the wealthy (especially if he is alignment with what you are saying) would be to redistribute the wealth, which is what I was objecting to. Quoting Benkei
What do you think about the increase in salaries of Premier League soccer players over the years compared to whatever the lower level players are now making?Quoting Benkei
Every person does have one vote. I don't follow your equation of speech to voting.
How much should you be allowed to speak before the government arrests you for speaking too much?
Anyway, money gives you all sorts of things, like better clothes, better food, better schooling, and even a bigger megaphone to scream and yell from. I'm just wondering what it is that you wish to say that isn't being heard. The ability of the average guy to be heard is much higher today than it was when there were just newspapers and a few major television stations. The only way to be heard back then was to write a letter to the editor that might or might not be published. Now, all I have to do is write whatever bullshit I want and some guy in the Netherlands starts offering me his perspective (which I do appreciate). My point is that there isn't this massive group of silenced people who just can't afford a place at the podium to be heard. Your biggest beef, I'd suspect, is the disproportionate power the US has and that it's controlled currently by the conservative micro-majority, thus subjecting the planet to what amounts to be an overall minority opinion. I can only imagine what it feels like to be in your shoes with Trump steering this great big ship we call the world and all you can do is look on in shock and dismay. You call it a tragedy. Me, a comedy.
You're a grouch. Go back to sleep.
Some economists believe that a relatively low growth rate is normal for a rich nation, because there’s less of an incentive to work, people have fewer children, and so on, and that a declining GDP will increase inequality to destabilizing levels if unmitigated by policies that include wealth redistribution. AI development could further sink the divide. Is that an expression? Anyway, some kind of redistribution policy seems inevitable.
He's probably referring to lobbying and donors.
Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
Me and some rich CEO might both have a vote (and just one vote), but he has the means to meet up with politicians over champagne and hookers and donate $100,000 to their re-election campaign. Guess who has the biggest voice and most influence?
If you are from Chicago you can vote more than once :wink:
A poor country can indeed get more easily higher growth figures. Getting people to earn 2$ a day from 1$ a day is quite easy. Getting people earn from 100$ to 200$ is another thing. What's the "some" here for? I guess that is quite reasonable.
Quoting praxis
Actually, in an economic recession (declining GDP) income inequality typically decreases. The poor stay poor, but the rich aren't getting the profits. This happened for example in my country when we had a serious economic depression (thanks to speculative bubble and a banking crisis) in the 1990's.
Is it higher?
If (and that's a big if) you got back then your letter to the editor being published in a major newspaper, I guess you were far more heard than discussing it here with our Dutch companion. You know the time when people read newspapers, the comment section was read by a lot of people.
Having checked the New Yorker article that I was reading this morning it appears that I misread it. :yikes: It says that in many Western countries over the past couple of decades that slower growth has been accompanied by rising political polarization.
I started to read a book about The End of [economic] Growth today. Particularly interesting now that economic growth has truly stopped, if only temporarily.
Basically what happens is that when there is growth in these brave new neoliberal times, the rich take all the cream. When there's then a recession they live on that while the poor are told there's no milk left.
Yes it was. Einstein completely overturned Newton's theory of gravity. Anyway, I'll respond to whatever nonsense you posted. Then I'm done. I'm not wasting my time anymore.
Take a university class, son. :shade:
:100:
That's true.
No, it wasn't -- nor does any scientist believe that. Newton's theories are not "wrong," nor were "proven wrong." Yes, it's true that many simpletons like you believe that, but it's not true. What Einstein did was to expand on Newton with new conceptions of space and time. Newton's laws of motion remain absolutely intact, as does the calculations.
Quit while you're behind, buddy. No one, least of all me, thinks you know anything about science. You've repeatedly shown your incompetence and buffoonery. But keep it up for laughs if you'd like.
I shouldn't be shocked that ignorance abounds everywhere, even in philosophy forums.
I guess you are correct...it shouldn't surprise.
But it does. I find it incredible that 5 people intelligent enough to want to engage in discussion in a Philosophy Forum...would still be willing to vote for Trump.
More than surprise me, though...it discouraged me.
I am beginning to think we do not deserve the great gift that has been passed down to us. Our only job was to protect and defend it for the short time it will be in our custody...and instead, MILLIONS of people are shitting on it.
Getting discouraged is a surefire way to keep losing. Remember too: Even though 5 will vote for Trump, the large majority will vote for someone else (as was reflected in the 2016 election) with a plurality going to Biden. That's encouraging -- because despite putting up yet another weak candidate, most people are still sensible enough to vote against the sociopath in office.
There are more sane people in this country than not.
Most have no clue what's going on and don't bother with politics or voting at all. That's the largest "voting block" -- non-voters. The ones who do vote are stuck with the information they're given, depending on the geographical and cultural factors, and base their decisions on this information.
If it's conservative radio, it's far more likely you'll have a picture of the world colored by the interpretations of Rush Limbaugh and the rantings of Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, and Dennis Prager. The same is true for liberals in the cities and suburbs listening to NPR, watching MSNBC, and reading the Huffington Post. A certain picture of the world emerges there as well. Decisions get made on this (mis)information. Most of it is propaganda. This creates two pictures that gradually drift farther and farther apart and become more extreme, generating hatred. It's clear that we've now reached a point where's no common set of facts anymore and no notion of "truth" -- there's only pure tribalism: anything my side believes is true, anything we don't like is fake news, and anyone holding opposite views are anti-American traitors. I see it being much more problematic on the right, and it could even lead to a kind of civil war in the not-so-distant future.
But given all this, the more sane party -- the Democratic Party -- still has the advantage. The Republican coalition is dying out. They are old, less diverse, more rural, less educated, and increasingly more working class. It's this last group that the Democrats should focus on winning back with progressive policies -- not the neoliberal Clintonite policies of the 90s (and much of Obama).
I see this advantage more and more, despite how close things are right now (seemingly 50/50 in the key swing states). As years pass, the electorate becomes younger and more diverse. That's worth paying attention to. They're more progressive, have less bias against the evil version of "socialism" from the Cold War era, care deeply about the environment, are more organized and politically engaged than Gen Xers, etc. But will it be too late?
In many respects it will -- they'll have to contend with the damage done by these previous generations, on the environment especially, but also with nuclear weapons, with the US judicial system now stacked with lifetime-tenured reactionary judges, with the weakening of unions, and with the elite control of the educational system, media, campaign funding and lobbying.
I'm old enough to see where this is leading and young enough to care.
I'd say, "We'll see how things go"...but at 83, I most probably will not see how this plays out in the long run. The judiciary has become a political plaything...and THAT is not good.
All of these things, as you well know, have been around for decades. But it's the degree to which they've been amped up. They don't even care about pretext anymore -- it's just in-your-face corporatism.
Let's hope the DNC "learns its lesson" this time. Let's also hope our grandkids have a planet to inhabit in 2060.
I think that Donald Trump is a Central Intelligence Agency godsend, and, therefore, a bane of our existence, but I am not voting, in part, because of that the National Security Agency was built under the administration that Joe Biden was the Vice President of, and, in part, because of the total unwillingness on the part of the Democratic Party to either put the Church Committee into effect or acknowledge that Harry S. Truman was one of the worst presidents that we have ever had.
I thought about voting for Howie Hawkins of the Green Party, as I had thought that it would be the last time that I could with any degree of conviction vote Green, as Bernie Sanders had finally done what the Green Party believed to be impossible, which was to more or less run a Democratic Party campaign as if it were a Green Party campaign, thereby making it impossible for the Green Party to take the place of the Democratic Party as the primary opposition to the Republican Party, and, thereby rendering the Green Party totally ineffective, as the only reason a person becomes a Libertarian is so that they can ignore the Republican Party, thereby making an alliance with them unlikely and a multi-party system in the United States as equally unlikely, thereby only leaving the Green Party with the aforementioned plan to replace the Democratic Party as the primary opposition to the Republican Party, which can no longer be done. They can still win elections in local campaigns, but the grand project of the Green Party is no longer tenable. I voted for Barrack Obama twice and have never voted Green. I thought that I should give them a vote as a kind of token of solidarity. I decided not to vote in protest instead.
I hear you. It looks like Biden is pretty malleable, and so hopefully we can push him on progressive policies once he's in office. But one thing has become clear: four more years of Trump and we're toast.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CDRbgpKn1Eq/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
Bernie Sanders jumping off a cliff to sacrifice himself for the younger generation or for the Biden/(and woman soon to be picked) Presidential run?
Biden's lead in the poll average has fallen from 10+ to 7,4+. Not an issue, but notice that at lowest the Biden lead has been only 4+.
Yes that was footage of him doing it, no symbolism required.
"It’s like saying to somebody, ‘You have a bowl of s–t in front of you, and all you’ve got to do is eat half of it instead of the whole thing.’ It’s still s–t’, ” Sanders co-chair Nina Turner told The Atlantic."
Yep.
I was gonna disagree, but then I started reading the thread...
They must be stupid and dull people, eh? If only you could tell them to their face.
It's a stupid decision, yes. Completely ignorant choice. But that doesn't make them stupid and dull people -- it means they're making a mistake.
I say it here, and I'd say it your face as well tough guy.
:strong: :kiss:
I voted Biden mainly as a protest vote to get dumper-trumper out of there (much like many moderate repubs did viz. Hilary). To this end, apparently there are a lot of moderate Republicans supporting the Biden ticket wanting to get back to certain GOP ideals like fiscal restraint and character/leadership/non-racist/non-mysogynist, more honestly, no cheating, flip flops on policy, etc.etc. kinds of ideology.
And/or you can look at it like the lesser of two evils.
The experiment didn't work. When you look at the track record, he's just part of the swamp.
I worry that he's going to run country into the ground with debt similar to his casino's and the university that went bust.... I think he said he was the king of debt during the 2016 campaign. Certainly not a traditional GOP ideal.
You sound like a cuck but it's true, Hillary and dozens of politicians didn't serve jail-time, no tangible illegal immigration restrictions, NAFTA replaced by worse UMSCA, war in the middle east continues, more hyphenated-American politics, and forced vaccine.
The only thing of value he did was building half the wall. That, and he managed to removed the worst aspects of Obamacare such as the required insurance.
What's wrong with that? The Supreme Court ruled in Jacobson v. Massachusetts that states have the authority to enforce compulsory vaccination laws.
"[r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others."
A free society always has some restrictions and some unavoidable duties. "Complete" freedom is impossible.
I don't think it's the case that they can force a vaccine, it's just that they can punish you for not accepting a vaccine (fines, imprisonment, loss of certain privileges, etc.). For example Jacobson v. Massachusetts was a case where a man was fined for not accepting a vaccine, and immunization of children is mandatory to enroll in public school (with some exceptions).
Ergo: Not a free society.
Just own it.
For example my home runs as a benevolent dictatorship. There is nothing democratic about it. I make the rules, people can make requests, or state their position, but ultimately, everything is on me anyway so I make the final call. Freedoms in this dictatorship have been awarded by me and are based on meeting expectations. If expectations are not met, freedoms are removed. I have no illusions about it, neither does my family. However none of us are delusional enough to say the house runs via democratic process.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but by your definition of "free society" am I free to kill someone I don't like?
What do you understand a free society to be? Anyone can do anything they like? That sounds an awful lot like anarchy, which is inevitably self-defeating as people will either band together for protection, following some set of agreed upon rules, or be oppressed by those who do.
This whole corona thing is just a bunch of bullshit anyway, with the average dying age older than life expectancy. Also when someone dies and they tested positive for corona, it's automatically labelled a COVID death. The grand stupidity of so many world leaders in their response is mind-boggling.
:wink:
You think he's mixing it in his basement lab or something? At night?
(play theme from The Twilight Zone here)
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-biden-era-is-really-here-and-it-feels-like-a-miracle
:sweat:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/422491 :victory: :mask:
:clap:
Great work down there!!!
If I elect to not pay my "voluntary" fine I will lose my license and eventually end up in jail. Again, not voluntary, as refusing results in punitive measures. So not voluntary. If this version of voluntary can not be used universally without resulting in jail time it is not actually voluntary.
I support accurate word use. Say what you mean, mean what you say.
"Free" of - freedom from -
• ethical responsibility or
• legal accountability or
• evidence-based (more-than-subjective, material (facticity) conditioned) understanding
is not liberty, civil or political. :mask:
By "free society" I understand 'an open, inclusive, tolerant (except of intolerance!), rules-bound, or non-arbitrary, diachronic network of stakeholder-governed social (i.e. institutional) arrangements; in other words, a political-economy which presupposes, and is sustained by, active, vigilant exercises of liberty in the defense of liberty.' Thus, I agree, America is not a "free society" for most of its citizens, in most ways, most of the time; that's because, since the founding of this republic as a compromised slave state (which, through two and a half centuries, has morphed into an apartheid state, then national security military-industrial state, then into the paramilitarized police prison & pharma-industrial state we are today), America has only ever been a plutocratic free-rider state (re: e.g. the US Electoral College system & US Senate ... or effectively tax-free/exempt corporate welfare recipients). On the verge of sliding into oligarchic populism, as indicated by +73 million votes cast in the last election to reelect tr45h, this country is still (barely) "free enough" to Resist ... though maybe not for much longer than the next (couple?) election cycles.
Resistance to il-liberality, (sketched aboved), is what 'American liberty' looks like today, in this moment of existential threat to liberty and its prospects. Not yet "free" but we're free enough for the time being to struggle on and strive for a freer society. The facilely cynical alternative (suggested by e.g. @Book273 et al) will only accelerate our civic self-defeat and social collapse into something like a "Mad Max" version of 'the Hobbesian state-of-nature' in which "freedom" (freeDUMB) amounts to nothing but
Refusal, during a fucking global pandemic, to wear a mask, socially distance, etc is not substantively different from refusing to e.g. bathe or clean your clothes, wear a seatbelt, drive sober or with auto-insurance, stop @red traffic lights, use toilets, ... which is just being, in a word, an anti-social cunt.
There are rules in games, which we follow, or we elect no to play. Once alive one is obligated to play, unless on elects to self remove, so we play by certain rules. Saying those rules do not exist is simply false. I am not saying right or wrong, just denying them is inaccurate.
Can't be said enough. And how about this for a public ad campaign?
"Don't be a cunt. Wear a mask."
It's that fucking simple, folks.
Quoting Book273
I'm not telling you anything. I understand your definition of the word "free" - and I am not criticizing your definition. OK - at least not yet . . .
But I am not seeing any distinction between your use of the word "free" and how I would use the word "anarchist".
So I'll repeat my question - As you define the words - do you see a distinction between a "free society" vs "anarchist society"? If so, please elaborate.
Lol... Glad everything's coming together for you!
The question is why you'd think freedom, in a social sense, is the absence of rules. For one, the very nature of a rule is that it assumes you're free.
So next - would you personally prefer to live in a free / anarchic society OR would you prefer to live in a society which has clearly defined rules (and for the sake of this thought experiment you can choose the rules)
Agreed.
Quoting unenlightened
:mask: