Total posts: 232
Posted in:
Full automation, imo, will be the end of capitalism. I see 2 possible outcomes. Economic communism where everyone shares in the exponentially growing gains (utopia); or super feudalism where a small class hordes all the gains whereas the rest of humanity is not even needed for their labor and are completely discarded (dystopia).
Whether automation will be good or not will depend on our political choices.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Again. I don't apply it should be illegal. I say that Colin Kaeprernick is being disrespectful. He SHOULD stand for the flag. My statement is the same. Stop twisting my words to sound like I'm a fascist dictator
I am not accusing you of being the dictator, i am accusing you of being the crowd supporting the dictator and his policies. There are many authoitarian regimes, the point of mentioning fascism is, again, the hypernationalism that puts the nation above criticism.
The line doesn't imply I am supporting an authoritarian society, it says that in a authoritarian society, he would have been punished. I then said I do not believe it should be punishable, but I believe it's disrespectful.
If your criticism was that kapernick was protesting something that did not deserve protest, thats a discussion. But if you say he should be ostracized (a punishment) for peacefully protest the anthem for any reason (which is what you said)... that is fascism.
You still did not answer what you intended to prove by comparing our events to how an authoritarian society would do. Generally if an authortiarian society would do something, the opposite is better.
Your argument rests on a direct connection between the national anthem and the military, yet despite repeated requests, you are not explaining this connection.
America was built on disrespecting your nation (Britian), and the right of citizens to protest, criticize, and resist the nation. Blind love of America, and putting it beyond criticism (fascism) is the most UnAmerican thing you can do. If something cannot be criticized, it will never improve.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Thats some twisted wording.
It's not fascist to say he should stand, but it is fascist to say he must stand, no matter what, or face punishment. Including social ostracizing, which is what the opening post consisted of, a barrage of personal attacks on the actor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
As a species, most likely. Short of any run off feedback loop.
But species survival is a very low bar for acceptable outcome.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I don't look to punish Colin Kaepernick is the difference. I said that in the line after that. So I see no point in arguing with someone who takes one line out of context
the line:
An authoritarian society would punish you for doing that. What Kaepernick did was disrespectful, not illegal. Big difference. Yet again misinterpreting what I say
do tell me, what was the context?
what was the point of telling me how it would turn out in an authoritarian society if you were not trying to say that the same action should be punished here?
he was protesting the government, and according to you that is wrong. That thinking is fascist. Fascism is an ideology before it becomes capable of enforcing it. Hypernationalism is fascism's defining feature. And blind vilification of any "disrespect" show to the government is hypernationalist.
btw, do you usually defend actions by saying "An authoritarian society would punish you for doing that?"
What does that prove?
You also continue to dodge the question of how the national anthem is tied specifically to the military.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
He never said it should be illegal. It’s not fascist to say it’s disrespectful to kneel during the national anthem. Everyone knows he has the right to do. Doesn’t mean he should.
The fact he has the right to do so is something that has nothing to do with anyone's belief and says nothing about them. His words stated that the act of disrespecting the nation and/or military is wrong is hyper nationalist and totally blind to what nations and militaries can and have routinely done. It is the hypernationalism which is the hallmark of fascism. Fascism was an ideology before it came into power and was able to effect law. Being a fascist does not necessitate being from a fascist country with fascist laws.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
And who are the people that fight for our freedom to speak freely and express ourselves? Certainly not Colin Kaepernick. He hasn't done anything to preserve freedom.
The point of a democracy is that you dont have to do anything to have your rights. The soldiers sacrifice for ALL OF US to have those rights. And again, he didnt reference the veterans at all. The anthem predates our armed forces and glorifies america in general, not the military.
Indeed, he has done something great to preserve freedom. He took a knee, at great personal risk. Civil disobedience is an american heritage. As is uncivil disobedience, but i think we all prefer to not go there.
An authoritarian society would punish you for doing that.
Yes it would. Stop trying to turn USA into an authoritarian society.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
The national anthem predates the army and has nothing to do with it.
The national anthem celebrates our american spirit of freedom, including the freedom of expression. To defend and exercize our freedoms that our soldiers died to protect is to honor those fallen soldiers. Your loyalist, fascist, mentality is what is disrespectful to our soldiers, and our nation. We actively fight against such oppressive regimes that silence the complaints of their people.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Do you mean then, that the writer of Mathews of the gospel was lying and fabricating the whole story? Correct me if I am wrong.
I am stating that the author was wrong. Whether he is lying or simply ignorant is not something i can determine with the info on hand.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:
Hmmm, if you are quoting the new testament, it appears the new testament is wrong. Judaism does have a death penalty with clear cut rules and procedures.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
In other words. Yes we adapted, but it was not through evolution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Though Homo Sapiens doesn't adapt biologically, it uses it's brain to adapt and utilise environment and resources.
Evolution uses the two biological mechanisms of mutation and natural selection. Since our non biological adaptation has nothing to do with either mutations or natural selection, it has nothing to do with Darwin or evolution, which is the association being made by fauxlaw
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
It's really pretty simple. You like to use ranges of data to explain rapid climate change, but I cannot use the same principle to explain placental mammals? You 80 to 140M years is a range. You used it. That's your data. I'm saying the range includes 140M years, meaning that evolution of placental mammals cold have begun as early as that.
I wasnt criticizing your use of ranges, but your misinterpreting your own citation as the article later pointed out the 80 to 140 mil was an old estimate and updated data agreed with my 65 mil statement.
You do not get to truncate that range and say it only occurred 80M years ago.
Again, i never said 80mil. It was you who truncated the range to only and exactly 140 myo. From post 39
140M years ago, before man, placental mammals, having identical physiological systems to ours, evolved and thrived under climate conditions far more severe and variable than we experience today.
The exact number of millions of years is mmorather irrelevant to the argument at hand, so let's move on.
i dont think anyone is only looking at the last 30 years.Yeah, no one. Just NOAA, and IPCC. Nobodies. I'll accept that.So, where;'s your citation that the earth has never seen temperatures and sea levels like we see today? You keep claiming it. Show me.
I never said it was never hotter, i think it was during dinosaur eras. Definitely in early earth. I said the temperature *hasnt shifted this much this fast* since the time large animals came out of the water, except for some cataclysmic event (that resulted in mass extinctions, like a meteor).
I cant demonstrate something never happened, thats impossible. I can cite sources saying it hasnt happened since the cataclysmic meteor:
If the Earth stays on its current course without reversing greenhouse gas emissions, and global temperatures rise 5 degrees Celsius, as scientists say is possible, the pace of change will be at least 50 times and possibly 100 times swifter than what's occurred in the past, Field said. The numbers are imprecise because the comparison is to an era 55 million years ago, he said.
"The planet has not experienced changes this rapid in 65 million years," Field said. "Humans have never seen anything like this."
I would assume noaa and ipcc updated their time frame to give a more accurate representation of current events. Also because things got worse. What is wrong with updating a model and showing more recent dates?
How often is man dropped, or takes himself, to a dessert or the arctic without clothes and without his tech? That's a straw man argument if ever there was one.
You are talking darwin, and evolution. Biology and genetics. Do you know how to aquire materials for and make all of these techs? Is it in your dna?
Things learned from experience are not evolution my friend. When asking how we evolved, we are naked, although not alone.
We did not evolve school, e=mc2, or gun powder. We discovered/invented them.
to justify the Green New Deal, for example? Take everything away? Well, that is the proposal of the GND: net-zero
Gnd is not a proposal. It was orignally a brainstorm meant to start a conversation. There was no mandate or timeline to "eliminate all airtravel" or whatever, but that would reduce carbon and maybe we should consider alternatives, like superfast mag trains to reduce airtravel... sounds sensible to me. Yall twist everything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
Changing the order of your sentences does not change the meaning.
Thats fine, but my concern was the "forget motive" which was taken from the end of the 2nd sentence, and applied to the beginning of the first. That had an effect both on the interpretation of the phrase, and the argument in sentence 2.
Why do you think Bill Gates is lying when he says he believes the world is overpopulated
Because he never said that. If he did, he would be very wrong.
1. His claim was not about the world, but about poor countries.
2. Reducing population growth is not the same as reducing population. One doesnt involve killing.
You claimed he is "pushing the pandemic." In the context of depopulation desire, that must mean he started it, or is inflaming it. What exactly are you accusing him of?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
Btw, is there a reason you broke apart and changed the order of my sentences while quoting? Seems deceptive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
This ends is only in your head.
You claim he openly admits the objective, but earlier you say:
openly admits it when using socially acceptable means to do so.
And it is never socially acceptable to promote depopulation, therefore he never admits it?!?
You want to talk about faulty logic? Your talking yourself in circles lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
Are you under the impression that nobody ever uses ugly means to achieve an objective?
Of course saying an absolute statement like "nobody ever" using ugly methods is as stupid as saying "anyone ever" promoting education and improved qualify of life is seeking to mass murder people...
In that interview he is talking about family planning, a luxury that the wealthy and those in the 1st world have enjoyed for decades.
His motive is to depopulate Earth and he openly admits it when using socially acceptable means to do so.
He openly admits to trying to help people, primarily through education and quality of life improvements. The connection to mass murder is entirely in your head. Do you assume all attempts at family planning are meant as population control, as if there is no direct benefit to the family that makes this desirable even without some nwo conspiracy?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
We established a public perception of good will, education, and increasing quality of life. We have established no mention of depopulation, forget motive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
gives to numerous pro depopulation charities. It is really no surprise he is pushing a pandemic now
Accusing him of pushing a disease to depopulate is quite the ethical accusation. A far cry from education and quality of life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
Increasing quality of life, and access to education and contraception are bad things?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
Can you give a non abortion example?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
By depopulation charities, are you referring solely about abortion? Or actual depopulation charities?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I like to refer to it as "god cant do the illogical," such as create a value greater than infinity or create an object with exactly 3 corners and exactly 4 corners at the same time. God cannot do the absurd, because absurdities arent things, they are just word play.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
Sure he can weaken himself, but that isnt the point of the question.
Assuming god can lift infinite weight, we must remember that weight is a number, and infinity is NOT a number. When he creates a weight, he must specify a weight value for his creation, an actual number. And he can lift any number. Thus he cannot create something he cannot lift not because its beyond his power, but because there is no possible number that is equal to or greater than infinity. Whatever weight he creates, he can lift it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The rate of adaptation is also obviously relative to the rate of climatic and environmental change.... What you propose is simply, immediate over exposure to hostile conditions.
Native species do not find the conditions hostile. The necessity for gradual adaptation only proves my point that we are not already adapted to those conditions biologically.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Biologically or technologically?
Drop an average naked fit adult human in the arctic or sahara, what are the odds of survival?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Why you cannot research your own answers to your questions is beyond me. Do you know what it is? Research? If so, why don’t you do it, yourself?
You made a claim, and i am questioning it. Are you not responsible for defending your own assertions or am i supposed to do the work for you? Are we going to discuss the topic or simply take jabs at each other?
This is YOUR data.
No, it isnt. I did not compile the data, nor did i link it. So far ive been mostly unquestioning YOUR data....
Btw, do i need to provide citations for questions as well? Please defend YOUR own claims. Are you always this aggressive in your debates?
However, since 1981, we’ve been using the arbitrary period of 1981 – 2020 as the 30-year-period with which to establish a baseline climate model of temperature, greenhouse gasses, sea level, etc. Why that particular 30-year period?
Probably cause its the most recent 30 years? What 30 year period do you prefer? Are you saying there is no data showing warming before 1980? From your 3rd link, 1st paragraph:
"The Global Historical Climatology Network–monthly (GHCNm) dataset is a set of monthly climate summaries from thousands of weather stations around the world. The monthly data have periods of record that vary by station with the earliest observations dating to the *18th century*."
Im sure you will question the data from the 18th century, i would too, but i dont think anyone is only looking at the last 30 years.
Re: margin of error
Yes that is a huge margin of error, although its about as big as your 140 mil claim which was actually 80-140mil, aka 110 +/- 30, a margin of error of slightly over 25%.
Either way, the uncertainty does not negate the trend. The lowest possible value in the 2010s is higher than the highest value at any time before 1990. The trend is undeniably and consistently warmer. What could have caused this?
Also, you dodged by specific questions:
"1. Do you agree co2 is a greenhouse gas?
2. Do you agree man releases substantial amounts of co2 in industry, transportation, etc?
If the answer to both is yes, man' contribution to climate change is undeniable."
Please answer.
you completely ignore the most obvious animal to adapt to just such wide extremes as desert to polar environments: man.
Lol. Drop a man without tools, or clothes in a desert or arctic and 99% will die. We did not adapt to those climate via evolution, we adapted to them using technology. I thought you were comparing climate to darwin, not ford. Man evolved in the savanagh, that is where we naturally thrive. We did not evolve for any other environment. We lost the ability to effectively climb and swing through jungle trees. We do not retain water well enough for the desert. We do not maintain heat well enough for the arctic. And as for the urban jungle, we adapted that to us, not the other way around. What we were adapted for is long distance running in a savanagh, the climate of a savanagh, and the pack hunting that is most effective in an open savanagh. We didnt adapt white skin for the european sun while still in africa, we adapted to the European environment after we moved into the european environment. What you are saying makes absolutely zero sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I don't think spoilers refers to game mechanics and general feel. Not looking for a plot breakdown, and ive seen enough videos to know that a major change is adrenaline charging vs strategic juggling. I definitely intend to play eternal, regardless of its comparison to its prequel, it looks far more fun than anything else out there. But i just wanted to see how people feel about the different play styles. Personally, i thought they would double down on the head on charging of demon hordes.
Also, the platforming.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Re climate change.
How are temperature measurements unreliable? What is their margin of error? And are their unreliable readings not still steadily increasing?
Climates change. That is obvious. I question the extent to which anthropogenic cause has as much effect as IPCC claims there is,
Yes, it does. However I was referring to the current climate change event caused by sudden global warming. If not man made, what is the alternative explanation for climate change at an unprecedented rate (considering no meteors, super volcanoes, or any major event)?
May i ask you 2 questions?
1. Do you agree co2 is a greenhouse gas?
2. Do you agree man releases substantial amounts of co2 in industry, transportation, etc?
I f the answer to both is yes, man' contribution to climate change is undeniable.
Tidal change is climate; not weather.
Daily tidal shifts are analogous to weather. Longer term changes in tidal averages is analogous to climate. You were referring to daily tidal shifts in post 39, which have nothing to do with long term changes. Thus your analogy does not work. "Microclimate" is weather.
I did. Twice, citing Charles Darwin's modification of your allegation
Darwin didnt modify my allegation, he never even heard it. You are quoting the mechanism of natural selection, i am describing the outcome. Im not sure what the difficulty is. Do you disagree with what i claim is the outcome?
"creatures evolve to match their environment." Clearly, not all species do, and that is extinction
No, they don't. There has never been a jungle animal adapting for a polar or desert climate. That's silly. They can only adapt to their climate. Something might adapt better, or the climate might suddenly change. And *that* is extinction.
Created:
Posted in:
Im sorry if it seems like im making you repeat yourself, but your conclusions seem to not make sense to me, and im trying to get you to understand that. And i am familiar with the what the identity politics accusation is, i just disagree with it.
You say these policies distract from fundamentals, im assuming you mean overall prosperity, security, etc. But if, hypothetically speaking, you are feeling oppressed, and the general prosperity is not reaching your neighborhood, and the security seems to target you, those identity issues are very important to you. And rather than break down the unity, it should unite us in our search for equal rights, much like the white people who marched for black rights, or the men who march for womens rights. I dont believe in equal outcomes, but i do believe in equal opportunity. I understand that a policy like affirmative action (and no other policy) sounds like favoritism, but can you honestly say that without affirmative action black people would see equal opportunity?
Its a terrible bandaid, but its better than letting the wound just sit open. Do you have a better suggestion?
Nemiroff: Are you trying to imply that every person considers himself a pureed mishmash of unlabeled features? Thats baloney imo.______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________I never implied anything. I never outlined a hypothetical process whereby humans associate themselves to certain groups but not others based on their perception of the ‘self’. Most postmodernist ideologues don’t either.
By not outlining a process where humans associate with certain groups does indeed result in a view where humans are a pureed mishmash of *unlabeled* features. That is demonstrably false. I dont know what post modern ideologues you are talking about, but they must be wrong. Why else do people label themselves non controvertial labels such as gamer, or new age, or entrepreneur, or stoner. We are our labels. Our many many labels. So which do you believe in? Labels, or pureed mishmash?
Since when do tangible, observable, measurable and largely operational grievances....(.e.g. ‘He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.")......equate to hypothetical, subjective, divisive, group dependant and group specific, so-called grievances?
Getting targeted by police resulting in over arresting for low level crimes ruining your life, or death is hypotherical subjective? Sounds alot more pressing than taxation without representation. Maybe there are legitamete concerns in play instead of just:
a black lesbian woman should be favoured over a black gay man, who himself should be favoured over a black straight man, who should himself be favoured over a white straight man, etc....’
I mean, thats just nonsense. This sounds like the limbaugh take on liberal policy. Or whatever pundit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
@Singularity
Why? Is it a slippery slope if gun control leads to more gun control? Historically that has been true. Unless you deny historic trends, I don’t know how you cant see that a slippery slope argument is valid.
The trend is true, the reason is false. Continued gun control is a choice, if it is a choice many make consistently, its possible that it is simply a successful choice. At no point is further control an inevitable consequence of previous controls. Each step should be taken or avoided based on individual merits that can change with technology and situation and i do not commit to any future action or lack of. I am not a prophet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
No nation is immune, however the cost is far more than the benefit. None of these weapons are even comparable to minor government forces. The best way to prevent "a bad person" is to have proper safeguards, seperation of powers, impeachment, whistleblower protections and a unrestrained press. I feel it has done a fine job restraining this administration.
The 2nd amendment was written in a time of monarchies. Modern governments can belong to us depending on how we utilize our vote. In the end, it is our say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I certainly am no expert, but that advice makes only marginal sense. The sell half strategy is good, but you don't need lots of 10 to do that.
If you buy 10 $100 stocks ($1000) and it goes up 5%, you get +$50
If you buy 2 $500 stocks ($1000) and it goes up 5%, you get +$50 and you can still sell half at anytime. It's the same thing but your arbitrarily blocking yourself off from potentially good stocks.
If your not confident at picking, did you look into etfs?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Where did you hear the 10 lot thing? It makes no difference if you buy 1000 $1 stocks or 1 $1000 stock. Assuming the company is a certain size, it will go up/down the same %, and your money will follow the same %. Im more then happy with my 1 share of amazon, i cant imagine 10 shares of Berkshire Hathaway.
I think tesla will keep growing, fast. But im glad i got into it at a much lower price. Battery day will be exciting. Rather than lots of 10, ive been hearing many companies offering fractional shares for those pricey stocks.
Its not the # of shares, its the amount of $ put in. Also, the bigger the market cap, the more stable the price. In general.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Some handguns are semi auto, but im pretty sure most have a limit to their fire speed regardless of how fast you pull the trigger. Same goes for shotguns. I could be wrong, guns are not an area of expertise.
A classification we can use instead is high capacity. Even with a fast fire rate, there is a limit to how many people a person can kill if they have to stop and reload after 6 shots.
Created:
-->
@Imabench
I agree with pie. Biden will get destroyed by trump in debates and general PR. He lacks trumps charisma, and lacks the focus and genuiness of bernie/pete/warren. He was a poor choice. The only hope biden has is trump continuing with his daily briefings and medical suggestions.
Created:
Posted in:
Love Doom 2016. Havent played eternal yet, but ive read/watched alot about it.
The focus seems to be different with 2016 all about charging hordes of demons, while eternal is more about strategic resource management. What are your takes?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Closely related to the slippery slope fallacy is the all or nothing fallacy. Some gun control is not all gun control. Easing of border/immigration rules is not open borders.
If you wish to debate the merits of individual gun/border change ideas, sure. But jump to the most extreme conclusion is counter productive and foolish.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Re open borders.
If post amensty, we still have border security, checkpoints, and migration limits.... how is that open borders? Im sorry you are wrong. Amnesty is not a cycle, and it does not give citizenship. Your arguments seem to be running mostly on assumptions. Amnesty should be judged on the merits right here right now, and not some presumption of repetition that is completely optional.
Re slippery slope
Slippery slope is an official logical fallacy from well before this partisan debate. Your assuming a possibility will happen when in reality we can stop mid hill, or even double back at any time. Never, not even during the wild west, have we had so little gun control laws, and the claim that any controls is too many controls is false.
Re your sources
Beto: Yes, banning semi autos is a democratic position. If we ban ARs, but shotguns and handguns are still legal... are guns banned? No. If your gonna claim the extreme position, defend the extreme position, and not some watered down point. This is not for banning guns.
Diane was trying to ban assualt style guns in 1994. In 1995 she said "if she could, she would have banned them all." You claim she meant all guns, most fact checkers say she meant all assault style guns. The few second clip you showed does not clarify her position. Based on modern AR availablity, she did not succeed in banning assault style guns in 94' and it is wholly reasonable her quote of ban them all is in reference only to assault guns, which she did not have enough votes to do, and clearly failed. I hate out of context clips, has she or.anyone pushed any bill to ban all guns? And how many democrats supported such a bill? These are important questions that will dispell the need for guessing.
None of these positions are for gun ban, unless you have a longer quote from feinstein, context matters.
I agree with warren on reshaping border security to focus on smuggling and drugs. Whats the problem? That isn't open borders.
I was horrified with the end ice chants because i thought this was an integral part of our government, like the fbi, or cia. but then i learned ice is a new creation from the 9/11 fear days. In light of this fact, i dont think it's that extreme of a position. We didnt have open borders before ice, this is not an open borders position.
Obama was the deporter in chief, but he focused on people who committed other crimes, or people who came illegally recently even without other crimes. This is not an end to deportation. This is smart deportation. As opposed to grabbing low hanging fruit of people checking in at court or dropping kids of at school. Open borders are bad, but sensible immigration is good, especially with our quickly aging boomer population. If a bad law is fixed, those punished under the bad law should be unpunished. If we fix immigration law, we will not need future amnesty programs. If we keep the broken system, it is likely we will need amnesty again in the future.
None of these positions are for dismantling border security and allowing free migration. People caught at the border will still be deported.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@skittlez09
Wish you were here is an amazing album, shine in you crazy diamonds is an epic. But my favorite song has got to be Time.
Created:
Posted in:
Tesla all day.
Its hard to recommend after the price rise, but i sure as hell aint selling. I wouldnt want to be holding any of the other autos at this point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
"Legalizing illegals is not open borders?"
Legalizing illegals who been here for many decades does nothing to change the security or laws on the border. The two issues are not connected, although based on the next segment, you seem to be a proponent of the slippery slope fallacy.
Gun control is the first step in a gun ban. But progressives do want ARs banned. So yes ban guns.
And police are the first step to a police state. Should we eliminate police? No. The slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy for a reason.
Why do you assume I do that? I form my opinion based on primary sources rather than media “analysis” whether it be from the left or right.
I say that because none of those are left wing policies and the only places i hear such claims are right wing pundits and trump's twitter. I would love to see your primary source claiming such policies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Re the citation
It does not cut both ways as i have not misrepresented a citation.
Then your argument shifts from no climate change to its no big deal? What is your position on climate change anyway?
Your essentially making the same flawed argument most make about 1/2 degree temp rise to the seemingly small water rise. Sure the tiny town has some extreme tides, much as weather can fluctuate many degrees in a few hours. But we are talking about shifting global averages. Even that tiny town, the low tide will not be as low, and the high tide will be that much higher. It will have massive global effects. Confusing Sea level rise vs tides is like confusing climate vs weather.
Re: creatures evolve to match their environment
You cite the process, i cited the result. You did not address this argument. So i maintain my position. One does not need to quote the entire germ theory in its entirety in order to proclaim that "germs get you sick". It is simpler, but just as accurate. Do you believe organisms do not evolve in order to match their environment? Why not? My statement is the outcome of your statement.
Furthermore, saying darwin is the sole source on evolution is like saying freud is the sole source on psychoanalysis. He may be the father, but the field has evolved since him. Others have said this, but you seem extremely resistant to any evolution in your beliefs.
Re: ideal climate
Agreed, ive been saying the same thing. There is no absolute best climate for all creatures, but there is an absolute (or near absolute best) climate for a specific creature. For example, us. Global warming is not endangering life in general, but it will hurt most large creatures currently alive. Just like with the dinosaurs, life continued, the dinosaurs did not. At least not without massive species changes and massively reduced numbers. Life will not be in danger. Our lives, or livelyhoods, will be. That sounds rather concerning to me.
When i make a claim that requires a specific source i will cite it. Do you want me to cite the changes in dino populations post meteor? Im certain there is no disagreement there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Yes, i consider myself progressive.
Almost noone is for open borders.
Gun control is not the same as gun ban.
I would call the belief that these are progressive policies is propaganda. Stop getting your info on the left, from pundits on the right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
History buff covered deregulation for me. Essentually over regulation is possible, and very bad. But blind deregulation for the sake of deregulation is also very bad.
Would you like to pick another one of your misconceptions for me to correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
What good is citiation if you dont actually read it? 80 - 140 mil years is a massive range, i dont know how you translate that into a flat 140... however the article was giving a history lesson on data. Farther down you see this quote:
But the new data have forced the team to redraw the tree. According to the new tree, the first placental mammals appeared around 65 million years ago, not 100 million years ago or more, as some molecular data have suggested.
This is from your own link.
Re: jargon wall
Are you implying this event happened within a century? What are the time scales involved, can you give some numbers? Do you understand what you quoted?
Re darwin:
Its not overly simplistic.
You cited the cause. The mechanism.
I cited the effect. The outcome.
Completely different.
"creatures evolve to match their environment"
Re the point I was trying to make
It doesnt matter if some mammal thrived in a different environment millions of years ago. We have mammals living today that would not survive in each others environment. Camel and hippo for another example.
I use citation to prove a point, not to make it. I am more then happy to provide citation for anything on request. I also havent said anything that required citation. Except for my 65 myo figure, which was simply a challenge to your uncited 140 myo figure. Likewise, if you challenge something i claim, i shall cite it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
I am rather liberal and i agree with all of those points.
Just goes to show that the right wing is fighting a strawman caricature and should stop getting their info on liberals from conservative pundits. 2 and 4 are the only ones that may have small left wing support, but nothing mainstream.
Pick any and i will try to clear your confusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Pretty sure placental mammals did not exist 140 myo. Your articles show dinosaurs, and my search showed placental mammals came around about 65 myo. Regardless, these technicalities dont really change your argument.
The animals that existed in those extreme climates did not find their climates extreme. They would likely find our climate extreme. They evolved to survive in that climate and probably found it quite comfortable.
As for weather volatility, short of a catastrophic meteor, their climate was quite stable with changes taking tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years, not a single century.
According to darwin, creatures evolve to match their environment, thus their home environment can never be extreme for them. It is extreme for creatures from different environments. A penguine is quite comfortable in the artic, and will die in a jungle. A monkey is comfortable in the jungle but will die in the artic. See how that works. Your 2 points are unrelated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Marko
Re: labels
If, as you say, these labels and identities do not show observable effect, why was your oppening proposition that more labels = more power. Certainly more power would be noticable... and if not, whats the point of your concern?
Also, can you please repeat the difference between old and new identity politics as you see it? I must have missed it. As well as why this sum of all points strategy is unworkable and counterproductive.
Re: "Did I ever claim that a left wing party proposal focussed on a specific group? Please refer me to any passage where I did."
Your revious post
"According to this point of view, this state of affairs needs laws and policies that favour them personally, and as a result ‘liberate’ them. "
Re: strategy
The colonists did not "individually and simultaneously" counted up oppression points. but they did, slowly and collectively, mostly through representative founding fathers, count up oppressive points in a list of grievances.
Are you trying to imply that every person considers himself a pureed mishmash of unlabeled features? Thats baloney imo. The brain evolved to categorize everything due to not having unlimited processing power. Not the ideal scenario, but it is the consequence of mass data and limited processing power. I personally very strongly identify as a gamer, and a debater, amongst many many things. To imagine that we are an undefined mishmash of ideas is false. Perhaps it is true for you, but not in general. Your family's culture, your home town, your group of friends, your hobbies, your sports team. Our multitiudes of discreet identities are what form us. Very few (maybe only you) think of themselves as what seems to be an indescribable mishmash. Are you not a proud american? Is American not a label? How many labels can you assign yourself? Is it a bad thing?
Created: