Total posts: 8,696
No. She has only been in office for 100 days. Ask again around 2050.
Created:
I think these bullet points contradict themselves. In the first, your saying that abstinence only results in higher pregnency, abortion, and STDs. In the second, you said teaching abstinence has zero impact.
I said teaching abstinence in any combination has zero impact
that is-
teaching abstinence alone has negative impact
teaching abstinence combined with other approaches has zero impact beyond the advantages of those other approaches
Created:
Posted in:
I like the idea of mandatory National service after high school that includes one year of military training (emphasis on physical fitness) followed by a year with an option to
- continue in some military specialization or
- some alternate civil service (jobs like firefighting, National Parks, vaccination programs, federal field research, etc preferably with some application toward individual interests
In exchange, the Federal Govt. will cover the cost of all higher education/job training after service.
I would expect to see a significant reduction in crime since the majority of all crime is done by 18-24 yr olds.
I would expect to see significant improvement in general physical fitness with associated improvements in health outcomes.
I would expect to see considerable improvement in college readiness, elimination of college debt and considerable improvement in job readiness after college.
In a single generation, I'd expect to see considerable declines in social inequities between class and ethnic divisions.
Created:
- Meta-analysis of 40 years of studies demonstrates that teaching abstinence only generally results in higher rates of pregnancy, abortion, and STD
- Teaching abstinence + sex ed gives exactly the same result as teaching sex ed only. Therefore, in terms of results, teaching abstinence in any combination has zero impact
- Since studies show no harm in teaching abstinence beyond a minor waste of taxpayer money and a minor loss of class time devoted to other subjects, I see no reason to object.
- Here in Colorado, we achieved a 40% decrease in teen pregnancy and a 42% decline in abortions between 2009-2015 by granting free contraception (particularly IUDs) to all women on demand. A grant from Warren Buffet pays for the program.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
It was humiliating and super helpful at the same time
My sex ed teacher was named Mr. Seamen
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
- Nice to have a President who takes his responsibility as role model seriously
- As President of the Senate, Kamala Harris is correctly addressed as "Madame President" in Joint Session. The correction you hear is Biden choosing clarity over protocol.
- He may be doing it deliberately as studies show that each time he says "President Harris", 200 more Republicans drop out of the electorate via stroke
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I really think that the way to stop police "brutality" is like 80-90%% on the perps to just comply with reasonable orders
My experience tells me otherwise.
- Once I got pulled over for expired plates and after a long wait ten other cop cars surrounded my vehicle. Then I was asked to step out the vehicle with a bunch of guns drawn on me. When I stepped out, I was punched down to the ground and roughly hand-cuffed. I had cuts on my face, broken glasses, bleeding knees, cuts on my wrists because the handcuffs were too tight. I was taken downtown to jail but nobody explained what was going on. After hours in cuffs and isolation, the arresting officer explained that somebody with my same name and description had recently assaulted a police officer. He apologized for the rough treatment but there was no offer to drive me home at 3am. I had to walk miles back to my car to discover it had been towed.
- Another time, police ambushed me and tackled me roughly as I was walking from my home to 7-11. After being cuffed and laying face down on the sidewalk for 30 minutes, the cops explained they thought I was some perp they were chasing. At the time, I accepted the explanation but nowadays I wonder. It was probably a full 30 seconds before I understood that I was being assaulted by police. What if I managed to punch or kick one of these cops before realizing they were cops? I'd probably still be in prison today.
- One time I witnessed two police cars speeding through a park that was popular place for gays to barbecue and play volleyball. The passenger side windows were rolled down and the cops were just nightsticking random gay guys while moving at potentially fatal speeds. The cops were whooping and yelling faggot, etc and just essentially terrorizing law-abiding citizens for no reason beyond personal prejudice.
- One time I witnessed a police shooting from my 9th floor balcony. A guy had just left a bar and got into his car when the police approached. His car was in neutral (I later read) and when he took his foot off the brake the car started moving downhill. Two cops unloaded through the back window, killing the driver. One cop reloaded and fired a few more times even though the car and driver were unmoving against a wall and the poor guy was long dead. Toxicology later showed the guy wasn't even drunk but he had 22 bullet holes in his back. There was a big investigation but both cops were eventually exonerated. One of those cops was involved in four other police shootings before eventually getting fired years later.
- One time, I was driving from one of my company's offices to another half a mile away when I got pulled over. The cop actually refused to tell me why but demanded to search my vehicle because I had gay porn displayed on my driver's seat (in fact, it was a DVD of a Josh Hartnett movie called "Blow Dry"). When I said it wasn't porn and argued that even if it was porn it would not amount to probable cause the officer got very tense and threatening. He did search my car and found nothing. I was not ticketed for anything and no explanation was ever offered so I assume that the officer was simply reacting to a rainbow sticker on my bumper.
- I could tell anecdotes all day of similar experiences from friends and families. I could also tell many, many heroic and heartwarming stories of police compassion and bravery experienced first hand.
- I relate these just to bear witness for your edification- I know for a fact that police conduct can be unlawful even to the perfectly compliant, even when police haven't taken the time to ascertain the facts. If it has happened a few times to an law abiding white male like myself, then I have to believe that the black experience is many times worse. I believe that police brutality has been substantially reduced over the past few decades and I believe that the problem is incredibly complicated by social factors like common gun ownership. I don't think it pays to generalize so every case must be reviewed on the merits. But I also know better than to offer police the default trust they traditionally expect to enjoy.
Created:
Posted in:
Let's recall that when Rudy Giuliani was peddling the Hunter Biden laptop fiction just before last year's election, the NY Post was the only news source with standards low enough to print the obvious lies- many other conservative sources including Fox News, WSJ, and the Washington Examiner rejected the story as unfounded before the Post decided to publish. Even so, the entire reporting staff at the Post refused to allow their byline to appear above the article. The article was eventually attributed to a former Trump affiliate/Fox News producer who did not work on the story, had never appeared on any news byline before or since and was not even notified by the Post that they were naming her as the author of the article.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Lauren Boebert was still tweeting out this story as if it was true this evening. Similarly, the Daily Mail took an academic article from Jan 2020 that examined the carbon benefits of limiting beef consumption to one meal per month and wrote a story last weekend baldly stating that Biden intends to introduce such a scheme. Not a shred of evidence to the story. Not one of the paper's authors or Biden administration official was interviewed- the UK rag just flat out falsified some silly slander and called it news and then it ran all last weekend on Fox as fact.
Created:
I've always liked the idea of an in forum Dungeons and Dragons campaign. I think I have a sense of how to customize playstyle (Dungeon World/PBtA style) but its a hard to preserve a narrative when participation is sketchy.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
How about a game called ARGUMENTUM ad POPULUM?
We start with people suggesting debate topics and encourage folks to like topics for a couple of days. Whichever topic gets the most likes becomes the topic of debate. Then folks start submitting affirmative argument on that topic. The argument may not exceed the length or format of a single post in the thread. One argument per DARTer. Again, folks are encouraged to like as many or as few arguments as they like and the affirmative argument that gets the most likes wins the affirmative. Then folks submit a counter-argument specifically refuting the WINNING affirmative. Again, most likes wins. One point is awarded to the topic winner. Two points to the winning counterargument. Three points to the winning affirmative. If a single DARTER wins both affirmative and counter, points are doubled. All points are carried over from week to week and a new game is started when the old game ends.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
not like you actually ever respond to me more than once so frankly I don't feel the care to do so
Don't take that personally. I'm sure you can see that most of the back and forth in forums does nothing to advance the argument. I'm not thinking of specifics when I say that most of what happens after the first page on most of these forums is mere repetition, non-sequitur, and/or ad hom. If I feel like some argument I've made has been successfully countered and I have an effective response and the conversation has stayed on topic and I have time to write, then I often will respond. But I feel no compulsion to be the last one to speak and assign no advantage in argument to those many DARTers who clearly suffer from that itch.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
-> @oromagiAnd offence, but if that's not an appeal to popplum I don't know what it i
Well, let's not be such a slave to arguing fallacies that we forget any good contest should have some popular appeal, otherwise you have few contestants and zilcho audience.
its a bad idea - because - unlike in real life stuff - forfeiting here is just not publishing an argument in time - that's not actually "forfeiting" -
Debate is practice for real life- specifically law and politics.
To quote Woody Allen, 80% of life is just showing up. If you fail to submit an argument in court, your client will fire you. If you fail to show up in parliament, your constituency will vote you out.
In practice, we want to set the bar higher than real life to make sure we are preparing to meet the actual level of challenge. If you say, "hey this is the minor leagues so I only need to pitch 89mph", you will never make the Show. If you only play novices in chess, you will win more games but you will never beat a master. If you only play grandmasters, you will lose every game but one day you might just beat a master. Arguing that our standards for debate ought to be more lenient than "real life" might give the forfeiters more wins but it does nothing to improve the quality of debate.
and it also has nothing to do with who won the debate.
That just ain't so. I've seen many debaters set up a debate but then dodge the opening affirmative to force the contender to make all the positive assertions while the instigator unfairly falls back on counterarguments only. Suppose an instigator makes a super strong opening argument in a two round debate but when the contender asks some good questions that when answered will entirely undermine the opener, the instigator might strategically choose to forfeit rather than answering some difficult questions, depriving the contender of clash.
It feels like a cop-out to just make an autolose feature like that - its not accounting for a lot of stuff
COP OUT means "to avoid doing something that one ought to do." Forfeiting a round in a debate is a COP OUT by definition. Holding a debater accountable is not a COP OUT by definition.
Let's note that when debateart.com selects a debate for kudos in the sidebar under the heading QUALITY DEBATE one of the essential criteria is "no forfeits." That is, by the standards of this site, no debate can be a quality debate with even one forfeit. As the rule currently stands, Cicero himself could write 5 rounds of the most compelling shit ever written but if his opponent dodges the final round, this site would not recognize his work as QUALITY DEBATE. Auto-loss won't fix that problem but it will set the standard to a degree that debaters who regularly default will fall in the rankings while debaters who always make some minimal effort rise. The forfeiter has deprived the forfeited of at least that opportunity for glory. Depriving the forfeiter of any chance of a win holds us all to a higher standard and offers the advantage of a proportional reply.
Created:
Posted in:
"members of the jury said this cut footage was essential to their decision to acquit the officers, who had claimed this step represented the first of a charge at them". The jury decided to acquit because of the footage cut out of the beginning. They decided to acquit based on evidence that most of the rioting public was not even aware of.
That is what the Simi Valley jury said but none of the eyewitnesses called it a charge or even resisting and they saw far more that the tape.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Solano is now one of the highest ranking officers in LAPD.Sounds like there are benefits to trying to convict your buddies in a post-LA Riot Los Angeles. Pretty sucky place to live now, too.
I don’t think most cops enjoy accusing their fellow officers of misconduct and in spite of early complicity, the overwhelming majority of cops on the scene eventually testified that Powell and Wind were out of control to a criminal degree and criminally refusing orders to cease.
Personally, I’ve always found LA enchanting. There’s a particular house in Silver Lake that has been my dream house for decades.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
You know the funny thing? Had Rodney King simply laid on the ground instead of resisting arrest, he would have left the whole incident perfectly safe.
We know that is false because King’s passengers, Allen and Helms were also beaten while laying prone on the ground. By all accounts neither resisted at all but both were beaten anyway. Helms needed stitches.
Created:
Posted in:
--> @oromagiHey, Oro! How ya been?
Between Scylla and Charybdis, thx for asking.
But the police are never in possession of all the facts at the time of arrestWell, they were able to discern that the suspect was on some type of drug. They incorrectly thought he was on PCP because of his erratic behavior. Apparently, he was just drunk.
My point exactly. Better than half of all incidents police respond to involve alcohol but these cops mistake simple drunkenness for a drug that enjoyed a lot of frightened mythology among police but was in fact a fairly rare street drug by 1991. Color me skeptical.
Rodney King taunted some angry cops after leading them on a dangerous high speed chase. My assumption was and remains that The cops decided to teach King lesson (as cops have traditionally done with perps after a chase) and used a scary popular 15 year old mythology as justification.
Created:
The left/right distinction originates with the formation of the first French Republic. Those representatives that felt that human rights should be prioritized over property right assembled on the left side of the court, those who prioritized property rights over human rights assembled on the right. That is the inherent, fundamental meaning of that distinction. By definition, democracies are left wing projects. Monarchy, autocracy, theocracy, oligarchy, supremacy, class, caste, and aristocracy are right wing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I have consistently argued that any forfeit should result in automatic loss- no more args or voting just “other guy is Winner.” Almost every contest I can think of works this way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Well, as a debater who has accidentally misposted poetry, mafia reads, and args from other debates in my argument and benefitted from my opponent’s agreement to re-do, I can’t agree that do-over is a child’s game. I don’t think improving on the argument is fair but a request to adjust arg times in exchange for a conduct point seems like grown up gameplay to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I have been on the challenger side of this question on 4 occasions. We didn’t agree to tie but we did agree to ask mods to wipe out the debate. On two occasions, we remade the debate with adjusted terms and on two occasions, we let the debate die (one promised to resubmit later but that was a year and a half ago).
If I was was in your particular debate with undefeatable, I would not agree to tie. I would agree to let undefeatable remake the debate with longer times for argument, preserving existing arguments precisely. If such an agreement was arrived at, good sportsmanship should oblige the instigator to note the contender’s generosity and request automatic conduct award to contender.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nevets
--> @zedvictor4zedvictor4 wrote...Notwithstanding exaggeration.Moon cycles is probably best bet.....Especially before the movements of the Earth relative to the Sun became an accepted fact.That would put old Thusey in his seventies.....Probably a ripe old age for the time.That is actually not a bad theory.12 x 78 = 936.We currently live on average the exact same number of months that biblical figures used to live years.
This is the explanation I was taught. Some Greek transcription mistook moon cycles for solar cycles.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I failed to decipher most of what you said in the OP but nevertheless, I would strongly discourage anybody from starting up side commentary/debate/discussion in reference to active debates. Lets let debaters have their contests with as little outside bias as possible. I'm not saying that there ought to be a law or anything, I just think everybody deserves a clean shot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
The biographies, criminal records, intoxication levels of the victims in the cases you mention are mostly irrelevant to the LAPD criminal conduct. Such considerations would suggest that police officers are entitled to adjust their apprehension strategies according to those facts. But the police are never in possession of all the facts at the time of arrest and the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees a civil right to innocence for all citizens until tried and convicted by a jury of that citizen's peers. The police are strictly, constitutionally prohibited from punishing citizens for conduct of any kind. The State may only use force in response to a imminent threat of unlawful force.
We know that the LAPD had no reasonable expectation of unlawful force because when CHP Officer Singer pulled her gun on King, the ranking officer Stacey Koons took over jurisdiction (technically, King was the highway patrol's arrest) and ordered all weapons holstered.
Four officers attempted to execute an unarmed arrest on King, who was 6'4 and well over 200lb, but he threw them off.
- Five officers restrained King. Rolando Solano testified that he did not consider King to be resisting arrest or threatening violence and therefore saw no justified use of force. In his testimony, Solano blamed Koon for letting Powell, Wind, and Briseno attack without justification or self-control. Solano's partner, Briseno, later broke ranks and testified against Koons, Powell, and Wind. Let's note that there were 17 other LAPD officers on site and well as 6 CHP officers and at least 10 civilian witnesses. None of the LAPD officers supported the three defendents' claim of imminent threat. Most LAPD testified that the 50+ blows appeared to be accidental (a shocking lie of police solidarity) Solano is now one of the highest ranking officers in LAPD.
- The CHP officers on the scene reported the four attacking officers' names and badge numbers for criminal referral on the night of the attack.
- The four officers all reported that King threw them off as they tried to arrest him but not one of the other 33 witnesses corroborated this statement.
- If one just generically looks at any trial where the four defendents say one thing and 33 (34 including King) say something else, who are you going to believe? Let's note that bmdrocks21 is taking the perps word for it in spite of overwhelming contradicting testimony by more objective witnesses.
They unsuccessfully tried to use a taser, and he charged at them. Then, they began using their batons, but he kept trying to get up to flee until eventually eight officers were able to cuff him.
The defendent officers claim "charging" but most other testified "fleeing" King testified that he was simply trying to survive electroshock and would not ascribe any intent to any of his actions after the tasers hit him.
The video aired by the media showed none of the violent resisting of arrest or the charging at the officers- only the beating completely out of context.
Because there was none. That is a fiction of the defending police contradicted by the other 88% of witnesses present. Here is the whole of the video https://youtu.be/sb1WywIpUtY which starts at the moment Koons first used his taser. The closest thing to violence comes at :02 when King groggily crashes into Powell. If we look at :16, that is when the ranking officer Stacey Koons orders his men to stop- "Stop! Stop! That’s enough! That’s enough!" I count 36 more blows after that command in disobedience to a direct command from the ranking officer (eachblow, by itself, a fireable offense). Why Koons let his officers disobey his command 36 times has never been explained but Koons certainly took the heat for it on the stand. If Powell and WInd had simply obeyed their chain of command at :16, I doubt the tape would have had much impact. It's the full minute of incessant violence after, while King is obviously incapacitated and just flopping about from broken bones and electroshock that outraged the Nation.
An article from the Missouri Kansas City Law School noted that the deceptive clips "turned what would otherwise have been a violent, but soon forgotten, encounter between the Los Angeles police and an uncooperative suspect into one of the most widely watched and discussed incidents of its kind".
Let's recall that George Holliday offered the video to the LAPD the following morning. The LAPD said no thank you because none of the LAPD from the night before had yet reported an incident. KTLA said it edited out the first 13 seconds because 10 seconds of it was unsuitably blurry (hard to argue).
We need not wonder whether the LAPD knew they'd done Rodney King wrong that night because they covered up their crimes.
- Koons improperly took over the arrest of King.
- The police report neglected to mention any witnesses, especially the fact that there were two other passengers in the car during the car chase (clearly, these officers did not want those witnesses interviewed).
- Although the cops bragged to the nurses at Pacifica Hospital how many times they'd hit King and Powell admitted over the police scanners that night that he had beaten anybody that badly in a while (his fellow officers on the scanner cried out "not again!") but the official police report only stated "cuts and bruises of a minor nature" LAPD wasn't interested in the tape because all those many police officers failed to report the scope of King's beating so nobody was investigating.
- In fact, the hospital found
- 11 skull fractures,
- fractured cheek bone
- broken eye socket
- multiple teeth missing
- permanent brain damage
- (LAPD were officially forbidden from direct baton blows to the head. In trial, the officers claimed these blows to the head were unintentional)
- Broken tibia
- Broken ankle
- multiple fractured ribs
- renal failure
- taser burns
- multiple lacerations requiring stitches
- multiple bruises
- Lets also recall that although Allen and Helms did not resist arrest in any way both also received multiple injuries from Powell and Wind. The fact that neither is even mentioned in any LAPD report on the night reveals much about the officer's culpability and intent.
The LA Riots resulted after the police were not charged in King's beating, as the jury was shown the full clip with all of the facts present. After 5 days of massive riots and $1 billion in damage, the national guard quelled the savage mob.
They were charged but not convicted because the trial was moved to SImi Valley, which is known as "Copland" in LA and considered the most racist white enclave in So. Cal.
However, some of the police were eventually charged by the DOJ with "depriving King of his civil rights".
WInd and Briseno were tried and aquitted. Powell and Koon given less than mandatory minimum 10 years. Ultimately, each served just under 2 years.
We must not hesitate to deploy any means necessary to uphold the safety of the public from rioters and to protect the sanctity of our justice system. We only have the mere semblance of being a First World country when we allow officers to be sacrificial lambs to please angry mobs who deify felons. We cannot accept living under the tyranny of these unhinged, violent activists and opportunists.
So then you would argue that the rioters who attacked the US Capitol on Jan 6th ought to have been constrained by massed volleys of deadly force? I don't think would have de-escalated the situation very effectively.
as Patrick Buchanan once said about the LA Riots "the one thing that could stop it: force, rooted in justice, and backed by moral courage."
Let's recall that Pat Buchanan lost all credibility on the subjects of force, justice, and morality when he called for an instant trial and public hanging (lynching) in Central Park of the Central Park Five (all black and hispanic 14 and 15 years olds) in 1989. All five served long prison sentences for rape before being exonerated in 2002. Donald Trump rather famously stated while in office as POTUS that he still felt those boys should have been executed, in spite of their innocence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
I use Intel's method. The format evolved out of my trying to synthesize Ragnar's DART style book (which recommends alternative word processing software) with the more limited options on DART's toolbar. I've never had much luck keeping other formats when cut & pasting so I just got into the habit of writing the whole argument out in DART. Bulleting allows me to project a kind of outline format (and use a more sparse outlinish tone of voice which often saves word count) which helps readers follow the order of argument. I tend towards long, run-on sentences but I've found that bulletpointing helps to break up those sentences and show which clauses are subordinate to which predicate. There are time swhen an errant cut and paste can lead to complicated misformating that takes an unreasonable amount of effort to untangle but I generally depend on a lot of bulleting for clarity's sake.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
When conservatives/libertarians imply that the morality of an action depends purely on it's consequences when they say that it doesn't matter what circumstances you're in when you act, they sound pretty consequentialist. Are they aware of this, is this an unconscious thing, am I wrong, or something else?
Milton Friedman identifies as a consequentialist and was also considered the high guru of Reaganism, the last wave of authentically American conservatism. His effective counsel to Augustin Pinochet to build an economy of the rich on the graves of the Chilean underclass represents the high-water mark of classical economics just as well as it does the trench of human atrocity.
So I think the answer is yes, at least in part.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
--> @oromagiThis demonstrates ignorance of elementary level meteorology and climatology. You are not up to speed on this subject. Read up.I am an ASQ certified Six Sigma Black Belt, Reliability Engineer, & Quality Engineering Manager, retired, all of which include a mastery level of education in GR&R. You don't know to whom who you're talking.
Well, you've claimed this popular quality assurance certification before so I guess I do. Nevertheless, ignorance has been objectively demonstrated. You can claim to have a Black Belt in karate but if you wear that belt on your head like a turban while a five year old kicks you in the nuts, nobody is going to be impressed. Likewise, if you think the POTUS is the source of climate science claims, if you don't understand how Global Mean Surface Temperature accounts for local variation, if you characterize the detailed consensus of climate science as "Earth is doomed" as you have demonstrated in OP, nobody needs to take your opinion seriously on this subject.
Measurement accuracy is vital in gage repeatability and reproducibility. Climatology, to date, is woefully inadequate. Lots of wiggle room in the citation of your points of what "could" and "may" occur when the raw data is so weakly gathered and assembled. And combine that with what biology can do with adaptability when stressed by apparent extremes [that may not be extreme], after all. look, climatology is, at best, a 200 year-old science, The core sciences, physics, geology, etc., are ten times as old, and more.
Rival quality assurance certifiers point out that Six Sigma is stagnant, that it is "narrowly designed to fix an existing process, allowing little room for new ideas or an entirely different approach. All that talent - all those best and brightest - were devoted to, say, driving defects down to 3.4 per million and not on coming up with new products or disruptive technologies." Perhaps that accounts for why of the 58 large companies that adopted Six Sigma, 91% have trailed behind average S&P500 performance since. I suppose we are both fallaciously appealing to authority but on the subject of climate change I'll prefer the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists over Jack Welch any day.
. We know so little about clouds, we can't accurately predict the local weather with any dependable accuracy. And you're quoting eons?
In fact, the average local weatherman's 24 hr forecast is better than 95% accurate and five days are accurate better than 90% of the time. That's certainly more accurate than any business or political or sports forecasting I've ever seen.
Somebody best take a step back to look at the whole picture. The last ice age???? We're in an ice age, now, called the Quaternary, beginning 2.6M years ago. But even ice ages have cycling hot and cold periods. Yes, yes, there is an anthropogenic factor. How significant it is... well, the jury's out, and needs better measurement data collection in any event.
Well, we were in an ice age before the Industrial Revolution. If we lose the Northern Ice Cap in decades as is currently projected, I don't think any serious climatologist will continue to call our time a cycle in the Quaternary since that was one of the most defining features of that Ice Age. If you believe the scientists who tell you that we are in a 2.6M yr old ice age, then you should also believe them when they tell you that we are facing something new and uncertain in the present age- because just about all of them are saying just that. Another example of overfocus on minor defects in the face of disruptive new paradigms, perhaps?
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Hang in there, buddy. One day all of your bullies will look to you for instruction and advice.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
- Impacts of climate change in the ocean are increasing risks to fisheries and aquaculture via impacts on the physiology, survivorship, habitat, reproduction, disease incidence, and risk of invasive species (medium confidence) but are projected to be less at 1.5ºC of global warming than at 2ºC. One global fishery model, for example, projected a decrease in global annual catch for marine fisheries of about 1.5 million tonnes for 1.5°C of global warming compared to a loss of more than 3 million tonnes for 2°C of global warming (medium confidence).
- Climate-related risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security, and economic growth are projected to increase with global warming of 1.5°C and increase further with 2°C.
- Populations at disproportionately higher risk of adverse consequences with global warming of 1.5°C and beyond include disadvantaged and vulnerable populations, some indigenous peoples, and local communities dependent on agricultural or coastal livelihoods (high confidence). Regions at disproportionately higher risk include Arctic ecosystems, dryland regions, small island developing states, and Least Developed Countries (high confidence). Poverty and disadvantage are expected to increase in some populations as global warming increases; limiting global warming to 1.5°C, compared with 2°C, could reduce the number of people both exposed to climate-related risks and susceptible to poverty by up to several hundred million by 2050 (medium confidence).
- Any increase in global warming is projected to affect human health, with primarily negative consequences (high confidence). Lower risks are projected at 1.5°C than at 2°C for heat-related morbidity and mortality (very high confidence) and for ozone-related mortality if emissions needed for ozone formation remain high (high confidence). Urban heat islands often amplify the impacts of heatwaves in cities (high confidence). Risks from some vector-borne diseases, such as malaria and dengue fever, are projected to increase with warming from 1.5°C to 2°C, including potential shifts in their geographic range (high confidence).
- Think about how most new diseases come out of narrow band of very hot tropical geographies. If global warming triples or quadruples the amount of area with the right tropical conditions, will the rate of new diseases born increase dramatically?)
- Limiting warming to 1.5°C compared with 2°C is projected to result in smaller net reductions in yields of maize, rice, wheat, and potentially other cereal crops, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, and Central and South America, and in the CO2-dependent nutritional quality of rice and wheat (high confidence). Reductions in projected food availability are larger at 2°C than at 1.5°C of global warming in the Sahel, southern Africa, the Mediterranean, central Europe, and the Amazon (medium confidence). Livestock are projected to be adversely affected with rising temperatures, depending on the extent of changes in feed quality, spread of diseases, and water resource availability (high confidence).
- Depending on future socio-economic conditions, limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C may reduce the proportion of the world population exposed to a climate change-induced increase in water stress by up to 50%, although there is considerable variability between regions (medium confidence). Many small island developing states could experience lower water stress as a result of projected changes in aridity when global warming is limited to 1.5°C, as compared to 2°C (medium confidence).
- Risks to global aggregated economic growth due to climate change impacts are projected to be lower at 1.5°C than at 2°C by the end of this century (medium confidence). This excludes the costs of mitigation, adaptation investments and the benefits of adaptation. Countries in the tropics and Southern Hemisphere subtropics are projected to experience the largest impacts on economic growth due to climate change should global warming increase from 1.5°C to 2°C (medium confidence).
- Exposure to multiple and compound climate-related risks increases between 1.5°C and 2°C of global warming, with greater proportions of people both so exposed and susceptible to poverty in Africa and Asia (high confidence). For global warming from 1.5°C to 2°C, risks across energy, food, and water sectors could overlap spatially and temporally, creating new and exacerbating current hazards, exposures, and vulnerabilities that could affect increasing numbers of people and regions (medium confidence).
there's variation greater than 1.5 degrees all over the Earth, and has been for billions of years. What says now we are, all over the Earth, at the brink? Hell, there's more variation that that just in the various instruments we use to measure global temperature, humidity, or even the stink in our armpits. Anyone concerned about that?
- This demonstrates ignorance of elementary level meteorology and climatology. You are not up to speed on this subject. Read up.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
That's not Joe Biden. That is Joe Biden citing the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change which is the most comprehensive international scientific assessment on any subject ever conducted as well as the most senior and authoritative body providing scientific advice to global policy makers worldwide.
Really? Just that little bit? Where, Joe? Is the Earth of one single climate, and if anywhere, the temperature rises 1.5 degrees,
1.5 is the increase in GMST- the observed Global Mean Surface Temperature over pre-industrial GMST predicted by about 2050. The GMST represents any specified ten year average. Let's note that the increase in GMST from the last ice age until pre-industry was less than 4 degrees celsius so by 2100CE, the rate of increase over the last 300 years will have increased by half again over the increase of the previous 18,000 years. Whatever changes are represented in the difference between say, miles deep sheets of ice over North America and the plains and forests of 1800 America, we've cranked that dial up by 25% again already and seem heading for maybe double that change- which is far warmer GMST than mammals have ever had to survive before.
the whole Earth is doomed?
No but much of life on Earth may be threatened. Consider that most of that GMST does not represent land temperature but rather water temperature. Many species of plankton, coral, bacteria, etc are adapted to live within a fairly narrow temperature range and are unable to adapt to temperature to swift increases on the scale of decades. If much of this small stuff fails, many or most of larger sea life will fail with them.
The IPCC predicts
- warming of extreme temperatures in many regions (high confidence), increases in frequency, intensity, and/or amount of heavy precipitation in several regions (high confidence), and an increase in intensity or frequency of droughts in some regions (medium confidence).
- Temperature extremes on land are projected to warm more than GMST (high confidence): extreme hot days in mid-latitudes warm by up to about 3°C at global warming of 1.5°C and about 4°C at 2°C, and extreme cold nights in high latitudes warm by up to about 4.5°C at 1.5°C and about 6°C at 2°C (high confidence). The number of hot days is projected to increase in most land regions, with highest increases in the tropics (high confidence).
- Risks from droughts and precipitation deficits are projected to be higher at 2°C compared to 1.5°C of global warming in some regions (medium confidence). Risks from heavy precipitation events are projected to be higher at 2°C compared to 1.5°C of global warming in several northern hemisphere high-latitude and/or high-elevation regions, eastern Asia and eastern North America (medium confidence). Heavy precipitation associated with tropical cyclones is projected to be higher at 2°C compared to 1.5°C global warming (medium confidence). There is generally low confidence in projected changes in heavy precipitation at 2°C compared to 1.5°C in other regions. Heavy precipitation when aggregated at global scale is projected to be higher at 2°C than at 1.5°C of global warming (medium confidence). As a consequence of heavy precipitation, the fraction of the global land area affected by flood hazards is projected to be larger at 2°C compared to 1.5°C of global warming (medium confidence).
- By 2100, global mean sea level rise is projected to be around 0.1 metre lower with global warming of 1.5°C compared to 2°C (medium confidence). Sea level will continue to rise well beyond 2100 (high confidence), and the magnitude and rate of this rise depend on future emission pathways. A slower rate of sea level rise enables greater opportunities for adaptation in the human and ecological systems of small islands, low-lying coastal areas and deltas (medium confidence).
- Model-based projections of global mean sea level rise (relative to 1986–2005) suggest an indicative range of 0.26 to 0.77 m by 2100 for 1.5°C of global warming, 0.1 m (0.04–0.16 m) less than for a global warming of 2°C (medium confidence). A reduction of 0.1 m in global sea level rise implies that up to 10 million fewer people would be exposed to related risks, based on population in the year 2010 and assuming no adaptation (medium confidence).
- Sea level rise will continue beyond 2100 even if global warming is limited to 1.5°C in the 21st century (high confidence). Marine ice sheet instability in Antarctica and/or irreversible loss of the Greenland ice sheet could result in multi-metre rise in sea level over hundreds to thousands of years. These instabilities could be triggered at around 1.5°C to 2°C of global warming (medium confidence).
- Increasing warming amplifies the exposure of small islands, low-lying coastal areas and deltas to the risks associated with sea level rise for many human and ecological systems, including increased saltwater intrusion, flooding and damage to infrastructure (high confidence). Risks associated with sea level rise are higher at 2°C compared to 1.5°C. The slower rate of sea level rise at global warming of 1.5°C reduces these risks, enabling greater opportunities for adaptation including managing and restoring natural coastal ecosystems and infrastructure reinforcement (medium confidence).
- On land, impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems, including species loss and extinction, are projected to be lower at 1.5°C of global warming compared to 2°C. Limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C is projected to lower the impacts on terrestrial, freshwater and coastal ecosystems and to retain more of their services to humans (high confidence).
- Of 105,000 species studied
- 6% of insects, 8% of plants and 4% of vertebrates are projected to lose over half of their climatically determined geographic range for global warming of 1.5°C, compared with 1
- 8% of insects, 16% of plants and 8% of vertebrates for global warming of 2°C (medium confidence). Impacts associated with other biodiversity-related risks such as forest fires and the spread of invasive species are lower at 1.5°C compared to 2°C of global warming (high confidence).
- Approximately 4% (interquartile range 2–7%) of the global terrestrial land area is projected to undergo a transformation of ecosystems from one type to another at 1°C of global warming, compared with 13% (interquartile range 8–20%) at 2°C (medium confidence). This indicates that the area at risk is projected to be approximately 50% lower at 1.5°C compared to 2°C (medium confidence).
- High-latitude tundra and boreal forests are particularly at risk of climate change-induced degradation and loss, with woody shrubs already encroaching into the tundra (high confidence) and this will proceed with further warming. Limiting global warming to 1.5°C rather than 2°C is projected to prevent the thawing over centuries of a permafrost area in the range of 1.5 to 2.5 million km2 (medium confidence).
- Limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2ºC is projected to reduce increases in ocean temperature as well as associated increases in ocean acidity and decreases in ocean oxygen levels (high confidence). Consequently, limiting global warming to 1.5°C is projected to reduce risks to marine biodiversity, fisheries, and ecosystems, and their functions and services to humans, as illustrated by recent changes to Arctic sea ice and warm-water coral reef ecosystems (high confidence).
- There is high confidence that the probability of a sea ice-free Arctic Ocean during summer is substantially lower at global warming of 1.5°C when compared to 2°C. With 1.5°C of global warming, one sea ice-free Arctic summer is projected per century. This likelihood is increased to at least one per decade with 2°C global warming. Effects of a temperature overshoot are reversible for Arctic sea ice cover on decadal time scales (high confidence).
- (That is, better than 99% chance that .5% increase means the difference between an ice-free Arctic Summer or a continued (if diminished ice cap)
- Global warming of 1.5°C is projected to shift the ranges of many marine species to higher latitudes as well as increase the amount of damage to many ecosystems. It is also expected to drive the loss of coastal resources and reduce the productivity of fisheries and aquaculture (especially at low latitudes). The risks of climate-induced impacts are projected to be higher at 2°C than those at global warming of 1.5°C (high confidence). Coral reefs, for example, are projected to decline by a further 70–90% at 1.5°C (high confidence) with larger losses (>99%) at 2ºC (very high confidence). The risk of irreversible loss of many marine and coastal ecosystems increases with global warming, especially at 2°C or more (high confidence).
- The level of ocean acidification due to increasing CO2 concentrations associated with global warming of 1.5°C is projected to amplify the adverse effects of warming, and even further at 2°C, impacting the growth, development, calcification, survival, and thus abundance of a broad range of species, for example, from algae to fish
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
it cannot be properly vetted within a few hours, they give up on the attempt and publish as is; sometimes, creating elements of the story out of pure fiction, assuming they’re right.Recent history says they usually are not even close to the truth.
Can you provide three prominent recent examples?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Added 04.10.21 07:27PM--> @oromagiGive the reason not to vote coal?
- pls summarize the reasons to vote for coal
- he seems to be actively hunting
- his sus on me does not make him more sus to me
- both of these seem scummier
- the DAY COP seemed pretty fake, followed by a secondary claim
- the MILLER also seems way fake
- I think I believe your claim
- We haven't even heard from Speed or TUF- if either is TOWN I would value their insight right about now
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
--> @RationalMadmanHe's not a noob, he played with me over a year and a half ago in games with buddamoose for beginners here.Practically a noob. Either way the convenience of the claim doesn’t make sense to me.
I note that Earth was the author of the first Guide to Mafia on DART.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
This is my issue with Oro: the circumstances around his willingness to "trade" characters with me suggests an informed perspective.
Misinformed, in fact. As the only guy who read the rules, my understanding was that character claims were unconnected to ROLE, per Supa's rules. Therefore, characters are essentially ornamental and the principle of conserving claims unwarrented. Once Supa clarified that justifications were in play, the principle conserving character claims likewise kicked in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Pie also wanted to waste our time with MC's role.So did Oro.
I stand by that. Four and you may not know that MC claimed PACIFIST last game. We tested DP1 and a surprising number of TOWN threw MC into auto confirmed TOWN after the test (which read proved accurate). My common sense says that MC would not make such a claim so early as SCUM but I have this nagging concern in context that MC might be hoping to slide by untested based on the cred he built last game. I'm still down with testing this claim, even if you are convinced it is a waste of time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
Oro, I provided you multiple pieces of evidence to lynch Pie. Why are you ignoring these?
I am missing these. Can you summarize?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Read more carefully, please.
That doesn't make any sense. Explain your basis for those reads.
Once you have comprehended the sentence "My SCUM pile is below the SCUM demarcation." no explanation will prove necessary.
At present, I am my only TOWN read.So you scum read me, along with whiteflame, misterchris, RM and pie at 25. Has anything changed since then?
Once you have comprehended the sentence "My SCUM pile is below the SCUM demarcation." no explanation will prove necessary.
I was willing to swap character claims back when I believed Supa's rule that there was no character justification for ROLE.I don't understand this either. How could you have believed that there was no character justification for roles? Did you fail to read your role PM before posting? There are some people who do that (e.g., tim) but you're not one of them.
No but I do assume all MOD rules are enforced until told otherwise.
MOD RULE#2-2. No roles will be given justifications relating to characters
MOD has since clarified.
Now it seems that justification is closer to standard and at least possibly linked if not likely. I claimed my character in my first post but now I don't think we should hard claim characters until folks familiar with this theme advise on how closely connected character is to theme.Evaluate your willingness to lynch pie. Provide your thoughts on his actions so far, and whether others should be or should not be lynching him.
Not a lot to go on. I am content to test MC and pressure absentees for the moment. I can't see lynching Pie without evidence or even a positive suspicion on table.
Created:
Posted in:
who knows this theme? I am thinking Pie, speed, whiteflame most likely to be familiar.
If you are familiar with the anime, pls. advise whether character links to role are weak, strong, or non-existent. WF has already suggested that MC's claim is strongly linked.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
All the classic tells coming from Pie here.
lol is Pie's scum tell
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
My TOWN pile is above the TOWN demarcation.
My SCUM pile is below the SCUM demarcation.
At present, I am my only TOWN read.
The middle is organized according to order joined. Once everybody has checked in, I start to organize according to claims and gameplay.
You are closer to TOWN only because you joined early at this point. I agree with RM that demanding claims in the first post is more likely anti-TOWN.
I was willing to swap character claims back when I believed Supa's rule that there was no character justification for ROLE. Now it seems that justification is closer to standard and at least possibly linked if not likely. I claimed my character in my first post but now I don't think we should hard claim characters until folks familiar with this theme advise on how closely connected character is to theme.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
@Lunatic
@Speedrace
FourTrouble
AWoL
Speedrace
Earth
Lunatic
SCUM
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
--> @oromagiPlease join my wagon on Pie.
Not much chance of that. Looks like standard theme analysis from Pie. I am presently much more concerned about an unknown jumping in with a lot of demands right off.
I am content with verifying MC while we wait for the remaining players to check in.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't know fourtrouble but he was around on DDO. Anybody play this game with fourtrouble?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
--> @oromagiI’ll give it some thought and get back to you.
Now I'm thinking it might be a big NVM
Created:
Posted in:
What does WAIFU mean?
WAIFU is a term for a fictional character, usually in anime or related media, that someone has great, and sometimes romantic, affection for.
Created:
Posted in:
Per rules:
3. Time will be taken off every time a word is said. (2hrs)
I take this to mean that there is a magic word that, when posted, shortens the DP.
Created: