World Bank/imf Protests?

[ilikemyusername]

big penis

[Bye bye now have fun]

his comparison is flawed. if someone is doing porn and they didnt have a contract they can stop whenever. it would be like comparing sweatshops to primary schools in the us. it doesnt makes any sense. until their standard of living increases marginal utility wins. 5 cents an hour is better than 0 cents an hour for workers and 5 cents an hour is better than a few dollars an hour for the company.

[gaia.plateau]

Secondly, why is it that proponents of global warming frequently say "Almost all scientists agree" or as Gaia put it "There's pretty much a 100% consensus in the scientific community that if we stay our present course, the planet is completely fucked in as soon as 10-15 years."

I should have added the qualification, "if we exclude government-sponsored scientists". The figure would be more like 70% if we included them.

I don't doubt that its true to some extent, but 10-15 years the Earth will be completely fucked? Are you serious? They said the same thing in "The Limits to Growth" (~1974). Do you guys mean it for real this time? Have you heard of Chicken Little and "The Sky is Falling" syndrome?

Actually, a near-majority of the consensus has reported that we're already completely fucked, which is to say that we have irrevocably and irreversibly damaged our ecosystem. It surprised me when I was shown by some of my environmental scientist friends just how little it would take for the planet to become uninhabitable for humans.

That being said, I agree with most of the conservation matters that global warming advocates propose. What I object to is their obvious hyperbole directed at people that would seem to be stupid and gullible. So, if you believe global warming is a certainty and 100% of scientists agree...read some opposing viewpoints...their science is far better than the the global warming side.

To be quite honest, I wouldn't understand the science of either side. But I do understand the implications of there being thousands of reports with the names of tens of thousands of independent scientists on them finding one conclusion which is inconvenient to most governments... compared to dozens of reports with the names of hundreds of government-sponsored scientists on them finding one conclusion which is convenient to most governments, especially the governments which hire, pay and mandate them.

The one thing that I do understand about quantitative studies, numerically handicapped as I am, is that if someone sets out trying to find a conclusion, that's the conclusion that the numbers will show.

With that, the IMF/WB has been accused of using the global warming issue to keep countries from developing in the most natural, logical way everyone else did it..carbon emissions. Critics argue there is a hollowness to the global-warming protocols, aimed at keeping the developing countries as contributing hegemonic servants of the developed countries. I agree. This is China's contention, too. I doubt you could compare the carbon emissions of Uruguay to those of Germany or the United States. Across the board cuts of carbon emissions, like a 20% reduction from all countries serves to protect the interests of the developed countries, whereas a sliding scale with larger cuts for larger polluters would help developing countries develop and probably reduce carbon emissions by more, overall...flat carbon emission reductions can only objectively be seen as regressive, the same way "flat income taxes" are regressive and benefit the wealthy.

Again... I don't know if anyone was relating the BWT to environmental issues, were they? I don't think that I possess the necessary interest or expertise to argue environmental science and policy.

I believe the word, you're looking for gentlemen, in regards to protesters is dilettante. Somebody who professes great knowledge about a field but possesses very little in the most superficial way.

This is going to be my word of the month!

Also, for you pro-socialist types, the Soviet Union was one of the worst polluters and almost went out of their way to not rotect the environment claiming environmental damage was something that resulted from capitalism, from a profit motive. Tell that to the farmers who couldn't grow crops because their ground was polluted by sulfur from dirty coal-burning power plants that had zero environmental safeguards.

You're making a sweeping generalization here, based on one case. It's not appropriate to show that you're wearing a purple shirt, and not being attacked by bees... and that therefore bees are repelled by the colour purple. Similarly, it's not appropriate to show one case of a polluting socialist government, which was not actually socialist in any meaningful way (by the way), and proclaim that all socialist governments were polluters.

But that's neither here nor there... I don't think that anyone was specifically arguing that capitalism intrinsically leads to pollution, were they? GNU might have said it I guess, I was physically incapable of reading his brick wall of text.

Gaia, its a mixed bag. Its easy for people opposed to protesting, the Vietnam War, for instance to say the protesting did nothing and even lengthened the war. If it did, then its time to replace our government and it might be one of the first examples of it.

As I said... I'm neither opposed to protesting, nor inclined to accept the findings of people opposed to protesting as fact. I was talking about objective, scholarly, peer-reviewed academic studies.

Determining whether an element of society helped or hurt it should never be 'easy'. There are mountains of evidence that the American anti-war protests helped to end the Vietnam Wars faster, and there are mountains of evidence that show the opposite. It shouldn't matter whether someone is opposed to protesting or not, and if a study finds that the American anti-war protests helped to prolong the Vietnam Wars, it does not mean that protest prolongs wars; it means that in one case, an anti-war movement became so extreme that it polarized the majority of the population in favour of the war. It seems like you might be oversimplifying this.

I object to war, I object to political violence. They are courses of action that must be carefully weighed as a last resort, not a political policy. I do believe in personal violence, for personal motives, as a measured response, not as an arbitrary or rash course. Does that qualify me as a liberal hippie douchebag? If you wish to test that, come out my way and mess with my ride.

Having a perception of an issue or of issues, determined by evidence and vetted against one's own desires and inclinations, is an understanding, not a belief. Liberal hippie douchebags operate on beliefs, just like Neoconservative corporate douchebags operate on beliefs. Operating on understandings precludes douchebaggery.

I don't know how messing with your 'ride'(?) would test whether or not you're a liberal hippie douchebag But here are some indicative tests for you. I am just making these up off the top of my head.

1. Do you think that world peace is possible?
2. Do you think that world peace is inevitable?
3. Do we just need to 'give peace a chance'?

4. Do you spend more to drink Fair Trade coffee?
5. Do you think that by using Fair Trade products, you are making a difference?
6. Do you encourage other people to use Fair Trade products, offering them literature and coercing with guilt?

7. Do you feel bad for the millions of impoverished people in the Global South?
8. Do you, feeling bad, continue to act like the typical North American hyperconsumer?
9. Do you refrain from shopping at giant companies like Wal-Mart because you want to make a difference?

10. Do you believe that countries should have nuclear weapons?
11. Do you, having that belief, live in a country that has nuclear weapons?
12. Do you prefer the idea of every country on earth having nuclear weapons, or just yours?

After you've completed the exam, submit it to my desk and I will mark it at my leisure at a later date.

Overall, I think the IMF/WB's relationship to the developing countries is the roughly the same as big tobacco is to smokers. "Really, we want to help you to help yourself quit smoking."

An impeccable analogy, brother.

The only irony here is that you completely missed the point of everything that I said. Is this where I link you to the defintion of an obvious and pervasive word?

First... I linked the word to you because you misused it. I was being helpful. And secondly, I responded directly and elaborately to every single point you made, and the only thing you responded to here is that you don't like my interpretation of a song. It seems that you might just be agitated at being disagreed with. In fact, it seems like the only things you've responded to at all are the selections of quotations I've made, rather than anything I wrote; take the time to read, it helps us grow.

[An1m]

The only irony here is that you completely missed the point of everything that I said. Is this where I link you to the defintion of an obvious and pervasive word?

First... I linked the word to you because you misused it. I was being helpful. And secondly, I responded directly and elaborately to every single point you made, and the only thing you responded to here is that you don't like my interpretation of a song. It seems that you might just be agitated at being disagreed with. In fact, it seems like the only things you've responded to at all are the selections of quotations I've made, rather than anything I wrote; take the time to read, it helps us grow.

Good point about socialism, which you beat me to. On the subject of Irony, I did not use the word incorrectly, I used it perfectly well. What I put forth was a paradox. Something is Ironic when it is the opposite of what one would expect. I.E. I would not expect a hypocritical, Pop-Punk, wannabe political-punk band like nofx to be quoted in this thread. It was completely predictable, because many of the people who listen to nofx think themselves political pundits and like to quote their lyrics. Therefore it should not come as a complete shock that they would be quoted in this thread. Ironic, yet still predictable.

Perhaps if you took the time to listen to the song, or maybe really thought about the lyrics, or the hints that I gave to you, you would have better understood the irony. I referenced "Rock for Sustainable Capitalism" because it hits on the irony of using nofx lyrics when talking about capitalism negatively, futhermore it in no way contradicts anything that I said in this thread or any other, or my beliefs. Like I said, I was explaining to gnu that they believe in many of the things he does, so why would he want to protest them. I was pointing out that he didn't seem to know what their motives were or how they operated. I was not advocating the Bretton Woods Institutions.

I did take the time to read what you wrote. I'm not agitated with being disagreed with, I just don't take the time to carry on fruitless discussions. I think that protests here, along with images of dead Americans expedited the end of the war. You believe this is not the case. You can find experts who support your position and I can find experts who support mine. Why argue about something which can not actually be proven?

I think that the hippies were anything but bored, and that having a concerned and informed generation of youth was integral in ending the vietnam war. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter how many monks set themselves on fire a world away, it makes for a good album cover but in the conscience of the average American it meant nothing at the time.

...

Protest and discontent with the war amongst young people and, later, the greater population was also a great contributing factor.

My words above and your response below.

"The fact of the matter" is still controversial, in fact there are as many peer-reviewed, academic studies which have found that the concerned and informed generation of youth did more to prolong the Vietnam war as there are which have found them to be effectual in ending it. The argument for the former is that the extremism of the anti-war movement in the US, eg. The Weather Underground, Black Panthers, etc., polarized the "silent majority" against the ideology of peace, therefore swaying public opinion to support Nixon's continuation of the war. I'm sure I'll be able to provide several sources for this in a few days, if you'd like.

I did not reference the Weather Underground or the Panthers, I referenced the Hippies and then stated that an informed youth are important. I also stated that I had some problems with Hippies, however I never conflated them, as you did, with the Panthers. They're like apple juice and hard cider. I didn't feel the need to point out every little thing that you misconstrued, or just msised in my post. I haven't seen too many experts stating that the hippies extreme actions of violence, like peacefully protesting and speaking through megaphones helped polarize the silent majority to a for-war stance.

You made other unfalsifiable claims which I did not bother myself with, because they are, in the end, a waste of time. The peaceful Buddhist resistance had a "substantial impact" on public opinion. Really? That's nice. There's nothing for me to say to that. If you said that you honestly believe the peaceful Buddhist resistance had more of an impact than mass protests, here, in this country then we could just agree to disagree. As it stands, using words like "substantial" shrouds just about anything in seeming truth. It can not be disputed because it's subjective. Waste of time.

For the final time, maybe you should take the time to read, and stop trying to be quippy, over the webbernets at the end of every post. If you had, you might have found that we tend to agree about everything in this thread, except for the most immediate causes for the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam, and perhaps about how bad nofx is. Later.

[gaia.plateau]

Good point about socialism, which you beat me to. On the subject of Irony, I did not use the word incorrectly, I used it perfectly well. What I put forth was a paradox. Something is Ironic when it is the opposite of what one would expect. I.E. I would not expect a hypocritical, Pop-Punk, wannabe political-punk band like nofx to be quoted in this thread. It was completely predictable, because many of the people who listen to nofx think themselves political pundits and like to quote their lyrics. Therefore it should not come as a complete shock that they would be quoted in this thread. Ironic, yet still predictable.

How is NOFX pop, hypocritical, or not political? The former is simply ridiculous whether you address it from a perspective of musical or cultural theory; you may as well call them 'poopy-heads' for how much weight it bears. As to them being 'wannabes'... I don't think it's possible for that notion to apply to a group which has never even remotely taken itself seriously. At most, there's a half-dozen bands and artists who have been more influential for politicizing post-modern music.

It's not irony by any stretch of the term, even by your standards; for this entire thread, especially in your discuourse with GNU, you've belittled the sentiment that the BWT are immoral and detrimental to the world. So by your own definitions, a hypocritical and insincere protestation in the form of music should be perfectly appropriate, and not ironic, in a thread about hypocritical and insincere protestation.

Perhaps if you took the time to listen to the song, or maybe really thought about the lyrics, or the hints that I gave to you, you would have better understood the irony. I referenced "Rock for Sustainable Capitalism" because it hits on the irony of using nofx lyrics when talking about capitalism negatively, futhermore it in no way contradicts anything that I said in this thread or any other, or my beliefs. Like I said, I was explaining to gnu that they believe in many of the things he does, so why would he want to protest them. I was pointing out that he didn't seem to know what their motives were or how they operated. I was not advocating the Bretton Woods Institutions.

Firstly, I've been listening to Propaghandi since I was nine years old, over ten years before the release of the song you referenced. You misunderstand the song. Secondly, the NOFX lyrics were not used to criticize capitalism in any way; reread the post. It was used as a criticism of insincere, dilettante protesters.

I did take the time to read what you wrote. I'm not agitated with being disagreed with, I just don't take the time to carry on fruitless discussions.

Apparently you do?

I did not reference the Weather Underground or the Panthers, I referenced the Hippies and then stated that an informed youth are important. I also stated that I had some problems with Hippies, however I never conflated them, as you did, with the Panthers. They're like apple juice and hard cider. I didn't feel the need to point out every little thing that you misconstrued, or just msised in my post. I haven't seen too many experts stating that the hippies extreme actions of violence, like peacefully protesting and speaking through megaphones helped polarize the silent majority to a for-war stance.

We were talking about the anti-war movement in the US, not the hippies specifically. You can cherry pick which aspects of it help your argument and ignore the aspects which do not, but it makes the argument completely irrelevant. It is appropriate to conflate the passive and aggressive elements of the anti-war movement, as they they collaborated, coopted and were regarded by the general public as the same thing (ie, for all intents and purposes they were).

If you said that you honestly believe the peaceful Buddhist resistance had more of an impact than mass protests, here, in this country then we could just agree to disagree. As it stands, using words like "substantial" shrouds just about anything in seeming truth. It can not be disputed because it's subjective. Waste of time.

This isn't an issue of chemisty, and one cannot reach an objective truth by polarizing everything into soluble and dissoluble matter. The US anti-war movement had both positive and negative effects for ending the war, and it's indeterminable which outweighed the other. The domestic Vietnamese anti-war movement, on the other hand, did not have this double-edged nature, and inspired both the American general public and the anti-war movement because it didn't resort to violence. Hey... you know what, I think you just gave me my thesis statement!

Dualism is probably the single worst attitude a person can have; it's the idea that there can be only black or white that has caused virtually every single violent conflict in history. If you need to make ad hominem attacks because I don't share this attitude with you, so be it.

[Bye bye now have fun]

Coincidentally, science isnt about consensus. If that was true then back in the day the earth would actually be flat and everything revolve around it. and obviously giaa were not punk enough to understand, we should go back to listening to good charlotte and blink 182

[An1m]

Good point about socialism, which you beat me to. On the subject of Irony, I did not use the word incorrectly, I used it perfectly well. What I put forth was a paradox. Something is Ironic when it is the opposite of what one would expect. I.E. I would not expect a hypocritical, Pop-Punk, wannabe political-punk band like nofx to be quoted in this thread. It was completely predictable, because many of the people who listen to nofx think themselves political pundits and like to quote their lyrics. Therefore it should not come as a complete shock that they would be quoted in this thread. Ironic, yet still predictable.

How is NOFX pop, hypocritical, or not political? The former is simply ridiculous whether you address it from a perspective of musical or cultural theory; you may as well call them 'poopy-heads' for how much weight it bears. As to them being 'wannabes'... I don't think it's possible for that notion to apply to a group which has never even remotely taken itself seriously. At most, there's a half-dozen bands and artists who have been more influential for politicizing post-modern music.

It's not irony by any stretch of the term, even by your standards; for this entire thread, especially in your discuourse with GNU, you've belittled the sentiment that the BWT are immoral and detrimental to the world. So by your own definitions, a hypocritical and insincere protestation in the form of music should be perfectly appropriate, and not ironic, in a thread about hypocritical and insincere protestation.

Perhaps if you took the time to listen to the song, or maybe really thought about the lyrics, or the hints that I gave to you, you would have better understood the irony. I referenced "Rock for Sustainable Capitalism" because it hits on the irony of using nofx lyrics when talking about capitalism negatively, futhermore it in no way contradicts anything that I said in this thread or any other, or my beliefs. Like I said, I was explaining to gnu that they believe in many of the things he does, so why would he want to protest them. I was pointing out that he didn't seem to know what their motives were or how they operated. I was not advocating the Bretton Woods Institutions.

Firstly, I've been listening to Propaghandi since I was nine years old, over ten years before the release of the song you referenced. You misunderstand the song. Secondly, the NOFX lyrics were not used to criticize capitalism in any way; reread the post. It was used as a criticism of insincere, dilettante protesters.

I did take the time to read what you wrote. I'm not agitated with being disagreed with, I just don't take the time to carry on fruitless discussions.

Apparently you do?

I did not reference the Weather Underground or the Panthers, I referenced the Hippies and then stated that an informed youth are important. I also stated that I had some problems with Hippies, however I never conflated them, as you did, with the Panthers. They're like apple juice and hard cider. I didn't feel the need to point out every little thing that you misconstrued, or just msised in my post. I haven't seen too many experts stating that the hippies extreme actions of violence, like peacefully protesting and speaking through megaphones helped polarize the silent majority to a for-war stance.

We were talking about the anti-war movement in the US, not the hippies specifically. You can cherry pick which aspects of it help your argument and ignore the aspects which do not, but it makes the argument completely irrelevant. It is appropriate to conflate the passive and aggressive elements of the anti-war movement, as they they collaborated, coopted and were regarded by the general public as the same thing (ie, for all intents and purposes they were).

If you said that you honestly believe the peaceful Buddhist resistance had more of an impact than mass protests, here, in this country then we could just agree to disagree. As it stands, using words like "substantial" shrouds just about anything in seeming truth. It can not be disputed because it's subjective. Waste of time.

This isn't an issue of chemisty, and one cannot reach an objective truth by polarizing everything into soluble and dissoluble matter. The US anti-war movement had both positive and negative effects for ending the war, and it's indeterminable which outweighed the other. The domestic Vietnamese anti-war movement, on the other hand, did not have this double-edged nature, and inspired both the American general public and the anti-war movement because it didn't resort to violence. Hey... you know what, I think you just gave me my thesis statement!

Dualism is probably the single worst attitude a person can have; it's the idea that there can be only black or white that has caused virtually every single violent conflict in history. If you need to make ad hominem attacks because I don't share this attitude with you, so be it.

Okay, quickly because I', running late

1) Nofx is pop because they make pop-punk, they get played on mtv, their music was made for consumption by mall punks just like Blink-182.
2) Nofx are wannabes because they make political songs and Fat Mike espouses certain political ideals and makes political songs and he actually takes himself seriously when doing these things. Fat Mike then turns around and does rock against Bush which would contradict a lot of the BS he talks about, making him a hypocrite.
3) Perhaps it wouldn't have been Ironic coming from GNU but the same is true of a lot of things
4) I never belittled the sentiment that the BWT were anything. I dispassionately stated their aims, and how they work. I didn't say much about how I feel about their actions, for the 40th time
5) I didn't say you were using the nofx lyrics to criticize capitalism. You were quoting nofx, and you were criticising the BWT's brand of capitalism. It's ironic because NOFX are capitalists and make millions and benefit off of the exploitation of people in the third world via the nike warped tour.

5) I don't know what "we" you were referencing but I was referring specifically to what someone said about the hippies being bored and writing them off. I said that they, the hippies, were not just bored and that they made important contributions. I'm sorry that your straw man argument doesn't stand up but I was not talking about the "anti war movement in general" I made a very specific point about a very specific group of people, at a very specific time. You conflated the Hippies and the Black Panthers, which is pretty incredible and only made more amazing by the fact that you try to state that for all intents and purposes they were the same. wow. I didn't cherry pick buddy, you invented an argument and attributed it to me, sorry.

6) I don't feel the need to make ad hominem attacks against you or anyone else, nor have I made an ad hominem attack against you. The fact of the matter is that you made unfalsifiable claims which I would rather not bother with because they are wastes of time. Come back with some numbers that say "22% of Americans were turned off by Hippies and wanted to perpetuate the war, while monks setting themselves on fire only made 2% of people want to perpetuate the war" and fine we could have that discussion, but until then you can make all the statements you like about "substantial impacts" and the like.

I'm not a dualist and once again you missed the point. I was saying that it would be fruitless to argue about subjective things, it is one thing to argue with facts and it's another to argue the unknowable. I don't see how that's dualistic, unless you would like to argue that arguing over subjective things is not always fruitless, in which case we would have to define fruitless and have an endless discussion about something subjective. See what I mean? Fruitless.

[Bye bye now have fun]

im by no means a nofx aficionado, but i seem to remember nofx denying the rights to mtv when they wanted to play their music. also why arent they on a riaa label then? im 95% sure you are wrong about #1 and could you give an example of #2? also if nofx was cool theyd be making fun of reagan, because all the cool bands make fun on him

[Bye bye now have fun]

since it just struck my mind and i cant edit my last post, i find it fitting since where talking about nofx. its an1m's job to keep punkrock elite.

[gaia.plateau]

Coincidentally, science isnt about consensus. If that was true then back in the day the earth would actually be flat and everything revolve around it.

Can you name anything that can be proved with certainty? If we don't consider the census of experts to be viable, we're left with absolute apathy toward everything. I'm not saying we should take their word as fact, but to deny credence to any idea that we don't like just because it might be wrong would be pretty ignorant of us.

and obviously giaa were not punk enough to understand, we should go back to listening to good charlotte and blink 182

You used to listen to Good Charlotte and Blink 182? Really?

1) Nofx is pop because they make pop-punk, they get played on mtv, their music was made for consumption by mall punks just like Blink-182.
2) Nofx are wannabes because they make political songs and Fat Mike espouses certain political ideals and makes political songs and he actually takes himself seriously when doing these things. Fat Mike then turns around and does rock against Bush which would contradict a lot of the BS he talks about, making him a hypocrite.
3) Perhaps it wouldn't have been Ironic coming from GNU but the same is true of a lot of things
4) I never belittled the sentiment that the BWT were anything. I dispassionately stated their aims, and how they work. I didn't say much about how I feel about their actions, for the 40th time
5) I didn't say you were using the nofx lyrics to criticize capitalism. You were quoting nofx, and you were criticising the BWT's brand of capitalism. It's ironic because NOFX are capitalists and make millions and benefit off of the exploitation of people in the third world via the nike warped tour.

5) I don't know what "we" you were referencing but I was referring specifically to what someone said about the hippies being bored and writing them off. I said that they, the hippies, were not just bored and that they made important contributions. I'm sorry that your straw man argument doesn't stand up but I was not talking about the "anti war movement in general" I made a very specific point about a very specific group of people, at a very specific time. You conflated the Hippies and the Black Panthers, which is pretty incredible and only made more amazing by the fact that you try to state that for all intents and purposes they were the same. wow. I didn't cherry pick buddy, you invented an argument and attributed it to me, sorry.

6) I don't feel the need to make ad hominem attacks against you or anyone else, nor have I made an ad hominem attack against you. The fact of the matter is that you made unfalsifiable claims which I would rather not bother with because they are wastes of time. Come back with some numbers that say "22% of Americans were turned off by Hippies and wanted to perpetuate the war, while monks setting themselves on fire only made 2% of people want to perpetuate the war" and fine we could have that discussion, but until then you can make all the statements you like about "substantial impacts" and the like.

I'm not a dualist and once again you missed the point. I was saying that it would be fruitless to argue about subjective things, it is one thing to argue with facts and it's another to argue the unknowable. I don't see how that's dualistic, unless you would like to argue that arguing over subjective things is not always fruitless, in which case we would have to define fruitless and have an endless discussion about something subjective. See what I mean? Fruitless.

1) No they don't, no they don't, and no it wasn't.
2) How does criticizing Bush contradict NOFX's message? I strongly disagree that any of the members have ever taken themselves seriously. Their attitude is comparable to that of Green Jelly.
3) So we're in agreement.
4) You may not have intended to, but I think the inference that you did is clear.
5) Yes you did. "I referenced "Rock for Sustainable Capitalism" because it hits on the irony of using nofx lyrics when talking about capitalism negatively". Isn't it great that when we post things on the internet, they stay there? I mean, as opposed to spitting into an ocean. You know, I think I also criticized someone's choice of shisha brand in another thread... was I using NOFX in reference to that as well? Perhaps you can find a song by the Carpenters which 'hits on' NOFX's criticism of Al Waha.
6) 6 is the number after five, just FYI (jm). I didn't invent an argument, if you read the other posts in this thread you'll see that I drew one example from history in response to the question of effectiveness in protestations. As I've provided for you and others, the perception of the American public was that The Weather Underground and other extremist efforts were intriniscally involved with the hippie movement, and as they frequently coopted between one another this isn't entirely unreasonable. As I mentioned, as a cohesive anti-war movement making concerted efforts, albeit by opposing means, they amounted to the same thing.
7) So you were just doing it for fun, then? If you'd like I could quote all the ad hominems you've made so far, but it seems that it would expand this response unnecessarily as anyone interested can easily read your posts. Regarding my coming back with numbers, I think I've said three times now that I will when I'm done my paper.
8) Everything is subjective to varying degrees, but my arguments have been no more subjective then yours; in fact less so in every case I can see at a cursory glance of these two pages. It's dualistic to say that you won't address any argument that considers more than one side of the story.

[Bye bye now have fun]

and obviously giaa were not punk enough to understand, we should go back to listening to good charlotte and blink 182

You used to listen to Good Charlotte and Blink 182? Really?

No always thought blink182 was retarded, but good charlotte is local to me so everyone thought they were the shit when their first album came out

[Sonthert]

Gaia:

First, how would an environmental scientist show how easy it would be easy to make the Earth uninhabitable? When has the Earth been made inhabitable before? A pillar of science is repeatability. Saying I created an engine that runs on seawater is fine. As science works, until I can demonstrate that it does work and that my work is repeatable, its worthless and it doesn't qualify as science beyond the level of theory. You can tiptoe on weak infinitives all you want, but you can't demonstrate any science regarding environmental damage. The only thing that gives me real pause is the clean-air act in the mid-70s that reduced auto emissions and what a difference it made.

Again, looking at the science of both sides, I agree with the principles of conservation, and the ideas of the global warming scientists, but the science behind the non-global warming people is far better and more persuasive. Carbon dioxide only represents 2.5% of the greenhouse effect, 90% from water vapor in the atmosphere. Let's perform a little thought puzzle. Global warming scientists talk about CO2 emissions...We are burning oil and coal, both of which are no more than 100,000 years old. Where did the carbon come from that makes the coal and oil? Predominantly dead plants dead compressed in the Earth's crust. Which came from CO2 in the atmosphere and sunlight...so would it be reasonable to say that there was more CO2 in the atmosphere 100,000 years ago than there is now? Sure. We are releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere that came from the atmosphere in the first place. If we were importing hydrocarbons from Titan, for instance, and burning them in the atmosphere, then we might address whether more CO2 in the atmosphere would send us through a wall we couldn't come back from. Put simply, the carbon balance in the atmosphere has been decreasing for 100,000 years, we're releasing the carbon back into the atmosphere...I don't think the Earth was dead or fucked 100,000 years ago, so, returning to that point shouldn't be a problem. Changes might occur, but hominid life existed fine 100,000 years ago. So, CO2 emissions couldn't be a significant threat...Reasonable?

Sure, there are other pollutants, but the global warming scientists insist that CO2 emissions are a threat...I think I demonstrated that coal and oil use can't make the CO2 concentration too high to create a disaster...so, I would call into question anything those scientists have to say. They must be biased in some way.

To your second point, the global warming guys say that its big business converting us over from carbon emissions, that there will be lots of jobs for scientists to combat global warming. I think that pretty reasonably shows there is a profit motive that might influence these scientists and explain their overwhelming support for something that stands to pay them quite well.

The truth of the matter is, its irrelevant. The supplies of oil are dwindling to the point where we will see shortages and increased costs in the next 20-50 years, based on many sources. The shortage of oil will inevitably reduce carbon emissions naturally. I suspect the global warming people are actually aware of this and trying to secretly hide their work to eliminate the dependency on oil sooner rather than later. In a sense, I agree with what they are trying to do, but I don't agree with the scientific dishonesty they employ.

How was the Soviet Union not socialist? Socialized government services. They had a Marxist Revolution, embracing the theories of the father of Socialism. They called themselves Socialist. Government owned means of production, no private ownership...sounds socialist to me. How was the USSR not Socialist? My point was, though, damage to the environment isn't necessarily because of corporations and profit motives.

As for your test:

1. Yes.
2. No. It takes work and dedication.
3. No, when people are ready, it will be obvious. It can't be a simple experiment, everybody has to be on the same page, more or less.
4. No. Hegemonic empires can't trade fairly with underdeveloped countries. Its an oxymoron. I also don't drink coffee.
5. No. See #4.
6. Certainly not. I don't give a rat's ass what you do with your life, just stay the hell away from mine.
7. Yes.
8. No. I reuse, make as much as I can, buy only what I need for the most part (although I do have quite a collection of DVDs and booze). I haven't bought frozen dinners or prepackaged food at a grocery store for the better part of ten years.
9. Sort of. I don't like WalMart's corporate policies. I choose not to sponsor their corporate imperialism. I don't shop there. I shop at local mom and pop stores as much as possible, because I prefer to make a contribution to the community, not because I hate WalMart. I was in a Walmart about seven years ago...my friend wanted to buy a pack of cigarettes, so I went with her.
10. If they want them. I think we should get rid of them sooner or later though. Sooner preferably.
11. Absolutely.
12. If we're going to get rid of them, it will be easier with the fewer countries that have them. Other than that, I don't really care if they have them or not.

[gaia.plateau]

First, how would an environmental scientist show how easy it would be easy to make the Earth uninhabitable? When has the Earth been made inhabitable before? A pillar of science is repeatability. Saying I created an engine that runs on seawater is fine. As science works, until I can demonstrate that it does work and that my work is repeatable, its worthless and it doesn't qualify as science beyond the level of theory. You can tiptoe on weak infinitives all you want, but you can't demonstrate any science regarding environmental damage. The only thing that gives me real pause is the clean-air act in the mid-70s that reduced auto emissions and what a difference it made.

Certainly it's all based on theory, so are the ideas of gravity and evolution. The only empirical data is what carbon records and stuff like that show us over the past 30 million years and beyond. I was mostly talking about temperature; my understanding is that the scientific consensus holds that if global temperatures are raised even a few points, human life would become unsustainable.

I should qualify my position by saying that I really don't give two fucks about the environment... my expertise and interest lies elsewhere. If we continue living as we do, we're probably going to go extinct or at least be on the short path to extinction within our lifetimes. And that's fine by me, if that's what everyone chooses to do. What really pisses me off are the twats bleating about "Saving the Planet", or "Saving the Environment", etc. It demands the qualifying addition of "FOR US". There's absolutely nothing we could possibly do to seriously damage the planet, that it can't rejuvenate from over a few hundred thousand years. So I really don't see anything altruistic about environmental reforms; they're entirely pragmatic. I'm in agreement with George on this issue.

Again, looking at the science of both sides, I agree with the principles of conservation, and the ideas of the global warming scientists, but the science behind the non-global warming people is far better and more persuasive. Carbon dioxide only represents 2.5% of the greenhouse effect, 90% from water vapor in the atmosphere. Let's perform a little thought puzzle. Global warming scientists talk about CO2 emissions...We are burning oil and coal, both of which are no more than 100,000 years old. Where did the carbon come from that makes the coal and oil? Predominantly dead plants dead compressed in the Earth's crust. Which came from CO2 in the atmosphere and sunlight...so would it be reasonable to say that there was more CO2 in the atmosphere 100,000 years ago than there is now? Sure. We are releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere that came from the atmosphere in the first place. If we were importing hydrocarbons from Titan, for instance, and burning them in the atmosphere, then we might address whether more CO2 in the atmosphere would send us through a wall we couldn't come back from. Put simply, the carbon balance in the atmosphere has been decreasing for 100,000 years, we're releasing the carbon back into the atmosphere...I don't think the Earth was dead or fucked 100,000 years ago, so, returning to that point shouldn't be a problem. Changes might occur, but hominid life existed fine 100,000 years ago. So, CO2 emissions couldn't be a significant threat...Reasonable?

Sure, there are other pollutants, but the global warming scientists insist that CO2 emissions are a threat...I think I demonstrated that coal and oil use can't make the CO2 concentration too high to create a disaster...so, I would call into question anything those scientists have to say. They must be biased in some way.

To your second point, the global warming guys say that its big business converting us over from carbon emissions, that there will be lots of jobs for scientists to combat global warming. I think that pretty reasonably shows there is a profit motive that might influence these scientists and explain their overwhelming support for something that stands to pay them quite well.

You just tied my brain in a knot, haha. I'll concede to you because like I said, I really don't know what I'm talking about; science bores the shit out of me, though I have great respect for those that have devoted their lives to it. My only contention is that, as far as I've seen, every counter-study done against climate change theory has been sponsored by the governments, corporations and institutions which would directly benefit from a negative finding. As for how good the science is of each, I can't tell good science from a bowl of pickles.

As to whether the climate change scientists who are finding positive conclusions are motivated by employment under corporations... there may be something to that, but don't these scientists have pretty good jobs already? My understanding is that most of them are UN-sponsored.

The truth of the matter is, its irrelevant. The supplies of oil are dwindling to the point where we will see shortages and increased costs in the next 20-50 years, based on many sources. The shortage of oil will inevitably reduce carbon emissions naturally. I suspect the global warming people are actually aware of this and trying to secretly hide their work to eliminate the dependency on oil sooner rather than later. In a sense, I agree with what they are trying to do, but I don't agree with the scientific dishonesty they employ.

I'm not convinced that we'll last another 50 years, with present trends in increasing environmental degredation. And I'm not even talking about global warming/climate change, I've done some research on the overshooting that we're constantly doing with fishing, foresting, etc... Just to take one eclectic case for examination, look at the shark fin soup industry in the Orient. Hundreds of thousands of sharks are poached illegally every year just for their fins, which don't even have a flavour but carry social status. From what I've read, we're in danger of irreversibly decimating the shark population in both the Atlantic and the Pacific, the effects of which could be devastating for the global ecosystem. This is a pretty good documentary on the subject, for those that don't have the time to do the research. In some respects, I agree with you that the focus upon climate change in most of the international scientific community is a bad thing, because it ignores other ecological problems we're facing.

How was the Soviet Union not socialist? Socialized government services. They had a Marxist Revolution, embracing the theories of the father of Socialism. They called themselves Socialist. Government owned means of production, no private ownership...sounds socialist to me. How was the USSR not Socialist? My point was, though, damage to the environment isn't necessarily because of corporations and profit motives.

The core of socialist ideology is the idea of a class-free society... both the Soviet Union and Maoist China retained a class based system: the party class vs the underclass. Modern-day France, Germany, Italy and Canada are all most socialist than was Soviet Russia. The only truly socialist country in history is Cuba; one single 'Jefe Maximo' governing one class. The only perversion of Cuban socialism is the dual economy which is created entirely by tourism.

1. Yes.
2. No. It takes work and dedication.
3. No, when people are ready, it will be obvious. It can't be a simple experiment, everybody has to be on the same page, more or less.
4. No. Hegemonic empires can't trade fairly with underdeveloped countries. Its an oxymoron. I also don't drink coffee.
5. No. See #4.
6. Certainly not. I don't give a rat's ass what you do with your life, just stay the hell away from mine.
7. Yes.
8. No. I reuse, make as much as I can, buy only what I need for the most part (although I do have quite a collection of DVDs and booze). I haven't bought frozen dinners or prepackaged food at a grocery store for the better part of ten years.
9. Sort of. I don't like WalMart's corporate policies. I choose not to sponsor their corporate imperialism. I don't shop there. I shop at local mom and pop stores as much as possible, because I prefer to make a contribution to the community, not because I hate WalMart. I was in a Walmart about seven years ago...my friend wanted to buy a pack of cigarettes, so I went with her.
10. If they want them. I think we should get rid of them sooner or later though. Sooner preferably.
11. Absolutely.
12. If we're going to get rid of them, it will be easier with the fewer countries that have them. Other than that, I don't really care if they have them or not.

Congratulations, you are 0% liberal hippie douche! See, I didn't even have to mess with your ride to find out. Edited April 7, 2009 by gaia.plateau

[Sonthert]

Well, first, saying global warming is a theory like gravity or evolution is a little dishonest. Gravity and evolution are facts. They are based on the development of science, theory and observation for generations.

Let me explain the carbon balance idea a little better.

There was a certain amount of carbon on the Earth a million years ago, ignoring carbon that was subducted and turned into magma and such. The carbon (that is usable by biologic systems) was in the form of CO2. Plants breathed in CO2 and turned it into plant material. The CO2 amount in the atmosphere went down as the plants used it to make plant material. Some of the plant material decomposed back in the atmospheric carbon, but some of it was laid down and began the process of becoming oil or coal. So essentially, with plants as intermediates, CO2 left the atmosphere and became oil or coal. When we burn coal or oil, it releases the CO2 back into the air. It would follow that returning to the CO2 concentration of 100,000 years ago would be a change but not cataclysmic.

Better?

The Earth will be fine with or without us. Carlin has a good point. 99+% of all the species on Earth went extinct before man ever walked upright. The world continued still. The only thing that will ultimately destroy all life on Earth is the death of the sun in about 5 B years.

[ilikemyusername]

this is a test.

[Vladimir]

I just have to chime in, all I saw really was the stuff about global warming. Here is my problem with the theory of global warming. One of several problems, but one of my biggest. This comes from the late Michael Crichton if I recall correctly (who was a big advocate that the global warming science was "bad science").

Has your science teacher ever defended gravity on the basis of consensus? How ridiculous would it be if we were taught that gravity is real because "most scientists say it is real." That right there is proof alone, you can't PROVE global warming to me, so instead you try to use consensus science which is hogwash.

[Dr. B]

make another thread on global warming if you wanna argue that, but I'll leave you with an opinion:

Consensus science: maybe; but as long as we cannot measure the implications of our existence on the earth in the short run it remains that we must present extraordinary evidence to detail the implications on the environment of human existence as a prediction (to persuade any change of behavior) rather than a quantifiable contention. There exist a multitude of prediction paradigms but we cannot accurately predict the course of human behavior given the data we now have, so we must presume.

OT: IMF and globalization for the win. I hate to be brief but it's a goal we need to define less we surrender our species to our many localities, rather than the competitive nature which defines us in society and nature,

[erufiku]

Has your science teacher ever defended gravity on the basis of consensus? How ridiculous would it be if we were taught that gravity is real because "most scientists say it is real." That right there is proof alone, you can't PROVE global warming to me, so instead you try to use consensus science which is hogwash.

Funny you give the example of gravity. There's actually some scientific debate on the nature of gravity to account for the (as of yet) unexplained bahaviour of some celestial bodies and even man-made spacecraft. Just goes to prove that nothing is really certain. That being said, when talking about global warming I feel that it's better to be on the safe side, even if it turns out to be "hogwash". I'm convinced that if it weren't for the big carbon dioxide scare, alternative energy sources would not have seen much development.

[Bye bye now have fun]

http://www.milk.com/wall-o-shame/heavy_boots.html