Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 14, 2019 17:36:43 GMT -5
The root is "Ask yourself whether this the hill you want to die on before wearing the hat; people can be unreasonable and irascible."
No "white privilege", "equality", "discrimination" or any other buzzwords need apply. Don't make it out like it's a good thing Americans can't wear a bloody pro-Trump hat without risking hostile confrontation. The radical left may be that far gone but I refuse to believe anyone here is that cuckolded.
And this would be where you and I part company. They are willing to die on that hill specifically because it is a loss of privilege. Privilege is not a buzzword, it is societal issue that is coming to a head right now. ETA - They don't think they will die on that hill. They think their privilege will be reinforced. What "privilege" are they exercising by wearing a hat? The privilege to wear a hat? But... y- you're right. Hat wearing in America is for white people only! I never knew. I blame all the propaganda footage their news agencies put out showing blacks, whites, Hispanics, all walking around American cities wearing hats without being mobbed by angry white people. Now I know better, and I have to say your conclusion is spot on: it is better that both blacks and whites get mobbed for wearing hats. Because equality. But we can't stop there. I've heard only white people can put "I'm with her." bumper stickers on their cars without getting their tires slashed. Yes sir, pure white privilege. White folks slap one of those babies on their Civic and park in front of the supermarket like they own the whole damn city, thinking their privilege will be reinforced. I think it's about time a few intrepid social justice warriors start slashing those pretty little Civic tires and evening up the playing field. Because equality. Hats, bumper stickers, those little paper American flags, "Vote Trump!" yard signs, Liz Warren bobble-heads... By Moonbeam's beard, I'll bet only white people can own any of those things terror-free. We need to hunt their privilege down like a rabid dog and make sure no man, woman, or child dares exercise it, white or not.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 14, 2019 13:51:13 GMT -5
And that is the root of the battle. Being called out on what you are saying by wearing that hat is a sign of loss of white privilege. "To those use to privilege, equality feels like discrimination." The root is "Ask yourself whether this the hill you want to die on before wearing the hat; people can be unreasonable and irascible."
No "white privilege", "equality", "discrimination" or any other buzzwords need apply. Don't make it out like it's a good thing Americans can't wear a bloody pro-Trump hat without risking hostile confrontation. The radical left may be that far gone but I refuse to believe anyone here is that cuckolded.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 14, 2019 12:32:52 GMT -5
You and I differ on this, If I was wearing my new NRA, Trump MAGA hat,, Minding my own business,, If someone decides to take my hat off, steal it, or throw it on the ground stomp on it. You can expect a serious reaction from me!
As LB points out, "minding my own business" and "singing a fight song after having converged on loud, aggressive protestors more than 100 yards away from my own business" are distinctly different. Furthermore, the calculus changes if I'm being repeatedly physically assaulted by a single man. ETA: I do agree with you that a MAGA hat isn't an inherently racist symbol. Nobody should be hassled or derided for wearing one. At the same time, my advice is the same as it is in those "blaming the victim" threads. Regardless of what should happen, we live in a world where wearing a MAGA hat does provoke certain people. Ask yourself: "Is wearing this hat important enough to me that it's worth the risk of potentially severe consequences?"
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 13, 2019 10:29:09 GMT -5
Unless there was a sign saying "No standing allowed at this spot" They were in their legal right to be there in that spot. It's people's legal right to do all kinds of things they're better off not doing. If even one of the groups--the Black Hebrews, the schoolboys, the MSM, the people harassing the Sandmanns, the Sandmanns themselves--had behaved in a way conducive to peace rather than asserting their right to stir up angst and trouble, this thread wouldn't exist.
Now you have pundits fighting over racism, strangers at each other's throats o'er the Internet, and $250 million lawsuits flying. Congratulations on the fruits of people exercising their legal rights.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 13, 2019 9:21:32 GMT -5
Where in the Hell should they have been then?? Wherever it was that they were actually supposed to be waiting for their bus. mmhmm says they were more than 100 yards away.
As far as this thread is concerned, the boys' culpability in the confrontation hinges on whether trouble came to them or whether they wandered off looking for it, and there's obviously a disagreement over which one took place. At the very least, the boys exercised poor judgment.
Let's say I'm waiting for a bus in the US, wearing an "I love Canada" shirt. I hear a commotion and see a group protesting. I wander over to hear what they're saying. As I get closer, I hear "Down with Canada! Down with frostbacks! Canada sucks!" and see the protesters standing around en masse, clearly spoiling for a confrontation. The first thing I'm not going to do is stick around. The prudent man forsees danger and hides himself. I'm going to retreat to my bus stop and bide my time. But suppose I've been spotted with my provocative shirt and the demonstrators come over to take me to task. The second thing I'm not going to do is start singing a fight song. A calm word turns away wrath. If there's a leader or somebody willing to speak to me, I'll engage him in conversation. Try to reason with him about why Canadians aren't so bad. If not, I might shout out "We don't deserve this.", "Shame on you.", etc. a few times, and then turn my back to the mob and ignore them. Stoicism is a virtue. Suppose it's a needed one in this case. I'm at the bus stop, surrounded by implacable people shouting slurs and banging drums, silently ignoring them. The third thing I'm not going to do is smile a huge grin at them as I'm standing my ground. Why should I grin? Because I have the right to? Because I'm proud to be Canadian? I am proud to be Canadian, but it's not a boastful pride. I don't need to grin in the faces of irate people. I don't need a yearly parade down Main Street, USA telling the world how proud and wonderful Canadians are. Pride can quickly become a snare and cause for sin, and Catholic schoolboys, of all people, should know this. Hence, while I agree with you that the "Black Hebrew Israelites" and Native American man bear much of the guilt, Later is right to say the boys bear guilt too. They didn't behave in a way Christians are supposed to behave. They weren't peacemakers and they didn't exercise good judgment.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 13, 2019 0:22:31 GMT -5
My point is they are able to stand anywhere they want,, They are saying they should not have been there! I don't think they should have been there either, if they weren't actually waiting within, say, 30 feet of where their bus was going to pick them up. But I base this on my belief that kids have no business protesting, counter-protesting, or politicking in general. It has nothing to do with the boys' race, and I hold the same view when it comes to left-indoctrinated tots protesting/counter-protesting. I understand Later's grievance with the boys is their denying they were counterprotesting, but so what? If they admitted tomorrow, "Yes, we were being a tot army! We were getting in people's faces! We are the youth being heard!" then according to her, her reaction should be "Oh, bless their little hearts! They're youth who care. Get them some medals and put them on the cover of Time Magazine." which was YMAM's more or less universal reaction to the first tot army. And DJ and GG grinding on about race...? Where the snow leopard did race come from? ... Looks like DJ dragged it in like a dead carcass in #79. Thanks for that, DJ. Couldn't have gone another page without a decent crapstorm about race.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 12, 2019 23:39:57 GMT -5
He said most murders end up classified as disappearances and all the available info supports that. There were 17,284 murder cases in the US in 2017. For this to be "very few" of the total murders committed, there would have to be, say, ten times as many murders classified as disappearances, or 172,840 murders in 2017. But to be extremely generous, let's say "very few" means 25%, hence 51,852 murders classified as disappearances in 2017. Can you or anyone tell me whether more than 51,852 of the Americans who disappeared in 2017 were murdered? No. You have no idea. However, one insight we do have: when remains of missing people have turned up, among those who still remain unidentified, about 0.44% were found to have been murdered. This based on your own links. So let's suppose that tomorrow every single person gone missing in the US in 2017 is found, and that, consistent with this statistic, 0.44% of them are found to have been murdered. The actual percentage would be much smaller than this since it only accounts for missing persons who turn up dead, but I'm in an extremely generous mood, so let's use 0.44%. Then we ask: How many missing persons would there have to be in 2017 for 0.44% of them to be the 51,852 required for x ='s hypothesis to be true? This is easily calculated: 51852/0.0044 = 11,785,000 people. I somehow doubt that 12 million people were declared missing in the US in 2017. If we use less generous assumptions, the number gets even more absurd.
Now, I'm willing to grant that the ratio of murders to non-murders for missing people generally may be different from this ratio for still-unidentified decedents, which is the subset that gave us the estimate of 0.44%. This is another feat of generosity since I doubt the two ratios differ much. If we assumed the ratios were equal, we could only conclude that the claim is false--and not only false, extremely false. Hence let's assume the two, for some unknown reason, differ markedly.
That still leaves us at a place where even saying "available info doesn't contradict the claim" is generous to a fault. "All the available info supports that."? No. Not on your life. ETA: TL;DR for Weltz: numbers, numbers, math, logic, numbers... No, all available info doesn't support that.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 12, 2019 21:20:12 GMT -5
Sorry... what? Anon is complaining that the boys should be able to stand on the steps of a memorial but they can't. Everyone else seems to be complaining that the boys can stand on the steps but... shouldn't be able to? Or something? And what does their race have anything to do with anything? It clearly didn't spare them from confrontation ...or the wrath of half the country. I thought everyone here resents them because they're Trump supporters, not because they're white.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 12, 2019 18:53:43 GMT -5
The mark of a great debater is starting off every post with a pithy ad hominem, forgetting people's positions, neglecting to research their positions, sparing no time to read their lengthier and more thoughtfully composed arguments, but still finding the time to assail them when they "post something stupid". That was also sarcasm.
Sure, Virgil. I should remember every position of every poster from years and years ago.... everything from tot armies to protesting. As for your your lengthier and more thoughtfully composed arguments; they often aren't. Just lengthier. That was not sarcasm. I'll mark up sarcasm with smilies and include TL;DRs for posts over ten sentences. Hopefully this will be of some assistance.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 12, 2019 17:58:58 GMT -5
link
linklinkIt's more likely it is true than not. It was a reasonable comment to make and fits all the available information. You are nitpicking him for no good reason. Your links affirm that some missing persons are eventually found, and some of these are found murdered. No one is disputing this. It shouldn't be lost on you that your second link lists roughly 110 unidentified decedents found murdered and claims these are among "approximately 40,000 decedents [who] remain unidentified in the United States, [...] including murder victims and those who died via natural causes or otherwise". Meaning that (at least among the still-unidentified) only 1 in 360 missing persons eventually discovered dead is determined to be murdered. I totally disagree with your conclusions.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 12, 2019 17:31:04 GMT -5
In addition to the statement being boldly conflicted with observable truth, if you bothered to read my (masterfully composed and certainly not logorrhetic) posts, you'd know my longstanding position on the topic.Unlike you, I don't have OCD. I don't memorize positions or comb through years of old posts. Furthermore, your novels are so tedious, that I often skip over them. If you post something stupid, I'm going to call you on it. The mark of a great debater is starting off every post with a pithy ad hominem, forgetting people's positions, neglecting to research their positions, sparing no time to read their lengthier and more thoughtfully composed arguments, but still finding the time to assail them when they "post something stupid". That was also sarcasm.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 12, 2019 17:13:35 GMT -5
I read the article and it seemed to me they were talking about the type of "brain injury" that gets you in the hospital and your worried loved ones are told you might not walk/talk again and/or may need round the clock care for the rest of your life. You know a traumatic head injury. And you think 30% of Canadians wind up in such a situation during their lifetimes? I mean we play a lot of hockey, but...
(In all seriousness: I'm wondering what kinds of brain injuries the statistics apply to, not the treatment being documented in the article.)
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 12, 2019 11:36:29 GMT -5
$250,000,000 is outrageous, but ten to 20 million is realistic. Maybe five million for the actual written attack, with another 10 million or so for outrageous egarious conduct by WaPO. $10K for loss of income, assuming the Sandmanns can reasonably demonstrate the publicity hindered their ability to get to work. If any of them were fired as a direct result of the publicity (I don't believe so), tack on up to a year's salary. If any property was damaged or destroyed as a direct result of the publicity, tack on the costs to fully repair/replace this property. Tack on the Sandmanns' legal expenses for filing suit. $0 for calling Mr. Sandmann a racist, a bigot, or a "bigoted, entitled, Hitler-loving MAGAt whose Mom wears army boots," if that's what the WaPo printed.
$0 punitive damages, which were an asinine idea from the first and an embarrassment to the US tort system and your country as a whole. If the total payout gets up to even $250K--one one-thousandth of the figure in the suit--then either the Sandmanns' house was burned down by an angry mob or else something is seriously wrong with your legal system. They don't deserve one thin dime more than $10K + legal expenses from WaPo--and that's being generous. The funds for job loss and property damage, assuming either happened, should ideally come from the employer and person(s) doing the damage, respectively.
I sincerely hope, for the sake of your whole nation, that a judge throws the family out on their arses so fast it makes their heads spin.
If you want WaPo to pay a massive fine, pass laws criminalizing inaccurate or incomplete reporting of an incident leading to public harassment, have perpetrators tried in criminal court. ...Or rather, don't, since the idea is only slightly less asinine than punitive damages. The last thing the US needs is newspapers being dragged into court for how your infantilized, perpetually unhinged citizenry reacts to biased coverage of political protests. Japan does torts right. The US in particular could learn a thing or ten from them.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 12, 2019 9:59:14 GMT -5
Your last paragraph. Thank you. You explain it better than I did. I don't see what isn't clear about "Very few murders are solved. Most are labelled as disappearence, missing." I think you did just fine. I don't see anything unclear about it either. It just lacks any basis in evidence. This is in fact to x's favour. If his intended meaning was "Very few murders are solved. Most murder cases start out as missing person cases.", then not only would his statement not match its intended meaning, the intended meaning is (I'm quite certain) provably false, not simply unprovable.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 12, 2019 8:16:29 GMT -5
Let's take a look at this.
160,000 "brain injuries from car accidents and falls each year". Canadian population is 36.6 million. Assume car accidents and falls are largely uncorrelated events, hence a 0.44% probability of brain injury per year for the average citizen.
Average Canadian lifespan is about 80 years. Assume risk of brain injury is distributed evenly over those years. Hence by the time the average Canadian dies, the probability they've suffered at least one brain injury from a car accident or a fall is 1-(1-0.0044)80 = 29.6%.
It begs the question of what the is article is calling "brain injuries" in the first figure. Clearly not the same thing as they are when they say "over a million Canadians live with the devastating effects".
A 0.44% annual probability is small enough that, given our other assumptions and data, the probability of a Canadian selected at random having suffered at least one brain injury from a car accident or a fall is approximately 1/2 their lifetime probability, or 14.8%, and hence 36.6 · 14.8% = 5.4 million Canadians will presently have sustained such injuries. If we generously assume that "over a million" means 1.2 million, the kinds of brain injuries they're talking about in the 160,000 figure will only prove to have "devastating effects" in 1.2/5.4 = 22.1% (roughly 1/5) of cases.
They're obviously talking about more than a simple blow to the head from a fall, since it stands to reason ~100% of Canadians have gone arse over teakettle and hit their head on something at least once by the time they kick the bucket. I know I've filled my quota several times over already.
But if they're talking about accidents and falls leading to full-on concussions, I'd have thought a lot more than 1/5 of such cases would lead to "devastating effects" (at least based on what I would consider to be 'devastating'). If my suspicions are correct, then, assuming the data are accurate, what they're calling "brain injuries" is something more serious than a run-of-the-mill blow to the head but less serious than a full-on concussion. It makes me curious as to what specifically they consider a "brain injury" to be. Number of hospitalizations? Survey data?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 12, 2019 6:55:55 GMT -5
I thought for sure you'd be talking about Usain Bolt's slower, smarter younger brother.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 12, 2019 6:43:57 GMT -5
Now that wasn’t too difficult was it. Not even 8-10 paragraphs. But why didn’t you mention the country that did it before Hitler? If you're talking about compulsory sterilization specifically, you asked for despots. The US and Canada weren't under despotic rule when they practiced it.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 11, 2019 22:15:45 GMT -5
I just read the article. Sorry. $250 million? I could see Mr. Sandmann's family collecting $10K plus legal expenses if the public harassment disrupted their work lives, but $250 bloody million? If they get even one thousandth of that, I hope they choke on it. I don't care how in the right they were. It's an obscenity. It's an utter embarrassment to your whole country if it gets past a preliminary hearing.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 11, 2019 21:17:34 GMT -5
he did not say a lot of the unsolved disappearances are murders, he said a lot of murders are classified as unsolved disappearances I definitely don't get that.
If he'd said, "Very few murders are solved. Most are initially labelled as disappearances.", maybe. But then he'd be comparing x and w, not x and y as you claimed, or v and y, which I believe is what he meant. Ah well. Enough linguistic algebra for one night.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 11, 2019 21:09:02 GMT -5
Example #2. Figure it out on your own. ETA: sorry answers not simple enough. use short words next time. good for < 10 second attention span. use pictures too. you understand. hopefully No need to be insulting Virgil. I asked a simple question and didn't need to be bombarded with your usual verbiage ad infinitum. Just wanted the name of the despot that said "shan't have children".
I'm sorry that proved so difficult for you.
For Pete's sake. Hitler. Presided over a government that forcibly sterilized some 400,000 people.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 11, 2019 21:02:59 GMT -5
LOL ok, using your language...with what we know about x, w, u and v it is logical to extrapolate that y is larger than x. And that is what x= said. ...extrapolate that y is larger than v
Once a missing body and evidence of foul play is discovered, it counts towards the murder tally, same as any other murder. If that's what he'd meant, he'd have said "it is logical to extrapolate...". And he still wouldn't be able to defend his claim, except to say "I'll bet my bippy a lot of those unsolved disappearances are murders."
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 11, 2019 20:52:32 GMT -5
It's sarcasm. Some think that because governments sometimes respond favourably to protests, so too do people's hearts and minds. I'm a hardened skeptic in this regard. The reactions in this thread are one more piece of evidence to add to the heap. How are we to know when your excessive logorrhea is sarcasm? Perhaps one of these would suffice. In addition to the statement being boldly conflicted with observable truth, if you bothered to read my (masterfully composed and certainly not logorrhetic) posts, you'd know my longstanding position on the topic.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 11, 2019 20:38:05 GMT -5
It is very, very safe to say there are a lot of people classified as missing that were actually murdered. A quick google proves it. No one is disputing this. In Billis' notation:
x = number of incidents initially determined to be murders y = number of incidents initially determined to be disappearances, that are in fact murders, but where no body or additional evidence ever surfaces z = number of incidents initially determined to be disappearances, that are in not murders, and no body or additional evidence ever surfaces
w = number of incidents initially determined to be disappearances but ultimately determined to be murders u = total number of incidents initially determined to be disappearances v = total number of incidents ultimately determined to be murders
We have (I hope you'll agree): u = y + z + w
v = x + w
We also have (you can verify this):
y + z >> v > x
That is, the number of people who disappear and stay disappeared forever (for whatever reason) in a given year is much larger than the number of recorded murders in that year, which in turn is larger than the number of cases initially determined to be murder (since some bodies of the missing are, eventually, found).
x, w, u, v are all known. x ='s claim (his name is oddly appropriate here) is that v/(y + v) is close to zero, or equivalently, that y >> v. In words, he's claiming that the number of incidents ultimately labeled as murders (v) is a small fraction of the total number of actual murders (y + v). This is the logical interpretation of "Very few murders are solved. Most are labelled as disappearence [sic], missing."
However, even given x, w, u, v, our two equations, and two inequalities, you'll find it's impossible to validate x ='s claim with only the data and assumptions given. In particular because we reasonably have no way of knowing the ratio of y:z. either y or z can be as small as 0.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 11, 2019 19:52:40 GMT -5
Ah. An if...then...else. Gotcha. I agree save for the fact that IMO they had no business protesting, unconditionally. At least their youthful activism bore plentiful fruit, bringing legions of formerly anti-Trump, anti-MAGA Americans into the pro-Trump, pro-MAGA fold without stirring up animosity and deepening political rifts even slightly. The transformative power of protests never ceases to amaze.
Doubtful. It would take far more than an old Indian man and a group of idiots wearing MAGA hats for anti-Trumpers to join the fold. Do you have a link? It's sarcasm. Some think that because governments sometimes respond favourably to protests, so too do people's hearts and minds. I'm a hardened skeptic in this regard. The reactions in this thread are one more piece of evidence to add to the heap.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 11, 2019 19:38:54 GMT -5
Consider: given the power wielded by personage #1 and personage #2, I'm sure you'll agree it was a good thing--a great thing--they didn't believe the Earth would literally end in 12 years if not for a drastic reduction in consumption. The kind of reduction that could only be brought about by a severe decline in the average standard of living, or... if people weren't too keen on that idea for some reason... possibly... (just thinking out loud here)... a way of ensuring the number of consumers was severely reduced... that didn't involve shooting people in the head and other such unpleasantness.Some people think that a reduction in easy access to single-use plastic straws constitutes a severe decline in the average standard of living. Herein lies the real chaos of the climate change saga. Even among the firm believers in AGW, there's still a general understanding and (muted) acknowledgment in the scientific community that climate modeling has a 70+ -year history of failure, and there's no consensus on how hard man needs to push to combat it. The spectrum is broad. Everything from "We'll be 0.2 °C warmer in 200 years if we don't reduce emissions 30%." to "No cars. No planes. No real meat. No 1,200+ sq. ft. houses. No fossil fuels. No pools. No plastics. No fireplaces. ..." to "We're screwed. The point where we could have fixed things is long passed."
As far as I can tell, every 5 years the IPCC sets stock by the models in the "sweet spot" for that period: the ones that predict imminent doom in the not-too-distant future but still allow a narrow window of hope "if humanity acts decisively right now". Of course, any reasonable scientist (and I do believe many climate scientists are reasonable) can't fail to see the illogic in this process, even if few dare criticize it. While most are (I imagine) comfortable with pushing the "AGW is a problem" consensus as far as banning single-use plastic straws, if it comes to something more serious ("tax meat consumption", for example), we're probably going to witness a fracturing of the consensus and an end to government monopsony on climate change research. Then it's the chaos of pure PR warfare. Governments buy one consensus, the producers buy another. Believe what you want.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 11, 2019 15:00:59 GMT -5
I don't think you're a liar.
It just struck me as one of those claims one hears in passing, doesn't give much thought to, maybe passes along later in casual discussion.
I've done it myself several times over the years on YMAM. It's a product of haste, not deceit.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 11, 2019 14:48:51 GMT -5
No they aren't. If they weren't protesting they shouldn't have been there. Since they were protesting they don't get to claim to be innocent victims. The hats and "fight songs" were provocative and they intended them to be. Own up to it. Ah. An if...then...else. Gotcha. I agree save for the fact that IMO they had no business protesting, unconditionally. At least their youthful activism bore plentiful fruit, bringing legions of formerly anti-Trump, anti-MAGA Americans into the pro-Trump, pro-MAGA fold without stirring up animosity and deepening political rifts even slightly. The transformative power of protests never ceases to amaze.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 11, 2019 14:32:05 GMT -5
I won't be reading the lengthy verbiage. I took "shan't have children" to mean shan't have children. Can you find me that despot? Example #2. Figure it out on your own. ETA: sorry answers not simple enough. use short words next time. good for < 10 second attention span. use pictures too. you understand. hopefully
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 11, 2019 14:29:45 GMT -5
Oh geez you two. I already know about China. I wanted the despot that said you shan't. One child is still a shall be able too. I didn't say "You shan't have children unconditionally and regardless of who you are".
But, for certain groups, for certain conditions, if a certain exigent necessity crept up... Consider: given the power wielded by personage #1 and personage #2, I'm sure you'll agree it was a good thing--a great thing--they didn't believe the Earth would literally end in 12 years if not for a drastic reduction in consumption. The kind of reduction that could only be brought about by a severe decline in the average standard of living, or... if people weren't too keen on that idea for some reason... possibly... (just thinking out loud here)... a way of ensuring the number of consumers was severely reduced... that didn't involve shooting people in the head and other such unpleasantness. What do you suppose would happen if an individual or group of individuals with 12 years left to save humanity from extinction might do with political power if given the chance? Would it be reasonable for such a group to say, "I know the world is literally going to end if we don't ______, but we can't force the people we govern to comply with _______."? I certainly wouldn't think so. It would be an indictment of their confidence in their beliefs. Either that, or an admission they're content to let everybody on Earth die horribly. Hence we can all be glad personage #1 and personage #2 had goals less lofty than saving Earth in 12 years. And we can only hope that any leader whose goal is to save Earth in 12 years never transitions from "Should you have children?" to "You shan't have children.", which was my original point.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 11, 2019 13:22:42 GMT -5
Nooooooooooooo, Great. You're giving it away! He has to guess!
|
|