Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
you know you're a fucking dickhead. you know how you know that? because look at this story and ask me to fucking comment on climate change. climate fucking change? climate is fucking changing dipship because humans have fucked shit up. need proof?
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...-a8006871.html
so yeah, tell me to talk about climate fucking change, when humans contribute to so much fucking climate change.
oh and btw: fuck you
Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
as you should. one would hate you plagiarizing- but fuck that. you're a fucking dipshit full of fucking lies and shit.
but to anyone else reading reading this: wanna give something back to the world? guess what? i want give you a thumbs up because i never did. i won't back you up on some claim you make. i fucking stand where i fucking stand. feel free to back this self confessed lawyer.(yeah this idiot actually admit he was a lawyer) this is what they'll do:
here: https://www.savetherhino.org/rhino_i...ing_statistics
so my thing is not even about people. save the GOD DAMN RHINOS.
and btw: i took it easy on it asshole. imagine if i asked him how much HE donated at all. what you're reading about, it a lawyer. also known as a layer. lawyers are born to lie. squeeze him tight, and he'll keep his butt tight. aint that right dummy?
This is why we can't have nice threads.
...and i rave and i reep and i rip and i rape: everlasting world without end.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0tYFYBcr6g
Hey I am just wondering.. since methane is a greenhouse gas, does farting cause global warming? Maybe it would be ecological to design and make people wear buttplugs with catalysator that would convert all the organic gases from a fart into carbon dioxide and water vapour. Maybe that would make our farts less damaging to the climate. And it would potentally reduce the vile smells associated with farts. One could even make their farts smell of flowers or tropical fruit by adding a tiny air freshner attachment to their plug!
Witamy. Maybe not so much with humans, but with cows the impact of their methane emissions is considered influential. The global population of cows has grown to meet the demand for red meat, so one positive action that humans can do to combat the worst effects of climate change is to eat less beef.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
https://gizmodo.com/do-cow-farts-act...ing-1562144730
I have another great idea worth millions then: if they fart so much, then why not install a tiny wind turbine behind each cow's bottom, that would generate electricity?
But seriously. If a volcano can emit 300kt of CO2 daily, then a supervolcano can emit at least 300Mt of CO2 daily. That is of course only 0,3Gt per day, but considering that the eruption can last for weeks or more, (the most recent one lasted for only around 235 000years) and that there is gonna be a lot more bad stuffs coming out of it, I reckon we have more important things to worry about as civilisation.
If light travels easily through greenhouse gasses then plants, which feed on CO2 and light, will grow better. This means that more CO2 may be a solution to feeding the growing human population.
Our planet is constantly changing. Climate change forced our ancient 'bruvas' out of Africa ages ago and they colonised pretty much the entire planet. We are part of this process and I cannot see much that we can do about it as a civilisation. Actually, if we go by the Kardashev scale humanity is not really a civilisation yet. - At least not with your communist propaganda brainwashing normal people.
Dealt with in number 73 https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php Do you intend to work your way through the full list of dubious arguments? Could be a very long thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
Dealt with in number 43 https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.phpQuote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
One: Human's put 100 times more carbon dioxide (by mass) into the atmosphere than all of Earth's volcanic activity does.
Two: Before the evolution of photosynthesis the Earth's atmosphere did indeed have very little free oxygen. Photosynthesis is the process that was responsible for putting oxygen into the atmosphere. In fact those ancient plants put so much oxygen into the atmosphere (before the current balance was established) that they nearly poisoned themselves. This nicely demonstrates that living things (plants, flowers, cows, humans etc.) can effect change on a planetary scale and do harm to themselves. Producing more carbon dioxide in the hopes of producing more carbon dioxide 'eating' plants (while btw deforesting whole continents) is like everybody hoping to get rid their weekly garbage by throwing it out the window hoping to attract more rats and other garbage eating rodents. Think that will really take care of the garbage, or only produce an additional problem or two?
Three: Our climate is constantly changing, and we are part of it. When that change works against us, and especially when we're ourselves are primarily responsible, it only makes sense to try to limit those of our practices that are having a deleterious effect on our climate and our own well-being.
To say it again: climate change deniers are not motivated by the science of climate change, about which they know nothing. Most, if not all were electrocuted into action when the remedies to global warming were proposed, two words and phrases sending them into an uncontrollable rage: carbon taxes, and subsidies. People who claim they are opposed to an increase in the powers of the state, who believe taxes inhibit market freedom, and subsidies undermine it, are the same people who support the means whereby large corporations use an army of lawyers to reduce the 'trickle down' taxes they ought to pay, and protect subsidies when they go to farmers, or tax beaks worth $8bn a year to 'protect jobs' in the aerospace industry in their state -the idea that producers and consumers should be on a level-playing field never entering the equation.
Meanwhile, as time goes on the practical benefits of alternative energy and, in economic terms their cost and efficiency will improve, and the use of fossil fuel -oil in particular- will decline (gas has a future as a low-carbon energy source). Many consumers are now taking their own vital action to protect their environment as we should, but the question is -is it too late to stop the planet warming beyond what is sustainable for many forms of life? I fear the problem for some people who have contributed to this thread is clear: they don't care what the science is, because they don't care, because in spite of the bitter orange skies over Beijing in mid-afternoon, thick with noxious chemicals that weren't there in 1977, 'nothing has changed'.
I am not surprised that dim communists like you guys just keep repeating the same bullshit over and over again without presenting any logic, hoping that eventually people will start believing them.
The data about volcanoes is taken out of Wikipedia rather than some dodgy website that looks like it was created by a 10-year old.
Saying that plants' feeding processes are complex and reducing climate change process to CO2 just shows how illogical your way of thinking is. At least you do acknowledge that the plants almost killed themselves rather became extinct. If our climate changes then we have to adapt to it rather than constrain our development by funding inefficient wind turbines from public money, telling people to stop eating proper food, introducing more and more taxes, taking children away from their parents etc. It is not climate that strangles the so called "western civilisation" it is idiots like you, who believe in the all the nonsense you are trying to promote here and try to put technological advancement to a halt (which has already happened at least in the EU), if not turn it into regression all together in the name of some belief that it may bring us some sort of salvation.
As for taxes, they do inhibit market freedom. They make manufacturers waste the time and effort which could be used for developing their produce or technologies they use, on thinking about how to pay less tax. We would probably be flying between Mars and Venus if it wasn't for cretins who think they can fix the world with bureaucracy.
I am not sure who has advocated taking children away from their parents as a remedy for climate change, that is a new one for me and sounds illogical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
The EU, far from halting technological advancement is one of the leading sources of R&D in the world today-
Among top 50 R&D investors, there are 15 EU companies, same as in last ranking and 30 firms among top 100, one more than last year. The two top investors are Volkswagen (€13.6bn) in 1st place and Samsung (€12.5bn) from KOR in 2nd. The other firms in top-ten are Intel, Alphabet and Microsoft (€11.0bn) from the US; Novartis (€9.0bn) and Roche (€8.6bn) from Switzerland; Huawei (€8.4bn) from China; Johnson & Johnson (€8.3bn) from the US and Toyota Motor (€8.0bn) from Japan
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publicat...ent-scoreboard
As for taxes and market freedom, consider this:
Sky high taxes in the USA when Eisenhower was President -economic growth, full employment, budget surplus;
Lower taxes in the USA when Reagan was President -low growth, high unemployment, the biggest budget deficit in US history.
Indeed. Humans best adapt by adapting their technology to the changing world, which is exactly what the move to renewables is; i.e. an adaptation in response the pressures placed upon us by a changing climate. We already know our response was neither soon enough nor great enough to prevent disaster. The question now is, “Thanks to the paucity of our action, how many and how great are the catastrophes that lie ahead?”Quote:
If our climate changes then we have to adapt to it...
Markets adapt to market pressures. Democracies adapt to political pressures. The pressure made evident by atmospheric science is existential. Those who care are currently attempting to translate that into both political and market pressures. It’s not communism. It’s democracy. It’s science. It’s survival.
No, this is what Wikipedia says:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
"Human activities emit about 29 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, while volcanoes emit between 0.2 and 0.3 billion tons." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
"The greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, is emitted from volcanoes, accounting for nearly 1% of the annual global total." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_gas
0.2-0.3 billions tons per year equates to around 500,000-800,000 tonnes per day from all volcanoes, compared to your claim for a single volcano:
"If a volcano can emit 300kt of CO2 daily, then a supervolcano can emit at least 300Mt of CO2 daily."
Your first figure is similar to estimates for the Eyjafjallajokull volcano in Iceland several years ago.
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...imate-sceptics Your second figure seems to be something you just made up.
Thanks for the economics lesson, but I already have a degree. You obviously missed the class on externalities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_taxQuote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
To paraphrase Upton Sinclair, it's difficult to get a person to understand something when their ideology depends on them not understanding it.
I didn't miss anything and your statement is irrelevant. I do agree that if one's car produces fumes or bad smells then there should be a penalty for it. It doesn't mean that such fee is not bad for whoever runs the business which requires them to drive the car.
I was referring more to punishing people for working at all, e.g. income tax, taxes for buying or selling, etc..
I was also referring to a supervolcano, whose eruption is at least 1000time bigger than that of a small one, which may erupt in future. So according to your data a supervolcano would emit in one year 1000% or what humans' yearly produce - 300Gtonnes. I suggest that rather than worrying about some minute problems like cars or power plants, we would focus on figuring out how to control things like that.
"Give people democracy and they will start building socialism for you" (Karl Marx) - This is what has been happening for quite some time in Western Europe and the USA for quite a while now. There is no efficient technology for producing enough electricity to satisfy the increasing needs of mankind as of yet. Telling people lies and encouraging them to use solar or wind powered generators is a bad idea because those who would be able to develop an efficient technology (that would not need any encouragement from mainstream media or fascist governments to be implemented) waste their potential on trying to make a living with what is available. Saying that implementation of these inefficient technologies wont sort climate change anyway in the same paragraph you advocate their implementation makes you look utterly stupid. It is policies that try to artificially regulate markets that pose threat to mankind, not the climate change.
Implementation of laws that prohibit parents from bringing their children up will result in a generation that does not know anything about values that brought "Western Civilisation" to the top. Once they grow up, the people will have their heads filled with misbeliefs like "humans cause global warming". You guys already seem to have lost your perception (unless you never had it in the first place).
I have already wrote about taxes I'll move on to unemployment and growth. Unemployment is good because it teaches people to think. They open their own companies which create competition, invent new things, in general unemployment propels a country's economy. Budget deficit is also good because any money in a state's hands is 40% less efficient than the same amount of money in the hands of the country occupied by that state (or government).
I don't have time right now to challenge some of the ideas you lifted from the anarchist's cook-book, but with regard to the quote from your post, I am not familiar with it, and if I google it, the only source I can find is in Hung Angels in a post written by someone called Ts RedVex. Either you did just make this up on Marx's behalf, or you are translating from another language.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
Well, if I google Redvex Kingdom then google also cannot find my website... Maybe using quotation marks around my statement was a mistake, but if you look in Wikipedia, then you will see that Marx talks about working class conquest for political power and socioeconomic emancipation. Since most people have no background, experience knowledge or any idea of what government should be doing, it is very likely that in a system like democracy, where everyone has their vote, people will generally take to socialistic solutions, like more taxes, more money to government-owned businesses, more restrictions, more bureaucracy, doles for people who can't be arsed, "free" healthcare, grants for using "green technologies"... In short, silly choices mean silly governments, silly governments mean silly laws, silly laws mean it is impossible to run a normal business without a team of lawyers, a pile of money, or an uncle in the ministry, to start with...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV2ViNJFZC8
If I google 'redvex kingdom' it produces your website, your twitter feed (I did not visit either of these sites) and numerous other web sites so you might want to check your internet connection or possibly your security software.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
Your argument, that when people take part in democracy the outcome is socialistic solutions, like more taxes, more money to government-owned businesses, more restrictions, more bureaucracy, doles for people who can't be arsed, "free" healthcare, grants for using "green technologies"... In short, silly choices -is verifiable rubbish, as the election of Mrs Thatcher in 1979 proves. The signature policies of her government were lower and fewer taxes; a reduction of the State's ownership of segments of the national economy, a reduction in bureaucracy, while she and her supporters regularly complained of the costs and impact on society of welfare and the 'nanny state'. To this end she sold off industries that had been owned by the State in oil and gas, water, gas, electricity, and the railways. She was rewarded with three more election victories before Labour entered power without reversing any of Thatcher's policies. You could of course argue she did not go far enough, but that is a different argument from the one you made.
One important, indeed devastating example of the reduction in regulation was made in 1987 when regulations imposed on the construction industry were lifted, reducing the 'burdens' on the industry to comply with the highest, and therefore the most expensive standards with regard to building materials and inspections on new or renovated buildings. The horrific fire at Grenfell tower is a bleak example of what happens when the State 'sets industry free' and makes the assumption that self-regulation will always produce better outcomes than state imposed rules -the opposite is the case, as dead bodies and families still without permanent homes can testify. Is it any wonder that people do not trust capitalists all the time, that they do not believe capitalism is the best system when the people who are supposed to make the market work rig it to suit their private, financial interests rather than their customers?
As for 'free' healthcare, it beggars belief that you would want to return to the days when health care was provided by charity or Christian Missionaries. The NHS has established itself as a world class service, which, in spite of its problems -that began in 1986 with Mrs Thatcher's 'internal market reforms- not only provides everyone with the security of knowing they will be treated if ill, but also trains doctors, nurses, dentists and the army of supporting disciplines in radiology, microbiology, haematology, and so on, and since 1947 has also become one of the most important sources of research into medicine, with the pioneering research of Richard Doll into the links between smoking and lung cancer at Oxford in the 1950s a brilliant example. Indeed, thanks to the NHS and the contributions of others across the word, diseases that were common in 1947 such as smallpox, tuberculosis, polio, measles, mumps, diphtheria and others are mercifully rare. And note that not only did the people who paid for it, benefit from it, so have many people around the world.
Your arguments are weakened when your refer to people as 'silly' just as in another thread you called people 'idiots'. One of the ironies in all this, is that the kind of world you wish you lived in, where there is no state, no taxation, no regulation, no censorship, has been described as one in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all, and can be found in Ayn Rand's favourite book, 'The Communist Manifesto' (closing paragraph of section2) published by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1848.
My connection is fine, google returns links to my twitters and my ads but not to my website.
If I ever decide to settle here, I would personally like to see England have another PM like Mrs Thacher. The fact that for the last 30 years it hasn't seen any Prime Ministers like her shows how silly democracy is. As soon as someone tries to pass a reasonable bill, their support falls.
Grenfell Tower should have been replaced with a contemporary building long before the fire. Who do you think cares more that the house doesn't collapse on their heads and the heads of their family - people who live in the house or some government official? If not for the ridiculous regulations and government intervention the fire would not have taken place at all.
Public healthcare in the USA didn't work out, did it? The NHS is also inefficient, in accordance with Savas law I mentioned earlier. I have personally wasted about 3 weeks, so about 252 work-hours in the past 2 months because of it. If In other words, if I earn 20quid per hour, then it means over 5000GBP loss for the economy. Also note that this is only loss generated by me and not by the NHS. The NHS in the UK is not even "free" as on top of NI contribution one hast to pay extra for many things: e.g. I recently had bloodtests done to see if the hormones I am on are not causing blood thickening, liver damage etc.. When I wanted to see the results, I was told that I would have to pay for that (sending them by email was not even an option, in this 21st century). Of, course I figured that it would not have to do that if I make an appointment with my GP. If you call that efficient then you must be an idiot, as my appointment meant wasting another work-hour for me as well as that a patient who may actually need to consult the GP won't be able to do it. It also means that the doctor would be getting paid basically for sitting there in their room doing nothing. I can assure you that the doctor would not be discovering any sort of cure for cancer at that surgery.
I never wrote that there should be no state at all. I fact, the thread I was advocating monarchy was censored. Government should exist, they just shouldn't interfere with county's economy. Neither have I ever said there should be no taxation at all, only taxes that do the least harm to economy should be implemented.
I had also missed Trish's comparison of garbage to CO2 and rats to plants. Rats do not eat garbage. They will only eat the edible part of it and leave all the rest. Nonetheless, as you noticed, because there is more food available in the area of dumping rubbish, rat population will increase. This actually verifies what I had written before - that if there is more food for plants, they will grow better, they will be bigger, and produce more fruit or whatever.
[QUOTE=Ts RedVeX;1799178]
If I ever decide to settle here, I would personally like to see England have another PM like Mrs Thacher. The fact that for the last 30 years it hasn't seen any Prime Ministers like her shows how silly democracy is. As soon as someone tries to pass a reasonable bill, their support falls.
--This is an obscure paragraph. Even if you do not accept Mrs Thatcher's own verdict that Tony Blair was her 'true heir', it is hard to know what you mean by a 'reasonable bill' and how it loses support for the government. The laws that were changed to allow same-sex couples to form a legal partnership, and then marriage may have been opposed by some religious groups, but they were reasonable bills that became law and if anything, were a positive benefit to the government concerned. By contrast, the attempt by Mrs Thatcher's government to prevent the 'promotion of homosexuality' in schools through an amendment (Section Twenty-Eight of the Local Government Act in 198-eight) was widely condemned as what you would probably call a 'silly bill', yet the party remained in power and won the election in 1992.
Grenfell Tower should have been replaced with a contemporary building long before the fire. Who do you think cares more that the house doesn't collapse on their heads and the heads of their family - people who live in the house or some government official? If not for the ridiculous regulations and government intervention the fire would not have taken place at all.
--The opposite is the case, as was pointed out in an article in the Telegraph shortly after the fire:
Until 1986 all buildings in London fell under the London Building Acts which ensured that external walls must have at least one hour of fire resistance to prevent flames from spreading between flats or entering inside.
But under Margaret Thatcher's government, these rules were replaced by the National Building Regulations and the crucial time stipulation was scrapped.
Instead, materials used on the outside of buildings now only had to meet 'Class O' regulations and show that they did not add to the heat or intensity of a fire. But crucially they did not have to be non-combustible.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...mercy-inferno/
Regulations that protected life were relaxed for the benefit of business not the residents of tower blocks; you need to decide who you think was better served by the decisions of a government and ask if it is just a coincidence that building regulations were relaxed when Alistair McAlpine, a construction company millionaire was Treasurer of the Conservative Party and a friend of Mrs Thatcher.
Public healthcare in the USA didn't work out, did it? The NHS is also inefficient, in accordance with Savas law I mentioned earlier. I have personally wasted about 3 weeks, so about 252 work-hours in the past 2 months because of it. If In other words, if I earn 20quid per hour, then it means over 5000GBP loss for the economy. Also note that this is only loss generated by me and not by the NHS. The NHS in the UK is not even "free" as on top of NI contribution one hast to pay extra for many things: e.g. I recently had bloodtests done to see if the hormones I am on are not causing blood thickening, liver damage etc.. When I wanted to see the results, I was told that I would have to pay for that (sending them by email was not even an option, in this 21st century). Of, course I figured that it would not have to do that if I make an appointment with my GP. If you call that efficient then you must be an idiot, as my appointment meant wasting another work-hour for me as well as that a patient who may actually need to consult the GP won't be able to do it. It also means that the doctor would be getting paid basically for sitting there in their room doing nothing. I can assure you that the doctor would not be discovering any sort of cure for cancer at that surgery.
--I am not aware of public health services in the USA. As for the UK, your personal experience is not the means by which it can be measured because the service varies, particularly with regard to the kind of treatment you are seeking. Without going into the details I could tell you of my own experience just this year when I received first class treatment for an operation, an efficient follow-up procedure with both staff in the department and the Consultant, with my post-op medical supplies and the drugs I must now take all free. I spent most of my life paying a tax to fund the NHS and am I glad I did that. It has been utterly crucial to my well-being, as I also take medicine every day for another chronic condition, and pay nothing for it. For me the NHS has been an efficient and irreplaceable service, if in your judgement that makes me an idiot, then that is your judgement.
I never wrote that there should be no state at all. I fact, the thread I was advocating monarchy was censored. Government should exist, they just shouldn't interfere with county's economy. Neither have I ever said there should be no taxation at all, only taxes that do the least harm to economy should be implemented.
--The arguments for Monarchy are not very different from Lenin's concept of the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' which these elites consider necessary when the average person is considered too stupid to be a 'citizen' as Aristotle would have defined one. The Monarch knows best, the Party knows best, is there a difference? But we don't live in a small city-state like Athens, we are part of a global economy and a diversity of states, and people have fought and died for the right to have a voice equal to everyone else's.
I am mystified as to what it is that you find so offensive about democracy, unless it is the simple fact that democratic elections do not always produce the outcome you want. But Democracy offers the prospect of change, it gives people the right to change their government, and it brings people together in a social endeavour that, as it affects them all, they should have the right to control. You are not a socialist, obviously, but there is a nice quote from Polanyi that says “Socialism is, essentially the tendency inherent in an industrial civilization to transcend the self-regulating market by consciously subordinating it to a democratic society.” Which could just as easily be altered to say 'Democracy is, essentially the tendency inherent in an industrial civilization to transcend the self-regulating market by consciously subordinating it to the will of the people'.
We are all in this together.
A reasonable bill could for starters bring monarchy back and reduce the numbers of people in the government to maybe a 100 of intelligent and educated people - experienced ones in senate, young ones in the lower chamber. A reasonable bill would be something that scraps income tax. A reasonable bill would allow citizens to have firearms... etc. etc. As for loosing support. Some time ago Theresa May wanted to take away meals from children at some schools. A reasonable idea, but the proles didn't like it and May's team lost a few %. Mr Corbyn promised more money for public healthcare - bad socialist idea - Labour gains support.
That is exactly why regulations should not be relaxed. They should be removed and all the building experts responsible for those laws and their enforcement should get jobs. A decent tradesman would know not to wrap that block in shitty cladding. Corporation director probably wouldn't. At least I would not expect he would.
Marriage should not be regulated by the state at all. The only reason why a socialistic state would encourage two people to get married is because in order to encourage them to have children. I personally cannot see why discriminatory laws like those allowing homosexual to man marry each-other to be enforced, other than to bribe the homosexuals. That is another argument against democracy, by the way.
Let's say your earn 1200quid per month (before deductions) and you are in category A for the NI contributions. You pay around 12% or your earnings to the NHS and any other of the bandits who redistribute your money to appropriate places. Over 50 years that is 86400 quid Now considering that each pound in the state's hands is 40% less efficient, than each pound in private hands, this means your 80 grand would be worth over 120000. Now because the public health service has pretty much a monopoly in its field, their services are very expensive (a few thousand pounds per night at a hospital) Were there competition between clinics and drug manufacturers, the services and medication would be much cheaper. I wouldn't say that I am paying my contributions gladly. Especially when it means I don't even get e.g. "free" dental care while a dole scrounger does. But yeah, I must be stupid not to be happy to pay for their well-being...
In a monarchy you have a king who is ruler for life. In democracy, every several years you have a bunch of idiots cheering celebrities who call themselves politicians and whose only concern is to get electorate and public money rather than do any good to the country. If that is what you call a minor difference then I call you an idiot again.
[QUOTE=Ts RedVeX;1799359]
A reasonable bill could for starters bring monarchy back and reduce the numbers of people in the government to maybe a 100 of intelligent and educated people - experienced ones in senate, young ones in the lower chamber.
--This is not an original position, as we had a system like this for several hundred years following the Norman Conquest of 1066. And guess what, it didn't work. It was inefficient, corrupt and unpopular. It also begs the question -how do you know if your 100 chosen ones are intelligent, when the same people you ridicule on a regular basis in our Parliament are graduates of our finest universities, or have been successful in business -where are these 'philosopher kings' to come from, and who will choose them?
That is exactly why regulations should not be relaxed. They should be removed and all the building experts responsible for those laws and their enforcement should get jobs. A decent tradesman would know not to wrap that block in shitty cladding. Corporation director probably wouldn't. At least I would not expect he would.
--Your faith in 'decent tradesmen' is somewhere between naive and plain dangerous. There used to be a programme on tv called 'cowboy builders' which exposed the useless, dangerous and often criminal behaviour of so-called 'tradesmen' and if you look at some of the reports on Grenfell, the residents were verbally abused by these 'tradesmen' during a renovation phase. Regulation exists both to impose standards on the industry, and to hold it to account if something goes wrong, whereas under your system there are no regulations and no accountability. Across the world, from Mexico to Italy, people have died in earthquakes because builders skimped on quality materials and buildings that were supposed to withstand a quake fell to pieces. Under your system, the cowboys win, the people lose. You might as well point to Grenfell Tower, shrug your shoulders and say 'so what?'
I wouldn't say that I am paying my contributions gladly. Especially when it means I don't even get e.g. "free" dental care while a dole scrounger does. But yeah, I must be stupid not to be happy to pay for their well-being...
I am disappointed that your personal experience of the NHS has left you so bitter, and not everyone on 'the dole' is a 'scrounger'. Personal stories of woe can be balanced by stories of gratitude. And you can ask for dental treatment on the NHS. The first payments asked of citizens using the NHS started in 1950 when prescription charges were introduced because the Government could not afford to pay for its contribution to the war in Korea without raising extra funds. Perhaps you would prefer to live in the USA with its insurance system where health care is a commercial business run for profit for those who can afford to pay, rather than a national service available to all, as Congress is now considering an amendment that trades tax cuts for the withdrawal of health insurance from millions of Americans.
In a monarchy you have a king who is ruler for life. In democracy, every several years you have a bunch of idiots cheering celebrities who call themselves politicians and whose only concern is to get electorate and public money rather than do any good to the country. If that is what you call a minor difference then I call you an idiot again.
-Your cynical dismissal of democracy can only be based on ignorance and deliberate deceit as in another post you praised Margaret Thatcher who was democratically elected, and a fan of democracy too, for what that's worth. The reconstruction of democracy across Europe after 1945 may have passed you by in Poland until 1988, but it was, and remains both a superior form of rule to fascism, national socialism and communism, and enjoys greater popularity. I am not really sure why you live in Europe if you find us so lacking in the values you believe comprise a place worth living in.
None of which contributes to the debate on climate change.
I am not bothered whether or not is my position original... I would like to note that not so long time ago Great Britain was indeed a very powerful state, whose wealth is about to disappear thanks to democrats and fans of social services like yourself. Maybe the Queen or some of the eldest members of parliament would know who is worthy.. I dunno. Definitely not proles like yourself and definitely nobody whose candidacy you would recommend. Any form of government is bad for the people but anarchy is even worse. Not as bad as democracy though.
If you want square work then you shouldn't cut corners - as the saying goes. Competition between building companies within a normal country would be regulatiory enough to keep irresponsible people off the domain they have no idea about. Let's say you build a house for a family and it collapses killing all but the one member. In a country of law and order, you would be publicly hanged for murder or at least punished in another way (it would be up to court to decide how). I seriously doubt any decent builder would dare to put flammable cladding on a high-rise building when a inflammable cladding is available, even if they were paid to do it. I doubt that there would be many pretending to be decent builders. Apart form that, if people die because some idiot relaxes regulations then why is that idiot not being held responsible for the deaths his idiotic laws caused? By the way, my faith in tradesman is so big that I made a big drama (unnecessarily) when I took my car to an "authorised garage" last time. But when I see an obligatory PAT test being done by a guy who comes over with a multimeter and checks if there is connection between a device's casing and a screw in the wall then I am asking myself "Why do I even pay for this"?
Oh dear.. I didn't know the UK is still at war with Korea... I do get it now... Thanx for taking the time and explaining it to me. really.
Thacher was not perfect, then... I guess.
It all does as it is the same propaganda that tells you democracy and slavery is better for the "people" than monarchy and freedom, tells you that humans cause global warming.
Your faith in builders as part of the argument that markets are best when self-regulated should not of course smear the reputations of some very fine workers. And you can argue that market mechanisms will punish those businesses that are crooked, but in the building industry this could mean punishing a dodgy company after their shoddy work has led to the deaths of X people, when a properly regulated system might prevent them from being builders in the first place. The examples of builders, bankers and bakers operating in the market to con people are so numerous I find it hard to believe you really believe markets know best.
The UK went to war in Korea through the 'Uniting for Peace' resolution passed at the United Nations in 1950. The resolution gives the General Assembly rather than the Security Council the right to legally engage a party in military action and was passed in the GA to circumvent the fact that the USSR refused to endorse any military action to counter the Korean communist campaign in the south of the country. A coalition of forces, including the USA and the UK engaged the north Koreans in a war that ended in an armistice so that, technically, the UK is still at war with North Korea.
You are free to dismiss democracy and link it to slavery and dismiss me as a 'prole', whatever that means, just as I am free to regard the idea as incoherent garbage. It is, perhaps, fitting that you want a government of outstanding intellectuals, yet the outstanding scientists who have documented climate change for over 100 years and have identified the human element in global warming you believe are simply wrong. One wonders who you would select to govern us, and hope it never happens.
Libertarianism is really a kind of substitute religion. It appeals to some people because it appears to provide a simple universal framework for dealing with a messy world. However, that simplicity is an illusion because it only comes from ignoring real world complexities, such as transaction costs, externalities and disparities in knowledge, wealth and bargaining power.
Ironically, it shares many similarities with communism, which was also a religion substitute. There is the same claim to offer a universal system for achieving utopia. There is the same willingness to override this wishes of the majority in the name of what is supposedly in their best interests.
I'm struggling to get my head around the logical consistency of arguing against democracy because most people don't know what's in their interests, but also arguing against government regulation because people know best how to protect their own interests.
A few people died... So what? People die every day in work-accidents, road-accidents, etc... and you say that you want to tell people how to build their homes because of that? That is idiotic. If someone wants to break your stupid regulations then they will do it anyway.
Good to know that I still pay taxes to support the English troops at the Korean borders. I was wondering why I need to pay so much but it makes sense now... Since Poland has not signed a peace treaty with Germany I also understand now why taxes in Poland are even worse. I just cannot see why we do not have any nuclear arsenal yet. I guess that we will keep our traditions of fighting tanks with swords and we will go to nuclear war in tanks... Money well spent...
I never said i dismiss the work of scientists that researched global warming. I only dismiss the nonsense propaganda about human beings being the main cause of global warming. Einstein's work was also being questioned by dozens of other professors but as it has turned out, the majority was wrong. Similarly, since nobody has proven that global warming is caused by humans, it probably isn't.
Your laws and books seem to be your religion. You blindly believe that more bureaucracy is better, you believe that hundreds of scientists who say it is likely that we cause global warming must mean that we do even though none of them has ever proven it...
I cannot see what is so hard to understand in my reasoning. Subjectively, people know what their interests are. Objectively they don't. Let me give you an example. The main party in Polish government won elections because they had promised to give people 500zl per child. Subjectively, a parent thinks "yeah that's good innit?" What he doesn't know is that the 500zl does not fall from the sky and the government has to first take that amount increased by Savas's 40% , so 700zl away from them by means of increasing tax on gasoline, increasing the prices of bread, milk etc... This is why democracy is so bad for the country (good for the state because it can easily convince people that they cause global warming and therefore should pay some new "global warming tax" for instance)
When I read something like this: A few people died... So what?, I wonder if there is anything more to say about your eccentric views of government, the state, democracy and those pests known as people. I could also add I think it is a disgraceful thing to say about a fire that could have been, should have been prevented.
As for your remark
I never said i dismiss the work of scientists that researched global warming. I only dismiss the nonsense propaganda about human beings being the main cause of global warming... Similarly, since nobody has proven that global warming is caused by humans, it probably isn't.
The New York Times reports today:
Directly contradicting much of the Trump administration’s position on climate change, 13 federal agencies unveiled an exhaustive scientific report on Friday that says humans are the dominant cause of the global temperature rise that has created the warmest period in the history of civilization.
I suggest you back up your own claims with a report of your own. It will make interesting reading, for those who still read.
How can a federal agency unveil scientific reports? Did they pass those in a voting or something? Scientific reports should be done by scientists, not a bunch of charlatans from the government.
People are not pests. Most of officials are. If lives matter so much then how come ISIS which attacked France and the USA (allegedly the most powerful country on Earth) still exists? That is exactly what you get when a greedy state minds its own business rather than taking care of the people who it should be looking after.
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/credits/Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
I can go through the list and document their credentials as researchers and professors, as well as their academic credentials. It would take quite a long time but I'm not even sure if you believe the nonsense you're spouting.
They ,"unveiled the scientific reports " because "they" are the ones who paid the scientists to do the research .
They being we the taxpayers .:banghead
not a single Ph. D. or M. Sc. or Professor in that list.. not even a single M.A.
I picked three names at random from the list, here are the results:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
Wiesław Masłowski is a research professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California since 2009. He obtained his MS from the University of Gdańsk in 1987,[1] and his PhD from the University of Alaska, Fairbanks in 1994, with a dissertation entitled Numerical modeling study of the circulation of the Greenland Sea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wies%C...Mas%C5%82owski
David Easterling is currently Chief of the Scientific Services Division at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, NC. He received his Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1987 and served as an Assistant Professor in the Climate and Meteorology Program, Department of Geography, Indiana University-Bloomington from 1987 to 1990. In 1990 he moved to the National Climatic Data Center as a research scientist, was appointed Principal Scientist in 1999, and Chief of Scientific Services in 2002. He has authored or co-authored more than sixty research articles in journals such as Science, Nature and the Journal of Climate.
https://www.agci.org/redhen/contact/1287
Donald Wuebbles
- Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of California at Davis, 1983
- M.S. Electrical Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1972
- B.S. Electrical Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1970
- Donald J. Wuebbles is the Harry E. Preble Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Illinois where he has been since 1994. He is also a Presidential Fellow at the University of Illinois, with the aim of helping the university system develop new initiatives in urban sustainability. From 2015 to early 2017, Dr. Wuebbles was Assistant Director with the Office of Science and Technology Policy at the Executive Office of the President in Washington DC.
- https://www.atmos.illinois.edu/cms/O...&pageId=151986
I cannot see any degrees in the list so we must be talking about different people.
Before you start ranting about my ignorance I would like you to read the report, which clearly states in the introduction that:
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. Over the last century, there are no alternative explanations supported by the evidence that are either credible or that can contribute more than marginally to the observed patterns. There is no convincing evidence that natural variability can account for the amount of and the pattern of global warming observed over the industrial era."
Which means the whole report is a load of crap as they haven't determined the real cause of global warming, they concluded that one can assume humans cause global warming.
Well, I can assume that this is because the government would't fund any other Panels that would actually determine what causes global warming for whatever mystery-reason... The introduction sounds like it's been written by some communist as well, not a scientist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiLVDQ4VhoE
Which people then are you referring to, because it is not the people identified in this link from Broncofan's post above-Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/credits/
Before you start ranting about my ignorance
-I have not ranted or even suggested you are ignorant, merely hinted that you might want to spend more time doing some research on the scientists producing the report than you do posting opinions which you are entitled to believe, but which are not supported either by the science we do have, or the science you are reluctant to tell us gives a different explanation for climate change and global warming.
See Stavros' post above. I had the same result with every name I looked up, which was about eight of them. If you read my post, I said it would take a while to compile their academic credentials. That wouldn't be the case if their credentials were listed right there on the link.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
You don't think it says anything about your entire approach that you would see a list like that, make an unfounded claim, and not even be cautious enough to verify it?