Black Lives Matter

[TorontoReign]

BUT WE NEED OUR OIL AND TREES CRNI! WE NEED TO KEEP THE WARMACHINE GROWING AND STRONG WITH MILK OF HUMAN KINDNESS.

 

[zegh8578]

Milk of [insert] always sounds half creepy half amazing

 

[Mr Fish]

 

[DarkCorp]

What is the point of even arguing when Crni believes it is the wests fault for buying fucking grain? I mean seriously.

We are buying grain, the suppliers are selling grain, and Crni is all flipping out about it, talk about drama. Boo hoo, those stupid grain sellers won't stop selling grain to the west, EEEVUL WEST for buying grain.

It is not like, even in the hypothetical scenario that the west stops its purchase, other major powers will continue to stuff their faces. It couldn't be some countries just have too many fucking people and they need to take steps to figure out how to fucking feed all of them.

BTW, Nobody here called you a faggot, at worst I called you unrealistic in your hopes of nations all playing fair.

We do need to curb emissions, no argument there.

However, we will disagree about the pace of going green. You say it is not going fast enough, I say we can pickup the pace a little bit, but not nearly as drastic as how you want things to be. These things cannot be handled authoritarian style. You have to balance the needs of the extremists, the moderates, and factor in other things like cost and infrastructure. A "TAX MORE, that will fix everything mentality', is not the solution.

 

[BigGuyCIA]

What is the point of even arguing when Crni believes it is the wests fault for buying fucking grain? I mean seriously.

We are buying grain, the suppliers are selling grain, and Crni is all flipping out about it, talk about drama. Boo hoo, those stupid grain sellers won't stop selling grain to the west, EEEVUL WEST for buying grain.

It is not like, even in the hypothetical scenario that the west stops its purchase, other major powers will continue to stuff their faces. It couldn't be some countries just have too many fucking people and they need to take steps to figure out how to fucking feed all of them.

BTW, Nobody here called you a faggot, at worst I called you unrealistic in your hopes of nations all playing fair.

We do need to curb emissions, no argument there.

However, we will disagree about the pace of going green. You say it is not going fast enough, I say we can pickup the pace a little bit, but not nearly as drastic as how you want things to be. These things cannot be handled authoritarian style. You have to balance the needs of the extremists, the moderates, and factor in other things like cost and infrastructure. A TAX MORE, that will fix everything, is not the solution.

I was going to respond to him, but I think you summed it up nicely. It's a black and white conversation with Crni, either you're "with him or against him."

There can be no other explanation for how he goes off on some fucking dramatic tangent like "SORRY FOR BUHLEEVIN IN SCIENZE" when you outline the intangible nature of green energy with current technology.

 

[zegh8578]

Capitalism is a problem.
I realize it is also a good thing, remember, I am Scandinavian, and I have always admired the system we have - which is not "socialist" (as much as various voices claim we are)

It's about balance.

Socialism let loose will only provoke people who's ambition goes beyond certain limitations, we know by now, it is as good as impossible to implement because it is an imposition of limitation to human nature.
Capitalism unrestrained is human nature unleashed and unlimited, and that... can be a sheer nightmare. Might makes right, slavery, take what is yours (taking making it yours). Most of us shudder at a world where money/power/strength trumps all

Big words aside though, here is a tangible example of capitalism standing in the way of prosperity: Spain - which is very sunny - set up a series of solar power plants. The idea is good: Energy granted us for free through the might of the universe.
As one government became another, through democracy, the much less socialistically inclined gvt simply shut all these projects down, and they are now gigantic constructions of emptyness gathering dust in the burning sun.
Why?
Because solar energy comes from space, is endless (well, 10 billion years of durability approx), and is therefore a threat against the privately owned powerplants. Lobbying did it.

This isn't just revolutionary-youth-babble, but reality. Why should people feel tearful sympathy for privately owned powerplants, when the owners of those plants are rich enough to retire and fuck off? It's not even about "well we cant just allow all privately owned - " it's not about "all", it's about those particular plants. "Well, thick of the employment - " FINE. NO progress then. In the name of 1 500 employees and 14 old, bald billionaires. To hell with scientific marvels and free energy from space.
It depresses me.

I have even thought, before, "how come sunny countries don't just put up gigantic solar power plants?"
That's why.

And to be fair, my fellow "pinkos" also get in the way of progress, when they get all up in arms over wind turbines and water/river plants. "Don't ruin the environment!" wtf does that even mean, where are we supposed to build power plants then? On top of kindergardens?
I love nature, but in the big picture a powerplant takes up a SPECK on a map, it's like 0,001% of a nature area, the whole area would be like 150 square metres or something, it's NOTHING

More golden middle part, I guess, for most matters. It's the most difficult, cus nobody wants to be a "traitor" to their "political spectrum"
Nobody on the right want to concede to leftist ideas, and nobody on the left want to concede to conservative ideas, and so they just keep yelling for the most extreme shit "PRIVATIZE EVERYTHING! ARE YOU MADE OF PROTEINS? YOU OWE US ROYALTIES!!!" "PRIVATIZE NOTHING! YOUR PANTS ARE MINE!"

 

[DarkCorp]

@BigGuyCIA

I have no problem with science.

I merely mention humans are selfish creatures that, even when educated about the follies of over consumption, still want shit. Crni proposed, that with education, people will become less materialistic, focused on doing better at their job to get shit.

Communism proved his theory wrong. Children were taught the capitalist system was inherently unfair and that each should only get what he or she NEEDS. Did it work? Fuck no. People still wanted stuff.

Zegh also said as much. When everyone has the same, things have indeed worked out. The thing is however, there will always be that other guy, with more shit, who eventually introduces said shit, into the system, and the system will come crashing down. In terms of capitalism, it was the west. Watch the movie, 'Chuck Norris Vs Communism'. It is very enlightening. The government had to censor out parts of movies and tv shows, like an image of a western kitchen, simply because we had too much stuff. Oh my god, if people see this, they will want more shit too. Fuck that, hell no, we have to control this shit.

@zegh8578

My gripe is that it is NOT JUST GREED, that causes problems with going green. SERIOUSLY. Every leftie I have ever had the fucking pleasure of running into believes, ITS THE GREEDS ONLY.

It couldn't be green is fucking expensive. It couldn't be that going full green simply will not produce enough power to go around. It couldn't be that a green power plant, WILL provide LESS power, per unit, than lets say, a nuclear plant.

No its EVULS greed.

 

[zegh8578]

There has to be more "meeting half way" though.
Solar power was shut down, why? Why not keep it as a complementary source of power?
Solar power cannot be *more* expensive than coal, which requires an entire industry of carving it out of the rock. This is built, maintained, it costs too.

Again, the meeting-half-way is what makes Scandinavia in general such a happy place...

It's reflected in peoples mentality. Socialists feel included, because we see to welfare and healthcare and those "sharing is good" type of values. Conservatives feel included, because they can build businesses according to typical market liberal ideals, they can sell goods freely and get rich if they have the savvyness. Nobody stops them.
For decades there has been very little complaints here, from either side of the spectrum. The meeting-half-way works that way.
As for the taxes, in my opinion, it's a matter of getting used to, but here, there's very little complaining. People on welfare pay tax FROM their welfare (which sounds a bit redundant, but it's a matter of principle: They pay too!) - everybody pays from the same base percentage of 30% (which sounds steep as fuck, I know, but income is adjusted to it)
I don't really wanna go into the whole tax-debate, but my point is meeting half way.

In my town we have gvt run hospital (a regional healthcare hub, tremendous building complex) and the technological university of Norway, an even more tremendous building. Apart from that, we have a private hospital as well - and private colleges and universities as well - nobody stops them! Gvt. University is free - and top notch, it's very prestigious (NTNU). But so are the private ones, so it's simply a matter of choice (prestigious, not free). I like that, I always did.

 

[Crni Vuk]

...

Jesus christ ... do I write in chinese or something? Why do you always read only the stuff you want to read?

This isn't coming from ME(!), there is a certain prediction, and if we want to avoid it, we have to do something NOW(!) like IMEDIEATLY, not because I say it, or because I think progress in green technology is to slow.
THIS. IS. A. FUCKING. FACT. For gods sake. For the last time. SCIENCE, guys. Science says if we don't change something NOW, than a hell of a lot of people will be seriously fucked in 100 years from now and many of the effects will already hit us in our life time. If we want to avoid the worst consequences, than we HAVE to do changes now. That's the point. Not what ever if I personaly think it is to slow.


Greenhouse Gas Emissions - 2070
2070. Year scientists believe Earth must be a carbon-neutral planet. “Most of us think that by the year 2070 we need to have a carbon-neutral planet. We can no longer increase the CO2 content of the atmosphere.” (Wallace Broecker interviewed by Kenneth R. Fletcher, “How to stop global warming? CO2 ‘scrubbers,’ a new book says,” Smithsonian Magazine, June 2008)
(...)

It's always dangerous to make predictions, but we are right on schedule’ for [the disappearance in 2070 of summer Arctic sea ice] to occur.” (1)

— Mark Serreze, Senior research scientist
National Snow and Ice Data Center
Boulder, Colorado, March 2006
(...)

2070. Arctic projected to be entirely ice-free by 2070. “Current computer models suggest that the Arctic will be entirely ice-free during summer by the year 2070 but some scientists now believe that even this dire prediction may be over-optimistic, said Professor Peter Wadhams, an Arctic ice specialist at Cambridge University. ‘When the ice becomes so thin it breaks up mechanically rather than thermodynamically. So these predictions may well be on the over-optimistic side,’ he said. As the sea ice melts, and more of the sun's energy is absorbed by the exposed ocean, a positive feedback is created leading to the loss of yet more ice, Professor Wadhams said.
(...)

To avoid this we have to meet certain goals, like now, not tomorrow, not in 10, 20 or 50 years, now, like yesterday actually, when Obama and many other world leaders had their meetings to set limits on carbon dioxide emissions and other green house gases and pollution in general.

Do you guys understand that?

BTW, Nobody here called you a faggot, at worst I called you unrealistic in your hopes of nations all playing fair.

This, was only a joke.
Besides, you're right I think. My expecatations are probably to unrealistic. HOpefully fomeone can write that on all thegraves of the people that might die due to climate change.

"Sorry guys, your expectations have been unrealistc in hoping of all nations playing fair"

 

[TorontoReign]

Ad hominem strawman appeal to authority fraggle rock.

It's funny how DarkCorp can have fits but Crni is suddenly a hippy faggot when he is worried about pollution. Just look at China and see how deregulation will send us back to the 70's in which acid rain was becoming the latest fad along with LSD and false flag attacks and BACK ON TOPIC those pesky plants in civil rights protests used to delegitimize black speakers. But seriously folks I see common sense policies to prevent the destruction of the human race as being more important than coal miners jobs which will be obsolete in 50 years. Get with the fucking program folks. This isn't the age of manufacturing (industrial age) Craftsman tools and building muscle cars to prove how big the USA's dick is. We need to implement smart regulations that don't cripple industry, not get rid of it altogether and speaking of which how did we get to talking about pollution in the BLACK LIVES MATTER THREAD?

*reads thread*

I see.

@JO'Geran

First of all, we do have humanitarian groups that go out there and assist with food and vaccines. I, like many others, have made donations. Ironically, the people who have donated the most, are the rich who are maligned by the leftists. Someone like Bill gates, gives in one sitting, the equivalent of millions of donations.

So you are doing your part so fuck regulation amirite? Democrats give less money to charity than Republicans, but those same charitable republicans cut health care for kids and education as well. It is a matter of priorities.

How much do we give until we appease the morally superior, or you? What is the threshold we have to attain in order to get these people on track? Is the threshold to get India, with over a BILLION fucking people, on par with the standard of living in the west?

Morals huh? This came up:

https://www.google.com/search?q=much+do+we+give+until+we+appease+the+morally+superior,&rlz=1C1CHNQ_enUS529US529&oq=much+do+we+give+until+we+appease+the+morally+superior,&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=moral+relativism+vs+moral+absolutism

Capitalist rich and the socialist rich is something that also turned up upon closer examination. The issue we have is how the money is earned, and what wee believe is more important in our own little bubble of reality. See above.

When does the bleeding heart stop and face reality?

Reality is adding water to the planet in all the wrong places.

As I have said before, you would have to CRIPPLE the advanced nations to provide that level of equality. Where are you typing from? What are you using? How much electricity do you think you use? Do you have food on the table? If you are sufficient, are you willing to sacrifice all that for the betterment of the world? Will you then, because of your sacrifice, not bitch and moan about how some have MORE than you because they didn't make the same choice YOU made?

A lot of lefties (not all), want their fucking cake and eat it too. They want to be a full time activist, be hailed as a moral hero, and yet complain other people have more than them. Guess what? They made that fucking choice to live with less, to ameliorate their overwhelming smugness. They have ZERO right, to bitch about what another has.

Either lead in a new industry or fall behind when it is too late. Lefties want progress, some of them in sane ways. The Democrats don't represent the entire spectrum.

No, that's not what I am saying, that's what you (probably?) think I am saying.

Look, I don't claim that I have the answers to everything or that there would be some kind of magic bullet to solve everything. I am just saying, the current capitalist model under the huge influence of financial institutions such as banks is (globally) not a sustainable system. And incidents like Trumps victory, Brexit, the collapse of Greece, Front National in France and so on, are in some part related to this.

Again, the question is in what kind of society we want to live in. I am not simply pulling this out of thin air, there are many scientists which shake their heads at the current overproduction and overconsumption that's going on in 30% of the world - namely the US and the European Union.
Remember 50% of the worlds production in grain alone is currently used in meat production, and the highest consumer of meat are the US and Europe and by 2030, there will be more plastic than Fish swimming in the ocean, and we're currently living in the 'carbon age' since the level of carbon dioxide in the atmospheres reached levels that this planet saw the last time a few million years ago. And that's not even the most problematic gas which is released into the atmosphere, methane and a few others are not even talked about right now. And the effects of all this, will hit most of us still in our lifetime. In Fact, it already does when you consider how many people are already getting sick and dying world wide due to pollution, and not just in China, but also in the US and Europe. That's not going to disappear miraculously just because we're saying, well what can we do about it! A change would be too difficult for now, so let us actually try to change it in the future when it becomes even more difficult and the effects even worse.


But I have yet to hear from either republicans or democrats some REALISTIC discussion about what should be done if really 50% of the population ends up without jobs due to automation, or if climate changes hits the nation due to rising sea levels outside of, well the free market will regulate itself! Since when is there a 'rule' that says it will always fix it self? Has the free market avoided the storm Catrina? Because that is what we're facing right now. Catastrophes. Not whatever if people can get enough credit to buy their second car or something.

In the case of what will we do when Skynet takes over, we learn new skills and the old jobs die. Morons don't like to hear this but it is true. All of these old fucks who like breathing in smog and coal are going to die and with them their way of life as technology drives us forward along with social progress. The right hates this. They know they are dying out but they are stubbornly clinging to the past (like a dingleberry) due to the age they grew up in.

We do need to worry about our borders as sane people realize, but the excessive reliance on giant walls will not hold back the hordes of starving masses when a plague hits, or the next World War breaks out, or the polar ice caps wipe out parts of the world's largest cities. This sounds like fear mongering and hyperbole but it isn't. Look at the signs. It is time. Those who do not learn from the past and all that jazz. Look and listen folks. It isn't about left or right anymore. It is about progress or stagnation. Things can only stay the same for so long.

If we all thought like this then we would blow shit up, wreck the oceans, and steal oil...oh wait.

@Crni Vuk

In regards to nature and climate change, I would agree with you. It is something we definitely need to work on and Trump and company really are not helping this situation. However, I think we disagree on how much pressure we can bring to bear on the climate change issue. You seem to think we are not moving fast enough and a jump start is needed, by regulation, if necessary I am more inclined to believe that green energy is growing steadily and continues to do so. Trying to force the solution early, ALA China, I not only impractical but impossible as there are fundamental differences between government structures between east and west.

China is a shithole BECAUSE of pollution and government corruption/regulation issues or in this case lack thereof, so they are actually smart in their policies. The same reason they are catching up in the new space race - military protection measures due to a changing world. War is about to change folks. Conservatives would have us driving gas guzzling SUV's a hundred years from now if it was up to them because of MONEY. It really comes down to money or science doesn't it? Logic or emotions. The left is the worst about knee jerk reactions while the right stick their fingers in their fucking ears while the titanic is sinking.

Reforming education, I am down with that, but universal basic income? How will that be decided? How much income would be considered 'enough'? Is the government going to provide basic necessities? If so, how would that be 'fair'? My family of 3 might need less income but a family of 6 is going to need more.

Life isn't fair, right? It is a drain on society when people are on welfare and don't need it, so why not give an allowance and cut some of those programs that are a burden? You want WIC? Here is your allowance. You want food stamps? Allowance.

Again, what is the threshold? How are we supposed to 'fix', Africa?

By investing into their countries and educating morons. Not by sending goats.

You mention pollution but that is only one part, along with many other problems, like the one I elaborated on above. Pollution is caused by growth, which is caused by opportunities, which is caused by MANY factors. Again, not an easy fix or something that can be repaired if only the rest of the world marched along in Socialism.

There are other ways of enacting change in the way in which Crni is speaking. The degrees of socialism aren't as bad as some act. You can be capitalist and still enact socialist policies.

Of course your argument is about greedy capitalists. The problem is, you seem to think there exists altruistic individuals, who would gladly break their back for only the benefit of the people and not themselves. Or that there are individuals who would want power but only for the sake of serving others. Of course the rich and well off have historically had a disproportionate say in governance. They are the only ones who want power and the ability to control the path the nation is headed towards.
[/.quote]

There are good people. They are the ones who change the world while cynics fuck off. Of course they are responsible for wars and poverty so fuck them, right? But they aren't all like the assholes you speak of. There are those who are good and those who are morally fucked, but saying people are assholes, so don't do shit is dumb.


[quote-=Dark Corp]

I don't know why you brought up refugees and border closures as I have never been for that. This is one of the reasons I wasn't for Trump, but Carly. If you are mentioning population then it is only because I am stating Socialism only works if certain economic conditions are met. This includes not having to finance a large military, or finance police actions to make sure things swing 'in your favor', or having a smaller population, among others.

Why do we need a large military when we have drones? Boots on the ground aren't as important when you have force multipliers. Building obsolete aircraft carriers and jets is a waste of money. Money that could be spent on education so we can build better jets that aren't obsolete.

This is not just a hypothesis anymore or some crazy hyperbolic talk. The world is heading with full force into a global disaster.

Slightly hyperbolic perhaps but preparing for disaster is rational. Truth be told at this rate we might be at World War 3 before we hit that point which many of you are already aware of.

More like I checked the map and noticed there is a merge up ahead that gives us more time to slow down and then stop. The anchor, on the other hand, is either going to rip the car in half or will rip off a portion of the car.

Unless you reinforce the car in this case the planet and society by using technology to prop it up. See how that works?

Good luck enforcing regulations of power usage and imposing fines or significantly raising electric rates if people want to use more energy than they are allotted. Don't say I didn't warn you when people start throwing egg on your face and swear at you.

TBH, change needs to happen but you make it sound like the movie 2012 is right around the corner.

Because it is. Sure, there is always fear mongering but scientists aren't the ones to doubt when it comes to shit like this. If Trump says the world is going to explode next week I won't believe him, but if every renowned scientist on the planet agrees then i shit my pants.

Except that I believe it wouldn't be so difficult as you think.

See the State of California for example which has very strict regulations to combat droughts and wasting of water. As far as I know they hand out serious fines to citizens owning property if they're wasting to much water on their garden for example.

Of course you can complain as a true hearted libertarian and for your rights, but that doesn't change the fact that you can't magically create water from nothing or that your ideology will overcome facts. We are literally trading off the lives of people against our convenience.

[/quot]

California is a bad example in some ways since they over regulated to the point of fucking up their shit worse. This fear is normal because change is scary. Republicans see the government as an occupying force almost. Here in the south people hate the government but love their shitty state services like birth control, WIC, firefighters, police, post office, schools, but wait those are all social...argh fuck it.

Yeah, curse me for believing in Science I guess.

It's like you guys are playing russian roulette just for fun, and I am telling you that there is a very real chance to shoot your self, and all I get is 'LULZ Faggot! You don't know it! And it's fun! Don't spoil our fun, what should we do? Removing the bullet?

And this is the nation that managed to get to the moon, winning WW2 and creating one of the largest economies of modern time. Human hubris. Like as there would be a rule in biology that says 'Human life must go on forever'.

Baby steps when our country is imploding and disabled to f...

 

[Crni Vuk]

Yeah, fair enough what I write is a bit 'hyberpbolic' but it is not coming out of thin air, but based on the 'worst case' predictions of NASA and other scientists.

It's in the realm of posibilities, that our species is destroying it self, not science fiction stuff, actually a 'realistic' scenario.

 

[DarkCorp]

@TorontRayne

WTF? Me and Crni are both debating something. I might have called him a hippy but not faggot (this is for TORONTO). Second, Crnis side is based a lot more on emotion and wishful thinking than reality. I mean come on, complaining about grain purchases?

@Both

Hyperbole aside, scientists have been saying this stuff for a very long time. So great, people have the info, that was the relatively easy part. NOW, we have to figure out a way to get a planet with over 2 BILLION people, to control themselves.

@Crni Vuk

Stating facts is NOT complaining. Bemoaning why the west buys grain or why producers sell to us, and getting all dramatic about it, is complaining IMO. Its not going to change, people want and will continue to want grain. Sellers produce and will want to SELL grain. It is not that complicated.

@TorontRayne

1. I never argued for deregulation or no regulation. That would be fucking absurd. There is such a thing as OVER regulation however. It is more like Zegh said, we need to find the middle ground here. There are rich democrats that give also, so what?

2. I am arguing about what I percieve to be Crnis moral absolutism.

3. Please elaborate.

4. Lefties can lead in the field of wishful thinking all they want. That people will stop competing with another or that people will choose to consume less and want less.

5. Agreed.

6. Is your vision of UBI set to a specific amount? What happens when people say that their UBI isn't enough? Cost of living varies DRASTICALLY, both due to market and PERSONAL factors. How much UBI is needed for food? I already brought this up. What about UBI for a place to live? Apartment or house rental? Are we going to just provide homes to people instead? Those are just a FEW problems that need to be answered. We haven't even dealt with healthcare or schooling, etc. UBI SOUNDS nice but in reality, its an MONUMENTAL can of worms.

7. Very vague.

What topics are okay to educate others on and what topics are taboo? Religion still is a very important part of daily life in most of the developing world. Morality, whether relative or absolute, effects a person ability to be successful in the work place. Are we now going to tell them what to believe or how to live their lives? Even if it conflicts with their moral compass?

Investing into other countries? The effectiveness of this type of investment is directly tied to how the government of said nation spends the invested money. Are we going to tell said governments how to spend the money we give them? Oh wait, that is interventionism, which is also commonly associated with imperialism. This is one of the biggest gripes of the left. Throwing money into a burning trash can is not my idea of effective change.

8. Never had a problem with Socialism, just the degree on its implementation. I have always said my only right leaning views are on national defense and foreign policy.

9. Because war isn't JUST automation. There is a significant factor called LOGISTICS, among other factors. Here are just some examples.

Drones, aircraft and vehicles need a staging point, which means bases or carriers. Troops need to get to different locations effectively and quickly, which relies on aircraft, vehicles, ships, etc, that all rely on bases and carriers. Our nuclear triad relies on land, naval and air based assets. In regards to being OBSOLETE, a big part of defense spending is on R&D, which IS developing NEW technologies. We had the stealth fighter and bomber, DECADES, before our competition. This is not being obsolete, but rather the opposite, we are LEADING the way in military technology. Is there wasted spending on trial and error? Sure. That is to be expected when you are at the forefront of military tech.

10. Never disagreed with you there. Technology, like my map (or GPS) scenario, is one example. The question is not so much about whether we should be implementing or researching new green energy alternatives? My problem is the social, political and economic consequences that relate to the SPEED, of implementation. No amount of wishful Crni thinking is going to force humanity to abandon fossil fuels completely, anytime soon. Building the infrastructure for green energy, adapting it so that it can be a part of and maybe, eventually as a replacement for fossil fuels, making sure the energy needs of a populace is met, etc, is a very complex undertaking. Unlike China, in the U.S., politicians still rely on public image and whether or not his actions can be viewed by the average Joe as favorable. The coal problem we have already discussed is just one example of this.

11. Again, I do not disagree with the scientists. However, effecting change is dependent on many factors, including not just me and you, but an entire population. That means it is important to focus on how we SELL/PITCH green energy to the public. Massive tax hikes or the possibility of power shortages related to inefficient production or cost, will scare the public and push them TOWARDS fossil fuels, at least this is the case in the U.S. I admit there is a bit of irony here. We hate taxes BUT, if you implement taxation later, then we can be 'tricked', into accepting it. Ronald Reagan is a HUGE example of this. So again, someone like Crni is going to IMMEDIATELY alienate half the population because his rhetoric is WAY to pie in the sky.

12. Again, I am not one of those GOP guys who has some kind of irrational, complete hate of socialism. My problem is with idiots like Bernie Sanders. Lots of rhetoric, pie in the sky promises, EXTREMELY VAGUE on how to implement his promises. I mean come on, Bernie is flat out like, 'If it works for Nordics it can work for us". Fucking SERIOUSLY? There are WAY too many differences between us and Europe to implement copycat socialism. Like restaurants chains, if socialism is to have a bigger place in this country, it needs to adapt to American sensibilities.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Stating the facts is complaining now? And worrying about the future is being emotional?
OK, I guess?

2. I am arguing about what I percieve to be Crnis moral absolutism.

I try it a last time ...

Hypothetically speaking, let us assume I would be telling your obese ass, to stop eating fast food all the fucking time and start doing some damn sport to lose weight and gain some strength and muscles, or you will eventually die to an heart attack or stroke.
Is that moral absolutism now? Or is it just stating a (very) possible fact?

And here again, I know you didn't call me a faggot, I was merely joking .

 

[TorontoReign]

1. I never argued for deregulation or no regulation. That would be fucking absurd. There is such a thing as OVER regulation however. It is more like Zegh said, we need to find the middle ground here. There are rich democrats that give also, so what?

2. I am arguing about what I perceive to be Crnis moral absolutism.

3. Please elaborate.

1. I'm not sure if I said you did or not without looking, but I agree with Zegh's position as well.

2. I am arguing that that is the argument as well. Heh.

3. *Scrolls up for 3.*

The only time this situation has been reversed was communism. Even then, this only worked with mid to low level management and that was staffed by greedy, idiotic plebes.

Sure, but is one example of failure reason to not try again? I'm not saying let us now turn communist comrade, but eventually some kind of safety net should be put in place to protect us against excessive government while also allowing it to help those in need more than we do now. The USA had something like that, but it gets chipped away and the blood of the patriots has to replenish that part of the deal when it comes to that. We can talk military all day long as far as that goes.

 

[CaptJ]

You could say the same about the 'rust belt' of the US, where they had everything from Democrats to Republicans making decisions and where it was at some point simply 'socially acceptable' that it was the poor region of the US.

Because it is easy to just shift money from one area to another in a society that is striving for a meritocracy. /sarcasm

Just watch the video, and tell me the US governent is already working on solutions for that issue.

I already know about those robots but your Utopian future is far off because people.

Infact, you have a government that is full of dennyers, lobbysists and rich and that probably don't even know anything about automatition and is continuing to blame the poor for beeing poor.

What the hell is this suppose to mean? Are you saying that rich isn't taking advantage of cheap robot labor? Wow they must really care more about screwing with the poor than profits. /sarcasm

People are very irrational beings, and I am always surprised how quick some are in judging others without showing the right amount of empathy. Of course rioters and looters are 'criminals' in that sense and what they do is not a very elaborate form of political expression, but we're looking at this like trough a lense, you see that one image of aburning car. But what bout the guy that threw the fire bomb? Maybe he lost a brother or father 10 years go? We're talkingabout people that have been simply put completely ignored by big politics and society on a large scale, living for decades in poor comunities, while also feeling discriminated (what ever if that is true or not, is a whole different question). Is it so unexpected when people collectively express their irrational rage?

I like how you put criminals in quotation marks despite them fitting the definition of a criminal. Besides how your statement removes individual agency, it is just stupid armchair psychology. People make stupid assumptions like terrorists are a result of poverty (The hijackers on 9/11 were college educated and from Saudi Arabia.) and school shooters are bullied (Columbine shooting). It is just something people tell themselves to make the world seem more sane or just.

There is simply no way around it, resources like oil, coal and gas are better left in the ground and the sad part of it is, the alternatives are not used, not because of some incredible technical difficulty, but simply because of political decisions.

You underestimate how shit our battery technology is until recently.

 

[Crni Vuk]

So what should we do then? What's the alternative?

By the way, does someone of you live in New York or owns property at some coast?

You know I never said changes would be easy. But they have to be done. That's the point. And I think it's even achievable.
But we're puting a lot of money in all the wrong places, and than we're surprised that things are going down the gutter.
Like in one year Wallstreet managed to burn 28 Trillion dollars, the salaries of american workers and what the american citizens earned in that one year was around 14 Trillion - if I remember correctly. Where's all that money going? We can bail out banks over night, like literaly, and we can make all sorts of changes, but as soon it comes to some really important shit, like infrastructure, green technology, new investements, subsidies - if you want for coal miners, it's suddenly not possible.
But let's invest some more into tank factories and military installations all over the nation. They sure will do a great help, once the polar caps are no more.


This video shows what the REAL problem is and why changes don't happen.


People that have absolutely zero clue about science, making the important decisions.

 

[DarkCorp]

@Crni Vuk

You profess not to have all the answers yet you ask answers from CaptJ. Climate change is not merely a scientific but also a political and economic issue as well. Therefore, any solution is going to be incredibly complex AND, as we are neither scientists, politicians or economists, we cannot offer but the most rudimentary answers.

I have ALREADY talked about the military to DEATH here.

The bank bailouts were considered necessary as it would save the government more money to bail them out than to have to invoke the FDIC pledge, among other things. Also, Wallstreet effects the economy in good AND bad ways. It is a lot more visible and tangible of a thing in the public eye/perception. Lastly, as bad as the bailouts were, it was a much EASIER sell than green tech and doomsday nature scenarios.

Green technology is still considered 'iffy'. To the average plebe, it IS too expensive. To the experts and the average plebe, green technology is not as efficient in power generation, as other alternatives. To the average plebe, green tech is simply not as attractive as other power sources. To the average plebe, green technology is DIRECTLY tied to annoying, loud mouthed lefties, pinko extremists, among other people. The last thing isn't necessarily completely truthful but IMAGE is EVERYTHING. As long as hippies like Jill Stein remain the poster child of green energy, with their hippie, utopian rhetoric, you are going to get a lot of fucking eye rolls from the public.

Like I said before, it requires MORE than just ideology and FACTS to get stuff done. Humans are a fickle and often stupid lot. One has to be very careful in how one SELLS/PITCHES green energy. We need to slowly educate the masses about the truth of green tech WHILE making the transition to natural energy as smooth as possible. That means we cannot have Bernie Sanders/Jill Stein idiocy type rhetoric. That means we cannot have overbearing, authoritarian style actions (while coming from good intentions), that would further promote a bad image of green energy, much like the 'green energy is stifled because of evulz greed ONLY'.

Whether lefties like Crni and Toronto like it or not, in the most powerful and influential nation in the world, which also does not have an authoritarian style government, it takes more than rhetoric and fire and brimstone warnings to effect change. Lefties can continue to use the same old song and dance of pushy and fear tactics and get LITTLE done (in their own words), or they can come up with something new.

 

[GonZo_626]

Except that I believe it wouldn't be so difficult as you think.

See the State of California for example which has very strict regulations to combat droughts and wasting of water. As far sas I know they hand out serious fines to citizens owning property if they're wasting to much water on their garden for example.

Of course you can complain as a true hearted libertarian and for your rights, but that doesn't change the fact that you can't magically create water from nothing or that your ideology will overcome facts. We are literaly trading off the lives of people against our convenience.

Maybe the state of California's real problem is they have to many people in too small an area causing all of there problems.

 

[MutantScalper]

So what should we do then? What's the alternative?

By the way, does someone of you live in New York or owns property at some coast?

I have relatives in the NY area.

 

[BigGuyCIA]

@Crni Vuk

You profess not to have all the answers yet you ask answers from CaptJ. Climate change is not merely a scientific but also a political and economic issue as well. Therefore, any solution is going to be incredibly complex AND, as we are neither scientists, politicians or economists, we cannot offer but the most rudimentary answers.

I have ALREADY talked about the military to DEATH here.

The bank bailouts were considered necessary as it would save the government more money to bail them out than to have to invoke the FDIC pledge, among other things. Also, Wallstreet effects the economy in good AND bad ways. It is a lot more visible and tangible of a thing in the public eye/perception. Lastly, as bad as the bailouts were, it was a much EASIER sell than green tech and doomsday nature scenarios.

Green technology is still considered 'iffy'. To the average plebe, it IS too expensive. To the experts and the average plebe, green technology is not as efficient in power generation, as other alternatives. To the average plebe, green tech is simply not as attractive as other power sources. To the average plebe, green technology is DIRECTLY tied to annoying, loud mouthed lefties, pinko extremists, among other people. The last thing isn't necessarily completely truthful but IMAGE is EVERYTHING. As long as hippies like Jill Stein remain the poster child of green energy, with their hippie, utopian rhetoric, you are going to get a lot of fucking eye rolls from the public.

Like I said before, it requires MORE than just ideology and FACTS to get stuff done. Humans are a fickle and often stupid lot. One has to be very careful in how one SELLS/PITCHES green energy. We need to slowly educate the masses about the truth of green tech WHILE making the transition to natural energy as smooth as possible. That means we cannot have Bernie Sanders/Jill Stein idiocy type rhetoric. That means we cannot have overbearing, authoritarian style actions (while coming from good intentions), that would further promote a bad image of green energy, much like the 'green energy is stifled because of evulz greed ONLY'.

Whether lefties like Crni and Toronto like it or not, in the most powerful and influential nation in the world, which also does not have an authoritarian style government, it takes more than rhetoric and fire and brimstone warnings to effect change.

*Snaps fingers* Sorry not good enough; Make green energy great again.

Maybe the state of California's real problem is they have to many people in too small an area causing all of there problems.

My state's problem is that we have:

a) a bunch of retards that think banning semi-automatic rifles will reduce gun violence (which is mostly caused by pistols and fucking terrible public schools)

and

b) a bunch of legislators that think it's better to squeeze homeowners that water their lawn or fill up their pools, despite only accounting for ~ 2% of water useage. Meanwhile, our brilliant agriculture sector is using fucking sprinkler systems in dry weather rather than drip-feed systems.