Jump to content
Tobes

General Politics Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

Speaking of "cycles", I see we've run through yet another cycle of "LOL Y DO U CARE SO MUCH LIBTARD".

 

Also Trump plays default Reach and likes it.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Academy of Ideas is the best channel on YouTube. They don't teach you this in school, kids. Take notes.

 

Share this post


Link to post

"The danger isn't that a particular class is unfit to govern, EVERY class is unfit to govern." - Lord Acton

 

The state, by its very nature, is coercive and violent.

 

To advocate that I be ruled by your political class of choice is no less violent than the actions of your 'rival' party. Both are authoritarian. I don't want to be ruled by anyone, thanks.

 

I own me, you own you.

Not really. Not all laws are inherently bad.

Governance has a burden of proof/legitimacy as to why they are there. If they posses power that is not justifiable then it is to be dismantled.

 

This lazy 'goobermint bad' argument is exactly the same as the 'I don't vote all politicians suck,' people who let Republicans win.

 

'I own me, the state is coercive/violent, so I'm just gonna frame everything in government as equally bad so I don't have the moral responsibility to block the most violent and the most coercive elements of government through voting'.

 

Are you a classical libertarian or are you an ancap?

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah climate change is real.

I asked you if there is scientific proof that climate change is real. This is a very specific question so I want you to read it more closely and answer yes or no.

 

Not sure if any model can describe it. We know a lot, but not enough. I'm not an expert so idk.

You're mostly right here, the fact is that scientific models don't represent reality, they approximate it. This has huge implications because all climate change predictions come from climate models.

 

50/50 is not a consensus. I wouldn't be confident. I would require to aspire to be a scientist to find out myself.

If your confidence is dependent on the confidence of the scientific community, then you aren't thinking for yourself. Science isn't done by vote, it's done by making observations in order to form theories. You need to look at the strength of the evidence to form your conclusions. If Galileo used your approach, he wouldn't be famous.

 

I'm sick of arguing with American right wingers on this topic (I can safely assume you're a right winger, they are the only people brainwashed on this topic). The arctic was on fire this year. Islands are sinking. The Great Barrier Reef is dead. Hurricane cat 5s picking up speed thanks to acidic warm coastal waters My point is given the nature of climate change, no proof will ever show right wing skeptics. Literally nothing. Otherwise all the scientists would have done so already.

 

I'm not a scientist, there are people 10000x more qualified than me and if they haven't convinced you, then why am debating with you?

 

We're completely fucked. Charles Koch will get his billions, the fascists will eventually march again, genocide. The works. Bolsonaro thinks climate change is a marxist plot and wants to upend the amazon rainforest. Just send us all to death already.

 

You're a product of your environment (a corporate astroturfed one).

 

Even if you're partially convinced all it takes is the other side to post bogus science and fuck policy making. Humanity honestly deserves all this.

This is you politicizing the topic. I'm here to discuss the science. If you don't want to do that and continue with rhetoric then stop replying to my posts. I told you that I don't think the science behind climate change is strong so I'd rather talk about that than whatever political garbage you keep trying to interject as if it bolsters your position. It's irrelevant to me how many experts agree on things, all I care about is evidence. You'd probably be surprised to find that we agree on a lot of things about climate change (but you don't seem to be interested in trying to have a real discussion), it's just the details where we part ways. I'm trying to build to that but you keep going off the rails about right wing shit.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I asked you if there is scientific proof that climate change is real. This is a very specific question so I want you to read it more closely and answer yes or no.

 

 

You're mostly right here, the fact is that scientific models don't represent reality, they approximate it. This has huge implications because all climate change predictions come from climate models.

 

 

If your confidence is dependent on the confidence of the scientific community, then you aren't thinking for yourself. Science isn't done by vote, it's done by making observations in order to form theories. You need to look at the strength of the evidence to form your conclusions. If Galileo used your approach, he wouldn't be famous.

 

 

This is you politicizing the topic. I'm here to discuss the science. If you don't want to do that and continue with rhetoric then stop replying to my posts. I told you that I don't think the science behind climate change is strong so I'd rather talk about that than whatever political garbage you keep trying to interject as if it bolsters your position. It's irrelevant to me how many experts agree on things, all I care about is evidence. You'd probably be surprised to find that we agree on a lot of things about climate change (but you don't seem to be interested in trying to have a real discussion), it's just the details where we part ways. I'm trying to build to that but you keep going off the rails about right wing shit.

Yes there is scientific proof.

There are thousands of pages of scientific proof and science journals that all have scientific proof.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes there is scientific proof.

There are thousands of pages of scientific proof and science journals that all have scientific proof.

Incorrect, there is no such thing as scientific proof. Proofs are true by definition and scientific theories must be falsifiable, by definition. Proofs can't be falsified. This distinction is very important because it's the first step towards you being more cautious with your approach to this discussion. One thing to note is that climate change is still a hypothesis, not a theory. We'll see how the field progresses in the future.

 

Thanks for ignoring the rest of my post.

 

Anyways, I was wondering if you would lay out exactly what you think climate change is and what it predicts (you don't have to get too technical, just give the basics) and we can go from there. You're free to ask me questions too, it doesn't have to be a one-way interrogation.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

People aren't surprised when the weather predictions for the next day are wrong, but at the same time believe the weather predictions for 100 years from now :/.

 

I still bring an umbrella when meteorologist say it will rain.

Share this post


Link to post

People aren't surprised when the weather predictions for the next day are wrong, but at the same time believe the weather predictions for 100 years from now :/.

 

I still bring an umbrella when meteorologist say it will rain.

can you just say you deny climate change, you trying to hedge your bets is awfully disingenuous. can't say you accept it then keep listing example after example of why you dont really believe it lol

 

Incorrect, there is no such thing as scientific proof. Proofs are true by definition and scientific theories must be falsifiable, by definition. Proofs can't be falsified. This distinction is very important because it's the first step towards you being more cautious with your approach to this discussion. One thing to note is that climate change is still a hypothesis, not a theory. We'll see how the field progresses in the future.

 

Thanks for ignoring the rest of my post.

 

Anyways, I was wondering if you would lay out exactly what you think climate change is and what it predicts (you don't have to get too technical, just give the basics) and we can go from there. You're free to ask me questions too, it doesn't have to be a one-way interrogation.

Sigh, trying to be contrairian with something that has a very high likelyhood of being the case. Saying it's a hypothesis is a complete undersale of the current evaluation of climate change. They just keep finding shit left right and center that is increasing the likelyhood of a very negative outome from climate change. If something is - lets say - 95% likely to occur sure it isn't a theory like gravity. But come on dude...saying we'll wait and see in the future? lol. That's something you kind of can't do with something as important as this that has the potential to greatly alter how our children and our children's children will live.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Speaking of "cycles", I see we've run through yet another cycle of "LOL Y DO U CARE SO MUCH LIBTARD".

 

Also Trump plays default Reach and likes it.

Shit... am I trump?

Share this post


Link to post

can you just say you deny climate change, you trying to hedge your bets is awfully disingenuous. can't say you accept it then keep listing example after example of why you dont really believe it lol

 

Sigh, trying to be contrairian with something that has a very high likelyhood of being the case. Saying it's a hypothesis is a complete undersale of the current evaluation of climate change. They just keep finding shit left right and center that is increasing the likelyhood of a very negative outome from climate change. If something is - lets say - 95% likely to occur sure it isn't a theory like gravity. But come on dude...saying we'll wait and see in the future? lol. That's something you kind of can't do with something as important as this that has the potential to greatly alter how our children and our children's children will live.

The umbrella was supposed to be symbolic for " I still think we should cut back carbon emissions".

Share this post


Link to post

Taking a step back for a sec here...  it is kinda funny how republicans blindly follow our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ with, frankly, zero factual evidence of his existence and at the same time require 100% undeniable scientific evidence that human beings are accelerating climate change before becoming believers.

  • Upvote (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post

Taking a step back for a sec here... it is kinda funny how republicans blindly follow our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ with, frankly, zero factual evidence of his existence and at the same time require 100% undeniable scientific evidence that human beings are accelerating climate change before becoming believers.

If climate change was a problem Jesus would have told us in the infallible bible not to drive SUVs.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Taking a step back for a sec here... it is kinda funny how republicans blindly follow our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ with, frankly, zero factual evidence of his existence and at the same time require 100% undeniable scientific evidence that human beings are accelerating climate change before becoming believers.

I also find it ironic that conservative christian republicans consistently oppose legislation that mirrors the teachings of Christ...

Share this post


Link to post

This thread has taken a great turn, you’re a great guy RVG E Nomini I’m sorry I was a jerk. The civility is amazing let’s keep it going. Scalzo, you’re the best!

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

As for blindly following Jesus, the documents produced by Christian, Jewish, and Roman writers shortly after his death provide significant evidence that he lived and then died. With that said you could question if he died then lived.

Share this post


Link to post

As for blindly following Jesus, the documents produced by Christian, Jewish, and Roman writers shortly after his death provide significant evidence that he lived and then died. With that said you could question if he died then lived.

has anyone else on planet earth become a zombie

 

no

 

ok good

Share this post


Link to post

Sigh, trying to be contrairian with something that has a very high likelyhood of being the case. Saying it's a hypothesis is a complete undersale of the current evaluation of climate change. They just keep finding shit left right and center that is increasing the likelyhood of a very negative outome from climate change. If something is - lets say - 95% likely to occur sure it isn't a theory like gravity. But come on dude...saying we'll wait and see in the future? lol. That's something you kind of can't do with something as important as this that has the potential to greatly alter how our children and our children's children will live.

You know very little about my position because that requires nuanced discussion of the science. If you aren't willing to do that, then boxing me in as a right-wing fanatic or science denier will continue to fail you as it has for Niku. Until you gain a genuine interest in the topic instead of trying to take arms against "dissenters" then you're wasting your breath. I'm here to talk science so sack up and do it or find something else to do. The whole point is to try and have a conversation and see what ideas or insight others might have. It would be cool if you could even change my stance on specifics, but so far it appears that you are more confident than the arguments you've offered should allow.

 

This thread has taken a great turn, you’re a great guy RVG E Nomini I’m sorry I was a jerk. The civility is amazing let’s keep it going. Scalzo, you’re the best!

Thanks man, don't sweat it. Scalzo is a boss.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

has anyone else on planet earth become a zombie

 

no

 

ok good

The greatest tragedy in life is the prayers that go unanswered simply because they go unasked.

 

It's not our job to answer; it's our job to ask.

 

"... yet because of your Shameless audacity he will surely get up and give you as much as you need." Luke 11:8

Share this post


Link to post

You know very little about my position because that requires nuanced discussion of the science. If you aren't willing to do that, then boxing me in as a right-wing fanatic or science denier will continue to fail you as it has for Niku. Until you gain a genuine interest in the topic instead of trying to take arms against "dissenters" then you're wasting your breath. I'm here to talk science so sack up and do it or find something else to do. The whole point is to try and have a conversation and see what ideas or insight others might have. It would be cool if you could even change my stance on specifics, but so far it appears that you are more confident than the arguments you've offered should allow.

 

 

Thanks man, don't sweat it. Scalzo is a boss.

r/iamverysmart

 

you provided 0 evidence on anything

 

just bullshit around and expect everyone else to fetch it for you lol

Share this post


Link to post

Incorrect, there is no such thing as scientific proof. Proofs are true by definition and scientific theories must be falsifiable, by definition. Proofs can't be falsified. This distinction is very important because it's the first step towards you being more cautious with your approach to this discussion. One thing to note is that climate change is still a hypothesis, not a theory. We'll see how the field progresses in the future.

 

Thanks for ignoring the rest of my post.

 

Anyways, I was wondering if you would lay out exactly what you think climate change is and what it predicts (you don't have to get too technical, just give the basics) and we can go from there. You're free to ask me questions too, it doesn't have to be a one-way interrogation.

This is the internet. I just told you there are thousands of documents online to read. If I were to personally provide the science in a botched manner, it would be less than anything a real academic journal would provide which you have refused to engage with regardless.

 

In other words. Climate science deniers are not worth engaging with or debating with. 

 

Dealing with climate change requires direct action in accordance with a coalition of the willing.

 

Conservatives and their corporate backers are the minority. Regardless of what you think, I don't have to engage with you. People who accept the science are the majority. Might is right. You can't win democratically, and even if you didn't accept our majority, you would lose militarily. 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.