Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 03-28-2019, 07:49 PM
The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,673
I cannot wait to see how this makes your mad Senator's ravings about an unrelated subject worthy of anything other than scorn. You want to argue on his side, show that his suggestion has merit. If you want to argue that you support him even though he's mad because he, in his madness, supports the same things you do, then do so. But don't try to change the subject.

Quote:
I don't even claim to understand all the details of how it works, but I can see there is some doubt about the matter now.
I do understand some of the details. I wouldn't doubt others here understand them better, but I understand them well enough to say you'd be better off trying to defend your insane fellow Republican's arguments on its merits (whatever they might be) than arguing that Alan Guth's inflation theory contradicts big bang theory.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #102  
Old 03-28-2019, 08:12 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 17,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
What's your understanding of the scientific community's "consensus" on global food production in the late '60's? Was he just "one guy who wrote a pop-science book fifty years ago" or did significant portions of the scientific community agree with the basic thrust of his argument? Was Paul Ehrlich widely-discredited as a nut-job back then?

The scientific community's consensus in the late 60s didn't factor in the dwarf wheat championed by Borlaug, which was only starting to get going and show its worth. The models weren't wrong - population-wise they were somewhat correct as far as I can tell (although actual pop growth slowed down compared to the more alarmist moderls, as some Asian countries completed their industrial shift and of course China partly implemented population control). They just didn't factor in the sudden appearance of the agricultural equivalent of magitek.
Ironically enough, while Ehrlich was demonstrably wrong back in the 60s, he may be right now, as population keeps growing while food production seems to have plateau'd - and might even drop as the fishing industry dutifully continues killing itself.



But be that as it may, in this as with any error of modeling or prognostication of science ; the error was proven and/or a solution to problems put into light was put forward by :
A] religious people
B] other scientists
C] blathering politicians
D] having more children !
Well ?
__________________
--- ---
I'm not sure how to respond to this, but that's never stopped me before.

Last edited by Kobal2; 03-28-2019 at 08:13 PM.
  #103  
Old 03-28-2019, 08:13 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tooth View Post
I cannot wait to see how this makes your mad Senator's ravings about an unrelated subject worthy of anything other than scorn. You want to argue on his side, show that his suggestion has merit. If you want to argue that you support him even though he's mad because he, in his madness, supports the same things you do, then do so. But don't try to change the subject. ...
I was answering a sincere question from snowthx. It wasn't an attempt to change the subject, but an attempt to have a little bit of civil discourse by meeting a reasonable request with a reasonable response.
  #104  
Old 03-28-2019, 08:18 PM
The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,673
I wasn't kidding when I said I cannot wait. You support this dolt but cannot defend him. Fine.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #105  
Old 03-28-2019, 08:34 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Sure.

This article describes a radical shift in understanding in the field of geology, an overturning of the "consensus".

I don't know how old you were or where or when you went to school, but it's probable that you were taught about the "Big Bang Theory" as a child. I don't even claim to understand all the details of how it works, but I can see there is some doubt about the matter now.
That is nice, an article that tells you about "paradigm shifts". It is interesting, but the interesting part is that regarding the current issue your "lesson" is actually backwards. Because climate science actually did go trough trough that shift already.

What that post showed that it is clear that you do not know that arriving to the conclusion that 'global warming due to human emissions was a problem' also came as a result of the paradigm shift that took place in the 50s-70's. (Also it is clear that you ignore the related articles to the right of that page that talk about climate change not becoming a walk in the park.)

Back then, most scientists looking at the issue thought that natural sinks would take care of all the CO2 being dumped in the atmosphere; while still also aware that increases in CO2 would increase warming but thought that nature was checking things. So, while some were aware of the issue, several others thought that natural sinks of CO2 were going to control that issue. What happened was that after years of research and evidence they had to change their view. Finding later that CO2 absorbed heath in unexpected ways in the atmosphere and then that natural sinks were not going to be enough to control our dumping, did cause the paradigm shift that we are seeing nowadays.

https://history.aip.org/climate/summary.htm

Last edited by GIGObuster; 03-28-2019 at 08:37 PM.
  #106  
Old 03-28-2019, 08:36 PM
Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
What's your understanding of the scientific community's "consensus" on global food production in the late '60's? Was he just "one guy who wrote a pop-science book fifty years ago" or did significant portions of the scientific community agree with the basic thrust of his argument? Was Paul Ehrlich widely-discredited as a nut-job back then?
Yes, he was: his book was an alarmist manifesto about social policy, not a work of scientific research, and this was repeatedly pointed out by scientists when the book became trendy. Although Ehrlich made some generally valid points about the overall importance of considering the global environment and trends in population and resource use, his specific predictions never got within screaming distance of any mainstream scientific consensus, and it's ridiculous to treat his work as an example of major error in mainstream science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka
Post #84 contains a good example.
No, as I just pointed out, it doesn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka
This article describes a radical shift in understanding in the field of geology, an overturning of the "consensus".
But geophysics in the early 20th century was still an extremely new science: when Wegener first proposed his theory of continental drift, geologists still weren't even sure to within a few orders of magnitude how old the Earth was. There's a reason that this is the standard, and only, major example that people trot out when they want to illustrate the idea of scientific consensus being wrong: it involves a field that was still struggling to establish its physical foundations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka
I don't know how old you were or where or when you went to school, but it's probable that you were taught about the "Big Bang Theory" as a child. I don't even claim to understand all the details of how it works, but I can see there is some doubt about the matter now.
Oh, for pity's sake, this is grasping at straws. As your own cite specifically states, current theory does still include the "hot Big Bang" model in which particles were formed in very dense and hot conditions and the universe began the expansion that still continues now. Research findings continue to confirm this model.

What's still quite uncertain, and what has been explicitly acknowledged as quite uncertain at least since I took a college cosmology course back in the mid-1980s, is the issue of what exactly produced the big bang, or so-called "pre-big-bang physics". The default hypothesis originally was the notion of an independent singularity, which has since been critiqued in favor of "bubble" or "bounce" models. But it has always been recognized that trying to model a situation where our basic laws of physics may not even apply is extremely speculative. Like geophysics at the turn of the 20th century, early universe cosmology today is still a nascent field establishing its scientific foundations. It doesn't have enough solid explanatory mechanisms to build a "consensus" on yet.

Trying to use such examples to bolster up hopes that modern climate science is somehow going to turn out to be fundamentally wrong about the whole notion of anthropogenic climate change is mere wishful thinking.
  #107  
Old 03-28-2019, 10:47 PM
snowthx's Avatar
snowthx is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sacratomato area
Posts: 3,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Sure.

This article describes a radical shift in understanding in the field of geology, an overturning of the "consensus".

I don't know how old you were or where or when you went to school, but it's probable that you were taught about the "Big Bang Theory" as a child. I don't even claim to understand all the details of how it works, but I can see there is some doubt about the matter now.
Thanks. I think it is always good to remember that science does not always have "answers", especially when new things are learned, and theories are debunked, or evolve. That's how science works. People keep looking to prove or disprove existing theories, and have their work reviewed by others in their fields. There is no real end-game in science, because knowledge (along with technology) keep opening new doors that were not open to prior generations.

The population thing was not necessarily wrong, reality turned-out different than what was predicted. I think it is safe to say we can produce enough food for everyone to eat, but somehow people are still starving around the world, so the problem isn't resolved as much as we would like. One could also make the argument that the warnings of the late 60s about population growth were heeded and countries implemented policy that averted the predicted catastrophe. Hard to prove a negative, tho.

WRT climate science - the broad consensus among experts is that rising CO2 is likely to cause disruption to the mostly stable climate we have enjoyed since the dawn of the modern age. Those disruptions are likely to cause unpredictable results, meaning human activity is likely to be disrupted. No one is saying anything is definite - lots of things are "likely". There is also a lot of evidence that the climate is changing and humans are causing it (thousands of years-old glaciers disappearing, for example). Science is not something you "believe" in. You accept what it tells you based on evidence and facts, and as the evidence and facts move you adjust your view. For a while now the evidence and facts indicate climate is changing, and it is not a hoax. It is a serious issue and demands serious consideration, not cray-cray ideas from politicians.
  #108  
Old 03-29-2019, 12:15 AM
NiceGuyJack is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 731
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Brace yourself for some disappointment. I like Senator Lee. I'd even say I'm delighted that he's my Senator. I am very likely to continue to vote for him, contribute to his re-election campaigns, and volunteer my time.
Brace yourself for some disappointment. He doesn't represent you.
He is bought. Oil & Gas industries have paid him $340,000 so far to represent them.
After that last presentation, I'm sure he'll be receiving another nice big check soon.
And by the way, it's not only Oil & Gas, he's been bought by several other industries as well. He's sold out to accounting firms like Deloitte, E&Y, PriceWaterhouseCooper etc. to the tune of $1.5M. They are certainly enjoying those lower tax rates.
You can check out who has bought him and his price here.
Unless you are actually one of those buying him to benefit what ever industry you represent, don't kid yourself, he does not care about you or your interests.
  #109  
Old 03-29-2019, 12:31 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
The scientific community's consensus in the late 60s didn't factor in the dwarf wheat championed by Borlaug, which was only starting to get going and show its worth. The models weren't wrong - population-wise they were somewhat correct as far as I can tell (although actual pop growth slowed down compared to the more alarmist moderls, as some Asian countries completed their industrial shift and of course China partly implemented population control). They just didn't factor in the sudden appearance of the agricultural equivalent of magitek.
Ironically enough, while Ehrlich was demonstrably wrong back in the 60s, he may be right now, as population keeps growing while food production seems to have plateau'd - and might even drop as the fishing industry dutifully continues killing itself.



But be that as it may, in this as with any error of modeling or prognostication of science ; the error was proven and/or a solution to problems put into light was put forward by :
A] religious people
B] other scientists
C] blathering politicians
D] having more children !
Well ?
As I understand it, Borlaug was a Lutheran [A], and a scientist [B], and we should all be grateful that his parents, Henry and Clara, had kids [D].
  #110  
Old 03-29-2019, 12:33 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by NiceGuyJack View Post
Brace yourself for some disappointment. He doesn't represent you. ...
I'm pretty confident I'm in a better position to determine that than you are.
  #111  
Old 03-29-2019, 12:38 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by snowthx View Post
Thanks. I think it is always good to remember that science does not always have "answers", especially when new things are learned, and theories are debunked, or evolve. That's how science works. People keep looking to prove or disprove existing theories, and have their work reviewed by others in their fields. There is no real end-game in science, because knowledge (along with technology) keep opening new doors that were not open to prior generations. ...
I agree (which is why "the science is settled" is such an annoying refrain).

Thanks for your polite and thoughtful response.
  #112  
Old 03-29-2019, 02:06 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm pretty confident I'm in a better position to determine that than you are.
Looking at the replies.. no.

And the next reply shows also how your position is not well supported:

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I agree (which is why "the science is settled" is such an annoying refrain).
Only that that was not really said by the scientists. The "logical" reply that contrarians make, that "science is not settled" is what many right wing sources then use against scientists and their supporters.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/settled-science.htm
Quote:
Skeptics often claim that the science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is not “settled”. But to the extent that this statement is true it is trivial, and to the extent that it is important it is false. No science is ever “settled”; science deals in probabilities, not certainties. When the probability of something approaches 100%, then we can regard the science, colloquially, as “settled”.

The skeptics say that results must be double-checked and uncertainties must be narrowed before any action should be taken. This sounds reasonable enough – but by the time scientific results are offered up to policymakers, they have already been checked and double-checked and quintuple-checked.

Scientists have been predicting AGW, with increasing confidence, for decades (indeed, the idea was first proposed in 1896). By the 1970s, the scientific community were becoming concerned that human activity was changing the climate, but were divided on whether this would cause a net warming or cooling. As science learned more about the climate system, a consensus gradually emerged. Many different lines of inquiry all converged on the IPCC’s 2007 conclusion that it is more than 90% certain that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing most of the observed global warming.
Quote:
In most aspects of our lives, we think it rational to make decisions based on incomplete information. We will take out insurance when there is even a slight probability that we will need it. Why should our planet’s climate be any different?

Last edited by GIGObuster; 03-29-2019 at 02:07 AM.
  #113  
Old 03-29-2019, 03:17 AM
Jack Batty's Avatar
Jack Batty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: The Astral Plane.
Posts: 15,242
If only the human race would have thought of reproducing before now, we probably wouldn't even have had any global warming in the first place!
  #114  
Old 03-29-2019, 05:48 AM
Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by snowthx View Post
Science is not something you "believe" in. You accept what it tells you based on evidence and facts, and as the evidence and facts move you adjust your view. For a while now the evidence and facts indicate climate is changing, and it is not a hoax. It is a serious issue and demands serious consideration, not cray-cray ideas from politicians.
Well, tell that to HurricaneDitka, who seems to mistakenly believe that Senator Lee's cray-cray ideas about ignorantly mocking discussion of climate change mitigation policies with silly dinosaur graphics constitute some kind of meaningful "argument".

Last edited by Kimstu; 03-29-2019 at 05:49 AM.
  #115  
Old 03-29-2019, 09:59 AM
snowthx's Avatar
snowthx is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sacratomato area
Posts: 3,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I agree (which is why "the science is settled" is such an annoying refrain).

Thanks for your polite and thoughtful response.
Correct, the science is not settled on climate change. However, the phenomena is broadly accepted as real by most of the people who study it (who also tend not to be politicians). I don't know why politicians think they know more than people who work in the field, and discard advice and info that is readily available from the smart people.

Even if the science is not "settled", there is no reason to put off discussing the issue and considering action - why are people behaving like ostriches? There are some Republicans who are interested in exploring the issue, but their caucus is weakening. IMHO it's important to have dialog and collect varying opinions on the subject from people who take it seriously and are prepared to act - a compromise somewhere between Lee and AOC extremes, but on one side if moderate conservatives keep losing elections we will lose some balance and the ability to actually do something (or at least talk about it).
  #116  
Old 03-29-2019, 10:04 AM
The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by snowthx View Post
Correct, the science is not settled on climate change. However, the phenomena is broadly accepted as real by most of the people who study it (who also tend not to be politicians). I don't know why politicians think they know more than people who work in the field, and discard advice and info that is readily available from the smart people.
Because in order to do something about it the businesses that own politicians would have to be regulated. Republicans can't say "yes there's a problem and we can mitigate it, but we're not going to do because our donors will stop writing cheques." so they pretend the problem doesn't exist.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #117  
Old 03-29-2019, 12:08 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm pretty confident I'm in a better position to determine that than you are.
Given that he gave you the cites he was referencing, you very well might be! But only if you read and seriously consider the merit of and implications of the cites.


So regarding the supposed uncertainty of the science, which supposedly justify Lee making an idiot of himself by showing insane pictures and making deranged "think of the children! As tools!" arguments, what parts of the science do you consider uncertain? That water levels are rising? That global average temperatures are rising? That the greenhouse effect is nonfictional? Are there any specific details about global warming that justify acting like a brain-damaged monkey in your official job capacity? Or is it more of a "some uncertainty probably exists somewhere maybe possibly, but we can't successfully argue that's true, so any nonsensical gibberish is on the table as long as it gets us (and our corporate overlords) the inaction we so richly desire" thing?

I mean, the dude didn't actually argue that global warming wasn't true. He just argued that doing something about it is stupid, because lack of reasons, while doing performance art to distract from that lack of reasons.
  #118  
Old 03-29-2019, 12:43 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
... I mean, the dude didn't actually argue that global warming wasn't true. He just argued that doing something about it is stupid, because lack of reasons, while doing performance art to distract from that lack of reasons.
He wasn't arguing that "doing something about it is stupid". He argued that doing this specific thing (the GND) is stupid. That was the overall point of his speech.
  #119  
Old 03-29-2019, 01:03 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
He wasn't arguing that "doing something about it is stupid". He argued that doing this specific thing (the GND) is stupid. That was the overall point of his speech.
Sure, but then he went on to say that "human flourishing" was the solution to climate change.
  #120  
Old 03-29-2019, 01:08 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
He wasn't arguing that "doing something about it is stupid". He argued that doing this specific thing (the GND) is stupid. That was the overall point of his speech.
And the alternative he provided was "don't do anything."


Okay, "don't do anything and fill your quiver".
  #121  
Old 03-29-2019, 01:08 PM
enipla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 14,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Sure, but then he went on to say that "human flourishing" was the solution to climate change.
"Earth can't kill all of us" Or something.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #122  
Old 03-29-2019, 01:16 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
He wasn't arguing that "doing something about it is stupid". He argued that doing this specific thing (the GND) is stupid. That was the overall point of his speech.
The point of the senator was still stupid. The plan is overreaching, and dealing with issues that are barely related to the main issue, but the main issue about dealing with climate change more aggressively, as we haven't been doing so far, is not stupid at all.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-c...green-new-deal
Quote:
Despite these reservations, Koomey and Pollin, as well as a number of other researchers I spoke with, said the drafters of the Green New Deal were perfectly right to urge large-scale action across many parts of the economy, and they emphasized the technological opportunities that now exist to meet many of the environmental goals that underpin the proposed legislation, if not the exact timetable it lays down. In a report released in October, which the Democratic resolution cites and endorses, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that if the world is to contain the rise in global temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius, carbon emissions must be reduced by about fifty per cent before 2030, and completely phased out before 2050. For a U.S. economy that currently relies on fossil fuels for about four-fifths of its energy, achieving zero emissions, or something close to it, by the middle of the century would be a historic transformation. And, according to all the researchers I spoke with, rapidly advancing technology and the falling costs of clean energy make this more achievable than ever.
  #123  
Old 03-29-2019, 01:16 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,771
I'm not sure which is more implausible:

1. A Republican promising that he will listen to scientists in another 30 or 40 years; or
2. A Republican promising that it's only going to be the tip, and just for a second.

Somehow Mike Lee has managed to converge this into some kind of meta lie. Bravo!
  #124  
Old 03-29-2019, 01:31 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I'm not sure which is more implausible:

1. A Republican promising that he will listen to scientists in another 30 or 40 years;
To be entirely fair to the corrupt dishonest moron, I believe the premise is that somebody's kid is going to invent a magic problem-solving gun which he will point at the problem and solve it, with his magic gun. The assumption isn't that the republicans will ever have to listen to science (horrors!), it's that a solution will manifest that doesn't involve them having to listen to science (or use less resources, or stop polluting); it will instead be something that will just magically work without relying on science, like televisions and computers and such.

Last edited by begbert2; 03-29-2019 at 01:31 PM. Reason: typo
  #125  
Old 03-29-2019, 01:42 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
To be entirely fair to the corrupt dishonest moron, I believe the premise is that somebody's kid is going to invent a magic problem-solving gun which he will point at the problem and solve it, with his magic gun. The assumption isn't that the republicans will ever have to listen to science (horrors!), it's that a solution will manifest that doesn't involve them having to listen to science (or use less resources, or stop polluting); it will instead be something that will just magically work without relying on science, like televisions and computers and such.
The really sad thing about it is that a lot of those "magical" solutions (that ignore also who will pay for for their deployment) involve listening to the very same scientists that those politicians are willfully ignoring right now.

I have noticed that particularly when geo engineering solutions are proposed, as climate experts will have to be consulted to investigate if they will work properly.
  #126  
Old 03-29-2019, 02:02 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 17,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
He wasn't arguing that "doing something about it is stupid". He argued that doing this specific thing (the GND) is stupid. That was the overall point of his speech.

Actually, he argued that the idiotic strawman he'd stamped with a "GND" post-it note was stupid. Which it was, but that has nothing to do with the actual GND. The GND doesn't propose banning air travel, or anything whatsoever for that matter.

I would also add that if your rebuttal to any proposed solution to any problem whatsoever is a mere "nuh-uh" or "it won't work" without providing any alternate solution, you're not helping and are, at best, an annoyance. Even "you missed a spot !" is more helpful than "your idea is dumb and you're dumb (PS get fucking)".
__________________
--- ---
I'm not sure how to respond to this, but that's never stopped me before.

Last edited by Kobal2; 03-29-2019 at 02:03 PM.
  #127  
Old 03-29-2019, 02:04 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 17,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by enipla View Post
"Earth can't kill all of us" Or something.

"Is that a fucking dare ?" - Earth, probably
__________________
--- ---
I'm not sure how to respond to this, but that's never stopped me before.
  #128  
Old 03-29-2019, 09:25 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Brace yourself for some disappointment. I like Senator Lee. I'd even say I'm delighted that he's my Senator. I am very likely to continue to vote for him, contribute to his re-election campaigns, and volunteer my time.
I am hardly disappointed. I am not even surprised. Given the clear lack of logic in his quoted opinion, your support for him appears to be consistent with your expressed views, here.
  #129  
Old 04-03-2019, 02:28 AM
NiceGuyJack is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 731
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm pretty confident I'm in a better position to determine that than you are.
You're right. I have no idea about your views on politics. If you have no problem with your senator being bought and do the bidding for those who buy him, then I stand corrected.

I'm including below a summary of Senator Mike Lee's voting record. I'm sure no one would agree on all positions of any elected representative, but if you are in agreement on most of these positions. I can only deduce you are a very wealthy, white evangelical person, owner, or more likely, a major share holder, of a large labor intensive business that happens to produce a good deal of toxic waste.
Or you are a life long conservative Republican who have not yet realized how corrupt the Republican party (and the Democratic party for that matter) has become.

Opposes
Taxing businesses
Taxing the middle class
Taxing the wealthy
Restricting money in politics
Disaster relief
Funding education
Environmental protection
Regulation of the financial sector
Gun control regulations
Public health
Foreign and humanitarian aid
Humane immigration policy
Unions, labor rights and minimum wages
LGBT rights
Internet neutrality
Poverty amelioration
Racial equality
Higher government spending

Supports
Big business
Military spending.
  #130  
Old 04-03-2019, 07:26 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by NiceGuyJack View Post
Opposes
Taxing businesses
Taxing the middle class
Taxing the wealthy
Restricting money in politics
Disaster relief
Funding education
Environmental protection
Regulation of the financial sector
Gun control regulations
Public health
Foreign and humanitarian aid
Humane immigration policy
Unions, labor rights and minimum wages
LGBT rights
Internet neutrality
Poverty amelioration
Racial equality
Higher government spending

Supports
Big business
Military spending.
How can anyone look at that list and then with a straight face say "Yep! He's my guy!" ?
  #131  
Old 04-03-2019, 07:52 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
How can anyone look at that list and then with a straight face say "Yep! He's my guy!" ?
Running against whom?
  #132  
Old 04-03-2019, 08:02 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,174
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Running against whom?
Presumably Cthulu.
  #133  
Old 04-03-2019, 08:12 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Presumably Cthulu.
Well, then, yeah, probably.
  #134  
Old 04-03-2019, 08:21 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,577
What if Cthulu is offering Medicare for all?

Last edited by manson1972; 04-03-2019 at 08:21 AM.
  #135  
Old 04-03-2019, 08:32 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
What if Cthulu is offering Medicare for all?
What, are we going to do the entire Frogurt Is Also Cursed routine?
  #136  
Old 04-03-2019, 08:54 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
What, are we going to do the entire Frogurt Is Also Cursed routine?
Nah, it was a one off. Plus I don't know what "Frogurt Is Also Cursed" means.
  #137  
Old 04-03-2019, 09:00 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
How can anyone look at that list and then with a straight face say "Yep! He's my guy!" ?
Yeah, it's not difficult. I want lower taxes and a generally-less-meddlesome federal government. So does Senator Lee.
  #138  
Old 04-03-2019, 09:01 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Nah, it was a one off. Plus I don't know what "Frogurt Is Also Cursed" means.
It’s a bit in THE SIMPSONS.

Quote:
Owner: Take this object, but beware it carries a terrible curse...
Homer: [worried] Ooooh, that's bad.
Owner: But it comes with a free Frogurt!
Homer: [relieved] That's good.
Owner: The Frogurt is also cursed.
Homer: [worried] That's bad.
Owner: But you get your choice of topping!
Homer: [relieved] That's good.
Owner: The toppings contains Potassium Benzoate.
[Homer stares, confused]
Owner: That's bad.
Homer: [worried] Can I go now?
Anyhow, I never meant to hijack this; the ‘Cthulu’ bit wasn’t mine; I honestly wanted to point out that I back a candidate by considering the alternative — and, yes, one can of course keep tweaking the alternative to get me to reconsider and reconsider.
  #139  
Old 04-03-2019, 09:03 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,174
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Yeah, it's not difficult. I want lower taxes and a generally-less-meddlesome federal government. So does Senator Lee.
It must be nice to not think much about politics.
  #140  
Old 04-03-2019, 09:04 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Yeah, it's not difficult. I want lower taxes and a generally-less-meddlesome federal government. So does Senator Lee.
Sure. I'm wondering how far your "I want lower taxes" goes. Say Senator Lee came to you and said "HurricanDitka, you won't have to pay ANY taxes next year, but we are completely disabling the SNAP program"

Would you be cool with that?
  #141  
Old 04-03-2019, 09:28 AM
The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Yeah, it's not difficult. I want lower taxes and a generally-less-meddlesome federal government. So does Senator Lee.
That's no reason to pretend he's not an idiot. Just admit that he's an idiot but you support him because you think he'll give you your way.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #142  
Old 04-03-2019, 09:29 AM
wguy123 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Sure. I'm wondering how far your "I want lower taxes" goes. Say Senator Lee came to you and said "HurricanDitka, you won't have to pay ANY taxes next year, but we are completely disabling the SNAP program"

Would you be cool with that?
I believe that is two big wins for HD.

And according to the Lee playbook, just have more babies and one of them will eventually solve the poverty issue along with climate change.
  #143  
Old 04-03-2019, 09:31 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Nm

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 04-03-2019 at 09:32 AM.
  #144  
Old 04-03-2019, 09:32 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Sure. I'm wondering how far your "I want lower taxes" goes. Say Senator Lee came to you and said "HurricanDitka, you won't have to pay ANY taxes next year, but we are completely disabling the SNAP program"

Would you be cool with that?
Yes
  #145  
Old 04-03-2019, 09:37 AM
The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,673
Is this because you think doing so would produce superior results, because you think anyone on assistance should have that assistance withdrawn in the name of punishment, or because lower taxes?
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #146  
Old 04-03-2019, 09:45 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tooth View Post
Is this because you think doing so would produce superior results, because you think anyone on assistance should have that assistance withdrawn in the name of punishment, or because lower taxes?
Mostly because of the "zero taxes" thing. I also don't think the federal government's responsibilities include welfare programs, and generally think the welfare programs, as they exist today, do a good job of incentivising the wrong things, so a bit of "superior results" too I guess. "Punishment" is not a factor or consideration.
  #147  
Old 04-03-2019, 09:52 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,174
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Yes
So let's just game out the possibilities here.

Do you not know that dismantling SNAP will cause a significant portion of the 42 million people who rely on it to go hungry, along with aggravating numerous other problems the program helps effectively fight?

Or do you not care, because lowering your taxes outweighs all of those benefits to recipients and society as a whole?

If the former: wow - I don't understand your insistence on commenting on politics on a political forum if you're so fundamentally ignorant of politics. It's not shameful to not know things, but you just flat-out said "yes", without any talk of "I'm not sure" or "I don't know much about SNAP", so I'm kind of at a loss. It would be a bit like me barging into a discussion on Touhou to vigorously dispute that Cirno is best girl*, and when pressed, responding with, "I actually don't know what Touhou is. It's some anime thing, right?"

If the latter: wow. Follow-up question - if you could legally sell your neighbors into slavery for a quick buck, would you?



*I don't know if Cirno is best girl. But I'm also not going to pretend I know all that much about Touhou other than that it very quickly gets a bit too hard for me.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 04-03-2019 at 09:54 AM.
  #148  
Old 04-03-2019, 10:04 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Yes
Well, thanks for answering honestly.
  #149  
Old 04-03-2019, 10:11 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,512
"We can't feed all these people, that would only create dependency."
  #150  
Old 04-03-2019, 11:17 AM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think there have been a good number of imagined crises throughout our history that have been resolved through improving technology. For example, in 1968 Paul Ehrlich published The Population Bomb which started with this terrifying prediction:

If you can't see echoes of that in the current global warming frenzy, and thus some merits to Senator Lee's argument, I don't know what else to tell you.


For the GND? Very.
There are some problems that arise and in the end can be solved by technology. But relying on that is foolish. For decades we've been trying to develop controlled fusion power, and to cure cancer. As it happens these problems turned out to be more difficult than originally thought. Not every problem necessarily has a technological solution. In order for a solution to be discovered that solution has to exist in the first place, and there is no guarantee that it does. As Scotty used to say “Ye cannae change the laws of physics”.

Using specific examples to say, here is a place where technology saved us, therefor we will be saved in this case (or alternatively here are examples where science was wrong and so it is wrong in this case), is like pointing a gun at your head and pulling the trigger under the assumption that since there are scads of examples of guns misfiring, you should be safe.

Last edited by Buck Godot; 04-03-2019 at 11:20 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:06 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017