(post snipped)
“there are scientists that talked about the possibility” != “well within the error bars of future climate modeling.” Agreed?
Despite the fact that this post is an array of Straw Men, I will still try to address it nonetheless:
As for the “liberals say all speech should be permitted except hate speech and shouting fire in a theater” – the problem is that “hate speech” has become an ad hoc, extremely broad, cover-all blanket term ripe for abuse. Indeed, some people define “hate speech” these days as “speech I don’t like.” Take the recent Evergreen State College flap, for instance. Students demanded that white people leave campus for a day. A white professor refused to do so, since the demand was, arguably, racist. As a result of his refusal to comply with a racist demand, the professor was dubbed a racist and 50 other faculty demanded that he be punished.
Winston Churchill once said something very relevant: “Some people’s idea of free speech is that they are free to say whatever they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage.”
As for the “Conservatives say that any spending other than military spending is Communism” – nope. Name me a significant number of conservatives who say that America shouldn’t spend any governmental money on airports, law enforcement, firefighting, etc.
I would also add that the numerous Straw Men put forth in this thread are a perfect example of, “Why (America) has turned into bitter political enemies.” You cannot put forth Straw Men and then expect that an opponent agree with you, any more than you would agree with your opponent’s Straw Men.
I was writing a response to your long earlier post, but I’ve gotten sidetracked from that, and wanted to respond briefly to this:
There’s a very good reason that the Constitution requires treaties be ratified by a super-majority of the Senate. It’s so that before the US commits itself to some action on the international stage, we ensure that there’s broad-based and durable domestic support for that action, so that it won’t be undone next election and we won’t look schizophrenic and our allies won’t be left confused and unsure if the US is really committed to a course or action.
Obama short-circuited that process and committed us to an action that did not have a broad-based and durable base of support in this country. Do you, at least now, understand why that was not a good idea?
I could manage it, but I don’t see the point. Earlier in this thread, you posted this:
Did you consider the possibility that people might see you as one of those who “love to tell you what other people think and what their motives are, and it is always the worst possible answer”? Because that’s exactly how I see you. As far as I’m concerned, your posts in this thread offer a case study in hypocrisy, and I can’t imagine many more useless ways to spend my time than trying to carry on a discussion with someone like that.
I guess this is how the republicans try to strike a different tone in Washington. :rolleyes:
All right, I’ll give it a go, in good faith.
Climate Change:
Left: Human caused climate change is a scientifically proven phenomenon that needs to be addressed before it causes untold cost and human suffering.
Right: Climate change is most likely a politically motivated hoax, but in the event that it’s not, we have to address it in a way that doesn’t hamstring the economy.
Guns:
Left: The freedom of unrestricted gun ownership is not worth the loss of life
Right: Gun ownership is critical to prevent the loss of life in the case of home invasions, terrorism, or government tyranny.
Gay Marriage:
Left: Gays should have the same rights as straights when it comes to marriage.
Right: States should be entitled to make decisions about what constitutes legal marriage.
Equality:
Left: All people deserve to be treated equally regardless of race, nationality, sex, gender, religion
Right: People are pretty much already treated equally because America is the goddamn best. Wanting to change any laws at this point is asking for special rights that don’t apply to all citizens.
**
Free Speec**h:
Left: All speech should be protected except for hate speech or yelling “fire” in a crowded room.
Right: I should be able to express my controversial views without being villainized as a bad person. I apparently don’t realize this has nothing to do with free speech.
(Sorry, I’ve never seen any alternative expressed.)
Foreign Policy:
Left: We need to work with our allies and other nations.
Right: We need to show that we are decisive and will not back down or other nations will perceive us as vulnerable and will undermine our security.
Government Spending:
Left: The resources of government should go towards building infrastructure and improving the lives of it’s citizens through education, health care and social safety nets.
Right: The government is not equipped to take care of people. By privatizing many basic services, competition will naturally result in people being served more effectively.
Economics:
Left: The role of government is to curtain corporate excess and, when necessary, provide a safety net to support the economy.
Right: Government safety nets make it more difficult for people to achieve the dignity of real independence, and encourage irresponsibility and the deterioration of the family unit. Furthermore, these safety nets de-emphasize the critical role of private enterprise in keeping citizens financially secure.
Conservatives: How’d I do?
It should be noted I’m attempting to present the best-faith perspective, which doesn’t mean I don’t have huge problems with some of those arguments. But let’s try to look at them for what they are, not what it’s more convenient for us to believe that they are.
You like saying straw men but that doesn’t mean you know a straw man when you see one.
When the Paris Agreement was adopted in December 2015, the Democrats controlled the Senate, yet then President Obama didn’t even submit it to the Senate.
AFAIU, it is within the error bars; but, as I pointed before, those worse high scenarios are as likely as the ones the lukewarmers and climate change deniers are harping about.
Point being that it is more likely than not that Trump and buddies are wrong, the point stands that generally speaking, Trump and many climate deniers ignore the worse warming scenarios (that are as likely as the best low ones) together with the more likely ones (that are still looking as bad).
Not making a concerted effort to reduce emissions is indeed really reckless and wrong.
GIGO,
Your broader point, that, “hey, it’s going to cause problems we should try to mitigate them”, is a perfectly reasonable position, and probably a great topic of discussion for another thread. But, I’ve got to ask WTF are you talking about here:
Within the error bars of WHAT?!? A book, written by a guy that reasonable people think is a crank? How does a book have ‘error bars’? k9bfriender’s original claim was “The kill us all, and the kill nearly all of us are well within the error bars of future climate modeling.” My simple question was: which ‘model(s)’?
If you don’t know, that’s fine, and if someone has an actual answer to this question, I’d love to see it, but it’s starting to look like k9bfriender was just wrong on this claim.
It was not a treaty. BTW while I can say that there is controversy about it, because it was named an agreement officially Obama then did not consider it a treaty. So that is one reason why Obama did not sent it to the senate. The point here is however that you are not even wrong. 
You are forgetting that the scientists at Realclimate made the point that anyhow while there is a low possibility that catastrophic scenarios like the ones Lovelock posted, they however do point that the possibility (while unlikely) is still there.
So, while the most likely scenarios tell us to take care of the issue anyhow (and again, Trump is a cad) knowing that the worst scenarios are unlikely still have a chance to come then it has to be added to the idea that taking them into account is a part of a perfectly reasonable position.
Why is it that when a president that you hate exercises legitimate executive authority, he is “short-circuiting” things? :rolleyes: The reality is that the Paris accord concluded in December, 2015, with a broad consensus on the terms. Then on April 22, 2016, at UN headquarters in New York, 175 nations signed on to the agreement, about 15 depositing instruments of ratification and all the remainder – including the US – signing on subject to ratification, according to law. In the case of the US, signed by John Kerry on behalf of the US.
Try to get your facts straight. How the hell do you conclude that Obama “short-circuited” anything? He followed the letter of the law and procedure and his executive authority. Since then, as I noted, the majority of the signatories, and hence the majority of the world’s nations, have ratified. The US alone has pulled out totally, by decree of your favorite president. And yes, it would take a Democratic senate to ratify the same agreement that the rest of the world is embracing, because Republicans sure as hell won’t do it. The current bunch of climate denialists wouldn’t consider anything even remotely related to emissions mitigation.
Do try to see the facts in some kind of rational perspective. The US is an outlier, plain and simple, in adopting a policy of climate change denial that flies in the face of all scientific evidence, and an outright rogue state in now recklessly declaring policies of accelerated fossil fuel use.
Well, the USA is not alone, the USA joins Syria and Nicaragua at the Legion of Doom…
… Of course this is more pathetic than the coalition of the willing that Bush the lesser put together for the Iraq invasion.
Nicaragua actually did not sign because they believed the Agreement was not good enough, and Syria could not come to sign as it had been declared a pariah nation because of how Assad was/is treating its citizens.
My try at it:
Climate Change:
Left: Human caused climate change is a scientifically proven phenomenon that needs to be addressed before it causes untold cost and human suffering.
Right: Either man-made climate change is not sufficiently scientifically proven yet, or the proposed remedy is too economically costly, or is done in a way that is unfair (for instance, developing countries are “permitted” to pollute more than developed countries)
Guns:
Left: Fewer guns = fewer gun deaths.
Right: The Constitution is the Constitution, so even if there were fewer gun deaths, you can’t just abolish gun ownership without first doing away with the 2nd Amendment. Also, if bad guys have guns and good guys don’t, that’s an undesirable mismatch.
Gay Marriage:
Left: Gays should have the same rights as straights when it comes to marriage.
Right: A variety of motives on this issue: Many religious conservatives believe that gay marriage is immoral perversion and so want to keep America as closely aligned with their religious views as possible. Some other conservatives think that gay marriage opens up the door to polygamy, incest, etc. Also, to some religious conservatives, having to provide a cake for a gay wedding is as religiously unacceptable to them as a Muslim having to handle or eat pork.
Equality (possibly the thorniest issue of all):
Left: Equal results/outcomes. People should be treated as if they are still unequal, and need “leveling” (i.e., minorities should be given affirmative action in a way that white people don’t get, etc.) In speech/entertainment, sometimes known as “punching up vs. punching down.” It is OK to punch up, but not OK to punch down. So, for instance, it is more acceptable for a black comedian to make fun of white people than vis versa.
Right: Equal treatment/opportunity. People should be treated as if they are already equal, and do not need “leveling.” Giving different people the same opportunity means that there will be different outcomes, because everyone is different (you can give two high school students each an opportunity to try out for the football team, but if one is fit, athletic, strong, and fast, and the other is slow, unhealthy, and weak, then one obviously stands a better chance of making the roster than the other.) Also, “punching up” should not be permissible any more than “punching down” – it should be about equal treatment, regardless of background. It should be considered equally wrong for a black comedian to make fun of white people as it would have been the other way around.
Free Speech:
Left: Speech should not be permitted if it is offensive to certain groups of people, or leads society down a bad direction. (There is a wide range of latitude in the liberal camp on this topic. Some are closely aligned with conservatives and favor broad free speech. But some others think that even factually true speech can be considered offensive, if offensive.)
Right: Speech should not be permitted if it has a very harmful effect on society, but with greater latitude than the liberal view (i.e., leaking classified secrets should be illegal, and same for defamatory libel/slander, but offensive-but-true speech should be permitted, even if rude.) Society would be better if people were allowed to openly discuss what is truly in their hearts, and not get judged for it, so as to get the thoughts off of their chest, rather than being forced to suppress their feelings inwardly. “Political correctness” means not being allowed to say that the emperor’s new clothes are not, in fact, clothes. It is getting near the point of saying that “flame-retardant material” is offensive because it uses the word “retard.”
Foreign Policy:
Left: The United States is but one country out of nearly 200, and we need to be a responsible and considerate member of the international community. Also, military force should only be used when all peaceful alternatives have first been exhausted. Foreign assistance can be a “stitch in time that prevents nine,” helping to prevent further problems later on down the road (i.e., US monetary assistance to Egypt and Pakistan.) Israel needs to be kept more at arm’s length than it is right now. Enemies are often misunderstood, and open to reason/negotiation.
Right: A combination hodgepodge of beliefs, ranging from isolationism to neocon interventionism – “America first,” “Appeasement doesn’t work; look at Neville Chamberlain” – “America needs to side with small allies against big foes (i.e., NATO Baltics against Russia, Taiwan/ASEAN states against China, Israel vs. Arab states) etc.” Tend to see the world more in terms of good guys vs. bad guys. America should not be naïve and needs to be vigilant against threats.
Government Spending:
Left: The resources of government should go towards building infrastructure and improving the lives of its citizens through education, health care and social safety nets. If one must err, it is better to err on the side of helping people who don’t deserve the help. And why does America spend more on its military every year than the rest of the world combined?
Right: A lot of governmental spending is good and necessary, but some (but not most or all) governmental spending is often wasteful, or has a perverse effect, backfiring rather than achieving its intended purpose. Afraid of people milking the system fraudulently for aid dollars that they don’t deserve (i.e., the $60 billion in Medicare/Medicaid fraud that happens annually).
Economics:
Left: The role of government is to curtain corporate excess and, when necessary, provide a safety net to support the economy. Socialism is misunderstood, and not the bogeyman it is made out to be. The Scandinavian countries, and Iceland, are prosperous today, and quite left-wing quasi-socialist.
Right: If a safety net is too strong (i.e., an extraordinarily generous universal income or welfare), it can give people incentive not to work. Economic systems such as socialism and communism have failed time and time again because they misunderstand human nature, as modern-day Venezuela and 1960s communist China demonstrates. Humans are not naturally selfless. Rather, because humans are motivated by self-interest, you must use an economic system that jibes with that human nature, and that is why by and large, capitalism, for all of its flaws, still usually works better than communism.
I’ll just address the “liberal” stuff that I think is particularly false:
This isn’t it at all. I think liberals (including this one) believe there are still profound inequalities in society, but this has nothing to with whether people are or are not equal or unequal – they should be treated equally by society and law, and in some cases mechanisms like affirmative action are necessary to try to rectify unequal treatment.
So not equal results/outcomes, but equal treatment. AA is necessary in the present to make up for unequal treatment.
I know of very, very few liberals who want to outlaw any speech because it’s offensive. The fact that many liberals harshly criticize offensive speech has nothing to do with believing it should not be permitted by law.
Yes, because what Trump actually said was factual nonsense. NATO members do not owe money to the US. NATO is not like Trump’s golf club, it’s a group of equal members.
The only way that Trump’s statement can be traced back to reality to make any sense is as a reminder to the NATO members to try and reach their voluntary goal of reaching the expenditure of 2% GDP for defense.
Now, Trump might want this to be spent by buying US Hardware. But that’s not what the other NATO members think. Defense spending can also mean paying soldiers better, or better benefits for veterans. It can mean no military hardware at all, but cyber security against hacking (like from Russia).
So no matter what Trump said, NATO members are not going to hand over large sums of money to the US for defense.
You don’t need to put the blame on Obama: many presidents, including Bushes, have done that. It’s not the fact that Obama didn’t bring the treaty to the Senate that makes the US look bad.
It’s that your system allows a POTUS who has an opposition party majority in the legislative, yet is sent to treaty negotiations on behalf of the US.
Other countries use the model of negotiations for treaty that the person(s) coming to the table - whether diplomats, Foreign Minister or head of state - are empowered by their country and its representatives to make the deal and make it stick, and since the talks go on for weeks or months, that there will be checking back with Headquarters at home to make sure that the agreement is acceptable to the majority of the population.
Only the US does it different: it sends the President, concessions are made, the President signs - and then the treaty is not passed, not because the Senate has factual points or wants a different concession, but because the Senate is deliberatly obstructing everything done by a Democrat president.
The will of the population (as shown by polls) overwhelming in favour of keeping the Paris Agreement was ignored when Trump pulled out.
Oh, that doesn’t matter. On page 2 or 3 of this thread, one poster used hyperbole and said that climate change would lead to extinction, so therefore obviously all people arguing in favour of stopping climate change believe that extreme hyperbole. HD has already said it’s our fault for not immediately denouncing that view, so we must share it. (Never mind HD for not denouncing, but ignoring, the extremeist viewpoints of Republican politicans or Trump…)