'@ThorsomeTarmukas' 1) Climate change
The world is not warming, thou keep begging the question, using thy conclusion to support thy premise. A deviation means that the models can underestimate or overestimate the real problem. Try to listen to theeself for a moment. Either what we say is true or it is even worse. Yea no I call bullshit.
And thou art just trying to make linguistic warfare by calling me a “climate denier” I don’t deny anything but I am highly sceptical to people that have every reason to lie.
I know all about these linguistic tricks, I have been studying them. Take the word “Islamophobia” it is the kind of “the king of France is bald” kind of words. A phobia is an irrational fear, that the recipient recognises as irrational and handicapping. It is not a political conviction. There are legitimate and rational reason to be opposed to Islam.
By using such a word, one delegitimise ones opponent. Instead of engaging them in a rational discussion, one dismisses them as insane.
I don’t have a legitimate grievances, I am just in denial, that is what thou says, so there is no reason to consider my position.
But calling your opposition crazy doesn’t convince them, it only galvanises them. If thou hast no good argument, if thou hast to result to ad hominum attack, that’s proof that thy position is weak.
And then thou crank up the crazy one more notch by pointing to the “grand conspiracy” of the fossil fuel lobby. Coal and oil are very rich energy sources and their lobbies aren’t holding the alternative energy back. On the contrary it is heavily subsidised. If the state simply stood out of the way as I want, because as I said I am a minarchist, most of the alternative energy plans would disappear, as they simply aren’t profitable without state subsidies. So it is actually the opposite.
2) Consensus
“It’s not the people who vote that count. It’s the people who count the votes” Joseph Stalin
A close win can become an unanimous victory by simply purging everything that voted against him. Uncle Joe was good at that, which is why so many disappeared after he took over.
My point is that if only ye ignore dissenters ye can pretend that there is none. There are academic studies that are rather safe, I don’t think most care about theoretical physics one way or another, but climate is as I said highly politicized.
3) Tragedy of the commons
The idea behind that is that it is a special type of economic good that is riverble but nonexclusable.
Fish in the ocean is often quoted as an example. I don’t know what thou had in mind, pollution is always a local phenomenon. I told thee that “global warming” is a different category to pollution. This is another example of poisoning the well. Everyone knows pollution is bad, but CO2 emission is not pollution. It happens every time we breath, every time we fart. That was why I called thy global body the world fart police, I was taking thy ideas to the logical conclusion, and used inflammatory words, to make it more clear. I don’t like to hide my intentions behind academic jargon.
But for fish in the ocean the answer is clear, have sovereign sea zones and prevent foreign ships from entering. The tragedy of the commons is solved simply by removing everything from the commons and into the realm of private property.
4) Russian sanctions
I don’t think thou understand realpolitik and the principle of national sovereignty yet. Should we then not also put sanctions on America, for their war crimes and constant violation of other nations national borders?
The idea behind sanctions is that thou think that thou comes from a position of power. When I hear thy speak about this, I feel that thou see theeself as sort of like a schoolteacher that are trying to ensure that all of the children are playing nice. But I got a secret to share with thee: there are no teacher, there is only the kids.
No one have any authority over another, and there are no rules, only the rule of the jungle.
Should we have put sanctions on the Soviet union? What instead of the Sino-soviet split it had become the Sino-soviet union. What if the dollar had collapsed in the panic of 1980 and the USA had desolved. Then NATO desolved and Germany had been unified under the DDR, with France, Spain and Italy joining the Warsaw Pact.
Who then should put sanctions on whom? Alternative history is fun, it makes us consider what might have been.
Sanctions is a fundamental breach on the soverignity of other nationstates. It goes against the principles laid out in the Westphalia treaty of 1648, and it goes against the principles of free trade.
Free trade is about NOT putting obstacles in the way. We don’t want to galvanize our enemies, and there is an old saying that we should not poke the bear.
How well doth thou truly think Estonia would faire if we really allowed this to escalate to war?
Thou may not know that the petrodollar is failing, and that the world is on the brink of economic collapse. Thou may not even know what the petrodollar is, but it is the source of US power. The USA will not be able to survive its collapse, and even if it were somehow able to keep itself together it would be completely incapable of helping little far away Estonia. So I say again, it would not be wise to poke the bear. Having friendly relations with ones neighbors will make them much less likely to become hostile. It is never a good idea to bully a bully.
It is not thirty years since Estonia was part of Russia, and it might very well become a province again.
Realpolitik is not about right and wrong, it is about power, and respecting others sovereignty is the best guarantee that they will respect yours.
0
'@ThorsomeTarmukas' 1) Climate change
The world is not warming, thou keep begging the question, using thy conclusion to support thy premise. A deviation means that the models can underestimate or overestimate the real problem. Try to listen to theeself for a moment. Either what we say is true or it is even worse. Yea no I call bullshit.
And thou art just trying to make linguistic warfare by calling me a “climate denier” I don’t deny anything but I am highly sceptical to people that have every reason to lie.
I know all about these linguistic tricks, I have been studying them. Take the word “Islamophobia” it is the kind of “the king of France is bald” kind of words. A phobia is an irrational fear, that the recipient recognises as irrational and handicapping. It is not a political conviction. There are legitimate and rational reason to be opposed to Islam.
By using such a word, one delegitimise ones opponent. Instead of engaging them in a rational discussion, one dismisses them as insane.
I don’t have a legitimate grievances, I am just in denial, that is what thou says, so there is no reason to consider my position.
But calling your opposition crazy doesn’t convince them, it only galvanises them. If thou hast no good argument, if thou hast to result to ad hominum attack, that’s proof that thy position is weak.
And then thou crank up the crazy one more notch by pointing to the “grand conspiracy” of the fossil fuel lobby. Coal and oil are very rich energy sources and their lobbies aren’t holding the alternative energy back. On the contrary it is heavily subsidised. If the state simply stood out of the way as I want, because as I said I am a minarchist, most of the alternative energy plans would disappear, as they simply aren’t profitable without state subsidies. So it is actually the opposite.
2) Consensus
“It’s not the people who vote that count. It’s the people who count the votes” Joseph Stalin
A close win can become an unanimous victory by simply purging everything that voted against him. Uncle Joe was good at that, which is why so many disappeared after he took over.
My point is that if only ye ignore dissenters ye can pretend that there is none. There are academic studies that are rather safe, I don’t think most care about theoretical physics one way or another, but climate is as I said highly politicized.
3) Tragedy of the commons
The idea behind that is that it is a special type of economic good that is riverble but nonexclusable.
Fish in the ocean is often quoted as an example. I don’t know what thou had in mind, pollution is always a local phenomenon. I told thee that “global warming” is a different category to pollution. This is another example of poisoning the well. Everyone knows pollution is bad, but CO2 emission is not pollution. It happens every time we breath, every time we fart. That was why I called thy global body the world fart police, I was taking thy ideas to the logical conclusion, and used inflammatory words, to make it more clear. I don’t like to hide my intentions behind academic jargon.
But for fish in the ocean the answer is clear, have sovereign sea zones and prevent foreign ships from entering. The tragedy of the commons is solved simply by removing everything from the commons and into the realm of private property.
4) Russian sanctions
I don’t think thou understand realpolitik and the principle of national sovereignty yet. Should we then not also put sanctions on America, for their war crimes and constant violation of other nations national borders?
The idea behind sanctions is that thou think that thou comes from a position of power. When I hear thy speak about this, I feel that thou see theeself as sort of like a schoolteacher that are trying to ensure that all of the children are playing nice. But I got a secret to share with thee: there are no teacher, there is only the kids.
No one have any authority over another, and there are no rules, only the rule of the jungle.
Should we have put sanctions on the Soviet union? What instead of the Sino-soviet split it had become the Sino-soviet union. What if the dollar had collapsed in the panic of 1980 and the USA had desolved. Then NATO desolved and Germany had been unified under the DDR, with France, Spain and Italy joining the Warsaw Pact.
Who then should put sanctions on whom? Alternative history is fun, it makes us consider what might have been.
Sanctions is a fundamental breach on the soverignity of other nationstates. It goes against the principles laid out in the Westphalia treaty of 1648, and it goes against the principles of free trade.
Free trade is about NOT putting obstacles in the way. We don’t want to galvanize our enemies, and there is an old saying that we should not poke the bear.
How well doth thou truly think Estonia would faire if we really allowed this to escalate to war?
Thou may not know that the petrodollar is failing, and that the world is on the brink of economic collapse. Thou may not even know what the petrodollar is, but it is the source of US power. The USA will not be able to survive its collapse, and even if it were somehow able to keep itself together it would be completely incapable of helping little far away Estonia. So I say again, it would not be wise to poke the bear. Having friendly relations with ones neighbors will make them much less likely to become hostile. It is never a good idea to bully a bully.
It is not thirty years since Estonia was part of Russia, and it might very well become a province again.
Realpolitik is not about right and wrong, it is about power, and respecting others sovereignty is the best guarantee that they will respect yours.