This is the worst kind of thinking. 'The poor don't get justice so I'll make sure the rich don't get it either! Then we'll all be equal!' Equally fucked. Such an great thing to which to aspire. Equality is not the sacred thing you seem to think it is. To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, it is better to have a higher standard of living for the majority in a society with a high disparity than it is to have a lower standard of living for the majority in a society of greater equality.
I don't think you understand how whitehats think. They think they are talented superhero vigilante crime fighters. I've known a few in my time, and they are frequently the kind of Eagle Scout archetype of a neighborhood watch captain. They have no real official power, but they get off on being "the good guys" and will turn in anybody for anything. It's a terrible combination of boredom, a modicum of skill, and an underdeveloped legalist sense of ethics.
At the same time, blackhats like GhostExodus are pathetic in the opposite dimension. They egotrip on being able to put a live CD into a Windows box to haxx0r its security like that's so hard. As far as I'm concerned the white vs. black drama can keep going as long as they want. Meanwhile the vast majority of grays will mind their own business, neither snitching nor bragging. Both are stupid unless you have a really good reason.
I have done enough lecturing in this topic. If you're actually interested you can start with the Xinhai Revolution, Warlord Era (which includes so many wars and 'revolutions' it's not even funny), and of course the Chinese Civil War itself. Recommended reading would include Stilwell and the American Experience in China, 1911-45 and China in Disintegration.
Whoever said people were one dimensional? You think just because I can point to history and show patterns of behavior in a culture that means I believe them to be one dimensional? The Chinese are far from it. While not free from the xenophobia that typifies East Asian cultural norms, China is nonetheless one of the most historically pluralistic and syncretic of the East Asian cultures. They have been forced to it by their size, and while the Chinese have often persecuted their religious and ethnic minorities, they have just as often come to terms with them, which is why there are still so many Zhuang and Hui and what-have-you.
Of course there are exceptions in Chinese society, there are in any society, but that doesn't make anything different, least of all history. Individuals might make headlines and be commemorated by monuments and biographies etc. and they may be catalysts, but unless a significant portion of a society's population is ready to follow (based on cultural norms and environmental concerns), even a genius can be dismissed as a madman and the most noble person decried as subversive.
You can't study billions of individuals as individuals. What each person's favorite food or color or music is has no relevance to history individually. Only in the aggregate can a culture and society be somewhat understood, and only the most important and influencial outliers are given individual attention.
I agree history has a place in the pursuit of knowledge, but its no tool for extrapolating future behavior.
If you've actually read any of the various Chinese historical accounts (which I doubt), you'll see the writers excoriating the emperors that executed scholars and tried to influence the writing of the histories.
The scholarly class negatively perceived maltreatment of the scholarly class? Holy shit! That's a revelation. Sarcasm aside, if all the great academics were summarily executed and all the great books burned in America, the people would rise up against that authority which perpetrated it. That did not happen in Qin society, so how can you say it was as great or greater an outrage? Either the Chinese people were/are thus more deficient in character, or their social values and priorities are different. I suggest it is the latter, and you simply don't understand Chinese society. When the purge of scholars happened it was not, albeit, a Confucian movement (that was a Han Dynasty reaction to the legacy of the aforementioned events which perpetuated itself through successive frameworks), but a Legalist one. Have you ever asked yourself why the Chinese submitted to Qin Shi Huang? To legalism? Do you have any frame of reference for what life was like before the Legalist reforms in the various states of the Zhongguo? Legalism was at its heart an anti-feudal, anti-corruption philosophy. It removed hereditary power from all but the king/hegemon (later emperor) and created a reliable framework for justice and the smooth operation of the state and its society. When Qin was overthrown it was combined with the fulfillment of the strongest of the remaining schools, Confucianism and Taoism, to form the bedrock of Chinese society and perspective. Anyway, Legalism was not tossed into Chinese society overnight, there was a century of reform throughout the Zhongguo whereupon many states adopted Legalism to varying degrees. When Qin finally conquered all the states much of the foundation was already laid. Although Legalism eliminated the outright political power of the remnants of the Zhou aristocracy, it was naturally rigid and did not include the somewhat bilateral moral obligations that would later characterize Confucian social order. The king/emperor then had absolute authority and no moral obligations about how to use it. When Qin Shi Huang killed the scholars, there was no immediate, significant response. People knew better than to stand up in a Legalist state.
The recent events in the middle east kind of show how wrong you are when you claim a people are incapable of democracy.
You're quite the idealist. In case you weren't paying attention, Egypt and Tunisia were both already 'democracies' before their recent revolutions. I wouldn't be too quick to judge their latest democratic reforms successful until they demonstrate they have rid themselves of the precedent of democracy in name only. I have a feeling that as soon as the next election is over, whichever political group has the new majority will be back in the business of suppressing minority political groups and speech immediately, and it will be status quo ante.
The KMT could have easily won the Chinese Civil War.
So? Did you miss the part about how the KMT was as much an authoritarian party as the CCP? Do you know anything about the White Terror in Taiwan?
The Chinese people have always formed resistance groups to autocracies when the abuses grew out of hand.
Where was this theoretical resistance during the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution? Pfff.
Contrawise, they tend to accept autocracies when they benefit the people.
They have, literally, always accepted autocracy. Even Chinese revolts were led by strongmen and warlords, always to the effect of installing a new hierarchical, top-down, autocratic system (which even the KMT created, names notwithstanding).
That's why the Communist party in China right now is actually quite popular with the
Yes, and it only took 40 years of martial law and 140,000 political prisoners in Taiwan alone. Don't get me wrong, the ROC has achieved a lot since the Chinese Civil War, but development in the first few decades was achieved at a terrible cost. When the DPP and the Pan-Greens finally achieved real democracy, they pissed it away with petty corruption and cronyism right out of the gate with Chen Shui Bian's administration. This was doubly disappointing because it has tainted the intent of the whole pro-independence movement.
ROC could end up handing itself over considering all the secret negotiations that 'one China' KMT party members keep having with PRC representatives. And as relatively successful as the SAR system has been in HK, I don't know if PRC can apply it to Taiwan without significant losses for Taiwan's society. It's such a different scale, and unless the US plays the same sort of part for Taiwan that the UK did with HK, there simply won't be enough leverage for KMT to make any good arrangement.
Think the US would start a nuclear conflict over an island?
China was a nuclear power during the Vietnam War, why no nukes then, eh? Developed nuclear powers, including China, have a lot more restraint than you probably want to admit to yourself. The United States has proven several times already that, nuclear weapons or no, it is not afraid to get into a proxy war with China. There is even an official DoD plan for US military assistance to ROC/Taiwan: OPlan 5077-04. Whether or not the DoD follows through is up to the political climate at that time and the personality and priorities of the C-in-C.
Korea is not a one dimensional subject, especially for the Chinese. Chinese and Koreans are very close to each other culturally and have been allies several times against Japan. North Korea is a burden to the PRC, not nearly enough of a puppet for the CCP's liking, and quite frankly I think it's a more likely scenario that when DPRK implodes, China will swoop in and use the excuse of reinstating order to make North Korea a protectorate. It will probably be a lot smoother overall than their western AR's.
China would have to suffer a massive economic setback before it would consider starting World War 3. Right now China is about business, and as much as everybody wants to navel gaze and imagine the US is so, so important, much of China's trade is closer to home. The economic and political fallout of striking against all the local partners it has would be immense, and the whole endeavor would be foolish. The Chinese are too wise to do it.
You're conflating collectivism with autocracy. Dynastic China (which, CCP brainwashing regardless, is still the foundation of Chinese culture) was rarely collectivistic. Wang Mang tried that and was killed for it. China has always been autocratic, which is why its flirtation with democracy in the first half of the 20th century was doomed to failure (even Chinese of the period could see it coming, like Dr. Lin Yutang).
Even after the ROC was consolidated after the warlord years and more-or-less stabilized after the evacuation to Taiwan, it was as democratic as any single party 3rd world country could be for another few decades, which is to say practically not at all. The ROC demonstrates that in order for the Chinese to ever actually achieve democracy, they'll first have to pretend to be democratic for several generations. (A perspective which I think is borne out by analogues in Hong Kong and Singapore.)
People don't understand how at a very, very deep level the whole of Chinese society is used to this as normal. From the burning books and burying scholars of the Qin dynasty and the destruction of the hundred schools of thought through to the literary purges of the Qing, censorship by no less than immediate death was completely normal in dynastic China. Qianlong was held in high regard by many as a model Confucian emperor even though he killed many in literary purges. Even in the republic, both before and after the Chinese Civil war there was brutal quashing of dissent by the KMT including many executions, and I don't even need to talk about the PRC's heinous history.
It's hard to explain to Westerner who have not studied Chinese history that to the average Chinese adult, public dissenters are perceived not as underdog heroes but as people who are abnormal bordering on insane. There is a reason why the CCP is always going on about 'harmony'. It is a direct appeal to Confucian ideals of social harmony and balance between the people and state which is achieved essentially without resorting to dissent but rather through long suffering.
Chinese history is full of them though. From the overthrow of the Shang for the Zhou all the way to the establishment of the great Ming (even the Ming/Qing transition could be considered a revolution as much as an occupation considering how weak and ineffective the Ming were at that time and the significant complicity of Hans with the Qing especially in the North) there were many dynastic 'revolutions' and then of course the establishment of the RoC and the PRC that supplanted it.
Revolution in China is fairly common historically, it's just bloody as hell. Over 3 million died in the Chinese Civil War.
Honestly it's the only reason I still use Firefox. Not for private browsing necessarily (I'm a very socially sex positive person, and luckily so is my wife) since I have long since given up living in denial or shame (try it, it's great). I use Chrome for everything but pr0n, but Firefox has so many extensions for downloading galleries and flash videos that Chrome's design precludes that I can't let it go. However if Chrome ever supports DownloadHelper or similar with full functionality, I'll gladly dump ol' Firefox.
(I know there are several download managers for Chrome that *claim* to have similar features, but they don't work as advertised.)
Considering that many aerial engagements are now done sight-unseen by radar only, IFF is really important, doubly so in a no-fly zone. These are not particularly stealthy aircraft involved here either.
This just shows how ignorant you are of the business world outside of the US. Do you know how many companies in China will hire practically any white guy with a pulse just so they can have status? I don't have time to explain guanxi to you, whole books have been written about that, but despite cultural xenophobia (which people like you should identify with), Asians are practical business people and they will hire whomever will advance the bottom line.
Christian theology already admits this. That's the whole concept of original sin. Every human being is condemned for the supposed sins of Adam & Eve. Only when invisible sky dad sacrificed himself to himself was a loophole created. It makes complete sense! It's turtles all the way down!
the Bible also has nothing against lesbians, only gay males...
Paul disagrees in Romans:
1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature :
1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection , implacable, unmerciful:
1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death , not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
There are preclusions to both ends of the spectrum. Too thin and not only are the effects negligible on radiation and pressure but also the 'shell' would melt in hours to days. Too thick and not only would lack of radiation and too high pressure impede/destroy life, but the sheer amount of water would effectively destroy the earth. There is no middle ground, not to mention that it's still complete nonsense that such a thing could ever exist in earth's gravitational field structurally. There is no strength to this Biblical fantasy, only weakness.
As for respiration, as the other reply already noted, higher pressure is not the only way of achieving a conducive environment. Simply raising the oxygen concentration vs. nitrogen in the atmosphere would be sufficient. It's quite possible if the metabolisms of plant life in that period ran a little faster, and/or if there was more vegetation density. Occam's Razor would suggest that minor differences in the metabolism or density of plant populations is far, far more likely than an impossible fantasy ice bubble from nowhere.
Did you even watch the video? Whether or not the ice could be magnetic is not only cart before the horse but completely irrelevant. Did you understand that the sheer amount of solar radiation hitting the earth at those lattitudes would rapidly melt the ice, and that if there was enough ice to last any appreciable time it would blot out the sun and everything would die? That if there were any significant pressure difference the collapse of the 'shell' would cause all animal life to explode (just like deep sea creatures do when they are brought to the surface)? How willfully blind are you?
Yes, it's too bad that even a rudimentary understanding of physics and gravity makes the whole thing impossible. The Bible is not a credible source of information for physics.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the worst kind of thinking. 'The poor don't get justice so I'll make sure the rich don't get it either! Then we'll all be equal!' Equally fucked. Such an great thing to which to aspire. Equality is not the sacred thing you seem to think it is. To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, it is better to have a higher standard of living for the majority in a society with a high disparity than it is to have a lower standard of living for the majority in a society of greater equality.
Exactly. As Cullen Hightower said: "There's always somebody who is paid too much, and taxed too little - and it's always somebody else."
I always ask people, at what magical number does 'theft' become 'economic justice'?
I don't think you understand how whitehats think. They think they are talented superhero vigilante crime fighters. I've known a few in my time, and they are frequently the kind of Eagle Scout archetype of a neighborhood watch captain. They have no real official power, but they get off on being "the good guys" and will turn in anybody for anything. It's a terrible combination of boredom, a modicum of skill, and an underdeveloped legalist sense of ethics.
At the same time, blackhats like GhostExodus are pathetic in the opposite dimension. They egotrip on being able to put a live CD into a Windows box to haxx0r its security like that's so hard. As far as I'm concerned the white vs. black drama can keep going as long as they want. Meanwhile the vast majority of grays will mind their own business, neither snitching nor bragging. Both are stupid unless you have a really good reason.
I have done enough lecturing in this topic. If you're actually interested you can start with the Xinhai Revolution, Warlord Era (which includes so many wars and 'revolutions' it's not even funny), and of course the Chinese Civil War itself. Recommended reading would include Stilwell and the American Experience in China, 1911-45 and China in Disintegration.
Of course there are exceptions in Chinese society, there are in any society, but that doesn't make anything different, least of all history. Individuals might make headlines and be commemorated by monuments and biographies etc. and they may be catalysts, but unless a significant portion of a society's population is ready to follow (based on cultural norms and environmental concerns), even a genius can be dismissed as a madman and the most noble person decried as subversive.
You can't study billions of individuals as individuals. What each person's favorite food or color or music is has no relevance to history individually. Only in the aggregate can a culture and society be somewhat understood, and only the most important and influencial outliers are given individual attention.
I agree history has a place in the pursuit of knowledge, but its no tool for extrapolating future behavior.
You're a fool.
If you've actually read any of the various Chinese historical accounts (which I doubt), you'll see the writers excoriating the emperors that executed scholars and tried to influence the writing of the histories.
The scholarly class negatively perceived maltreatment of the scholarly class? Holy shit! That's a revelation. Sarcasm aside, if all the great academics were summarily executed and all the great books burned in America, the people would rise up against that authority which perpetrated it. That did not happen in Qin society, so how can you say it was as great or greater an outrage? Either the Chinese people were/are thus more deficient in character, or their social values and priorities are different. I suggest it is the latter, and you simply don't understand Chinese society. When the purge of scholars happened it was not, albeit, a Confucian movement (that was a Han Dynasty reaction to the legacy of the aforementioned events which perpetuated itself through successive frameworks), but a Legalist one. Have you ever asked yourself why the Chinese submitted to Qin Shi Huang? To legalism? Do you have any frame of reference for what life was like before the Legalist reforms in the various states of the Zhongguo? Legalism was at its heart an anti-feudal, anti-corruption philosophy. It removed hereditary power from all but the king/hegemon (later emperor) and created a reliable framework for justice and the smooth operation of the state and its society. When Qin was overthrown it was combined with the fulfillment of the strongest of the remaining schools, Confucianism and Taoism, to form the bedrock of Chinese society and perspective. Anyway, Legalism was not tossed into Chinese society overnight, there was a century of reform throughout the Zhongguo whereupon many states adopted Legalism to varying degrees. When Qin finally conquered all the states much of the foundation was already laid. Although Legalism eliminated the outright political power of the remnants of the Zhou aristocracy, it was naturally rigid and did not include the somewhat bilateral moral obligations that would later characterize Confucian social order. The king/emperor then had absolute authority and no moral obligations about how to use it. When Qin Shi Huang killed the scholars, there was no immediate, significant response. People knew better than to stand up in a Legalist state.
The recent events in the middle east kind of show how wrong you are when you claim a people are incapable of democracy.
You're quite the idealist. In case you weren't paying attention, Egypt and Tunisia were both already 'democracies' before their recent revolutions. I wouldn't be too quick to judge their latest democratic reforms successful until they demonstrate they have rid themselves of the precedent of democracy in name only. I have a feeling that as soon as the next election is over, whichever political group has the new majority will be back in the business of suppressing minority political groups and speech immediately, and it will be status quo ante.
The KMT could have easily won the Chinese Civil War.
So? Did you miss the part about how the KMT was as much an authoritarian party as the CCP? Do you know anything about the White Terror in Taiwan?
The Chinese people have always formed resistance groups to autocracies when the abuses grew out of hand.
Where was this theoretical resistance during the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution? Pfff.
Contrawise, they tend to accept autocracies when they benefit the people.
They have, literally, always accepted autocracy. Even Chinese revolts were led by strongmen and warlords, always to the effect of installing a new hierarchical, top-down, autocratic system (which even the KMT created, names notwithstanding).
That's why the Communist party in China right now is actually quite popular with the
Yes, and it only took 40 years of martial law and 140,000 political prisoners in Taiwan alone. Don't get me wrong, the ROC has achieved a lot since the Chinese Civil War, but development in the first few decades was achieved at a terrible cost. When the DPP and the Pan-Greens finally achieved real democracy, they pissed it away with petty corruption and cronyism right out of the gate with Chen Shui Bian's administration. This was doubly disappointing because it has tainted the intent of the whole pro-independence movement.
ROC could end up handing itself over considering all the secret negotiations that 'one China' KMT party members keep having with PRC representatives. And as relatively successful as the SAR system has been in HK, I don't know if PRC can apply it to Taiwan without significant losses for Taiwan's society. It's such a different scale, and unless the US plays the same sort of part for Taiwan that the UK did with HK, there simply won't be enough leverage for KMT to make any good arrangement.
Heh, I suppose Germany hasn't yet moved beyond The Lives of Others mentality...
Think the US would start a nuclear conflict over an island?
China was a nuclear power during the Vietnam War, why no nukes then, eh? Developed nuclear powers, including China, have a lot more restraint than you probably want to admit to yourself. The United States has proven several times already that, nuclear weapons or no, it is not afraid to get into a proxy war with China. There is even an official DoD plan for US military assistance to ROC/Taiwan: OPlan 5077-04. Whether or not the DoD follows through is up to the political climate at that time and the personality and priorities of the C-in-C.
Korea is not a one dimensional subject, especially for the Chinese. Chinese and Koreans are very close to each other culturally and have been allies several times against Japan. North Korea is a burden to the PRC, not nearly enough of a puppet for the CCP's liking, and quite frankly I think it's a more likely scenario that when DPRK implodes, China will swoop in and use the excuse of reinstating order to make North Korea a protectorate. It will probably be a lot smoother overall than their western AR's.
China would have to suffer a massive economic setback before it would consider starting World War 3. Right now China is about business, and as much as everybody wants to navel gaze and imagine the US is so, so important, much of China's trade is closer to home. The economic and political fallout of striking against all the local partners it has would be immense, and the whole endeavor would be foolish. The Chinese are too wise to do it.
Were you paying attention to the first half of the 20th century in China?
You're conflating collectivism with autocracy. Dynastic China (which, CCP brainwashing regardless, is still the foundation of Chinese culture) was rarely collectivistic. Wang Mang tried that and was killed for it. China has always been autocratic, which is why its flirtation with democracy in the first half of the 20th century was doomed to failure (even Chinese of the period could see it coming, like Dr. Lin Yutang).
Even after the ROC was consolidated after the warlord years and more-or-less stabilized after the evacuation to Taiwan, it was as democratic as any single party 3rd world country could be for another few decades, which is to say practically not at all. The ROC demonstrates that in order for the Chinese to ever actually achieve democracy, they'll first have to pretend to be democratic for several generations. (A perspective which I think is borne out by analogues in Hong Kong and Singapore.)
People don't understand how at a very, very deep level the whole of Chinese society is used to this as normal. From the burning books and burying scholars of the Qin dynasty and the destruction of the hundred schools of thought through to the literary purges of the Qing, censorship by no less than immediate death was completely normal in dynastic China. Qianlong was held in high regard by many as a model Confucian emperor even though he killed many in literary purges. Even in the republic, both before and after the Chinese Civil war there was brutal quashing of dissent by the KMT including many executions, and I don't even need to talk about the PRC's heinous history.
It's hard to explain to Westerner who have not studied Chinese history that to the average Chinese adult, public dissenters are perceived not as underdog heroes but as people who are abnormal bordering on insane. There is a reason why the CCP is always going on about 'harmony'. It is a direct appeal to Confucian ideals of social harmony and balance between the people and state which is achieved essentially without resorting to dissent but rather through long suffering.
Chinese history is full of them though. From the overthrow of the Shang for the Zhou all the way to the establishment of the great Ming (even the Ming/Qing transition could be considered a revolution as much as an occupation considering how weak and ineffective the Ming were at that time and the significant complicity of Hans with the Qing especially in the North) there were many dynastic 'revolutions' and then of course the establishment of the RoC and the PRC that supplanted it.
Revolution in China is fairly common historically, it's just bloody as hell. Over 3 million died in the Chinese Civil War.
1989. Didn't work out so well though. Hundreds to thousands killed and the CCP still in absolute power.
Honestly it's the only reason I still use Firefox. Not for private browsing necessarily (I'm a very socially sex positive person, and luckily so is my wife) since I have long since given up living in denial or shame (try it, it's great). I use Chrome for everything but pr0n, but Firefox has so many extensions for downloading galleries and flash videos that Chrome's design precludes that I can't let it go. However if Chrome ever supports DownloadHelper or similar with full functionality, I'll gladly dump ol' Firefox.
(I know there are several download managers for Chrome that *claim* to have similar features, but they don't work as advertised.)
I think he was coming from the perspective of people on the ground, not the pilots.
Context.
Considering that many aerial engagements are now done sight-unseen by radar only, IFF is really important, doubly so in a no-fly zone. These are not particularly stealthy aircraft involved here either.
This just shows how ignorant you are of the business world outside of the US. Do you know how many companies in China will hire practically any white guy with a pulse just so they can have status? I don't have time to explain guanxi to you, whole books have been written about that, but despite cultural xenophobia (which people like you should identify with), Asians are practical business people and they will hire whomever will advance the bottom line.
I have science for you, and it does quite the opposite of population control.
Christian theology already admits this. That's the whole concept of original sin. Every human being is condemned for the supposed sins of Adam & Eve. Only when invisible sky dad sacrificed himself to himself was a loophole created. It makes complete sense! It's turtles all the way down!
Tell it to these researchers.
the Bible also has nothing against lesbians, only gay males...
Paul disagrees in Romans:
1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature : 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection , implacable, unmerciful: 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death , not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Religion is evil.
There are preclusions to both ends of the spectrum. Too thin and not only are the effects negligible on radiation and pressure but also the 'shell' would melt in hours to days. Too thick and not only would lack of radiation and too high pressure impede/destroy life, but the sheer amount of water would effectively destroy the earth. There is no middle ground, not to mention that it's still complete nonsense that such a thing could ever exist in earth's gravitational field structurally. There is no strength to this Biblical fantasy, only weakness.
As for respiration, as the other reply already noted, higher pressure is not the only way of achieving a conducive environment. Simply raising the oxygen concentration vs. nitrogen in the atmosphere would be sufficient. It's quite possible if the metabolisms of plant life in that period ran a little faster, and/or if there was more vegetation density. Occam's Razor would suggest that minor differences in the metabolism or density of plant populations is far, far more likely than an impossible fantasy ice bubble from nowhere.
Did you even watch the video? Whether or not the ice could be magnetic is not only cart before the horse but completely irrelevant. Did you understand that the sheer amount of solar radiation hitting the earth at those lattitudes would rapidly melt the ice, and that if there was enough ice to last any appreciable time it would blot out the sun and everything would die? That if there were any significant pressure difference the collapse of the 'shell' would cause all animal life to explode (just like deep sea creatures do when they are brought to the surface)? How willfully blind are you?
Yes, it's too bad that even a rudimentary understanding of physics and gravity makes the whole thing impossible. The Bible is not a credible source of information for physics.