No, I think his/her point is that the very term "existential threat" would suggest that the treaty should be focused on the results of the treaty, and not social engineering.
"Pretending that China is any worse is just borderline racism" Pretending it isn't is naked historical ignorance (or deliberate revisionism).
Don't misunderstand: the US - clearly - is an arrogant asshole when it comes to international negotiations, often insisting on a "do it our way or we won't play" position. Examples abound.
But China's naked and continuing disregard for international conventions in regards to prisons, journalists, the sea, to territory, to international norms and methods has been a hallmark since Mao. They either don't play at all, or simply sign and then proceed ignore the rules. Let's ask their neighbors (India, Vietnam, Taiwan, Korea, Japan, Philippines, etc), who'd they'd rather have adjacent - the US or China? Ask MX and Canada, while you're at it.
"China's producing 7.2 tons per person. The US is producing 16.5 tons per person."
Chinese GDP per capita: $6807. US GDP per capita: $53142
China is producing 1.05 kg of emissions per $1 GDP, or put another way, China's generating $945 in value for every ton of emissions. US is producing 0.31kg per $1 GDP, or $3220/ton - about 3x the efficiency.
So fuck China, and fuck the Leftist/Eco narrative that the US is the bad guy, and China the 'poor struggling industrializing country'. The US is producing 3x the wealth per unit-emissions than China*, so if one is TRULY about 'environment uber alles' then they should be condemning China, not pity-excusing them. *yes, I'm well aware that some of this comes from US firms abandoning mfg in favor of buying Chinese industrial products, thus relocating US industry, effectively, to China. That's a separate discussion.
If some 14 year old l33t gamer tells me online "I swear to god I'm going to fucking kill your whole fucking family" it's just the typical trash-talk common to video gaming.
But if I had a vagina and the same asshole calls me a "stupid cunt", suddenly it's intolerant hate-speech that MUST be stopped at all costs?
Last time I checked, we spent most of the 60s and 70s fighting for women NOT to be demeaned & patronized, eg. like "hothouse flowers whose sensibilities are just too delicate for the world' and just to be treated like men treat each other?
(Hint: men treat each other like shit; respect is something you earn, not assume - even if you have tits.)
Want to campaign for PEOPLE to stop acting like assholes online? I'm totally with you. Want to campaign for people with ovaries to be treated especially nicely? Then you're just a garden-variety sexist.
What could possibly be stupider than wanting to do something different, than what allowed you to survive until today? It's why animals are creatures of instinct. Hide a ball from your dog, and when she finds it, hide it again - they will usually look first where you hid it the first time. After all, that's where it was once.
I'm dead serious; OBVIOUSLY the value for such a 'desire to try new things' is useful to the species. That's inarguable. But for the individual, I have to imagine it's an often-tragic story.
After all, let's assume that 10 people try something new but potentially lethal, and in the process one discovers something terrifically beneficial to the community. Everyone who DIDN'T participate at all will likely benefit; the nine guys that chose wrong and suffered/died, probably not so much.
Rtfa, and what is immediately apparent is the confusion and lack of any concept of controlled testing. From the first 2 sentences of tfa:
"No link found between movie, video game violence and societal violence An increased violent video game consumption correlates with declines in youth violence"
So, first: 1) there cannot be "no link" and a negative correlation at the same time. The words mean different things. 2) there are many points of subjectivity in the studies, from the movies ratings to the game ratings to the definitions of violence 3) it's a very one dimensional approach, yet drawing a sweeping multi dimensional conclusion. Looking at it only in the context of the mere existence of such games/movies vs total societal violence, but the existence of confounding positive or negative factors - war, economics, population density, television, Hell even weather and abortion - are apparently entirely disregarded
I am 47 and have played "violent" video games since they have ever been. I'm not by any external measure a violent person. I fundamentally don't believe that a nanny state should be involved in any way with evaluating content "allowed" to be consumed by children. Last time I checked, that's what parents were for, and yes, some will get it wrong. I sincerely doubt that playing Call of Duty will make a kid grow up to be a violent criminal.
(Heck, I'm not sure anyone has even established that a propensity for violence even equates with criminality; such a thing is entirely different than low impulse control for example.)
Yet, to suggest that constant exposure to routinized, casual violence has had no impact on my tolerance for, or on my reluctance to resort to violence would seem to fly in the face of the entire multi trillion dollar advertising industry that had flourished over the last 70+ years.
Is *anything* they're doing actually illegal? I somehow suspect not - as much as companies don't want to pay taxes, they want to leave themselves open to prosecution even less.
The article implies strong condemnation for their practices, but the fact is that taxes aren't charity - a company, like an individual, is ENTITLED to avoid tax however they legally can.
If the tax schemes are so complicated that they prevent their own regulators from understanding what's happening, that's hardly the company/individual's fault. It's like governments write the rules to the game, and then complain when people follow those rules "But that's now how I *meant* you to play!"
Seriously, Lux/Liecht have both existed almost entirely as tax havens in one form or another for decades. To suggest that Amazon is doing anything new here seems to fly in the face of history.
So you are a constitutionalist? All about personal freedom?
In that case then, you're against modern constraints prohibiting automatic weapons ownership by private citizens? "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" offers no ground for mitigation or compromise.
I believe people should be free to quit school when they want, do drugs if they want, abort as many fetuses as they want - however, I don't believe that the wealth of other people should be taken from them at gunpoint to pay for it.
Affirmative action - the legal compulsion forcing businesses and schools to hire/retain people of color for no other reason than the melanin content of their skin - is not freedom of association, is it?
Do our definitions of freedom align? True freedom (for everyone, not just you) to do what you want means the strong take what they want, and the weak lose every time. I strongly believe that most people posturing that they want "freedom" haven't really thought through the consequences of their "freedom" when allowed to everyone, not just themselves.
I try not to use the word "entitled" at all, but a consumer is surely entitled to choose where they spend their money, for whatever reason.
Similarly, a company should be likewise able to offer or refuse its services freely as well; of course, we as a country have decided that isn't legal - a company cannot, for example, refuse its service to homosexuals, or blacks, or women.
So before you start drawing moral equivalence, you might want to recognize that there is a clearly different context both legally and morally between a consumer choosing to spend their money (or not) , and a business arbitrarily refusing service to another business doing what is, at least today, perfectly legal.
"I do want a government that works. I want a government that doesn't violate people's rights. I want a government that doesn't rely on religious reasoning to oppress parts of the populace and deny them the ability to marry. I want a government that respects people's right to control their bodies. All of these things are required in order for a government to work."
No, you simply want a government that agrees with your personal priorities. In fact, not ONE of those things you list is required for a government to function. Not one.
I call bullshit that they "don't have broadband". Sure they do (at the public library)... it's just not convenient.
I applaud our public officials working to make sure poverty isn't the slightest bit uncomfortable. Of course, I pay $70/month for my broadband, I guess that makes me a chump.
Actually, it depends. If you believe that the government has a right to 'manage' social and cultural issues, then sure, gay marriage, abortion, inequality, and racism are all 'in-play'.
Personally, I'd like the US government just start by performing their basic fucking functions - create a budget*, pay the bills**, get basic fundamental responsibilities accomplished*** - before they spend their time trying to 'manage' cultural issues. *http://newsbusters.org/blogs/paul-bremmer/2013/03/22/pbs-congress-hasn-t-passed-budget-years-fails-call-out-democratic-sena (the story blames Democrats, but it's BOTH parties to blame over the years) **http://www.usdebtclock.org/ ***http://criterium-peters.com/surface-transportation-improvements
Moreover, cultural issues are not only vague, expensive, and hard to manage but aren't exactly settled in terms of national consensus in ANY case, meaning that whoever is "managing" it (Dems or Repubs) is only doing so because they happen to be in charge at the moment, guaranteeing hard feelings and backlash as these are invariably deeply-held, emotional issues. My suggestion would be - if we really want a government that works - is to set them aside.
...but FUCK YOU MPAA. $10 ticket, $10 popcorn, $10 soda to sit in shitty seats, have crappy sound, sticky floor to watch what's likely an execrable film for what, 90 minutes?
No thanks.
I'll either watch it at home, or if I *really* want that AUTHENTIC experience, I'll go to http://take-up.org/ where this group rents out otherwise-unused tiny (50 seat?) mid-20thC theaters iin Mpls neighborhoods to show 35mm projector classics on the Big Screen like Casablanca, Buckaroo Banzai, Yojimbo, or Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. $25 for 5 tickets, plus a concession stand that sells normal candy at decent prices AND Coca Cola with sugar. It's a great experience, and if it wasn't 40 miles from my house, I'd go multiple times/month.
(Note: you know, it's a lot easier to read your comments and understand them if you use capitalization. US = United states. us = you and me.)
I think to anyone who's paid any attention, it's obvious that US Evangelical Protestants ("Born Again") Christians are the problem.
It's not really discussed here because it's entirely too useful to the anti-religious Left to lump all religious people together, and smear them with the label "fundamentalist kooks".
And, on the far Right, I don't believe most evangelical Christians have put much thought into it. Their world is a... more black and white place. Either you're one of them, or you're not. I'm a Christian, but because I cheerfully assert that a) evolution makes perfect sense. b) the bible is a lot of social myth, 'teaching stories' and such but certainly not literally true, and c) God cares more about what kind of a person you are, and not so much about whether you go to church every sunday, give tons of cash, nor, wave your faith in other people's faces,...I'm most *certainly* seen as an apostate in their eyes.(shrug)
Boo hoo. Millions of young people are faced with discrimination? Or just feeling bad because they're odd.
Hint: they ARE odd. Their gender preference doesn't make them bad, it DOES indisputably make them odd.
My point? People are treated differently because they're odd every day. I like to read all the time - all my friends and family thought I was an antisocial wierdo. I didn't need counseling to get over it, and I certainly didn't need validation from some goober semi-celebrity whose wealth and power insulate him from the normalcies of daily life ANYWAY.
Either we want absolute liberty and privacy, OR we want a nanny-state, where we're watched, coddled, and protected from all possible harm. The moment you concede 'higher motives' to surveillance, then you have allowed the camel into the tent. You might think it's just his nose today, but tomorrow someone will say "but.... terrorism" and a little more surveillance is ok. And "but...children" and a little more is ok.
Slashdot Mirror
So, in short, your argument amounts to "you sound really smart but I *know* you're wrong so I'm going to call you a stupidhead."
Go back to your weed, Dave420.
No, I think his/her point is that the very term "existential threat" would suggest that the treaty should be focused on the results of the treaty, and not social engineering.
Thus is displayed the sort of certainty born of ignorance.
And posted from an iphone, if you can imagine?
"Pretending that China is any worse is just borderline racism"
Pretending it isn't is naked historical ignorance (or deliberate revisionism).
Don't misunderstand: the US - clearly - is an arrogant asshole when it comes to international negotiations, often insisting on a "do it our way or we won't play" position. Examples abound.
But China's naked and continuing disregard for international conventions in regards to prisons, journalists, the sea, to territory, to international norms and methods has been a hallmark since Mao. They either don't play at all, or simply sign and then proceed ignore the rules.
Let's ask their neighbors (India, Vietnam, Taiwan, Korea, Japan, Philippines, etc), who'd they'd rather have adjacent - the US or China? Ask MX and Canada, while you're at it.
"China's producing 7.2 tons per person. The US is producing 16.5 tons per person."
Chinese GDP per capita: $6807.
US GDP per capita: $53142
China is producing 1.05 kg of emissions per $1 GDP, or put another way, China's generating $945 in value for every ton of emissions.
US is producing 0.31kg per $1 GDP, or $3220/ton - about 3x the efficiency.
So fuck China, and fuck the Leftist/Eco narrative that the US is the bad guy, and China the 'poor struggling industrializing country'. The US is producing 3x the wealth per unit-emissions than China*, so if one is TRULY about 'environment uber alles' then they should be condemning China, not pity-excusing them.
*yes, I'm well aware that some of this comes from US firms abandoning mfg in favor of buying Chinese industrial products, thus relocating US industry, effectively, to China. That's a separate discussion.
https://www.google.com/search?...
https://www.google.com/search?...
So China promises to stop increasing by 2030, and the US promises to cut ~26% by 2025.
That's powerful negotiation right there. I wish I were discussing my next raise with this administration.
Well, I hope they at least bothered to check if they could use the IP before pitching the show.
If some 14 year old l33t gamer tells me online "I swear to god I'm going to fucking kill your whole fucking family" it's just the typical trash-talk common to video gaming.
But if I had a vagina and the same asshole calls me a "stupid cunt", suddenly it's intolerant hate-speech that MUST be stopped at all costs?
Last time I checked, we spent most of the 60s and 70s fighting for women NOT to be demeaned & patronized, eg. like "hothouse flowers whose sensibilities are just too delicate for the world' and just to be treated like men treat each other?
(Hint: men treat each other like shit; respect is something you earn, not assume - even if you have tits.)
Want to campaign for PEOPLE to stop acting like assholes online? I'm totally with you.
Want to campaign for people with ovaries to be treated especially nicely? Then you're just a garden-variety sexist.
The only thing missing there is "Crowdfunding" eg Kickstarter.
I was going to say Liberalism, actually.
What could possibly be stupider than wanting to do something different, than what allowed you to survive until today? It's why animals are creatures of instinct. Hide a ball from your dog, and when she finds it, hide it again - they will usually look first where you hid it the first time. After all, that's where it was once.
I'm dead serious; OBVIOUSLY the value for such a 'desire to try new things' is useful to the species. That's inarguable. But for the individual, I have to imagine it's an often-tragic story.
After all, let's assume that 10 people try something new but potentially lethal, and in the process one discovers something terrifically beneficial to the community. Everyone who DIDN'T participate at all will likely benefit; the nine guys that chose wrong and suffered/died, probably not so much.
Rtfa, and what is immediately apparent is the confusion and lack of any concept of controlled testing. From the first 2 sentences of tfa:
"No link found between movie, video game violence and societal violence
An increased violent video game consumption correlates with declines in youth violence"
So, first:
1) there cannot be "no link" and a negative correlation at the same time. The words mean different things.
2) there are many points of subjectivity in the studies, from the movies ratings to the game ratings to the definitions of violence
3) it's a very one dimensional approach, yet drawing a sweeping multi dimensional conclusion. Looking at it only in the context of the mere existence of such games/movies vs total societal violence, but the existence of confounding positive or negative factors - war, economics, population density, television, Hell even weather and abortion - are apparently entirely disregarded
I am 47 and have played "violent" video games since they have ever been. I'm not by any external measure a violent person. I fundamentally don't believe that a nanny state should be involved in any way with evaluating content "allowed" to be consumed by children. Last time I checked, that's what parents were for, and yes, some will get it wrong. I sincerely doubt that playing Call of Duty will make a kid grow up to be a violent criminal.
(Heck, I'm not sure anyone has even established that a propensity for violence even equates with criminality; such a thing is entirely different than low impulse control for example.)
Yet, to suggest that constant exposure to routinized, casual violence has had no impact on my tolerance for, or on my reluctance to resort to violence would seem to fly in the face of the entire multi trillion dollar advertising industry that had flourished over the last 70+ years.
Is *anything* they're doing actually illegal? I somehow suspect not - as much as companies don't want to pay taxes, they want to leave themselves open to prosecution even less.
The article implies strong condemnation for their practices, but the fact is that taxes aren't charity - a company, like an individual, is ENTITLED to avoid tax however they legally can.
If the tax schemes are so complicated that they prevent their own regulators from understanding what's happening, that's hardly the company/individual's fault. It's like governments write the rules to the game, and then complain when people follow those rules "But that's now how I *meant* you to play!"
Seriously, Lux/Liecht have both existed almost entirely as tax havens in one form or another for decades. To suggest that Amazon is doing anything new here seems to fly in the face of history.
I handled a shipment of sand from the US to Saudi Arabia. Seriously.
Apparently it was for a golf course, and some specially beautiful white sand.
Forgot already that George Bush issued an unheard of $8 billion in AIDS research for Africa, did we?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/po...
So you are a constitutionalist? All about personal freedom?
In that case then, you're against modern constraints prohibiting automatic weapons ownership by private citizens? "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" offers no ground for mitigation or compromise.
I believe people should be free to quit school when they want, do drugs if they want, abort as many fetuses as they want - however, I don't believe that the wealth of other people should be taken from them at gunpoint to pay for it.
Affirmative action - the legal compulsion forcing businesses and schools to hire/retain people of color for no other reason than the melanin content of their skin - is not freedom of association, is it?
Do our definitions of freedom align? True freedom (for everyone, not just you) to do what you want means the strong take what they want, and the weak lose every time. I strongly believe that most people posturing that they want "freedom" haven't really thought through the consequences of their "freedom" when allowed to everyone, not just themselves.
I try not to use the word "entitled" at all, but a consumer is surely entitled to choose where they spend their money, for whatever reason.
Similarly, a company should be likewise able to offer or refuse its services freely as well; of course, we as a country have decided that isn't legal - a company cannot, for example, refuse its service to homosexuals, or blacks, or women.
So before you start drawing moral equivalence, you might want to recognize that there is a clearly different context both legally and morally between a consumer choosing to spend their money (or not) , and a business arbitrarily refusing service to another business doing what is, at least today, perfectly legal.
I'll take "completely missing the point" for $100, Chuck.
"I do want a government that works. I want a government that doesn't violate people's rights. I want a government that doesn't rely on religious reasoning to oppress parts of the populace and deny them the ability to marry. I want a government that respects people's right to control their bodies. All of these things are required in order for a government to work."
No, you simply want a government that agrees with your personal priorities.
In fact, not ONE of those things you list is required for a government to function. Not one.
I call bullshit that they "don't have broadband". Sure they do (at the public library)... it's just not convenient.
I applaud our public officials working to make sure poverty isn't the slightest bit uncomfortable. Of course, I pay $70/month for my broadband, I guess that makes me a chump.
Actually, it depends.
If you believe that the government has a right to 'manage' social and cultural issues, then sure, gay marriage, abortion, inequality, and racism are all 'in-play'.
Personally, I'd like the US government just start by performing their basic fucking functions - create a budget*, pay the bills**, get basic fundamental responsibilities accomplished*** - before they spend their time trying to 'manage' cultural issues.
*http://newsbusters.org/blogs/paul-bremmer/2013/03/22/pbs-congress-hasn-t-passed-budget-years-fails-call-out-democratic-sena (the story blames Democrats, but it's BOTH parties to blame over the years)
**http://www.usdebtclock.org/
***http://criterium-peters.com/surface-transportation-improvements
Moreover, cultural issues are not only vague, expensive, and hard to manage but aren't exactly settled in terms of national consensus in ANY case, meaning that whoever is "managing" it (Dems or Repubs) is only doing so because they happen to be in charge at the moment, guaranteeing hard feelings and backlash as these are invariably deeply-held, emotional issues. My suggestion would be - if we really want a government that works - is to set them aside.
...but FUCK YOU MPAA.
$10 ticket, $10 popcorn, $10 soda to sit in shitty seats, have crappy sound, sticky floor to watch what's likely an execrable film for what, 90 minutes?
No thanks.
I'll either watch it at home, or if I *really* want that AUTHENTIC experience, I'll go to http://take-up.org/ where this group rents out otherwise-unused tiny (50 seat?) mid-20thC theaters iin Mpls neighborhoods to show 35mm projector classics on the Big Screen like Casablanca, Buckaroo Banzai, Yojimbo, or Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. $25 for 5 tickets, plus a concession stand that sells normal candy at decent prices AND Coca Cola with sugar.
It's a great experience, and if it wasn't 40 miles from my house, I'd go multiple times/month.
So truly, fuck the MPAA and their whole crew.
Was it the saber-toothed tigers and their sports cars, or mainly the mammoth families and their fucking SUVs?
(Note: you know, it's a lot easier to read your comments and understand them if you use capitalization. US = United states. us = you and me.)
I think to anyone who's paid any attention, it's obvious that US Evangelical Protestants ("Born Again") Christians are the problem.
It's not really discussed here because it's entirely too useful to the anti-religious Left to lump all religious people together, and smear them with the label "fundamentalist kooks".
And, on the far Right, I don't believe most evangelical Christians have put much thought into it. Their world is a ... more black and white place. Either you're one of them, or you're not. I'm a Christian, but because I cheerfully assert that ...I'm most *certainly* seen as an apostate in their eyes.(shrug)
a) evolution makes perfect sense.
b) the bible is a lot of social myth, 'teaching stories' and such but certainly not literally true, and
c) God cares more about what kind of a person you are, and not so much about whether you go to church every sunday, give tons of cash, nor, wave your faith in other people's faces,
Boo hoo.
Millions of young people are faced with discrimination? Or just feeling bad because they're odd.
Hint: they ARE odd. Their gender preference doesn't make them bad, it DOES indisputably make them odd.
My point? People are treated differently because they're odd every day. I like to read all the time - all my friends and family thought I was an antisocial wierdo. I didn't need counseling to get over it, and I certainly didn't need validation from some goober semi-celebrity whose wealth and power insulate him from the normalcies of daily life ANYWAY.
Either we want absolute liberty and privacy, OR we want a nanny-state, where we're watched, coddled, and protected from all possible harm. The moment you concede 'higher motives' to surveillance, then you have allowed the camel into the tent. You might think it's just his nose today, but tomorrow someone will say "but .... terrorism" and a little more surveillance is ok. And "but...children" and a little more is ok.
You *can't* have both.
The road to hell is paved with "good" intentions.