See, this is where we differ. You're after justice between the genders. I don't think "justice" applies to that context.
It is never going to be fair that women have wombs and have to gestate the young. There's no making that even so long as they have to do that.
Calm down... I'm not making a pro-political 21st feminism argument. I'm saying I don't really care if something is fair for either sex. Things will NOT be fair for either one.
Some things women just have to deal with... period. Some things men just have to deal with... period.
There's equality there and there can't be for a lot of reasons that mostly boil down to "we need to do things a certain way or we die out as a species".
And THAT is my concern. I don't really care what women get or what men get so long as a certain number of babies are squirting out of vaginas on a regular basis.
Now... that being my primary concern, I'm very flexible with how things are arranged. If women want certain things to keep that happening then accommodations can be made... indifferent to equality. The want MORE than what men get... so long as they keep having children... Fine.
However, if they don't have children... they're basically not women anymore from the perspective of society. Its a car that doesn't start. Its useless.
My primary issue with feminism is that they espouse female virtues supposedly while not having children. Utterly f'ing useless.
And the MRAs are doing the same thing effectively because they're swearing off women and saying they won't be fathers or marry women or raise familiies. Equally f'ing useless.
Look... I need your dick in a willing vagina that will then about nine months later squirt out a baby... rinse and repeat at least to replacement rates.
That's my interest and my primary requirement. How that happens is less important to me. Lots of cultures have lots of ways of getting from point A to point B. The boys and girls can work it out amongst themselves so long as it is understood that what is on the table is a NON-dysfunctional relationship between the sexes.
The real danger here is that if this goes on much longer... our entire civilization is going to win the darwin awards.
We're basically dodo birds. We've got these very complicated and unreliable courtship rituals that even when they work properly tend to fall apart later... and then there are all sorts of problems with people putting off the kids for careers... basically until the women are practically infertile and our best doctors have to use the latest in medical science to squeeze the last bit of toothpaste of the tube.
Its a very very stupid situation. At this point, our populations are being sustained almost entirely with immigration. The domestic populations are all dying off rapidly because kids are not being had.
And the immigrants... they're of different cultures. They might admire our culture or want to be a part of it. But a society with our attrition rate isn't going to survive.
And THAT is my issue with feminism AND MRAs. The feminists poisoned the gender well and they keep poisoning it. And the MRAs are more interested in their own rights than they are in finding a new normal.
Allow me to be chauvinistic here for a moment... Men MUST think of the whole society. We built these countries. We built the infrastructure. We wrote the laws. We are capable of being far seeing and magnanimous.
What I think needs to happen is that the feminists need to be humored long enough to get them away from their little cults and ideally get them into productive consensual happy relationships. After which... we have TIME to deal with the rest of this crap.
But we really don't have a lot of time before the lack of babies being had starts to fundamentally undermine the integrity of our entire civilization.
A bit of injustice for a couple generations is fine... a couple generations without babies is death.
I appreciate what you're saying... but the confederacy really fucked that up by citing state's rights as a justification to sustain slavery.
The other thing that really fucked up state's rights was the change to the senate. The senate used to be elected by the states themselves. Thus the house was a democratic body where people would vote on the basis of population and the states themselves had to approve things for it to become law.
Now the senate is basically the same as the house.
Here is how I would fix the problem, most federal power grabs involve money. Typically what they'll do is say "do what we want and we'll give you this money"... but if you don't... we'll still tax your people for it anyway. So the only way you can actually get your money back is to agree to what ever the feds want.
My fix for that issue would be to require the feds to proportionally lower the federal taxes of people in given states that had opted out of given programs.
That would take the leverage away from the feds. They would be in effect saying "do what we want and we'll tax your people X amount and give you back a fraction of what we took"... or "you can just opt out and neither receive nor pay for it."
THAT is something you might get through congress. And if you did, it would break the back of the federal extortion racket.
Will it happen? No. Liberals have no interest in it and conservatives generally don't think long term or strategically. Which is why the democrats have been dominating the republicans for decades.
The republican politicians are mostly sell outs or idiots... and the rank and file think being stubborn or pigheaded is a virtue.
I say this as a libertarian. I'm ostensibly political allies with these people. But they're just so f'ing easy to trick, distract, misdirect... they're just so stupid. The democrats aren't any smarter... they're better at playing the game... they at least know its a game. The republicans don't seem to understand what is even going on most of the time.
Its all very frustrating. All I want personally is to be left alone.
I don't want to control anyone. I don't want to tell anyone what to do or how to live their lives. Do whatever you want. All I want is to be left be.
Some of us are more mature than that and try to take a more grandfatherly view of things.
I'm not worried about being accused of a rape. I don't associate with the sort of women that would do such a thing. They're all of a type and some people can almost smell it. I am a very good judge of character if I spend any time with someone. If figure out how their minds work. It is both conscious and unconscious. A lot of it is just obvious and some of it is puzzled out when I get weird signals from people.
This is not boasting and it is not a unique ability. Most groups have some people... men and women that can just read people. A good group will be one in which abilities and skills are pooled to the common profit. And that means in this case you would need a group that allow people that can read people to warn their friends that something is amiss.
The point I'm getting to is that I'm not worried personally. I won't be touched. The sort of people that do this sort of thing are not the people I'd be caught alone in a room with much less stick my dick in them.
My attitudes towards protections of due process are in the common good. For men and women... but more importantly for society.
The current gender war being pushed by what are ultimately Marxist dupes are damaging gender relations to the determent of society and pushing legal concepts that will ultimately undermine our entire legal system which... if seriously compromised will mean anarchy.
I am not a MRA... I am an advocate for due process, rationality, reasonableness, and for sufficient peace between the genders that that harmony can sustain society
I don't care if men are treated like shit and i don't really care if women are treated like shit... My real issue is that the two of them are an effective team that sustains society.
Birth rates across the west have collapsed. Why is that? I don't know. But this trend coincides quite well with this gender agitation. And it could well lead to cultural, social, and civilizational suicide.
If it weren't so wide spread, I'd be happy about that... it would be a problem solving itself. But the infection is too widespread... we can't sustain a die off of the scale we're looking at here.
I hope that makes it clearer where I stand. I am neither an MRA nor a marxist wearing one of their many obvious masks. My interests are the preservation of my civilizaiton as it goes through the last dry heaves of the collapse of communism.
I'm not talking about slander and I'm not talking about perjury.
I'm talking about trying to use the criminal justice system as a murder weapon.
As to how things are done in the west. I am more familiar with western philosophy, legal tradition, and culture going back thousands of years than you would probably realize it.
There are a great many precedents for what I'm talking about.
... it is a difficult issue. The confederacy could not be tolerated. At the same time... I do sincerely wish the war had not damaged the nation so deeply.
As serious as the crime you were accused of? Because... if someone tries to use the justice system as a weapon... to send someone to prison for 30 years... then they methodically plotted to lock an innocent person away for 30 years.
The subvesion of justice is a crime on TOP of that.
So think of the sort of sentence you give a guy running a rape dungeon under his house... then add subversion of justice on top of that.
You're looking at at least as many years as they TRIED to set you up for.
Someone tries to send you away for 10 years using evidence they invented? I'd have a 10 year minimum sentence on that. That's minimum... time served could be well in excess of that.
The underlying point is that messing with the justice system like that should be understood by everyone to be taking your life in your hands. Because if the system figures out what you tried... it will turn on you with the same wrath you tried to inflict on someone else.
You try to set someone up for a small crime? Okay... small sentence. You try to set someone up for a big crime? Big sentence... all the way to death sentences if you tried to get someone executed.
Moral of the story is don't play with fire unless you're prepared to get burned.
No. They often as not write puff pieces for the administration. I mean do I need to show you the emasculated press in a kindergarten pen at a Hillary rally?
They're not the bureau of sabotage. The Bureau would do something so horrible if a politician tried that that they would never try such a thing again. I mean... I don't even know what they would do... but that would be a declaration of fucking war. The bureau amongst other things had additional rights under the law so they were shielded from a lot of consequences if they screwed something up for another branch. They could whistle blow for example without being in any danger of prosecution.
You have to keep in mind they would doctor records just to fuck with other people in government. They were this organization consistently maintaining a fixed ratio of urine in the lobster bisque. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I know how to read a graph like this from my analysis of futures markets. The graph is the reverse of what you see in those charts because the past is increasingly uncertain where as in a financial chart they know exactly what the price was but what the price will be is less certain.
Note the red line and the two green lines I made that are parallel to it. The line is quite linear. It dips down below the range for a time but then goes into the middle of it. When you describe a data set from NATURE or a market as being linear you don't mean the line is LITERALLY straight. You mean it is essentially straight within a margin of uncertainty or random variability.
As to my issue being that results are not what I think they should be... and what then is your scramble to find a reason for the "pause"? The pause is only a problem if you don't expect it and its existence is a problem for your theories which you're very married to at this point.
There is a lot of projection in these little insults you've started throwing at me. Why you'd think the insults would matter to me is sort of baffling to me. If there's anything you should have gathered already it is that I am inherently antisocial.
As such... peer pressure... of which your various judgements basically fall into... they just don't mean anything to me. You're using dog arguments on a cat. You're presuming to use herd mentality and pack mentality on someone that just doesn't think in those terms. I don't respond to personal judgments like that. They just don't mean anything to me.
Cherry picking obviously... I thought you were okay with that since you've been arguing that it is entirely valid to do that.
So... if you're okay with it... I was just going to start cherry picking like crazy.
Your ocean pH study was one such that you've as yet not provided a longer term trend line for...
I mean... is ocean pH unusually acidic? Your study showed a 5 year tend line. Am I mixing that up with another study you had? Regardless... I'd like something that went back a good deal farther than that.
I cited something myself that went back more than a hundred years and it showed that the pH of the ocean over the time scale of even centuries goes up and down.
Nice... so you want your final comment to be you taking me out of context? Nice.
What I was saying is that I know the difference between a political argument and a scientific argument. You should as well. Its pretty obvious.
Saying "I have X people that have voted Y" is a political argument anyway you slice it.
If you can't handle a discussion that isn't about confirmation bias and presuming intellectual superiority on the basis of blindly believing your presumed experts... then you are right... this will go no where.
I am sorry we could not part of mutually respectful terms. That was your choice.
The people I personally listen to are batting a thousand from what I've seen. Many of the corrections to the IPCC's reports have come from criticism from just these people.
Regardless... this is a political argument.
I am not kidding. You want a political argument... I will transform into a political animal... I'll go into politician mode.
If that's what you want...just say so. Otherwise... drop the consensus argument. Its lazy and invalid.
The thing I find the most annoying about budgets especially at the local level is that when money gets tight they'll always raise money for "schools" or "police" or something when really the cost over runs are because of something completely different.
And instead of cutting spending where it got out of control... they instead jack up taxes for "the children"... and then divert all that money to some other project.
I've even seen tax bills written such that that was specifically supposed to happen... and they looted the fund anyway in contravention of the law... and who is going to prosecute? Not the AG.
I think we might need a fourth branch of government that does nothing but hold the other three accountable.
Anyone ever read Herbert's the "Whipping Star" or its sequel? It has this concept in it... he called it "the Bureau of Sabotage"... they did nothing but fuck up the other branches so they couldn't pull any tricky slights of hand, fuck over the democratic system, break the law, etc... the bureau slowed the other branches down... so that they couldn't subvert due process.
Something like that at every level might fix a lot of our problems.
People would point out that that would be expensive... I would would ask... more expensive than rampant corruption and subverted law?
First, I'd like to say I'm not an MRA... not because i don't agree with them on several key points or because i don't think they're a valid voice in any of these issues. It just isn't the perspective I come from in this issue.
The modern marxist feminists generally are intent on shitting all over gender relations and poisoning the well between the sexes. That is not in society's interest.
The MRA's are mostly interested in protecting men but they aren't as much interested in repairing the damage that the Marxists are doing to gender relations.
My ACTUAL position is that I don't actually care a great deal about men's rights or women's rights so much as I want gender relations healed.
The various sides will say that their gender must be respected for the rift to be healed but we know from thousands of years of human history that inequities between the sexes are quite tolerable so long as the culture normalizes it in some way.
I am okay with men being shat all over. I say this as a man and no... I don't want to get shat all over. But if that is the price of peace then I'll accept it because I hold that as the most valuable thing.
We need babies. Birth rates in the West have tanked and the tanking corresponds quite well with the rise of militant feminism. I don't know if it caused it... I just know it showed up around the same time. The damage is a problem and our society either has to deal with it or we have to prepare for large segments of our population to basically win the Darwin awards... possibly this should even be encouraged as a kind of cultural eugenics.
The status quo being pushed at the moment is not sustainable. It is leading to a mass die off of everyone that believes in it. And the MRAs are not helping. They're interested in male rights just as the feminists are interested in whatever it is they think they're doing. But neither is healing the rift or getting people pumping out the kids required to meet population replacement rates.
All of that said, I completely agree they are rhetorical script kiddies. They don't think for themselves. They just run memorized attack patterns.
Its part of the reason I don't argue in predictable ways. Script kiddies don't work against me. I'm always a rhetorical Zero Day.:)
If you ask me if I was at location Y at time X and I tell you something other that what I know to be true for ANY reason that is perjury but I'm not neccessily trying to set someone up. I could actually be trying to get someone off by giving them an alibi. Or I could be lying for any of a million reasons. Possibly I don't want to incriminate myself in another crime. Possibly the answer would reveal I was doing something embarressing that wasn't illegal but I didn't want to admit to it in a court of law.
Any lie what so ever under oath is perjury.
Setting someone up is more than that. It is the deliberate attempt to decieve a court of law such that a mischarage of justice will ensue that will claim your innocent victim under the false impression that they are guilty of some crime.
The crime probably needs a special term and it needs degrees of severity just like murder or assault.
First degree of this would involve premeditation.
Second degree would be something done in the heat of the moment without consideration.
I'm not sure what third degree would be. Possibly a more serious form of just perjury that included any lie told to a court that harmed someone even though you intentions were not to harm anyone.
This would be in keeping with the way our legal system already works.
Tricking a court into destroying someone's life for you... you wrong not only your victim but you also make the court an unwitting accomplice in your crime.
It is not treated even remotely seriously enough. You do something like that and they should come at you last as hard as you tried to get the system to go after someone else.
If anything I would be more harsh with those people if only because they're in a position of trust.
it is worse when a cop sets you up than if any random person does it because the cop not only harms a person but he also undermines the public trust of the legal system etc.
I don't know how much more harsh I would be... but I'd be comfortable with the increase in severity being pretty extreme. As in... I'd like a fair number of the police that get caught doing that and know that they're going to get convicted... to basically have this response: https://youtu.be/_ALBpFg8DEw?t...
So how does that sound to you? Fair? When I say double edged... I mean double edged. Anyone that presses the bladed should be able to feel its bite as well should they transgress the law themselves.
Login and I'll discuss that with you. Stay AC and I can't be drawn into the brier patch trolls and sockpuppets.
You really didn't read your citation very closely and I can show you a few things about this topic using your own citation that would put a different spin on the issue. I won't bother unless you login though.
its not about men or women. Human beings are opportunists by nature. Neither good nor evil... it is our nature to walk around and pick fruit from the ground or from the trees. We like the low hanging fruit. its easy to get at. We like big stupid animals that are easy to kill. We like the fish that are trapped. "like shooting fish in a barrel"... that's what human beings like. We like the easy way and we tend to avoid anything that is a pain in the ass.
The issue is that the standards for evidence are a little out of whack at this point for certain crimes.
A lot of it is just how effective it is to scare people into submission with political correctness. Nothing I'm saying is politically correct. And certain people exploit that to their personal gain.
Al Sharpton does it with race. He'll show up and cause problems claiming people are racist... until you pay him. Then he goes away whether or not you changed anything or there was even any racism there in the first place. You pay him and he goes away.
And a big part of our society just works that way. You can see a lot of it on slashdot. There are a lot of these twits that are just horrified that people aren't all scrupulously politically correct all times never mind if the politically correct answer is stupid. They don't care.
Dogma trumps reality. its like a religion and they're the cannon fodder zealots. All we can do is hold the line and wait for the fever to blow over.
One of the more positive things that has happened recently is that they got starved for victims so they started attacking their own political camps. They were basically doing purity tests. Once everyone is a liberal how do they justify their existence? well... they then ask "how liberal are you"... and they just start goal posting moving to make sure they have enough people to be outraged with at any given time.
So anyway, they were doing that and eventually they hit a segment of their own political contingent that fought back. And now they're a little baffled because a lot of the wind has gone out of their sails. They're getting attacked from all sides now and they're losing credibility rapidly.
Its funny because they're such dogmatic robots that they don't really understand what happened.
We'll see... they'll either be suppressed to the general good of society or they'll osterize most of their political base which will lead to a structural schism in the faction which will weaken them collectively.
Either way... these goofballs are at their zenith already. Its all down hill from here.
First, I'm not an MRA, and your immediate to leap to identity politics speaks far more poorly of you than of me.
Second, if you set someone up to be potentially executed... that's attempted first degree murder in my opinion. The fact that you're using a state executioner to snuff someone is besides the point. So that's where I get numbers like that. If you set someone up to that extent for those sorts of crimes then you tried to lock someone in a box for 30 years. What is the crime for kidnapping someone and throwing them in a box for thirty years? Because I can assure you... it wouldn't be 5 years... or 1 for good behavior and probation which is apparently what you think is reasonable.
Now, if you're at all capable of having a rational and honest discussion about this... you'll find I'm reasonable and open to other points of view. However, if you're got nothing but ad hominem, identity politics, guilt by association, strawman, and other assorted rhetorical bullshit... then I really have no choice but to label you a shithead and move on. I mean... what should I or anyone else do if they're met by someone in a discussion and that is literally all they do?
Be a better person. You like to morally judge people but you never look at yourself in the mirror. Be a better person.
It is awfully unfair. Show me something I said that suggests I'm okay with any crime going prosecuted?
It is a mark of the times that expecting some integrity in these matters is read by some as advocating rape.
Lets say I accuse you of murder... and you want due process. You want to my claims investigated.
What if I turned around and said that all of that discourages people from reporting murders and that your due process rights effectively make it easier for people to get away with murder?
Seem reasonable? Of course not. That is the general nature of the argument we're having though because you're suggesting that if false accusations are discouraged that I am thus a rape apologist or enabler or something.
Nothing of the kind. I'm an advocate for due process and integrity in the law.
... The post literally cited a fake rape claim... and we're seeing those in the media constantly now... published by every newspaper in the western world.
... not always... just easier in some cases. Good liars will learn to work around the evidence and bad liars as usual will be caught as they always have been caught.
I am disturbed by how many fake rape claims there are though. Something about that should be done. I don't know... maybe its all just media hype but it seems like that has gotten out of control and maybe the law needs to be tweaked a bit to discourage false claims.
One thing which I think is reasonable with false accusations is having the person sentenced to a smiliarly harsh prison sentence.
If you accuse someone of murder and you KNOW they didn't do it... if you fake the evidence up... whatever... and it is proven in a court of law that you did all that stuff. I'm okay sending that person away for 30 years. Because that's effectively what they tried to do to someone else. They tried to get someone kidnapped and kept in a cell for 30 years. Imagine if I just grabbed you and threw you in a cell. What would the sentence for that be? Again... at least 30 years of me in being in a cell, no?
Alright... so if some person makes a fake rape accusation and stages the whole thing... falsifies evidence... commits perjury. Then lets look at how long whomever would have gone to jail had the scam worked. If the guy would have gone to jail for 10 years then... if you can prove she tried to set him up... then she goes away for 10 years.
The sorts of people that do this thing are generally cowards. They do it because they think they can get away with it and they think the consequences of being caught will be nothing.
If you make it clear that their story will be audited and if it is proven that they tried to set someone up that they'll do the time instead... I think a lot of these bullshit cases will go away.
I am applying this to all crimes. Not just rape. Everything. If you try and make it look like someone stole something... same thing If the person would go to jail for 4 years or something... you go to jail instead for 4 years.
More things of interest... that's showing about 1000 years ago we had similar temps in Greenland. It also shows that the current temperature trend we're on predated the heavy burning of fossil fuels by most of the world's population. It looks like the warming trend started around 1800.
"" The application of statistics to science is not a neutral act. Statistical tools have shaped and were also shaped by its objects. In the social sciences, statistical methods fundamentally changed research practice, making statistical inference its centerpiece. At the same time, textbook writers in the social sciences have transformed rivaling statistical systems into an apparently monolithic method that could be used mechanically. The idol of a universal method for scientific inference has been worshiped since the âoeinference revolutionâ of the 1950s. Because no such method has ever been found, surrogates have been created, most notably the quest for significant p values. This form of surrogate science fosters delusions and borderline cheating and has done much harm, creating, for one, a flood of irreproducible results. Proponents of the âoeBayesian revolutionâ should be wary of chasing yet another chimera: an apparently universal inference procedure. A better path would be to promote both an understanding of the various devices in the âoestatistical toolboxâ and informed judgment to select among these. ""
I can cite many big names in science and many of the major journals that are all worried about a growing trend towards pseudo science.
A lot of it has to do with data driven science where in a data set is taken in and the whole study is just the analysis of the data. A core aspect of science is that at some point in the study there is supposed to be a "reality check". And many studies don't have any such thing in them... this worrying trend of not being able to reproduce results of published studies or various models when push comes to shove not being able to actually predict or model anything outside of the set piece of the study's data.
I'm no where near stupid. I won't defer to people that I see as increasingly compromised and who have a very poor track record of actually being able to predict or verify anything.
If that makes me a bad person or a fool... Then I wear that badge with pride with the proper attributions cited.
first, did you look at my calculations? I'm seeing something closer to 35 G/t.
What are your calculations based on? Mine are admittedly a worst case. I counted all oil as being burned effectively even though a certain amount is turned into plastic or lubricants or something.
I did not count natural gas emissions though... so frankly I think my numbers are not far off.
As to the increase... around 30 G/t is about 1 percent of the total in the atmosphere at this point.
Regardless the increase is linear. You can see the graph from Hawaii that I posted to see the graph of increase is linear. And then you can look at the emissions graph from the EPA to see the emissions are exponential.
I really think that point is important because it reveals something about the systems involved. if they're increasing linearly from exponential inputs. Think about that.
As to peer review being one thing or another... my only point was that simply citing its peer review status isn't sufficient to silence debate which was the context you attempted to use it in. I do value things more if they've been peer reviewed. But they're not above criticism.
As to the notion that only experts can have valid opinions... you have two problems with that position. First, there are experts with all the right diplomas that are making the same sorts of arguments I'm making. To arbitrarily say they're invalid but some other people are not... It doesn't work that way. If the question is one of "show me your diploma" then I can show you people saying the things I'm saying with all the credentials.
Here you'll say but "a poll of people with those credentials have said"... political argument. Science isn't a democracy. One scientist or even no scientists can say a given thing and the majority can be wrong. Citing a majority opinion doesn't make it true. It just makes it the popular view. I'm really quite tired of that entire line of logic. I have very little patience for it.
As to conflating science and politics... no... I just know one from the other.
Slashdot Mirror
See, this is where we differ. You're after justice between the genders. I don't think "justice" applies to that context.
It is never going to be fair that women have wombs and have to gestate the young. There's no making that even so long as they have to do that.
Calm down... I'm not making a pro-political 21st feminism argument. I'm saying I don't really care if something is fair for either sex. Things will NOT be fair for either one.
Some things women just have to deal with... period. Some things men just have to deal with... period.
There's equality there and there can't be for a lot of reasons that mostly boil down to "we need to do things a certain way or we die out as a species".
And THAT is my concern. I don't really care what women get or what men get so long as a certain number of babies are squirting out of vaginas on a regular basis.
Now... that being my primary concern, I'm very flexible with how things are arranged. If women want certain things to keep that happening then accommodations can be made... indifferent to equality. The want MORE than what men get... so long as they keep having children... Fine.
However, if they don't have children... they're basically not women anymore from the perspective of society. Its a car that doesn't start. Its useless.
My primary issue with feminism is that they espouse female virtues supposedly while not having children. Utterly f'ing useless.
And the MRAs are doing the same thing effectively because they're swearing off women and saying they won't be fathers or marry women or raise familiies. Equally f'ing useless.
Look... I need your dick in a willing vagina that will then about nine months later squirt out a baby... rinse and repeat at least to replacement rates.
That's my interest and my primary requirement. How that happens is less important to me. Lots of cultures have lots of ways of getting from point A to point B. The boys and girls can work it out amongst themselves so long as it is understood that what is on the table is a NON-dysfunctional relationship between the sexes.
The real danger here is that if this goes on much longer... our entire civilization is going to win the darwin awards.
We're basically dodo birds. We've got these very complicated and unreliable courtship rituals that even when they work properly tend to fall apart later... and then there are all sorts of problems with people putting off the kids for careers... basically until the women are practically infertile and our best doctors have to use the latest in medical science to squeeze the last bit of toothpaste of the tube.
Its a very very stupid situation. At this point, our populations are being sustained almost entirely with immigration. The domestic populations are all dying off rapidly because kids are not being had.
And the immigrants... they're of different cultures. They might admire our culture or want to be a part of it. But a society with our attrition rate isn't going to survive.
And THAT is my issue with feminism AND MRAs. The feminists poisoned the gender well and they keep poisoning it. And the MRAs are more interested in their own rights than they are in finding a new normal.
Allow me to be chauvinistic here for a moment... Men MUST think of the whole society. We built these countries. We built the infrastructure. We wrote the laws. We are capable of being far seeing and magnanimous.
What I think needs to happen is that the feminists need to be humored long enough to get them away from their little cults and ideally get them into productive consensual happy relationships. After which... we have TIME to deal with the rest of this crap.
But we really don't have a lot of time before the lack of babies being had starts to fundamentally undermine the integrity of our entire civilization.
A bit of injustice for a couple generations is fine... a couple generations without babies is death.
I appreciate what you're saying... but the confederacy really fucked that up by citing state's rights as a justification to sustain slavery.
The other thing that really fucked up state's rights was the change to the senate. The senate used to be elected by the states themselves. Thus the house was a democratic body where people would vote on the basis of population and the states themselves had to approve things for it to become law.
Now the senate is basically the same as the house.
Here is how I would fix the problem, most federal power grabs involve money. Typically what they'll do is say "do what we want and we'll give you this money"... but if you don't... we'll still tax your people for it anyway. So the only way you can actually get your money back is to agree to what ever the feds want.
My fix for that issue would be to require the feds to proportionally lower the federal taxes of people in given states that had opted out of given programs.
That would take the leverage away from the feds. They would be in effect saying "do what we want and we'll tax your people X amount and give you back a fraction of what we took"... or "you can just opt out and neither receive nor pay for it."
THAT is something you might get through congress. And if you did, it would break the back of the federal extortion racket.
Will it happen? No. Liberals have no interest in it and conservatives generally don't think long term or strategically. Which is why the democrats have been dominating the republicans for decades.
The republican politicians are mostly sell outs or idiots... and the rank and file think being stubborn or pigheaded is a virtue.
I say this as a libertarian. I'm ostensibly political allies with these people. But they're just so f'ing easy to trick, distract, misdirect... they're just so stupid. The democrats aren't any smarter... they're better at playing the game... they at least know its a game. The republicans don't seem to understand what is even going on most of the time.
Its all very frustrating. All I want personally is to be left alone.
I don't want to control anyone. I don't want to tell anyone what to do or how to live their lives. Do whatever you want. All I want is to be left be.
Some of us are more mature than that and try to take a more grandfatherly view of things.
I'm not worried about being accused of a rape. I don't associate with the sort of women that would do such a thing. They're all of a type and some people can almost smell it. I am a very good judge of character if I spend any time with someone. If figure out how their minds work. It is both conscious and unconscious. A lot of it is just obvious and some of it is puzzled out when I get weird signals from people.
This is not boasting and it is not a unique ability. Most groups have some people... men and women that can just read people. A good group will be one in which abilities and skills are pooled to the common profit. And that means in this case you would need a group that allow people that can read people to warn their friends that something is amiss.
The point I'm getting to is that I'm not worried personally. I won't be touched. The sort of people that do this sort of thing are not the people I'd be caught alone in a room with much less stick my dick in them.
My attitudes towards protections of due process are in the common good. For men and women... but more importantly for society.
The current gender war being pushed by what are ultimately Marxist dupes are damaging gender relations to the determent of society and pushing legal concepts that will ultimately undermine our entire legal system which... if seriously compromised will mean anarchy.
I am not a MRA... I am an advocate for due process, rationality, reasonableness, and for sufficient peace between the genders that that harmony can sustain society
I don't care if men are treated like shit and i don't really care if women are treated like shit... My real issue is that the two of them are an effective team that sustains society.
Birth rates across the west have collapsed. Why is that? I don't know. But this trend coincides quite well with this gender agitation. And it could well lead to cultural, social, and civilizational suicide.
If it weren't so wide spread, I'd be happy about that... it would be a problem solving itself. But the infection is too widespread... we can't sustain a die off of the scale we're looking at here.
I hope that makes it clearer where I stand. I am neither an MRA nor a marxist wearing one of their many obvious masks. My interests are the preservation of my civilizaiton as it goes through the last dry heaves of the collapse of communism.
I'm not talking about slander and I'm not talking about perjury.
I'm talking about trying to use the criminal justice system as a murder weapon.
As to how things are done in the west. I am more familiar with western philosophy, legal tradition, and culture going back thousands of years than you would probably realize it.
There are a great many precedents for what I'm talking about.
... it is a difficult issue. The confederacy could not be tolerated. At the same time... I do sincerely wish the war had not damaged the nation so deeply.
Slavery was a terrible thing.
As serious as the crime you were accused of? Because... if someone tries to use the justice system as a weapon... to send someone to prison for 30 years... then they methodically plotted to lock an innocent person away for 30 years.
The subvesion of justice is a crime on TOP of that.
So think of the sort of sentence you give a guy running a rape dungeon under his house... then add subversion of justice on top of that.
You're looking at at least as many years as they TRIED to set you up for.
Someone tries to send you away for 10 years using evidence they invented? I'd have a 10 year minimum sentence on that. That's minimum... time served could be well in excess of that.
The underlying point is that messing with the justice system like that should be understood by everyone to be taking your life in your hands. Because if the system figures out what you tried... it will turn on you with the same wrath you tried to inflict on someone else.
You try to set someone up for a small crime? Okay... small sentence. You try to set someone up for a big crime? Big sentence... all the way to death sentences if you tried to get someone executed.
Moral of the story is don't play with fire unless you're prepared to get burned.
No. They often as not write puff pieces for the administration. I mean do I need to show you the emasculated press in a kindergarten pen at a Hillary rally?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
They're not the bureau of sabotage. The Bureau would do something so horrible if a politician tried that that they would never try such a thing again. I mean... I don't even know what they would do... but that would be a declaration of fucking war. The bureau amongst other things had additional rights under the law so they were shielded from a lot of consequences if they screwed something up for another branch. They could whistle blow for example without being in any danger of prosecution.
You have to keep in mind they would doctor records just to fuck with other people in government. They were this organization consistently maintaining a fixed ratio of urine in the lobster bisque.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
As to circles... then you have to admit that the sat data was adjusted.
Confirmed. If you don't want to go in circles then stop going back on past admissions.
As to the graph from Church:
http://s18.postimg.org/oschmgb...
I know how to read a graph like this from my analysis of futures markets. The graph is the reverse of what you see in those charts because the past is increasingly uncertain where as in a financial chart they know exactly what the price was but what the price will be is less certain.
Note the red line and the two green lines I made that are parallel to it. The line is quite linear. It dips down below the range for a time but then goes into the middle of it. When you describe a data set from NATURE or a market as being linear you don't mean the line is LITERALLY straight. You mean it is essentially straight within a margin of uncertainty or random variability.
As to my issue being that results are not what I think they should be... and what then is your scramble to find a reason for the "pause"? The pause is only a problem if you don't expect it and its existence is a problem for your theories which you're very married to at this point.
There is a lot of projection in these little insults you've started throwing at me. Why you'd think the insults would matter to me is sort of baffling to me. If there's anything you should have gathered already it is that I am inherently antisocial.
As such... peer pressure... of which your various judgements basically fall into... they just don't mean anything to me. You're using dog arguments on a cat. You're presuming to use herd mentality and pack mentality on someone that just doesn't think in those terms. I don't respond to personal judgments like that. They just don't mean anything to me.
Cherry picking obviously... I thought you were okay with that since you've been arguing that it is entirely valid to do that.
So... if you're okay with it... I was just going to start cherry picking like crazy.
Your ocean pH study was one such that you've as yet not provided a longer term trend line for...
I mean... is ocean pH unusually acidic? Your study showed a 5 year tend line. Am I mixing that up with another study you had? Regardless... I'd like something that went back a good deal farther than that.
I cited something myself that went back more than a hundred years and it showed that the pH of the ocean over the time scale of even centuries goes up and down.
Nice... so you want your final comment to be you taking me out of context? Nice.
What I was saying is that I know the difference between a political argument and a scientific argument. You should as well. Its pretty obvious.
Saying "I have X people that have voted Y" is a political argument anyway you slice it.
If you can't handle a discussion that isn't about confirmation bias and presuming intellectual superiority on the basis of blindly believing your presumed experts... then you are right... this will go no where.
I am sorry we could not part of mutually respectful terms. That was your choice.
The people I personally listen to are batting a thousand from what I've seen. Many of the corrections to the IPCC's reports have come from criticism from just these people.
Regardless... this is a political argument.
I am not kidding. You want a political argument... I will transform into a political animal... I'll go into politician mode.
If that's what you want...just say so. Otherwise... drop the consensus argument. Its lazy and invalid.
The thing I find the most annoying about budgets especially at the local level is that when money gets tight they'll always raise money for "schools" or "police" or something when really the cost over runs are because of something completely different.
And instead of cutting spending where it got out of control... they instead jack up taxes for "the children"... and then divert all that money to some other project.
I've even seen tax bills written such that that was specifically supposed to happen... and they looted the fund anyway in contravention of the law... and who is going to prosecute? Not the AG.
I think we might need a fourth branch of government that does nothing but hold the other three accountable.
Anyone ever read Herbert's the "Whipping Star" or its sequel? It has this concept in it... he called it "the Bureau of Sabotage"... they did nothing but fuck up the other branches so they couldn't pull any tricky slights of hand, fuck over the democratic system, break the law, etc... the bureau slowed the other branches down... so that they couldn't subvert due process.
Something like that at every level might fix a lot of our problems.
People would point out that that would be expensive... I would would ask... more expensive than rampant corruption and subverted law?
First, I'd like to say I'm not an MRA... not because i don't agree with them on several key points or because i don't think they're a valid voice in any of these issues. It just isn't the perspective I come from in this issue.
The modern marxist feminists generally are intent on shitting all over gender relations and poisoning the well between the sexes. That is not in society's interest.
The MRA's are mostly interested in protecting men but they aren't as much interested in repairing the damage that the Marxists are doing to gender relations.
My ACTUAL position is that I don't actually care a great deal about men's rights or women's rights so much as I want gender relations healed.
The various sides will say that their gender must be respected for the rift to be healed but we know from thousands of years of human history that inequities between the sexes are quite tolerable so long as the culture normalizes it in some way.
I am okay with men being shat all over. I say this as a man and no... I don't want to get shat all over. But if that is the price of peace then I'll accept it because I hold that as the most valuable thing.
We need babies. Birth rates in the West have tanked and the tanking corresponds quite well with the rise of militant feminism. I don't know if it caused it... I just know it showed up around the same time. The damage is a problem and our society either has to deal with it or we have to prepare for large segments of our population to basically win the Darwin awards... possibly this should even be encouraged as a kind of cultural eugenics.
The status quo being pushed at the moment is not sustainable. It is leading to a mass die off of everyone that believes in it. And the MRAs are not helping. They're interested in male rights just as the feminists are interested in whatever it is they think they're doing. But neither is healing the rift or getting people pumping out the kids required to meet population replacement rates.
All of that said, I completely agree they are rhetorical script kiddies. They don't think for themselves. They just run memorized attack patterns.
Its part of the reason I don't argue in predictable ways. Script kiddies don't work against me. I'm always a rhetorical Zero Day. :)
No... I'm not talking about perjury.
I'm talking about setting people up.
They're not the same thing.
If you ask me if I was at location Y at time X and I tell you something other that what I know to be true for ANY reason that is perjury but I'm not neccessily trying to set someone up. I could actually be trying to get someone off by giving them an alibi. Or I could be lying for any of a million reasons. Possibly I don't want to incriminate myself in another crime. Possibly the answer would reveal I was doing something embarressing that wasn't illegal but I didn't want to admit to it in a court of law.
Any lie what so ever under oath is perjury.
Setting someone up is more than that. It is the deliberate attempt to decieve a court of law such that a mischarage of justice will ensue that will claim your innocent victim under the false impression that they are guilty of some crime.
The crime probably needs a special term and it needs degrees of severity just like murder or assault.
First degree of this would involve premeditation.
Second degree would be something done in the heat of the moment without consideration.
I'm not sure what third degree would be. Possibly a more serious form of just perjury that included any lie told to a court that harmed someone even though you intentions were not to harm anyone.
This would be in keeping with the way our legal system already works.
Tricking a court into destroying someone's life for you... you wrong not only your victim but you also make the court an unwitting accomplice in your crime.
It is not treated even remotely seriously enough. You do something like that and they should come at you last as hard as you tried to get the system to go after someone else.
If anything I would be more harsh with those people if only because they're in a position of trust.
it is worse when a cop sets you up than if any random person does it because the cop not only harms a person but he also undermines the public trust of the legal system etc.
I don't know how much more harsh I would be... but I'd be comfortable with the increase in severity being pretty extreme. As in... I'd like a fair number of the police that get caught doing that and know that they're going to get convicted... to basically have this response:
https://youtu.be/_ALBpFg8DEw?t...
So how does that sound to you? Fair? When I say double edged... I mean double edged. Anyone that presses the bladed should be able to feel its bite as well should they transgress the law themselves.
I believe in equality before the law.
yeah... like title IX... "There are to be a law" is basically how everything got this screwed up in the first place.
Login and I'll discuss that with you. Stay AC and I can't be drawn into the brier patch trolls and sockpuppets.
You really didn't read your citation very closely and I can show you a few things about this topic using your own citation that would put a different spin on the issue. I won't bother unless you login though.
its not about men or women. Human beings are opportunists by nature. Neither good nor evil... it is our nature to walk around and pick fruit from the ground or from the trees. We like the low hanging fruit. its easy to get at. We like big stupid animals that are easy to kill. We like the fish that are trapped. "like shooting fish in a barrel"... that's what human beings like. We like the easy way and we tend to avoid anything that is a pain in the ass.
The issue is that the standards for evidence are a little out of whack at this point for certain crimes.
A lot of it is just how effective it is to scare people into submission with political correctness. Nothing I'm saying is politically correct. And certain people exploit that to their personal gain.
Al Sharpton does it with race. He'll show up and cause problems claiming people are racist... until you pay him. Then he goes away whether or not you changed anything or there was even any racism there in the first place. You pay him and he goes away.
And a big part of our society just works that way. You can see a lot of it on slashdot. There are a lot of these twits that are just horrified that people aren't all scrupulously politically correct all times never mind if the politically correct answer is stupid. They don't care.
Dogma trumps reality. its like a religion and they're the cannon fodder zealots. All we can do is hold the line and wait for the fever to blow over.
One of the more positive things that has happened recently is that they got starved for victims so they started attacking their own political camps. They were basically doing purity tests. Once everyone is a liberal how do they justify their existence? well... they then ask "how liberal are you"... and they just start goal posting moving to make sure they have enough people to be outraged with at any given time.
So anyway, they were doing that and eventually they hit a segment of their own political contingent that fought back. And now they're a little baffled because a lot of the wind has gone out of their sails. They're getting attacked from all sides now and they're losing credibility rapidly.
Its funny because they're such dogmatic robots that they don't really understand what happened.
We'll see... they'll either be suppressed to the general good of society or they'll osterize most of their political base which will lead to a structural schism in the faction which will weaken them collectively.
Either way... these goofballs are at their zenith already. Its all down hill from here.
First, I'm not an MRA, and your immediate to leap to identity politics speaks far more poorly of you than of me.
Second, if you set someone up to be potentially executed... that's attempted first degree murder in my opinion. The fact that you're using a state executioner to snuff someone is besides the point. So that's where I get numbers like that. If you set someone up to that extent for those sorts of crimes then you tried to lock someone in a box for 30 years. What is the crime for kidnapping someone and throwing them in a box for thirty years? Because I can assure you... it wouldn't be 5 years... or 1 for good behavior and probation which is apparently what you think is reasonable.
Now, if you're at all capable of having a rational and honest discussion about this... you'll find I'm reasonable and open to other points of view. However, if you're got nothing but ad hominem, identity politics, guilt by association, strawman, and other assorted rhetorical bullshit... then I really have no choice but to label you a shithead and move on. I mean... what should I or anyone else do if they're met by someone in a discussion and that is literally all they do?
Be a better person. You like to morally judge people but you never look at yourself in the mirror. Be a better person.
It is awfully unfair. Show me something I said that suggests I'm okay with any crime going prosecuted?
It is a mark of the times that expecting some integrity in these matters is read by some as advocating rape.
Lets say I accuse you of murder... and you want due process. You want to my claims investigated.
What if I turned around and said that all of that discourages people from reporting murders and that your due process rights effectively make it easier for people to get away with murder?
Seem reasonable? Of course not. That is the general nature of the argument we're having though because you're suggesting that if false accusations are discouraged that I am thus a rape apologist or enabler or something.
Nothing of the kind. I'm an advocate for due process and integrity in the law.
So yes... that was awfully unfair... and silly.
... The post literally cited a fake rape claim... and we're seeing those in the media constantly now... published by every newspaper in the western world.
So I think you've confused "MRA" with "everyone".
... not always... just easier in some cases. Good liars will learn to work around the evidence and bad liars as usual will be caught as they always have been caught.
I am disturbed by how many fake rape claims there are though. Something about that should be done. I don't know... maybe its all just media hype but it seems like that has gotten out of control and maybe the law needs to be tweaked a bit to discourage false claims.
One thing which I think is reasonable with false accusations is having the person sentenced to a smiliarly harsh prison sentence.
If you accuse someone of murder and you KNOW they didn't do it... if you fake the evidence up... whatever... and it is proven in a court of law that you did all that stuff. I'm okay sending that person away for 30 years. Because that's effectively what they tried to do to someone else. They tried to get someone kidnapped and kept in a cell for 30 years. Imagine if I just grabbed you and threw you in a cell. What would the sentence for that be? Again... at least 30 years of me in being in a cell, no?
Alright... so if some person makes a fake rape accusation and stages the whole thing... falsifies evidence... commits perjury. Then lets look at how long whomever would have gone to jail had the scam worked. If the guy would have gone to jail for 10 years then... if you can prove she tried to set him up... then she goes away for 10 years.
The sorts of people that do this thing are generally cowards. They do it because they think they can get away with it and they think the consequences of being caught will be nothing.
If you make it clear that their story will be audited and if it is proven that they tried to set someone up that they'll do the time instead... I think a lot of these bullshit cases will go away.
I am applying this to all crimes. Not just rape. Everything. If you try and make it look like someone stole something... same thing If the person would go to jail for 4 years or something... you go to jail instead for 4 years.
Do not make false claims before the court.
The sword of justice must cut both ways.
http://www.clim-past.net/8/765...
More things of interest... that's showing about 1000 years ago we had similar temps in Greenland. It also shows that the current temperature trend we're on predated the heavy burning of fossil fuels by most of the world's population. It looks like the warming trend started around 1800.
You might find this interesting:
http://www.dcscience.net/Giger...
""
The application of statistics to science is not a neutral act. Statistical tools have shaped and
were also shaped by its objects. In the social sciences, statistical methods fundamentally
changed research practice, making statistical inference its centerpiece. At the same time, textbook writers in the social sciences have transformed rivaling statistical systems into an apparently monolithic method that could be used mechanically. The idol of a universal method for
scientific inference has been worshiped since the âoeinference revolutionâ of the 1950s. Because
no such method has ever been found, surrogates have been created, most notably the quest for
significant p values. This form of surrogate science fosters delusions and borderline cheating
and has done much harm, creating, for one, a flood of irreproducible results. Proponents of the
âoeBayesian revolutionâ should be wary of chasing yet another chimera: an apparently universal
inference procedure. A better path would be to promote both an understanding of the various
devices in the âoestatistical toolboxâ and informed judgment to select among these.
""
I can cite many big names in science and many of the major journals that are all worried about a growing trend towards pseudo science.
A lot of it has to do with data driven science where in a data set is taken in and the whole study is just the analysis of the data. A core aspect of science is that at some point in the study there is supposed to be a "reality check". And many studies don't have any such thing in them... this worrying trend of not being able to reproduce results of published studies or various models when push comes to shove not being able to actually predict or model anything outside of the set piece of the study's data.
I'm no where near stupid. I won't defer to people that I see as increasingly compromised and who have a very poor track record of actually being able to predict or verify anything.
If that makes me a bad person or a fool... Then I wear that badge with pride with the proper attributions cited.
first, did you look at my calculations? I'm seeing something closer to 35 G/t.
What are your calculations based on? Mine are admittedly a worst case. I counted all oil as being burned effectively even though a certain amount is turned into plastic or lubricants or something.
I did not count natural gas emissions though... so frankly I think my numbers are not far off.
As to the increase... around 30 G/t is about 1 percent of the total in the atmosphere at this point.
Regardless the increase is linear. You can see the graph from Hawaii that I posted to see the graph of increase is linear. And then you can look at the emissions graph from the EPA to see the emissions are exponential.
I really think that point is important because it reveals something about the systems involved. if they're increasing linearly from exponential inputs. Think about that.
As to peer review being one thing or another... my only point was that simply citing its peer review status isn't sufficient to silence debate which was the context you attempted to use it in. I do value things more if they've been peer reviewed. But they're not above criticism.
As to the notion that only experts can have valid opinions... you have two problems with that position. First, there are experts with all the right diplomas that are making the same sorts of arguments I'm making. To arbitrarily say they're invalid but some other people are not... It doesn't work that way. If the question is one of "show me your diploma" then I can show you people saying the things I'm saying with all the credentials.
Here you'll say but "a poll of people with those credentials have said"... political argument. Science isn't a democracy. One scientist or even no scientists can say a given thing and the majority can be wrong. Citing a majority opinion doesn't make it true. It just makes it the popular view. I'm really quite tired of that entire line of logic. I have very little patience for it.
As to conflating science and politics... no... I just know one from the other.