1. The Dutch sea level data is sea level data. Not temp data. Nice try. The dutch sea level data is about as good as it gets actually. Going with any other data requires the use of proxy data and that's not really that precise in a lot of ways.
2. As to the wiki citation, I'm talking about sea levels. Not the GISS temp data. I can find a lot of problems with that if you want. I will go to individual temp stations and start going through it. But I really doubt you have the stamina to deal with that.
So lets do something that will actually be productive. Look at the Dutch sea level tables. Look at them. Then explain it. I can go around the world and show you tables like that anywhere good records are kept. Explain it?
3. As to Greenhouse gas being not up for debate, then do not cite the term to me. Until you are willing to examine a definition I will not accept its use. You don't get to use tautological definitions which is what an unexaminable definition is by definition. Tautology is fallacious. Any educated person knows that. So you can discuss what these things mean or I don't want to hear them used.
Greenhouse gas is now a blacklisted term between Werepants and Karmashock. Sealed and signed.
4. As to your rejection of other reference points of the same effect, that is not valid. If you say X+Y+Z=M... and I show you a different context where the equation doesn't work the way you said it does... it invalidates the principle.
What is more, Venus is specifically used as evidence of this climate model. And thus examining the atmosphere of Venus to question that model is entirely valid.
Really, a lot of your statements boil down to "I'm rational which is why I don't question. I am educated which is why I don't read. I am scientific which is why I don't check hypothesis."
If you're rational then you question things. If you're educated then it means you make an effort to inform yourself. If you're scientific then it means you test things.
You do none of these things. You just want the titles associated with them. You have no interest in actually earning any of them.
5. As to you listening to climate scientists, which ones? Cite names. And why do you listen to the ones that push one version but not another? Because they don't all say the same thing. And even the ones that agree... most of the agreements are tepid. Read the papers. I do. Bet you don't.
7. Actually the appeal to authority is false when not all the authorities agree. Remember that the experts of the day once thought Germs weren't real and the men that said tiny creatures we can't see with our naked eyes were responsible for people dying of infection in hospital. Your method of appealing to authority just takes a poll of what you think to be a majority and you simply turn science into a political election.
Science is not a democracy. I'm sorry. It is not a democracy.
It is a scientific and logical FACT that ONE or even NO scientist can hold an opinion and that opinion either held by one or none could be right whilst everyone else could be wrong.
Thus saying "well I have lots of people that agree with me" doesn't actually mean you're right.
It might mean you're more LIKELY to be right but it doesn't mean you are ACTUALLY right.
So, technically... given that the statement of "well X number of Y people agree about Z in science so it must be true" is logically invalid. To be logically true... it would have to be true period. As in 1+1=2. That's logically consistent. Saying I have a lot of experts that agree with this position so it must be true is not valid. Logically. if it were true then it would be true in all cases.
But as I just pointed out and anyone that is educated in the history of science knows... the majority of scientists are on the wrong side of scientific fact on occasion. It happens. And if it happens then you can't say that because they're on one side or the other that that side might be the right side. Because sometimes it isn't the right side.
I did. I referenced my citation. You can find it very easily if you make any effort what so ever.
I'm a stoic... I'm not autistic. If you are clearly going to make no effort to look at anything then I'm going to draw the obvious conclusion that evidence doesn't matter to you. And that has the consequence that I can then deal with you with that position validated. Claims to caring about evidence or facts can be discounted as meaningless words.
I to sophistication, I didn't say you were wrong. I said you weren't signaling sophistication. Nice try there, sophists. You try with your strawmen but they're not going to work. I will simply error check your fallacy.
As to you being right or wrong, you didn't cite a position. You just dropped a link and pissed off. Whether you understand anything in that citation... whether you've read it at all... is unknown. If you want to make an argument, and use that as evidence, then you can do that. But you have to actually MAKE an argument.
As to facts in evidence, I just cited a source that backed up my position. So you're automatically wrong on that statement.
Your kind are parasites. You build nothing but coalitions and consensus... you are masters of politics, rabble rousing, and lying to idiots. But that's all you're good for... advertisers that have deluded themselves into thinking they can be good kings because they write such catchy jingles.
By the way, I find it very funny that you have no problem with that but you probably will have a problem with the Christian baker not wanting to cater a homosexual wedding? Freedom of Association?
Or does that only work when you want it to work?
I think you should serve someone even if they don't ascribe to your politics. And by the same token, don't boycott people because they don't.
But if you think one is fine... I see it as inconsistent to be against the other.
Which would mean a return to what... racially segregated coffee shops? You're playing with something you don't understand. You're a baby with a hand grenade. You giggle and mouth it... and you don't understand that if you pull that pin... its going to do something dramatic in 5 seconds.
I already explained that there has never been and cannot be a communist country. So your point... which is just a repeat of my own point... because I said that was what Russia was before either of you did in this discussion... Sure, autocratic dictatorship. No disagreement. However, economically, you can have that and be socialist.
Socialism need not encompass more than the core relationship between the state and industry.
Anywho, you can either have a rational discussion or throw out more strawmen. Its your own choice.
Exactly. The Marxists push this bs... and when it goes south they say "well that wasn't real communism"... well nothing is or ever will be because its impossible.
Nor does the world owe you respect just because you lack the ability to back up your own pretensions with a sound argument.
*kiss kiss*
I'll respond to your query about my qualifications on climate papers... Name the person that judges if a specific paper passes peer review.
The information is generally kept secret. You have no fucking idea. Thus asking my qualifications is a false dichotomy. I'll tell you what... I'll offer a secret panel that will review the papers. Deal?
Same thing. There are reasons for keeping those names secret. They're just not good reasons.
I'd have to know how you're defining things to answer the question properly. A consistent issue when dealing with sophists like yourself is that you like to play word and definition games. I'll let you define things and then I'll answer the question. If I go with my definition, it will invariably be wrong according to you for some arbitrary reason. Never mind my definitions being accepted generally.
So, no... I'm not going to let you play that game. YOU define what you mean. And if your definitions aren't complete garbage then I'll operate within them for the sake of argument.
As to you list of trap questions where you ask if a vague violent action is socialism... Socialism involves government ownership of industry.
As to any of this being the antithesis of socialism... Not really. Socialism has no inherent prohibition against force. Try again.
As to conflating socialism with things that predate Marx... You'd do better to cite Harmony Pennsylvania and James Town. Both of them served as inspiration for Marx. Both were also utter failures whilst they held the values that interested Marx. But then I never claimed the man was wise.
Politeness isn't the issue. Making a reasoned argument is the issue.
its all well and good to say "I'm reasonable" like any trilby tipping twit on facebook but that doesn't actually mean anything.
Anyone saying anything can as easily make the same argument. Its inherently fallacious.
As to politics and political arguments... I like that you're said it was a matter of reason versus fantasy and then made a political argument.
In what way is Thatcher a scientific argument? Does that mean you automatically agree with anything Thatcher has to say about anything? Or are you merely picking and choosing what you like about thatcher arbitrarily? And how is cherry picking quotes evidence of anything?
If you want to talk about "reason", "science", etc... We can do that. If you want to trade cherry picked political quotes... we can do that.
But conflating ONE with the OTHER... is fallacious. It really isn't possible to disagree with that and maintain credibility.
At the heart of every Marxist argument is undeserved moral authority. I've yet to have that maxim fail on me. I don't cite that as evidence against you... merely sharing my own amusement.
The left and right aren't accurate descriptors to what we're talking about at this point. The two flags associated with political camps are not well understood or used.
It basically boils down to this... Left is any marxist derived political faction. Right is literally everything else.
If you're marxist derived, you're left. Doesn't matter if you push people into mass graves in the jungles of Columbia or advocate for kindergarten in Denmark. Everything marxist is left. And everything not marxist is right. Doesn't matter if you're a neo nazi or a Libertarian.
The two faction flags are meaningless. By the old definitions of right and left, basically everyone is left. Who is advocating for kings and the control of the church? Basically no one. Who is advocating for nobility, the end to voting, etc? Almost no one.
As descriptors of politics in the west "right" and "left" are basically useless unless you want to identify Marxists. That's about all its good for these days.
Your choice in this discussion () Rebut the opposing argument with ANYTHING. (x) Make a fallacious statement of contradiction that doesn't actually address anything and could be applied to literally any conversation in the history of EVER.
The error code actually tells me something. I can use my eyeball and get information. Forcing me to use a smart phone does not actually save me time. It wastes my time by forcing me to go through an additional step.
Its also a potential security problem. And it creates an additional point of failure. Lets say you're in a place that doesn't have internet access? Then that QR code is fucking worthless where as an error code works regardless. And I don't have to associate my smartphone with my computer in MS's datamining blitz.
Jesus. You people are so desperate to get raped its disgusting.
You have chosen: () Actually rebut the argument in anyway (x) Claim unjustified intellectual authority
Allow me to respond by rejecting your ad hominem.
Try again.
As to it being unjustified to group communism and socialism together... Show why "my" association of the two that I made in the context I made them was in error. Or your entire position is what?... "I'm amazing so I must be right" or "you're a poopy head so I'm intellectually superior"?
This is just sad. How can you be so ignorant as to believe an ad hominem is any kind of rebuttal?
Are you kidding? It will literally tell you the type of error in that error code. So what do I get out of it? typically I know whether I have to start doing ram tests or if there is a corrupted driver. One of the two things tends to be the cause of a BSOD. And the error code tells you which one it is...
Look you want to play with a smartphone app... go nuts. All I'm asking for is an error code somewhere on the screen. It doesn't have to be blinking or in giant letters or anything. Just somewhere. To literally require that I take a picture of the screen to see the error code... come on. Don't be that guy.
They're saying that to interpret a BSOD, I "MUST" point a smart phone at the screen... scan the QR code... and then MS will tell me what the fuck is going on?
Look, I have no problem with there being a QR code on the screen. Whatever. But why isn't there an error code? I'm not asking for much here.
More reasons to shift things to Linux... MS is going full retard with Windows 10. Can't wait for Windows 11. Why is it that even numbered releases are always full of AIDS... its just painful.
First, communism as described my Marx is an oxymoron and can't exist because it requires too many contradictory things to happen. Its basically Marxist Valhalla. Its this magical place or state of existance that good Marxists can look forward to going to at some future date where everything is perfect, everyone is free from want, everyone is free from strife, everyone is free from stress, justice for all... its a children's fantasy.
Second, socialism is possible but only because its parasites on things that work. You can tell because ultimately what contains socialism is that it has to collect revenue from productive portions of the economy to pay for non-productive socialist portions of the economy.
Third, what the Soviets built was basically just autocratic totalitarianism mixed with delusional idealism. It was a grand experiment in centralized government authority over everything... and the results are fairly well documented. That's what that gets you.
So does communism look good on paper? It looks good on paper if you think elves, unicorns, and wizards casting spells looks good on paper. Whatever you opinion on that... I'll put that down to fancy one way or the other... regardless, none of that shit works in "real life". Communism requires a restructuring of human nature and was largely conceived of by someone that misunderstood the discoveries of Darwin. Darwin's Origin of the Species was all the rage at the time and Marx misunderstood its implications to mean that he could remold humanity into some other form relativity quickly by pouring the human sea into a different mold. Any educated person in the 20th or 21st century should be well aware that that is not how it works. You're looking at genetic engineering or thousands of years of eugenics to get that kind of result. It isn't happening.
I wouldn't fault the Soviet's implementation. That was not the mistake. The mistake was the objective in the first place is unrealistic or ignorant depending on how unkind... and honest one wishes to be. The Soviets could not have been expected to succeed. They could have implemented Socialism of course. Socialism functions to the extent it does because it parasites off systems that actually function. So you can do that. But that's about as close as you can come to anything Marx babbled about.
That Marxism has come through the 20th century with as many believers as it has is really a testament to the power of religious/magical thinking and perhaps the futility of expunging such thinking from human philosophy. The misguided followers of these ideologies have killed millions upon millions of people. Many of whom are their own people. Gulaged... death camped... mass graved... disappeared. An orgy of mass murder that dwarfs Hitler. But while the fascists are generally regarded as being the murderous madmen of their age... some how the Marxists get cast as misunderstood idealists. As some idealistic platitudes make up for the mayhem and misery.
To repeat and be clear, the Soviets didn't fail to implement the fairies and unicorns plan. That plan doesn't work in the same way that twiddling your fingers while mumbling latin doesn't cast fireballs from your finger tips. If you want to larp communism that's fine. Roleplay it. But expecting people to actually rely on it in any real sense is absurd. Communism is the Marxist afterlife. The magical promised land beyond the veil of time and reality. Its utopia... as in "no place"... its not a plan. Its fantasy.
All that research done by Pratt and Whitney... Boeing... Lockheed Martin...
If socialism were superior the Russians would have won the Cold War.
They didn't because its inferior. Stop for a moment and look at all your dumb arguments are apply them to the soviets. IF you were right, they should have been dramatically more successful. Instead they were dramatically less successful.
That 20th century cage match apparently isn't taught in schools these days. Socialism lost on everything but politics. And the political argument is sustained largely by ignorance and sophistry. Any time empiricism becomes relevant... it gets its head twisted off and spiked into the ground like a tent pole.
If you want to be an apologist for people that silence political discourse than that is your own business. But know what you're doing. Because that's what you're about.
If you want freedom of speech, a free exchange of ideas, freedom of association, civic participation in government by the people... then we can do that.
Or if the progressive peasants are just too triggered by contrary opinions they can give up all that and the nobility will take care of them. No need for any more elections. Hereditary nobility for... ever. Hillary's daughter is already being groomed for high office. They very ready to simply accept your offer at ennoblement... right now.
You can all sit in communal buildings every Sunday and chant along from a book of dogma. And everyone can live by the strict new code of political correctness. We can have religious conformity inspectors... they'll probably be blue/pink haired hipsters wearing ceremonial trilby's that will scream in my face about how tolerant they are... You can see it now.
And then we can have government enforced gender equality... but only in jobs women want to do... or often as not... just get the pay and status of doing the job. Because after all, a lot of those jobs are hard, boring, lonely, and really only a bunch of nerds would do them anyway. But its unfair that there aren't equal numbers of women in those fields. Maybe we should just figure out how many women want to do a given job, then say that equal number of men can also do that job. But no more than that even if there is a need for more than that. After all, that would be sexist.
The whole political scene in the US has been fucking retard inception for the last 10 years at least. You want to cite a longer duration... sure. Cite your favorite flavor of ice cream and we'll go with that. But its just so stupid.
Listening to code pink go on and on and on about how bad war is and how we should just bring everyone home... and then when the people they campaigned for start blowing up Libya or whatever... fucking crickets.
Endlessly being told that there's too much money in politics... except when that money happens to be used by progressives... then its fine. Use tax dollars to bribe people to vote for you? No problem. Use tax money to run partisan propaganda campaigns for your faction? No problem. Use billionaire slush funds to advance your position... No problem. But anyone else does even a shadow of the shit that they get away with on a daily fucking basis... clearly the second coming of literal Hitler.
The sophistry on display is so astounding that I can't take anyone seriously anymore on these issues. Too many people are full of shit. No one can claim they're serious with any sincerity because its been outed at bullshit too many times.
Gents, just express yourselves... actually be tolerant... as in... actually... not just tolerant of YOUR OWN stupid opinions whilst naturally being utterly intolerant of any view that contrasts with your own. Because, that's not tolerance.
Price of playing identity politics... live by the sword... die by the sword.
Remember when it was deeply sexist to have all male clubs etc? Yeah... super sexist... new idea, lets do the same thing but it will not be sexist this time because... "reasons".
Except it is unless the past situation wasn't sexist.
Can't have it both ways.
As to the trans thing. I love the trans movement. Its going to implode this whole stupid sex debate one way or another.
Slashdot Mirror
1. The Dutch sea level data is sea level data. Not temp data. Nice try. The dutch sea level data is about as good as it gets actually. Going with any other data requires the use of proxy data and that's not really that precise in a lot of ways.
2. As to the wiki citation, I'm talking about sea levels. Not the GISS temp data. I can find a lot of problems with that if you want. I will go to individual temp stations and start going through it. But I really doubt you have the stamina to deal with that.
So lets do something that will actually be productive. Look at the Dutch sea level tables. Look at them. Then explain it. I can go around the world and show you tables like that anywhere good records are kept. Explain it?
3. As to Greenhouse gas being not up for debate, then do not cite the term to me. Until you are willing to examine a definition I will not accept its use. You don't get to use tautological definitions which is what an unexaminable definition is by definition. Tautology is fallacious. Any educated person knows that. So you can discuss what these things mean or I don't want to hear them used.
Greenhouse gas is now a blacklisted term between Werepants and Karmashock. Sealed and signed.
4. As to your rejection of other reference points of the same effect, that is not valid. If you say X+Y+Z=M... and I show you a different context where the equation doesn't work the way you said it does... it invalidates the principle.
What is more, Venus is specifically used as evidence of this climate model. And thus examining the atmosphere of Venus to question that model is entirely valid.
Really, a lot of your statements boil down to "I'm rational which is why I don't question. I am educated which is why I don't read. I am scientific which is why I don't check hypothesis."
If you're rational then you question things. If you're educated then it means you make an effort to inform yourself. If you're scientific then it means you test things.
You do none of these things. You just want the titles associated with them. You have no interest in actually earning any of them.
5. As to you listening to climate scientists, which ones? Cite names. And why do you listen to the ones that push one version but not another? Because they don't all say the same thing. And even the ones that agree... most of the agreements are tepid. Read the papers. I do. Bet you don't.
7. Actually the appeal to authority is false when not all the authorities agree. Remember that the experts of the day once thought Germs weren't real and the men that said tiny creatures we can't see with our naked eyes were responsible for people dying of infection in hospital. Your method of appealing to authority just takes a poll of what you think to be a majority and you simply turn science into a political election.
Science is not a democracy. I'm sorry. It is not a democracy.
It is a scientific and logical FACT that ONE or even NO scientist can hold an opinion and that opinion either held by one or none could be right whilst everyone else could be wrong.
Thus saying "well I have lots of people that agree with me" doesn't actually mean you're right.
It might mean you're more LIKELY to be right but it doesn't mean you are ACTUALLY right.
So, technically... given that the statement of "well X number of Y people agree about Z in science so it must be true" is logically invalid. To be logically true... it would have to be true period. As in 1+1=2. That's logically consistent. Saying I have a lot of experts that agree with this position so it must be true is not valid. Logically. if it were true then it would be true in all cases.
But as I just pointed out and anyone that is educated in the history of science knows... the majority of scientists are on the wrong side of scientific fact on occasion. It happens. And if it happens then you can't say that because they're on one side or the other that that side might be the right side. Because sometimes it isn't the right side.
I did. I referenced my citation. You can find it very easily if you make any effort what so ever.
I'm a stoic... I'm not autistic. If you are clearly going to make no effort to look at anything then I'm going to draw the obvious conclusion that evidence doesn't matter to you. And that has the consequence that I can then deal with you with that position validated. Claims to caring about evidence or facts can be discounted as meaningless words.
I to sophistication, I didn't say you were wrong. I said you weren't signaling sophistication. Nice try there, sophists. You try with your strawmen but they're not going to work. I will simply error check your fallacy.
As to you being right or wrong, you didn't cite a position. You just dropped a link and pissed off. Whether you understand anything in that citation... whether you've read it at all... is unknown. If you want to make an argument, and use that as evidence, then you can do that. But you have to actually MAKE an argument.
As to facts in evidence, I just cited a source that backed up my position. So you're automatically wrong on that statement.
Your kind are parasites. You build nothing but coalitions and consensus... you are masters of politics, rabble rousing, and lying to idiots. But that's all you're good for... advertisers that have deluded themselves into thinking they can be good kings because they write such catchy jingles.
It would be the end of the country.
By the way, I find it very funny that you have no problem with that but you probably will have a problem with the Christian baker not wanting to cater a homosexual wedding? Freedom of Association?
Or does that only work when you want it to work?
I think you should serve someone even if they don't ascribe to your politics. And by the same token, don't boycott people because they don't.
But if you think one is fine... I see it as inconsistent to be against the other.
Which would mean a return to what... racially segregated coffee shops? You're playing with something you don't understand. You're a baby with a hand grenade. You giggle and mouth it... and you don't understand that if you pull that pin... its going to do something dramatic in 5 seconds.
So you clearly would see it as equal if half the country... which is your political opposition... boycotted all your businesses?
What you're not getting is that it undermines the society at its core. We cannot share a society with you if you are this intolerant.
And you are intolerant.
I already explained that there has never been and cannot be a communist country. So your point... which is just a repeat of my own point... because I said that was what Russia was before either of you did in this discussion... Sure, autocratic dictatorship. No disagreement. However, economically, you can have that and be socialist.
Socialism need not encompass more than the core relationship between the state and industry.
Anywho, you can either have a rational discussion or throw out more strawmen. Its your own choice.
Exactly. The Marxists push this bs... and when it goes south they say "well that wasn't real communism"... well nothing is or ever will be because its impossible.
Its a unicorns and dragons system.
Sorry, your position has been discounted as meaningless. :D
Nor does the world owe you respect just because you lack the ability to back up your own pretensions with a sound argument.
*kiss kiss*
I'll respond to your query about my qualifications on climate papers... Name the person that judges if a specific paper passes peer review.
The information is generally kept secret. You have no fucking idea. Thus asking my qualifications is a false dichotomy. I'll tell you what... I'll offer a secret panel that will review the papers. Deal?
Same thing. There are reasons for keeping those names secret. They're just not good reasons.
If you've seen a lot of BSOD... and I have... you get very familiar with the error codes.
I'd have to know how you're defining things to answer the question properly. A consistent issue when dealing with sophists like yourself is that you like to play word and definition games. I'll let you define things and then I'll answer the question. If I go with my definition, it will invariably be wrong according to you for some arbitrary reason. Never mind my definitions being accepted generally.
So, no... I'm not going to let you play that game. YOU define what you mean. And if your definitions aren't complete garbage then I'll operate within them for the sake of argument.
As to you list of trap questions where you ask if a vague violent action is socialism... Socialism involves government ownership of industry.
As to any of this being the antithesis of socialism... Not really. Socialism has no inherent prohibition against force. Try again.
As to conflating socialism with things that predate Marx... You'd do better to cite Harmony Pennsylvania and James Town. Both of them served as inspiration for Marx. Both were also utter failures whilst they held the values that interested Marx. But then I never claimed the man was wise.
Politeness isn't the issue. Making a reasoned argument is the issue.
its all well and good to say "I'm reasonable" like any trilby tipping twit on facebook but that doesn't actually mean anything.
Anyone saying anything can as easily make the same argument. Its inherently fallacious.
As to politics and political arguments... I like that you're said it was a matter of reason versus fantasy and then made a political argument.
In what way is Thatcher a scientific argument? Does that mean you automatically agree with anything Thatcher has to say about anything? Or are you merely picking and choosing what you like about thatcher arbitrarily? And how is cherry picking quotes evidence of anything?
If you want to talk about "reason", "science", etc... We can do that. If you want to trade cherry picked political quotes... we can do that.
But conflating ONE with the OTHER... is fallacious. It really isn't possible to disagree with that and maintain credibility.
At the heart of every Marxist argument is undeserved moral authority. I've yet to have that maxim fail on me. I don't cite that as evidence against you... merely sharing my own amusement.
The left and right aren't accurate descriptors to what we're talking about at this point. The two flags associated with political camps are not well understood or used.
It basically boils down to this... Left is any marxist derived political faction. Right is literally everything else.
If you're marxist derived, you're left. Doesn't matter if you push people into mass graves in the jungles of Columbia or advocate for kindergarten in Denmark. Everything marxist is left. And everything not marxist is right. Doesn't matter if you're a neo nazi or a Libertarian.
The two faction flags are meaningless. By the old definitions of right and left, basically everyone is left. Who is advocating for kings and the control of the church? Basically no one. Who is advocating for nobility, the end to voting, etc? Almost no one.
As descriptors of politics in the west "right" and "left" are basically useless unless you want to identify Marxists. That's about all its good for these days.
Your choice in this discussion
() Rebut the opposing argument with ANYTHING.
(x) Make a fallacious statement of contradiction that doesn't actually address anything and could be applied to literally any conversation in the history of EVER.
Your choice is noted.
Way to not read or understand anything.
The error code actually tells me something. I can use my eyeball and get information. Forcing me to use a smart phone does not actually save me time. It wastes my time by forcing me to go through an additional step.
Its also a potential security problem. And it creates an additional point of failure. Lets say you're in a place that doesn't have internet access? Then that QR code is fucking worthless where as an error code works regardless. And I don't have to associate my smartphone with my computer in MS's datamining blitz.
Jesus. You people are so desperate to get raped its disgusting.
You have chosen:
() Actually rebut the argument in anyway
(x) Claim unjustified intellectual authority
Allow me to respond by rejecting your ad hominem.
Try again.
As to it being unjustified to group communism and socialism together... Show why "my" association of the two that I made in the context I made them was in error. Or your entire position is what?... "I'm amazing so I must be right" or "you're a poopy head so I'm intellectually superior"?
This is just sad. How can you be so ignorant as to believe an ad hominem is any kind of rebuttal?
You're pathetic.
And what does "right wing" even mean? The dichotomy between right and left is meaningless.
All it means in the 21st century is Marxist versus non marxist.
That's it.
If you're a marxist derived ideology then you're left. If you're not marxist then you're right. That's all that means.
Look at the diversity on the "right" and you'll see... all right wing means is "everyone else".
So am I not a marxist? Guilty as charged.
But that's all that means.
... your dna is broken.
Are you kidding? It will literally tell you the type of error in that error code. So what do I get out of it? typically I know whether I have to start doing ram tests or if there is a corrupted driver. One of the two things tends to be the cause of a BSOD. And the error code tells you which one it is...
Look you want to play with a smartphone app... go nuts. All I'm asking for is an error code somewhere on the screen. It doesn't have to be blinking or in giant letters or anything. Just somewhere. To literally require that I take a picture of the screen to see the error code... come on. Don't be that guy.
They're saying that to interpret a BSOD, I "MUST" point a smart phone at the screen... scan the QR code... and then MS will tell me what the fuck is going on?
Look, I have no problem with there being a QR code on the screen. Whatever. But why isn't there an error code? I'm not asking for much here.
More reasons to shift things to Linux... MS is going full retard with Windows 10. Can't wait for Windows 11. Why is it that even numbered releases are always full of AIDS... its just painful.
First, communism as described my Marx is an oxymoron and can't exist because it requires too many contradictory things to happen. Its basically Marxist Valhalla. Its this magical place or state of existance that good Marxists can look forward to going to at some future date where everything is perfect, everyone is free from want, everyone is free from strife, everyone is free from stress, justice for all... its a children's fantasy.
Second, socialism is possible but only because its parasites on things that work. You can tell because ultimately what contains socialism is that it has to collect revenue from productive portions of the economy to pay for non-productive socialist portions of the economy.
Third, what the Soviets built was basically just autocratic totalitarianism mixed with delusional idealism. It was a grand experiment in centralized government authority over everything... and the results are fairly well documented. That's what that gets you.
So does communism look good on paper? It looks good on paper if you think elves, unicorns, and wizards casting spells looks good on paper. Whatever you opinion on that... I'll put that down to fancy one way or the other... regardless, none of that shit works in "real life". Communism requires a restructuring of human nature and was largely conceived of by someone that misunderstood the discoveries of Darwin. Darwin's Origin of the Species was all the rage at the time and Marx misunderstood its implications to mean that he could remold humanity into some other form relativity quickly by pouring the human sea into a different mold. Any educated person in the 20th or 21st century should be well aware that that is not how it works. You're looking at genetic engineering or thousands of years of eugenics to get that kind of result. It isn't happening.
I wouldn't fault the Soviet's implementation. That was not the mistake. The mistake was the objective in the first place is unrealistic or ignorant depending on how unkind... and honest one wishes to be. The Soviets could not have been expected to succeed. They could have implemented Socialism of course. Socialism functions to the extent it does because it parasites off systems that actually function. So you can do that. But that's about as close as you can come to anything Marx babbled about.
That Marxism has come through the 20th century with as many believers as it has is really a testament to the power of religious/magical thinking and perhaps the futility of expunging such thinking from human philosophy. The misguided followers of these ideologies have killed millions upon millions of people. Many of whom are their own people. Gulaged... death camped... mass graved... disappeared. An orgy of mass murder that dwarfs Hitler. But while the fascists are generally regarded as being the murderous madmen of their age... some how the Marxists get cast as misunderstood idealists. As some idealistic platitudes make up for the mayhem and misery.
To repeat and be clear, the Soviets didn't fail to implement the fairies and unicorns plan. That plan doesn't work in the same way that twiddling your fingers while mumbling latin doesn't cast fireballs from your finger tips. If you want to larp communism that's fine. Roleplay it. But expecting people to actually rely on it in any real sense is absurd. Communism is the Marxist afterlife. The magical promised land beyond the veil of time and reality. Its utopia... as in "no place"... its not a plan. Its fantasy.
All that research done by Pratt and Whitney... Boeing... Lockheed Martin...
If socialism were superior the Russians would have won the Cold War.
They didn't because its inferior. Stop for a moment and look at all your dumb arguments are apply them to the soviets. IF you were right, they should have been dramatically more successful. Instead they were dramatically less successful.
That 20th century cage match apparently isn't taught in schools these days. Socialism lost on everything but politics. And the political argument is sustained largely by ignorance and sophistry. Any time empiricism becomes relevant... it gets its head twisted off and spiked into the ground like a tent pole.
I was clear what I was talking about.
If you want to be an apologist for people that silence political discourse than that is your own business. But know what you're doing. Because that's what you're about.
If you want freedom of speech, a free exchange of ideas, freedom of association, civic participation in government by the people... then we can do that.
Or if the progressive peasants are just too triggered by contrary opinions they can give up all that and the nobility will take care of them. No need for any more elections. Hereditary nobility for... ever. Hillary's daughter is already being groomed for high office. They very ready to simply accept your offer at ennoblement... right now.
You can all sit in communal buildings every Sunday and chant along from a book of dogma. And everyone can live by the strict new code of political correctness. We can have religious conformity inspectors... they'll probably be blue/pink haired hipsters wearing ceremonial trilby's that will scream in my face about how tolerant they are... You can see it now.
And then we can have government enforced gender equality... but only in jobs women want to do... or often as not... just get the pay and status of doing the job. Because after all, a lot of those jobs are hard, boring, lonely, and really only a bunch of nerds would do them anyway. But its unfair that there aren't equal numbers of women in those fields. Maybe we should just figure out how many women want to do a given job, then say that equal number of men can also do that job. But no more than that even if there is a need for more than that. After all, that would be sexist.
The whole political scene in the US has been fucking retard inception for the last 10 years at least. You want to cite a longer duration... sure. Cite your favorite flavor of ice cream and we'll go with that. But its just so stupid.
Listening to code pink go on and on and on about how bad war is and how we should just bring everyone home... and then when the people they campaigned for start blowing up Libya or whatever... fucking crickets.
Endlessly being told that there's too much money in politics... except when that money happens to be used by progressives... then its fine. Use tax dollars to bribe people to vote for you? No problem. Use tax money to run partisan propaganda campaigns for your faction? No problem. Use billionaire slush funds to advance your position... No problem. But anyone else does even a shadow of the shit that they get away with on a daily fucking basis... clearly the second coming of literal Hitler.
The sophistry on display is so astounding that I can't take anyone seriously anymore on these issues. Too many people are full of shit. No one can claim they're serious with any sincerity because its been outed at bullshit too many times.
Gents, just express yourselves... actually be tolerant... as in... actually... not just tolerant of YOUR OWN stupid opinions whilst naturally being utterly intolerant of any view that contrasts with your own. Because, that's not tolerance.
Price of playing identity politics... live by the sword... die by the sword.
Remember when it was deeply sexist to have all male clubs etc? Yeah... super sexist... new idea, lets do the same thing but it will not be sexist this time because... "reasons".
Except it is unless the past situation wasn't sexist.
Can't have it both ways.
As to the trans thing. I love the trans movement. Its going to implode this whole stupid sex debate one way or another.
Hearts and minds was a failure. Adapt.