Not voting isn't a neutral action, it helps the incumbent.
So? When the incumbent is just as evil, just as blatantly operating outside the limits set by the constitution, when the government itself is completely, utterly out of control, as are the parties, as are the corporations, what difference will helping the incumbent or the challenger make? You are proceeding from an invalid position, and that is, the presumption that politicians are a force for good, or at least, that one might be a force for less evil. This has not been demonstrably true for many years, at least in the USA.
Even if you do know every policy of all of candidates, you're not going to agree with all of the policies of any one candidate.
I don't agree with any of the policies of any of the candidates. I find them repugnant, in point of fact. Furthermore, I am personally unelectable because just about no one is willing to believe that they are invested in an evil and corrupt system, and no minor party exists that represents even a tiny fraction of my views. They're all blind and bloody optimists, as near as I can tell. The libertarians are the closest thing to reasonable, and they are a confused bunch of puppies.
Election day means nothing to me. You're either going to have democrats or republicans come out on top. They'll both continue to wreck the country, distance themselves from the founders and framers, blithely ignore the very idea of liberty, and steal from me using coercion, or violence if I am foolish enough to resist said coercion. They've taken my home under false pretenses and for grossly insufficient compensation (supposedly for the Tock's Island "dam"... which they never built and incompetently turned into a park) they've used my taxes to invade a sovereign country that was not attacking us and murder untold numbers of innocents, they've suspended habeas corpus, they coddle, support and project religion to an unconscionable degree, they've criminalized many forms of sexuality, free speech, all manner of personal choice, they've actually co-opted the voting process, even the voting hardware, they lie about each other and themselves, they are operating completely outside the bounds the constitution lays out... Voting is the opportunity to ask for more of the same, and no less.
Voting puts forth the very strong implication that you support the way the system works, as you are willing to participate. Well, I don't support the way the system works, as far as I am concerned, it is about as broken as it can get and still superficially resemble the occasional fragment of democratic procedure or any vestige of a republic well enough to fool the middle part of the gaussian.
Voting offers the sheep the illusion of control, without even a chance of actually handing any degree of such control over. If you enjoy voting, you should probably be examining what your core values stand for. If anything.
So that's why I don't vote. No point. Douche and a turd.
Namecalling, with or without guilty squirming at the end of your diatribe, does not change the facts.
The facts in this situation are represented by these words, and these words alone:
Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech
It is just that simple. No law. Not "laws you think are a good idea", not "laws that favor you", not "laws that suppress perverts", not "laws that protect marriage" — just No law.
The constitution is the entire basis for every legitimate action that can be taken by the government, including making laws. The 1st amendment spells out that no law can be made by the feds with regard to abridging the freedom of speech. The 14th amendment spells out that the states must follow suit. That's the end of it, until or unless the constitution is changed as per the rules set out to make those changes. Thus far, no such change has been made, and... that is the ignominious end of your argument, ad hominem and other low-level sophistry notwithstanding.
I understand that you may not be able to wrap your head around these astounding ideas. I forgive you. And I'll protect your right to say so with my life.
So you're on a jury. The case has to do with a mob hit. You get a note that says, "The defendant walks or you are a dead man." Still okay?
Yes. Presuming the threat is serious, still 100% OK. It is my honor to attempt to ensure that justice prevails — though that might entail the defendant walking, I might as well point out — but just as a soldier must face risks, so must any participant in a system where someone may be deprived of liberty, property, and even life. You don't even need a note to know you're taking a risk. Put away a man who values his liberty above all else — as I do — for a reason he cannot see his way to agree with you on — and you're at risk, with or without a note. Regardless, my membership in society compels me to do the right thing as best I can understand what it is.
You are a judge. You are presiding over a corruption case. Several of your colleagues have been killed presiding over similar cases. Now you are threatened if the defendant, the brother of the mayor, doesn't walk. Still okay?
Yes. Still Ok. Same answer, actually.
A man walks up to you on the street with an M16, points it at your face, tells you that he is going to kill you. You happen to have a gun and you shoot him. You go to jail because he was just using words - your action was completely unwarranted. Still okay?
I'm Ok with having shot him, yes. This isn't simply speech, because he's pointing a gun at me. The context is different. If the court cannot see a difference between having a gun in my face plus having a threat related to that gun presented to me and just having words in my face, then I'm not Ok with that. But again, I used this specific example above. Gun pointing and making fists and waving knives within attack distance is not free speech. Speech is made up of words and symbols; written, spoken, communications-related gestures and captured on video and in photographs and drawings — but still, just speech. When we say "speech", we're talking about communicating ideas, not brandishing tools that leverage physical assault. Bring those into a "conversation" and we're not just having speech any longer. Even making a fist or presenting a clawed hand within striking range is stepping well over the line. In a video, a gun or a fist or a claw is reduced to just a gesture, for the obvious reasons.
There are practical limits to free speech.
No. There aren't. There are legislated limits to free speech, and I maintain that they are entirely illegitimate. As far as I am concerned, the fact is, you can say anything you like to me, as long as you limit your communication to a direct form of speech (writing, speaking, etc.) The constitution made this the trump card; you don't get to reduce it in importance, and frankly, neither does the government, or the government is operating outside its legitimately constituted authority, and I will probably ignore it until it applies illegitimate, but no less real, coercion to me, and even then, I may ignore it, because I have very little respect for the quislings in our legislature that have eroded what the 1st amendment means, nor for their sympathizers — meaning you, sir.
You're obsessed with the lower graph and its medieval warm period. The problem is, the graphs are looking at two separate things
The data that produced that was taken from a much wider swatch of the world than just Europe. You — and many others like you — would just as soon sweep that under the rug, but that's not going to happen here. That data is a perfectly good summary of a *worldwide* warming that is *known* to have happened, and furthermore, it is a much better data set than the one that swamps everything else to make the "hockey stick." The graph shows European temperatures; but the data comes from all over the USA and agrees completely; between Europe and the USA, you've got one heck of a broad set of samples over a huge geographical area, and the fact that those samples are insignificant with regard to the picture the hockey stick paints should be a huge, fluttering red flag to you. It certainly is to me.
Further, why are we even talking about the graphs from the Telegraph article? The graph I was referring to, the one you claimed had a suspicious norm, was this one.
We're talking about it because they're the same information, your graph is the very tail end of the dataset, scaled and tweaked to look frightening, and the bottom graph that I provided for you from the Telegraph is a much more accurate summary of climate over a much more meaningful range, AND we're talking about it because you made an incorrect assertion that global temps had not varied more than.7C since the last ice age, which claim is disputed directly by the record of the MWP.
You remember how you claimed that they must be taking the average from some other, warmer set of data that they weren't telling us about? You stopped a half inch short of calling them a bunch of frauds.
I'm truly sorry, I thought I had called them a bunch of frauds. I guess I'm too subtle for my own good at times. To be specific: They did leave out a warmer set of data — it is called the medieval warm period, and without that data, the graph looks like only now are we warming up, and ooooo! Boogyman! Furthermore, you swallowed this hook, line and sinker, and made it clear with your claim that we'd not changed more than.7C since the last ice age, which is a patently untrue assertion. The fact is that we've been warmer, and we've been colder, and we've seen changes like this before, and the current data, by which I mean measured temperature as opposed to speculation, does not support getting worried.
CO2 may have been a lagging indicator in past warmings. So what? Does that mean that CO2 concentration has no effect on global temperatures?
No. It means that its presence in the past is not an indicator of coming global warming, per se. It's a gas that in a very minimal way (as compared to water vapor, methane, and a number of other things) can trap heat. Since water vapor (just for one example) can vary *enormously* based on all manner of feedback systems in the atmosphere, CO2 by itself is swamped; so (a) it is not a precursor indicator, as many people think, and (b) it is highly unlikely to be a direct causative agent because it is so low in the hierarchy of atmospheric heat trapping agencies.
The initial temperature rise was caused by something else
perhaps increased sun output -- and that released more CO2 into the atmosphere by melting ice and raising sea temperatures. What follows is a positive feedback loop, as increased CO2 and increased temperature feed back on each other, until a new equillibrium is reached.
No. Again, CO2 is very near the bottom of the hierarchy of heat trapping mechanisms that exist as mutable systems in the atmosphere. Water vapor has many orders of magnitude more effect than does C
No, silly person. It is humor because it does that. It is humor because your average Christian doesn't know the spanish inquisition from the papal inquisition, couldn't explain why Job offered his daughters to the crowd, doesn't have a clue as to how incest figures into the bible stories, and couldn't give you an accurate summary of what they think about their faith in the first place. No more than I go about figuring out how to convert Christians into sensible human beings. I don't. I don't care what you think, as long as you don't try to make me or members of my family think it, too.
Flamebait. Brother, if I wanted to flame Christianity, the whole place would still be on fire. Levity, not Levi.
Wow. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Nominally articulate, topically abusive, yet essentially data free. Amazing. My social studies teacher used to castigate your writing style as "glittering generalities." He generally assigned it to politicians. Are you a politician, or perhaps a lawyer? Anyway:
My bank is forced to link my SSN to my bank transactions by the feds, and furthermore, every time I move over 7 grand or so, they have to do a "right now" report to the feds so the feds can see if they might want to jump on my ass ASAP. This has nothing to do with legitimate (and I use that word loosely, agreeing in principle that it is another argument) taxes and everything to do with big-brothering my day-to-day financial operations. Now, you work on that little fact and see if you can explain it away as an act of the bank, rather than an act of the feds. If you succeed at that (you won't, sorry), we'll move on to other federal misuses of the SSN, such as their direct complicity in allowing the number to be used by anyone and everyone despite specific representations to the citizens otherwise, including right on the card itself. Otherwise, go back under your bridge. I have the magic "I know a whole lot more than you do card' that lets me cross it without having to deal with you and yours.
If anything, the norm they chose understates the nature of the change.
Nonsense. The norm they chose was specifically chosen to move a local low into the middle so that a local high would look like the end of the world. If they (for instance) had factored in the medieval warm period (accurate bottom graph, includes relevant 20th century average line) instead of presuming the (VERY inaccurate top graph) hockey stick graph the climate change folks have been clinging to, then you'd see that the current temperature changes are entirely unremarkable in both excursion and scope. Furthermore, CO2, historically speaking, is a lagging indicator, not a leading one — it is complete misdirection to use it backwards and point at history to attempt to validate this. Next, we're not looking at half a degree every twenty years, not by a long shot. Why do you think they have to divide the output of the climate models by three? It's because they are way overly biased towards warming. They're not even accurately predicting the current conditions (off by 300% too high!), and that's surely not a very good indicator for what they can say about a hundred years from now.
The difference between our current climate and the last big ice age was a whopping 5-8C, and our global climate has stayed within a 0.7C window since it ended
Um, no. No, it hasn't. Again, see the bottom graph, you know, the one with all the data on it. The one that doesn't conveniently edit out the medieval warm period.
Do you know how many cities there are located less than eight meters above sea level?
Eight? EIGHT? How in the name of all that is superstitious did you get to worrying about !8! flipping meters of sea rise? Eight? Excuse me (Bwahahahahahahaha!) There, that's better. 8? (Bwahaha!) Sorry. Ha.:-)
Look here, little red riding climate, even the known to be bad climate model only predicted a fraction of a meter rise over a hundred years. That's right, less than one. Eight? Holy leaf-a-roni, what are you smoking?
Actualmeasured sea level rise is about an inch every fifteen years, which if it continues will result in a little over 6 and a half inches (about 16 cm) over 100 years. Eight meters. That's some bad-ass kool-aid, there, son.:-)
...there's plenty more out there, if you simply have the will to look. Quality varies, just as it does on the "pro" side. However, clearly, the "consensus" that warming is "happening as a consequence of CO2" is purest propaganda and hyperbole. There is no such thing, except among the shrill and the uninformed. If in fact warming were happening exactly as advertised, we don't have the data to show it or explain it as yet.
My position is simple common sense: Study everything. Don't make new pollution. Reduce what pollution we're creating now. Cleaner is better on every level, so pursue that.
In the meantime... when we have climate models that work (we don't), maybe even when we have weather models that work for more than 48 hours or so, then perhaps it is time for us to revisit the idea of climate change with an eye towards affecting it directly. In the meantime, CO2 as a past indicator rose after warming periods, on other words, not as a precursor, but as a post-event consequence. Using present Co2 levels and assigning them the role of precursor and then pointing at the past records is disingenuous at best and outright deceptive at worst. Subsequently getting fired up about our "causing" major climate change in the short term, much less with relatively precise predictions about sea level rise, is not so much junk science as it is bunk science. If the models are right, it's a complete and utter accident — not a consequence of modeling using past data, because there is no comparable event in the geological record.
Putting up shades we can't take down is about as stupid an idea as I've heard in a while. And I run into a lot of stupid ideas. I hang out here, after all.:)
No apology required; I just wondered if I'd said something along those lines, or seemingly so, to lead you astray.
Mostly, I find societal norms to range from pitiful to despicable, depending on a couple of pre-considerations; first, what they could have been if the government was made up of the quality of people who wrote the constitution, and second, if the citizens themselves were of that quality.
I nudge, donate, debate and agitate along the lines that I think society should develop, but it is more out of a sense of duty than out of any significant degree of hope. There's an upside, though, I sometimes uncover like-minded people this way. I actually met my partner in an unarmed combat class I was teaching, and we found ourselves of like minds simply because I'm outspoken — she certainly isn't. Good thing I wasn't paying any attention to the societal norm of not getting involved with my students, though. Would have missed that boat right proper.
You accept it for setting the legal age of alcohol consumption, you accept it for setting the legal age of consent, you accept it for a myriad of other societal guidelines and laws.
Let me change a few words here, and you tell me if the meaning has changed:
First of all, preventing someone from yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded school not on fire is completely different. That is a situation where someone is knowingly (presumably, anyway) providing false information to students that did not ask for it and can reasonably be assumed to be there for the education.
Now, I humbly suggest that we call this kind of event a "fire drill" and we encourage them in the forward thinking mode that says that when people know what to do, and practice it, they will do it better than if they are simply surprised out of their minds. Furthermore, let's point out to them that there are some ways to do this that are most effective, and some ways that will lead to problems. If they cause problems, let's point out, they'll be punished, because it really is important to do this particular task correctly, no matter if it is practice, or in the case of the real thing. So no pushing, no shoving, no panic. Be aware of your surroundings, avoid smoke and flames, file out in an orderly fashion.
I know it's just a crazy idea, but I just think of things like this all the time. Silly me!
Please, please, please do not use this baseless argument to define what rights people have.
You're entirely missing the point. Free speech is defined as a right in the 1st amendment. Anything left over as per the 9th cannot un-define it. A right to "not be offended" would do so. Ergo, there is no such thing. Furthermore, although the 1st is an instruction to the feds, the 14th applies the bill of rights to the states, so you can't weasel out of it at that level, either.
And you, sir, are devaluing your chance at rebuttal by regressing to name calling. Given a choice between the two, I'd rather be the dolt.
Your neighbor decides that he will scream things like "HEY THAT COLOR SUCKS" and "WHY DIDNT YOU PAINT IT WHITE" at the top of his lungs towards your house from midnight to 6 AM every day, just because he doesn't like the color you painted it.
Am I supposed to have a problem with this? Why? My neighbor can scream anything he wants on his property. That's why he bought it, I presume, to have a place where he can be free to live and act as he pleases. I know that's why I bought my property, and why I elected to spend enough, and in the right place, to have some space around my home.
Random 15 year old kids run around the local library while you are quietly reading a book there "expressing" themselves by singing out loud along with their ipods on which the latest Ldacris song, thereby not allowing you to study or enjoy your book
Personally, I don't care what the kid does with his mouth. It won't affect my studies in the least. Kids are always doing this anyway... seems like you've never had your dinner "enhanced" by a crying baby. There's no right to have your ears protected by your mommy. Life makes noise. My reaction was to learn to deal with it. What was yours?
A group of pro-life or pro-choice (take your pick) demonstrators decide eschew [I doubt you meant that... English not your first language? How about "share"?] their views (quite loudly may I add) at the funeral home were you are saying the final goodbyes to a loved one.
I have no problem with this at all. Nor at any other public space. Free speech is critical. These demonstrators may have something very interesting, even important to say, such as "Your brother died in an unjust war plotted, waged and lied about by the tyrant that runs your country." Then again, they may say "Your brother was a prick, and we're really glad he's gone" and again in which case, there you have it. Brother is still dead, funeral is still ongoing, nothing material has changed and no protection from an overweening government is called for. I might not be pleased, but where, exactly, does it say I have a right to run around going "wow, gee, everything's just as I would have it", eh?
Any more examples you'd like to float? Or are you catching on?
Subject suffers from a kidney disease. A result of this condition is a bed wetting problem. Currently, there is a law that protects the subject from ridicule by preventing this information from being made public. As an aside, there is nothing to prevent the subject from distributing this information. In this case, censorship protects the subject, unless the subject wilfully gives up that right.
This is utter nonsense. There is nothing the least shameful about bedwetting, any more than there is about farting in your sleep or any other truly involuntary act. No one needs "protection" from such knowledge, except insofar as society has some sick people who would worry themselves about such things -- but bending to hide information from their perversions and neuroses is not the correct path to a solution. The solution is to let them say whatever they like, and ignore them. No legislation required. In the meantime, perhaps reducing the "hide behind mommy" mentality will erode the irrational sense of shame some people would like to see you suffer.
Subject is the target of an abusive relationship. Subject wishes to leave the relationship and move to a safer environment. To keep the example simple, there are no children involved in this relationship. Subject wishes to start life anew, but does not wish to leave self open to abuse from former abuser. Currently, there are laws that allow you a certain amount of privacy. Unlisted telephone lines, etc. In this case, censorship protects the subject, unless the subject wilfully gives up that right.
There are laws against physical abuse. As there should be. Physical abusers should not remain free to continue this activity. Hiding information about the abuser / abused instead of jailing the abuser is the wrong answer. Censorship is not the answer. Dealing with the abuser is the answer. If the abuser is appropriately dealt with, then there is no need to censor said information, in fact, the more people who know this person is an abuser, the better in terms of catching them; after they are caught, the point is moot.
Crime is, in fact, a matter for public concern.
What you are doing is confusing actual crimes and appropriate direct solutions for said crimes with indirect and inappropriate attempts to pre-empt crimes while not dealing with the actual problem. The various legislatures regularly make this mistake. This does not make the laws thus generated reasonable, constitutional, or even sensible.
I am certain that there are many other examples that you would accept as reasonable. You do not wish members of the general public to get their hands on your SSN/SIN/government number.
Come on. The government pulled a bait and switch with the SSN. It was an account number that was meaningless on every level; hence, we accepted it. Then they turned it into a public handle that is directly attached to your finances, by force. It's not individual speech; it is a scarlet letter applied on your person from without. Privacy is 100% maintainable until coercion enters the picture. The SSN isn't about censorship, it is about government fraud. If the government wasn't trying so hard to screw us with it, it'd be a non-issue.
Censorship protects the rights and privilages of average citizens.
No, privacy does. You should learn the difference. Censorship is applied from without; privacy from within. Censorship does not protect intended privacy, it cripples intended communications. Censorship is "You may not say X regardless of your intent or goals", privacy is "I will not say X." As far as shared information goes, contract law covers this just fine. If I give you information X and we agree that one of the conditions of my doing so is that you will not share it otherwise you are subject to Z penalties, then we're done. If we are both satisfied
Flamebait? I'm sorry, was I wrong about any of that? Or am I being modded down for simply having forgotten to mention the witch-burnings, the blood libel, the crusades, the Northern Ireland massacres, the babies buried in the convent walls...
Flamebait, indeed. Step right up here, ladies, mind your skirts. Don't want to get caught on the tinder, now. If your dress ripped and we saw your legs before the priest gets here to light you off, why, that'd be... sinful!
Constructive new idea for Slashdot: No further mod points are to be given to religious moonbats.
I'm going to rape you, then kill you while your family watches. Then I will kill them.
Just words. Doesn't mean a thing. Not a crime, right?
Right. Just words. In the USA, they're a crime where the constitution has been violated by the government. As long as we understand that "crime" simply means "behavior forbidden by arbitrary and illegitimate government edict", rather than "behavior that causes harm."
Your words may (or may not) signal intent. Words are like that. I'd take your words in context, and I probably wouldn't worry much about them if the context was normal — conversation, joking, etc. If, on the other hand, you had a gun in your hand and were pointing it at me at the time, I'd do my best to disable you right there, because that's no simply longer an act of speech, now, is it?
There is nothing in the constitution that can even remotely be construed as a "right to not be offended by another's speech", and in fact, the first amendment explicitly goes the other way, because it is obviously much more important that we hear what you have to say than it is we protect our pissant little preconceptions from the fact that you wish to say it.
To put it another way, perhaps more easily understood by the "mommy protect me" contingent, I would far rather you tell me you intend to do my family in so I can keep it in mind, than you be forbidden from mentioning it so I will have no clue that you are thinking such things.
Yes, because you still have the unlimited right to yell, "FIRE!" in a crowded theater not on fire. Or incite a riot.
Face it, there is NO such thing as unlimited freedoms, and for good reason.
If I yell "fire", and you panic, that's your fault — not mine. I didn't cause a problem; you did. And consequently, you are the one who is out of line. You definitely should have paid more attention during fire drills. We're all taught that panic is wrong and must not be entered into. But if you didn't learn, and if your behavior is antisocial to such a degree that you would physically abuse your fellow citizens, you commit a crime. Assault, for instance. I didn't do that. If you file out quietly (or simply observe there is no fire and keep your seat), then no harm done. See? It's what you do that determines if there is a problem. Not the fellow yelling "fire."
An excellent argument could be made that if person A yells "fire" where there is none, and person B panics, then person B should be punished and person A should get a citizenship award, because he helped the public determine that person B is not safe to have around should a real emergency develop. No one wants some idiot panicking in the case of a real fire, after all.
Anyway, the simple fact is, all speech should be protected in the USA, because the first amendment stipulates this at the federal level, and the 14th ensures that the same applies to the states.
Note that I am fully aware that the government has long ago abandoned the pretense of complying with the constitution. However, this does not in any way change what the legitimate set of actions with regard to speech are. It just makes the government illegitimate, lacking any legitimate constituting authority.
Should we ever meet a theatre, and you decide, for whatever reason, to yell "fire", I can assure you that I will not panic. Even if there really is a fire. Panic is antisocial and unhelpful in the extreme, not to mention stupid, and generally the mark of a pathologically selfish mindset. Like most criminal behavior. Fire (and other emergency) drills, on the other hand, are good practice.
Every time you depend on the government to be your mommy, and protect you from reading (or hearing, or viewing) something that might OMG offend you, you are crapping on the constitution, and on your fellow citizens, many of whom do not agree that either you, or the government, should have any say whatsoever in what they see, read, hear or think.
My Christian coworker might think odd things of me.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but your Christian coworker probably already thinks odd things of (with, about, for) you. Things involving superstition, magic bread and wine, reincarnation, turning your wife to a pillar of salt, snake handling, babbling in tongues, angels, demons, water-walking, sea-parting, numerology, geological absurdities, favor begging from deities, incest, life after death, eating Christ's body and drinking his blood, hanging replicas of some carpenter dude nailed to a cross around their neck, and yours too, if they can convince you to buy in...
You really want to watch out for those Christians. They can be pretty wacky.
Censorship is an ethical cancer. There can be no legitimate justification for it. This will not stop either the corporations or the legislators from implementing as much of it as they can get away with.
Sorry, mind fart. I didn't mean to say GDP, I meant to point to the federal tax revenues (2.15 trillion as of 2005) which is the money from which the federal debt can be paid.
That "global temperature is rising" graph shows that temperature was as far under what the graph identifies as the norm for the last hundred years as it currently has been (briefly) over it. Since they want that middle line to be the "norm", the graph requires a period of above-the-line to make the normal land where they claim it belongs by its placement in the graph. Since there were no extended instances of the temperature being even at the "norm" in the previous 130 years before 1990 or so, one wonders where the idea of the "norm" for the graph even came from — presumably, from a warmer set of temperature excursions they're (conveniently) not showing. Or else they made it up, which is worse, scientifically speaking, than just hiding it.
That is entirely aside from the fact that the "terrifying" temperature rise on the graph is a whopping.47 degrees C above the center, or, if you really want to get hysterical over nothing, a whole degree C of variability over 140 years. Ooooo.
The temperature extremes where I live (2300 ft elevation in Montana) swing from 110F in the summer to -50F in the winter; we survive both just fine. I look at your puny half degree C and frankly — I mock you. Oooo... water might rise... Oooo... its gonna get warmer... maybe a couple whole DEGREES! Christ, Martha, grab the kids and run for the hills before OUR FACES BURN RIGHT OFF AND OUR SUNGLASSES MELT!!!
We now return you to your regular hysterical environmentalist indulgence in the politically correct fear-mongering of the day.
a sea level change of a mere meter would have catastrophic effects on society as we know it.
No. It wouldn't. That sea level change would occur over quite a long time, as compared to human reaction time. We're not talking about Katrina here; Sunday, everything is fine, by Friday, the seawall is being smashed. No, we're talking about years, decades even, of creeping, sluggish, detectable only by instruments, rise. Consequently, all humans and their possessions and their lower-functioning chattels (children, pets, livestock, religious thinkers, politicians, lawyers — listed in descending order of average creativity) would have plenty of time to develop, and pursue, an exit strategy.
In the meantime, while we hear you mooing about disasters, I would note that you conspicuously fail to list the improvements such changes would inevitably bring about. Areas that were arid would become able to support farming. Areas that just went underwater would provide new resources in terms of biological materials for coastal life forms. Fishing would benefit from both more area and more complex environments (think of man-made reefs, for instance.) Produce would move north by preference for temperature and precipitation, benefiting our northern neighbors and probably helping the soil by changing the crop types a little more radically than usual. Canada (and Siberia) might become the new "bread basket." Tons of new jobs (and technologies) would arise to make areas just a little too close to sea level into diked environments similar to the Dutch approach. Did the Dutch elect to drown? No. So why does anyone else have to?
Furthermore, people move all the time. Docks and warehouses crumble all the time. And these changes — should they occur, which is not a given by any means — will take so long that a move could be planned for over several generations. People move faster than that all of the time. I've moved several times in my life.
Should we watch our emissions? Certainly. Should we keep our environment clean? You bet. But should we run bleating from side to side in our virtual cattle cage, worrying about global warming, trying to craft solutions for something we can't even scientifically identify as a problem as yet, and where the cries of "the coming catastrophe(s)" are utterly overblown? No. Definitely not.
Slashdot Mirror
So? When the incumbent is just as evil, just as blatantly operating outside the limits set by the constitution, when the government itself is completely, utterly out of control, as are the parties, as are the corporations, what difference will helping the incumbent or the challenger make? You are proceeding from an invalid position, and that is, the presumption that politicians are a force for good, or at least, that one might be a force for less evil. This has not been demonstrably true for many years, at least in the USA.
I don't agree with any of the policies of any of the candidates. I find them repugnant, in point of fact. Furthermore, I am personally unelectable because just about no one is willing to believe that they are invested in an evil and corrupt system, and no minor party exists that represents even a tiny fraction of my views. They're all blind and bloody optimists, as near as I can tell. The libertarians are the closest thing to reasonable, and they are a confused bunch of puppies.
Election day means nothing to me. You're either going to have democrats or republicans come out on top. They'll both continue to wreck the country, distance themselves from the founders and framers, blithely ignore the very idea of liberty, and steal from me using coercion, or violence if I am foolish enough to resist said coercion. They've taken my home under false pretenses and for grossly insufficient compensation (supposedly for the Tock's Island "dam"... which they never built and incompetently turned into a park) they've used my taxes to invade a sovereign country that was not attacking us and murder untold numbers of innocents, they've suspended habeas corpus, they coddle, support and project religion to an unconscionable degree, they've criminalized many forms of sexuality, free speech, all manner of personal choice, they've actually co-opted the voting process, even the voting hardware, they lie about each other and themselves, they are operating completely outside the bounds the constitution lays out... Voting is the opportunity to ask for more of the same, and no less.
Voting puts forth the very strong implication that you support the way the system works, as you are willing to participate. Well, I don't support the way the system works, as far as I am concerned, it is about as broken as it can get and still superficially resemble the occasional fragment of democratic procedure or any vestige of a republic well enough to fool the middle part of the gaussian.
Voting offers the sheep the illusion of control, without even a chance of actually handing any degree of such control over. If you enjoy voting, you should probably be examining what your core values stand for. If anything.
So that's why I don't vote. No point. Douche and a turd.
If your idea of "speech" is an M16, then we have indeed parted ways, yes, though not in the way you claim.
We've simply parted ways because you don't know what speech is.
Namecalling, with or without guilty squirming at the end of your diatribe, does not change the facts.
The facts in this situation are represented by these words, and these words alone:
It is just that simple. No law. Not "laws you think are a good idea", not "laws that favor you", not "laws that suppress perverts", not "laws that protect marriage" — just No law.
The constitution is the entire basis for every legitimate action that can be taken by the government, including making laws. The 1st amendment spells out that no law can be made by the feds with regard to abridging the freedom of speech. The 14th amendment spells out that the states must follow suit. That's the end of it, until or unless the constitution is changed as per the rules set out to make those changes. Thus far, no such change has been made, and... that is the ignominious end of your argument, ad hominem and other low-level sophistry notwithstanding.
I understand that you may not be able to wrap your head around these astounding ideas. I forgive you. And I'll protect your right to say so with my life.
Yes. Presuming the threat is serious, still 100% OK. It is my honor to attempt to ensure that justice prevails — though that might entail the defendant walking, I might as well point out — but just as a soldier must face risks, so must any participant in a system where someone may be deprived of liberty, property, and even life. You don't even need a note to know you're taking a risk. Put away a man who values his liberty above all else — as I do — for a reason he cannot see his way to agree with you on — and you're at risk, with or without a note. Regardless, my membership in society compels me to do the right thing as best I can understand what it is.
Yes. Still Ok. Same answer, actually.
I'm Ok with having shot him, yes. This isn't simply speech, because he's pointing a gun at me. The context is different. If the court cannot see a difference between having a gun in my face plus having a threat related to that gun presented to me and just having words in my face, then I'm not Ok with that. But again, I used this specific example above. Gun pointing and making fists and waving knives within attack distance is not free speech. Speech is made up of words and symbols; written, spoken, communications-related gestures and captured on video and in photographs and drawings — but still, just speech. When we say "speech", we're talking about communicating ideas, not brandishing tools that leverage physical assault. Bring those into a "conversation" and we're not just having speech any longer. Even making a fist or presenting a clawed hand within striking range is stepping well over the line. In a video, a gun or a fist or a claw is reduced to just a gesture, for the obvious reasons.
No. There aren't. There are legislated limits to free speech, and I maintain that they are entirely illegitimate. As far as I am concerned, the fact is, you can say anything you like to me, as long as you limit your communication to a direct form of speech (writing, speaking, etc.) The constitution made this the trump card; you don't get to reduce it in importance, and frankly, neither does the government, or the government is operating outside its legitimately constituted authority, and I will probably ignore it until it applies illegitimate, but no less real, coercion to me, and even then, I may ignore it, because I have very little respect for the quislings in our legislature that have eroded what the 1st amendment means, nor for their sympathizers — meaning you, sir.
The data that produced that was taken from a much wider swatch of the world than just Europe. You — and many others like you — would just as soon sweep that under the rug, but that's not going to happen here. That data is a perfectly good summary of a *worldwide* warming that is *known* to have happened, and furthermore, it is a much better data set than the one that swamps everything else to make the "hockey stick." The graph shows European temperatures; but the data comes from all over the USA and agrees completely; between Europe and the USA, you've got one heck of a broad set of samples over a huge geographical area, and the fact that those samples are insignificant with regard to the picture the hockey stick paints should be a huge, fluttering red flag to you. It certainly is to me.
We're talking about it because they're the same information, your graph is the very tail end of the dataset, scaled and tweaked to look frightening, and the bottom graph that I provided for you from the Telegraph is a much more accurate summary of climate over a much more meaningful range, AND we're talking about it because you made an incorrect assertion that global temps had not varied more than .7C since the last ice age, which claim is disputed directly by the record of the MWP.
I'm truly sorry, I thought I had called them a bunch of frauds. I guess I'm too subtle for my own good at times. To be specific: They did leave out a warmer set of data — it is called the medieval warm period, and without that data, the graph looks like only now are we warming up, and ooooo! Boogyman! Furthermore, you swallowed this hook, line and sinker, and made it clear with your claim that we'd not changed more than .7C since the last ice age, which is a patently untrue assertion. The fact is that we've been warmer, and we've been colder, and we've seen changes like this before, and the current data, by which I mean measured temperature as opposed to speculation, does not support getting worried.
No. It means that its presence in the past is not an indicator of coming global warming, per se. It's a gas that in a very minimal way (as compared to water vapor, methane, and a number of other things) can trap heat. Since water vapor (just for one example) can vary *enormously* based on all manner of feedback systems in the atmosphere, CO2 by itself is swamped; so (a) it is not a precursor indicator, as many people think, and (b) it is highly unlikely to be a direct causative agent because it is so low in the hierarchy of atmospheric heat trapping agencies.
No. Again, CO2 is very near the bottom of the hierarchy of heat trapping mechanisms that exist as mutable systems in the atmosphere. Water vapor has many orders of magnitude more effect than does C
No, silly person. It is humor because it does that. It is humor because your average Christian doesn't know the spanish inquisition from the papal inquisition, couldn't explain why Job offered his daughters to the crowd, doesn't have a clue as to how incest figures into the bible stories, and couldn't give you an accurate summary of what they think about their faith in the first place. No more than I go about figuring out how to convert Christians into sensible human beings. I don't. I don't care what you think, as long as you don't try to make me or members of my family think it, too.
Flamebait. Brother, if I wanted to flame Christianity, the whole place would still be on fire. Levity, not Levi.
Wow. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Nominally articulate, topically abusive, yet essentially data free. Amazing. My social studies teacher used to castigate your writing style as "glittering generalities." He generally assigned it to politicians. Are you a politician, or perhaps a lawyer? Anyway:
My bank is forced to link my SSN to my bank transactions by the feds, and furthermore, every time I move over 7 grand or so, they have to do a "right now" report to the feds so the feds can see if they might want to jump on my ass ASAP. This has nothing to do with legitimate (and I use that word loosely, agreeing in principle that it is another argument) taxes and everything to do with big-brothering my day-to-day financial operations. Now, you work on that little fact and see if you can explain it away as an act of the bank, rather than an act of the feds. If you succeed at that (you won't, sorry), we'll move on to other federal misuses of the SSN, such as their direct complicity in allowing the number to be used by anyone and everyone despite specific representations to the citizens otherwise, including right on the card itself. Otherwise, go back under your bridge. I have the magic "I know a whole lot more than you do card' that lets me cross it without having to deal with you and yours.
Nonsense. The norm they chose was specifically chosen to move a local low into the middle so that a local high would look like the end of the world. If they (for instance) had factored in the medieval warm period (accurate bottom graph, includes relevant 20th century average line) instead of presuming the (VERY inaccurate top graph) hockey stick graph the climate change folks have been clinging to, then you'd see that the current temperature changes are entirely unremarkable in both excursion and scope. Furthermore, CO2, historically speaking, is a lagging indicator, not a leading one — it is complete misdirection to use it backwards and point at history to attempt to validate this. Next, we're not looking at half a degree every twenty years, not by a long shot. Why do you think they have to divide the output of the climate models by three? It's because they are way overly biased towards warming. They're not even accurately predicting the current conditions (off by 300% too high!), and that's surely not a very good indicator for what they can say about a hundred years from now.
Um, no. No, it hasn't. Again, see the bottom graph, you know, the one with all the data on it. The one that doesn't conveniently edit out the medieval warm period.
Eight? EIGHT? How in the name of all that is superstitious did you get to worrying about !8! flipping meters of sea rise? Eight? Excuse me (Bwahahahahahahaha!) There, that's better. 8? (Bwahaha!) Sorry. Ha. :-)
Look here, little red riding climate, even the known to be bad climate model only predicted a fraction of a meter rise over a hundred years. That's right, less than one. Eight? Holy leaf-a-roni, what are you smoking?
Actual measured sea level rise is about an inch every fifteen years, which if it continues will result in a little over 6 and a half inches (about 16 cm) over 100 years. Eight meters. That's some bad-ass kool-aid, there, son. :-)
Also, by all means, don't miss this article and the data attached thereto (PDF warning)
[tips hat]
FYI:
My position is simple common sense: Study everything. Don't make new pollution. Reduce what pollution we're creating now. Cleaner is better on every level, so pursue that.
In the meantime... when we have climate models that work (we don't), maybe even when we have weather models that work for more than 48 hours or so, then perhaps it is time for us to revisit the idea of climate change with an eye towards affecting it directly. In the meantime, CO2 as a past indicator rose after warming periods, on other words, not as a precursor, but as a post-event consequence. Using present Co2 levels and assigning them the role of precursor and then pointing at the past records is disingenuous at best and outright deceptive at worst. Subsequently getting fired up about our "causing" major climate change in the short term, much less with relatively precise predictions about sea level rise, is not so much junk science as it is bunk science. If the models are right, it's a complete and utter accident — not a consequence of modeling using past data, because there is no comparable event in the geological record.
Putting up shades we can't take down is about as stupid an idea as I've heard in a while. And I run into a lot of stupid ideas. I hang out here, after all. :)
No apology required; I just wondered if I'd said something along those lines, or seemingly so, to lead you astray.
Mostly, I find societal norms to range from pitiful to despicable, depending on a couple of pre-considerations; first, what they could have been if the government was made up of the quality of people who wrote the constitution, and second, if the citizens themselves were of that quality.
I nudge, donate, debate and agitate along the lines that I think society should develop, but it is more out of a sense of duty than out of any significant degree of hope. There's an upside, though, I sometimes uncover like-minded people this way. I actually met my partner in an unarmed combat class I was teaching, and we found ourselves of like minds simply because I'm outspoken — she certainly isn't. Good thing I wasn't paying any attention to the societal norm of not getting involved with my students, though. Would have missed that boat right proper.
No. I don't. Where did you get that idea?
Let me change a few words here, and you tell me if the meaning has changed:
Now, I humbly suggest that we call this kind of event a "fire drill" and we encourage them in the forward thinking mode that says that when people know what to do, and practice it, they will do it better than if they are simply surprised out of their minds. Furthermore, let's point out to them that there are some ways to do this that are most effective, and some ways that will lead to problems. If they cause problems, let's point out, they'll be punished, because it really is important to do this particular task correctly, no matter if it is practice, or in the case of the real thing. So no pushing, no shoving, no panic. Be aware of your surroundings, avoid smoke and flames, file out in an orderly fashion.
I know it's just a crazy idea, but I just think of things like this all the time. Silly me!
You're entirely missing the point. Free speech is defined as a right in the 1st amendment. Anything left over as per the 9th cannot un-define it. A right to "not be offended" would do so. Ergo, there is no such thing. Furthermore, although the 1st is an instruction to the feds, the 14th applies the bill of rights to the states, so you can't weasel out of it at that level, either.
And you, sir, are devaluing your chance at rebuttal by regressing to name calling. Given a choice between the two, I'd rather be the dolt.
Am I supposed to have a problem with this? Why? My neighbor can scream anything he wants on his property. That's why he bought it, I presume, to have a place where he can be free to live and act as he pleases. I know that's why I bought my property, and why I elected to spend enough, and in the right place, to have some space around my home.
Personally, I don't care what the kid does with his mouth. It won't affect my studies in the least. Kids are always doing this anyway... seems like you've never had your dinner "enhanced" by a crying baby. There's no right to have your ears protected by your mommy. Life makes noise. My reaction was to learn to deal with it. What was yours?
I have no problem with this at all. Nor at any other public space. Free speech is critical. These demonstrators may have something very interesting, even important to say, such as "Your brother died in an unjust war plotted, waged and lied about by the tyrant that runs your country." Then again, they may say "Your brother was a prick, and we're really glad he's gone" and again in which case, there you have it. Brother is still dead, funeral is still ongoing, nothing material has changed and no protection from an overweening government is called for. I might not be pleased, but where, exactly, does it say I have a right to run around going "wow, gee, everything's just as I would have it", eh?
Any more examples you'd like to float? Or are you catching on?
This is utter nonsense. There is nothing the least shameful about bedwetting, any more than there is about farting in your sleep or any other truly involuntary act. No one needs "protection" from such knowledge, except insofar as society has some sick people who would worry themselves about such things -- but bending to hide information from their perversions and neuroses is not the correct path to a solution. The solution is to let them say whatever they like, and ignore them. No legislation required. In the meantime, perhaps reducing the "hide behind mommy" mentality will erode the irrational sense of shame some people would like to see you suffer.
There are laws against physical abuse. As there should be. Physical abusers should not remain free to continue this activity. Hiding information about the abuser / abused instead of jailing the abuser is the wrong answer. Censorship is not the answer. Dealing with the abuser is the answer. If the abuser is appropriately dealt with, then there is no need to censor said information, in fact, the more people who know this person is an abuser, the better in terms of catching them; after they are caught, the point is moot.
Crime is, in fact, a matter for public concern.
What you are doing is confusing actual crimes and appropriate direct solutions for said crimes with indirect and inappropriate attempts to pre-empt crimes while not dealing with the actual problem. The various legislatures regularly make this mistake. This does not make the laws thus generated reasonable, constitutional, or even sensible.
Come on. The government pulled a bait and switch with the SSN. It was an account number that was meaningless on every level; hence, we accepted it. Then they turned it into a public handle that is directly attached to your finances, by force. It's not individual speech; it is a scarlet letter applied on your person from without. Privacy is 100% maintainable until coercion enters the picture. The SSN isn't about censorship, it is about government fraud. If the government wasn't trying so hard to screw us with it, it'd be a non-issue.
No, privacy does. You should learn the difference. Censorship is applied from without; privacy from within. Censorship does not protect intended privacy, it cripples intended communications. Censorship is "You may not say X regardless of your intent or goals", privacy is "I will not say X." As far as shared information goes, contract law covers this just fine. If I give you information X and we agree that one of the conditions of my doing so is that you will not share it otherwise you are subject to Z penalties, then we're done. If we are both satisfied
Flamebait? I'm sorry, was I wrong about any of that? Or am I being modded down for simply having forgotten to mention the witch-burnings, the blood libel, the crusades, the Northern Ireland massacres, the babies buried in the convent walls...
Flamebait, indeed. Step right up here, ladies, mind your skirts. Don't want to get caught on the tinder, now. If your dress ripped and we saw your legs before the priest gets here to light you off, why, that'd be... sinful!
Constructive new idea for Slashdot: No further mod points are to be given to religious moonbats.
Right. Just words. In the USA, they're a crime where the constitution has been violated by the government. As long as we understand that "crime" simply means "behavior forbidden by arbitrary and illegitimate government edict", rather than "behavior that causes harm."
Your words may (or may not) signal intent. Words are like that. I'd take your words in context, and I probably wouldn't worry much about them if the context was normal — conversation, joking, etc. If, on the other hand, you had a gun in your hand and were pointing it at me at the time, I'd do my best to disable you right there, because that's no simply longer an act of speech, now, is it?
There is nothing in the constitution that can even remotely be construed as a "right to not be offended by another's speech", and in fact, the first amendment explicitly goes the other way, because it is obviously much more important that we hear what you have to say than it is we protect our pissant little preconceptions from the fact that you wish to say it.
To put it another way, perhaps more easily understood by the "mommy protect me" contingent, I would far rather you tell me you intend to do my family in so I can keep it in mind, than you be forbidden from mentioning it so I will have no clue that you are thinking such things.
If I yell "fire", and you panic, that's your fault — not mine. I didn't cause a problem; you did. And consequently, you are the one who is out of line. You definitely should have paid more attention during fire drills. We're all taught that panic is wrong and must not be entered into. But if you didn't learn, and if your behavior is antisocial to such a degree that you would physically abuse your fellow citizens, you commit a crime. Assault, for instance. I didn't do that. If you file out quietly (or simply observe there is no fire and keep your seat), then no harm done. See? It's what you do that determines if there is a problem. Not the fellow yelling "fire."
An excellent argument could be made that if person A yells "fire" where there is none, and person B panics, then person B should be punished and person A should get a citizenship award, because he helped the public determine that person B is not safe to have around should a real emergency develop. No one wants some idiot panicking in the case of a real fire, after all.
Anyway, the simple fact is, all speech should be protected in the USA, because the first amendment stipulates this at the federal level, and the 14th ensures that the same applies to the states.
Note that I am fully aware that the government has long ago abandoned the pretense of complying with the constitution. However, this does not in any way change what the legitimate set of actions with regard to speech are. It just makes the government illegitimate, lacking any legitimate constituting authority.
Should we ever meet a theatre, and you decide, for whatever reason, to yell "fire", I can assure you that I will not panic. Even if there really is a fire. Panic is antisocial and unhelpful in the extreme, not to mention stupid, and generally the mark of a pathologically selfish mindset. Like most criminal behavior. Fire (and other emergency) drills, on the other hand, are good practice.
Every time you depend on the government to be your mommy, and protect you from reading (or hearing, or viewing) something that might OMG offend you, you are crapping on the constitution, and on your fellow citizens, many of whom do not agree that either you, or the government, should have any say whatsoever in what they see, read, hear or think.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but your Christian coworker probably already thinks odd things of (with, about, for) you. Things involving superstition, magic bread and wine, reincarnation, turning your wife to a pillar of salt, snake handling, babbling in tongues, angels, demons, water-walking, sea-parting, numerology, geological absurdities, favor begging from deities, incest, life after death, eating Christ's body and drinking his blood, hanging replicas of some carpenter dude nailed to a cross around their neck, and yours too, if they can convince you to buy in...
You really want to watch out for those Christians. They can be pretty wacky.
Censorship is an ethical cancer. There can be no legitimate justification for it. This will not stop either the corporations or the legislators from implementing as much of it as they can get away with.
Sorry, mind fart. I didn't mean to say GDP, I meant to point to the federal tax revenues (2.15 trillion as of 2005) which is the money from which the federal debt can be paid.
Reference here.
That "global temperature is rising" graph shows that temperature was as far under what the graph identifies as the norm for the last hundred years as it currently has been (briefly) over it. Since they want that middle line to be the "norm", the graph requires a period of above-the-line to make the normal land where they claim it belongs by its placement in the graph. Since there were no extended instances of the temperature being even at the "norm" in the previous 130 years before 1990 or so, one wonders where the idea of the "norm" for the graph even came from — presumably, from a warmer set of temperature excursions they're (conveniently) not showing. Or else they made it up, which is worse, scientifically speaking, than just hiding it.
That is entirely aside from the fact that the "terrifying" temperature rise on the graph is a whopping .47 degrees C above the center, or, if you really want to get hysterical over nothing, a whole degree C of variability over 140 years. Ooooo.
The temperature extremes where I live (2300 ft elevation in Montana) swing from 110F in the summer to -50F in the winter; we survive both just fine. I look at your puny half degree C and frankly — I mock you. Oooo... water might rise... Oooo... its gonna get warmer... maybe a couple whole DEGREES! Christ, Martha, grab the kids and run for the hills before OUR FACES BURN RIGHT OFF AND OUR SUNGLASSES MELT!!!
We now return you to your regular hysterical environmentalist indulgence in the politically correct fear-mongering of the day.
No. It wouldn't. That sea level change would occur over quite a long time, as compared to human reaction time. We're not talking about Katrina here; Sunday, everything is fine, by Friday, the seawall is being smashed. No, we're talking about years, decades even, of creeping, sluggish, detectable only by instruments, rise. Consequently, all humans and their possessions and their lower-functioning chattels (children, pets, livestock, religious thinkers, politicians, lawyers — listed in descending order of average creativity) would have plenty of time to develop, and pursue, an exit strategy.
In the meantime, while we hear you mooing about disasters, I would note that you conspicuously fail to list the improvements such changes would inevitably bring about. Areas that were arid would become able to support farming. Areas that just went underwater would provide new resources in terms of biological materials for coastal life forms. Fishing would benefit from both more area and more complex environments (think of man-made reefs, for instance.) Produce would move north by preference for temperature and precipitation, benefiting our northern neighbors and probably helping the soil by changing the crop types a little more radically than usual. Canada (and Siberia) might become the new "bread basket." Tons of new jobs (and technologies) would arise to make areas just a little too close to sea level into diked environments similar to the Dutch approach. Did the Dutch elect to drown? No. So why does anyone else have to?
Furthermore, people move all the time. Docks and warehouses crumble all the time. And these changes — should they occur, which is not a given by any means — will take so long that a move could be planned for over several generations. People move faster than that all of the time. I've moved several times in my life.
Should we watch our emissions? Certainly. Should we keep our environment clean? You bet. But should we run bleating from side to side in our virtual cattle cage, worrying about global warming, trying to craft solutions for something we can't even scientifically identify as a problem as yet, and where the cries of "the coming catastrophe(s)" are utterly overblown? No. Definitely not.