Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9102 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: sensei
Post Volume: Total: 904,721 Year: 1,602/14,231 Month: 526/1,076 Week: 259/376 Day: 1/64 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Winter: Baby, It's Cold Outside!
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2402
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 46 of 114 (904486)
12-30-2022 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by marc9000
12-29-2022 9:49 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
Marc9K writes:
Yes. We have new records for carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. New records for global temps. Do you deny these?
I was thinking more of local records. Temps in the U.S. They're more realistic and verifiable by the public, than are global temperatures claimed by a special interest.
WHAT!!! so now decades of NASA data from satellites is a "special interest"? Why is your small intake valve focused only on the U.S.?
Have you checked the more realistic and verifiable size of the USA on a globe lately? I bet you might even think eye-witness testimony is the best kind of evidence of these public local records.
I am not the one claiming Democrats are trying to take control of all these things. That is your claim.
Sorry, it really is your claim. Here is your quote;
quote:
Why can't governments use laws to encourage the replacement of fossil fuels? Why won't this help?
I do NOT see the Democrats in that quote.
I responded like this;
quote:
What kind of laws would you suggest?
and;
quote:
What is your suggestion for fossil fuel regulation laws that would keep them from becoming rampantly corrupt?
ok, so then later you do get to the part i can somewhat agree with:
ESSENTIAL;
*Fuel for tractor trailers that haul food.
*Fuel for farm equipment
*Fuel to heat buildings
*Fuel to build and repair roads
*Oil that's required to make all kinds of plastic products, rubber products, building materials.
*Oil for mining machinery fuels
Barely scratching the surface, but you get the idea. Now for
NON-ESSENTIAL;
*Pleasure boats, from the biggest cruise ships to the tiniest fishing boats
*All forms of auto racing
*All forms of transportation to sporting events
*Oil that's required for the manufacture of non-essential items, toys, sporting goods, the making of movies and entertainment shows.
boy, that last item sure brings out the Grinch in you, doesn't it?
i think the changes to renewable energies will take time and the CEOs who haven't already built up stock piles of alternate stocks will go the way of the horse and buggy whip industry.

"I'm the Grim Reaper now, Mitch. Step aside."
Death to #TzarVladimirtheCondemned!
Enjoy every sandwich!

- xongsmith, 5.7dawkins scale


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by marc9000, posted 12-29-2022 9:49 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by marc9000, posted 01-01-2023 5:50 PM xongsmith has replied
 Message 56 by Phat, posted 01-02-2023 8:55 AM xongsmith has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1343
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


(1)
Message 47 of 114 (904563)
01-01-2023 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by nwr
12-28-2022 10:25 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
I'll take that as an admission that you do not have actual evidence.
I don't have actual evidence, no. But I do have a suspicion. There's no law (yet) from prohibiting people to have a suspicion about something, and sharing it with others, as an inspiration for thought. Suspicion is somewhat synonymous with mis-trust. If you've ever read the Bill of Rights, you might notice mis-trust there. As one example, if the German people would have been suspicious of Hitlers actions in the early and mid-1930's, they could have saved themselves a lot of misery 10 years later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by nwr, posted 12-28-2022 10:25 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1343
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 48 of 114 (904564)
01-01-2023 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by dwise1
12-30-2022 3:14 AM


Re: Midwest unprepared
Bob Altemeyer constructed a Right-Wing Authoritarian (RWA) spectrum with sets of survey questions to place an individual on that scale. Also, "right wing" has nothing to do with politics, since even an extreme left-wing mentality could score high on the RWA scale.
Couldn't you summarize it, condense it, and post it here rather than just saying to read an entire book? How long is the set of survey questions, couldn't you show us? Is the book only about Trump and January 6th? Does it contain an LWA spectrum also? Complete with questions about gun control? About the Green New Deal? About teachers unions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by dwise1, posted 12-30-2022 3:14 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by dwise1, posted 01-01-2023 7:20 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1343
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 49 of 114 (904565)
01-01-2023 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Phat
12-30-2022 1:33 AM


Re: Midwest unprepared
It seems to me that he is calling out a Democratic government for passing laws for the all-inclusive "good of the people." In short, an authoritarian government.
Yes, it was Taq who brought up "laws". I wanted more clarification of what laws they were talking about. He responded to that with this;
quote:
You have just proven you are an idiot. What laws are you yammering about?
I suspect he was already bombed on his ass a full day before New Years eve. Who knows what kind of shape he's in now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Phat, posted 12-30-2022 1:33 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1343
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 50 of 114 (904566)
01-01-2023 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by ringo
12-30-2022 11:24 AM


Re: Midwest unprepared
What kind of laws would you suggest?Legislators have already suggested them, already debated them and already passed them.
EXAMPLES? So climate change laws have been passed, and our troubles are over?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by ringo, posted 12-30-2022 11:24 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by ringo, posted 01-02-2023 11:22 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1343
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 51 of 114 (904567)
01-01-2023 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by xongsmith
12-30-2022 4:25 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
WHAT!!! so now decades of NASA data from satellites is a "special interest"?
Nasa is a special interest. It absorbs billions from the federal government each year. It also accepts donations. It's one of many special interests that can increase its cash flow using climate change hysteria.
Why is your small intake valve focused only on the U.S.?
Because that's where I live, currently the biggest threat to the U.S. way of life is from within - the Democrat party. And it's $31+ trillion in debt.
Have you checked the more realistic and verifiable size of the USA on a globe lately? I bet you might even think eye-witness testimony is the best kind of evidence of these public local records.
?? Could you repeat that in English?
Taq writes:
Why can't governments use laws to encourage the replacement of fossil fuels? Why won't this help?
xongsmith writes:
I do NOT see the Democrats in that quote.
Not in gun control? Not in the Green New Deal?
ok, so then later you do get to the part i can somewhat agree with:
boy, that last item sure brings out the Grinch in you, doesn't it?
I never said that last item should be eliminated. If that list I made was way longer, it would always point out the same thing; that today's use of fossil fuels can't be switched off, or cut back in any meaningful way. Even the most non-essential fossil fuel use cut back would result in a public outcry, and a political jolt that no politician would want to see. I saw somewhere on the net the other night at a pro fission site that even if that kind of energy took off right now, it would be too little too late to stop climate change. Most of the mandates in the Green New Deal aren't going to happen. Everyone knows it, so why is climate change sensationalized in the news so much, if nothing meaningful can be done?
The answer is, even if nothing meaningful can be done, there is always a FEEL GOOD measure that can be done. The idea is to target a very minority interest, one without much political ramification. It helps a lot if there's some jealousy of that minority interest.
Every time there is a mass shooting that makes major news, the Democrat outcry is always the same, more gun control. Just one more law, one more step. It won't do anything to stop the next nutcase from getting a gun of course, but it makes some people feel good. "Something must be done!!" is always the Democrat battle cry. And there is some jealousy of people who enjoy shooting sports, or like the peace of mind they get from being able to protect themselves from crime.
It's exactly the same with climate change. Can't ban this use of fossil fuels, can't ban that one, but SOMETHING must be done!! It always zeros in on one thing, old cars and trucks. Won't make any difference of course, but its SOMETHING. Users of older vehicles are in a small minority, don't have much political power, and the jealousy factor compares to that of anti-gun owners. Older vehicles are cost efficient to use, especially since they aren't loaded down with government regulations like newer ones are. Some, maybe not many, but some newer vehicle owners know that they pay more in the use of their new one, since they don't have the ability to maintain an older one and keep it running. They're not the only ones that would take pleasure in seeing older vehicles restricted or banned, but lobbyists for new vehicle companies would love to see those kinds of restrictions help them sell more of their new cars, and they would of course help with political contributions.
The U.S. is $31 trillion in debt. It could be time to start thinking real hard about not throwing away useful vehicles, or useful anything. Have you ever heard an analogy of how much a trillion is? The terms "million", "billion, and "trillion" tend to run together in peoples minds. Try this analogy - you've probably never seen it before since I came up with it my own self.
Picture, if you will, small stones, gravel. Average about 3/4 inch in diameter. 1000 pieces of this size gravel will fit in an area 1 foot square, 4 inches thick. Multiply that by 1000 to get a million, 1000 square feet is about as big as a good sized 2 car garage. 1000 good sized 2 car garages equals an area about the size of 16 football fields. That's as big as a really huge factory warehouse. So that big of an area, covered in small gravel 4 inches thick, equals one billion stones. 1000 x 16 football fields? I figured it years ago, might have screwed it up, but as I remember that equals an area about the size of the state of Maine. I'm no financial expert, but this kind of U.S. debt can't keep growing indefinitely without an economic meltdown, it just can't. And that meltdown will happen a lot sooner than a climate change meltdown.
Democrats in congress just passed, with the sig of our climate change loving president, a 1.7 trillion dollar bill. Nothing but debt to pay for it. It's loaded with pork. Some of that pork is a "hip hop" (gay) museum in the Bronx, and a $3.6 million hiking trail named after Michelle Obama. A LOT of fossil fuel will be used in the construction of those two things alone. Democrats don't always worry much about climate change, do they?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by xongsmith, posted 12-30-2022 4:25 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by xongsmith, posted 01-01-2023 9:45 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5563
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 52 of 114 (904568)
01-01-2023 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by marc9000
01-01-2023 4:32 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
DWise1 writes:
Bob Altemeyer constructed a Right-Wing Authoritarian (RWA) spectrum with sets of survey questions to place an individual on that scale. Also, "right wing" has nothing to do with politics, since even an extreme left-wing mentality could score high on the RWA scale.
Couldn't you summarize it, condense it, and post it here rather than just saying to read an entire book?
Already done in my Message 219 where I had recommended to Phat that he read that excellent book in order to finally learn what authoritarianism actually is. He keeps using that word but I don't think it means what he thinks it means.
Since you are expressing refusal to follow a link, here is that Message 219 (including the link for the free copies):
DWise1 writes:
[to Phat:] You keep misrepresenting what authoritarianism is. Please learn what it actually is.
Bob Altemeyer is a now-retired psychology professor who specialized in authoritarianism. Most of his papers used a lot of math and statistical analysis, so he wrote his book, The Authoritarians, in a form that is much more accessible to the average reader.
He also made it as freely available as possible (at the link I just provided). I have the PDF edition, but it's also in a few e-Reader formats as well as audio. It's an interesting and fairly easy read.
A word of advice about reading it: READ THE FOOTNOTES. Some of the most interesting information is in the footnotes, despite his self-deprecating comments about how masochistic you would need to be to read the footnotes.
Please do most definitely add this to your reading list.
In 2020, Altemeyer co-authored a book with John Dean (of Watergate infamy), Authoritarian Nightmare. When he wrote The Authoritarians in 2006, "Dubya" Bush was the worst US president he had ever seen. Now that distinction goes to Trump.
Another book to add is Timothy Snyder's On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century.
How long is the set of survey questions, couldn't you show us?
I had mentioned that in order to emphasize that it's not a starkly binary black-or-white authoritarian/non-authoritarian, but rather a spectrum of how authoritarian one could be (IOW, lots of gray). Hence you have high-RWAs (right wing authoritarians) and low-RWAs and lots of those who are in-between (and he found that our scores change over time).
You already have your link to your very own free copy so you are fully capable of reading them for yourself. The first one measures one's RWA score while the other questionnaires determine one's beliefs, value systems, etc, which Altemeyer could then correlate with RWA scores (all his published papers were thick with statistical analysis, which is why he wrote this book):
  • Pages 10-14, 22 questions. The basic RWA questionnaire.
  • Page 23, 6 questions.
  • Page 24, 6 questions.
  • Pages 54-55, 6 questions.
  • Pages 59-60, 8 questions.
  • Page 79.
  • Page 84.
  • Page 88.
  • Page 92.
  • Pages 106-107, 12 questions for correlating Christian fundamentalism with RWAism.
  • Page 113.
  • Page 124-125, 12 questions for measuring levels of zealotry.
There, I've done enough of your work for you. All of which is pearls cast before swine (ie, you) since you will never bother to act on that bibliography, so why should I even bother? Because others can read it and benefit from having done so.
But since you will refuse to go read it for yourself, here's the first questionnaire from pages 10-14:
quote:
The RWA Scale
The what? The Right-Wing Authoritarianism scale. Get out a pencil. I’m going to take you into the inner sanctum of a personality test. Just don’t be FRIGHTENED!
Below is the latest version of the RWA scale. Read the instructions carefully, and then write down your response to each statement on a sheet of paper numbered
1-22.
This survey is part of an investigation of general public opinion concerning a variety of social issues.
You will probably find that you agree with some of the statements, and disagree with others, to varying
extents. Please indicate your reaction to each statement on the line to the left of each item according
to the following scale:
Write down a -4 if you very strongly disagree with the statement.
Write down a -3 if you strongly disagree with the statement.
Write down a -2 if you moderately disagree with the statement.
Write down a -1 if you slightly disagree with the statement.
Write down a +1 if you slightly agree with the statement.
Write down a +2 if you moderately agree with the statement.
Write down a +3 if you strongly agree with the statement.
Write down a +4 if you very strongly agree with the statement.
If you feel exactly and precisely neutral about an item, write down a “0."
(“Dr. Bob” to reader: We’ll probably stay friends longer if you read this paragraph.) Important: You
may find that you sometimes have different reactions to different parts of a statement. For example,
you might very strongly disagree (“-4") with one idea in a statement, but slightly agree (“+1") with
another idea in the same item. When this happens, please combine your reactions, and write down how
you feel on balance (a “-3" in this case).
  1. ___ The established authorities generally turn out to be right about things, while the radicals and protestors are usually just “loud mouths” showing off their ignorance.
  2. ___ Women should have to promise to obey their husbands when they get married.
  3. ___ Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us.
  4. ___ Gays and lesbians are just as healthy and moral as anybody else.
  5. ___ It is always better to trust the judgment of the proper authorities in government and religion than to listen to the noisy rabble-rousers in our society who are trying to create doubt in people’s minds
  6. ___ Atheists and others who have rebelled against the established religions are no doubt every bit as good and virtuous as those who attend church regularly.
  7. ___ The only way our country can get through the crisis ahead is to get back to our traditional values, put some tough leaders in power, and silence the troublemakers spreading bad ideas.
  8. ___ There is absolutely nothing wrong with nudist camps.
  9. ___ Our country needs free thinkers who have the courage to defy traditional ways, even if this upsets many people.
  10. ___ Our country will be destroyed someday if we do not smash the perversions eating away at our moral fiber and traditional beliefs.
  11. ___ Everyone should have their own lifestyle, religious beliefs, and sexual preferences, even if it makes them different from everyone else.
  12. ___ The “old-fashioned ways” and the “old-fashioned values” still show the best way to live.
  13. ___ You have to admire those who challenged the law and the majority’s view by protesting for women’s abortion rights, for animal rights, or to abolish school prayer.
  14. ___ What our country really needs is a strong, determined leader who will crush evil, and take us back to our true path.
  15. ___ Some of the best people in our country are those who are challenging our government, criticizing religion, and ignoring the “normal way things are supposed to be done.”
  16. ___ God’s laws about abortion, pornography and marriage must be strictly followed before it is too late, and those who break them must be strongly punished.
  17. ___ There are many radical, immoral people in our country today, who are trying to ruin it for their own godless purposes, whom the authorities should put out of action.
  18. ___ A “woman’s place” should be wherever she wants to be. The days when women are submissive to their husbands and social conventions belong strictly in the past.
  19. ___ Our country will be great if we honor the ways of our forefathers, do what the authorities tell us to do, and get rid of the “rotten apples” who are ruining everything.
  20. ___ There is no “ONE right way” to live life; everybody has to create their own way.
  21. ___ Homosexuals and feminists should be praised for being brave enough to defy “traditional family values.
  22. ___ This country would work a lot better if certain groups of troublemakers would just shut up and accept their group’s traditional place in society.
Done them all, as best you could? Then let’s score your answers, and get an idea of whether you’re cut out to be an authoritarian follower. First, you can skip your
answers to the first two statements. They don’t count. I put those items on the test to give people some experience with the -4 to +4 response system. They’re just “warmups.” Start therefore with No. 3.
If you wrote down a “-4” that’s scored as a 1.
If you wrote down a “-3" that’s scored as a 2.
If you wrote down a “-2" that’s scored as a 3.
If you wrote down a “-1" that’s scored as a 4.
If you wrote down a “0" or left the item unanswered, that’s scored as a 5.
If you wrote down a “+1" that’s scored as a 6.
If you wrote down a “+2" that’s scored as a 7.
If you wrote down a “+3" that’s scored as an 8.
If you wrote down a “+4" that’s scored as a 9.
Your answers to Items 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19 and 22 are scored the same way.
Now we’ll do the rest of your answers, starting with No. 4.
If you wrote down a “-4" that’s scored as a 9.
If you wrote down a “-3" that’s scored as an 8.
If you wrote down a “-2" that’s scored as a 7.
If you wrote down a “-1" that’s scored as a 6.
If you wrote down a “0" or left the item unanswered, that’s scored as a 5.
If you wrote down a “+1" that’s scored as a 4.
If you wrote down a “+2" that’s scored as a 3.
If you wrote down a “+3" that’s scored as a 2.
If you wrote down a “+4" that’s scored as a 1.
Now simply add up your twenty scores. The lowest total possible would be 20, and the highest, 180, but real scores are almost never that extreme. Introductory psychology students at my Canadian university average about 75. Their parents average about 90. Both scores are below the mid-point of the scale, which is 100, so most people in these groups are not authoritarian followers in absolute terms. Neither are most Americans, it seems. Mick McWilliams and Jeremy Keil administered the RWA scale to a reasonably representative sample of 1000 Americans in 2005 for the Libertarian Party and discovered an average score of 90. Thus the Manitoba parent samples seem similar in overall authoritarianism to a representative American adult sample. My Manitoba students score about the same on the RWA scale as most
American university students do too.
So, how did you score?
Is the book only about Trump and January 6th?
Bob Altemeyer wrote the book in 2006, so what do you think? Try not to strain your brain on that trick question.
As I did clearly state in Message 219 (reposted above):
DWise1 writes:
In 2020, Altemeyer co-authored a book with John Dean (of Watergate infamy), Authoritarian Nightmare. When he wrote The Authoritarians in 2006, "Dubya" Bush was the worst US president he had ever seen. Now that distinction goes to Trump.
That new book does deal with Trump, though they had submitted the manuscript to the publisher on 26 Jun 2020 and Altemeyer's review of theirs and other books about the Trump Administration was written on 08 Oct 2020 (before the election, even). BTW, that link to Authoritarian Nightmare takes you to that review.
I haven't read the latest book yet, but I'm sure that it analyzes some of the MAGAt dumbfuckery that keeps getting ever worse.
BTW, it was John Dean who in 2006 urged Altemeyer to write The Authoritarians; read the Acknowledgements.
Does it contain an LWA spectrum also?
That is a most incredibly stupid and ignorant question. There's no such thing as a "LWA spectrum"! Please make an enormous life-style change and learn something about what you're pontificating about! You will be amazed at how much good it will do you to know what you are talking about.
What did I already tell you (which you even went so far as to quote in your "reply"!)?
Yet again, not as if you would bother to read it:
DWise1 writes:
Bob Altemeyer constructed a Right-Wing Authoritarian (RWA) spectrum with sets of survey questions to place an individual on that scale. Also, "right wing" has nothing to do with politics, since even an extreme left-wing mentality could score high on the RWA scale.
Also above in this reply:
DWise1 writes:
I had mentioned that in order to emphasize that it's not a starkly binary black-or-white authoritarian/non-authoritarian, but rather a spectrum of how authoritarian one could be (IOW, lots of gray). Hence you have high-RWAs (right wing authoritarians) and low-RWAs and lots of those who are in-between (and he found that our scores change over time).
It's called the RWA spectrum because that's what it measures. And as Altemeyer explains himself, it has absolutely nothing to do with politics (except that MAGAts and other Republicans tend to be high-RWA and Democrats low-RWA).
As Bob Altemeyer himself wrote (starting on page 9):
quote:
Right-Wing and Left-Wing Authoritarian Followers
Authoritarian followers usually support the established authorities in their society, such as government officials and traditional religious leaders. Such people have historically been the “proper” authorities in life, the time-honored, entitled, customary leaders, and that means a lot to most authoritarians. Psychologically these followers have personalities featuring:
1) a high degree of submission to the established, legitimate authorities in their society;
2) high levels of aggression in the name of their authorities; and
3) a high level of conventionalism.
Because the submission occurs to traditional authority, I call these followers rightwing authoritarians. I’m using the word “right” in one of its earliest meanings, for in Old English “riht”(pronounced “writ”) as an adjective meant lawful, proper, correct, doing what the authorities said. (And when someone did the lawful thing back then, maybe the authorities said, with a John Wayne drawl, “You got that riht, pilgrim!”)
In North America people who submit to the established authorities to extraordinary degrees often turn out to be political conservatives, so you can call them “right-wingers” both in my new-fangled psychological sense and in the usual political sense as well. But someone who lived in a country long ruled by Communists and who ardently supported the Communist Party would also be one of my psychological right-wing authoritarians even though we would also say he was a political left-winger. So a right-wing authoritarian follower doesn’t necessarily have conservative political views. Instead he’s someone who readily submits to the established authorities in society, attacks others in their name, and is highly conventional. It’s an aspect of his personality, not a description of his politics. Rightwing authoritarianism is a personality trait, like being characteristically bashful or happy or grumpy or dopey.
You could have left-wing authoritarian followers as well, who support a revolutionary leader who wants to overthrow the establishment. I knew a few in the 1970s, Marxist university students who constantly spouted their chosen authorities, Lenin or Trotsky or Chairman Mao. Happily they spent most of their time fighting with each other, as lampooned in Monty Python’s Life of Brian where the People’s Front of Judea devotes most of its energy to battling, not the Romans, but the Judean People’s Front. But the left-wing authoritarians on my campus disappeared long ago. Similarly in America “the Weathermen” blew away in the wind. I’m sure one can find left-wing authoritarians here and there, but they hardly exist in sufficient numbers now to threaten democracy in North America. However I have found bucketfuls of right-wing authoritarians in nearly every sample I have drawn in Canada and the United States for the past three decades. So when I speak of “authoritarian followers” in this book I mean right-wing authoritarian followers, as identified by the RWA scale.

Are you starting to understand now?
For the benefit of those who do decide to read the book (which you would never consider), read the footnotes! Even though he calls you masochistic for doing so, some of the best and most interesting material is in the footnotes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by marc9000, posted 01-01-2023 4:32 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by marc9000, posted 01-02-2023 10:24 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2402
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 53 of 114 (904569)
01-01-2023 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by marc9000
01-01-2023 5:50 PM


Re: Marc9K unchained
Marc9K writes:
WHAT!!! so now decades of NASA data from satellites is a "special interest"?
Nasa is a special interest. It absorbs billions from the federal government each year. It also accepts donations. It's one of many special interests that can increase its cash flow using climate change hysteria.
Ladies and gentlemen, here is Exhibit A-1 of how woefully inadequate our education system is. Poor Marc has never learned anything useful beyond the 3rd grade.
Why is your small intake valve focused only on the U.S.?
Because that's where I live, currently the biggest threat to the U.S. way of life is from within - the Democrat party. And it's $31+ trillion in debt.
Exhibit A-2. Poor Marc thinks the Democrats are threatening his U.S. way of life and stealing gobs of money, probably HIS MONEY!! Build a giant wall around the rest of the world to shield him from climate change!!!! The RWA brainwashing is so total.
Have you checked the more realistic and verifiable size of the USA on a globe lately? I bet you might even think eye-witness testimony is the best kind of evidence of these public local records.
?? Could you repeat that in English?
Naw. You're too dumb to understand anyway.
Taq writes:
Why can't governments use laws to encourage the replacement of fossil fuels? Why won't this help?
xongsmith writes:
I do NOT see the Democrats in that quote.
Not in gun control? Not in the Green New Deal?
WTF? "Democrat" does not appear in your quoted line from Taq, you fool.
You must think "governments using laws" means "Democrats ruling against me" or something. SMH SMH SMH
then after he presents his little 3rd grade "Nobody ever thought of this before" Trumpian Stroke of Genius Orders-of-Magnitude story, he ends with
Democrats in congress just passed, with the sig of our climate change loving president, a 1.7 trillion dollar bill. Nothing but debt to pay for it. It's loaded with pork. Some of that pork is a "hip hop" (gay) museum in the Bronx, and a $3.6 million hiking trail named after Michelle Obama. A LOT of fossil fuel will be used in the construction of those two things alone. Democrats don't always worry much about climate change, do they?
indicating that he still doesn't understand orders-of-magnitude, and also has overtones of overt racism running around in his body.
But there are too many issues inside Marc9K to address here in EvC and I hope he gets therapeutic help soon before he goes postal.

"I'm the Grim Reaper now, Mitch. Step aside."
Death to #TzarVladimirtheCondemned!
Enjoy every sandwich!

- xongsmith, 5.7dawkins scale


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by marc9000, posted 01-01-2023 5:50 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 17111
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 54 of 114 (904572)
01-02-2023 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by dwise1
12-30-2022 3:14 AM


Re: Midwest unprepared
Actually, I have read that book, but not in some time.
Need I defend myself, I am not an extreme Right Winger politically. I never liked Trump, although ringo accuses me of following in his footsteps.
For the record, I am pro-private property rights, and pro-business over government monopoly of technology(I know that you were ex-military and so can see the other side of that argument)
You all might be interested in my recent topic: Message 1

The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You (1894).
When both religious and non-religious people reach the same conclusions then you know religion isn't the reason.--Percy
Democrats should not be the only party. Respect the two-party system. -Phat, in December 2022
We see Monsters where Science shows us Windmills.~Phat, remixed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by dwise1, posted 12-30-2022 3:14 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by ringo, posted 01-02-2023 11:31 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied
 Message 60 by dwise1, posted 01-02-2023 1:01 PM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 17111
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


(1)
Message 55 of 114 (904574)
01-02-2023 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Taq
12-30-2022 11:04 AM


Its The Science, Stupid
marc9000 writes:
Oil is a substance. It's a lubricant, it's needed in the manufacture of rubber and plastic products, and has many other uses, it's not only burned for energy. Nuclear and fission and all of that are just energy, not physical substances.
Taq writes:
BURNING FOSSIL FUELS IS THE PROBLEM? Understand?
I think what marc9000 is trying to say is that he opposes "the government" shutting down the oil and gas industry so rapidly when the US still needs oil on many other levels than simply burning it for energy.

The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You (1894).
When both religious and non-religious people reach the same conclusions then you know religion isn't the reason.--Percy
Democrats should not be the only party. Respect the two-party system. -Phat, in December 2022
We see Monsters where Science shows us Windmills.~Phat, remixed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Taq, posted 12-30-2022 11:04 AM Taq has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 17111
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


(1)
Message 56 of 114 (904575)
01-02-2023 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by xongsmith
12-30-2022 4:25 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
xongsmith, addressing marc9K writes:
i think the changes to renewable energies will take time and the CEOs who haven't already built up stockpiles of alternate stocks will go the way of the horse and buggy whip industry.
Again, looking at it from what I think marc9K's view is, we are worried that an overzealous government, acting "for the good of the people", is destroying the oil and gas industry and that the issue is not so much about fossil fuels. We realize that fossil fuel needs will and even *should* be downsized. We are more concerned with the government's authoritarian mandate to shut down the "fossil fuel" industry too rapidly. As marc has tried to point out, this industry is involved in a lot more industries than simply gasoline and heating oil. Big government has no power to change and shape society without the private industries which gave the nation its power in the first place.

The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You (1894).
When both religious and non-religious people reach the same conclusions then you know religion isn't the reason.--Percy
Democrats should not be the only party. Respect the two-party system. -Phat, in December 2022
We see Monsters where Science shows us Windmills.~Phat, remixed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by xongsmith, posted 12-30-2022 4:25 PM xongsmith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by NosyNed, posted 01-02-2023 9:48 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8976
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


(5)
Message 57 of 114 (904577)
01-02-2023 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Phat
01-02-2023 8:55 AM


Too rapidly?
Too rapidly? Ha! If you step back and look at it we are way, way to slow to stop burning fossil fuels. After the catastrophic climate effects we are having we have been killing millions every year through the crap pumped into the air.
If you don't think that is dangerous then take Arnold Schwartzenegger challenge and pick the garage with the ICE vehicle running in it. You along with all of us are in the one garage we have.
"Authoritarian"? Rules are needed when the oil giants have been deliberately spreading misinformation after knowing for decades there is a problem. It's the same reason we need to lock up serial killers.
We left getting on with it about a generation too long so now the disruption and difficulty will be greater than it had to be. Leaving it any longer will only make the pain that much greater.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Phat, posted 01-02-2023 8:55 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 20915
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


(2)
Message 58 of 114 (904594)
01-02-2023 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by marc9000
01-01-2023 4:39 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
marc9000 writes:
What kind of laws would you suggest?
ringo writes:
Legislators have already suggested them, already debated them and already passed them.
EXAMPLES?
I gave you examples in the post you are quoting Message 44. You said, "Fossil fuels are voluntarily purchased by people who desire to have them." and I replied that so are drugs, explosives and poison gasses. All of them are voluntarily purchased by people who desire to have them. All of them have had laws passed against them.
To spell it out for you, laws don't prevent people from doing what they want to do.
marc9000 writes:
So climate change laws have been passed, and our troubles are over?
See above.

Come all of you cowboys all over this land,
I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command:
To hold a six shooter, and never to run
As long as there's bullets in both of your guns.
-- Woody Guthrie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by marc9000, posted 01-01-2023 4:39 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by marc9000, posted 01-02-2023 10:33 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 20915
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


(3)
Message 59 of 114 (904595)
01-02-2023 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Phat
01-02-2023 8:16 AM


Re: Midwest unprepared
Phat writes:
I am not an extreme Right Winger politically.
Yes you are. You agree with the extreme right-wingers on everything.
Phat writes:
I never liked Trump, although ringo accuses me of following in his footsteps.
Go ahead and SHOW us that you disagree with right-wing extremists.
Phat writes:
I am pro-private property rights, and pro-business over government monopoly of technology...
Page one of the right-wing extremist handbook (written in pictures like a Chick tract).
And "government monopoly of technology" is a right-wing extremist slogan, like "the Jews are conspirong to set up a New World Order".

Come all of you cowboys all over this land,
I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command:
To hold a six shooter, and never to run
As long as there's bullets in both of your guns.
-- Woody Guthrie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Phat, posted 01-02-2023 8:16 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5563
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(3)
Message 60 of 114 (904604)
01-02-2023 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Phat
01-02-2023 8:16 AM


Re: Midwest unprepared
Actually, I have read that book [ie, The Authoritarians], but not in some time.
Then you need to reread those parts that you have completely forgotten; eg:
  • What authoritarianism actually is.
  • Characteristics of high-RWAs contrasted with low-RWAs; eg:
    1. High-RWAs operate almost constantly on fear and hate. While everybody experiences and reacts through fear at one time or another, high-RWAs do so almost constantly such that they are forever surrounded by horrific existential threats like people saying "Happy Holidays". I seem to recall it was Roger Ailes who described the FOX News content that he wanted to see as "whatever would scare your grandfather."
    2. High-RWAs divide the world between "us" and "them" while viewing "them" as the mortal enemies of "us".
    3. While authoritarian leaders are normally not high-RWA, they do turn to high-RWA followers as "low-hanging fruit" who are so easy to organize into an army of mindless sheeple who will follow you anywhere.
      "Tell a high-RWA that you believe in what he does and he'll believe you and follow you. Tell that to a low-RWA and he will not believe you." That is why Republicans (typically high-RWA) will follow Dear Leader to the end, whereas Democrats (typically low-RWA) are nearly as hard to herd than cats.
      "Republicans fall in lock-step. Democrats fall in love."
    4. Low-RWAs tend to view others in society as being fellow members of that society, holding the view that we are all in the same boat so we all need to work together for our common goals and benefit. High-RWAs view others in society as the "them" enemy and conduct themselves accordingly.
      NOTE: high-RWAs tend to seek to punish the victims of wrong-doing or disasters. Consider Republicans voting against aid for hurricane victims in Puerto Rico and NY/NJ (Hurricane Sandy), whereas Democrats vote for hurricane disaster aid for red states. Also in the beginning of the pandemic when ventilators and PPE were in short supply and desperately needed, the Republicans used the situation as an opportunity to punish the blue coastal states where the first waves were hitting first.
I have to run some errands so I have to cut this short. The point still remains that almost everything you have been writing tells us that you either have completely forgotten what you had learned from The Authoritarians ... or else you had never learned anything in the first place.
I'll repost from the book the world management simulation Altemeyer's son was involved in, so Altemeyer used game applicants' RWA scores to have one run staffed with high-RWAs and a second with low-RWAs (time's tight, so I must forego inserting formatting markup codes):
quote:
The Authoritarians pp 30-34
Unauthoritarians and Authoritarians: Worlds of Difference
By now you must be developing a feel for what high RWAs think and do, and also an impression of low RWAs. Do you think you know each group well enough to predict what they’d do if they ran the world? One night in October, 1994 I let a group of low RWA university students determine the future of the planet (you didn’t know humble researchers could do this, did you!). Then the next night I gave high RWAs their kick at the can.
The setting involved a rather sophisticated simulation of the earth’s future called the Global Change Game, which is played on a big map of the world by 50-participants who have been split into various regions such as North America, Africa, India and China. The players are divided up according to current populations, so a lot more students hunker down in India than in North America. The game was designed to raise environmental awareness, and before the exercise begins players study up on their region’s resources, prospects, and environmental issues.
Then the facilitators who service the simulation call for some member, any member of each region, to assume the role of team leader by simply standing up. Once the “Elites” in the world have risen to the task they are taken aside and given control of their region’s bank account. They can use this to buy factories, hospitals, armies, and so on from the game bank, and they can travel the world making deals with other Elites. They also discover they can discretely put some of their region’s wealth into their own pockets, to vie for a prize to be given out at the end of the simulation to the World’s Richest Person. Then the game begins, and the world goes wherever the players take it for the next forty years which, because time flies in a simulation, takes about two and a half hours.
The Low RWA Game
By carefully organizing sign-up booklets, I was able to get 67 low RWA students to play the game together on October 18th . (They had no idea they had been funneled into this run of the experiment according to their RWA scale scores; indeed they had probably never heard of right-wing authoritarianism.) Seven men and three women made themselves Elites. As soon as the simulation began, the Pacific Rim Elite called for a summit on the “Island Paradise of Tasmania.” All the Elites attended and agreed to meet there again whenever big issues arose. A world-wide organization was thus immediately created by mutual consent.
Regions set to work on their individual problems. Swords were converted to ploughshares as the number of armies in the world dropped. No wars or threats of wars occurred during the simulation. [At one point the North American Elite suggested starting a war to his fellow region-aires (two women and one guy), but they told him to go fly a kite--or words to that effect.]
An hour into the game the facilitators announced a (scheduled) crisis in the earth’s ozone layer. All the Elites met in Tasmania and contributed enough money to buy new technology to replenish the ozone layer.
Other examples of international cooperation occurred, but the problems of the Third World mounted in Africa and India. Europe gave some aid but North America refused to help. Africa eventually lost 300 million people to starvation and disease, and India 100 million.
Populations had grown and by the time forty years had passed the earth held 8.7
billion people, but the players were able to provide food, health facilities, and jobs for almost all of them. They did so by demilitarizing, by making a lot of trades that benefited both parties, by developing sustainable economic programs, and because the Elites diverted only small amounts of the treasury into their own pockets. (The North American Elite hoarded the most.)
One cannot blow off four hundred million deaths, but this was actually a highly successful run of the game, compared to most. No doubt the homogeneity of the players, in terms of their RWA scores and related attitudes, played a role. Low RWAs do not typically see the world as “Us versus Them.” They are more interested in cooperation than most people are, and they are often genuinely concerned about the environment. Within their regional groups, and in the interactions of the Elites, these first-year students would have usually found themselves “on the same page”--and writ large on that page was, “Let’s Work Together and Clean Up This Mess.” The game’s facilitators said they had never seen as much international cooperation in previous runs of the simulation. With the exception of the richest region, North America, the lows saw themselves as interdependent and all riding on the same merry-go-round.
The High RWA Game
The next night 68 high RWAs showed up for their ride, just as ignorant of how they had been funneled into this run of the experiment as the low RWA students had been the night before. The game proceeded as usual. Background material was read, Elites (all males) nominated themselves, and the Elites were briefed. Then the “wedgies” started. As soon as the game began, the Elite from the Middle East announced the price of oil had just doubled. A little later the former Soviet Union (known as the Confederation of Independent States in 1994) bought a lot of armies and invaded North America. The latter had insufficient conventional forces to defend itself, and so retaliated with nuclear weapons. A nuclear holocaust ensued which killed everyone on earth--7.4 billion people--and almost all other forms of life which had the misfortune of co-habitating the same planet as a species with nukes.
When this happens in the Global Change Game, the facilitators turn out all the lights and explain what a nuclear war would produce. Then the players are given a second chance to determine the future, turning back the clock to two years before the hounds of war were loosed. The former Soviet Union however rebuilt its armies and invaded China this time, killing 400 million people. The Middle East Elite then called for a “United Nations” meeting to discuss handling future crises, but no agreements were reached.
At this point the ozone-layer crisis occurred but--perhaps because of the recent failure of the United Nations meeting--no one called for a summit. Only Europe took steps to reduce its harmful gas emissions, so the crisis got worse. Poverty was spreading unchecked in the underdeveloped regions, which could not control their population growth. Instead of dealing with the social and economic problems “back home,” Elites began jockeying among themselves for power and protection, forming military alliances to confront other budding alliances. Threats raced around the room and the Confederation of Independent States warned it was ready to start another nuclear war. Partly because their Elites had used their meager resources to buy into alliances, Africa and Asia were on the point of collapse. An Elite called for a United Nations meeting to deal with the crises--take your pick--and nobody came.
By the time forty years had passed the world was divided into armed camps threatening each other with another nuclear destruction. One billion, seven hundred thousand people had died of starvation and disease. Throw in the 400 million who died in the Soviet-China war and casualties reached 2.1 billion. Throw in the 7.4 billion who died in the nuclear holocaust, and the high RWAs managed to kill 9.5 billion people in their world--although we, like some battlefield news releases, are counting some of the corpses twice.
The authoritarian world ended in disaster for many reasons. One was likely the character of their Elites, who put more than twice as much money in their own pockets as the low RWA Elites had. (The Middle East Elite ended up the World’s Richest Man; part of his wealth came from money he had conned from Third World Elites as payment for joining his alliance.) But more importantly, the high RWAs proved incredibly ethnocentric. There they were, in a big room full of people just like themselves, and they all turned their backs on each other and paid attention only to their own group. They too were all reading from the same page, but writ large on their page was, “Care About Your Own; We Are NOT All In This Together.”
The high RWAs also suffered because, while they say on surveys that they care about the environment, when push comes to shove they usually push and shove for the bucks. That is, they didn’t care much about the long-term environmental consequences of their economic acts. For example a facilitator told Latin America that converting much of the region’s forests to a single species of tree would make the ecosystem vulnerable. But the players decided to do it anyway because the tree’s lumber was very profitable just then. And the highs proved quite inflexible when it came to birth control. Advised that “just letting things go” would cause the populations in underdeveloped areas to explode, the authoritarians just let things go.
Now the Global Change Game is not the world stage, university students are not world leaders, and starting a nuclear holocaust in a gymnasium is not the same thing as launching real missiles from Siberia and North Dakota. So the students’ behavior on those two successive nights in 1994 provides little basis for drawing conclusions about the future of the planet. But some of what happened in this experiment rang true to me. I especially thought, “I’ve seen this show before” as I sat on the sidelines and watched the high RWAs create their very own October crisis.
You have recently advocated the high-RWA approach to running the global economy ("competition over cooperation"). Now you have seen the consequences of what you are asking for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Phat, posted 01-02-2023 8:16 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by marc9000, posted 01-02-2023 10:48 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023