leicsmac

Also, in yet another attempt to get this thread back on track, two that hopefully most can agree with and embody the above ethos of demographic superiority: Stephen Miller and Pete Hegseth.

Well, in that case the second paragraph of my original post may well apply. Like I said, if someone isn't keen on measures taken to ensure social progress and equity, then I can only assume that person is fine with stratified demographic hierarchy - with, presumably, their own right at the top and especially undesirable ones not existing at all. Whatever political compassing label people want to put on it is immaterial imo - treating other people as, well, people, and equals, should really transcend that. NB. Whenever you want to address the points made in our previous conversation in good faith, it would be welcomed.

And as if social progress isn't a good thing. Unless someone wants to think that every demographic but one is inferior and they should all be subordinate to that one demographic or not exist at all? (And before the accusations of hyperbole, exactly what was the social situation in that regard for the last several centuries without that progress?)

Yep. That's about right.

In other news, Vance the Catholic blatantly questioning papal infallibility and arguing in favour of "just war". Wasn't that an excommunication-worthy heresy the last time I checked?

And by the by, this thread is getting rather derailed so... Yet again, Jon Rudkin.

At the very least whoever was involved has to go, but Starmer not apparently knowing about this is an awful look as well.

No idea, would have to look into it. Not sure how well that would fly in today's political climate.

Because the future cost will be higher. I'm having to repeat myself there, clearly. The knock on pressures caused by energy prices are a failure of execution rather than intent. Fix the execution, do not abandon the intent. Can you explain why such a policy decision that flies in the face of reducing carbon emissions would go ahead in the first instance? This is either incompetence or malice from the powers that be of all stripes... or the facts stated here are made up. Citation really, really needed. Biomass really shouldn't be part of any ongoing energy solution anyway and it's disingenuous to suggest it is being touted otherwise. Small fission reactors + tailored renewables is the way forward. And if Western governments are pulling back on such policies, then they, and all of us, are responsible for every single drop of blood spilled as a result of critical resource shortages caused by increasing global average temperature. Now, in return, seeing as you appear to not want to discuss the big picture, allow me to ask you a question. Two, in fact. Firstly, what effects do you think the scientifically proven increase in average temperatures will have to our species and biodiversity should we not take enough action to address it? And secondly, do you think those effects are simply the price that future generations will have to pay for our own comfortable lives? Because right now, all I'm hearing is importance being placed on "me" and "now".

Yeah, either he's clueless enough that he didn't know about this, or made a massive mistake when he did. Either way it's no bueno. Thing is though, by sidelining Burnham they've crippled themselves in terms of reasonable leadership options... so now what?

Thank you for the clarification. I do however think you are downplaying the effects of the way our world is changing, both now and in the future. That is of course your prerogative, but the harm caused but not acting or acting too slowly will far exceed the cost of acting swiftly in pretty much every regard. This is a matter of sufficient fact to be pretty nonpartisan imo, unless someone really honestly doesn't care about the future that much. The laws of thermodynamics do not suffer our denial or excuses about present life. And, should the worst happen, those future generations won't suffer them either. It would be nice to not be remembered as the era of humanity that plunged the next one into a time full of suffering, death and hardship (whether natural or artificial), simply because we couldn't see the big picture and have the empathy to plan (and perhaps sacrifice a bit) accordingly.

... perhaps if such assumptions based on apparently incomplete or inaccurate information are so offensive, the same hesitancy towards assumptions might be extended to the field of climate science. Perhaps the people in that field who have been stating the consequences for decades now should be listened to, as they do in fact know what they're talking about and they actually do know more about it than most others do. Perhaps, in fact, they know enough about their own area - as you know about yours - that we should take their words on faith and just a little trust. Just a thought. Edit: to put it bluntly, if you make assumptions about the knowledge and intent of other people, don't then complain when they do it to you.

Sorry to be a pedant and to disagree here, but it's direct from Firefly Episode 12, Heart of Gold, discussing Rance Burgess. Edit: though, yes, some people juggle geese.

Ain't that the damn truth. But I don't think that's necessarily a new phenomenon, sadly, and it appears that what he represents, while possibly confined to the past in terms of power, will always need to be watched for and guarded against.

"Nothing worse than a monster who thinks he's right with God." - Mal Reynolds, Firefly. Amazing how often that quote is proving accurate these days.

I wish I could say that I was surprised about any of it, tbh. Still, there are some encouraging signs that sometime soon, the storm will pass and perhaps the ideology he and his represent will finally be confined to the past without dooming us all. Hopefully.

There might be a possibility after the midterms later this year if the current trend continues, but yes, his cult of personality and the damage it has caused makes for a (darkly) fascinating case study in terms of difficult to flush it has been and is.

And most of central and Latin America.

Regarding poliicians - as opposed to the convicted dregs of society - on this thread is always going to be a matter of debate, but what is not a matter of debate is some of those politicians (including some mentioned above) are actively pursuing policy platforms that will, in all likelihood and in the not too distant future, result in a toll of death and suffering that will make all previous wars look positively homely. Ignoring increasing global temperatures and the decline of vital resources as a result of it will make that happen. Whether that makes such politicians worthy of inclusion in this thread is clearly up to the beholder. What was it that Coriolanus Snow said? "Mistakes happen in war?" How very true. I wonder how that's best explained to the families of those little girls. But anyway, if other examples are required the man is a rapist and likely worse who has managed to use his power and influence to avoid justice truly finding him - so far.

When you're ready to actually address points made in good faith, I'm sure that someone will be about, mon ami.

Jury out on this one tbh. I know there's only a certain amount that can be done with the Middle Earth IP but this seems like a story just being told for its own sake to make a bit of wonga.

Need to rewatch this too.

Right, so the entire scientific consensus of data on the matter, in terms of status, consequences and recommended action, can be disregarded entirely, then? Because that consensus is crystal clear, as is the timeframe, and, 1% of global emissions or not, engaging the rest of the world in a communal race to the bottom, rather than choosing a better way, (unsurprisingly) doesn't end well. Does caring about the future of our species beyond petty human conflicts over most nothing at all make a person a leftie? I hope not - I would hope that future was everyone's concern. There's no point in preparing for a threat from other humans when natural events will render whatever is left not worth fighting over anyway, tribal politics don't maintain human civilisation in a world where resources are vastly reduced. The "manosphere" is a lesser issue, to be sure, but do ask pretty much any woman present in your life if they feel threatened by those who are present in that particular sphere and you'll get the same reply, so perhaps it might be nice to help them address that threat? And wrt to your last sentence - if there is a deity, it won't help us in a way we understand, historical evidence is pretty clear on that. So we've got to help ourselves - and that means being better than short term self interested tribalism.

Cowardice and evasive answers regarding important issues. If you're OK with the future burning, at least be straight-up honest about it.

That's a shame. I was hoping to actually hear a cogent argument about why continuing carbon emissions in the face of increasing global average temperature and all the consequences it is causing and will cause was a good idea. Perhaps I was expecting too much.