The Truth, Still Inconvenient - Page 26 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-29-2013, 06:35 PM   #501
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,228
Local Time: 08:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
God is that all you have? Skeptics are simply showing the different possible alternatives that warmists don't pursue.
That is simply the problem, you are in pursuit of the science. This is exactly what everyone is telling you, you're doing it backwards. You make up your mind on the stance and THEN you pursue the "science" that backs it up.

Thanks for being honest.
__________________

BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2013, 06:57 PM   #502
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,613
Local Time: 07:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
That is simply the problem, you are in pursuit of the science. This is exactly what everyone is telling you, you're doing it backwards. You make up your mind on the stance and THEN you pursue the "science" that backs it up.

Thanks for being honest.
You're the one who isn't honest. Your just a troll that ignores my posts over and over again and then tries to paint my posts as not answering your questions. Are you okay? Then you are now trying to ignore the fact that temperatures are not going the way of warmist predictions which damages your premise in the first place. You can ignore all you want but skeptics require logic and accurate predictions to believe the premise that man is going to destroy the planet in the next few decades. We are also practicing science and statistics to correct bullshit as well.

CRU Abandons Yamal Superstick � Climate Audit
__________________

purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2013, 07:25 PM   #503
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,228
Local Time: 08:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
You're the one who isn't honest. Your just a troll that ignores my posts over and over again and then tries to paint my posts as not answering your questions.
Now it's your time to live up to that honesty you claim. Am I the only one that's called you out for not answering their posts? Let's remember, everything is archived.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Are you okay?
I'm great, and you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
You can ignore all you want but skeptics require logic and accurate predictions to believe the premise that man is going to destroy the planet in the next few decades.
If the skeptic looked at all the available science and then made up their mind, then I can respect that. I've met people who respect science and are skeptics or on the the fence. But the truth is, most of them admit that change is occurring they're just not convinced it's man's doing. None of these folks are ignorant enough to think it's a hoax or that more CO2 the better. Skeptics that are skeptics first and then pursue the science I cannot respect, it's not honest.
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2013, 09:38 PM   #504
Blue Crack Addict
 
Vlad n U 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 28,357
Local Time: 12:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Yeah but China/North Korea/USSR were and are REAL.
NK, for one, was never born of a proletarian revolution. So its rule has really nothing to do with the working class who don’t wield any power whatsoever. The USSR, bar its first few years, maybe, cannot be considered a product of workers’ rule. I’m a bit iffy on China given that my knowledge isn’t relatively extensive, but I do understand that in no point did the proletarians have control over the means of production.In any discussion on communism these three states become near irrelevant.

Quote:
Well explain to me how the dictatorship of the proletariat will give back power and share it equally? Because this question has never been answered. The reason communism failed is precisely because they don't share power and they feather their nests because these leaders are human and get corrupted by power (assuming they didn't already have this in mind before taking power). This is why conservatives don't believe there is a communism that can happen in reality. Only in theory with theoretical people that don't resemble emotionally complex human beings.

Human beings have desire and that desire is more powerful than the envy people feel for those they perceive are happier. How are you going to regulate desire in people to express themselves in ways that are unequal? Some expressions are of a higher quality than others and that might lead to some having some envy. The biggest question comes after this. How do you regulate the people who enact these laws who also have desires? Communists in reality concentrated more economic power in a few hands than the capitalists they criticized.
Whether you’ve worded this incorrectly or not, I don’t know, but it seems like you’ve defined the dictatorship of the proletariat incorrectly. It’s the rule of the working classes, not necessarily a single party. Communism ‘failed,’ (I’d much rather go with just ‘communist movement’ since communism hasn’t achieved let alone to the point where we would decide if it would succeed or fail) at least in the early days of the USSR because the Russian revolution was reliant (being a semi-feudal society) on the German revolution to succeed. That revolution was unfortunately quashed, the early USSR needed the more developed Germany to support it. Workers’ power didn’t exist for too long and the nation was essentially heading towards a form of capitalism with the bureaucratic class controlling the means of production. Stalin abandoned internationalism for some ridiculous ‘Socialism in One Country’ rubbish, which did not at all have the proletariat in power.

Anyway, I don’t buy the ‘human nature’ argument, I believe that conditions determine consciousness, that the nature of the person’s environment will determine their behaviour/approach towards it.

Quote:
Now in this thread it's about fossil fuels and the environment. So are you a communist that doesn't like industry or one that would include fossil fuels? I hope you would include them because I can't imagine what medical care would be like without modern equipment. If you do like fossil fuels how would a communist of your type change the energy system without creating another "Great Leap Forward"?
I just don’t see any need for a Great Leap Forward, really. So that’s all I can answer on that one. We can produce enough energy through solar energy and wind power. (And a supposed need for the Great Leap Forward would imply that I was ever an admirer of Mao, which I never have been and probably never will.

Quote:
I don't expect you to answer these questions satisfactorily because if you could you would be one hell of a genius.
It seems that you had already made up your mind when you wrote this.

(Excuse me for the varying mess of font colours etc)
Vlad n U 2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2013, 12:40 AM   #505
Acrobat
 
Badyouken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 488
Local Time: 02:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I don't agree with your premise that phasing out fossil fuels is the same as reducing acid rain or CFCs. The scale is not even close. The only hope we have of replacing fossil fuels is nuclear fusion which is decades away. Again I don't agree that CO2 is causing this damage because as we have seen, it hasn't. Unless the premise is proven the panic and hugely expensive measures shouldn't follow. Don't even use the loaded terminology of "climate change" when projections are for warming not just change.
Of course it's not remotely on the same scale, but the denier behaviour is very similar. Deny that the problem exist, refuse to accept the science, seek bogus science. I won't convince you that GHGs cause global warming / climate change, and that's fine with me.
Badyouken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2013, 12:41 AM   #506
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,066
Local Time: 09:06 PM
Vlad, I hope you stick around. You offer a perspective we never get in here. That was interesting reading.
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2013, 12:53 AM   #507
Acrobat
 
Badyouken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 488
Local Time: 02:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad n U 2 View Post
I just don’t see any need for a Great Leap Forward, really. So that’s all I can answer on that one. We can produce enough energy through solar energy and wind power.
If you are putting all your eggs in the solar/wind basket, then you do need a great 'technological' leap forward in the form of high-performance energy storage, which we haven't achieved just yet. We are getting close, though.
Badyouken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2013, 12:59 AM   #508
Blue Crack Addict
 
Vlad n U 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 28,357
Local Time: 12:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
Vlad, I hope you stick around. You offer a perspective we never get in here. That was interesting reading.
I'll try.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badyouken View Post
If you are putting all your eggs in the solar/wind basket, then you do need a great leap forward in the form of high-performance energy storage, which we haven't achieved just yet.

We do need significant technological breakthroughs (nuclear, CCS, energy storage, synthetic fuels/biofuels, high performance PV, etc.), just as we need a pricing structure that internalizes environmental costs.
The solar/wind bit I mentioned was merely a basic example, so of course I recognise that there is so much more out there.
Vlad n U 2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2013, 01:03 AM   #509
Acrobat
 
Badyouken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 488
Local Time: 02:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad n U 2 View Post
The solar/wind bit I mentioned was merely a basic example, so of course I recognise that there is so much more out there.
Of course. Thanks for the discussion.
Badyouken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2013, 09:24 AM   #510
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,613
Local Time: 07:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Now it's your time to live up to that honesty you claim. Am I the only one that's called you out for not answering their posts? Let's remember, everything is archived.

I'm great, and you?

If the skeptic looked at all the available science and then made up their mind, then I can respect that. I've met people who respect science and are skeptics or on the the fence. But the truth is, most of them admit that change is occurring they're just not convinced it's man's doing. None of these folks are ignorant enough to think it's a hoax or that more CO2 the better. Skeptics that are skeptics first and then pursue the science I cannot respect, it's not honest.
If you're a scientist, being skeptical first is hardly a problem. What matters is following the actual worldwide temperatures. If you gave up looking at studies then that would be bad. I'm hardly someone who doesn't know what AGW proponents believe. After seeing the U.N.'s involvement and self interest people should be more skeptical. The summary for policy alternatives is always more alarmist than the actual science supports. That's why the temperature predictions are now being downplayed & the more alarmist ones of 6 degree temperature increases with a doubling of CO2 is wrong.

BTW it shouldn't be so controversial to see benefits to crops when CO2 is increased in the atmosphere. Photosynthesis is important to say the least and crops do grow better when they are given more CO2. Even believers in AGW understand this.

I've answered your posts and then some. I'm not even sure if everything is archived as I remember trying to find earlier threads and they aren't there. I posted tons of science in response to people's claims. That's why I asked if you were okay and it appears not. I think you just get people to post lots and then you dismiss it as not science and move on. You just don't like the responses so act as if they aren't responses.
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2013, 10:00 AM   #511
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,613
Local Time: 07:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad n U 2 View Post
Anyway, I don’t buy the ‘human nature’ argument, I believe that conditions determine consciousness, that the nature of the person’s environment will determine their behaviour/approach towards it.
This is the sticking point right here and has been since Marx. Wouldn't your consciousness change as a proletarian once you had dictatorship? We have ample evidence that power corrupts people because of how brains treat desire. Then you've got the education gap. A lot of working class people don't have what it takes to run a society. Do you have to kill all the intellectuals who don't follow? Wouldn't a lot of successful people who like rewards for their work want to leave and take their expertise with them? I would like to know how you would handle those who don't want to be a part of this revolution. Does the said country have to be a jail to keep people in or does the world have to be communist so the there's no escape? I would also wonder if certain personalities who will always be non-conformist would ever change their "consciousness".

I would really like to know more of what conditions would have to change for your version of communism to be successful.
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2013, 10:39 AM   #512
Blue Crack Addict
 
Vlad n U 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 28,357
Local Time: 12:36 PM
I think you’re missing the point here, the Marxist definition of dictatorship differs from the definition of dictatorship that we widely accept ie. the rule of a select few with no democratic process. That is, the Marxist definition of a dictatorship, and so in application to the DotP, it implies the rule of the entire society controls the politics and the economy within a democratic system (ie. the people are in charge of themselves). The distinction between these two definitions of dictatorship is important to make. Do we have to kill the intellectuals who don’t follow? Not at all. As an example, Lenin suggested that it would be plausible to have capitalists involved in the democratic process, but as capitalism is ridden there’d be no need for future capitalist generations given there would eventually be no private property. Essentially these dissenting intellectuals would also be able to say in how they wanted things to be run. I’m not sure on your definition of ‘successful people,’ if by that you mean members of the bourgeoisie, then I could understand them wanting to flee to keep their riches. However, if you’re talking about proletarians with much experience in their respective fields, then they’d really have no incentive to leave because they would have democratic control over their workplace.

If people wanted to leave, then I’m sure they could leave, but that would also depend on the conditions during the time of the establishment of the DotP. I do not think many proletarians would want to leave a society that is suited to their needs unless they have some sort of unbreakable loyalty towards the bourgeoisie (perhaps some upper middle class types). The worker will be in control of their own field of work, teachers will be in charge of education, doctors and nurses will be in charge of hospitals/medical clinics etc.

I’ll say it again, it’s not ‘my’ version of communism, it’s the only version. To say that it was simply ‘my’ version of communism would be like saying my orange is not actually an orange despite it being the orange while proclaiming that your apple is the actual orange simply because you were taught to believe that the apple is an orange (it's past midnight so I can't tell you if this a decent/acceptable analogy or not).

No matter how you feel about the ideology, and I think we've both established how we feel about it, communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society.
Vlad n U 2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2013, 10:40 AM   #513
Blue Crack Addict
 
Vlad n U 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 28,357
Local Time: 12:36 PM
I'm writing out my posts in Word hence why my font is not quite there.
Vlad n U 2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2013, 01:58 PM   #514
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,741
Local Time: 10:06 PM
Hey Vlad, I just want to say that I'm glad you're being more open about your take on communism and are willing to discuss it here. Since FYM is about sharing beliefs and even informing others, it's good to know someone with an entirely different POV, and a controversial one for many, is posting here
Pearl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2013, 08:09 PM   #515
Blue Crack Addict
 
Vlad n U 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 28,357
Local Time: 12:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearl View Post
Hey Vlad, I just want to say that I'm glad you're being more open about your take on communism and are willing to discuss it here. Since FYM is about sharing beliefs and even informing others, it's good to know someone with an entirely different POV, and a controversial one for many, is posting here
Often I forget it's even about that.
Vlad n U 2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 12:11 AM   #516
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 07:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nbcrusader View Post
I've got to agree with Purpleoscar's statement on this discussion. This isn't about a conspiracy theory - more a statement of how we engage in political discussion today.

Earlier in this thread, someone asked about the debate over global warming. The response was "the debate is over - accept it as fact." I found this exchange odd in that it was the exact same response I received over 10 years ago on this board. When the debate actually occurred is never identified.

Mocking and jingoism are not scientific responses to legitimate questions or evidence that runs contrary to the theory. Over the last decade, any scientific data that does not fit in with the theory is disregarded as coming from "uneducated" scientists or funded by "big oil". Correlative evidence is treated as direct evidence. Natural variability is largely ignored.

Even the recent New York Times article goes largely unmentioned. Is this due to scientific reasons or political reasons?

The best way to establish scientific theory is to challenge the data, challenge the methodology, challenge the studies - and come to the same conclusion. Politicians would rather use the tactics of the used car salesman - buy it now before it is too late. The angry language layered on top adds a "convert or be exiled" element to the discussion.
That being said, would you agree that it doesn't really matter if global warming is real in the context that we (all humans) should be better stewards of the earth? There is proof that many post-Industrial Age activities still harm the environment: poisons water, causes cancer, urban blight (think of all the ugly-ass wires that run between homes in the East Coast and rust belt ruins) - shouldn't we do what we can to stop this? Shouldn't earth be restored to the "Garden" it is called to be?

But I guess it doesn't really matter. We are only a few years away from solar and battery technology from being so cheap and ubiquitous that this whole discussion will change. The new discussion will be: what shall we do with all this abundant, cheap energy?. I for one hope we use at least some of it to clean up the damage we've caused the last several hundred years.
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 12:15 AM   #517
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 07:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad n U 2 View Post
Often I forget it's even about that.
As a Christian - I am very interested in an economic system that has many similarities to Communism (in application, not necessarily in spirit).

The Book of Acts describes a Christian culture that has many of the same qualities of Communism.
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 06:11 PM   #518
Acrobat
 
Badyouken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 488
Local Time: 02:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
But I guess it doesn't really matter. We are only a few years away from solar and battery technology from being so cheap and ubiquitous that this whole discussion will change.
Relatively cheap, perhaps. Ubiquitous? Not yet. The scale of the energy system is absolutely massive, and it will take decades upon decades to displace conventional energy sources.
Badyouken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 06:15 PM   #519
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 07:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badyouken View Post
Relatively cheap, perhaps. Ubiquitous? Not yet. The scale of the energy system is absolutely massive, and it will take decades upon decades to displace conventional energy sources.

Quote:
So how far away is solar from meeting 100% of the world's energy needs? Eight doublings, says Kurzweil, which will take just 16 years.
Source: Solar Will Power the World in 16 Years
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 06:43 PM   #520
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,613
Local Time: 07:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad n U 2 View Post
No matter how you feel about the ideology, and I think we've both established how we feel about it, communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society.
Yes as a goal but I don't remember being taught that a Marxist revolution would be democratic therefore bloodless. Also there would be multiple viewpoints in this democratic dictatorship so I don't think conflict could be avoided.

In order to have doctors or teachers running their own organizations some people would naturally be administrators (since there's not enough time to do both & no way to split all responsibilities to equal work since people have different abilities). I don't care what "consciousness" they have but they won't take equal pay for more responsibility. We already have a democracy and segregation of duties in companies so the more things change the more they stay the same. You eliminate money and capital but yet you can't. If there's no money then there's barter which is less efficient than money. Capital is simply a way of organizing long term assets and moving possible current expenditures to future expenditures (eg. Retirement/Inheritance). You have a classless society but you have to make me believe that (supposedly free) people will take only according to their needs and not according to their abilities. This goes back to the desire argument. Fidel took more than his needs.

Your version (yes yours) is more like a Noam Chomsky version of Communism where "democracy" is a massive union with predominant equality (how?) and little government if at all. I could still see hierarchies forming simply because of human intelligence differences and personalities. You're familiar with Myers Briggs so I wonder what an ESTJ would do in that environment.

Thanks for the response anyways!
__________________

purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×