If we take, on balance, the number of papers which arrive at conclusions similar to the one you have posted, compared to the number of papers which arrive at conclusions opposite to the one you have posted, we would probably have a ratio equal to 1:100. Would you like to address those 100 papers first? Then I'll address yours. And then we can move on to round two. And so on. Furthermore, I have recommended two good books to you, one of which demonstrates the value of climate science by way of various EPA projects which have had measurable success, along with many other things, and an excellent book on climate change in general. You declined to read them, so I decline to read your article. Furthermore, I noted a comment you made in another thread about climate change and its relation to the Sun. Where did you get such information? Do you really understand the causes of ice ages? |
|
|
|
|
This is hilarious. I actually enjoy it when you guys do this. First of all, it shows that you guys use as your sources for information of climate change sites linked with libertarian think tanks. Why is that? There are neutral sites which report on science.
Your buddy Anthony Watts is a regular speaker for the Heartland Institute, shown time and again to be biased against climate science and climate change for political reasons (property rights in fact - note the editor of Environment and Climate News is an advocate for property rights and has zero credentials with regard to the environment or climate science), not scientific honesty. Funding, of course, comes from Exxon/Mobil. Also, note that Anthony Watts holds no credentials with regard to climate science, and readily admits so. What he does is trawl the Internet for that one nugget among thousands of peer reviewed papers that supports what his Libertarian mindset wants to see. Biased reporting, indeed.
As for me having a stroke, sorry, no. I'm glad you made the post though, as it confirms my accusations that libertarians must have their science news strained through a filter designed to only let news through which meets their libertarian perspective. Kind of like a religion.
Climate science is to libertarians like Evolution is to Creationists.
|
|
|
|
Property taxes are particularly offensive. Either I own the land, or I don't.
That is a perfect example of your fallacious "black-or-white" thinking. Clearly, your stubborn mental block causes you to be unable to recognise the overlap of sets drawn by self-ownership and community. Thus, you seem to conflate your concept of self-ownership with being a 'Sovereign' -- an absolute ruler to whom no law applies. It's either that or you are someone's slave. Logic. Ha! Slavery can only be applied to objects for which the concept of ownership exists. Since the concept of 'ownership' doesn't apply to me, I don't own myself and neither can anyone else. Thus, 'self-ownership' is a double-edged sword that enables enslavement. You don't own yourself, do you? Then who is moving your fingers? And if I don't own myself, why are you trying to convince me of that fact? Here, let me quote the wikipedia article for you: It has been argued by Austrian School economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe that self-ownership is axiomatic (Argumentation Ethics). His reasoning is that self-ownership is a presupposition of argumentation, thus a person contradicts oneself when one argues against self-ownership. The person making this argument is caught in a performative contradiction because, in choosing to use persuasion instead of force to have others agree that they are not sovereign over themselves, that person implicitly grants that those who one is trying to persuade have a right to use their body in order to argue. Furthermore, try this:
Draw a circle around everything that it means to be 'you',
E.g.: your body, personality, ideas, property owned by you, income, work, genes, physical appearance, etc...
Then draw another circle that encompasses everything that some community means,
E.g.: maintenance of property, fees, protection against intruders, a safety net in case of loss of income, support from neighbours, etc...
Then bring the circles together so that there is some overlap. Do you see what happens? Some of things that it means to be 'you' are covered by both circles. OMG! In Myrkul's simplistic world this is unacceptable -- in his case the circles can never overlap. However, he also seems to have difficulty accepting that this fundamentalist individualist attitude makes it impossible for him to ever be a member of any community.
Go ahead and draw that venn diagram for me. Or even just list some of the things that would go in the overlap. The circle that is you is subtracted from the circle that is the community. Wherever you are, that part of the Universe (the physical extent of your body) is owned by you. |
|
|
|
|
Myrkul owns his body. Give him that. He still owes taxes though if he's going to take up residence in some country and use their infrastructure.
|
|
|
|
Hey, Rassah, where is the state that will let you grow opium poppies? Where is the state that will not subject you to the TSA? Where is the state that will let you hire who you wish for whatever job you wish, at whatever rate you wish, without all the paperwork and tax forms? For that matter, where is the state that will not steal your money for its own use, and that will prevent the federal government from doing so as well?
'Cause I'll help you move, if you help me.
Only one I'm aware of is my little, yellow, three-person inflatable boat that I have, whenever I row it out far enough into the ocean. Can't really live on it for too long (great for tanning and relaxing though) Exactly. What has AnCap done for you lately? Answer: nothing. |
|
|
|
But if you were to rent, would you complain that part of your rent payment goes to property improvements you're not interested in? Would you complain if the landlords said 'no pets'?
No, because it is not my house. I am just buying the privilege of living there, and have voluntarily agreed on doing it together with my landlord, along with all the issues you mentioned, when I first moved in. Move to a gay friendly state. Kind of like moving if you don't like your landlord.
Aside from it being a Federal issue, are you implying that the house I own is actually owned by the state and not me? Is everything in reality owned by the government, like it was in the Soviet Union? And when did I agree that anything I buy from someone should involve a third party, like a government landlord? I don't think your example works very well. Can you tell me how you're supposed to be able to choose your parents? Can you choose where you were born? There are some things in life in which you simply cannot choose. Tell me now, can the state choose where you were born? It cannot. But the state does have laws. If you were born in America, as an infant, would one choose to forfeit any services offered by the state? No. And lastly, you voluntarily chose to come to the U.S. So I think on all counts, your argument is falling flat on its face. |
|
|
|
More to the point, what's the point of discussing NAP? Where do you feel that you are missing out on NAP in your life?
I'm gay. My partner and I own a house we both pay for, but it's in his name. If he dies, I shouldn't have to pay inheritance tax to take ownership of his house. If I refuse to, since our marriage isn't recognized, I will have others come after me for my money. I like to grow flowers. Some of them are beautiful, but were deemed dangerous and banned because others use them to make drugs. I can't grow them, because I'll risk having my door busted down, even though I'm only interested in the flowers. I like to travel, and do so a lot. Neither I, nor the airlines, want to put up with the idiotic taking off shoes and not carrying liquids rule, but both of us are forced to comply with them. I wish to hire someone to do some web work for me. To do so, and pay them legally, I have to report whom I'm hiring, fill out forms, and pay a variety of taxes and insurances, even if it's just a temporary contract work. If I don't do this (and most people don't), I risk getting in trouble with the government. Plus there's the issue of my tax dollars going to pay for things like police arresting nonviolent drug offenders and giving them food and housing for months, or going to pay for military that at times tends to kill innocent civilians with no repercussions, both perfect examples of aggression being initiated unjustly. But if you were to rent, would you complain that part of your rent payment goes to property improvements you're not interested in? Would you complain if the landlords said 'no pets'? Move to a gay friendly state. Kind of like moving if you don't like your landlord. |
|
|
|
my claim is the same one that the Non-aggression Principle makes: that no person has the right to be aggressive. The functional result is that all people ought not be aggressive, but all I am claiming is that no person, or group of persons, no matter how they are constituted or their decisions are made, have the right to.
ok but for it to be universal this statement must be either objectively valid and not a product of your personal preference or agreed upon by everyone in the universe. since we can rule out the latter, inorder for it to be objectively valid it must be logically deducible. how does one logically deduce that no person hast the right to be aggressive? Same question can be asked of you? Do you believe some people should be allowed to initiate aggressive action without consequences, and if yes, why? More to the point, what's the point of discussing NAP? Where do you feel that you are missing out on NAP in your life? |
|
|
|
I am skeptical of him, as I spent years with friends tearing up his arguments and finding issues I had with them and then building back up once the issues had been resolved logically. It was not an easy transition by any means.
He also has never said that climate change is false. He has said several times that he is skeptical and doesn't know the real story and looks into both sides. In his mind, neither has yet produced decisive evidence as to the cause of climate change. As the evidence changes, his opinion may change.
Did you actually look at the video I posted? He says climate science is nonsense. He says it has no 'innate' value. And then he says he doesn't know much about climate science. |
|
|
|
Small quotes, out of context. He doesn't believe that everything that is learned at public school is false. This is obvious and apparent, and if he accidentally made those statements, then upon being brought up to him, he would quickly revise the statement to reflect truth.
He didn't accidentally make those statements. He made them loudly and repeated them. He's an idiot who allows his dislike of government to cloud his thinking. He gave zero logical argumentation regarding his stance on climate change, and ranted on like a typical climate change skeptic, without actually addressing the science. I see no reason to listen further to such a windbag. This is patently false. He has stated several times that he is skeptical, but doesn't know whether it is anthropogenic or anthropomorphic. Any rational person should be skeptical of anything that anyone tells them until every hole they may have can be closed. Then I suggest you learn to be more skeptical of this fellow. I also have heard him state the opposite that many things schools teach are good and other things are bad. They obviously provide some sort of legitimate service if only to cloud some nefarious purpose. Police provide public safety, besides raising revenue for small towns, arresting people for having the wrong plant and other giant list of crap they do.
Then he's obviously rendering his claim about the validity of climate change false - A self contradictory argument. |
|
|
|
Are you calm and rational, FirstAscent, or are you just going to be throwing insults around again today?
If you wish to go on with this meaningless and condescending chatter, you will get the opposite of what you want. It's a simple question. Simply indicate that you are calm and rational enough to converse without insults, and we can continue our conversations. What I want is calm and rational conversation. Are you saying that you're not calm and rational enough to give me that? I'm not saying anything one way or another regarding the matter, nor am I going to. Address my statements if you are able to, or choose not to. I have no need to engage in agreements with you. |
|
|
|
Small quotes, out of context. He doesn't believe that everything that is learned at public school is false. This is obvious and apparent, and if he accidentally made those statements, then upon being brought up to him, he would quickly revise the statement to reflect truth.
He didn't accidentally make those statements. He made them loudly and repeated them. He's an idiot who allows his dislike of government to cloud his thinking. He gave zero logical argumentation regarding his stance on climate change, and ranted on like a typical climate change skeptic, without actually addressing the science. I see no reason to listen further to such a windbag. |
|
|
|
Indeed they do, but if you can prove to me that the NAP is not universal, I will stop calling it universal. If I can prove to you that it is, will you stop trying to tear it down? Do you hold yourself to the same high standards of intellectual honesty as you seek to hold me?
So your claim is that all people ought not be aggressive. No, my claim is the same one that the Non-aggression Principle makes: that no person has the right to be aggressive. The functional result is that all people ought not be aggressive, but all I am claiming is that no person, or group of persons, no matter how they are constituted or their decisions are made, have the right to. But you have a problem with landlords being aggressive if you don't pay rent. You advocate squatting. You still haven't indicated that you've calmed down enough to converse without resulting to insults. Have you? You're having trouble answering my statements, aren't you? If you can't, or don't want to, fine. We can just discuss movies instead. Your choice. I have no trouble answering your statements, but if my conversation partner isn't calm and rational, there's no point, is there? Are you calm and rational, FirstAscent, or are you just going to be throwing insults around again today? If you wish to go on with this meaningless and condescending chatter, you will get the opposite of what you want. |
|
|
|
Ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority, these are absurd. First, I don't know when I became a puppet, but that's good information for me to have. I should get the hand out of my backside. Second, the man who makes the arguments is irrelevant. The question is do the arguments make rational sense. All of this garbage and lack of rational argumentation means nothing. An argument can be made by a poor pauper without a degree, experience, or popularity that can be true and can change the world.
Rational argument is all that is asked. Examine the argument, find a hole or fallacy, change the argument to compensate and come up with a new truth until it can be improved upon.
Indeed. But he lacks it. See this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=133140.msg1419965#msg1419965 |
|
|
|
Indeed they do, but if you can prove to me that the NAP is not universal, I will stop calling it universal. If I can prove to you that it is, will you stop trying to tear it down? Do you hold yourself to the same high standards of intellectual honesty as you seek to hold me?
So your claim is that all people ought not be aggressive. No, my claim is the same one that the Non-aggression Principle makes: that no person has the right to be aggressive. The functional result is that all people ought not be aggressive, but all I am claiming is that no person, or group of persons, no matter how they are constituted or their decisions are made, have the right to. But you have a problem with landlords being aggressive if you don't pay rent. You advocate squatting. You still haven't indicated that you've calmed down enough to converse without resulting to insults. Have you? You're having trouble answering my statements, aren't you? If you can't, or don't want to, fine. We can just discuss movies instead. Your choice. |
|
|
|
Indeed they do, but if you can prove to me that the NAP is not universal, I will stop calling it universal. If I can prove to you that it is, will you stop trying to tear it down? Do you hold yourself to the same high standards of intellectual honesty as you seek to hold me?
So your claim is that all people ought not be aggressive. No, my claim is the same one that the Non-aggression Principle makes: that no person has the right to be aggressive. The functional result is that all people ought not be aggressive, but all I am claiming is that no person, or group of persons, no matter how they are constituted or their decisions are made, have the right to. But you have a problem with landlords being aggressive if you don't pay rent. You advocate squatting. |
|
|
|
And lastly, since when do I feel the need to follow your directives? Did you actually think I would?
If you want to have polite conversation and debate with me, you will. I'm still awaiting your reply relating to guns as tools. Until you choose to answer it, you can quietly accept my polite movie recommendations, which have been nothing but polite. Especially in light of the fact that you wished to change the topic and requested a break. Your choice. |
|
|
|
You really are nuts, aren't you?
I am not a gun nut, no.  Didn't watch it? You're missing out on some of cinema's greatest films. I don't recall asking for movie recommendations. In fact, I distinctly recall asking you to stop. Yet you keep it up. You're starting to get really creepy. Today's a holiday. Relax. Take a break from your obsessive toy political ideologies. Point #1: you're the one who provided a link to watch birds in the midst of a debate. Point #2: you're the one who said to take a break from gun debates. Point #3: you're the one has not yet answered my take on the meme you keep reciting. Point #4: continue to wallow in your uncultured ignorance, as you're actually getting great movie recommendations. *Point #5: I warned you that if you start to misbehave or make a reference to movies, you're going to get it thrown back at you. * I'm counting your ridiculous bird clip as a video/movie/clip/off topic reference. And lastly, since when do I feel the need to follow your directives? Did you actually think I would? |
|
|
|
You really are nuts, aren't you?
I am not a gun nut, no. Didn't watch it? You're missing out on some of cinema's greatest films. Try this one then - it's a very powerful and beautiful film about a mother and her children, slavery, and government. It's called Sansho the Bailiff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FCroa97mEg |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
