I understand, and "pollution per capita" is a logical argument. But from my point of view there are some critical problems and many flaws with following such reasoning. For example:

The US isn't the greatest emitter of Co2 per capita, but when that's brought up...the argument falls back to emissions in absolute terms. Many would say that that's hypocritical.

Wealth inequality is particularly bad in the US, with the top 20% of the population holding upwards of 88% of all wealth (while the total wealth of individuals isn't GDP, it does correlate with income flow). Doesn't this skew GDP per capita, holding the poor in the US to an unfair standard, vis a vis emissions? If it doesn't, then how is it unfair to poor, rural Chinese?

No international organizations agree on the definition of a "developing" country. Without this, aren't these types of arguments extremely subjective and open to abuse? The point being that there are very, very few "apples-to-apples" comparisons available. For example, would it be a fair comparison if I told you that China's per capita Co2 emissions exceeded the per capita emissions of the EU starting back in 2014?

But you're right...in that the US has polluted the most in absolute terms historically (with China catching up pretty fast). We didn't have a "God-given" right to do it; for most of it, we didn't even know that "it" (Co2) was a pollutant.

You're also right that as individual Americans we have more power to demand change. I understand and accept the dangers of climate change, and I very much want to do something about it. This is why I'm so frustrated with our current administration.

I just want you to understand that I'm not strictly pro-US and/or anti-China. In my opinion, climate change is giving us one resource to either take advantage of or to squander. That resource is time. And time isn't going to make accommodations for any nation, big or small, rich or poor.

This is why I'm troubled by a government like the CCP, that has plans to accelerate their emissions. We know better now (re. Co2), and so such actions on their part are unreasonably selfish. They know their actions will likely hurt or kill all of us, and yet they continue...with the hope that other nations will sacrifice so much as to be properly weakened while they themselves are strengthened.

I understand that in a perfect world, we'd have an equality of outcome. Wouldn't that be great? But we don't have the time left to make most of South America, much of Asia and virtually all of Africa economic equals. What we can do is get our own emissions down to as close to zero as possible, and help these nations build up an infrastructure using green energy. In this way, maybe we can try to foster at least an equality of opportunity energy-wise. The Chinese government has the funds to not only fully transform their own nation, but also to help to some degree in the aforementioned global initiative. But instead of being honestly proactive, they're creating a new cold-war mindset. This is not only wasting time, but also resources (both their own and those of the US in seeking to maintain their strategic edge militarily) that could be better used to help the less fortunate.

So what do we do? Well, I'm not entirely sure. But I can tell you that having other countries paint the US as a villain in this issue, and China as a saint certainly isn't helping.

In terms of the UK, your average house price was under £10 000 in the 70s. If wages had increased at the same rate as house prices have increased, which is not an unreasonable request, especially if you're mocking them for not having the money, then the average wage would be £87 000. Alternatively, if house prices had increased at the same rate as wages have, the average house would be worth around £60 000. It's no good talking about people buying iPhones when that disparity exists - if anything, the iPhones help distract them from their poverty.

It's been rigged for 40 years now, bob. Who do you think a landlord/renter economy benefits more - the young or the old? You are blind to the reality of life for people just starting out.

Sooner or later, civilisation is going to have to change to account for this. You can call me a lefty all you like, but the numbers don't lie - this isn't sustainable, the cost of living does not match full time pay for a huge number of people, including necessary and skilled jobs like nurses and teachers (in the UK).

It's no longer about aspiration, or working harder at school. Average people are struggling and that should be a concern to you if you care about society at all. In fact, if you're a die-hard, card carrying, flag waving capitalist it should worry you. Landlords aren't wealth creators.

At current levels, yes, but I wonder if they were projecting forward to 2100.

It's not unreasonable to expect that US GDP would be 10 times bigger in 2100. That would only require an average growth rate of >3% per annum (historically, GDP Growth Rate in the United States averaged 3.21 percent from 1947 until 2017)

@bcglorf
i feel i have to ask you a question,and i feel quite foolish for not thinking of asking it before.

i do not ask this snidely,or with any disrespect.

are you a neo-conservative?

because this "If he was on America soil, I'd agree with you. If he was living in a European apartment, I'd agree with you. Heck, if he was living in Russia I'd agree with you."

is almost verbatim the counter argument that was published,ad nauseum,in the weekly standard.which is a neo-conservative publication.edited by bill-the bloody-kristol.

and it would also explain why we sometimes just simply cannot agree on some issues.

ok,let's unpack your comment above that quoted.i won;t address the rest of your comment,not because i find it unworthy,it is simply a reiteration of your original argument,which we have addressed already.

so...
you find that it is the region,the actual soil that a person is on that makes the difference between legal prosecution..and assassination.

ok,i disagree,but the MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012 actually agree with you and give the president cover to deem an american citizen an "enemy combatant".however,the region where this "enemy combatant" is not the deciding factor,though many have tried to make a different case,the simple fact is that the president CAN deem you an "enemy combatant' and CAN order your assassination by drone,or seal team or any military outlet,or spec-ops...regardless of where you are at that moment.

now you attempt to justify this order of death by "The reality is he was supporting mass killing from within a lawless part of the world were no police or courts would touch him. He was living were the only force capable of serving any manner of arrest warrant was military."

if THIS were a true statement,and the ONLY avenue left was for a drone strike.then how do you explain how this man was able to:foment dissent,organize in such a large capacity to incite others to violence and co-ordinate on such an impressive scale?

anwars al awlaki went to yemen to find refuge..yes,this is true.
but a btter qustion is:was the yemeni government being unreasonable and un-co-operative to a point where legal extradition was no longer a viable option?

well,when we look at what the state department was attempting to do and the yemeni response,which was simply:provide evidence that anwars al awlaki has perpetrated a terrorist attack,and we will release him.it is not like they,and the US government,didn't know where he lived.

this is EXACTLY what happened with afghanistan in regards to osama bin laden.

and BOTH times,the US state department could not provide conclusive evidence that either bin laden,or awlaki had actually perpetrated a terrorist act.

in fact,some people forget that in the days after 9/11 osama actually denied having anything to do with 9/11,though he praised the act.

so here we have the US on one hand.with the largest military on the planet,the largest and most encompassing surveillance system.so vast the stasi would be green with envy.a country whose military and intelligence apparatus is so massive and vast that we pay other countries to house black sites.so when t he president states "america does not torture",he is not lying,we pay OTHER people to torture.

so when i see the counter argument that the US simply cannot adhere to international laws,nevermind their OWN laws,because they cannot "get" their guy.

is bullshit.

it's not that they cannot "find" nor "get" their target.the simple fact is that a sovereign nation has decided to disobey it's master and defy the US.so the US defies international treaties and laws and simply sends in a drone and missiles that fucker down.

mission accomplished.

but lets ask another question.
when do you stop being an american citizen?
at what point do you lose all rights as a citizen?
do we use cell phone coverage as a metric?
the obedience of the country in question?

i am just being a smart ass right now,because the point is moot.
the president can deem me an "enemy combatant" and if he so chose,send a drone to target my house,and he would have the legal protection to have done so.

and considering just how critical i am,and have been,of bush,obama and both the republican and democrats.

it would not be a hard job for the US state department and department of justice to make a case that i was a hardline radical dissident,who was inciting violence and stirring up hatred in people towards the US government,and even though i have never engaged in terrorism,nor engaged in violence against the state.

all they would need to do is link me with ONE person who did happen to perpetrate violence and slap the blame on me.

i wonder if that would be the point where you might..maybe..begin to question the validity of stripping an american citizen of their rights,and outright have them executed.

because that is what is on the line right now.
and i am sorry but "he spoke nasty things about us,and some of those terrorists listened to him,and he praised violence against us".

the argument might as well be:enoch hurt our feelings.

tell ya what.
let's use the same metric that you are using:
that awlaki incited violence and there were deaths directly due to his words.

in 2008 jim david akinsson walked into a unitarian church in tennesee and shot and killed two people,and wounded seven others.

akinsson was ex military and had a rabid hatred of liberals,democrats and homosexuals.

he also happened to own every book by sean hannity,and was an avid watcher of FOX news.akinsson claimed that hannity and his show had convinced him that thsoe dirty liberals were ruining his country,and he targeted the unitarian church because it "was against god".

now,is hannity guilty of incitement?
should he be held accountable for those shot dead?
by YOUR logic,yes..yes he should.

now what if hannity had taken off to find refuge in yemen?
do we send a drone?

because,again using YOUR logic,yes..yes we do.

i am trying my best to get you to reconsider your position,because..in my opinion...on an elementary moral scale..to strip someone of their rights due to words,praise and/or support..and then to have them executed without due process,or have at least the ability to defend themselves.

is wrong.

i realize i am simply making the same argument,but using different examples.which is why i asked,sincerely,if you were a neo-conservative.

because they believe strongly that the power and authority of the american empire is absolute.they are of the mind that "might makes right",and that they have a legal,and moral,obligation to expand americas interest,be it financial or industrial,and to use the worlds largest military in order to achieve those goals.they also are of the belief that the best defense is the best offense,and to protect the empire by any means necessary.(usually military).

which is pretty reflective of our conversations,and indicative of where our disagreements lie.

i dunno,but i suspect that i have not,nor will i,change your position on this matter.

but i tried dude...i really did try.

@newtboy
can you show me where hedges promoted russian propaganda?
i ask this sincerely,because i have not seen any evidence of what you are accusing him of.

i get that we disagree,but hedges has earned my respect for his journalistic veracity.

you have earned my respect for being a decent human being,who i happen to agree with more often than not,but in this case i will not simply disregard hedges stellar work because you accuse him of being a propagandist.

i have read his books.
watched his lectures.
and sifted through his sources.

you have openly admitted you have done none of these things,yet..you have formed an opinion on his work by the venue he has chosen.you have even gone as far as to presume his intent on WHY he is on that venue.

now..you are free to speculate all you wish in regards to hedges motivations,and even be skeptical of his work due to him being on RT atm (he was also on Telesur,and al jazeera english).


i do not find this skepticism unwarranted nor unreasonable.i understand why you may feel this way.

but i am the captain of my own ship.
i do consider hedges respectable and worthy of consideration,because i have considered his words,read his books and watched his lectures.

i have considered his works and found them informative and reflective of our current situation.

just as i have found:howard zinn,noam chomsky,amy goodman,jeremy scahill,laura poitrus,glenn greenwald,paul jay,richard d wolffe.

does this equate to everything that they postulate the unerring word of GOD?

of course not.
i can disagree with someone and still respect them for their views.

example:@bcglorf

i really do not see an issue here.
i also do not understand why i am being put in a position to defend why i may respect a reporter/journalist for the good works they have produced.

i am sure there are authors/journalists/academics that you admire and trust their work,because they have earned that trust by being consistent with their methodology.

so i do not see a rub at all.
i see you making conflations and comparisons based loosely on associations,and not tangible and concrete evidence.

if you have evidence,and i am simply being biased and residing in my own bubble.then by all means..pop that bubble...i am human after all,and just as prone to confirmation bias as the next person.

@worm
tort reform.
which is not unreasonable,considering it spawned its own cottage industry:ambulance chasers.
and i can agree,in principle,for catastrophic insurance.

but i still think if you are going to do it,don't be a pussy about it.
single payer all the way and we already have a system in place to accommodate single payer.

I think her argument is incredibly flawed.
It misses out the crucial aspect of training. An umbrella needs no instruction to function inside the parameters it's designed for. It's comes ready for use. Babies, however, require a lot of resources and training to perform even somewhat satisfactory. The amount of time you need to invest to train tricks, like walking and not-pooping-the-pants successfully, greatly outweights the demanded time period to acustomise yourself with the functions and limitations of a new umbrella. To even learn the boundaries of what babies are capable of leads quite often to a frustrating process of trial and error that can render your baby unusable. Which leads of to the next issue.
To procure an umbrella you have varying retail options, including online distribution, as well as exchange of services or goods among acquaintances. For some unfathomable reason, these options are frowned upon by a political correctness obsessed society in regards to babies. The only viable option that won't cause offense among your peers is manufacturing one yoursef. Imagine what our economy would look like if we handeled all goods this way. It's preposterous!
So you are stuck with whatever baby you can produce on your own, relying on unskilled labor in most cases. Not only do you have to go through the time consuming and strenuous acts of sexual activity, which we all now can lead to severe cases of depression and anxiety, there is a unreasonable waiting time included as well. Imagine you had to wait 9 months for every Amazon delivery. This is just customer harassment.
Loosing an umbrella is not worse than losing a baby but it's not because of reasons that cannot be fixed. If we as a society would work together and openly oppose the unfair unequality in treatment of babies and umbrellas, our lives could be improved in unpredecented ways. But we don't. We are all to blame for this.

I agree with Oliver here, but I think he sorta missed an opportunity to talk about confirming exactly who our US Constitutional protections should apply to.

It has been all-to-common in the past decade-plus for people / bodies in our government to "justify" questionable actions by saying that they were performed on people who aren't US citizens. Detain and torture suspected (or *known*) terrorists indefinitely without trial? That's fine, they aren't citizens. Send drone strikes against people outside of US borders that we suspect may be aiding terrorists, even though collateral damage is likely? Meh, they aren't Americans. Spy on people, record and intercept their communications to the greatest extent possible without a warrant or probable cause? Never mind -- we're not doing it to our own citizens (even though we now know that even that justification is an outright lie).

It would be nice for the government to take a stand and state that ALL of the protections that are granted by our constitution and have made our country what it is should actually be considered universal and binding in terms of how our government interacts with ALL people, not just US citizens.

Freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, fair trial, no unreasonable searches and seizures, etc. etc. Consistently and universally applied whenever the government has any interaction with any human being on the planet -- inside or outside of US soil, and whether that person is a US Citizen or not.

I suppose it would take a constitutional amendment to codify that. That would require 2/3 support in congress -- so I won't hold my breath. But here is where a president with true leadership could step up and say that whether there is an official amendment codifying that or not, every government office under his (or her) command should behave as though that was law. All the 3-letter agencies, the military, etc. I think that would get the ball rolling and make an amendment possible on down the line.

Our constitutional protections are arguably what made our country great. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain by proving that to the rest of the world by actually standing by the courage of our own convictions.

I accept your appology. ;-)

I understand. I was not condoning it, I was decrying a situation where that is a reasonable response in self defense. I do not condone, nor do I wish for cops being shot/killed any more than I condone or wish for them to kill others...which is not at all, or barring that, only when absolutely necessary to save lives.

Not having sympathy for a group's pain is not the same thing as advocating more pain infliction. I understand the misunderstanding, I'm often unclear. I am not sympathetic for the losses of a group that causes 30 times the killings they receive....but I want them to kill fewer, not for more of them to be killed.

Yes, and no. You could say I 'dehumanize' them, but really I humanize them. Dehumanizing them would be elevating their position IMO...I have a terrible estimation of humanity, so dehumanizing someone is being nice. ;-)

No, I'm a LOT twisted. ;-)

Again, no I don't think more dead cops fixes anything....but I do see it as a likely outcome of this behavior....and understandable. If you honestly believe any member of a particular group is likely to attack and kill you without provocation, with recent evidence provided daily to reinforce that belief, any reasonable person would act in self defense.

As it turns out, according to his superior, you are correct....he intended to kill the autistic man. That makes the triple handcuffing even more curious, to put it mildly. They now admit he was NEVER a suspect, but have not offered any reasoning behind handcuffing him or not offering any medical attention for an unreasonable time.

Just so I'm clear, had you used '....' instead of "....." to paraphrase what you thought I was saying, I would not have taken offence at the misunderstanding. I only got upset because using quotation marks indicated I said exactly what you mistakenly thought I meant.

I think the argument is not that his behavior is stunning etiquette, but it is understandable and his frustration is relatable. Optimally he would've just sat in silence, or driven around to the other entrance, but all things considered, her behavior was more unacceptable. Or to put it another way - this was three minutes out of their respective days. There may be an infinite number of circumstances on either side that we don't see, that would swing our opinion either way. However, if we ignore their emotional states, and just look at the principle, she was dead wrong.

If a restaurant or movie theatre wants to kick you out in the middle of a meal, you can't stay. If a hotel wants to kick you out at 2 am (and lets you pack and take your stuff), you can't stay. That's why they can call the cops to get you out if you refuse to leave - because they have the presumptive right to decide who stays and goes. You have no right to call the cops and ask them to stop the owner from kicking you out, because you have no fundamental right to stay there.

I am not going to say that you're trolling, and your arguments are not unreasonable or dickish, but you're wrong. (In principle) you have a number of potential recourses that you can choose when a proprietor asks you to leave. (in principle) refusing to leave is not one of the options you have any right to exercise.

We can come up with scenarios where it could be argued that you should be allowed to refuse to leave:

1. You're staying at a ski lodge and you will die if you are kicked out into the cold. Then we're no longer talking consumer rights but emergency / health and safety rights.

2. If you leave the premises, you would lose all your other means of recourse, for example if you don't have contact or identifying information for the business you're at. In that case you can ask for that information, and then leave.

In principle, however, sticking around isn't an option, and there's no sane reason why it should be an option. If the business in question doesn't have a valid reason for kicking you out, you get to sue them afterwards.

Slippery slope fallacy.
"If we allow gays to marry, what's next? Can I marry my dog?"

No-one is talking about banning guns. I wouldn't support that myself. I have friends who are hunters and target shooters.

But be reasonable; you can have a gun for target shooting or hunting or even "home defence" (if you're really that paranoid), but you don't need an AR-15 or anything with a high capacity magazine and it's not unreasonable to make sure that people who own guns aren't complete nutjobs.

NZ is in the top 15% of gun ownership rates per capita (22 guns per 100 people), but our average annual firearm homicide rate for the last 30 years or so is ~0.2 deaths per 100k people.

Compare that to the USA. The US tops the chart of gun ownership with 112 guns per 100 people. So the gun ownership rate is 5 times that of NZ, but the average annual firearm homicide rate is 4 deaths per 100k people. That's 20 times the number of murders. Even if you allow for the higher gun ownership rate, you're still 4 times worse than NZ.

And the difference is simple: we have sensible gun ownership laws.

I saw a great post the other day.
"The conservative mind:
Abortions? BAN THEM!
Gay Marriage? BAN IT!
Marijuana? BAN IT!
Guns? eh, banning things never works"

But hey, you're gonna need those guns for when Donary Trumpton ushers in a tyrannical dictatorship. Good luck with that; let me know how you get on with an AR-15 versus a predator drone.

As much as I'd love to pile more hate on some faceless / heartless corporate entity that doesn't care about anything other than profits, I find it somewhat unreasonable to be TOO hard on Takata here.

Just by sheer Philosophy 101 arithmetic of lives saved vs lives taken, airbags in general are massively beneficial. Take a worst case hypothetical scenario -- I know that my car has Takata airbags, AND I live in a very humid environment, AND my car is pretty old, AND the waiting list on the recall means that I can't replace the airbags for another 2+ years. Even in that scenario, I think I'd *still* opt to keep the thing in and active until it could be replaced. It would be nice to have further information on the 10 fatalities (roughly where, make/model, age) and corresponding information from other recent crashes under similar circumstances where the airbags *did* work properly, but I'd wager that even in that kind of worst-case scenario the good outcomes still handily outweigh the bad outcomes.

It is hard to foresee everything that can go wrong years and years into the future. We put lots of hardware through robotics that open doors / actuate things / etc. every few seconds continuously for months in an effort to predict how they will stand up to normal wear and tear for years, but that's harder to emulate with chemical processes.

So, until/unless there is evidence that they used the Ammonium Nitrate while knowingly and intentionally ignoring the potential long-term risks as the stuff ages in some environmental situations, I would be very hesitant to call for their heads over this. I guess that is the purpose of a "criminal investigation", but I really hope that isn't code for "witch hunt".

There is nothing inherently immoral about creating weapons. The problem lies in what they are used for. Just like the most basic of tools, a hammer can be used to build or to kill. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have invented the hammer. The onus is on the person using it.

In either case, that has little to do with the factory farming holocaust.

What you did there is called an appeal to hypocrisy fallacy. You're saying vegans aren't morally perfect, so they have no place to tell us about morality. It's a derailment of the actual issue just like how you've previously used an appeal to nature, and an appeal history as well.

After that most people try the appeal to futility. And failing that they'll say something completely illogical such as "bacon tho" just to "win" the conversation, because it's not possible argue with something that unreasonable.

Like I mentioned in one of the other comments, I've said all of this myself in the past, I 100% believed it in the past, but eventually coming to the logical conclusion that I was wrong. I only had to accept that all of the animal exploitation I contributed to in the past was wrong, and decide that I no longer want to be apart of it. I can't take back the stuff I did, but to continue doing so knowing fully the extent of the consequences would be the poorer choice.

You don't need to morally perfect in order to solve a very obvious problem. As with war as well, it's often it's about choosing the less bad option, after weighing in all consequences.

Eh, self-respect and self-control are not mutually exclusive. I feel much better about myself knowing that some shitbird customer never forced me to lose my cool/job. The real unreasonable douchebags? Refuse them service. Politely suggest they try their tone somewhere else. Watch them lose their shit and savour it.

"Going only off of that vid, I'm inclined to take the managers side on this one."
I agree that there's probably more to this. I hate videos without context. That said....

"There's an air of entitlement about the way they handled the whole thing. "

Sorry, but "entitlement" is exactly the right attitude when you're paying for a service. You don't have to be a dick about it, but it's not unreasonable to expect to get what you pay for.

"That manager doesn't come across like a guy being an asshole for the sake of it "

Really? "My dad owns this place" guy doesn't come across as an asshole? Sorry, but he seems like a spoilt little shit to me.

"If so, he's a braver man than I and should be commended for putting his self respect ahead of a mere job!"

Again, it depends on what actually happened to set this off, but from the video, this isn't a "mere job" for him. He's not some guy working there for a paycheck until he gets something better, he plans on owning the place, and as such, he needs to pull his head out of his arse and learn how to deal with customers.

"Either way the two filming should probably try to find a little perspective."

I didn't think they were particularly rude or abusive.