it has lost it's meaning. Better to break down words, Like the definition of fascism.

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism[1][2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy

Without hostility, I gotta be honest here: I don't really know what you're trying to say. My best guess is, "Treating him with compassion is good for [me]." In this case, at least, I disagree. If I were immortal and/or striving for sainthood, perhaps. But I have one life with limited time, as do those I love and seek to protect. Those who are in search of said sainthood may care for this person all they wish; and may they do it away from society and the rest of us who choose life.

It is foolish to issue probation to someone who brought a loaded gun to class. They've already demonstrated intent to harm and thus should have the option/means to do so again removed.

Yeah, maybe I'm lacking compassion, but fuck compassion. You bring a gun to a classroom, your freedom is forfeit. Give him all the care you want to, apart from society. It's stupid to risk countless lives and loves of people who aren't deranged to coddle the feelings of one who is.
He'll be back.

We can still steer between the different possible future realities.
Like that large scale famine or water shortage is preferable to nuclear war or global deadly disease outbreak. Which will it be, food or water? Reality will get more unpleasant before it has a chance to improve. Can we outrun the population and ecosystem gun with science? Possibly. Problem is society and morals cant keep up.

We have resources to do ANYTHING. Send people to Mars. Make water out of thin air and grow tomatoes in the desert. The only thing in the way are nation states and their institutions, and human instincts. The only thing that keeps those in check is culture and morals. There is no such thing as international law unless you are willing to go to all out war to enforce it (not possible since WW2).

And the "leader of the free world" is busy building a wall around his office.

So we probably need to be deceived or else we would all be hysterical without antidepressants.

Still a hysterical voice is not the voice of reality for me.

If they get bored and stop listening, they'll get confused, won't they? I think they often get bored because they can't follow along, it's incredibly boring to have someone drone on using statistics and measurements you don't grasp and won't remember on a subject you also don't grasp.

I agree, but so far, measurements have consistently been outpacing the estimates, almost never the reverse.

What they tend to do is come from that incomplete data and incomplete analysis to model the absolute best case scenario to dictate policy, not the worst. That's absolutely what the U.N. report does, and it's not clear to most how much is left out, like infinitely better melting models (the measured melting in Greenland is already at the rate not predicted to be reached until 2075 in the UN's published estimations) and feedback loops we already see in action like melting methalhydrates and permafrost, both outgassing massive amounts of methane. Sane policy makers DO assume the absolute worst modeled outcome, then suggests policies to avoid it, at all cost when that worst case is extinction. Since measurements are consistently as bad or worse than the worst case scenario modeled, the only rational thing to do is assume that will continue and plan for the worst....you know, like they taught in preschool, hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

Your house burning down is an unlikely worst case scenario, but I bet you have smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, and support the fire department. Good planning is to assume you WILL have a fire and plan to minimize the damage.
Or, terrorist attacks. The likelihood you'll be killed in a terrorist attack is exceptionally low, but we spend untold billions and sacrifice liberties to combat a worst case but unlikely scenario.

Prudence is the better part of valor.

Edit: as to most problems society faces, I suggest they are likely ALL a function of overpopulation....no question imo when it comes to the apocalyptic problems. Pollution, resource mismanagement, ecological destruction, etc. None would be disastrous with 1/10 the population.

@newtboy,
"Actually, I'm selling their audience short. When real scientists present the real data dispassionately, I think the average person gets quickly confused and tunes out."

I'd argue bored maybe more often than confused. Although if we want to say that most of the problems society faces have their root causes in human nature, I think we can agree.

"I had read the published summaries of the recent U.N. report saying we had 12 years to be carbon neutral to stay below 1.5degree rise, they were far from clear that this was only a 50% chance of achieving that minimal temperature rise"

Here is where I see healthy skepticism distinguishing itself from covering eyes, ears and yelling not listening.

Our understanding of the global climate system is NOT sufficient to make that kind of high confidence claim about specific future outcomes. As you read past the head line and into the supporting papers you find that is the truth underneath. The final summary line you are citing sits atop multiple layers of assumptions and unspecified uncertainties that culminate in a very ephemeral 50% likelyhood disclaimer. It is stating that if all of the cumulative errors and unknowns all more or less don't matter. then we have models that suggest this liklyhood of an outcome...

This however sits atop the following challenges that scientists from different fields and specialities are focusing on improving.
1.Direct measurements of the global energy imbalance and corroboration with Ocean heat content. Currently, the uncertainties in our direct measurements are greater than the actual energy imbalance caused by the CO2 we've emitted. The CERES team measuring this has this plain as day in all their results.
2.Climate models can't get global energy to balance because the unknown or poorly modeled processes in them have a greater impact on the energy imbalance than human CO2. We literally hand tune the poorly known factors to just balance out the energy correctly, regardless of whether that models the given process better or not because the greater run of the model is worthless without a decent energy imbalance. This sits atop the unknowns regarding the actual measured imbalance to hope to simulate. 100% of the modelling teams that discuss their tuning processes again all agree on this.
3. Meta-analysis like you cited usually sit atop both the above, and attempt to rely on the models to get a given 2100 temperature profile, and then make their predictions off of that.

The theme here, is cumulative error and an underlying assumption of 'all other things being equal' for all the cumulative unknowns and errors. You can NOT just come in from all of that, present the absolute worst possible case scenario you can squeeze into and then declare that as the gold standard scientific results which must dictate policy...

Edit:that's very nearly the definition of cherry picking the results you want.

Thank you for your reply Harlequinn.

I beg to differ: The rate of gun deaths in the USA is only low when compared to countries that are either active (civil-) war zones or basically run by drug cartels. When compared to other, similar developed countries, it is at least 4 times as high (when excluding suicides/accidents) .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
I would call that a significant deviation from the norm and stand by my use of "staggering".

You compare gun deaths to deaths from car crashes. Others have already pointed out that one of the main differences is that cars are not tools for killing that are put into public hands and furthermore, since I asked you the question (that you did not answer): "Is the reason for the Second Amendment worth the amount of gun violence in the USA?", my follow up question would be: I can show you the (financial, societal, etc.) benefits of cars (i.e. individual travel by car) for the society, what exactly are the benefits of private gun ownership?
(Whether cars are really worth it, is a whole other discussion.)

Regarding suicide rates, this seems to be a compelling argument until you notice that suicide rates in some, equally developed countries and some lesser developed countries are higher than in the USA and that the number of gun killings that are not suicide is still way higher than in comparable countries (see above).

I do not think that gun violence in the USA can be blamed on mental health issues though <irony>unless you count gun/power fetishism among mental illnesses </irony>.
Edit: Saying that whoever commits an act of gun violence must be mentally ill is tantamount of saying that any criminal must be mentally ill and thus not responsible for his/her actions.

<aside>
One nice observation about this gun fetish (not by me, I think it was Bill Burr): Another common argument pro guns is that people are in it only for home security, if that were the case you would have tons of photos of people with their new door locks or magazine-covers with girls in bikinis in front of security doors.
</aside>

I applaud your stand on public (mental-) health policies though.

Now to your main question:
Have I ever encountered interpersonal violence against me or others?
Yes, but not on a level that bringing lethal force to the situation ever seemed warranted. Thankfully. One obvious reason for that is that I live in a country where I don't need to expect everyone else to carry a gun.
Would it be possible that I would think otherwise, if it would have been the case? Yes.
Would I be correct in thinking that way? No.

To explain: I am not a friend of passive aggressive "stand you ground" thinking. The sane response chain is: 1. Try not to let yourself be provoked, 2. try to de-escalate, 3. try to evade/flee, 4. try to defend yourself.....And of course: CALL THE COPS!

Does that harm my male ego? Yes.
Does that matter enough to me for me to risk killing another human being? No.

I think we are seeing things very differently.

How important do you think fossil fuels are to modern society right now and over the last hundred years? Do you believe that they have been net negative or net positive influence on humanity in that time?

With the constant flow of proof that cops lie, cheat, and steal daily, and the complicit nature of their superiors allowing them to hide the proof of their crimes, they have forced society into requiring douche reporters chasing the douche cops to capture independent proof of their criminal behavior....proof they can't erase or deny exists.
Notice how easily this douche cop comes up with multiple lies to detain the videographer, intentionally interfering with his job, to protect his cohorts ability to lie to citizens without a record, because undoubtedly all their body cams are turned off.
Also notice how, when those body cams are replaced secretly with cams that only appear to turn off, but keep recording, they consistently capture abuse of power if not outright falsification of charges, like the one just caught framing over 120 for drug possession in a single year.

Cops have made their own job tougher by insisting on being able to legally lie, and being a cadre of criminal liars who think they're above the law, and are all too often right about that thanks to apologists and those willing to turn a blind eye.

@newtboy
@BSR

Think of it a bit like this (quote from Wilde)

"...surrounded by hideous poverty, by hideous ugliness, by hideous starvation. It is inevitable that they should be strongly moved by all this. The emotions of man are stirred more quickly than man’s intelligence; and, as I pointed out some time ago in an article on the function of criticism, it is much more easy to have sympathy with suffering than it is to have sympathy with thought. Accordingly, with admirable, though misdirected intentions, they very seriously and very sentimentally set themselves to the task of remedying the evils that they see. But their remedies do not p. 3cure the disease: they merely prolong it. Indeed, their remedies are part of the disease.

They try to solve the problem of poverty, for instance, by keeping the poor alive; or, in the case of a very advanced school, by amusing the poor.

But this is not a solution: it is an aggravation of the difficulty. The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. And the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim. Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realized by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it"
--------------
And allow me to pop this out:
"the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves"
--------------


This is a stark/bleak example. I don't personally agree with it entirely. As I said, I bring cereal for my students and it's there and free and available unless I don't have time to get to the store or unless I myself am out of pocket change to buy extra food.


I don't ENTIRELY disagree though ----> Which is not to say that I agree.

I would say, YES there are structural changes that need to take place, but I also believe that assistance needs to be there to handle some kind of transition period while a problem is realized.

ALL of that being said

Here is a perfect example of a societal ill in our current system that needs to be addressed. It's a disgusting by-product of a structurally unsound student loan system.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db9NaPDtAmU


Source: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1017/1017-h/1017-h.htm

1) I'm not opposed to suicide. If life makes you unhappy, I don't insist you suffer through it. People who judge themselves unworthy of life fall into that category.

2) I've been at it for 45 years+-. It has nothing to do with strength, it's about a compulsion to work towards fairness, knowing it won't ever be reached, at least in my lifetime. I'm strong enough to never condone or excuse clear racism as long as I draw breath.

3) ? You would catch the arsonists before the home owner and their children and not lay blame at their feet. I would let the arsonist burn, locking them inside the house they ignited after saving the family. He's the one with the gas can and lighter if you can't identify who is who.
Calling out wholly inappropriate behavior/speech is never a waste of time. Gaining the trust of racists at the expense of their victims and society as a whole is worse than a waste of time, it's supporting racism.

4) My point. Let them get it, while not allowing your gift to be stolen or misused for harm or other things they get judged harshly for. No judgement, no opportunity for misuse, not just throwing money at a problem, helping a person.

@BSR

I already donate regularly to my local children's hospital, give any spare change I have to people you describe, and work at an inner city school where I keep boxes of cereal (it's cheap and vitamin packed and the kids like it) because my students come up to me on a somewhat regular basis hungry.

But as an individual, it's easy to act alone. To combat what one considers bad-public-policy, one must join the conversation.

What are you really asking me to do here? Someone posts some racist memes and I'm to keep my mouth shut because it won't do anything. I do not agree.

I can act alone, but to change policy it starts by having conversations about perceived ills in society. Forgive me but keep your stoic silence to yourself and I'll keep talking if the spirit moves me.

@BSR

I already donate regularly to my local children's hospital, give any spare change I have to people you describe, and work at an inner city school where I keep boxes of cereal (it's cheap and vitamin packed and the kids like it) because my students come up to me on a somewhat regular basis hungry.

But as an individual, it's easy to act alone. To combat what one considers bad-public-policy, one must join the conversation.

What are you really asking me to do here? Someone posts some racist memes and I'm to keep my mouth shut because it won't do anything. I do not agree.

I can act alone, but to change policy it starts by having conversations about perceived ills in society. Forgive me but keep your stoic silence to yourself and I'll keep talking if the spirit moves me.

Yes please.

Honestly, can any Billionaire honestly say that if half their money was stolen, and nobody told them it was missing, they would even notice?

It's been repeatedly shown that in economies where wealth is spread more equally among the economic strata that everyone benefits, even those in the top .1%. They live longer, are happier, and are more integrated with the society around them.

WOW what does this say about the direction of our society?

95% raised their hands
95% grew up in Godless houses.

Any similarities?


Not saying GOD is the only answer but does not hurt to have him on your side. IF then maybe only 1/2 raises their hands. Just saying.