The only problem I have here newtboy is the concept of escalation. You are obviously not in Law, so here is a bit of schooling. Ever wonder why cops use tazers on people who just passively resist (Like holding or bracing to prevent cuffs from being applied?) Or how it "takes" seven cops to "subdue" someone? It's actually practical and less violent. 1-A fun fact is that the longer a confrontation goes on for the further it escalates. By doing nothing you are letting it get further than by doing something. This means that there is a definitive time to stop trying to talk and start acting. 2-Those "escalated" methods are really lessor force than others. The more a body moves the greater the chance someone gets hurt. That means you A-Place someone on the ground as soon as possible, B-Immobilize him as prudently as possible, C-Get him in cuffs.

Don't get me wrong, abuse is abuse. But if you see a cop punching a person's ass to get him to let up on his grip, for example, that's not brutality. If you see a cop curbstomping someone, yeah, that is. Because more movement is involved.

I think your efforts are commendable, but doomed to fail. Trance is not interested in learning, and when you teach him something he can't find a crazed, wrong link to discount your knowledge with, he'll simply ignore it and move on to more and more infantile argument. He recently became my second ignore.
I am glad you called him out on his doctorate in underwater basket weaving, unfortunately for us all it does not help him understand science in the least, or the scientific method, but somehow convinces him that it does.
EDIT: Oh, "doctorate in Social 'science'", which he must mistakenly believe is a true science and not a misnomer.
I see he continues with his intentional miss-reading and/or miss-quoting, claiming you said purely consensus is the ONLY way science progresses, not that it's the way that progression is accepted by the scientific community. Me thinks this miss-understanding is an intentional miss-statement in order to continue his 'debate' by constantly changing either his own, or your stance on the subject.
I also noted the passive aggressive (and terrible English) statement " the manner in which I posted the links may not have been "fair," ", to me implying you just couldn't assimilate that much information, not conceding that it was all an attempt at an overwhelming avalanche of BS propaganda.
Kudos on your reasoned, patient approach. I ran out of patience with the kindergarten argument style and quit him.

No need to apologize.

I just wanted to get that little bit out there.

There is so much misinformation about the nature of this shite.

I didn't want to put my little comment on the comment stream, because I didn't want to distract from the TOTALLY COOL story you shared.

So I snuck it over here, for those folks who read all comments.

I was sharing my bit for my own purposes, sneaky devil that I am. Sorry you thought I was sending a different message -- I totally DID NOT think that you were saying she deserved it.

I think there is something different for men being sexually harassed than there is for women, since you brought it up.

Speaking from experience, I am -- I keep saying that my first reaction was to slough off the assault against me as funny. It was amazing to watch myself descend into this ... quagmire... of sexual objectification within 15 minutes. To be seen as nothing other than a piece of female meat available for this tiny guy to rub against. To feel so invisible as a person was a double violation. Or something.

Women aren't praised for what we do, mostly -- we are praised for what we look like. And when you look at the variety of men and male body shapes that are presented on TV and in the movies, compared to women -- and the active nature of the men versus the passive nature of women presented -- and this is the toxic soup that all young girls grow up in.... To be reduced like that was just horrifying. I was surprised at my reaction.

Men have their own issues, of course. It is not for nothing that men tend to die sooner than women -- the pressures on them are terrible in their own way and it is literally killing them, in my opinion.

So it doesn't surprise me that you could laugh it off and let it stay laughed off. You are used to seeing yourself as active. While I laughed it off, and then got mired in this crappy sexual objectification that is so toxic.

It's all so ugly.

I'm so proud of your beautiful strong friend. She didn't deserve what happened to her, no woman does, and I know you know that. And dang if she didn't fight back with everything she had. That is how this shite stops. Make the bastards accountable. Right now they aren't.

Great story you told. Really great.

"FAIL!"....(how about fondling yourself in the mirror some more there, Loquacia Passive-Agressia)?

ooops, sorry
*snarkchasm

@Trancecoach
once again you call me out on an old and dusty post.
this time to accuse me and (@ChaosEngine this time) of being socialists, narcissists AND knowitalls.when i have been very open and honest with you that economics is not my strong suit.

now why would you do that?
was it that we had the audacity to disagree with you?
the thing that tickles me is that i actually agree with a fairly large percentage of what you post.
my issue is with YOU,personally.

i have attempted to speak as humanly as possible with you.
and what have i gotten in return?
ridicule,accusations,harrassment.
a barrage of passive aggressive swipes at my integrity and intellect.

your childish and rather crude attempts to engage with people who have already made it quite clear you have lost their attention due to your own petulance is really what i find most interesting.

your attentions towards me have become more and more rude and spiteful,yet no apology has been forthcoming.

is this because you are unaware of your own callousness?
or that my feelings are irrelevant?
is it because this is this the internet so who cares?
is it possible i offended you in the past,because if that is the case i am totally unaware of any slight i may have directed towards you and will be happy to make amends.

i know that i have made myself quite clear in regards to how your commentary is perceived by me.so there should be no confusion.

i will not apologize for not giving your words the weight that you may possible feel they deserve for the simple fact you have been exposed on multiple occasions plagiarizing the works of others and attempted to pawn them off as your own.

so if that is the reason...well..sorry...but you are responsible for that perception.has nothing to do with me.

i find it interesting you accuse people of using tactics you,yourself use often.

but to me,in my world..it is the WHY of things that i always find most interesting.

why do you continue to keep calling me out when you obviously find me to be an inferior specimen to discuss your passions?

i may find economics moderately interesting but it is most certainly not a passion of mine.

i have never tagged you in a discussion on the Epistemology and theosophy of the radical jesus and subsequent resurrection mythologies.

no apology for rudeness and passive aggressive swipes at my character,yet you consistently tag me in posts to ridicule and berate.

this is what i find most interesting.

or am i being narcissistic?

@Trancecoach
sorry mate but you have entirely missed the point.

which i will take responsibility for,in my usual verbose fashion i sometimes lose the plot.

so let me try again:

you speak in the language and certitude of someone who has found jesus.
i didnt ignore your argument points because i was NOT ADDRESSING them.
i was,however,addressing your:condescension.arrogance and constant passive/aggressiveness.

you quoted MY comment,so i responded.dont puss out on me now that i called you out on it big guy.

god you are one big ball of passive aggressive.
oblivious to your own proclivities.
and THAT my friend is what saddens me the most.

but feel free to preach to the masses and chastise them when they disagree with your conclusions,sneering down at them from your fortress of arrogance.

yeah..thats the tactic to get them to listen to your words.

good plan.

let me know how that works out for ya.

Climate change-The hot-topic for a new age of ineffectuals...something for the insects to rally-around and discuss which produces nay but fodder for the same passive-aggressive types who are being seduced by their desire to trade practical action (whatever that could be) for polemic intercourse with themselves and others like them on the internet....

....people who are passionate to a fault and use forums like this to espouse their anger and frustration with tomes of keystrokes AT and not WITH others they deem unworthy, those ignorant and simpering few with opinions or observations dissimilar to theirs (and lower than 130 I.Q.'s....*cough), who know they are helpless to act to stop the high-speed train of planet-fucking (wage-slave-required and dutifully induced through the programming by adepts of semantic mind-fucking).This delusional empowerment, with all the invisible superpowers of new 'information' gives them the license and ability to do absolutely nothing to correct or marginally disrupt the pace of the so-labeled change while becomming better dicks in doing-so.

This fan-driven subject of climate change they use not only to deride those with any dissenting opinion and doubt regarding the mechanics and unfolding of what our big, blue marble is handing the creatures onnit, but also and most evidently obvious, to bolster their own superiority and self-satisfaction in their ability to process the distraction of disinformation/information/datum-ad-nauseum, and then condense it into how clever they can be in being complete assholes without breaking rules of accepted decorum so they can hear themselves bark, howl, and foment.

Smug, helpless, and irritatingly predictable in their helplessness to do anything more effectual than to add more used motor oil to the bonfire of their own vanity.

I would ask these irritating bugs what ARE you prepared to do to alter the course of the 'changes' in the 'terminal climate' described above? Recycle and drive a hybrid? Sacrifice anything but another trip to a polling-station? Oh I know, sit at your computer keyboard and grow more incensed while going-on with your business of spouting and shouting from a mountain of trash that you add-to daily by converting oxygen to more life-giving C02 and buying shit you don't need with paper you are forced to trade for 'bads and disservices??'

Thought so.

Fuck global warming in it's ass and let the planet shake and quiver with change as humans and/or their own slave-like actions continue to feed the earth-furnace. The bigger fish to fry and serve head-on have you by the short and curlies and we're all bio-fuel for future generations

I'd also add once again here that all this power-stripping..the warnings and promises from admins in an attempt to keep me on a short leash as not to offend the damaged sensibilities of those who simply have a hard-on to see me burn is nothing more than a window into some unchecked personality disorders.

I don't mind so much being the whipping-boy for such nonsense since I do court confrontation when attacked unjustly by the timid and confused but the dicklessness from some of the most egregious of offenders (ignore button, my ass)?? The passive-aggression from those who fear change or love the smell of their own fucking farts and want everyone else to stand in line for a sniff??? Fuck that shit.

good lord you are one big ball of passive aggressive,but i love ya! and ya still find great vids!

here..have some love..on me.

*promote

I'm with @newtboy. Do you actually read the responses or just cherry pick the parts that suit your agenda? Christ, even in the part you quoted I said "the first step". The paragraph before that explicitly outlined how that there were huge challenges to overcome.

And you're posting links from an organisation that

worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question serious cancer risks to secondhand smoke, and to lobby against government public-health reforms... and is known "for its persistent questioning of climate science, for its promotion of 'experts' who have done little, if any, peer-reviewed climate research, and for its sponsorship of a conference in New York City in 2008 alleging that the scientific community's work on global warming is fake."

I'm advocating passivity because I don't recognise overpopulation as a threat, more an inconvenience, and one that we couldn't really prevent even if we wanted to.

I don't see what's preposterous or optimistic about taking widely accepted birth rate data and projecting based off that. Birth rates are predictable and stable sampled over a large population. The data consistently shows that as societies come out of poverty, their birth rates fall. The only assumption here is that there isn't another GFC event that hinders growth which at this point is not particularly likely.

All taken into account we already know it's plateauing, and have known for decades. This isn't a hypothesis, it's happening right now. Unless you can show me why this trend will suddenly and irrevocably reverse, despite population data being incredibly stable and predictable historically, it seems the onus is on you to explain why you're so pessimistic.

Again, I think you're still conflating (1) what I want / whether it's bad versus (2) whether it could plausibly be stopped. I would also rather live in a less populated world. At current rates of technology and resource utilisation, things would be cheaper, there'd be more to go around. Reality is not like that. But as I said before, every policy focus has an opportunity cost. I don't see a plateauing population as a threat and I would rather see that effort devoted to poverty which will help reduce it anyway.

We're nowhere near an economic bubble. Maybe a short term stock market valuation bubble right now, but there's plenty of economic under-utilisation in the US and Europe, and China and other developing countries have decades to grow.

The term technological bubble is a bit nonsensical. You can have a technology sector bubble but actual physical technology which works now, will not magically stop working tomorrow based on inflated expectations. If you're saying instead we'll reach some cusp of innovation, well people have predicting that for decades.

We're nowhere near a peak oil event. Every time people say current known reserves are dwindling, they either (1) discover a huge reserve in under developed countries that were previously not surveyed (Africa and parts of SE Asia at the moment), or (2) something like fraking comes along which unlocks new supply. The US is forecast to be the largest oil exporter by 2020 based on that second point.

Hell, I'll play devil's advocate with you. Suppose we do reach a glut. We'll know this at least a decade ahead based on dwindling new reserve discoveries. The price of energy will leap up far, far ahead of us running out. That will spur innovation in more efficient sources of energy and will incentivise both individuals and businesses to be more energy efficient. A gradual adjustment like I've talked about endlessly here. Why am I wrong?

Environmental damage is a different issue and something that I agree needs to actually be addressed. I'm sure if you search back through my posts you'll see me talking about the economic rationale of addressing this directly when corporations who pollute aren't subject to the negative externalities that they impose in our current capitalist system and that will inherently create issues. Hopefully countries will take note of the smog clouds in China's big cities.

@RedSky

Crossing your fingers and waiting for the tooth fairy to fix everything is not a valid response to global crises. That is what passivity amounts to whether your eventual, hoped for remedy is shiny's simple-minded faith or failed economic models that got us into this mess in the first place, or unforeseeable scientific advances that may never come.

You've been using the most preposterously optimistic projections available, okay, let's assume they're correct and we level off at somewhere around nine to eleven billion. You want all of these people to live worthwhile, prosperous lives; well that's at least five times as many high energy consuming, 21st century humans as we've ever actually been able to support.

This coming at the end of an economic and technological bubble of readily available, dense energy supply for which we have no replacement; relative efficiency gains in spending that energy that can never be replicated (because efficiency doesn't go above 100%); casual environmental damage that cannot continue; and diminishing returns in every scientific field, where advancement is always becoming more difficult and more expensive.

This isn't a pessimistic view. Humanity has a bright future, all we have to do to secure it is stop creating more and more people out of nothing for no reason. Barring extra-terrestrial threats like meteorites, solar flares and relativistic missiles launched by hostile alien species; we have the knowledge we need to build a civilisation capable of enduring for millions of years, or burn out in a couple of hundred.

I don't get how he differentiates market and investment return. Besides the market returns on stocks, commodities etc, the only meaningfully different options are a variety of government bonds (which return much less than the market at the moment) and cash, which will lose value against inflation.

Unless you leverage investment returns, you can't achieve a higher return than the market on average (evidence shows that passive investors beat active investors, exceptions exist but on average this is true). Higher leverage is just multiplying your risk though, so you're equally exposed to up and down turns over the long term. May have to check out this book but logically it makes no sense.

@Trancecoach

He focusses on inherited wealth, not earned wealth so most of your post is a bit of a red herring.

As far as advocating higher taxes, besides 70% being obvious hyperbole, you would have to assume that if he's publicly writing and advocating for more redistributive tax policies then he'd be okay with slightly higher rates at his income bracket, otherwise he's kind of going against his own interests.

I think it's a hard distinction to make. Religion does improve people's lives. Religion is not the only rallying call for violence.

The problem as I see it, is that while moderate theists, who selectively pick and choose the socially acceptable parts of, say the Bible, may be comforted by their beliefs, their public espousal of their religion gives legitimacy to the fundamentalists who interpret it more literally and don't pick and choose the reasonable passages.

It's a tenuous link, but I don't think you can discount it. The reasonable middle ground here would be for moderate organisations to refute certain religious scripture, say the infamous Leviticus passages, The problem is, they don't because it then allows any section of the text to be called into question, instead choose to passively ignore them. This is where I start to have a problem.

Not meant as passive aggressive, I thought this was public knowledge I got from your public posts. I was going to aplolgise in case I was wrong, but I can see from posts already made that it was public knowledge here. Please don't berate sifters for repeating information you've given many of them (without telling them to not spread the info)...that is VERY paranoid, rude, and passive aggressive. It's not like you could be 'found' in the megalopolis that it H town unless you wear a Chingalera shirt everywhere, but it wasn't my intent to piss you off with that. Now that you've 'asked' (in your own angry, insulting way) I'll try to not do it again...at least not with that specificity.
I think you need to see your knee Dr.
...and actually, it was because I read, and denied your repeating knee jerk berating of all of my country because your tiny unpleasant experience has given you a foul taste in your mouth about it. (I feel it's likely because one tends to get back what one puts out that you can't stand people.) I was, once again, reminding you that we don't all live in the hyper-populated police state you consistently move into and then bitch non-stop about...that's also not very fucking cool, or smart, DUUUUUUD!
EDIT: ...and I see from my actual post that I didn't say YOU lived there, just that it's a police state, you inferred that it was about where YOU lived.