I know a cultic priest who would be atwitter for access to your science. — Merkwurdichliebe

What?

It’s not “my” science. The evidence is there for all to see. Gotta try hard not to understand it, in fact.

The rising of global temperature is due to burning fossil fuels, deforestation and agricultural practices. That exacerbates flooding, draughts, wildfires, stronger hurricanes, icecap melting, sea level rise, etc. — and could lead to tipping points.

It’s not a narrative. It’s scientific fact. Supported by overwhelming evidence.
— Mikie

That's the narrative im fishing for — Merkwurdichliebe

It’s not a narrative. It’s scientific fact. Supported by overwhelming evidence.

I suppose evolution, electromagnetism, and gravity can be described as “narratives” too, eh?



Cool. Go do more “critical thinking” with Alex Jones and Ken Hamm.

And I don’t need 10 replies to one post. This isn’t Twitter.

I challenge you to explain to Agree-to-Disagree and @ChatteringMonkey and @frank, how these quotes don't fit in perfectly ( and rather ironically) with the official climate crisis narrative. I'm certain that you are philosophical enough to provide one example. — Merkwurdichliebe

What “official climate crisis narrative”? The rising of global temperature is due to burning fossil fuels, deforestation and agricultural practices. That exacerbates flooding, draughts, wildfires, stronger hurricanes, icecap melting, sea level rise, etc. — and could lead to tipping points.

It’s not a narrative. It’s scientific fact. Supported by overwhelming evidence.

That being said— Marcuse is right. But he wasn’t a climate scientist and wasn’t presenting evidence of global warming or offering concrete solutions. I personally agree we should be less consumeristic and move away from capitalism — particularly neoliberalism— but so what? There’s reasonable arguments, from Jeremy Grantham for example, about using the better parts of “capitalism” (eg venture capital) to encourage transition.

I’m still not really seeing the point. Why is Marcuse “central” to anything in the environmental movement — especially climate change? Rachel Carson, Bill Mckibben, James Hanson, Syukuro Manabe— all far more relevant in this respect.

Unless one is trying to link climate science to “Marxism” somehow. Which is silly.

Did you hear about the science, or do it yourself. Please tell me you did it yourself :pray: — Merkwurdichliebe

Done what myself? Read a graph?

Yes, I talk to climate scientists and read published articles on climate change. I have some background in it— but I’m not involved in gathering ice core samples if that’s what you mean.

It means that there is a great possibility that the official narrative concerning the climate crisis is totally overblown, as with Marcuse. — Merkwurdichliebe

What “official narrative,” exactly? You keep mentioning this.

Marcuse didn’t write about climate change. Nor was anything you quoted from him “overblown.” Seems like common sense. But ultimately irrelevant to this discussion.

But I see where this is going.

True, it could all be a communist conspiracy. That’s a fairly common variant of climate denial. It’s on par with creationists being correct about Noah’s flood, but it’s possible. If you want to throw in with that idea, your welcome.

Not only was marcuse into it, he laid out the central theory of sustainability that has been increasingly put into practice within many domains of society in our time. — Merkwurdichliebe

Central theory of sustainability? What are you referring to? I’ve read Marcuse— I guess I missed this. But in any case, seems far fetched.

Who cares?

if a person were to be unaware of Marcuse's contribution to the core ideas of "sustainability" — Merkwurdichliebe

What core ideas are you referring to exactly?

same person had bought in wholesale to the popular narrative of the climate crisis and its solutions, — Merkwurdichliebe

Such as?

brainwashed by popular media — Merkwurdichliebe

Not popular media — science.

why would the perpetrators of the official narrative conveniently fail to ever mention Herbert Markuse, and pretend like the popular notions of sustainability are relatively new and original? Something smells very fishy. — Merkwurdichliebe

First, it’s arguable that Marcuse played as big a role in the environmental movement or the idea of sustainability that you seem to be latching yourself to.

Second, if he has indeed played a large role — who cares? What does it have to do with the facts of climate science?

There are plenty of solutions. We’ve barely scratched the surface of that discussion on this thread.

Herbert Marcuse. — Merkwurdichliebe

Marcuse was into sustainability? Cool. Still not seeing the point.

I assume you'll say Paul Hawken or something like that, and then point out that he's a capitalist, etc. etc.

I'd point to people like Bill McKibben, Rachel Carson, etc. But you're asking for a reason, so let's not pretend you're interested in any answers. Just make your point.

I still hold nuclear warfare to be a bigger issue. — Merkwurdichliebe

Your addressing the actual questions were more reasonable than I'd expect, and this part especially. I happen to agree.

Why then do you always seem to present yourself as an extreme right wing nut job? Is it just performance?

You're welcome. Your parroting such stupid, simplistic ideas always gives me a chuckle.

It is the only system we know of that is capable of producing novelty and innovating technologies that might be able to counteract the climate crisis. We can see how communism in ussr failed by stagnating in all production and innovation — Merkwurdichliebe

:rofl:

Biden’s Climate Law Is Reshaping Private Investment in the United States

Private investment in clean energy projects like solar panels, hydrogen power and electric vehicles surged after President Biden signed an expansive climate bill into law last year, a development that shows how tax incentives and federal subsidies have helped reshape some consumer and corporate spending in the United States.

New data being released on Wednesday suggest the climate law and other parts of Mr. Biden’s economic agenda have helped speed the development of automotive supply chains in the American Southwest, buttressing traditional auto manufacturing centers in the industrial Midwest and the Southeast. The 2022 law, which passed with only Democratic support, aided factory investment in conservative bastions like Tennessee and the swing states of Michigan and Nevada. The law also helped underwrite a spending spree on electric cars and home solar panels in California, Arizona and Florida.

The data show that in the year since the climate law passed, spending on clean-energy technologies accounted for 4 percent of the nation’s total investment in structures, equipment and durable consumer goods — more than double the share from four years ago.

The law so far has failed to supercharge a key industry in the transition from fossil fuels that Mr. Biden is trying to accelerate: wind power. Domestic investment in wind production declined over the past year, despite the climate law’s hefty incentives for producers. And so far the law has not changed the trajectory of consumer spending on some energy-saving technologies like highly efficient heat pumps.

Worth noting.

Fair enough. Point taken.

That doesn't mean there isn't a real discussion to be had about how we are going to solve it. — ChatteringMonkey

Well let’s have that discussion then.

I don't see how one can be so certain about something with this many moving parts. — ChatteringMonkey

I’m not at all certain. I make the choice not to dwell on the idea that we’re probably screwed. It’s useless and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

This asshole said the secret part out loud.

You really believe that there no more debate to be had about how we are going to solve this? — ChatteringMonkey

Plenty. I’ve seen none from you whatsoever other than “I doubt it can be done.”

Communism relies on industrialization too — ChatteringMonkey

The Industrial Revolution started in Britain. The so called communist countries industrialized later.

we'd better find out what all the different costs are of the available options. — ChatteringMonkey

That’s been done.

The reason all of them carbonized was industrialisation. — ChatteringMonkey

Industrialization and modern capitalism goes hand and hand.

but if you look at land use, which is the main cause of bio-diversity loss, it isn't great, — ChatteringMonkey

Mining for all the resources to build them is devastating too. — ChatteringMonkey

all the waste — ChatteringMonkey

Yeah— they do better than fossil fuels in all these areas. With the exception of solar panels and land use, which is comparable to coal but not gas. But what’s your point? That this will be hard and that we’ll have to deal responsibly with the process? No kidding.

But it has to happen and will happen. So since it’s happening, I’m not sure what good it does saying how hard it will be, how big it is, how expensive it is, or how there are costs associated to it. Yeah, no kidding. We’ve been dealing with those issues for years in an industry that has killed millions and ruined the planet — called fossil fuels.

It does serve one purpose I guess. It enables us to sit back and say “we’re doomed — it’s never gonna happen” and go on with our lives. Sorry kids.

I don’t share that sentiment.

I dislike capitalism as much as anyone, but I don't think it's the main culprit, industrialisation is. Communism was and is at least as bad for the environment. — ChatteringMonkey

So-called communism. But the USSR and China were/ are state-capitalist economies. In any case, the US industrialized long ago and knew of this issue long after— they had the technology to change, and didn’t.

China faces a similar problem now — and is doing much more than we were at that level of development. They’re quite right when they say they shouldn’t have to bear the brunt of this work given historical emissions.

The reason the US didn’t decarbonize wasn’t because of the public. It wasn’t because of free markets. It wasn’t because the technology wasn’t available. And it wasn’t because of industrialization.

I just can't see it happening — ChatteringMonkey

I couldn’t see heat pumps outselling gas furnaces in my lifetime…but it happened last year.

Maybe none of it happens. That’s a possibility. But we work hard anyway. What we don’t do is sit down and help guarantee nothing happens.

I just don't think any one person, or even a group of people, has that much influence in the larger scheme of things. — ChatteringMonkey

Then you’re really not paying attention.

If you want to believe it’s all accidental or inevitable somehow, that’s fine— seems better than believing in conspiracy theories. Until you recognize that they’re not really conspiracy theories, of course.

How do you explain the rest of the world doing little to nothing to reduce emmission? — ChatteringMonkey

The rest of the world doesn’t emit much compared to a handful of wealthy countries.

And they are doing a great deal, in fact. Denmark, Netherlands, Morocco, many south sea islands, France, Germany — even China, by some measures.

There are many reasons why it’s slow moving. There’s economic reasons and propaganda just like in the US. But other times it’s simply the early stages of development and lack of funds (India, Africa). Much of it is lack of global leadership (US), with only mild steps forward coming the last few years.

I didn’t say it was one cause. In the US, however, it’s very close to one cause— and it’s obvious.

Does that not occur economically? I'd much rather a government, which I help elect, take 20% of my paycheck than have rampant monopolies price-gouge the consumer with poverty wages, or literally sell my life to make ends meet. And at least that 20% funds the livelihoods of millions of government employees and the unemployed, and provides me with essential services that would otherwise be monopolized, rather than feeding the incessant greed of a few thousand robber barons. — finarfin

I agree. In the “short” term of generations. In the longer term, we really should abolish the state. Not governance or social organization, but the state.

What our libertarian friends don’t seem to understand, and which ultimately makes them apologists for illegitimate power, is that the real power doesn’t currently belong to the state. It belongs to the plutocracy who own and run the state.

Rather than going after the real rot and the socioeconomic system that allows this rot, they blather on about the far-off goal of eliminating the state. It’s like dealing with an adolescent who’s latched on to a fashionable belief and dogmatically abides by it, all the while ignoring the evidence all around that points to something different.

If we want to solve the problems of the day, we have to recognize the main causes.

If it’s corporate power, we should be encouraging the labor movement— they’re against “big labor.”

We should encourage unionization— they’re against unions (“collectivism!”).

We should be pushing our leaders for progressive policies — they’re against this too (“Government is the problem”).

The plutocracy must love these people. They get to act like they support small businesses and workers and communities, while advocating for goals that completely destroy them. What gets proposed as solutions?

First, blame the state for all the world’s ills. Then destroy and dismantle the state and leave things to the magic of the “free market.”

The way they tell it, one might be convinced that this may actually work. Friedman did it better than any of them — and they’re all illegitimate little Friedmans and Randians anyway — but it was always a fantasy on par with communist fantasies (which they have no problem recognizing).

When policies based on these ideas get tried, and fail, they can always fall back on the fact that it was never “really” tried or implemented, or didn’t go far enough.

It’s a great religion. Can’t be refuted, some half-truths, a few simplistic principles to memorize, etc. This way one doesn’t have to analyze the real world. Because that’s too messy.

And we haven't really been subsidizing oil and gas all that much. — ChatteringMonkey

Over $20 billion a year (conservatively) is a lot, especially when compared to renewables. And this isn’t factoring in other subsidies. One estimate — the IMF — quotes in the trillions, which you seem to want to discount.

So to argue we’re not subsidizing oil and gas “that much” is a joke.

Very little would be truly viable if you factor in all externalities. It's not as if the external costs aren't huge for renewables too. — ChatteringMonkey

Another canard.

Not nearly as much. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a black and white world. Yes, solar and wind require a lot of energy up front. But then they basically run themselves, making up for the initial emissions by a lot.

Compare to fossil fuels and there’s no contest.

I think ultimately all of this is more an unfortunate accident of history/evolution. — ChatteringMonkey

It’s not an accident. It’s a deliberate choice, and one made because of greed. Capitalism isn’t a natural law.

Governments have unprecedented debt already. — ChatteringMonkey

Right— so let’s lay down and die. Let’s let the world burn because it’s not economically viable to save it.

Funny how the “debt” gets brought up very selectively.

If we can spend $1 trillion a year on the military, we can spend that on saving the planet.

They [fossil fuel companies] certainly don't help, but I don't think we would have solved climate change even without their propaganda. — ChatteringMonkey

Imagine if instead we started a large renewable push in the 80s, and gradually transitioned? How much better would we be today? — Mikie

Yes you seem to think these evolutions are allways driven predominantly by idea's or ideologies. — ChatteringMonkey

So you didn’t Google Lee Raymond. His behavior wasn’t motivated by sheer greed, I suppose?

Has nothing to do with ideology, unless greed is an ideology. The propaganda campaigns were deliberate, and were conducted by fossil fuel companies and the think tanks that the industry funded — which staffed the Reagan administration and set the policy agenda.

But I suppose we can shut our eyes and make believe all of this was just an “accident” and a natural outgrowth of “free markets” based on “human nature,” etc…

The fact of the matter is that photovoltaics were nowhere near as good as fossil fuels back then, and that is the main reason they didn't gain a lot of traction — ChatteringMonkey

:ok:

Takes real effort to avoid so much contrary evidence.

I’d be interested, for one. I hope you do so.

Jordan Peterson — Brendan Golledge

Oh Christ. Will references to this charlatanical bore never end?

If you’re spending time and effort attempting to figure out the ramblings of Jordan Peterson, your own writing will be the worse for it. Friendly advice.

For a second I thought this was real:

https://theintercept.com/2023/08/20/global-warming-history-china-hoax/

Goes to show the state of climate discourse.

if we're serious about fighting climate change now reducing energy consumption needs to be central. — Echarmion

Reducing the fossil fuel energy consumption, yes. But most of that can be replaced with greener technology. Electricity, transportation, etc. Agriculture and heavy industry is harder— but our governments can subsidize the transition.

The kind of massive and rapid change we need would involve a level of public mobilisation that's akin to a war footing. — Echarmion

We need more people pushing for these things, yes— especially at the local level of towns and cities.

Well it has to be done. It either will or won’t. I don’t see the point of repeating over and over that this is a hard task.

Yes, we’re all in agreement: it’s very hard. We may not have enough time. We may never have the political will. There may not be the technological breakthroughs we need. And so forth.

Makes people feel special to constantly point this out I guess. This way they can go on believing what “realists” they are, etc. I’m not saying that’s you — but many people I’ve come across are like this. It’s on par with the “both sides are awful” mantra of politics. Yes, generally true — and then what? Lay down and die?

That very few people like to accept painful cuts to their standard of living. — Echarmion

The real question is when this silly canard gets thrown into the garbage with the other false dichotomies.

Sh, adults are talking. Go back to chit-chatting and don’t worry yourself about it.

Vaping didn’t become popular until much later, and is an entirely different thing. It too is now being regulated as an industry— rightfully.

But in any case, you’ve missed the point — as usual. If you can’t keep up with the conversation, just let the adults talk.

Equal replacements in terms of EROI and all other conveniences are not available at scale, and not within the timeframe necessary to avert climate change. — ChatteringMonkey

EROI is already much better, and if you factor cost of externalities is no contest.

Whether or not there is enough time is the second issue I mentioned earlier. But that too is because of lack of political will. Nothing has been done for so long, despite warnings and pleas from the science community and the public (and the globe), that it may indeed be too little, too late.

But we don’t know for certain, and in any case it’s a ridiculous position to take if it’s thrown around to justify doing nothing, or rationalizes casually and idly chatting about it.

People want to solve the problem in the abstract, sure, why not if they get told it won't cost them anything. I don't think they want to solve it in practice because they don't realise everything the solution entails. That is the point I've been making, yes. — ChatteringMonkey

I suppose the same could have been said about smoking. Banning smoking and heavily taxing cigarettes was a political decision, and there were definite costs associated with it. But it was eventually done, after years of delay, because the C evidence became undeniable.

Anyway— what “people” do you refer to? You seem to want to continually shift the majority of blame upon the average citizen.

You’re also exaggerating the costs and making a lot of assumptions about human beings which I don’t see much support for. I think average “people” care about their kids and grandkids’ futures, and would prefer that the world as we know it wasn’t burned or under water. This shows up in polling too — they want their governments to do more.

People aren’t against heat pumps or efficient public transportation or solar panels. They’re not against utilities generating electricity from renewables. The costs are way down, and should be subsidized further (as we’ve done with oil and gas for decades). There are indeed problems when it comes to NIMBYISM regarding transmission lines, losing jobs, etc — and that can be dealt with. Not insurmountable at all.

Why didn’t it start years ago, by the way? Is it really that “the people” were so stupid and ignorant that they didn’t push for it? Partly true I guess. But the political class elected to make the significant decisions did nothing.
— Mikie

What about the obvious answer? That it's just very hard to do, and goes against the very fundaments our world is build on. The ozone layer issue got solved rather quickly, because swapping out some spray can gasses only marginally impacted some economic niches. — ChatteringMonkey

It wasn’t that hard to do. It wasn’t done because the “economic niches” didn’t want it done and fought against it tooth and nail. This has been very well documented. Frontline did a great 3-part series on this last year:

part, the energywende. — ChatteringMonkey

Still largely a success— although phasing out nuclear was a mistake.

They certainly don't help, but I don't think we would have solved climate change even without their propaganda. — ChatteringMonkey

Well, then all I can repeat is that I don’t think you’ve looked into this aspect enough.

Jimmy Carter had solar panels on the White House roof in the late 70s. Torn down by the fossil fuel shill Reagan. Imagine if instead we started a large renewable push in the 80s, and gradually transitioned? How much better would we be today?

I’d also Google Lee Raymond.

Equal replacements in terms of EROI and all other conveniences are not available at scale, and not within the timeframe necessary to avert climate change. — ChatteringMonkey

EROI is already much better, and if you factor cost of externalities is no contest.

Whether or not there is enough time is the second issue I mentioned earlier. But that too is because of lack of political will. Nothing has been done for so long, despite warnings and pleas from the science community and the public (and the globe), that it may indeed be too little, too late.

But we don’t know for certain, and in any case it’s a ridiculous position to take if it’s thrown around to justify doing nothing, or rationalizes casually and idly chatting about it.

People want to solve the problem in the abstract, sure, why not if they get told it won't cost them anything. I don't think they want to solve it in practice because they don't realise everything the solution entails. That is the point I've been making, yes. — ChatteringMonkey

I suppose the same could have been said about smoking. Banning smoking and heavily taxing cigarettes was a political decision, and there were definite costs associated with it. But it was eventually done, after years of delay, because the evidence became undeniable.

Anyway— what “people” do you refer to? You seem to want to continually shift the majority of blame upon the average citizen.

You’re also exaggerating the costs and making a lot of assumptions about human beings which I don’t see much support for. I think average “people” care about their kids and grandkids’ futures, and would prefer that the world as we know it wasn’t burned or under water. This shows up in polling too — they want their governments to do more.

People aren’t against heat pumps or efficient public transportation or solar panels. They’re not against utilities generating electricity from renewables. The costs are way down, and should be subsidized further (as we’ve done with oil and gas for decades). There are indeed problems when it comes to NIMBYISM regarding transmission lines, losing jobs, etc — and that can be dealt with. Not insurmountable at all.

Why didn’t it start years ago, by the way? Is it really that “the people” were so stupid and ignorant that they didn’t push for it? Partly true I guess. But the political class elected to make the significant decisions did nothing.
— Mikie

What about the obvious answer? That it's just very hard to do, and goes against the very fundaments our world is build on. The ozone layer issue got solved rather quickly, because swapping out some spray can gasses only marginally impacted some economic niches. — ChatteringMonkey

It wasn’t that hard to do. It wasn’t done because the “economic niches” didn’t want it done and fought against it tooth and nail. This has been very well documented. Frontline did a great 3-part series on this last year:

part, the energywende. — ChatteringMonkey

Still largely a success— although phasing out nuclear was a mistake.

They certainly don't help, but I don't think we would have solved climate change even without their propaganda. — ChatteringMonkey

Well, then all I can repeat is that I don’t think you’ve looked into this aspect enough.

Jimmy Carter had solar panels on the White House roof in the late 70s. Torn down by the fossil fuel shill Reagan. Imagine if instead we started a large renewable push in the 80s, and gradually transitioned? How much better would we be today?

I’d also Google Lee Raymond.

I think all of political action happens against the backdrop of public opinion/common culture. — ChatteringMonkey

It comes down to a different analysis of power. Yes, political action happens against the backdrop of public opinion— especially in a relatively free country like the US. But what influences public opinion?

Chomsky’s classic Manufacturing Consent is good on this.

I think the quote unquote "real driver" behind all of this, is the people not really wanting the changes needed to solve this problem. — ChatteringMonkey

I know you think that— you’re just wrong. People around the world, and in the US, want something done. The solutions are already available in most cases (apart from heavy industry). If other countries can put in place sensible policies, so can we. Won’t be overnight, but could happen — and should have started years ago.

Why didn’t it start years ago, by the way? Is it really that “the people” were so stupid and ignorant that they didn’t push for it? Partly true I guess. But the political class elected to make the significant decisions did nothing.

Wikipedia the “investment theory of party competition.” Or see Tom Ferguson’s book “the golden rule.” When huge majorities of the public want something, it doesn’t matter. What actually happens in terms of policy aligns with what the wealthiest people want.

people will never ever choose solving a perceived far-off problem before their short term energy-security. — ChatteringMonkey

False choice. It’s not Stone Age living versus clean energy, as it’s often portrayed. And Europe is doing much more than the US.

I don't doubt the Oil companies played a dirty role in all of this, but pushing their preferred policies wouldn't be possible if they didn't find some fertile ground in the public to plant their seed. — ChatteringMonkey

The education system and especially the media play a big role in this. Not to mention fossil fuel companies bribe and lobby both parties in the US but essentially own one outright (Republicans). It’s similar elsewhere, but only in areas where the economy relies on fossil fuels (Australia, Russia, Canada, etc.). You have the strongest propaganda there, so more climate denial.

It’s the same tactic used by tobacco companies. “Hey people just want to smoke — the people don’t want restrictions — the science isn’t clear.” Powerful industries can afford expensive propaganda. I don’t blame the average person for being taken in by it.

But not all ongoing conversations are doing philosophy. — L'éléphant

No one said they were.

Philosophy involves many things. To privilege or emphasize “ongoing conversation” is a definition, or at least part of one. It’s distinguishing one phenomenon from another — philosophy is not x (a set of facts), but y (an ongoing conversation). The meaning of philosophy is the subject.

To argue it’s an “explanation” is just playing games. Trees aren’t so much clouds as they are entities with trunks and leaves — I’m not defining a tree, I’m just “explaining” the features of a tree. Come on.

I contend that duty is perhaps the single strongest motivator for action I can think of — ToothyMaw

Ok. What’s your evidence for this? Where’s the argument? If we’re just to accept this — to what end? What’s the point?

Maybe I missed something in the OP.

I take issue with the idea that this is just a matter of political will — ChatteringMonkey

It’s absolutely a matter of political will. There are a number of factors which influence political still and government action. But the biggest influence is money, which comes from the corporate sector.

It’s fine to say it’s a complicated issue with many moving parts, and will require major changes. But that’s a truism — that’s the case in any issue.

The fact is that we need sweeping government action on par with WWII and Covid. The reason we’re not getting it is because of fossil fuel companies. If you fail to see this you’re just missing it. I’d recommend Naomi Oreskes new book.

You seem to be starting from Descartes, and so the obsession with "knowing" and the idea of an outside world. But you have to exist (and in a particular mode) to even ask the question in the first place. It's kind of silly to doubt this or that, or use words like "know" or "certainty" as if we're certain about their meaning. What's so great about certainty, anyway?

In any case, "I am, therefore I am consciously aware" is about right. But then again, this overlooks the 99% or so of our lives that are unconscious, habitual, automatic, etc. So perhaps unconsciousness can tell us more about our being rather than consciousness.

No sense trying to figure anything out unless you first reject democracy and the idea of social concern — while accepting as legitimate the institution of slavery.

But if you do that, Trump-supporting fascists make perfect sense and are very consistent.

In the real world, if there are extenuating circumstances people are allowed to continue working. There's also a vote for whether to strike, it's not simply declared by a leader.

What's your point? Seems like more thinly veiled anti-union stuff to me.

“Philosophy is not x, but more y.”

An explanation of what something “is” or isn’t— that’s dealing with meaning, and is a kind of definition.

So what happened? A few folk provided their own lists of synonyms, then the thread petered out. — Banno

Yeah, as I expected. I said at the beginning there were no wrong answers, so there was no follow up from me— despite the fact that disagreement and desire for further clarification was present. I was interested in how one would respond on the spot, if asked. The answers I did get were interesting.

If there is a cop out here, it is in thinking that by providing a definition, one is doing philosophy. — Banno

Except I have never once made that claim, and in fact have often argued against the idea for the last four years.

Philosophy is not a list of facts, so much as an ongoing conversation. — Banno

Funny that you’d end your post with a definition of philosophy as an “ongoing conversation.”

:fire: :clap:

Also know as: fair and balanced.

Trump is and has been a squeaky clean individual. No wrongdoing. And if there is wrongdoing, it’s never been verified by evidence.

If there is evidence, it’s not evidence enough for a jury.

If it is enough for a jury, the jury is biased.

And so on. The Trump cult’s legal philosophy in a nutshell. :yawn:

To think there are still people hysterical about “communism.” :lol: