No shit Sherlock. That one was easy! Had a hell of a time trying to cram my argument in 5000 words, the original when I was done was over 8000 words. Once I get started I don't shut up, which is why I try to not start. Ever.

Interesting that nobody has anything to say about the blatant breach of international law. There's no sensible interpretation that this was self defence. The only thing Israel does (every time) is prove the hypocrisy of the West thereby undermining the legal order countries agreed to follow. Or course, as the strongest bully in the area, they are very much in favour of no legal order so that they can finalise their conquest of Palestine. As long as the USA is strongest, the same benefits apply to them: they can do whatever they want.

It makes me wonder how much this really is strategy to get rid of the fetters of international law.

You don't have to go to war for it, just pass the BBB.

https://on.ft.com/4jN2FJr @ssu and so on...

That's not a basis for ignoring them. — Hanover

Sonetimes it is. It's called civil disobedience and that can sometimes be a duty if a law is outrageous enough.

I'd call it bad ethics to wait for other people to decide on what you should think of a certain event, law or statement.

What about the 14th Amendment and a child's right to be reared by both their parents? Looks very much like a right to family life. Especially where the illegal immigrant parent has social security number and pays taxes, the failure of previous governments to act on deportation has effectively contributed to such an immigrant having a family life in the USA. This person did not hide.

Just read US citizens were effectively deported because both their parents were. That's impossible where I live.

I see the USA has signed several treaties guaranteeing right to family life but never ratified it.

help me out with what is the law in the USA here. No statutory limitations? No reasonable expectation that if a government doesn't deport you for x number of years that you are "safe"? Under human rights laws (at least in Europe) you acquire an independent right to stay in a county due to having a close connection with it if you have lived there long enough (in NL, especially for younger kids and teens it's about 6 years). If you're married or have US citizen kids I'd expect the right to family life gives you grounds for entry and therefore makes no sense to deport. Does any of it apply or something similar to it?

I asked perplexity.ai what the difference were in the Obama deportations and those of Trump. Interesting enough to post it:

How is what Trump us doing now different?

Trump’s current deportation approach differs from Obama’s in several key ways:

- **Nationwide Interior Enforcement:** Trump has expanded expedited removal to apply to undocumented immigrants arrested anywhere in the U.S., not just near the border[2][4][6]. This means ICE can rapidly deport people found anywhere in the country who cannot prove they have lived in the U.S. for over two years[2][4][6].

- **Sensitive Locations Targeted:** ICE is now authorized to conduct raids at previously protected places like schools, hospitals, and places of worship—locations where enforcement was generally avoided under Obama[1][6].

- **Mass Detention and Daily Quotas:** The Trump administration has set daily arrest quotas and dramatically increased detention capacity, aiming to deport up to one million people annually—more than triple previous records[6][1].

- **Use of Local Police:** Trump has rapidly expanded agreements allowing local law enforcement to act as immigration officers, increasing the likelihood of arrests during routine policing[6].

- **Legal and Policy Changes:** The administration has invoked laws like the Alien Enemies Act, threatened to use military force, and pursued criminal charges against those aiding undocumented immigrants[1][5].

- **Targeting Broader Groups:** Trump’s policies have targeted not only undocumented immigrants but also activists, legal residents, and even U.S. citizens in some cases, with reports of mistaken detentions and deportations[1][6].

- **Promotion of Self-Deportation:** New tools like the CBP Home app encourage voluntary departure, with added penalties for noncompliance, such as fines and revocation of Social Security numbers[6].

In summary, Trump’s approach is more aggressive, nationwide, and less focused on recent border crossers, with expanded enforcement powers, broader targets, and fewer protections for sensitive locations compared to Obama’s policies[1][2][6].

Citations:
[1] Deportation in the second presidency of Donald Trump - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_in_the_second_presidency_of_Donald_Trump
[2] How Trump Has Targeted New Groups for Deportation https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/05/21/us/trump-immigration-policy.html
[3] Protecting The American People Against Invasion - The White House https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-american-people-against-invasion/
[4] Ten Harmful Trump Administration Immigration and Refugee Policies https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/02/20/ten-harmful-trump-administration-immigration-and-refugee-policies
[5] Immigration policy of the second Donald Trump administration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_policy_of_the_second_Donald_Trump_administration
[6] The First 100 Days of the Second Trump Administration https://immigrationforum.org/article/the-first-100-days-of-the-second-trump-administration-key-immigration-related-actions-and-developments/
[7] Inside Donald Trump's Mass-Deportation Operation | TIME https://time.com/7291757/trump-deportation-ice-el-salvador/
[8] From Day One, Trump's Immigration Agenda Has Grown More ... https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/from-day-one-trumps-immigration-agenda-has-grown-more-extreme

It's not a simple issue.

From a purely legal and sovereign perspective: Yes, appropriate and reasonable in itself. A sovereign nation has laws governing immigration, and enforcement agencies like ICE are tasked with upholding those laws. From this viewpoint, raids are a direct action to enforce immigration laws and control borders, which is considered a legitimate function of a government. (Sending in national guard and marines is inappropriate and unreasonable and possibly illegal - but different discussion).

From an economic and pragmatic perspective: The appropriateness and reasonableness of ICE raids become far more debatable when considering their significant economic impact. Data shows that undocumented immigrants are deeply integrated into the U.S. economy, filling critical labor gaps, paying billions in taxes and fueling consumer demand. Mass deportations, as a result of such raids, would cause severe economic contraction, significant job losses (even for U.S.-born workers), and a substantial reduction in tax revenue. From this viewpoint, the policy is unreasonable.

From a humanitarian/social perspective: The human cost of raids, including the separation of families and the disruption of communities, raises serious ethical and social questions. While enforcing laws, the methods and consequences can have profound social impacts that I personally find inappropriate or unreasonable from a humanitarian standpoint.

Whether ICE raids are "appropriate and reasonable" depends heavily on the lens through which you view the situation. If the primary focus is on legal enforcement and border control at all costs, they might be seen as appropriate. However, if the focus shifts to the broader economic health and social fabric of the nation, their appropriateness and reasonableness become highly questionable due to the demonstrably negative consequences.

@ssu Reports of sabotage in Sweden. Probably by Russia. Fits the string of increasing sabotage. Leiden university is keeping track of it. See here: https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/news/2025/01/research-europe-increasingly-targeted-by-russian-sabotage

includes raw data and infographics.

I try to make it a rule not to engage with you because you're one of the worst persons I know, morally and intellectually. Considering the level regularly revealed in the politics threads; that's quite a feat.

Anyhoo, calling it “amazing” that people are protesting mass arrests and military deployment on domestic soil is a revealing choice. What’s truly amazing is how quickly you conflate basic decency with criminal complicity, as if the only two political positions left in America are “support Trump” or “defend MS-13.” What marvelous analysis... :snicker:

Nobody’s out there waving machetes for drug cartels. They’re standing in the streets because federal agents are snatching people at bus stops and supermarkets like it’s a dystopian lottery, because Marines are marching through Los Angeles like it’s Fallujah, and because a sitting president decided that immigration enforcement now comes with Humvees. People are protesting that; not gang violence, not borderless anarchy but state violence masquerading as law and order.

And let’s dispense with the flag nonsense. The idea that the presence of a Mexican flag at a protest is somehow proof of national betrayal is the sort of paranoid grievance that thrives only where empathy has been starved and racism abounds. Immigrants often love both the country they came from and the one they live in. Try holding two thoughts in your head at once, it won’t kill you.

As for the violence: if you can’t distinguish between a crowd of grieving families and a few people breaking windows after dark, you’re not trying to understand, you’re just trying to discredit. But we already know where your allegiance lies. That has been clear for years.

This isn’t about Trump, it’s about what’s being done in his name. When the state sends in troops to control its own population and people object, that isn’t “anti-Trumpism,” it’s the last gasp of civic duty. If your first instinct is to cheer for the troops rather than ask why they’re pointing rifles at citizens, then quite obviously you don't want a country - just supremacy.

@Author,

I really like this if not only for the reason that I barely get in touch with this sort of subject. I think it's ambitious and maybe that is one of the only critiques I'd level against it; it might be too ambitious for the space afforded to it.

It's fun to approach Dante as a philosopher instead of just a Poet. At the same time, the Divine Comedy is not a systematic treatise. Is the author over interpreting what he/she sees as philosophical claims rather than poetic symbolism that have varying interpretations? I'm not knowledgeable enough to tell but I do wonder.

After dealing with Hume; shouldn't the writer have spent some time on Kant's practical reason that seems to be a reformist model of reason? There may be other more modern writers who made similar attempts.

@Tobias This subject is right up your ally. Be sure to read it!

For normal Americans, rioters flying foreign flags and burning American ones is not a cause to rally around. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not sure why flag waving or burning flags is the decisive factor. For "normal people" once a government stops representing basic values and the rule of law such as habeas corpus maybe burning a flag is cathartic or symbolic enough for them to distance themselves from the government they disagree with. Of course, normal Americans are too stupid so probably they think like you do and have uncritical allegiance to bullshit.

The idea speech does not affect the world and that all these sovereign individuals can just ignore it, is devoid of fact. Speech can be abusive and cause harm. Child abuse can consist of solely verbal abuse. There are plenty of examples of bullied kids committing suicide. To then have people argue words don't harm and that it is apparently the person's choice to commit suicide is a prime example of victim blaming.

There are people who post on an internet forum with the understanding it is "private"? :lol:

Free speech absolutism clings to a libertarian ahistorical fantasy: that speech is just noise until someone acts on it. That words, unlike swords, don’t wound unless the listener chooses to be harmed. But if that were true, the entire structure of society would collapse.

Let’s be clear: if speech had no effect unless acted upon, there would be no marketing, no contracts, no propaganda, no religion, no constitutions, no militaries, no politics and no hierarchies. None of these function without speech triggering behavior. If we were truly sovereign individuals, immune to linguistic influence, then there would be no need to sell, convince, threaten or command. We wouldn’t bother with law or leadership. Hell, we wouldn’t be arguing on this forum.

The claim that speech is harmless unless someone physically acts on it doesn’t merely misrepresent speech, it ignores the entire architecture of human society. Words structure our relations, direct our choices, create obligations and incite movements. Speech is action. Every dictator, advertiser, preacher and policymaker knows this. Only the “free speech absolutist” pretends not to.

What's generally so boring about these discussions though, is that, even if we accept that speech is powerful, the real issue isn’t whether it should be “free”. It’s who gets to speak, and who gets heard. Most free speech debates are built on a false assumption: that everyone already has a platform, and harm only begins when someone’s voice is removed from it. That’s not how platforms work.

People aren’t born with megaphones. They’re given them, or more often, denied. Platforms are political spaces. They are curated, moderated, algorithmically sorted and profit-driven. This discussion shouldn't be about when to restrict speech but how to ensure equal access to being heard.

Remember this post? You started talking to me remember? I replied and asked why you're focusing on the least likely candidate to be widely available and is also the least mature technologically speaking. I just get dumb shit after that. So fuck you.

You didn't need to spoon-feed me anything. This is my topic. The question being, why, what, according to Nasa/Sandia Labs, is a promising approach to the climate and ecological crisis, has gone ignored for the past 40 years? — karl stone

I believe geothermal is promising, I believe EGS is much more promising that SCGT. I've laid out why. You've given me nothing in return other than repetitions devoid of thought, engagement with my points or facts. SCGT had to compete with other energy sources. It doesn't look like it can compete even with other applications of geothermal energy, which I've tried to discuss and you just repeatedly avoid or ignore. If you cannot engage with a person's post and devolve in repetition the only conclusion is you don't understand it.

I'm not negative about geothermal I'm negative about your ability to discuss the subject.

I'm not negative. I simply don't have time for someone's myopic bullshit when I even spoonfeed him information to get a grip on reality.

So you haven't done the calculations and have no clue what you're talking about. Excellent. Nice wasting time on you. Bye.

Great.Show me the calculations.

Despite the criticisms you can level at the content of the essay, I like the fundamental approach free of any other works and reminds me of attempts I made when I was much younger (teens, early 20s) and unburdened by all the philosophy I read since then.

The fact you haven't conceded it just shows how little you've actually looked into it. Not something to be proud of. And no, I don't need to make a lot of assumptions. Here's some facts.

Supercritical geothermal (SCGT) introduces several risks that are either absent or significantly less pronounced in Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS). There's:

1. Thermally induced seismicity and fault reactivation. The thermal gradients for EGS are far lower compared to SCGT.
2. Material challenges. SCGT requires drilling and equipment that has to withstand much higher temperatures and pressures. supercritical water is highly corrosive.
3. Risk of encountering magma or volcanic gases is much higher as well.
4. SCGT is very likely to reach depth where rock becomes ductile, making reservoir creation even more challenging.
5. The heat and pressure can lead to rapid changes in rock properties and permeability which creates risk of wellbore collapse, equipment failure and difficulties with reservoir management.

Each risk has to be managed and therefore increases costs and therefore USD per Mwh will increase. Many of these risks will cause production to stop if they materialise which has huge ramifications for access to energy.

Furthermore, EGS technology is designed to be deployed in a wide range of geological settings, not just areas with naturally occurring high-temperature hydrothermal systems. It works by artificially creating reservoirs in hot dry rock, which is abundant in many regions worldwide.

This makes EGS more geographically flexible and potentially scalable across many countries and regions, provided there is sufficient subsurface heat at accessible depths.

SCGT, on the other hand, requires access to much deeper and hotter subsurface resources, specifically targeting the supercritical water regime.

Such conditions are only found in certain volcanic or tectonically active regions, which are geographically limited compared to the broader applicability of EGS.

There are also several known benefits to decentralised energy production as compared to centralised, making EGS preferable as well.

- By relying on multiple, local sources, communities become less vulnerable to fuel supply disruptions, price spikes or geopolitical tensions.
- Power is generated closer to where it is used, reducing the energy lost during long-distance transmission, which is typically up to 8% in centralized systems.
- Decentralized systems make it easier and quicker to integrate.
- Local ownership and management of energy resources create jobs, stimulate local economies and give communities greater control over their energy supply.
- By reducing transmission and distribution costs and enabling local energy trading, decentralized models can lower energy bills, especially in remote regions.
- Microgrids and distributed systems can operate independently during grid outages, providing critical services with reliable power.

In summary, decentralized energy production improves reliability, resilience and sustainability.

SCGT has its place, if it becomes viable. For now it's in the pilot phase but in any case it will never work as the primary source of energy production due to the risks and limitations involved.

Nah. You were late so obviously don't have enough time. Philosophy is too hard for me so I didn't join this time.

It's June 1st. Where are the submissions of posters with too much time on their hands?

compared to what? — karl stone

EGS.

more expensive than what? — karl stone

EGS.

Solving the climate and ecological crisis is not an immediate need. It requires a little forethought, because only a functioning global economy can do this. If we think only in terms of the immediate, waiting until solving the climate crisis becomes an immediate need, it will be too late. — karl stone

This is just handwaving. You remind me of counterpunch. Words devoid if basic facts. If you think this is the way forward, calculate it. I sincerely doubt the feasibility of going for the most expensive solution is workable. I've pointed to the one that is most likely to be feasible.

So EGS doesn't require transformers? — karl stone

If EGS works you can drop it anywhere into the existing grid and simply use existing transformers.

Having very large power plants introduces requirements on the grid that don't currently exist and require a disproportionate investment, where the power plant itself is already much more expensive. Just the lead time for transformers is currently 4+ years. It's therefore economically and logistically unsound to meet our immediate needs. It's much better to integrate such power plants into the existing grid, which is what makes ESG attractive.

We don't need to be a tier 1 civilisation to resolve the climate crisis.

You're focusing on the most expensive and least likely to be scalable in all areas. Why?

The science had only significantly changed with respect to ESG.

It was. But the science has changed since then. Particularly in the area of ESG. Enhanced Gheothermal Energy stimulates geothermal permeability, usually by pumping water or other fluids, such as carbon dioxide, to fracture rock and create an artificial reservoir in geological settings lacking transport fluids or adequate rock permeability.

Still not commercially viable but could be. See https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2023/754200/IPOL_BRI(2023)754200_EN.pdf

I don't need to defend shit because there's no genocide. You'd rather follow the interpretation of a murderous idiot than sensible South Africans just so it fits in your racist worldview.

Also note that the farmers killed are predominantly not white. So there's that. Sigh.

All irrelevant drivel when there's no genocide going on and the chant has been adjudicated by local judges with much better understanding of local culture and history than white nationalists across the US and EU as not being literal but metaphorical. But please don't let facts get in the way of being a racist douchebag.

There's ample evidence of it. What's inappropriate is leaving it uncontested and unnamed.

It's racism when blacks benefit and therefore we should ignore colour and it's racism when whites are victims because they're white and colour is therefore relevant.

I will be the first to admit I've contradicted myself twice before breakfast but this is just ridiculous.

No, everybody needs to learn to stand up to racist bullshit by calling it out for what it is and calling those people who lap it up as gospel for the insane confirmation bias they carry around.

We have a poster who insists he doesn't see colour and has a whole shtick about the evils of affirmative action and whatnot but when it's whites allegedly being killed all of a sudden it's relevant they're white.

The other one defends Israeli-committed genocide round the clock and whines about a white genocide in SA that doesn't exist because what? He's tricked in being an asshole? Fuck that.

I agree. Yet the case of South Africa shows just how rare are politicians like Nelson Mandela and how easy it is for the populists to spread their hate in every country thanks to social media rolling out mass propaganda for anyone willing to pay. — ssu

Fixed that too.

This is just the nonsense ramblings of Trump. But seems to have hit a sweet spot among some white nationalists and racists. — ssu

I fixed it for you.

Ignorance is no excuse. — NOS4A2

Indeed it isn't. What's your excuse for peddling lies then if not ignorance of almost everything that matters?

Your post is unhinged and unbecoming of a moderator. — BitconnectCarlos

Calling out white nationalists and racists is never unbecoming for anyone. Particularly a moderator.

instead of being so dumb as extrapolating from anecdotal evidence maybe study the subject first.

Boers are only 5% of the population. Even if only 1 in 6 killed are white, that's still 3x disproportionate. — BitconnectCarlos

Excellent. Only 1% of total murder victims in South Africa are white.

White. Nationalists. Racist. Fucks. The both of you.

The majority of murdered farmers are actually black. Never mind the facts!

Whatever happened to the "I don't see colour!" bullshit you were peddling? Nice to see the white nationalist movement alive and well on this forum.