:up:

Thank you! While I pretend to be a misanthrope, I confess it's nice to be appreciated, especially by someone who's intellect and philosophy I look up to, and who's reading and analytics far surpass my own.

Yeah, fair enough. I wasn’t trying to convince you of anything anyways. You asked, I thought I’d help. Cheers. — NOS4A2

It's all good. I am curious about the parade of horribles though, so if you want to hook me up with some bullets, I'd check it out.

Nah. I doubt anyone in this whole thing really thinks of others. It's just politically correct to say one is doing it "for others". It makes for such good PR. — baker

I can only speak for myself, but I did it for others, not myself. Specifically my wife and son. While I want to live, I'm not married to life. I'm married to my wife and I love my son. I also don't want to be the one that murders some other poor sap for no reason other than my own pseudo skepticism.

I suspect that a great many people who got the vaccine think along the same line. But I could be wrong.

P.S. Put this in the back of your brain pan for future reference: Did Isis or AQ or some other group weaponize this? And if not, why not? If so, why aren't the alphabet agencies telling us? If I was a T, I'd get sick and go attend western spreader events. That will be the excuse used in the future, at some time, when the anti-vaxers are sick and dying and can't blame the left. There are all kinds of angles to play on this.

To me, people who are confident that they won't get any negative side effects from the vaccine are the same as people who are confident that there is no covid or that they will beat it by sheer force of will. — baker

I don't think they are the same. I think the former realize risk but think of others. The latter realize risk but think of themselves.

Which is a strange thing to say, after decades of fierce indoctrination that everyone should be responsible only for themselves. — baker

Chickens come home to roost. Many people realized that indoctrination was all BS from the get go. It's the dummies who swallowed it who we are dealing with now.

This covid crisis is an opportunity to acknowledge this, but it looks like it will go by unused, as people are looking forward to go back to the old normal where they don't have to care about others. — baker

Bingo!

I don't know where it is, but there was a cool meme going around about all the take-aways from this experience. The list has probably gotten longer. But in the end, that meme would have to be contextualized by the other meme that essentially said "In the rush to get back to normal, think about what it is we want to get back to."

It seems, as you said, that this has been an opportunity. And it may very well be squandered by those who have a vested interest in ignoring the list of lessons learned. They will fire up the old mythmaking machine again and we'll be right back to loner-lives of quiet desperation, blaming government for all our woes, and idolizing the plutocrats and cartels who toss us bones.

I personally do not think there exists a unified antivaccination side. People who are not overtly enthusiastic about vaccination are a versatile group: from those who are rabidly against any kind of vaccination, to those who are just not very enthusiastic but who get vaccinated anyway, and anything inbetween. — baker

I've thrown my lot in with those who say we can reach herd immunity with X% of the people vaccinated. That leaves an available Y% that don't have to get vaccinated if they don't want. Out of that Y% I'm willing to consider as understandable all those people across your entire spectrum except one group: People who don't get vaccinate simply because Tucker Carlson and other morons who got the vaccine are telling them not to. I think if we could get some of the best ropers in the country to round those people up, run them through the squeeze chute, inoculate their dumb asses, and turn them back out into the herd, we'd be all good. Maybe brand them and cut their balls off while we're at it. I'm willing to tolerate general stupidity; what I can't abide is the manipulation of stupidity by conniving charlatan cult-leading assholes. Trump said this was a war against an invisible enemy. In war, we would take care of business, my proposal would not sound outlandish, and these same people would agree wholeheartedly. But they don't support the troops.

I just though you might wish to peruse some information on the topic. — NOS4A2

I get that, but when I opened all five links and started reading them, I was not put off by any facts that may or may not have been found within them but, rather, I was put off by their length.

I also have had nasty experiences where I followed someone's references only to find that support for what they were saying could not be found therein. Or one had to contort and stretch and twist, or worse yet, one had to assume a slippery slope we had yet to wonder on to. Or a conspiracy. Or the author was more impressed with his writing ability than getting to the point. Or the first six chapter were devoted to qualifications or exceptions or caveats to what was said in the last chapter.

It's common courtesy to just say: "Australian rounded people up, put them on trains and hauled them off to Covid camps." [Citation]. Then, if I want to engage you on that, I can go read that, check the source to see if I want to vet their credibility, etc.

So, some - some - kinds of mental state may be sufficient for having no value or disvalue. But no mental state is necessary for possession of moral value. — Bartricks

Sounds good. When I read "So, if a mind can have moral value despite its conscious states having moral disvalue, then the mind's moral value is not grounded in its mental states." I took that as a disagreement with "some - kinds of mental state may be sufficient for having no value or disvalue." But when you say "But no mental state is necessary for possession of moral value." it makes sense. I was also tired and flip when I read it. I should have taken a seat.

— Joshs

One need not be a true genius to leapfrog over his era's level of cultural and scientific understanding.

One need only be honest with himself.

Any change I might perceive is not relevant to our discussion here.

There are several relative constants. Two that are important for our discussion here are all the emotions, and the open conspiracy. These constants, and not the aberrations from them, are what kept us where we are today: alive. Not better, but alive. Not extinct. Those constants are not always honest or good. And we know that. But we continue to avail ourselves of our nature, regardless. It is the aberration of humble honesty about these understandings which constitutes a leap, if any there be.

Your post rings of the old "nasty, brutish and short" assessment of our former selves, which also hints of an indictment against indigenous people. Analogizing early childhood development to societal evolution is the same thing. More of that white (?) western (?) justification of the myths we tell ourselves about ourselves to make ourselves feel better about ourselves so we can righteously and indignantly belt others in the mouth with impunity when, in a lapse of judgement, that other might make so bold as to be honest with himself and inquire about the same with he who would belt him.

I hate to use the following as an example because it will be extremely easy for you or someone else to misunderstandthe purpose for which it is offered, and then run with a distinction without a relevant difference, but I'll go ahead and trust you: When reading Plato, I am just astounded with his brilliance and the fact that people could even think like that 2,500 years ago. Especially when I look around and see all the knuckle-dragging people we have today. But then I realize, not only have we not changed all that much in the last 200,000 years, but we really aren't any better or more worthy than the man who sat at the mouth of the cave and chipped a spear point from a rock. He could have been an asshole, or a wonderful person, or some combination in between. But we are no better. Indeed, we are no better than the animal he killed with the spear. That animal is what got us here today, and not simply his killing of it. That which the fittest consumes must itself have been fit or the consumption of it would inure to no one's benefit. Humbly honoring and respecting is what constitutes the leap, the evolution, the advancement of man, and it constitutes what is today an aberration. And today's generation won't be the first one to learn that lesson, if it does. I pray that it does.

[A digression I find interesting: Socrates wasn't a writer. Had Plato not written it down, then I could not be astounded. And yet I think there were many who's lives have not been reduced to writing. And the dominant paradigm might not only have killed them, but then taken concerted efforts to erase all memory and burn all books. But the humble honest leap will have been taken none the less.]

So, if a mind can have moral value despite its conscious states having moral disvalue, then the mind's moral value is not grounded in its mental states. — Bartricks

I think some people who are in certain conscious states have no moral value. You know, like Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Adolf Hitler, Donald Trump.

Also, in the case of the Michigan State House and other places, it doesn't hurt if everyone is packing M-Forgeries and other kit. The left could take note. In fact, Ronny Raygun championed gun control in CA as soon as blacks started packing at protests back in the 60s.

What if that were true? How would it change the way you look at people who disappoint your moral standards? — Joshs

[Edit: Note the change in your original post from "What if it were true?" and your change to "What if my philosophy were true?" I responded to the former]

It doesn't change the way I look at people because it is true and I already look at people that way. Usually they are disappointing their own moral standards, but it's all part of the open conspiracy: "I'll look the other way if you look the other way."

My goal here is simply to remind people to engage in a little introspection when they say they are "doing it all for the kids" and those in the past "didn't know any better." That, and consider the historical record.

That should inform our decision-making and have us pay closer attention to the voices who speak against what we all know in our own little hearts to be true. Our history is not the lies we tell about ourselves, or the statues we put up. Our history is recorded in books and oral traditions and art and dance and the voice of the oppressed. In other words, the leading mind of the day on the issue of slavery back in the 1850s might very well have been a slave. Did anyone bother to ask? No? Why?

Anyone who spouts the white man's burden or racial superiority or what white, Eurocentric philosophers of the 15th, 16th, 17th century might say are the apologist who, in the most generous analysis, failed to listen to countervailing positions of the day.

The leading minds of the day are those who history and hindsight prove to have been correct, regardless of whether the dominant paradigm (white? Eurocentric? Whatever) debated with them. To assume they did not exist because they were marginalized, or not recorded, or because their works were lost, or have not yet been found, is to assume there was no debate at the time. If that were the case, then the dominant paradigm simply failed to ask the leading minds of the day. Such are the forces of conservativism.

And they would belt you in the mouth for impugning their motives. — Joshs

So you agree that the leading minds of the day are marginalized by the open conspiracy. I'm glad we got that settled.

It never occurs to either side that the other believes deeply that their approach is unimpeachably ethical. — Joshs

Because they don't. Everyone knows it's wrong. It's just the open conspiracy to allow it. There is not "two sides." There is one side. It's just that some folks admit they have a problem and others are in denial. That problem is usually best cured collectively but individuals are called hypocrites for not trying to resolve the problem alone.

You and all the apologist in the world can say "they believe deeply that it's okay to hold a little girl down and cut off her clitoris with a broken coke bottle." BS. You know it, they know it, I know it. And the little girl sure as hell knows it. And guess what? She's the leading edge expert on the subject.

Which is why I agree with Ken Gergen — Joshs

I spend days and countless words spelling out my position on natural law in another thread. I'm not going to reiterate now. Regardless, please, wherever you go with your arguments, please don't tell me what I'm thinking or what the logical conclusion of my point must be. And no hyperbole. Nobody is going to punch me in the mouth for pointing out their BS because I don't go around pointing out our collective or individual agreement to look the other way. I just look the other way. It's part of the conspiracy. But, if we take to heart what I have said, and record history, and listen to the voices of the little girls, it just might inform our decisions and create a culture that our children won't look back on with derision, or who won't feel compelled to make excuses for us based upon a non-existent ignorance.

"Republicans are supporting Cubans who are fighting communism for a living wage, health care, and basic human rights while at the same time telling Americans a living wage, health care, and human rights are 'Communism.'" DeathMetalViking

what type of reaction do you think the police would have against a large non-mainstream protest against capital? — Maw

Had liberals or black people attacked the capital, they would have been martyred by crew-served, belt-fed automatic weapons fire. Conservatives would have been toasting in orgasmic delight at bars and spreader events all across the country. Their mantra: "They wouldn't have been shot if they would have complied!"

Good luck finding those
mysteriously hidden ‘liberals’ from past centuries. You won’t find them — Joshs

Some have been found. They are usually indigenous people, some of whom did not write but were written down; others penned their thoughts from prison. Again, historians love searching for and finding them. But again, the discoveries often don't find the light of day for obvious and already-explained reasons.

The previous leading edge of ethical thought is always going to appear backward to contemporary minds. — Joshs

It only appears that way to the vested interests who want to cite them for authority. Conservative is, by definition, that which seeks to maintain or justify the status quo. Then or now. Liberal is, by definition, that which would move or justify the movement forward. Those enlightenment icons who justified racism weren't creating it.

There was a time when the leading edge of science said tobacco was harmless, even beneficial. But guess what? It was not the follow-on, more modern science that refuted that. So no, I'm not living in some romantic understanding of science and knowledge. It was people who, in the 15th and 16th century knew it was shit and bad for you. But they don't get much play, do they? Our bias has us looking to science of the 20th century as the leading edge on tobacco harm, blah blah blah. But the leading edge was contemporary voices that were ignored. Same with alcohol. Same with Audubon's warning about the bison and carrier pigeon, long, long before their demise. Not to mention the Indians and their warnings.

you are concentrating on nefarious motives rather than issues of knowledge. — Joshs

I'm looking at nefarious motives now, but citing contemporaneous warning from then. Your philosophy is just more apologetics for man in furtherance of his open conspiracy to look the other way while pursing a not-so-enlightened self-interest. "They didn't know any better back then!" "Even the best minds back then thought it was okay!"

LOL! I guess they weren't the best minds now, where they? The best minds were marginalized, ignored and often lost to history. Only to be proven right today.

It all depends on who you listen to, and who you consider "the leading edge".

Why rise against something you yourself built? — NOS4A2

Correct. The founding fathers, dyed-in-the-wool flaming liberals every one (if not radical) built this nation and wrote all it's organic documents. Only fascists have, so far, been so brazen as to try and take down the capital. Well, fascists and monarchists.

It's a rhetorical ploy. — Banno

I think you are right. I also think I just saw another one on the thread about "Is Racisms a Natural Response." Bury someone in a lengthy, unrelated quote from somewhere. I bit, parsed it, and responded, even though I think it drifted far from the merits of my post to which it purported to respond. They are all variations of the old "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with BS." LOL!

A sheltered life must be nice. But even the biggest recluse can stay up on current events. — NOS4A2

How about some bullet points with citations instead of citations to tomes? When I engage people I prefer it when they think on their own two feet.

Edited to add: If you decide to take me up on it, please make sure they make your case, not with speculation about what could happen (slippery slopes, etc.) but what has actually happened. Thanks. Otherwise I'll remain sheltered and you will have failed to enlighten your bro on TPF. :grin:

— Joshs

To the extent the greatest modern philosophers held racist views they were, as I implied, just establishment conservatives justifying the maintenance of the status quo. That would include any that today, looking back, we might view as enlightenment icons. The real question (and the one historians love to dig for and often find) is who was challenging their thinking at the time? What happened to their writings? Maybe they weren't "establishment" and didn't get the time of day? Nevertheless, they are often found in obscure, dark recesses of the stacks; but, if they don't serve today's conservative interest then they don't get any oxygen now either.

In this light, there is no need to enlighten people about racism and the toppling of monuments any more than we need to take a deep dive on sexism to figure out why men should stop beating their wives. What role Kant’s anthropological writings played in establishing European racism might better be assigned to what role they played in maintaining it. But even if they were the genesis, who's interests did they serve then, and who adopted them at the time? And who now cites back to them in an effort to justify their position today?

Kelly, like the phenomenologists , Heidegger and embodied cognitive theorists , rejects the quaint enlightenment notion of self-interest, which implies an atomized , autonomous subject split off from a world. — Joshs

Hence why I suggested he might add my proposed addendum.

Having studied the tragedy of the commons as historical background for the Taylor Grazing Act, and the real, on-the-ground proofs of it out west (U.S.) on public lands (especially with sheep but also with cattle), one might reconsider it as quaint or qualified for rejection. With the ever-widening, disparate wealth gap (in the U.S. anyway), it seems the parable is not so disingenuous. One need only view the government as the commons upon which the 1% graze their fat faces. It's only when they see things drying up (Covid) that the "enlightenment" flies back into self-interest and we try a little trickle-up for a change (and discover who the essential workers really are). Such is not unlike the ranchers creating grazing associations to divvy up the grass they overgrazed and keep out the riff-raff. When they failed at that, leaving vast tracts in ruin, Uncle Sugar comes in and regulates things. And let's not forget "bobbed ware."

I would also add that it represented the most refined and ‘verified’ thinking among the intellectuals — Joshs

How much of that was just establishment conservatives justifying the maintenance of the status quo?

But the way it is worded, it almost comes across as saying "even the damn ivory tower intellectual elite liberals" were on board back then. That wasn't true then and it's not true now.

I look around today and wonder what the future will look back on and cite for stupidity. The thing that comes to mind is the way we treat animals and the earth in general. But the simple fact of the matter is, we, right now, in the present, know better than to do what we are doing, and we've been told. What George Kelly could ad is that: Man, in his open conspiracy to pursue his self-interest, always claims to be doing it "for the children"; and some of those children in future generations will look back and excuse him for "not knowing any better."

I thought it was common knowledge at this point. — NOS4A2

I guess I live a sheltered life. I certainly have not seen the "politicians and their health officials [] shut down entire industries, control the free flow of information, [or] rule by decree."

I see people running their sucks on the interwebs like never before. No one has been rounded up or put on the trains. I did see China welding some people's doors shut but, well, that's China. I don't think the control that governments around the world have seized is "unprecedented" by any stretch of the imagination. Seems about the norm to me.

The restriction of movement is cool if it's a nationalist thing, but not so cool if it's to prevent disease from spreading? Even Trump was closing boarders and I only heard the left whining about it. I don't see economic intervention, unless you mean bailing out those who need it instead of banks and those who don't. In fact, I've just seen the accelerated transfer of wealth that's been going on for years.

I have heard of 600,000 dead in the U.S. and I attribute that largely to the failure of government to do exactly what you seem to claim they are doing. People have been partying and flouting "recommendations" since day one. And now we have variants and pass-through viruses. All this seems to bely your fears. All I've personally witnessed is pleading from government.

I have yet to see stats on deaths and illnesses from countries that either had stricter lock-down policies, or who have an educated or socially-oriented population, but even then, as we have been told since the beginning, it won't help if only some play be the rules. Any poor countries who can't get the vaccine, or those rich ones with inconsiderate, selfish populations, will defeat the protocols because the disease does not respect borders. It just takes one asymptomatic asshole to spread it.

Anyway, I do admit to being sheltered. I'm socially isolated and don't go to town much. But when I do go, all the "necessities" seem to be there, save shit paper, and even that is back to norm.

I don’t get the question. — NOS4A2

You said: "When politicians and their health officials can shut down entire industries, control the free flow of information, and rule by decree, it necessarily becomes a political issue." [Emphasis added.]

I agree with the sentiment but was curious if any politicians and their health officials were actually doing that, or even thinking about it? I'm not aware of it in the U.S. but I suppose it could be happening somewhere where you have an interest.

When politicians and their health officials can shut down entire industries, control the free flow of information, and rule by decree, it necessarily becomes a political issue. — NOS4A2

Is that even in the hopper? Just asking. If it's not, then I think some folks might be getting all spun up by Tucker Carlson and other founts of truth and wisdom. Oh, maybe it's the "slippery slope" argument?

:100:

The funniest dog damn meme I ever dun seen:

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Vsz0HU6L2yg/XB-uMUfENBI/AAAAAAAAicI/n0oEEy1v6Cc0cWifbQAKvH_Ou8Z7etg7ACLcBGAs/s1600/mistake.jpg

Ok, that's fair, I must have misattributed the context. — Cheshire

Yeah, I'm not always clear when I agree with someone. I get carried off in anticipatory argument, sarcasm and whatnot. :blush:

I don't recall making this strawman argument, so I don't think I'll be defending it. — Cheshire

No need. It wasn't really straw man, but rather, a natural extension of the Chief Justice Marshal reasoning you put up and with which I agree.

But from all of this it would seem that there no libertarians in New England, except involuntarily. — tim wood

Yes, and thanks to the EPA and Nixon (?). (Not sure about the latter but I think he was behind some good anti-libertarian env. regs/statutes.) Anyway, in the pre-Columbian-invasion days, one might be a little leery of drinking right out of the river because, well, dead bison up stream and an occasional natural poison here and there and all that; but as a general principle, yeah, lots of fish and you could take a long deep drink out of the river. What we now call "fishable-swimmable" used to be "fishable-swimmable-drinkable" waterways.

A little digression, but I've been known to drink long and deep out of streams that gave others the beaver fever (giardia). I'm not sure if I have an immunity or good gut biota or what, but it doesn't seem to bug me.

Another digression: I think Audubon went up the Missouri in the 1830s and came upon thousands of dead bison that had drowned crossing the river, ala the wildebeests in Africa. The dead were a tiny fraction of what made it across. Anyway, they were hairless, blue, bloated and rotting in the hot August sun. The Indians would come down, gut them and eat visceral raw. Now there's some gut biota! People used to be tough.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programing.

Do you suppose any libertarian will be down with another libertarian's hurting him? — tim wood

I think so. A libertarian upstream can do whatever he wants with and on his own property, including dumping his shit in the stream. The libertarian down stream will gladly drink that shit. Same with pumping poison into the air up-wind. If the libertarian down stream/wind doesn't want shit or poison then he can damn the stream or build a wall up to space around his property. And the libertarian upstream will gladly allow his property to be submerged under water when the libertarian down stream builds a dam on his property to keep the upstream guy's shit out. It's really pretty simple when you think about it.

Yes. When is yelling "Vaccines aren't safe" when they are safe, the equivalent of yelling "Fire" in the theater when there is no fire?

Hey, I've got a novel idea: Hows about we let big government shut the yellers down, then the yellers can sue big government in the third branch of government under Article III of the Constitution; then we let a judge decide, based upon all the evidence, whether big government reasonably relied upon the science?

Of course there is weakness in my proposal: How do we know the courts aren't secretly part of the deep state? Even those judges appointed by Trump are probably under threat (and their families) if they don't do the bidding of the Bilderbergs. They will be fried by Jewish space lasers if they don't comply.

Wait, let me get my looting cloths.

I find that to be as compelling as my own take on the matter, and even more comforting. Maybe a more objective view from 30k feet? I hope it is true. I think it is true. It would help me sleep better at night. Raising a glass to it. :up:

engage fact-checkers more aggressively and work with SMS carriers to dispel misinformation

I haven't read this whole thread, but how is that "forcing" anyone to do anything? I'd like to see fact-checkers engaged more aggressively and misinformation dispelled. And hasn't the government always been an advocate for it's position? Aren't they always getting out there trying to sell their side against the other? I mean, dummy was on on Faux News and Twitter all the time.

My apologies if the U.S. is actually forcing media to quash opinion.

With the rise of "Far Right Extremism" and the Right so emboldened as to storm the Capitol building, where is the Far Left's Uprising? There are forms of Left Wing radicalism apparent in the US, but none so apparently emboldened as the Right's.

Why? — Lil

I'm hoping because they are just sitting back and watching the right melt down. Why would you want to take any oxygen away from that fire?

I'm wondering if anyone out there has any insight and/or opinions on this topic. — dclements

It is my opinion that there are two values: 1. Need; 2. Want. Free markets provide an incentive to locate that which is needed, free, and abundant, and then reduce it to a point where it is no longer free and can then be sold. (There is a long history about how "ownership" is obtained in the first place, but that is another issue.) Suffice it to say, we pay for food, clothing, shelter, space, and now water. We will be paying for air. People, on the other hand, are becoming more abundant. Someday they will be virtually free if you can take them. Maybe the owners of air will offer air in exchange for services. Hopefully you have something to offer that they want. Are you hot? Can you provide security? Foot rubs?

What we haven't established is how you intend to reduce human population to under 1 million in time to save the planet. — counterpunch

I'd say that I have established it (I have) and you have not, but since you know what I'm thinking, then you must have established it too, right? But then I guess you proved you don't know what I'm thinking because you think I'm thinking murder. This proves that you don't know what you don't know. Teachable moment: From now on, don't tell other people what they are thinking. Ask instead. Doh!

If that's not a viable option - and clearly it isn't, — counterpunch

But if you don't know what you don't know then you don't know that.

we have to do something else. — counterpunch

But we haven't done it. We've talked shit about magma and shit. And even if that were viable, you haven't shown how it could be done in time or any faster than the options you don't know.

what I was talking about — counterpunch

It's my understanding, from others on this thread, you are talking out your ass. I've yet to see you refute their rebuttals to your magma idea. Maybe you've got something. I don't know. I don't pretend to know what I don't know, or what you haven't told us; like how your magma idea overcomes the rebuttals. Normally I focus on what was said and not who said it, but your telling me what I think leads me to believe the others on this thread are right and you are an idiot.

In my fantasy world you would admit you were wrong to tell me I was advocating murder and genocide. You would apologize. You would then re-ask your belated question about how I would go about reducing population, and then we could discuss the merits of those ideas and the relative time lines between my ideas and yours. But you be you.

To hell with my fantasy. I'm done with you regardless. There are many proposals out there for population reduction scenarios. If you really cared, you can go educate yourself about what you don't know. Suffice it to say, all your ideas involve incentives. Follow the money.

Synthesis, check;
3017amen, check;
Apollodorus, check;
TheMadFool, check;
Counterpunch, check.

Dogs used to be empowered. They were called wolves. They made a deal with the devil. Fuck them. :blush:

We have very different perspectives. I care about sustainability, but not because I conceive of nature as some romantic ideal - I put before human interests. — counterpunch

The funny thing is, your myopic, human-centered BS is precisely what put us the position we are in. Had our dumb asses conceived of nature as some romantic ideal then we wouldn't be having this conversation. But with your either/or mentality, it has to be bunny-hugging, or press on with tech. Murder or magma. Doh!

Nevertheless, unless you have wishes left over for your time line, you are clearly suggesting we fiddle while the planet burns.

I'm trying to describe ways to secure a decent future with minimal disruption, — counterpunch

Too late for minimal disruption. You're foot-dragging has fucked us.

and you want to send out murder squads! — counterpunch

LOL! You're an idiot.[

It's your idea; you suggested population reduction - it's for you to say how you intend to achieve that. — counterpunch

And had you lead with that, I might have deigned to entertain you. But instead, you pretended to tell me what my position was. So, I figure if you know so much about my position (instead of asking), I'd just have you explain population reduction protocols that I have overlooked in my trek toward murder. You know, since your such a prescient genius about my position.

The misapplication of technology is the problem. — counterpunch

And who misapplies technology? People? If there were fewer of them, would the misapplication matter as much? I mean sure, a nuke by one person could wreck havoc, but a million people driving cars? Probably not.

Applying the right technologies 8-10bn people could survive and prosper long term - with very few government interventions in the market or civil sphere. — counterpunch

First of all, fuck 8-10 billion people. It's not all about people. But second (and back on track), applying the time constraints that you placed on me, how quickly do you think you can get this done? And, more importantly (here is why your telling me what my position must be is so fundamentally fucking stupid), how would your time frame for tech to save us compare with the time frames for various population reduction avenues that you can't fathom? I guess you don't know what you don't know, so why should I waste my time engaging with you?

I have a fairly good idea of my own intellectual abilities, and I'm far from idiocy. For example, I know there isn't time to reduce population by means other than murder within the timeframe climate change allows for. So it would be pretty fucking stupid of me to suggest it. And then worse if I got all pissy about it! — counterpunch

So the answer is "no." You don't have the intellectual horsepower to come up with something other than murder. Instead, you put a qualifier of "time" on the ability to effectively do so. Time might be the same factor that you seem to allow yourself on the magma deal. Hmmm. Sounds like you might be an idiot after all.

I'm just saying I don't see a necessary juxtaposition between conservative values and anti-racism. There are plenty of principled conservatives in favour of equality and anti-racist. So it's more typically GOP I guess.

And let's not forget all the micro aggressions we (accidentally) perpetuate having grown up white in a Western, white society. Tends to not matter much what your political inclination is in that case. — Benkei

We all have a propensity to use "liberal" and "conservative" to denominate a person as opposed to a position. I just did it. But again, where racism and inequality exist, the conservative position would be to maintain it. To the extent a "principled conservative" favors equality and anti-racism, he would then be taking a liberal position. Or maybe he is really a liberal. But yes, having just read the definition of a True Scotsman, then the word "principled" as applied to a conservative in this instance, would indeed be the No True Scotsman fallacy.