|
¿Does anybody have something about the Gold Standard and why it's a bad idea ? I'm arguing with a guy that thinks that free market liberalism will cure us all from everything from global warming to the current economic crisis and proposes gold standard to solve everything.
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2011 21:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 14:06 |
|
|
Okay I just finished chatting with my friend (the one who supported the idea of a flat tax) and I brought up the issue of tax deductions and prebates: "Basically in order to not gently caress over the lower classes there needs to be some standard of living cost that is deducted for you and your dependents, as you're aware, even in a flat tax system."Suppose for sake of simplicity there's a 5,000$ deduction per person, so a family of 4 would have a 20,000$ deduction. If the family makes 20,000$ though, they pay essentially zero in income tax, whereas this is only a relatively small dent in a rich guy's taxes and they would pay close to the full 25% flat income tax. This means that even if you have a flat tax, if you're going to include deductions, then it's already on some level somewhat progressive. "This is also an internal contradiction within the FairTax system, which is a 30% sales tax but includes a 'prebate' of a few hundred dollars returned to a family per month depending on family size. So in short, a flat tax isn't truly flat in practice, unless you're going to deny the populace deductions. It's mathematically impossible and self-contradictory as a fiscal ideal. "A flat tax might work in some situations, but usually when fiscal conservatives present it it's such a balls-to-the-wall retarded idea that it's essentially the fiscal equivalent of Young Earth Creationism. It's factually wrong on so many levels and doesn't apply very well to the real world. At least, to the American economy. "I mean if basic necessities like sufficient access to food, medical coverage, education, and political clout can be guaranteed to a populace then sure, flat tax away. But until then we might as well be digging around in our cupboards to try to emmigrate to Narnia."
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2011 22:03
|
|
|
Lamadrid posted:¿Does anybody have something about the Gold Standard and why it's a bad idea ? As I understand it, there isn't enough gold in the world to reflect the GDP of the United States. If we DO institute a gold standard it sounds like it'd either be wholly ineffective, or the Fed would have to artificially drive up the price of gold to reflect the expansiveness of the US economy, thereby negating the whole point of going Gold Standard as a market-driven currency. At this point gold simply becomes an arbitrary substance that carries arbitrary monetary value. Frankly if we're gonna do that we might as well use some simpler, cheaper, and more common commodity that can be regulated by the US. Say, perhaps, wads of paper with values printed on them. It's not a perfect system, but it works. I once knew a libertarian lady who put all her money into gold. In order to pay her bills and feed her kids she had to truck around little coins in her purse and frequently go to the gold-changer to get cash. It was kinda surreal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2011 22:15
|
|
|
Lamadrid posted:¿Does anybody have something about the Gold Standard and why it's a bad idea ? Recessions have been shorter and less frequent since the move to fiat currency and with better government planning. US Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 01:41
|
|
|
I've returned and updated the OP with some of the links you guys have provided. Thanks to everyone who's been adding them, especially when they're formatted like in the OP so I can just copy and paste. But seriously, stop making GBS threads up my thread with Monsanto bullshit, start a new thread for that. This should be a place where debate help is sought and received, not another thread for debating itself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 02:43
|
|
|
Davish Krail posted:I've returned and updated the OP with some of the links you guys have provided. Thanks to everyone who's been adding them, especially when they're formatted like in the OP so I can just copy and paste. My bad for asking about GM crops. For content: Can we get some good links about the subprime crisis dealing with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? It's hard finding anything that doesn't just seem like partisan rhetoric. What little I've gleaned from the few good sources I've found and a few interviews I've seen on The Daily Show, Colbert Report, and other TV shows is that banks knew that if their subprime mortgage holdings went belly-up (as they actually did), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would cover their losses, but the banks and investors in security-backed mortgages would get all the profits if this didn't happen. As I've heard numerous times "profits were made private, while debts and risks rested on the public." I don't much about banking and finance so I'm not really sure how exactly this worked.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 14:51
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:
http://bonddad.blogspot.com/2011/11/no-virgina-cragses-didnt-cause.html This should be a good point to start. It is semi partisan but only to dispute the blame that affordable housing lead up to the financial crisis conservatives have been pushing. A lot of the content comes from Barry Ritholtz's site There are a lot of other links mentioned together which should get you to the data aspect of the articles.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 19:05
|
|
|
After doing a back and forth with my mother and one of her friends on facebook on the legitimacy of trickle down economics  , and whether the PPAC Act actually reduces medical costs my mom ends of writing this:quote:Cerebral examination aside...there will always be poor people and there will always be sick people...AND there will always be poor, sick people. It will stay that way until there is no more anything...the government can't fix that...it's bigger than they will ever be. To which I reply: quote:You're absolutely right Mom. There will always be poor people and sick people. Are you advocating that we stand by and do nothing? Is it just an exercise in futility? Do you think local communities should be the ones to spearhead this? If so, please explain to me why soup kitchens and homeless shelters are at their lowest point in decades. Now. She comes back with an interesting rant  on the mega-Church complex:quote:Now we're getting into the social component in the mess. The moral and social fiber of our country has directly affected our society as a whole. Basically becoming more soulless and corrupt by the day. No, I don't think we should stand by and do nothing. I have complete contempt for the mega church structure, the blatant tax evasion by so called religious groups and the lack of monitoring of such. These are the organizations that are supposed to be helping the social situation...instead, they are making it worse. They are instilling a palatable distrust in the goodness of people and reinforcing the "natural" evil of man. That said, the government can help that problem by removing the financial shelters that these "pseudo churches" now enjoy. Every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks they are a "church" and should be protected and remain unencumbered by a tax burden. Only when such organizations prove the collected funds are truly being distributed charitably, should they be granted an exempt status. Unfortunately, sometimes the dishonest and down right evil are the ones counting the collection plate. Beyond the fact that I know this has very little to do with what we were actually talking about, does anyone have any decent links on Church tax exemption, primarily with regards to change in the last 100 years or so? I'm pretty sure she's ragging on Scientology (and maybe Mormons?), but she is also way overreaching on this argument.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2011 19:01
|
|
|
AlternateNu posted:After doing a back and forth with my mother and one of her friends on facebook on the legitimacy of trickle down economics I don't think Churches and religious organizations really had tax exempt statuses (or at least did not exercise them) until the passage of the 16th Amendment, which made income taxation constitutional. As for how it works in practice, the IRS is actually pretty good about ferreting out fraudulent claims of tax-exempt religious and charitable organizations, but there are a couple of infamous cases to the contrary, such as Scientology. For years, the Church of Scientology had tried and failed to get tax-exempt status, as the IRS is generally pretty hesitant to give any new religious the exemption due to concerns of people creating fake churches (basically claiming that their family is its own separate church and/or religion, with the head of the household as its chief priest/rabbi/imam/pastor/etc.) to make their income tax-free. So, Scientology coordinated literally thousands of lawsuits from its members against the IRS, inundating the government with paperwork, information, and other labor-intensive work. The IRS ended up surrendering by making a deal with the Church of Scientology to give it tax exempt status if its members would withdraw all lawsuits. Thus, it's understandable from these and other cases (especially with the way Scientology operates as an organization, read the New Yorker interview with director Paul Haggis that turned into an expose of Scientology) why your mother is angry about what essentially amounts to legal tax evasion. That said, it seems like your mom is kind of taking this from a slightly biased and possibly bigoted perspective in that she doesn't think that these religions and denominations she disagrees with should qualify as religions at all, let alone receive tax exempt status. I understand her argument that she finds it detestable for mega churches and other religious denominations to spend so much of their wealth on themselves rather than on charitable causes, but that still doesn't justify discriminating against religions/denominations that have practices of which she doesn't approve. Her idea of only allowing tax exempt status for organizations that are just spending collected funds on charitable is somewhat redundant because those funds spent solely on charitable causes are already tax exempt, irrespective of the cause, the contributors, and the entity performing the charitable work. I do agree with her idea on this, but it would basically mean we eliminate religious tax exemptions altogether in favor of just keeping the charitable donations exemption. I support this not only because I think that it's the best way to fight corruption and ensure funds go directly to the charitable causes, but also because I think that the religious exemption is discriminatory to atheists, agnostics, and anyone else who is not part of a religious organization (e.g. Christians who don't regularly attend any churches and aren't a part of any specific denomination).
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2011 03:29
|
|
|
How do you deal with the "you're just being too sensitive" argument? For the record I'm usually debating about human rights issues and this one always shuts me down. I'm admittedly not a very good debater, and it really frustrates me that the moment someone utters those words, I feel like my entirely point has just been undermined and dismissed in seconds. I'm never sure how to recover and respond after that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2011 00:03
|
|
|
"How much rape, murder, and oppression is OK? Would I be too sensitive if it was your kid?" "I'm sorry for giving a poo poo about other people. I can't be as selfish as you." "Please tell me what the appropriate amount of sensitivity is." Not that any of these will win you friends, but honestly the "too sensitive/bleeding heart" line is insulting as gently caress to people who work hard at fixing the problems in the world, rather than sitting on a high horse, doing nothing, and then bitching people who do more good in one day, than they ever will.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2011 00:06
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:"How much rape, murder, and oppression is OK? Would I be too sensitive if it was your kid?" The "too sensitive" line is often a statement that you aren't actually accomplishing any of the things you claim, the things you are talking about don't actually have anything to do with rape, murder and oppression, and that it is in fact the "too sensitive" person who is sitting on a high horse, saying insultingly condescending poo poo like "I'm sorry for giving a poo poo about other people, I guess I can't be as selfish as you". There is no witty one-line rejoinder to "you're being too sensitive" you can fire off and just shut down and humiliate the other guy. "You're too sensitive" is not an argument in the way that "43% of Americans pay no taxes and are freeloaders" is. It is a statement that someone is unconvinced that the thing you are arguing is both true and meaningful, and so the response must be based on the particulars of the argument you are engaged in. You have to actually convince them the normal way, like a person. Huitzil fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Nov 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2011 02:23
|
|
|
Huitzil posted:The "too sensitive" line is often a statement that you aren't actually accomplishing any of the things you claim, the things you are talking about don't actually have anything to do with rape, murder and oppression, and that it is in fact the "too sensitive" person who is sitting on a high horse, saying insultingly condescending poo poo like "I'm sorry for giving a poo poo about other people, I guess I can't be as selfish as you". I offered one liners because I've never seen anyone back down from that position. If you're response to horrific acts is "stop caring" there's really nothing I'm going to say that will change your mind.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2011 02:33
|
|
|
Adel posted:How do you deal with the "you're just being too sensitive" argument? Let me guess, you're getting that line from heterosexual, white, male, American (or at least first-world) Christians? It's kind of easy to claim that everyone else and their defenders are "being too sensitive" when you're the status quo at the top of the "food chain" and don't have to take any of the poo poo that everyone else does. If you have no experience what it's like to suffer that kind of violence, persecution, discrimination, etc., then you're likely to not fully understand what those people went through. A great example of this is how basically callous some people were towards forms of torture like waterboarding used by the US against detainees. These people vacillate between waterboarding being "no big deal" and being justified to prevent terrorism. Christopher Hitchens was notorious for holding this position until he was persuaded to experience waterboarding for himself. He received a fraction of what the average waterboarded detainee did, as he was not physically restrained in place, was only waterboarded for a second or two, and had the authority to permanently end it at any moment. Almost immediately afterwords, he repudiated his former position and declared waterboarding to be torture. If you receive the "you're just being too sensitive" argument from someone, a good response may be, "Well, then, are you going to volunteer to receive the same treatment? If not, why not?" Huitzil posted:The "too sensitive" line is often a statement that you aren't actually accomplishing any of the things you claim, the things you are talking about don't actually have anything to do with rape, murder and oppression, and that it is in fact the "too sensitive" person who is sitting on a high horse, saying insultingly condescending poo poo like "I'm sorry for giving a poo poo about other people, I guess I can't be as selfish as you". Maybe being a snarky rear end in a top hat is not a great way to convince other people, but you have to look at the overall picture of that argument. Someone responding with "you're just being too sensitive" is not actually disputing the facts of your argument, they are disputing your response to those facts. So, if you present the argument that waterboarding is a horrific practice that should never be used, someone responding that "you're just being too sensitive" is not saying you're factually wrong that waterboarding is used or that the exact practices of waterboarding are not like what you are describing, but rather that you should not be outraged by waterboarding because it's no big deal. In other words, you are blowing things out of proportion. The issue then becomes a matter of experience and empathy. If you have not personally experienced these things, you are put at somewhat of a disadvantage to properly assess the severity of their affect upon you as a person. You can try to empathize with the people who actually have had these experiences, but it's nowhere near the same thing as having first-hand personal experience, which is why there can simultaneously be antithetical positions about the same issue, e.g. two people can completely disagree about whether waterboarding is torture and cruel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2011 02:43
|
|
|
Adel posted:How do you deal with the "you're just being too sensitive" argument? I'd associate this argument with one of two subtexts. One is something like, "there is a lot of evil in the world, we need to have some filter to keep ourselves sane. And that the evil you're describing isn't bad enough to merit much emotional reaction." The other is something like, "The thing you're describing is, in fact, a notable Bad Thing. But it's weird that you care." I suspect that this is what you're seeing. In the second case, the key thing I'd keep in mind is that the person has shifted the topic. Instead of discussing the external world, they're now talking about your personal feelings and mental states. You're right that this is a difficult shift to address. And it's useful to your opponent because it lets them move out of the realm of facts and into baseless conjecture. Conjecture is way easier than being informed about a topic. My experience is that these armchair-psychology conversations never go anywhere interesting. So, I tend to just pretend that I didn't notice the attempt at changing the topic. You could also call people on their dodge explicitly (other posters are better at snark than I am, so borrow their lines). Or, you could go the complete opposite direction by making up some personal reason for why you care. Bonus points if you can tie it to a thing that they care about, as well. ("My brother is in the infantry. The idea of him being tortured makes me sick. Why do you hate our troops so much that you'd be ok with them being waterboarded?") If you're in the first case, then you have two fundamental options. Either, "No, you're wrong, this shouldn't be below your threshold for caring" or "Yes, you're right, this is typically below your threshold for caring, but I care because ____".
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2011 05:13
|
|
|
Lamadrid posted:¿Does anybody have something about the Gold Standard and why it's a bad idea ? I don't have anything on the gold standard issue and this thread seems to be all liberal/left of center/social democrat stuff but on the off chance you care about the environmental thing, here's why free market liberalism (and capitalism as a whole) is a bad idea from an environmentalist perspective: What Every Environmentalist Needs to Know About Capitalism. (I'd also post the article in a quote, but it's really long and tedious to format)
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2011 06:04
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:I offered one liners because I've never seen anyone back down from that position. If you're response to horrific acts is "stop caring" there's really nothing I'm going to say that will change your mind. Your one-liners are not only going to convince the other person they're correct, they're also going to convince everyone in earshot that you're nuts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2011 16:15
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Your one-liners are not only going to convince the other person they're correct, they're also going to convince everyone in earshot that you're nuts. I already said I don't expect them to convince anyone. However, I don't know why they would convince anyone I'm nuts other than "Evilweasel would do it different". Care to elaborate?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2011 18:08
|
|
|
Got this solid one on facebook:
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2011 22:04
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:I already said I don't expect them to convince anyone. They're terribly ineffective holier-than-thou sermonizing that makes it readily apparent your goal isn't to convince someone. It validates the implied criticism that you're trying to attack. This is just basic human interaction: its clear your goal is "winning" the discussion and being an abrasive twit. You are clearly unreasonable not because of whatever position you were trying to argue, but because you're "that guy" that's an unpleasant sermonizing jerk to talk to. People who are actually effective at convincing people don't turn it into a me vs you worth judgment competition, they do it by deflecting attacks like that and being reasonable, warm people that give off the vibe "I am a reasonable person and we can have a reasonable discussion about this and maybe we'll both learn things", and give off the vibe they actually care about the other person's opinion and will take it into account. If you just can't resist insulting someone because you really just gotta get it out there's plenty of ways to do it subtly that don't discredit you as an annoying loon to everyone else around. Like take priests for example - it's sort of their job to convince people to abandon deeply held beliefs for other ones so they're great case studies. When you think of priests who are effective at getting through to people (instead of just preaching to the choir, to use an apt expression) they're not firebrand jerks telling you you're going to hell and chanting god hates fags outside funerals. They're the warm, pleasant priests who people feel comfortable with and steer people slowly, rather than telling them the instant they meet them they're going to hell and here are reasons one through eighty-one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2011 23:09
|
|
|
Lies that D&D has told me! There seems to be a common myth that goes through D&D that the unemployment percentage is the number of people who are taking unemployment insurance. It isn't The unemployment rate is measured by a Current Population Survey done every month by the BLS. See here for more info. The CPS was created in 1940 and has only gone through one revision in 1994. They removed the old U-3 and U-4 and renamed the old U-5 to the new U-3. In both cases the old U-5 and the new U-3 were the "official" unemployment rates and both are measured in the same way. This is where another myth comes in that the "official" unemployment rates have been gamed and that the U-5 is the only "true" unemployment rate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2011 23:16
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:They're terribly ineffective holier-than-thou sermonizing that makes it readily apparent your goal isn't to convince someone. It validates the implied criticism that you're trying to attack. This is just basic human interaction: its clear your goal is "winning" the discussion and being an abrasive twit. You are clearly unreasonable not because of whatever position you were trying to argue, but because you're "that guy" that's an unpleasant sermonizing jerk to talk to. This is hilariously ironic coming from someone who has a habit of calling people "morons", "idiots", and "twits". You're entire discussion style centers around neutered and marginally polite but still insulting dismissals of points that disagree with you. The reason why I offered one-liners in response to that was A) Personal frustration with having dealt with that very response elsewhere on the 'net that day, and B) Knowing that a person who has made that response is being just as insulting as dismissive as you claim me to be, and that the discussion is essentially not going anywhere. quote:People who are actually effective at convincing people don't turn it into a me vs you worth judgment competition, they do it by deflecting attacks like that and being reasonable, warm people that give off the vibe "I am a reasonable person and we can have a reasonable discussion about this and maybe we'll both learn things", and give off the vibe they actually care about the other person's opinion and will take it into account. I'm quite fully aware of how to catch more flies with honey, and I've put that into practice in many threads. If you'd like to go into the archives and look at the many contentious threads I've been involved in on issues such as race, specifically various GBS outreach threads, I've often been commended for staying calm in the face of outrageous and aggressive ignorance. What you're missing is that you don't necessarily need to be blatantly confrontational in order to be insulting. If I spend a bunch of time writing about something, or clearly having in emotional involvement in it, and then your response is "you care too much" then you've invalidated my entire reaction and dismissed my emotional response. That's quite insulting, but clearly in a different way than calling someone a name. quote:If you just can't resist insulting someone because you really just gotta get it out there's plenty of ways to do it subtly that don't discredit you as an annoying loon to everyone else around. Again, I can cite any number of threads where you've been outright insulting of people that you disagree with, often calling them names. You need to spend some time practicing what you preach if you want to be more credible on this. quote:Like take priests for example - it's sort of their job to convince people to abandon deeply held beliefs for other ones so they're great case studies. When you think of priests who are effective at getting through to people (instead of just preaching to the choir, to use an apt expression) they're not firebrand jerks telling you you're going to hell and chanting god hates fags outside funerals. They're the warm, pleasant priests who people feel comfortable with and steer people slowly, rather than telling them the instant they meet them they're going to hell and here are reasons one through eighty-one. Purely as an abstract, there's a massive history firebrands being just as effective as warm and welcoming preachers. I've personally been to mega churches where hellfire and brimstone was on the menu. I'm not arguing with the kinder gentler methods of convincing someone to change their mind, and I use them myself all the time. I just don't think they're going to work in that particular case. Disclaimer: This post isn't intended to be mod sass or backseat modding. You've criticized my responses in disagreements and that means you are fair game for the same. Zeitgueist fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Nov 18, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2011 00:38
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Again, I can cite any number of threads where you've been outright insulting of people that you disagree with, often calling them names. You need to spend some time practicing what you preach if you want to be more credible on this. I'll bite; I don't post snarky one-liners so I should be reasonably credible. One liners don't work outside of a pretty narrow context. They're dismissive. And, "you're so wrong that I don't want to talk to you," really only works when there's a difference in credibility. People could get that credibility by being an authority. Or they could get that credibility by numbers. Even then, the tactic seems to have divergent results. Some people get cowed into not-talking or pretending to agree. Others double down and get an emotional payoff from seeing themselves 'speak truth to power'. Neither seems hugely effective at actually convincing anyone to change their long-term position. And, "You're a monster" is going to be singularly useless when defending progressive causes offline. Progressive causes (almost by definition) won't have the massive numbers or credibility advantage that would be needed for "Stop disagreeing or I'll think badly of you!" to be a big threat. Making it worse is that I see various progressives use variations on "The future of the world hinges on THIS VERY ISSUE and your disagreement could DESTROY EVERYTHING" that I pretty much tune out the "gently caress you, you monster"-type attacks. My initial reaction to someone being overly emotional about an issue is that, either they've got some personal stake in the matter, or they're just starting to become informed about the world and so the few problems they're aware of seem disproportionately important.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2011 01:29
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:This is hilariously ironic coming from someone who has a habit of calling people "morons", "idiots", and "twits". I don't need to be credible to you. My point stands on its own; your response is essentially to try to relitigate various times I've been dismissive of various dumb arguments from you. There's not really a response in there besides "well you're right but stop being mean to me" and that's hardly a stellar response. But I'm glad we agree: "snappy" one liners (they're never actually snappy) are completely ineffective and serve only to temporarially make yourself feel good. So they're probably not what you should recommend to someone who is seeking an effective response. Zeitgueist posted:Purely as an abstract, there's a massive history firebrands being just as effective as warm and welcoming preachers. I've personally been to mega churches where hellfire and brimstone was on the menu. Of course: and you see those in the bible belt where you're preaching to the choir as I said: their job is essentially to rally the faithful and use social exclusion and pressure to force people to conform (on the outside).
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2011 16:22
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:This is hilariously ironic coming from someone who has a habit of calling people "morons", "idiots", and "twits". I've noticed the same about you: Your snarky posts and general attitude are representative of the most hostile and close-minded aspects of D&D.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2011 16:59
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I don't need to be credible to you. My point stands on its own; your response is essentially to try to relitigate various times I've been dismissive of various dumb arguments from you. There's not really a response in there besides "well you're right but stop being mean to me" and that's hardly a stellar response. I actually don't care if you're mean to me. I'm pointing out that you're trying to tell me that being an rear end in a top hat doesn't work, while simultaneously being an rear end in a top hat. You've made some hilariously stupid posts in your time and they're often not pointed out as such due to your history of probating people who disagree with you. It's extremely hypocritical to be trying to make that point while doing the opposite in the same post. quote:But I'm glad we agree: "snappy" one liners (they're never actually snappy) are completely ineffective and serve only to temporarially make yourself feel good. So they're probably not what you should recommend to someone who is seeking an effective response. This is a point I acknowledged in that post, that the one-liners aren't going to work, as my greater point is that your oppotunity to change that person's mind is already gone, as they have no respect for your direction or point at all. I believe I've also reiterated that in a seperate post. quote:Of course: and you see those in the bible belt where you're preaching to the choir as I said: their job is essentially to rally the faithful and use social exclusion and pressure to force people to conform (on the outside). Wait you're saying that while firebrands are effective, warm and fuzzy priests are the only ones who truly get through? I don't think that's a claim you can make on anything other than conjecture.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2011 18:03
|
|
|
Dominoes posted:You just proved evilweasel's point. Instead of admitting that you might be wrong, that evilweasel has a valid point, that he misread or misinterpreted your posts, you criticized and insulted him. Instantly combative, no humility. I actually said in that very post that I personally try to use more gentle tactics if I believe someone is receptive and that they'll be effective, and that part of what he was saying was valid. I think you might want to re-read that post without the filter of disliking me. quote:I've noticed the same about you: Your snarky posts and general attitude are representative of the most hostile and close-minded aspects of D&D. That's wonderful, but I have a fairly long history of posting here and I don't believe you're right about that at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2011 18:07
|
|
|
I'm arguing with someone who is denying that peak oil is real and/or that "shale reserves" can supply the demand for oil. Can anyone link some articles to refute this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2011 22:12
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I'm arguing with someone who is denying that peak oil is real and/or that "shale reserves" can supply the demand for oil. Can anyone link some articles to refute this? What do you mean by "peak oil"? There are a few different meaning use for the term, some more defensible than others.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2011 23:02
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I'm arguing with someone who is denying that peak oil is real and/or that "shale reserves" can supply the demand for oil. Can anyone link some articles to refute this? I don't really have any sources offhand about peak oil, but shale oil really isn't a good substitute and isn't a permanent solution to our problems. Shale oil production is generally significantly more expensive than crude oil production, so if we were to get a significant portion of our gasoline and other petroleum products from shale, we'd have significantly higher costs. There are also many environmental concerns, like waste disposal and water usage and contamination. More importantly, we really shouldn't be just refocusing on another fossil fuel, we should be shifting towards cleaner renewables like wind, solar, geothermal, and nuclear. Otherwise, we're just kicking the can a bit downfield and just have to go through this same bullshit a few years from now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2011 00:02
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I'm arguing with someone who is denying that peak oil is real and/or that "shale reserves" can supply the demand for oil. Can anyone link some articles to refute this? http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo06/pdf/0383%282006%29.pdf - page 53 quote:The global resource of oil shale base is huge—estimated Taking the more global view, with oil consumption rates of around 100 million barrels a day, we would have about 79 years worth of shale oil. Now, whether it's worth exploiting these deposits is another question. Environmental issues abound, and the energy return of shale is not nearly so great as that of conventional oil; the Department of Energy estimates an EROI between 2.5 and 7, compared to conventional's 10.5, and these numbers will only decrease as the most available deposits are tapped.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2011 10:41
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Perhaps not. There does seem to be some substance to it, as far as the numbers go. Thanks for the sources. I think there are two big issues with the problem of energy, and one is that it seems like many people frame it as a false choice. They view it as "which energy source are we going to use for our needs," rather than "which energy sources are we going to use and how will we best utilize them." There really is no panacea to our energy problems, which why we should use multiple energy sources depending on the demands, complexities, and benefits of different sources in different areas. E.g. wind power works far better in certain areas than others, so it would inefficient and potentially unsound to try shifting our entire grid to wind. So, we should build wind farms where they would be most cost effective and beneficial and use other energy sources in areas where wind is not as pragmatic. Similarly, nuclear power works well in areas with high population density and high energy needs, but it's not cost effective to use it in lower population areas. The other big issue is that people ignore the consumption and efficiency part of the problem. The US uses an incredible amount of energy and resources compared to the rest of the world, but people seem to mainly focus on finding just another cheap source of energy to continue mass consumption rather than somewhat reduce demand. I somewhat heartened by Obama's attempts to address this issue through programs like Cash for Clunkers (which was a pretty awesome way to help the environment, address our energy use, and stimulate economic activity) and his recent push for home weatherization, but the latter has been implemented in almost the worst way imaginable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2011 13:35
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I'm arguing with someone who is denying that peak oil is real and/or that "shale reserves" can supply the demand for oil. Can anyone link some articles to refute this? http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8212 Basically we can use shale reserves to potentially increase the oil supply. The main issues being that the methods used to obtain alternative oils like shale oil (or the tar sands in canada) pollute an incredible amount and have a very poor EROEI (which is ultimately the only thing that matters when it comes to producing energy. So basically we can double down on oil and use the tar sands and shale oil (it will still get a fuckload more expensive over the next few decades) but we're going to risk throwing the Earth's climate into a positive feedback loop that may or may not eradicate human beings (if we already haven't done this) The oil drum is a great place to find good information regarding energy issues.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2011 16:32
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Got this solid one on facebook: This is a pretty absurd statement, recent statistics show corporations funding campaigns to the scale of two orders of magnitude greater than labor contributions. Not to mention moneyed politics forces labor to compete monetarily. I'm assuming their answer is just 'get rid of unions', but that obviously wouldn't solve any of the issues.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2011 20:00
|
|
|
Dominoes posted:You just proved evilweasel's point. Instead of admitting that you might be wrong, that evilweasel has a valid point, that he misread or misinterpreted your posts, you criticized and insulted him. Instantly combative, no humility. Well, to his credit he doesn't go around hand waving away arguments and calling people "twits" or some other equally condescending name, he'll come right out and call your argument wrong for actual reasons and you an idiot. Same thing really, but a whole hell of a lot less obnoxious. trollstormur posted:This is a pretty absurd statement, recent statistics show corporations funding campaigns to the scale of two orders of magnitude greater than labor contributions. Not to mention moneyed politics forces labor to compete monetarily. I'm assuming their answer is just 'get rid of unions', but that obviously wouldn't solve any of the issues. The people saying things like that by and large don't know what they're talking about, with a minority not caring if they're wrong, whether out of arrogance or some ulterior motive to have lies spread. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Nov 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2011 20:48
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:Thanks for the sources.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2011 21:51
|
|
|
I believe, though I can't find the link, oil shale has less energy density than a potato.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2011 22:53
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Well, to his credit he doesn't go around hand waving away arguments and calling people "twits" or some other equally condescending name, he'll come right out and call your argument wrong for actual reasons and you an idiot. Same thing really, but a whole hell of a lot less obnoxious. There's also not an unspoken threat of probation for disagreement. That makes things a lot different, especially when you're playing that 'my argument is so self-evident you're clearly wrong if you disagree, so I don't have to argue for it' game. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2011 00:37
|
|
|
trollstormur posted:This is a pretty absurd statement, recent statistics show corporations funding campaigns to the scale of two orders of magnitude greater than labor contributions. Not to mention moneyed politics forces labor to compete monetarily. I'm assuming their answer is just 'get rid of unions', but that obviously wouldn't solve any of the issues. Ah yes, but if you're looking through the narrow lens of 'who is the biggest single donor', you'll find that a national teacher's union, representing huge numbers of people who are not a for-profit corp, is indeed the largest single donor. This ignores everything else but that particular person isn't interested in hearing a long explanation of the realities of election finance because he'll just move on and try and attack something else. He's a childhood friend who's grown up to be an insulated rich douchebag. I've tried any number of non-confrontational and gentle techniques to try and pierce his ignorance but none work, so now we just don't talk about politics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2011 08:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 14:06 |
|
|
I know that Reagan sucked, but does anyone have sources as to why? It seems like every time I get into an argument with someone about Reagan I completely forget what I'm talking about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2011 08:59
|
|