Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Secondly, be mindful of the position that your analysis comes from. Your underlying analysis of Chinese aims and goals is vulgar and unsubstantiated.

Lol, everything I've ever seen you say about America is vulgar and unsubstantiated.

Hahahaha. This from the person who was bitching about ad hominem attacks earlier in the thread. And from someone who didn't even dare to take on my argument about your continually changing position.

But thanks for revealing your double standard, when something reasonable is said about an authoritarian police state you take offense to it.

I didn't take offense to it, I said be mindful of it. It is a reasonable position to hold but is based in realism and, as such, is a limited and ideological position.

How many times must I watch people fumble around and fuck up trying to construct an argument from what they thought I said? And for anyone who is thick enough to miss it, that was a rhetorical question.

Well like cellardoor said, if we do massively slow our economic growth ( as we'd have to do to reach Kyoto-like goals ), China will not give a shit and will become even MORE dominant then it probably will be in 20 years.
Just imagine that China is in place of the U.S. right now. You think the U.S. is bad? Damn.
OF course, military-speaking, the U.S.A. will still have the upper-hand, but no one wants to see it come to a war of devastating proportions for everyone.

Firstly, China being in a dominant economic position and the US being in a dominant military position is known as a bipolar system. It's really not a hard idea to hold considering that it was only 20 years ago that a similar system existed. Secondly, be mindful of the position that your analysis comes from. Your underlying analysis of Chinese aims and goals is vulgar and unsubstantiated.

cellardoor's position seems to be changing throughout this thread. I mean firstly he said

The point of debate is whether or not human behavior is causing it, and whether or not a deliberate change in human behavior will slow or reverse it.

I for one believe in global warming but I don't believe that humans are causing it. The earth has gone through natural fluctuations in temperature and periods of abrupt warming similar in degree to what is happening now. This happened long before the industrial age, long before humans had the ability to emit carbon dioxide into the air to any significant degree. So it's illogical to suggest we're causing it now, and even more illogical to suggest that we're causing some horrific, cataclysmic event.

The important points to note from that post is the "point of debate" and the "I for one believe". Here he is stating what he believes in the debate on global warming. However, he has now moved on to the view that his position is no longer one of belief, but of "fact" - of objective truth. See:

People like you swallow those lies readily, and when facts come along that create an enormously persuasive rebuttal of your views, you claim conspiracy theory.

It is also interesting how he then also tries to play down the actual scientific debate that exists and the position that has been taken by numerous individuals and groups who didn't major in Catholicism and Classical Studies.

Now, there is no proof that our behavior is causing global warming firstly. But if it was true, then it would then be obvious that global warming happens anyway because it happened before humans had the ability to behave that way. There is little support for the notion that greenhouse gases emitted by humans is causing global warming, but there is a GIGANTIC, solid rationale behind the claim that we are not causing it, because it happened before we could cause it.

I mean it's not like the IPCC, the US government, the UN and numerous other bodies have accepted that climate change is caused by Human activity or that numerous scientists have produced a huge body of work that indicates that human behaviour is causing the warming of the planet.

I love the next part. He goes on from claiming that the reservations there are over including developing countries in climate change treaties will inevitably result in the rise of a dictatorial world power. This is also known as "going off on one."

Use your brain.

- There's no real proof that we're causing global warming.
- People are demanding we reduce emissions anyway.
- Those very same people that talk about saving the world like the end is drawing near, don't demand that other countries that (according to their claims) are contributing more to global warming than we are by producing more carbon emissions.

Consider what will happen if the global warming nuts have their way:

- In order to pass emission cuts, the US would have to dramatically reduce consumption of oil and coal which are the cheapest and most effective ways to produce energy. This will mean more money that would normally go into the market, will now have to go into energy-producing systems and programs that are less profitable and show less benefit to the economy in the short term and possibly long term.

- This will mean the US will acquire much less oil and coal from foreign countries, and have much less control over world wide energy. China will come in and fill the market vacuum and pick up where we leave. This will eventually put much, in fact most of the world's energy in the hands of China eventually considering their size.

- In order to avoid emission cuts, many companies from around the world will now invest in China and base their businesses/factories there in order to sidestep and avoid growth-limiting caps on energy consumption that would exist in the rest of the world's nations (including the US) who adhere to emissions cuts. A lot of investment that once went to the US and the West will now go to China, increasing their economy dramatically and making many countries and companies dependent on China. (This will also further negate the entire purpose behind emissions cuts because polluters will just move to China)

- While our economy is slowing or reversing, China's will grow exponentially, even more so than it is currently growing. And besides burning all the petroleum we don't burn (thus entirely defeating the purpose of Kyoto and emissions-cutting programs), they will have free reign on the countries and companies that are involved in petroleum-based energy.

- Years down the line, when people realize that humans are not the cause of global warming, it will be far too late for us to salvage our losses. China will be in a position of enormous control over the world's energy, our economy will have been damaged significantly, and China, an evil, brutal, merciless police state that for some reason is immune to criticism from idiots like you, will be the world's superpower and will be trenched in this position.

Surely "Joes" doesn't count?

I've always wondered why politicians and politics students try to debate the merits of the science behind the idea of global warming. I can accept that there is *some* level of debate going on in the scientific community about global warming and I also know that I can pretty much understand the debate. However, I am not a scientist and the debate that does exist is ridiculously one-sided. Politicians who argue against the idea of global warming do so, not from primarily scientific grounds but, from political grounds - they do not want to have to start developing policies that deal with mankind's continued rape of the environment and piss off their corporate backers. Because of this they clutch at, mostly maligned, minority scientific opinion and present this as the "facts" about global warming.

Well fuck that. I don't give a shit if global warming is just made-up. If mankind makes a number of changes necessary to stop or slow global warming and they don't work because the changes in the temperature of the world is due to other reasons then what have we lost? Few billion dollars worth of economic activity, a few years worth of advanced technological gains, etc. Not much really. However, if we fail to act and global warming does happen, what have we lost? A fucking lot.

It's the rational decision when neither side is sure of the scientific validity of the position.

I like arguments about definitions.

1/) Political Objective
2.) Civilian targets
3.) use of violence or threat of violence.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/10/2 1/lebanon.anniv.ap/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bo mbing
Are these terrorist acts?

*watches the cat and the pigeons*

To be honest here, my current ideia is that economics is a science, in the sense that it has falsefied models in the past (and should continue to do so in the future), the best example of this being the original formulation of the Phillips curve, a clear case where the data contracdicted the model and thus new, superior models (in the sense that they managed to explain more data) emerged. Futhermore, there are plenty of models that provide predictions and are thus testable.

Can you please provide a couple of good examples of these models? I've never actually approached economics from inside the subject, my analysis is instead bedded in philosophy, history and politics.

A slight point on the Phillips curve. In any subject, "scientific" or not, when the real world contradicts the theory isn't the theory re-evaluated? For example, in International Relations the events of the 1930s and 40s killed off Liberal idealism (with its stress on interdependence and the beneficial convergance of state interests) and gave rise to realism (with its view that states look out for their own interests and that war is inevitable.)

When I feel I'm up to it, I'll try to explain why I keep coming backwards and fowards on this issue, if your interested (I'd kindly request an answer to this statement, no point on elaborating something if you aren't interested). But keep in mind that economics (in general) does try to confront models with data and does have some, albite limited, sucess in predictions.

I'd be very interested. I think I'd find it hard to call economics a science from purely philosophical grounds, but I'd like to hear another person's point of view.

I specially love that last statement, how I do love generalizations, they are truely such a magnificient thing to witness

It's not a generalisation. A generalisation takes an example from one thing and applies it to other things. Mine is a statement based on study of other areas.

"there isn't still debate about economic theory". Exactly what do you mean by debate? What aspect? If your trying to claim that economics is a area of study (since you deny it the name of science) where some sort of consensus exists (I'm pretty sure this isn't what you meant, but I have to cover all bases), then all I can say to you is that your gravely mistaken.

You've missed the point of this statement. In the wider context of the statement the "isn't" is in the form double negative. Economists like to pretend that there isn't a debate about economic theory. See
"while pretending that there isn't a huge normative dimension to economics and that there isn't still debate about economic theory but it is the dirty little secret of economics that will never go away."

I've found that Economics as a discipline likes to present itself as scientific and as objective (this is certainly an idea that is passed on to economics undergraduates.)

The debate certainly exists and has being going on from since the 50's (at least), a starting point perhaps being Essays in Positive Economics . Actually, I'm pretty certain this sort of debate began much earlier, but the paper is a seminal one.

It really kicked off in the 50s with the behaviouralist revolution - for which I blame Americans - which affected all social sciences.

Maybe economics can't be considered a "hard science" yet, but it's certainly trying to become one.

It can try all it likes, I don't think it is possible. But, in the meantime, its attempts to present itself as a science (read objective) hides the huge normative underpinnings of orthodox economics.

PS: I didn't mean to ask anything. I was stating my case.

PPS: This isn't really a proper response to your two points, but I felt a response to the first one was not necessary because it was misaimed and a response to second point was not necessary because you did in fact agree that economics is not a science. All the debate here is really about is the extent to which economics likes to present itself as a science.

Hello, class room; today I come here to explain a subject in which liberals tend to be overwhelmingly ignorant; supply side economics.

I do wonder why it matters if liberals are ignorant of supply side economics. If I'm correct in my understanding here, it would like be saying that Conservatives are unable to understand the discipline of international relations without understanding global systems theory. I think the delusion that the topic starter is labouring under is that economics is a science........which it's not. I know that economics as a discipline doesn't like to confront this fact and prefers instead to bury itself in mathmatics while pretending that there isn't a huge normative dimension to economics and that there isn't still debate about economic theory but it is the dirty little secret of economics that will never go away. It's the same in Politics, people (read American academics) like to think that politics can be made into a science but any subject that looks at humans and human interaction will be looking at too many variables, none of which can be isolated and none of which can have tests applied to it.

8 patrol boats... Oh dear, for the first time Canada is actually buying ships to patrol what it believes to be its territorial waters! Nevermind the fact that 8 ships with limited military capability mean absolutely dick if there was actually an armed conflict over the region.

I'm not entirely certain on his point, but how much Arctic military capability do countries have? I would assume, considering that there was little strategic significance in the Artic before now, that there is very little. Because of this, these ships may count for a large increase in worldwide arctic military capacity and also symbolise Canada's intent.

Canada would HAVE to arm up. But actually, no feasible amount of arming up by Canada would make a difference when you're talking about Russia. Russia's military may be a rusting hull of its former self but it's nothing to be trifled with, especially by Canada.

I severly doubt that there would be a Russo-Canadian war over the Artic, it will all be about who is able to project power through the use of military ships that are able to withstand arctic conditions. How each country is able to project their power will effect the political outcome of this conflict of interests.

I know this probably isn't your forte

No, it's not my forte to think in neo-realist terms. How often do issues such as this (between first world countries) get solved through the actual use of force? This issue will be solved through a political process, not a military one.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/07/0 9/arctic-cda.html

I wouldn't write Canada off just yet - how many countries that are claiming the Artic have started arming for it yet?

I love how mistrust of the Government is something that is mainstream, but mistrust of corporations and the private, unelected individuals that run the corporations is not. Look at the first poster - he thinks that the government requiring broadcasters to offer "balanced" views on controversial subjects would take away his freedom of speech.......maybe I missed something, but did he say he was a broadcaster?

As for the "voting with your dollars" argument, or the plurality argument (where there are many broadcasters and you can simply turn one you don't like off) there is a lack of understanding that media consumption is a dynamic process that shapes people's views. People don't suddenly, at the age of 40 after having spent their life studying politics, philosophy and history, turn on the news and then make an independant decision if the station they are watching is agreeable to them. Most people are brought up with certain news stations and have their views shaped by that making the continued watching of a station more agreeable.

I'm making fun of hypocritical mentality of leftwingers. Not the pundits themselves, but thanks for the attempted ownage.

I think not. What you are attempting to do is make fun of hypothetical liberal positions and the hypothetical liberals that would put forward these views. To do this you are using a large number of right-wing views to support your positions. You are not getting anywhere near "left-wingers", nor are you getting anywhere near to a valid argument.

multiple speeches by various people, Das Kapital, Plato's The Republic, Aristotle's Politics, The Prince, Leviathan, Second Letter Concering Politics and Religion, The Social Contract, Civil Disobedience, On Liberty, Communist Manifesto, Orientalism by Said, America The Book, Livy's The Early History of Rome...

Just to name a few.

He said political fiction, not political philosophy, political analysis or history. This could become a very long and boring topic if we're comparing politics books that we've read.

The problem with talking about political fiction is, what do you count as political? Does Catch-22 count with its anti-war message? Or do Clancy books count because of the hawkish foreign policy that is a feature of the books? Or, does Harry Potter count because people percieve it to promote witchcraft?

It seems if you don't correct errors at the start of an argument they begin to multiply in subsequent arguments.

The UK is way too dependent on the US to ever do that. If a British leader would openly oppose the US in actual policy rather than pure rhetoric, then they would be very stupid because that would mean the end of the enormous political, economic, and military support the US gives the UK that is vital to their country.

No it wouldn't mean a end to the "enormous political, economic, and military support". It could mean an end to the "enormous political, economic, and military support". It is more likely to lead to a worsening of the relationship between the countries, not the instant reneging on long-term agreements and mutually-beneficial arrangements. The UK, not being America's bitch, but a sovereign, technologically-advanced, economically-developed country can actually oppose US policy.

The Brits would have to say goodbye to their nuclear deterrent, say goodbye to their relative military proficiency, say goodbye to their open access to US stock markets and financial systems etc... that is a staple of their economic wellbeing.

Actually the staple of our economic wellbeing is our financial sector, known throughout the world as an easy way to avoid tax. It is also unlikely that the US could stop open access to US stock markets because the financial sector is the most integrated (read globalised) sector in the world and because there are many many rules regulating international financial trade.

And, as for everything that people have said about the end of the British nuclear deterrent (even though we have independent nuclear capabilities) and the relative weakness of our armed forces, if we weren't following the US into wars, why would we need a strong military? And what the fuck is the point of a nuclear deterrent? Which state is going to attack us?

Right...It's entirely fallacious to assume that guns are commonly used to defend against criminals.

I don't have any stats on this, but I think the common usage of guns is in warfare. This is a bit of an educated guess, but I think the most shots fired have been in a war situation.

yay Scotland.
Im 16 and my parents dont deny my a bit of alcohol if I ask for it (a glass of cider or wine or whatever) but they dont allow me to get hammered so quite naturally, Im off to Dublin for a couple of days and im going to try my darndest to get COMPLETELY smashed ^_^
Just to verify your points :D

School boy error. You go to places with small populations to get served at a younger age. Places in Dublin ID everyone.

As for the actual topic, I think countries need to relax their laws and focus more on the culture of alcohol than anything else. I say this from a position of considerable personal and family experience. People need to be discouraged from using alcohol to get drunk and have to be encouraged to use it for its own sake - i.e. beer should be appreciated, not just drank. Because of my views, I think we should ban Budweiser because it tastes like crap.

I take back what I said about Venezuela. Hugo Chavez is actually unpopular there and won the elections by cheating.

HAHAHAHAHA.

Florida.

End.

Solar cells aren't environmentally friendly. The chemicals needed to produce them are very toxic, and hard to deal with. You also have enviormental issues with where you place them; since a solar farm takes up a good deal of space, you end up with run off problems and massive habitat distruction.

Two, Photovoltaic cells have half lives of about 30 years. This rather short half life produce a waste problem much like nuclear, only worse as there's a hell of a lot more of it.

Can you provide some sources on these? All I get when I type "solar cells environmentally damaging" in google is websites selling the things. Not challenging you here or anything, I'm just interested.

Now, as for people who think biofuels or hydrogen are the way forward.....think again. Both biofuels and hydrogen have to be manufactured to be used which consumes large amounts of energy. The return on the rate on energy for biofuels is somewhere around 2:3 (for every 2 units of energy put in you get 3 out) whereas with Texan crude it used to be 1:32, which kinda puts it into perspective. And hydrogen isn't an energy source, like oil is, it's a method of energy transport....meaning the energy would still have to be produced somewhere.

Yes, nuclear fuel is the most efficient, expedient, cheap, and safest fuel source in the world.

People often forget that nuclear energy requires a number of factors to be externalised for it to be seen in such a light. The cost of decommissioning plants at the end of their use and burying nuclear waste while the plants are working raises both the cost and safety of nuclear power. I would prefer it if governments made greater efforts to encourage renewable micro-generation. A solar panels on the roof of every home is the way forward.

America does not have a mainstream left-wing.

That is all.

Any questions?

Is the time I spent wiriting this post tax-deductable? It does seem like an act of charity responding to this.

Quick question: In terms of deaths, how many people does terrorism kill a year and what is that relatively speaking?

If you find the answer - what's the fuss?

I finally own Scrubs season 1 through 4.
I just need the 5th one to complete it.

They're next to my childhood, my Thunder Cats DVDs.

What actually happened in Thunder Cats? All I remember is the theme song, a toy sword and "She-roar" (or however you spell it.) I don't remember any episodes.

On another note - Captain Planet anyone?

The reaosn why there aren't as many Democrats is because this is a forum with at least a moderate amount of intelligent people. They are actually informed about world history and politics, not just what they hear on regular news stations. Anyone with a real knowledge of history is bound to be a right winger.

I'm in my final year of my politics degree (going on to a masters next year) and have a very very good grounding in history, yet I'm way to the left. Care to explain that oh sacred oracle of politics? Or is it the case that you're actually more ignorant than you're willing to admit?

Or is it the case that I've had a few drinks, am quite bored and didn't like the tone of a 14 year old on an internet site?

Maybe it's both.

I thought about posting this as a topic.....but then I remembered how many people would fail to get it.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story /0,,2047498,00.html

How about getting a job that involves use of critical thinking and knowledge of current affairs?

I'm so bored I actually updated my profile. Come on clever people, post something stupid so I can ridicule you (it's not worth doing it to stupid people unless you hit a particularly good turn of phrase.)

I think Quebec should become part of Mexico. I'm not really sure why, but it would be fun.

Wow, my brain is so fried at the moment.

Everyone realises that the 655'000 figure uses roughly the same logic as The Black Book of Communism? Right? But who likes that book and doesn't like this figure?