|
Stinky_Pete posted:The thing about Stein voters is that if they just stayed home instead, Democrats wouldn't scold them, so think about the reward signals here, like at least they came out to vote on local stuff The Green Party is all about making the most uninformed decisions imaginable, so I'm not really happy about them voting in local elections, either We complain about libertarians but lifers in the Green Party are just as bad
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 23:53 |
|
|
Strawman posted:So you came to argue against a non-existent strawman of a centrist democrat in a forum mainly populated by people on the left? He now, I'm a strawman of a centrist democrat! Also, post/name combo, etc
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:The Green Party is all about making the most uninformed decisions imaginable, so I'm not really happy about them voting in local elections, either I think Greens get a bit of a pass sometimes because, despite being uniformly uninformed flaky dunces, they usually are at least motivated by trying to make the world a better place (though they usually find the worst ways to attempt it), whereas libertarians are just trying to enrich themselves and gently caress everyone else. Not that we shouldn't make fun of them too, of course.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:He's still making some weird grammar errors with have- and does- constructions and there's something wrong with dependent clauses. I'll need to do something filter-y to allow him on Twitter without him going the way of poor Tay. He's still getting into arguments on Mises.org but I haven't seen JRodefeld OG. It seems appropriate that a libertarian robot has trouble with anything dependent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
Strawman posted:So you came to argue against a non-existent strawman of a centrist democrat in a forum mainly populated by people on the left? We're all ruthless totalitarian Stalinists here, didn't you get the memo?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:We're all ruthless totalitarian Stalinists here, didn't you get the memo? PUT DOWN THE GUN
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:The whole concept of the Senate as an intentionally unrepresentative upper house is one of those ideas that sounded neat on paper in the 18th century but is horrible in practice today. Hilariously, isn't that the ideal of the House of Lords working as intended? In that they're supposed to, as theoretical vassals of the Crown, be looking out for those they are responsible for? I know the above statement has absolutely nothing to do with the actual intent and function of the Lords, but still.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:PUT DOWN THE GUN "Now you're immune to rubella."
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Hilariously, isn't that the ideal of the House of Lords working as intended? In that they're supposed to, as theoretical vassals of the Crown, be looking out for those they are responsible for? Theoretically everyone is supposed to look out for the common good, but I think both the Senate and the House of Lords as part of their justification claim to have a longer-term view than the lower house which is more quickly shifted by the winds of politics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Hilariously, isn't that the ideal of the House of Lords working as intended? In that they're supposed to, as theoretical vassals of the Crown, be looking out for those they are responsible for? That is part of the point of the lords, yes, they're not elected and are thus not beholden to anybody so they can do what they like, it makes them weirdly good on specific issues like "not banning everything" and "not passing terrible legislation out of ideologically motivated spite" that populist governments like to do instead of actually governing. They're supposed to be veteran statesmen (or rich people, which is basically the same thing historically) and thus they are given reign to scrutinize the lower house without having to worry much about anything else. They're like an old, crusty, living, coke and hooker addled constitution in a way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That is part of the point of the lords, yes, they're not elected and are thus not beholden to anybody so they can do what they like, it makes them weirdly good on specific issues like "not banning everything" and "not passing terrible legislation out of ideologically motivated spite" that populist governments like to do instead of actually governing. It is amazing how useful it is to have a part of the government that cares about what will happen next week is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:The Green Party is all about making the most uninformed decisions imaginable, so I'm not really happy about them voting in local elections, either I'm pretty sure they just check the D candidate Do you have some fun examples to share?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:I'm pretty sure they just check the D candidate Nothing anecdotal, just all of the cringeworthy poo poo that Jill Stein said and did during the 2016 campaign and the Green Party platform, which is a delightful mix of contradictions, vagueries, and counterproductive nonsense At one point Jill Stein said that nuclear power plants are the same as nuclear weapons, as in they are literally nuclear bombs just waiting to explode into a mushroom cloud, and a bunch of people on Twitter became upset at her for saying something so stupid. And then she doubled down on the idea like a month later
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 06:52
|
|
|
It's sort of useless criticizing the only visible leftist party in the USA for pandering to the fringes, when the country is specifically designed to make voting for a leftist a fringe behavior. (Useless even relative to literally any possible opinion about the Green Party, I mean.) If you want the democrats to be anything other than center-right trash, delegitimizing leftist parties to the point where they exist only to let democrats punch left is a bad plan.
Mornacale fucked around with this message at 09:59 on Nov 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 09:54
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:It's sort of useless criticizing the only visible leftist party in the USA for pandering to the fringes, when the country is specifically designed to make voting for a leftist a fringe behavior. (Useless even relative to literally any possible opinion about the Green Party, I mean.) If you want the democrats to be anything other than center-right trash, delegitimizing leftist parties to the point where they exist only to let democrats punch left is a bad plan. The Green Party isn't a leftist party, it's an anti-science party. They delegitimized themselves by writing a platform that mandates organic farming, bans nuclear medicine, and is "just asking questions" about 9/11
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 10:37
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That is part of the point of the lords, yes, they're not elected and are thus not beholden to anybody so they can do what they like, it makes them weirdly good on specific issues like "not banning everything" and "not passing terrible legislation out of ideologically motivated spite" that populist governments like to do instead of actually governing. Remember when the House of Lords was the biggest parliamentary body in the world because it was totally full of people born into the position? Good times, good times.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 11:01
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Remember when the House of Lords was the biggest parliamentary body in the world because it was totally full of people born into the position? Good times, good times. JRodimus Prime posted:You could never morally justify a punishment that exceeds the extent of human rights.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:And let's be real here, you would welcome a libertarian who is starving. Yes JRod, yes I would.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:The Green Party isn't a leftist party, it's an anti-science party. They delegitimized themselves by writing a platform that mandates organic farming, bans nuclear medicine, and is "just asking questions" about 9/11 I did a ctrl+F on their platform and can't find any of those things I see "Subsidize transition to organic agriculture," though
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:I did a ctrl+F on their platform and can't find any of those things I see "shut down nuclear power plants," but am not informed enough to know if that bans nuclear medicine. But I know enough to know shutting down nuclear power plants, regardless of impact on nuclear medicine, is not what I want. https://www.greenparty.org/Platform.php
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:I see "shut down nuclear power plants," but am not informed enough to know if that bans nuclear medicine. But I know enough to know shutting down nuclear power plants, regardless of impact on nuclear medicine, is not what I want. I'd have to assume nuclear medicine would also follow. If they want to shut down nuclear power plants, guarantee they would also apply that to reactors meant for producing particular radioactive sources which are used in nuclear medicine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
I like nuclear power but I don't think it should be our end game. What is nuclear medicine? At first I thought QuarkJets meant any medicine involving the nucleus of the cell, which made me incredulous and distrustful of the testimony It is like radiation treatment for cancer?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:I like nuclear power but I don't think it should be our end game. Nuclear medicine is when radioactive materials are used to diagnose/determine severity of/treat diseases. So a common example is swallowing contrast fluid and then having tests. It also includes radiation treatments. WrenP-Complete fucked around with this message at 17:04 on Nov 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
One treatment for hyper thyroidism involves having the patient ingest a radioactive substance, as another example.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:I like nuclear power but I don't think it should be our end game. Well technically I agree. Fusion should be the end game. But most of the Alternet types I see who want a clear alternative to nuclear power won't shut up about wind and solar. Which are all perfectly fine as supplements to nuke, but they can't handle the heavy lifting because a) wind isn't a reliable option everywhere and b) building enough solar to do what nukes can do would have a waaaay bigger environmental footprint than a single power plant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 19:06
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Yeah, I think the energy out to energy invested ratio for solar is 2:1, and presumably nuclear is much higher. Oh right, I can look it up. Got this from Wikipedia  Difference isn't as stark as I thought, but nuke still looks around 10:1, which is big in terms of "how much oil do you need to build something without emissions." I think we deffo want to (in general) build the nuclear plants to power the solar factories if we want to minimize long run emissions. I don't see a way to transition to no-greenhouse liquid fuels, so I'm glad we're figuring out electric vehicles. But I don't know if we have a due date on non-gasoline construction equipment. It's pretty interesting to see the return on oil declining over the decades, since the more of a well is extracted already, the more you have to fight gravity and the less help you have from the oil's own pressure. I wonder what role that has in people feeling like their children don't have as good opportunities as they did. Also, fuckin' hydro! What are the barriers to more hydro?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:Yeah, I think the energy out to energy invested ratio for solar is 2:1, and presumably nuclear is much higher. I invite you to the Energy Generation megathread to discuss this and other related questions! http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3505076&pagenumber=1 (not attempting to backseat mod, just trying to keep my conversations orderly) WrenP-Complete fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Nov 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:Also, fuckin' hydro! What are the barriers to more hydro? In short 1: You can only do it where there's suitable sites 2. It really fucks up the local ecosystem bad and has big NIMBY problems
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Seed: "alternative energy"JRodimus Prime posted:What would YOU do to fill the gap?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
What I want is an orbiting solar power station that beams down power via microwave or radio (or really any frequency which our atmosphere is largely transparent to).
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:What I want is an orbiting solar power station that beams down power via microwave or radio (or really any frequency which our atmosphere is largely transparent to). If I learned anything from SimCity, it's that those will level a neighborhood when they miss. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
xergm posted:If I learned anything from SimCity, it's that those will level a neighborhood when they miss. Hey, that dude told you that you'd regret cutting funding, but did you listen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Hey, that dude told you that you'd regret cutting funding, but did you listen. Yes, because my roads turned to poo poo without public funding, and I couldn't put out the microwave plant fires with 0% fire funding. Aren't taxes great? Edit: Libertarian SimCity would be the one for SNES, where the cheat for maximum money involved setting all taxes and services to 0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GEFtE1uGPY&t=101s xergm fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Nov 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
xergm posted:If I learned anything from SimCity, it's that those will level a neighborhood when they miss. The rectenna would be enormous so the amount of energy hitting each square meter is actually pretty small, and out in the middle of farmland/desert. You could actually grow crops underneath it because it can have plenty of holes for visible light to pass through while still capturing the longer wavelength microwaves. https://www.wired.com/2008/09/visionary-beams/ Thankfully it would not cut a swath of destruction through the center of a city.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Thankfully it would not cut a swath of destruction through the center of a city. Uhh yes! Thankfully! We certainly wouldn't want anything like that to happen, no sir. *quietly slides files labelled "Project Inferno" under other papers on my desk*
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Thankfully it would not cut a swath of destruction through the center of a city. No, that's the highway planning commision's job.  Joking aside, space based power is a pipe-dream in a libertarian world. Something on the sheer scale of a space based power collection platform would be a massive public works project headed by a government and paid for by taxes. The ISS alone is the most expensive man-made thing in existence, and this would probably surpass that in scale by a significant amount
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
xergm posted:No, that's the highway planning commision's job. Launch costs would need to get down or it would need to be made in situ for it to be profitable, that is for sure, but the tech for it is largely already here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Space-based solar is hella cool, but the hard void is a pretty unforgiving environment and you'd be replacing panels way more often up there than if they were just down here on Earth. Also building terrestrial power storage for when the sun's not out is much cheaper than launch costs for anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Yeah Earth's gravity well is a real motherfucker for getting anything done in space efficiently.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 23:53 |
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:I did a ctrl+F on their platform and can't find any of those things Maybe you're looking at some other green party? The Green Party that ran Jill Stein as a candidate has all of those things, and more. Page 42 they want to mandate a switch agriculture to local, organic farms quote:
Page 45 they call for the closure of all nuclear reactors and a stop-use on any technology that produces nuclear waste, which includes nuclear medicine quote:
(coincidentally there's no mention of devices that produce ionizing radiation without a nuclear decaying source, since that's considered OK for organic seed producers who want to play the genetic modification game without the negative stigma of transgenesis; to no one's surprise, ionizing radiation is cool if you're also a big donor) Page 16 they ask whether 9/11 was an inside job quote:
When I first read it in October there was definitely an item in there about making naturopathy and homeopathy eligible for Medicare but now I can't find it so maybe that was taken out. Not the 9/11 truther poo poo though lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 02:19
|
|