The Clinton Trump Debates

[SciFiAuthor]

1.My common sense tells me that pedophiles already had no problem walking into bathrooms.  It just means they don't have to be quite as careful making sure nobody sees them entering.  I don't think that was a big holdup.  If the bathroom is already occupied by a third person they already would be unable to carry out their pedophilia.  I don't see in any way how this changes anything.

That's called betting the farm. One horrific news story regarding a child rape and your viewpoint is forever discredited and you go into liberal damage control mode and get all preachy and put on the holier-than-thou mask and rely on neoyellow journalism to downplay the rape. What is the point of that thinking? How is it not unethical? I'd rather live in the pragmatic world where it's common sense not to allow guys into girl's bathrooms if you can help it. If even one child gets raped over this, then the whole dog and pony show debate wasn't worth the experiment. And that's what it is, another stupid liberal social experiment. And you know the rape will happen, you're not stupid.

2.Cop out.

How so? Elaborate.

3.You yourself said that you wanted all religion to be exterminated. If that's not anti-religious then what is?  I already commented that I agree with you that fundamentalist interpretations of religion, and, indeed, all extremist thinking is harmful,  and trying to educate extremist thinking out of existence would be beneficial.  Other than that, I don't see any harm from religion and I see a lot of positives. 

Yes, I'm anti-religious. It's just silly bullshit, the human race's superstitious baggage from a former time. But what you don't realize is that you are an extremist of another kind. Extremism occurs when you start buying into ideas on an irrational level. Extremism occurs when people take ideas to the point that they begin to ignore salient points to the contrary, and even common sense as in #1. You do that a lot, therefore are a leftwing extremist. You're just too far into it to realize it.

Always question yourself. Every day, get up and look in a mirror and ask yourself "Am I wrong?". If everyone did that, we'd have one hell of a reasonable centrist world. 

4.I don't know of any concerns from liberals over broad technological solutions to solving global warming.  I have obvious worries over the unintended consequences of your proposal.

Oh there are tons of examples of that. Hell, Greenpeace issued a protest statement against ITER and to this day liberals picket it based on the idea that fusion is a thermonuclear technology. The indisputable fact that fission and fusion are different be damned, it is to be protested because the technology contains the scary word "thermonuclear". So much so that ITER had to drop its acronym because the T stood for thermonuclear. It no longer stands for anything, it's just called ITER with no associated acronym because your crazy quasi-religious retard brethren won't use Wikipedia and find out what the difference between fission and fusion is.

5.I barely remember the Danish Committee thing.  I'm hardly going to take your word for why that happened and, among other things, Denmark isn't the United States. 

Well go read about it. Google is your friend. Why be willfully ignorant of anything? I don't understand why you repeatedly do that and admit to it. It just makes you look closed-minded which is a glaring sign of extremism and intellectual laziness. It's like you get to a certain point until your extremist sensibilities get bruised and you just put your hands over your ears and yell "nananananananana" so you don't hear the bad stuff. Get your ass on the internet, research, learn, and question yourself. Question everything. Then tell others to do the same. That is crucial for a positive human future.

I'm not going to look up his arguments again.  You can post them here if you really want to.  The one obvious fallacy he made that I can't forget was the claim that money spent on fighting environmental problems would be better spent on fighting diseases, hunger, etc.  I believe this is the fallacy of false dichotomy as there is no reason to believe if U.S tax dollars were not spent on fighting environmental problems, they'd be spent on those other things instead.  Given U.S voter opposition to foreign aid spending, it's actually extremely unlikely the money would go to those things.  His argument, if not a false dichotomy, is a straw-man argument.

So you say his logic was flawed in an unequivocal statement but can't actually remember what you're condemning and won't revisit the issue to see what it was about? How is that not fucked up? What the hell are you doin' man.

As far as what you do remember, he was right. Our money would be better and more sensibly spent providing something like clean water to places in the third world that don't have it than we would spending billions of dollars dicking around with plans that will result in less than a percent of carbon emissions cuts over century which is what you're buying into would result in. That's just not going to work in any meaningful way. The environmental movement, as you see it, is really just a bullshit ideological front put on and driven by bought leftwing politicians and companies peddling solar panels and such. It became commercialized and politicized, and can no longer solve the problem of climate change.

6.You are the standard Trumptard because you believe that Trump is actually interested in and would be capable of changing the present system.  Anybody who isn't a Trumptard can easily see the only thing Trump cares about is himself and is only interested in the Presidency to enrich himself.

But that's just claims and slogans. You don't know the man. You can't know what motivates him.

As to how much carbon pricing would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it would depend on the amount of the tax.  I know there are some scientists who propose what you suggest here, but I highly doubt it's as simple as you make it out to be.  Would you happen to have any direct financial interest in seeing that plan carried out?

The only word for that thinking is ineffectual. It's bullshit that's not going to work because human bureaucracy will ALWAYS prevent it from functioning as advertised. As I said before, you needed to be advocating that 30 years ago. You no longer have enough time to dick around with it. It is an obsolete approach.

When it comes to economics, I have some liberal views and some conservative views, in the Canadian context I consider myself a mix of blue liberalism and red liberalism.  When it comes to science, I'm not a scientist (I'm not an economist either) but I believe in going where the evidence leads me.

Yeah, but you also openly admit that you won't look shit up and research. That's not seeking evidence, that's grasping a dogma.

I don't think I had any problem addressing your specific concerns against Ehrlich, my outdated liberal dogma or not.  I think the only thing I had a problem with was your claim that Ehrlich should have been aware at the time that birth rates in advanced industrial societies would decline sharply as the society got wealthier as I was not aware that was known at the time he wrote the book.  However, you didn't show me anything to show that it was, so it's not a surprise I was not aware of an argument that I still have no reason to believe was made at the time his book came out.

Considering that it was already happening to his own country and multiple industrialized European ones at the time he wrote the book, you'd think he would have taken at least a cursory look at the phenomenon. You'd also think that he would have realized that metal doesn't go away once you manufacture something with it, which was his logic flaw when he claimed the world was going to run out of aluminum. Aluminum, btw, is the third most abundant element in the earth's crust (!?!?) which was known at the time he wrote the book.

The reason he didn't look at that stuff was because he was motivated by profit and not reality. He wanted to make bucks by scaring people. And it worked. Unfortunately it also set the liberal policy stage for decades.

7.From reading the websites I linked to earlier on Lomborg's books.  I'd say his books are a fine example of fictional non-fiction.

Fatal dogmatic viewpoint that you're doing a piss poor job backing. Up your game and let's dig in.

[136 or 142]

1.That's called betting the farm. One horrific news story regarding a child rape and your viewpoint is forever discredited and you go into liberal damage control mode and get all preachy and put on the holier-than-thou mask and rely on neoyellow journalism to downplay the rape. What is the point of that thinking? How is it not unethical? I'd rather live in the pragmatic world where it's common sense not to allow guys into girl's bathrooms if you can help it. If even one child gets raped over this, then the whole dog and pony show debate wasn't worth the experiment. And that's what it is, another stupid liberal social experiment. And you know the rape will happen, you're not stupid.

2.How so? Elaborate.

3.Yes, I'm anti-religious. It's just silly bullshit, the human race's superstitious baggage from a former time. But what you don't realize is that you are an extremist of another kind. Extremism occurs when you start buying into ideas on an irrational level. Extremism occurs when people take ideas to the point that they begin to ignore salient points to the contrary, and even common sense as in #1. You do that a lot, therefore are a leftwing extremist. You're just too far into it to realize it.

4.Always question yourself. Every day, get up and look in a mirror and ask yourself "Am I wrong?". If everyone did that, we'd have one hell of a reasonable centrist world. 

5.Oh there are tons of examples of that. Hell, Greenpeace issued a protest statement against ITER and to this day liberals picket it based on the idea that fusion is a thermonuclear technology. The indisputable fact that fission and fusion are different be damned, it is to be protested because the technology contains the scary word "thermonuclear". So much so that ITER had to drop its acronym because the T stood for thermonuclear. It no longer stands for anything, it's just called ITER with no associated acronym because your crazy quasi-religious retard brethren won't use Wikipedia and find out what the difference between fission and fusion is.

Well go read about it. Google is your friend. Why be willfully ignorant of anything? I don't understand why you repeatedly do that and admit to it. It just makes you look closed-minded which is a glaring sign of extremism and intellectual laziness. It's like you get to a certain point until your extremist sensibilities get bruised and you just put your hands over your ears and yell "nananananananana" so you don't hear the bad stuff. Get your ass on the internet, research, learn, and question yourself. Question everything. Then tell others to do the same. That is crucial for a positive human future.

6.So you say his logic was flawed in an unequivocal statement but can't actually remember what you're condemning and won't revisit the issue to see what it was about? How is that not fucked up? What the hell are you doin' man.

7.As far as what you do remember, he was right. Our money would be better and more sensibly spent providing something like clean water to places in the third world that don't have it than we would spending billions of dollars dicking around with plans that will result in less than a percent of carbon emissions cuts over century which is what you're buying into would result in. That's just not going to work in any meaningful way. The environmental movement, as you see it, is really just a bullshit ideological front put on and driven by bought leftwing politicians and companies peddling solar panels and such. It became commercialized and politicized, and can no longer solve the problem of climate change.

8.But that's just claims and slogans. You don't know the man. You can't know what motivates him.

9.The only word for that thinking is ineffectual. It's bullshit that's not going to work because human bureaucracy will ALWAYS prevent it from functioning as advertised. As I said before, you needed to be advocating that 30 years ago. You no longer have enough time to dick around with it. It is an obsolete approach.

Yeah, but you also openly admit that you won't look shit up and research. That's not seeking evidence, that's grasping a dogma.

10.Considering that it was already happening to his own country and multiple industrialized European ones at the time he wrote the book, you'd think he would have taken at least a cursory look at the phenomenon. You'd also think that he would have realized that metal doesn't go away once you manufacture something with it, which was his logic flaw when he claimed the world was going to run out of aluminum. Aluminum, btw, is the third most abundant element in the earth's crust (!?!?) which was known at the time he wrote the book.

The reason he didn't look at that stuff was because he was motivated by profit and not reality. He wanted to make bucks by scaring people. And it worked. Unfortunately it also set the liberal policy stage for decades.


Fatal dogmatic viewpoint that you're doing a piss poor job backing. Up your game and let's dig in.

1.http://time.com/4314896/transgender-bathroom-bill-male-predators-argument/

To use your logic, I think it would be fair that if I could show one single case of different gender assaults that occurred before these laws protecting transgender people were passed it would disprove your view that these laws defy common sense.

So:The incident and how it was reported bore similarities to an alleged April 2016 bathroom assault in Pennsylvania, as well as the republication of an incident from California in 2013 (widely misreported as having occurred in 2016). In both incidents, a male assailant entered a women's restroom without permission, and engaged in activities already prohibited under law.  Similar incidents took place at least twice in 2011, again in 2012, and three more times in 2013. In those cases, all incidents remained newsworthy because filming people in bathrooms without their knowledge or consent is illegal. No policies allowing individuals to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity made it legal to film, photograph, choke, assault, or otherwise harm fellow restroom patrons while using the facilities.

http://www.snopes.com/man-choked-girl-bathroom-transgender/

The women's groups who are actually trying to prevent assaults on women say your arguments are a red-herring.  It seems you also have trouble accepting arguments based on evidence that don't fit your extremist world view.

2.Cop-out was a joke. I was throwing your line back at you.  I already addressed this when I wrote that even if (all) liberals wanted to do these things, I don't think they have anywhere near the power to do it.  For instance, you yourself wrote that 'progressives would really like to ban religion (or something like that) but know they don't have the votes to do it."

3.According to the women's organizations themselves, you're the one relying on irrational arguments, not me.

4.Yes, you should try doing that sometime.

5.I have the constraint of a scarce resource known as time, I simply cannot look up everything I'm interested in.  As it is, I spend far too much time here.

6.I provided one example and posted two links showing more examples of his logical fallacies and misuse of evidence.  I can't remember if those were the specific logical fallacies of his that I noted, but I think combined all of the examples show that his work was deeply flawed if not an outright fraud.

7.That may be right but that's not his claim.  His claim is essentially that if the money is not spent on what he claims are minor environmental problems, the money would instead be spent on addressing world hunger or other such very worthy causes.  That is either the logical fallacy of a strawman or a false dichotomy, maybe it's known as a false dichotomy built on a strawman. If you can't see that the money would most likely go to either more Republican tax cuts that largely favor the wealthy or would be spent elsewhere but not to foreign aid, there really is no use in continuing this discussion.

8.That is a nonsensical Trumptard argument I've encountered before.  I can judge the man well enough from what I see of him publicly and from what I read about him.  If you only judge people you know personally, you must never vote.  Also, the obvious counterargument: since you don't know him personally either, how do you know you can believe anything he says?

9.Carbon taxes are very simple designs and require no additional bureaucracy.  It's clear you're the one who hasn't researched them.  There are numerous jurisdictions in the world that have implemented carbon taxes starting in Sweden about a decade ago now, and they've all been quite effective.  You may be confusing carbon taxes with cap and trade systems.  Cap and trade systems are theoretically even more effective than carbon taxes because they allow companies that find ways to reduce their emissions to sell their excess carbon allowance off to companies in industries that have more difficulty reducing carbon emissions which does away with the one size fits all approach of trying to address global warming through regulations and also always a way for the companies in those slower to adjust industries a better alternative than having to pay a tax (there would be no carbon taxes).  The ability to sell the excess allowance creates an additional incentive for all companies to find ways to reduce their emissions as quickly as possible to below the point of their allowable emissions.

Cap and trade is the best economic system in theory for addressing global warming but it hasn't worked well in reality.

This, unlike things I don't really care about like Mr Lombjorg, is something I've studied a great deal.

10.To the degree it was noticed at the time it was likely attributed to 'the pill' which was new at the time, and I don't believe anybody had a clue whether or not it would continue.  To look at this with the benefit of hindsight and expect him to know at that time what would actually occur is hardly fair or honest.

[136 or 142]

Just to add two things
1.I certainly agree there are environmental extremists.  I just disagree that they are are large group.  I wouldn't call them liberals either as, if they have any preference of economic system, they'd most likely be socialists or, more likely, proponents of some sort of local economies idea.  You know, loons.

2.I'd like you to tell me about the time you met, or at least talked to, Paul Ehrlich.

[Dr. MD MD]

UN Peace Council Report On What's Going on in Syria

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8JppJyVxYU

[SciFiAuthor]

1.http://time.com/4314896/transgender-bathroom-bill-male-predators-argument/

To use your logic, I think it would be fair that if I could show one single case of different gender assaults that occurred before these laws protecting transgender people were passed it would disprove your view that these laws defy common sense.

So:The incident and how it was reported bore similarities to an alleged April 2016 bathroom assault in Pennsylvania, as well as the republication of an incident from California in 2013 (widely misreported as having occurred in 2016). In both incidents, a male assailant entered a women's restroom without permission, and engaged in activities already prohibited under law.  Similar incidents took place at least twice in 2011, again in 2012, and three more times in 2013. In those cases, all incidents remained newsworthy because filming people in bathrooms without their knowledge or consent is illegal. No policies allowing individuals to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity made it legal to film, photograph, choke, assault, or otherwise harm fellow restroom patrons while using the facilities.

http://www.snopes.com/man-choked-girl-bathroom-transgender/

The women's groups who are actually trying to prevent assaults on women say your arguments are a red-herring.  It seems you also have trouble accepting arguments based on evidence that don't fit your extremist world view.

Nice switcheroo there shifting it from children and pedophiles to adult rapes. All it will take is a single incident for that whole argument to be blown out of the water and the sad thing is it probably won't take long. Some pedo will go in the women's restroom claiming to be transgendered. Extremist worldviews are ones where you cater to and enable people that want to chop off their own junk at the expense of child safety.

I do have to caveat something here. Once said person gets their junk cut off, then I have no problem with them using the restroom for whatever sex they currently are or are actively surgically transitioning to. Chances are they're either gay or asexual anyway. It's when it's still an ambiguous "identity" that I draw a line. And I draw that line solely for child safety.   

2.Cop-out was a joke. I was throwing your line back at you.  I already addressed this when I wrote that even if (all) liberals wanted to do these things, I don't think they have anywhere near the power to do it.  For instance, you yourself wrote that 'progressives would really like to ban religion (or something like that) but know they don't have the votes to do it."

Ah, sorry then.

3.According to the women's organizations themselves, you're the one relying on irrational arguments, not me.

I'm not going to take this one on yet because of the switcheroo you pulled. Let's talk about child safety first and then we'll get to adult safety, which I personally think the main risk there is straight perverts putting on women's clothes and going into the women's bathroom, which is not that much more of a concern.

4.Yes, you should try doing that sometime.

I do it every day as a rule. It's called free thought.

5.I have the constraint of a scarce resource known as time, I simply cannot look up everything I'm interested in.  As it is, I spend far too much time here.

Man, that must make it a bitch to back up political positions.

6.I provided one example and posted two links showing more examples of his logical fallacies and misuse of evidence.  I can't remember if those were the specific logical fallacies of his that I noted, but I think combined all of the examples show that his work was deeply flawed if not an outright fraud.

So we can't examine the logical fallacies, they just exist and that's that.

7.That may be right but that's not his claim.  His claim is essentially that if the money is not spent on what he claims are minor environmental problems, the money would instead be spent on addressing world hunger or other such very worthy causes.  That is either the logical fallacy of a strawman or a false dichotomy, maybe it's known as a false dichotomy built on a strawman. If you can't see that the money would most likely go to either more Republican tax cuts that largely favor the wealthy or would be spent elsewhere but not to foreign aid, there really is no use in continuing this discussion.

Now that one struck me speechless. So, you're condemning Lomborg's work, who isn't even American, is openly homosexual and socially liberal and does not deny climate change but the contrary, with hypothetical Republican tax cuts. That's quite the connect the dots lol. Now that's a logic flaw in the same grain as saying that we shouldn't raise cattle because someone is just going to get sick from bad yogurt.

It's actually a very misguided logical flaw too. Most of Lomborg's points involve technological solutions to climate change that are typically considerably cheaper than their counterparts in emissions reduction. In other words, a titanic amount of money is spent for comparatively little real reduction. You want to throw out the other approach, which is going to be the one we have to use out of necessity eventually because your approach won't work, which is to spend smaller amounts on far more effective technologies.

8.That is a nonsensical Trumptard argument I've encountered before.  I can judge the man well enough from what I see of him publicly and from what I read about him.  If you only judge people you know personally, you must never vote.  Also, the obvious counterargument: since you don't know him personally either, how do you know you can believe anything he says?

You actually bothered to read about him? Look, I've said it before that I firmly believe, with very few exceptions, that anyone that enters national politics is both sociopathic and a crook at heart. It's just too hard to climb the ladder and get elected if you aren't. It's pretty much the same way with business. So I expect that neither candidate is someone you really want to lend money to. That said, to sit around and heap everything on Trump when Hillary is a textbook sociopathic monster by the same sorts of accounts and murmurings, is not balanced. 

9.Carbon taxes are very simple designs and require no additional bureaucracy.  It's clear you're the one who hasn't researched them.  There are numerous jurisdictions in the world that have implemented carbon taxes starting in Sweden about a decade ago now, and they've all been quite effective.  You may be confusing carbon taxes with cap and trade systems.  Cap and trade systems are theoretically even more effective than carbon taxes because they allow companies that find ways to reduce their emissions to sell their excess carbon allowance off to companies in industries that have more difficulty reducing carbon emissions which does away with the one size fits all approach of trying to address global warming through regulations and also always a way for the companies in those slower to adjust industries a better alternative than having to pay a tax (there would be no carbon taxes).  The ability to sell the excess allowance creates an additional incentive for all companies to find ways to reduce their emissions as quickly as possible to below the point of their allowable emissions.

It's too late for that. If you really look at the science, which is all that matters, we're very likely past the point of no return. You needed to do that sort of thing 30 years ago, and you need to be able to do it in developing countries like China where it really matters. Since you can't, then this will go the way of the Kyoto Accords and result in token reductions in emissions that cannot ever be sufficient to have much of any effect on CO2 levels.

Cap and trade is the best economic system in theory for addressing global warming but it hasn't worked well in reality.

There's a reason for that. You can't expect politicians to do anything effective without their lobbies finding an angle on how to cash in on it. And, as I recall, the estimated reductions were not impressive.

10.To the degree it was noticed at the time it was likely attributed to 'the pill' which was new at the time, and I don't believe anybody had a clue whether or not it would continue.  To look at this with the benefit of hindsight and expect him to know at that time what would actually occur is hardly fair or honest.

The concept that affluence reduces birth rate was academically known when he wrote that book. He was an academic in that very field, so I think it's a good bet that he knew that it could happen that way. Instead, he chose to go with a scare book. As a result, tens of thousands were sterilized in third world countries for no reason, often coercively so.

[SciFiAuthor]

Just to add two things
1.I certainly agree there are environmental extremists.  I just disagree that they are are large group.  I wouldn't call them liberals either as, if they have any preference of economic system, they'd most likely be socialists or, more likely, proponents of some sort of local economies idea.  You know, loons.

Big enough to get Greenpeace to perpetuate a fallacy about nuclear fusion.

2.I'd like you to tell me about the time you met, or at least talked to, Paul Ehrlich.

I wouldn't want to. I am in the publishing industry. I know the tricks of the trade on how to write books that sell. I've read "The Population Bomb" and I see how it's constructed, how the arguments are made, how they are worded. I know precisely what that book is, a for profit scare piece for popular consumption.

[136 or 142]

1.Nice switcheroo there shifting it from children and pedophiles to adult rapes. All it will take is a single incident for that whole argument to be blown out of the water and the sad thing is it probably won't take long. Some pedo will go in the women's restroom claiming to be transgendered. Extremist worldviews are ones where you cater to and enable people that want to chop off their own junk at the expense of child safety.

I do have to caveat something here. Once said person gets their junk cut off, then I have no problem with them using the restroom for whatever sex they currently are or are actively surgically transitioning to. Chances are they're either gay or asexual anyway. It's when it's still an ambiguous "identity" that I draw a line. And I draw that line solely for child safety.   

Ah, sorry then.

2.I'm not going to take this one on yet because of the switcheroo you pulled. Let's talk about child safety first and then we'll get to adult safety, which I personally think the main risk there is straight perverts putting on women's clothes and going into the women's bathroom, which is not that much more of a concern.

3.I do it every day as a rule. It's called free thought.

4.Man, that must make it a bitch to back up political positions.

5.So we can't examine the logical fallacies, they just exist and that's that.

6.Now that one struck me speechless. So, you're condemning Lomborg's work, who isn't even American, is openly homosexual and socially liberal and does not deny climate change but the contrary, with hypothetical Republican tax cuts. That's quite the connect the dots lol. Now that's a logic flaw in the same grain as saying that we shouldn't raise cattle because someone is just going to get sick from bad yogurt.

It's actually a very misguided logical flaw too. Most of Lomborg's points involve technological solutions to climate change that are typically considerably cheaper than their counterparts in emissions reduction. In other words, a titanic amount of money is spent for comparatively little real reduction. You want to throw out the other approach, which is going to be the one we have to use out of necessity eventually because your approach won't work, which is to spend smaller amounts on far more effective technologies.

7.You actually bothered to read about him? Look, I've said it before that I firmly believe, with very few exceptions, that anyone that enters national politics is both sociopathic and a crook at heart. It's just too hard to climb the ladder and get elected if you aren't. It's pretty much the same way with business. So I expect that neither candidate is someone you really want to lend money to. That said, to sit around and heap everything on Trump when Hillary is a textbook sociopathic monster by the same sorts of accounts and murmurings, is not balanced. 

8.It's too late for that. If you really look at the science, which is all that matters, we're very likely past the point of no return. You needed to do that sort of thing 30 years ago, and you need to be able to do it in developing countries like China where it really matters. Since you can't, then this will go the way of the Kyoto Accords and result in token reductions in emissions that cannot ever be sufficient to have much of any effect on CO2 levels.


There's a reason for that. You can't expect politicians to do anything effective without their lobbies finding an angle on how to cash in on it. And, as I recall, the estimated reductions were not impressive.

9.The concept that affluence reduces birth rate was academically known when he wrote that book. He was an academic in that very field, so I think it's a good bet that he knew that it could happen that way. Instead, he chose to go with a scare book. As a result, tens of thousands were sterilized in third world countries for no reason, often coercively so.

1. wasn't trying to switch anything.  If women's groups don't feel that women are under any greater risk, I don't see why they would think children would be under any greater risk either.  My understanding is that most child pedophiles actually assault children of their own gender. 

2.There aren't separate bathrooms for children.  Most children would be accompanied in a bathroom by a parent, so I even understand your concern less now. Maybe you mean in schools.  I'm sure there are exceptions, but I'm pretty sure now that at least for primary schools it's now virtually impossible for an adult who doesn't have a child in the school to be able to get into the school unless they force there way in with a weapon which is already a crime.  And, if they can't be stopped getting in, they can already going to go into any bathroom they want to, should they so desire.

3.I see no evidence of that.

4.How so?  I try and only have political positions on things I actually have knowledge in.

5.I posted links to two articles addressing the logical flaws and factual misrepresentations in his work.  You can address the ones mentioned in those if you like.

6.You don't understand my argument.  Let's see if this will help:  there is $50 million that one Congressperson is trying to get allocated to deal with global warming or some other environmental problem.  If another Congressperson proposes an alternate use for that $50 million, which do you think that Congressperson is more likely to get passed through Congress: $50 million in tax cuts instead or $50 million to address global hunger or other worthy causes to address poverty?

My point: if that $50 million isn't spent to address global warming it isn't going to be spent to address global hunger either.  Lomborg's false dichotomy is a red herring.

I'm not a scientist, so I don't know how legitimate these technologies are that are claimed can essentially end global warming with one go.  Most of the articles I've read on these things completely dismiss them. You'd probably claim they're written by liberals.

7.The claims both proven and alleged against Donald Trump are unparalleled in a major party presidential nominee. Hillary Clinton certainly isn't perfect but most of the claims against her are either based on half-truths or outright lies.  The rest of your comment here is cynicism and false equivalence nonsense.

I've read a fair amount about him, and I saw the 1991 unaired B.B.C documentary on him and I've seen him interviewed on television and I've heard several of his speeches.  He's actually not all that complicated because he uses a very small number of techniques and the same patterns of derangement and psychopathy show up all the time.

The basic thought out ones he's shown running for President are:
1.Make claims as broad as possible so they can't actually be labelled as false.
2.On nearly all issues take all sides of the issue, but use weasel words like "maybe" or "possibly" so nobody can actually say that one position contradicts another position.  He actually started doing this years before running for President, as these are all evident in his comments on the Iraq War.
3.A statement not actually said by Goebbels, but the idea is his:  "Accuse your opponent of that which you are guilty."

His basic thought out business practices were:
1.Routinely stiff contractors and use SLAPP lawsuits (which is why the B.B.C documentary on him never aired.)
2.Make charitable promises but never actually pay out, or demand that his contractors give the money to charity.

His non-thought out practices that indicate psychopathy are:
1.Promise to do better in the future, and then drop it as soon as placed in a difficult situation.  The numerous times where the dimwitted Washington Press Corps kept asking "is he finally going to act Presidential?" are examples of that.
2.His childish temper tantrums and outbursts.
3.His lashing out in a way that indicates a complete lack of genuine empathy. 
4.His primary concern when challenged is to defend himself and his concerns (as with his refusal to stop commenting on this Miss Universe contestant) and not actually address the concerns of the American public who he lies that he cares about.

His non-thought out practicesthat indicates derangement:
1.In one interview I saw of him, I think it was when he used the National Enquirer story to accuse Ted Cruz's father of being involved in the JFK murder conspiracy and I think it was Anderson Cooper who asked him "Do you have any evidence that it's true?"  And Trump replied "Do you have any evidence that it isn't true?"  As if lacking definitive evidence that something isn't true makes it acceptable to throw it out as a wild accusation. That indicated to me a complete lack of understanding of social norms.

2.His total creepy comments that he's made about his daughter.  Derangement isn't just having creepy 'impure thoughts' about a child of yours, it's lacking the ability to understand why society considers those thoughts to be creepy.

Derangement in psychology is the same thing as the legal definition of insanity, and which is the two part test that I just provided.  Derangement does not mean irrationality.  I certainly don't believe Trump is irrational. Many of his arguments contain logical fallacies, but I don't think any more so than any 'normal' human.

8.I don't think so.  I think most people and most leaders around the world already realize that not addressing global warming is already more expensive than the cost of addressing it.  I don't dispute that some of the polluting industries and their employees are still putting up a fight against the reality of global warming, I see this when I comment on the reality of global warming in other forums and the amount of responses from the deniers is completely disproportionate to their total numbers. I have no doubt that some of these people or companies have software that scour online newspapers for comments on global warming and that then send out emails to get people on the email list to reply with their B.S.  But, this occurs pretty much in just the English speaking countries for some reason, and there lobbying efforts seem to be less and less effective as the reality of global warming becomes increasingly clear.

9.It's possible there were relatively new academic arguments to that effect, but I highly doubt it was 'settled social science' at that time. 

10.And I've been following politics long enough to know a demagogue when I see one as well.  And Trump is easily the biggest demagogue in U.S politics since Huey Long.  Of course, Huey Long was assassinated before he could launch a primary campaign against FDR or run as a third party candidate.

[136 or 142]

I heard an example today of a clear case of a politician claiming people were 'racists' in what I would call an unfair attack.

The Vancouver City Hall flew the Chinese flag somewhere on its grounds yesterday to 'celebrate' the 67th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China.  A number of people, rightly in my opinion, protested this pointing out that China is a brutal dictatorship, and is still somewhat communist.  (State run capitalism is the term coined for China.)

City Councillor Kerry Jang replied, likely truthfully, that many city halls throughout the world, including in democracies, were also flying the Chinese flag, and that these protesters were 'racist.'

Given Jang's Chinese heritage, he's likely overly sensitive to this and, it certainly wouldn't surprise me that some of the tweets and other comments he received over this were genuinely racist, however to dismiss all the protests as stemming from 'racist' attitudes is obviously nonsense as well.

This may be a case of, as Bob Dylan sang "you're right from your side, and I'm right from mine."  Dylan wrote this lyric for the song "One Too Many Mornings" in 1965 at the age of 24.  I find it somewhat amazing that at such a young age Dylan recognized that, two people could have completely opposing views but that, from their own perspectives, both of them held valid views.

Unfortunately from reading ScifiAuthor's posts, it seems clear that despite obviously being much older than 24, he still doesn't recognize this.

[Jackstar]

Life was simpler when I could just /ignore this idiot fuck, instead of having to scroll past half the fucking page.

[136 or 142]

Life was simpler when I could just /ignore this idiot fuck, instead of having to scroll past half the fucking page.

It pleases me to know that I'm annoying you since you're just a troll anyway.

[SciFiAuthor]

Unfortunately from reading ScifiAuthor's posts, it seems clear that despite obviously being much older than 24, he still doesn't recognize this.

Sure I do. I knew it when I was 24 and I still know it at 40. Humans polarize on two issues. Religion and politics. That polarization leads to rigidity in thought, picking a side unequivocally so to speak. In other words politics and religion become dogmas and free thought becomes impossible. People become set in their beliefs and then delude themselves into thinking that they're correct due to an inability to think fluidly and adjust. They lose the capacity to change their mind and can no longer think outside the box. You are an extreme example of that on the left. There are plenty of examples on the right.

But the real truth is that both sides are wrong and truth lies somewhere in the dynamic middle. The sad thing is that, as far as I can tell, you can no longer recognize centrism and find even it to be "extremism" at this point. That should tip you off that there's a problem with your core thinking process.

I'll get to the rest of your post this evening. 

[136 or 142]

Sure I do. I knew it when I was 24 and I still know it at 40. Humans polarize on two issues. Religion and politics. That polarization leads to rigidity in thought, picking a side unequivocally so to speak. In other words politics and religion become dogmas and free thought becomes impossible. People become set in their beliefs and then delude themselves into thinking that they're correct due to an inability to think fluidly and adjust. They lose the capacity to change their mind and can no longer think outside the box. You are an extreme example of that on the left. There are plenty of examples on the right.

But the real truth is that both sides are wrong and truth lies somewhere in the dynamic middle. The sad thing is that, as far as I can tell, you can no longer recognize centrism and find even it to be "extremism" at this point. That should tip you off that there's a problem with your core thinking process.

I'll get to the rest of your post this evening.

I don't know in what way from reading your posts that you can claim you're a centrist.  False equivalence is not centrism.

[21st Century Man]

Sure I do. I knew it when I was 24 and I still know it at 40. Humans polarize on two issues. Religion and politics. That polarization leads to rigidity in thought, picking a side unequivocally so to speak. In other words politics and religion become dogmas and free thought becomes impossible. People become set in their beliefs and then delude themselves into thinking that they're correct due to an inability to think fluidly and adjust. They lose the capacity to change their mind and can no longer think outside the box. You are an extreme example of that on the left. There are plenty of examples on the right.

But the real truth is that both sides are wrong and truth lies somewhere in the dynamic middle. The sad thing is that, as far as I can tell, you can no longer recognize centrism and find even it to be "extremism" at this point. That should tip you off that there's a problem with your core thinking process.

I'll get to the rest of your post this evening.

This is cogent analysis. 136 likes to call himself a centrist but the fact of the matter is he calls members of the tea party, teabaggers.  Only those on the far left use that pejorative.

[136 or 142]

This is cogent analysis. 136 likes to call himself a centrist but the fact of the matter is he calls members of the tea party, teabaggers.  Only those on the far left use that pejorative.

Mainstream liberals use that term as well.

I don't remember referring to myself as a centrist.  I refer to myself on economics as a mix of Canadian blue liberalism and red liberalism.  On social issues, I probably would fall on the far left (which doesn't mean it's wrong, 40 years ago marijuana legalization was largely only argued for by those on the far left, not it's pretty mainstream and getting more so every year.  Same thing with gay marriage.) In foreign policy I regard myself as an 'enlightened realist.'

Maybe I used to refer to myself as a centrist in policy issues a while back.  I regard my ideal of trying to look at all the available evidence before reaching a conclusion and trying to limit my biases as a centrist ideal.  SciFiAuthor makes the same claim there, but I think his views regarding liberals isn't even far right as much as I think it's simply unhinged.

[21st Century Man]

Mainstream liberals use that term as well.

I don't remember referring to myself as a centrist.  I refer to myself on economics as a mix of Canadian blue liberalism and red liberalism.  On social issues, I probably would fall on the far left (which doesn't mean it's wrong, 40 years ago marijuana legalization was largely only argued for by those on the far left, not it's pretty mainstream and getting more so every year.  Same thing with gay marriage.) In foreign policy I regard myself as an 'enlightened realist.'

Maybe I used to refer to myself as a centrist in policy issues a while back.  I regard my ideal of trying to look at all the available evidence before reaching a conclusion and trying to limit my biases as a centrist ideal.  SciFiAuthor makes the same claim there, but I think his views regarding liberals isn't even far right as much as I think it's simply unhinged.

I don't want to get into a drug debate but I just want to say simply that if drugs including marijuana  had not affected my family, I would be calling for their legalization.  I think that prostitution should be legalized.  I've always been for gay unions,  I just had a problem with the word marriage for a while.  Semantics.  I don't believe in censorship of any form.  However, social issues have never been my focus.  My focus is getting back to constitutional principles.   We've been down that road before so I won't go into it here.  I am also fiscally conservative.

[Catsmile]

Life was simpler when I could just /ignore this idiot fuck, instead of having to scroll past half the fucking page.

The bright side is... all that scrolling keeps you off the business end of the crack pipe.

[Jackstar]

I regard my ideal of trying to look at all the available evidence before reaching a conclusion and trying to limit my biases as a centrist ideal.

Who killed Kennedy?

[136 or 142]

Who killed Kennedy?

The Mafia and the CIA working together.

[Jackstar]

The mafia and the CIA working together.

Name three people most directly responsible, in order of complicity. Go.

[136 or 142]

Name three people most directly responsible, in order of complicity. Go.

1.Allen and John Foster Dulles, jointly
2.The head of the U.S Mafia in 1963
3.Richard Helms

[21st Century Man]

1.Allen and John Foster Dulles, jointly
2.The head of the U.S mafia in 1963
3.Richard Helms

You forgot LBJ. 

[Jackstar]

You forgot LBJ. 

Curious, no?

[136 or 142]

You forgot LBJ. 

If he was involved, he's not in the top 3.

[Jackstar]

If he was involved

If he were. The past tense is always used with the conditional form.

he's not in the top 3.

Oh, look who knows so much.

[Dr. MD MD]

I don't know in what way from reading your posts that you can claim you're a centrist.  False equivalence is not centrism.

I've heard you use this term a lot now. It seems to be your (and mainstream media's) go to argument this election.You've said that the choice between right and left is a false equivalency because the left is clearly the correct choice to you and that this would also destroy the centrist position. However, Hillary has proudly declared herself to be a centrist. Is she suffering from false equivalency? Or, is there, yet again, a special exception for Hillary?

[SciFiAuthor]

This is cogent analysis. 136 likes to call himself a centrist but the fact of the matter is he calls members of the tea party, teabaggers.  Only those on the far left use that pejorative.

Right, 136 has lost touch with what the center actually is. It works that way on the right too when they use similar pejoratives against their own party's candidate. Biases are tricky things because one doesn't necessarily know that they are biased or how they became biased. I find that at the heart of this is often how one chooses their media sources. Naturally, people tend to pick the sources that generally reinforce their worldview. This could be the Huffington Post or Fox News or similar biased sources that clearly lean left or right. As a result, the misguided don't get exposed to a mix of viewpoints and that leads them down the path of bias. The antidote is to read and watch as much as possible from as wide a variety of viewpoints as possible and always reevaluate one's own politics.

Incidentally, this is a big problem with the so-called Alt-Right. They have their group of news sources that often introduce things like anti-Semitism into the mix. They don't realize that anti-Semitism or racism is self-discrediting, and to any reasonable person they look ridiculous. But to themselves they don't because they've surrounded themselves with sources that reinforce it. This is also one of the reasons that ISIS prioritized having a very active media wing.

[Catsmile]

This is cogent analysis. 136 likes to call himself a centrist but the fact of the matter is he calls members of the tea party, teabaggers.  Only those on the far left use that pejorative.

Lets face it the Right has moved its goalpost, even in my short life. Abraham Lincoln freeing the slaves. Saint Ronald Reagan giving amnesty to millions of illegals. Current GOP would decry both flip flopping, limp wristed, pinko commies today. Someone who was a Right centrist 30 years ago, and hasn't changed their stance since then, seems to be leaning heavily Left today.

As far as the term Teabagger goes some inside the movement adopted it for themselves. However them adopting the term was hard to pass up for comedic effect. The double entendre was lost on the Tea Party. Epitomising how out of touch the average Teabagger is. The attitude of "I got mine give to me, fuck you! Go git ur own somewhere else." Seemed to also be a Tea Party theme. And still resonates throughout the GOP.

Hence Trump fear mongering and pushing the Tea Party hot buttons. Illegals, skyrocketing violent crime, weak economy, 'murica going to hell in a handbasket.

   

[K_Dubb]

If he were. The past tense is always used with the conditional form.

I believe that is only the case if the condition is impossible and the writer wishes it to be understood as such.

[Hog]

Life was simpler when I could just /ignore this idiot fuck, instead of having to scroll past half the fucking page.

Says Bellgabs most ignored member.

peace
Hog

[Dr. MD MD]

Says Bellgabs most ignored member.

peace
Hog

Aren't you contradicting your own post here?