More big government strong-armed tactics

[stebo0728]

One only needs look at the Kyoto Treaty. China puts out more Co2 than we do, yet Kyoto gives them no sanctions. BTW - Co2 is not a major contributor to green house effect. Water vapor has a much greater effect. Plus Co2 comes out in much greater force from animals, algae exhaust, sea bed seapage, as ocean warms (natural cylce, sun caused) then the water holds on to less Co2, more gets in atmosphere. What we are seeing is a natural cylce, that just looks a bit dirtier because we are here. Regardless of what private sector solutions arise, the government should not be in the mind of signing bullsh*t treaties that sell our childrens future abroad. (Note - even Clinton knew better than to sign Kyoto)

Water Vapor does indeed have a greater effect on the greenhouse effect than CO2. But Water Vapor is not being emitted by the burning of fossil fuels. Water Vapor content in the air is dependent on temperature and pressure. Pressure is relatively constant, but temperature does fluctuate. There are feedback mechanisms involved. One of which is water vapor. For any change in temperature where water is present, there will be a higher content of water in the atmosphere when temperatures are higher. If you've taken any chemistry courses, usually a vapor pressure lab is performed. This is essentially an example of this effect. And only one of the many feedback mechanisms (both positive and negative) that are accounted for by climate scientists.

Exactly my point, we have no control over the major player in global green house effect. Sure we can try to clean up our local environment, make smog a bit less annoying, and stop throwing cigarette butts out the window, but this is all a localized issue, humans and their actions are not deciding factors in the global cycle.

Further, and here is where the science gets a bit less neutral, who is to say what NORMAL even is? Sure hypothesis can be made to that effect, and thats nice until finding come out that prove them wrong. We think glaciers are receeding like never before, then 50 feer or so of recess later we unearth signs of civilization, hence, the glacier has been that low or lower in the past. Just like origin of life, or any history related science, all we have to work with is what we can see, anything else is just a theory, and when you start building elaborate theories built upon other elaborate unstable theories, well then your just guessing at it all.

[HashiriyaS14]

Think there's not a "systemic cost" issue at stake there?

Certainly hypothetical, and I don't have a real strong opinion here (other than my complete opposition to infringement on personal liberties) but can you at least see what happens when we try to legislate behavior beyond that which is reasonable? It turns into a quagmire, and those who support it CAN'T have it both ways.

^^
Yes.

This is very similar to the "legislate tanning" debate. There IS an undeniable systemic cost, but not something that can be feasibly legislated away.

[C-Kwik]

Exactly my point, we have no control over the major player in global green house effect. Sure we can try to clean up our local environment, make smog a bit less annoying, and stop throwing cigarette butts out the window, but this is all a localized issue, humans and their actions are not deciding factors in the global cycle.

Are we the primary factor for the greenhouse effect? Of course not. But we certainly do not have to be the primary factor in order to be a significant one.

Further, and here is where the science gets a bit less neutral, who is to say what NORMAL even is? Sure hypothesis can be made to that effect, and thats nice until finding come out that prove them wrong. We think glaciers are receeding like never before, then 50 feer or so of recess later we unearth signs of civilization, hence, the glacier has been that low or lower in the past. Just like origin of life, or any history related science, all we have to work with is what we can see, anything else is just a theory, and when you start building elaborate theories built upon other elaborate unstable theories, well then your just guessing at it all.

The process is basically laid out like this. They try their best to mathematically compute all the various factors. Mathematical models are built and compared to the evidence we found in history of temperature and CO2 levels. When they can, with a certain degree of scientific accuracy, match dependent variables by plugging in the values of independent variables, they know they have a model that is likely to predict what can happen. Once such a model exists, they simply plug in what CO2 levels would exist without our involvement and that provides an estimate of what our temperature would have been (what you refer to as normal). They can also extrapolate and try to estimate future trends. Of course, there is always going to be some degree of scientific uncertainty, but when the major factors are already accounted for, its going to be hard to end up with a mathematical model that doesn't primarily follow that trend. To my understanding, there are several models that use different kinds of data as variables and all produce strikingly similar results. This is a huge factor towards credibility in science and helps to rule out much of the uncertainty in the data and the math.

That said, surely, no credible climatologist is going to deny that there aren't climate cycles that run concurrently all the time. This would be a huge mistake on their part as we learned about major global climate changes from a fairly early age. But they are a part of the model they build. Short of a major screw up in the implementation of understanding of the effects, such trends are going to be accounted for. And there is and perhaps always will be further research to discover other contributing factors and to tighten the mathematical model. And there will always be the possibility that there is something fundamentally wrong with data or the model. But if the model works pretty well, and there is no credible evidence that the data is wrong, do we simply ignore it? I might ask, where are the mathematical models that show that MMGW is not occurring?

Finally, I have no problem with questioning science. Its what keeps us moving forward. If we knew everything with absolute certainty, there would be no more need for research of things unknown and unexplained. But the argument you seem to be making is that not knowing everything means we know nothing.

[AZhitman]

Again, that's one half of the issue. The other half is the public costs. Maybe you are taking them into account, but maybe you aren't.

No, it's ALL of the issue. You can make it about "public costs" if you want, but that's ASSUMING that we continue to bear their burden. Regardless, I'm not interested in living in a society that tells me what I can and can't eat, either explicitly or subtly, and I'll vote against anyone who even SMELLS like they're leaning this way.

Let me make myself VERY clear: I don't give a damn if you want to kill yourself with your lifestyle choices, and neither should the government. Ever. Period.

Next up: Mandatory exercise programs? Let's check your BMI there, Fatty. Oh - You're stressed? Not anymore, the Republik has a nice comfy room for you at the Decommissioning Station.

Attention, US Government: My name is Greg Childs and I'd respectfully ask that you stay the F out of my business.

1. Drug use decriminalization is not a parallel issue. If they simultaneously advocated fully banning high-cholesteral foods, then you'd have a point. But I do believe that every time someone says "Decriminalize it" they follow it up with "tax it and regulate it."

Minutiae and semantics. I just pointed out that many of the same people say the same things.

Kinda like the PETA a$$ that roll up in a Range Rover with leather seats, wearing leather shoes. Hmmmm.

2. I don't know that many people who simultaneously call for restrictions on fatty foods and call for the repeal of helmet and seat belt laws. I mean, I can point to people who say each of those things, but they aren't all the same people.

Again, I'm not gonna get into such quibbly bits with you. I'm saying, those who oppose one had damn well better oppose the other, and vice-versa. Simultaneousness is not a critical factor.

3. Promote alternative and higher-risk lifestyles? Like what? Rabid-badger Skydiving Club?

LIke I said before, "If you can put another dude's AIDS-infested crank in your mouth, why not raw milk?"

If you can't have raw milk, then maybe they need to outlaw premarital sex... and homosexuality... and alcohol use... and travel to foreign countries... motorcycle riding... and, of course, smoking. ALL have components of risk, and I'd hazard a guess that all represent a statistically higher rate of medical cost to be passed along to the public.

Where are all the under-30 crowd that was so "anti-establishment" before? Why are THEY not in an uproar over these infringements on freedoms? Or, is it that they're just a bunch of spoiled little partisan shills, lining up like sheep, doing as the Messiah asks them to do?

Are the old guys gonna have to run this revolution?

[IBCoupe]

I suppose the distinction between a good offered for sale and a private consensual act would fall upon deaf ears?

Kinda like the PETA a$$ that roll up in a Range Rover with leather seats, wearing leather shoes. Hmmmm.

I'm getting the feeling that you spend most of your day in a magical, imaginary world. I'd like to join you; I'm a bit tired of this one.

[AZhitman]

I suppose the distinction between a good offered for sale and a private consensual act would fall upon deaf ears?

Most likely. But you'd get an "A+" on the test if the only question was, "what's the difference between raw milk and oral sex".

Well done.

Kinda like the PETA a$$ that roll up in a Range Rover with leather seats, wearing leather shoes. Hmmmm.

I'm getting the feeling that you spend most of your day in a magical, imaginary world. I'd like to join you; I'm a bit tired of this one.

You're obviously unfamiliar with the majority of high-profile PETA activists. But feel free to claim it's not the case, and I guess I'll just have to bombard you with pictures of supermodels stepping out of limousines.

Let's remember who spends their day in the "magical, imaginary world" of academia.

I work, run a business, raise kids, spend time with my wife, engage in hobbies, serve my community, vote, chat with the neighbors and do my chores.

Not sure how much more "real" it gets.

[IBCoupe]

I spend my day working for a defense contractor, designing for the Navy. Though it takes a large portion of my energy, most of my time is not spent on academia, thank you very much. That I am able to devote much of my life to "the socratic method" does not mean that I'm completely detached from the world.

Now, I've got to ask: these spokespeople, are they supermodels? Are they available to the highest bidder? ...are they really related to PETA?

This reminds me of how shortly after the BP spill, people were blaming environmentalists. "If you had let them drill on land or in shallow water, this wouldn't be a problem!" Nevermind that the reason they were drilling deep had more to do with the fact that that's where the remaining oil is, but this illustrates a conflation of identity and statements. That someone was saying "Don't drill here" doesn't mean they were an environmentalist - it means they were opposed to the drilling there. That there were NIMBY's mixing in with the environmentalists doesn't mean that the environmentalists weren't saying, "Don't drill here, or anywhere else for that matter."

That there's people saying "be humane to animals" doesn't mean that they're necessarily associated with a movement that wants animals to be treated human.

[stebo0728]

Hey guys, step off, im a member of PETA. We are talking about P.eople E.ating T.asty A.nimals right?

[AZhitman]

Let's not forget, while we're outlawing "raw milk" in order to mitigate "systemic costs"... people with tattoos are 274% more likely to contract Hep C than non-tattooed individuals. Time to tax tattoo purchases the same as we're taxing tanning.

As an aside, I agree with your criticism of the BP outcry. I don't blame anyone but those responsible for procedural safeguards.

As far as my PETA comment goes, Pamela Anderson, Christy Turlington, Drew Barrymore, Alec Baldwin, John Gielgud, Bill Maher, Stella McCartney, and Alicia Silverstone come to mind (I don't know the names of the supermodels who participated in the "I'd rather go naked than wear fur" campaign).

My point was, if you're going to be affilated (as a spokesperson or advocate or activist) for a group that's been known to resort to some pretty liberty-infringing means to convey their point, such as throwing blood on fur-wearers, vandalism and destruction of property, then you'd better be beyond reproach yourself, and that includes eschewing any appearance of hypocrisy (such as owning a vehicle with a leather interior or wearing animal-skin shoes).

[IBCoupe]

Let's not forget, while we're outlawing "raw milk" in order to mitigate "systemic costs"... people with tattoos are 274% more likely to contract Hep C than non-tattooed individuals. Time to tax tattoo purchases the same as we're taxing tanning.

Don't we already regulate tattoo parlors? Or are you suggesting that there's something inherent about having a tattoo that makes one physically more susceptible to contracting Hepatitis C?

As far as my PETA comment goes, Pamela Anderson, Christy Turlington, Drew Barrymore, Alec Baldwin, John Gielgud, Bill Maher, Stella McCartney, and Alicia Silverstone come to mind (I don't know the names of the supermodels who participated in the "I'd rather go naked than wear fur" campaign).

My point was, if you're going to be affilated (as a spokesperson or advocate or activist) for a group that's been known to resort to some pretty liberty-infringing means to convey their point, such as throwing blood on fur-wearers, vandalism and destruction of property, then you'd better be beyond reproach yourself, and that includes eschewing any appearance of hypocrisy (such as owning a vehicle with a leather interior or wearing animal-skin shoes).

Ah, so the same thing as what I was saying about BP, then? That some who advocate a thing (not supporting the fur trade) also advocate other things (committing acts of violence against the fur trade), they must all account for that partial advocation? The feature of a group's members are attributed to the group as a whole.

This is the same flawed logic that we saw with the BP outcry, the Ground Zero Interfaith Center, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Tea Party movement, the killing of civilians in Vietnam, and on and on and on. I know I can't get the entire world to start thinking logically, Greg, but at least I can get a start on you.

[AZhitman]

I don't see how you can equate my call for a complete lack of hypocrisy to a "lack of logic".

If you're going to criticize me for eating meat, you'd probably better not be a consumer of animal products yourself.

Tattoo parlors are regulated, certainly. My point was (and maybe we need to go back to the OP and the "raw milk" example), is it "regulated" - or "demonized" (or even outlawed).

And of course I'm not above recognizing that there may be other, confounding factors in play in the HepC / tattoo correlation. I haven't read the study or debunked the statistics. Conveniently, I'm betting the "raw milk" opposition hasn't done likewise.

[AZhitman]

I spend my day working for a defense contractor, designing for the Navy. Though it takes a large portion of my energy, most of my time is not spent on academia, thank you very much. That I am able to devote much of my life to "the socratic method" does not mean that I'm completely detached from the world.

Just lobbing that imaginary grenade back into your imaginary foxhole. I didn't pull the imaginary pin, you did.



I'd never imply that you're "detached" from the world. You're very well-read, intelligent and fair, and I actually learn a ton from these discussions.

[IBCoupe]

I don't see how you can equate my call for a complete lack of hypocrisy to a "lack of logic".

If you're going to criticize me for eating meat, you'd probably better not be a consumer of animal products yourself.

The lack of logic is not for your calls for an end to hypocrisy. The lack of logic is where you take the attributes of some members of a group, and apply them to all members of that group. The "group" here is "anti fur-industry activists" and the subset you're looking at is "violent PETA members." The people you're calling on aren't the people you're pointing at, is what I'm saying.

Tattoo parlors are regulated, certainly. My point was (and maybe we need to go back to the OP and the "raw milk" example), is it "regulated" - or "demonized" (or even outlawed).

Right, and I think the happy medium between outlawing it/completely obliterating that area of individual liberty and giving individual liberty a wide birth at the cost of perhaps indirect effects on the individual liberty of others will come with proper regulation.

Again, when I point out that there are systemic costs to take into consideration, I'm not saying that any one thing is the answer. I'm calling for consideration of the issue as a whole.

And of course I'm not above recognizing that there may be other, confounding factors in play in the HepC / tattoo correlation. I haven't read the study or debunked the statistics. Conveniently, I'm betting the "raw milk" opposition hasn't done likewise.

I wouldn't be surprised if that was often the case.

Just lobbing that imaginary grenade back into your imaginary foxhole. I didn't pull the imaginary pin, you did.



I'd never imply that you're "detached" from the world. You're very well-read, intelligent and fair, and I actually learn a ton from these discussions.

My mistake. Though, in my defense, I didn't mean to imply that your imaginary world had anything to do with being detached from real-world experiences. I was jabbing at your rather absurd-looking characterizations, that, on their face, looked like the kind of logical fallacy that I described here.

[IBCoupe]

I should say that this is not an uncommon fallacy, and it happens all the time. Why do we ask "moderate Republicans" to call out the more radical elements in their party? They're not the same people, and they are not their brother's keeper. If you want someone called out, do it your own damn self.

What bothers me the most is when we continue this fallacy in the event that the moderates don't call out the extremists, by saying that they're complicit with it.

[AZhitman]

The lack of logic is where you take the attributes of some members of a group, and apply them to all members of that group. The "group" here is "anti fur-industry activists" and the subset you're looking at is "violent PETA members." The people you're calling on aren't the people you're pointing at, is what I'm saying.

No, I'm calling out / pointing at both groups. If there's an individual in either of those camps who eschews all animal products, then they can step up in defense of their integrity. Until then, I will lump them all together and call them hypocrites.

I'm sure there are some tee-totallers in the PETA ranks (good work!), and I'm sure there are some members who understand there's a balance between advocating for something and attacking others for not holding that same viewpoint (also, good work). Hell, I think my daughter is a "member", she gets some correspondence from them on occasion - but she's not an "activist". If she were, I'd ask her WTF she thinks her new Adidas are made of.

[wingFeather]

Obviously you have, so it shouldn't be terribly hard for you to explain your position.

To someone like you who lacks the ability to comprehend reality? Seems like a waste of time to me.

[IBCoupe]

Greg,
While that's an interesting argument, I'm still seeing you make the same mistake. If one of our greatest principles, as a society, is to give due respect to individual liberty, then one of our greatest responsibilities, as a society, is to judge people only on the basis of their individual acts.

Wing,
That would be clever if it weren't such an obvious dodge.

[wingFeather]

That would be clever if it weren't such an obvious dodge.

I am learning a little about how to be a lawyer myself I can only guess you are succeeding in law school, as your posts always remind me of the way a lawyer can bend the truth to fit his own agenda.

[stebo0728]

That would be clever if it weren't such an obvious dodge.

I am learning a little about how to be a lawyer myself I can only guess you are succeeding in law school, as your posts always remind me of the way a lawyer can bend the truth to fit his own agenda.

Didnt you know? Truth is relative.

[AZhitman]

Greg,
While that's an interesting argument, I'm still seeing you make the same mistake. If one of our greatest principles, as a society, is to give due respect to individual liberty, then one of our greatest responsibilities, as a society, is to judge people only on the basis of their individual acts.

Oh for God's sake... I didn't call out anyone who hadn't committed BOTH of the aforementioned offenses. Black and white thinking? Yes. Commitments to a cause are often absolute to those who make them (if not, can they truly be considered commitments?) and as such, should be whole-hog.

So, let me narrow my focus: Pammy, you surgically-altered hosebeast, you can kiss my a$$ for being such a hypocrite. I'll denounce my favorite leather jacket when you quit buying luxury cars lined with Bessie's shaved arse.

There. How's that?

[stebo0728]

Wouldnt you love to set some regulations policies for Chinas health standards?

[IBCoupe]

Didnt you know? Truth is relative.

You may be surprised to learn this, but one of the earliest lessons in Law School is that the truth is irrelevant. The legal system doesn't exist to prove things; it exists to resolve disputes. The adversarial system has less to do with finding the actual truth of the matter and more to do with getting 12 people (or less, depending on the venue) to believe one side or the other.

Commitments to a cause are often absolute to those who make them (if not, can they truly be considered commitments?) and as such, should be whole-hog.

I don't buy it. If someone's not saying a thing or doing a thing, we shouldn't presume that they mean to. I can be a member of an organization and an advocate on one of that organization's issues without actually advocating all of those issues. If they're saying they agree with all of PETA's actions, you've got a point. If PETA's got an official leather-seat policy that one must necessarily embrace upon membership, you've got a point. If not, you're just grumpy.

So, let me narrow my focus: Pammy, you surgically-altered hosebeast, you can kiss my a$$ for being such a hypocrite. I'll denounce my favorite leather jacket when you quit buying luxury cars lined with Bessie's shaved arse.

There. How's that?

Better, I think.