Aufan59

I have no problem with differing views, but that paper is being intentionally misleading. The enthalpy of CO2 or other greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere has nothing to do with global warming. And the authors are obviously knowledgeable enough to know otherwise.

Did you read that paper and understand it? Or did you just post it because it is an “alternative viewpoint”?

Did you actually read that paper? Do you understand it? It’s calculating the enthalpy of CO2 in the air. Mathematically it doesn’t seem wrong… but enthalpy has nothing to do with the radiative properties of greenhouse gases. That paper has to either be satire or intentionally obtuse.

Sure you did (bold emphasis mine): It doesn't. Yes. No.

Unless your list includes every problem our species faces, you fall short of your own moral obligation, while still having bandwidth to help (time, money or energy). I was trying to let you walk back your absurd statement that a person is obligated to help with every problem our species faces. Instead you double down on the absurdity by saying your posts here are helping the world’s problems.

It is a moral obligation to spend your time, money and energy every problem our species faces - per your previous response. The moral obligation does not end. Unless you are spending all of your time, money and energy on these problems and have nothing left to give, there are some (probably many) problems that you are choosing not to spend your time, money or energy on. Why aren’t you focused on those instead of wasting time on a forum?

You must be very busy and broke to be spending time and money on all of the world’s problems. How do you have time to post on this forum, which is not solving any problems? Seems immoral.

You avoided all of my questions. Where does the moral obligation end? Are you morally obligated to spend your time, money and energy on every problem our species faces? Also, do you have children?

I guess here I have to ask, you realize nobody chooses to be born, right? Being born is not a lack of foresight. Being born does not make you obligated to fix the world’s problems, especially those you cannot fix. Where does your moral high ground end? To what extent? I have no children. Maybe I am contributing to the solution more so than anyone who does have children? I assume you are doing your part and not having kids?

Ah yes, that decision we all made, choosing to be born. I guess it is my fault then!

I think this is a fair point. I for one have zero interest in the state of our planet after I die, so I don’t care to expend too much effort to fix problems I did not cause nor cannot solve. Just need to make sure I die before catastrophe. That being said, I’m a firm believer that technology will solve problems. I have zero problem with some of my tax money going toward potential solutions. Advancing technology will be how we solve this problem, and get other counties on board with the solution. I used to argue against renewable subsidies, but I was wrong. As of now, they seem to be able to hold their own economically against fossil fuels, but that might not have been possible without assistance. And even ignoring global warming, CO2 is a pollutant of our oceans (acidification) and fossil fuels have other polluting downsides besides CO2.

Careful with dismissing small numbers just because they are small. For something we can all relate to, when my BAC is at 0.028%, it is probably unnoticeable to most, I can comfortably drive home. But at 0.1% I’m breaking the law and risking lives on that same drive home. Complex systems can change quite significantly to seemingly small changes, so small changes can’t immediately be dismissed because they are small.

Getting government assistance requiring service in the armed forces is an interesting idea. Though from a report in 2020, most of the people receiving SNAP or medicare worked full time. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-45 Walmart and McDonalds would lose a significant amount of their workforce if they needed to be in the army instead. I’m not sure this is practical. You bring up a good point about the nuclear family. Maybe we should have required paid maternity/paternity leave? Or wages high enough for one parent to not work? How would we do this?

We agree that a social safety net is needed, but we should be aiming to reduce the amount of people who rely on it. As pointed out in the speech you highlighted earlier, government providing employment can do that. Do you have a better solution? Or is it to tell people to stop being lazy?

It would be higher than 2%. In a world where everyone does the right thing, there will still be poverty. Poverty will always exist. Even if everyone worked hard and did all the correct things, there will still be people at the bottom. Thus poverty should be treated as a societal problem, not a problem of individual actors and their choices. Do you believe poor people will always exist? Also as a footnote, poverty line for individuals in 2010 was about $11,000, less than full time minimum wage. Yikes!

If this plan worked 98% of the time, we would still need a safety net. Exactly, some people don’t have personal responsibility and need a safety net. The alternative is that we let them die on the street. I assume that is not your take. I suggest you read the entire speech. This snippet we can agree on, that we would prefer for nobody to have to rely on the safety net. But do you agree with the rest? It’s a damn socialist manifesto if said today: “We have, however, a clear mandate from the people, that Americans must forswear that conception of the acquisition of wealth which, through excessive profits, creates undue private power over private affairs and, to our misfortune, over public affairs as well.” This is more true now than ever. And how does he propose to get people off the government dole? Emergency government employment: “It is a duty dictated by every intelligent consideration of national policy to ask you to make it possible for the United States to give employment to all of these three and one half million employable people now on relief, pending their absorption in a rising tide of private employment.” Works for me! Popular policy does not mean government is using it to control us.

I agree the size and degree of the safety net is a good discussion. But first you have to establish that the safety net is needed, and not just government trying to make you dependent as brought up by I_M4_AU. I believe you agree it’s needed. Then next you have to establish that the safety net shouldn’t be dependent on arbitrary judgement of what the individual should have done to avoid needing the safety net in the first place. Or as you put it : “a nanny state protecting people from the consequences of poor choices”. I’m not sure where you fall on the second point, but the answer is that yes, safety nets should include protecting those who made poor life choices. “Poor life choices” is undefined and arbitrary, outside of breaking the law. In the world where everyone is an upstanding highly qualified doctor or engineer, there would be poor doctors and engineers who need a safety net. Their poor life choice was what exactly? Not being a better doctor or engineer? And if they were better, it would be someone else at the bottom.

On your point about safety nets, poor people will always exist. The Bible says it and capitalism guarantees it. I think this is reason enough to provide a social safety net, and reason why it shouldn’t be contingent on someone else’s high horse opinion on life choices. In a world where everyone studied hard and became an upstanding doctor or engineer, there would exist poor doctors and engineers who would need a social safety net. The need for a safety net is independent from the fact that some individuals make bad life choices. On states autonomy, we tried that. States used to have more autonomy but some states used their autonomy to treat people as property. Kinda ruined that whole idea. Ignoring that obvious example, and back to yours, regions having more autonomy worked much better when it took five weeks to get from Boston to Alabama. Now you can do it within a day. Alabama having their own idea of gun rights, in your example, potentially affects Boston.

Conservatives are worried about losing their socialism, which I find funny.

I am not fully dependent, but you have changed your words from ‘dependent’ to ‘fully dependent financially’.

We are all dependent on the government. Who do you think protects your rights?

Where do they want us? Relying on them for protections and safety nets?

My favorite thing about the idea of Texas seceding is conservatives asking what would happen to their social security checks. In other words, if we secede, will we still get our socialism benefits?

Many people are raised to take things in faith based on fear, not facts or evidence. It is no surprise that there is a large overlap between those who take things in faith, from their own tribe, without evidence - and those who have faith in Trump.

So he is talking about media lies that he feels led up to what happened on January 6, 2021. Yet there was no mention of the biggest media lie that led to January 6, 2021? The one that cost Fox News nearly a $billion? I’m all for holding media accountable, but if the point is that media lies led up to January 6, 2021… at least don’t be a shill and mention them all. I like someone who will speak truth to power, but come on now.