231–240 of 245 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You suggest vile acts should be permitted without consequence?
Consequences and punishment are different concepts, I support the death penalty in the case of egregious acts primarily from the perspective of cost and efficiency of removing an unacceptable risk to society. I don’t need to see them tortured beforehand, as it serves little to no purpose (in my opinion).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
because their interests are, ostensibly, with their constituents.
You must be new to politics, lol. I am not sure if modern politicians even pretend to represent their constituents these days. Special interests first, party second, constituents only during an election, but only if you have a close race.
Purdy was improperly conflating their ability to detect the substance with "harm," and the environmental propagandists have been running with it for a long time. What "harm" precisely did he identify? The article doesn't say. Maybe a carcinogen? Maybe not? There's been a concerted effort to make PFOS/PFAS an environmental super-villain, but it's hard to substantiate when we volitionally ingest many flourinated pharma…
Did you read this? https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-b...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wish more people were aware of how damaging bad science is, even when it is well intentioned. Environmental studies are often littered with double counting and creative data framing. One faked study does more to convince people global warming is over blown than 100 rigorous studies showing that it isn't.
The reason people think climate change is overblown is because it challenges them to think about changing their way of life ie directly goes against their interests, not because some dataset has been poorly interpreted in a study they haven't read. (Also because fossil fuel people kept financing fake science for decades and are actively participating in culture wars around it)
A doctor could say an infection has a chance of death if left untreated. If the person lives they'd say the doctor was "wrong", and "the doctor gave me a month to live."
At this point most probable estimates are so bad it's besides the point, but I'd think the lower odds yet especially cataclysmic projections are worth attention.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You must be new to politics, lol. I am not sure if modern politicians even pretend to represent their constituents these days. Special interests first, party second, constituents only during an election, but only if you have a close race.
thats a defeatist attitude. "Oh the windows are already broken, let's spray paint the walls."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They had a marginal role compared to the west only in so far as they didn't produce as much as we did in the west. But relatively compared to the west they were absolute swine and had no accountability towards their population. The proof is in the very article we are discussing here. This would never happen in north korea or former soviet union. You are trying to come up with some redefinition of terms. We all know w…
> They had a marginal role compared to the west only in so far as they didn't produce as much as we did in the west Yep, exactly, they had a marginal role. > This would never happen in north korea or former soviet union Those are not socialist countries though, just plain old dictatorships. It would also not happen in Pinochet's Chile or Franco's Spain or any other fascist dictatorship supported by the US. > We all k…
North Korea is communist. Soviet Union was communist.
Claiming otherwise is disingenuous.
Socialism means the government owning the means of production and the more you want the government to control it the more socialist you are so yes it was.
The only strawman is the one you are making. No country is purely capitalist or purely communist but the west is more capitalist than it's not, north korea is more socialist and communist than it's not.
The opposite of a capitalist society is exactly that which is why people often flee from those countries and towards more capitalist countries.
And yes socialist means leaving the means of production to government. The more the government interfere the more socialist. Most people understand this concept.
"To be even more clear, no government would kill its people to profit and even if they did, sooner or later the people would overthrown it."
Ahh yeah you tell that to the Kulags who got killed by Stalin.
No it's called a fact. Noam Chomskys contribution have been to academia nothing else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They had a marginal role compared to the west only in so far as they didn't produce as much as we did in the west Yep, exactly, they had a marginal role. > This would never happen in north korea or former soviet union Those are not socialist countries though, just plain old dictatorships. It would also not happen in Pinochet's Chile or Franco's Spain or any other fascist dictatorship supported by the US. > We all k…
They had a marginal role because they were less productive. As a percentage of how much they produced it was much higher. North Korea is communist. Soviet Union was communist. Claiming otherwise is disingenuous. Socialism means the government owning the means of production and the more you want the government to control it the more socialist you are so yes it was. The only strawman is the one you are making. No count…
FWIW: Communism != Socialism
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately the companies manage to wriggle out of all liability by saying they are bankrupt or transferring to a new company structure. https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsona... https://www.lawsuit-information-center.com/2-billion-verdict... $200,000 per victim for knowingly being given cancer. Obscene. I think China executing people is much closer to justice than our system.
Something like a real solution is to create a way to reintroduce personal liability for executive teams in cases like this where extraordinary harm is done. Human beings need to have their own assets and personal well being at risk, otherwise the incentives for perpetrating mass pollution are too lucrative. Jail and financial annihilation are basically the only ways to try to counterbalance the massive upside you can…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They had a marginal role because they were less productive. As a percentage of how much they produced it was much higher. North Korea is communist. Soviet Union was communist. Claiming otherwise is disingenuous. Socialism means the government owning the means of production and the more you want the government to control it the more socialist you are so yes it was. The only strawman is the one you are making. No count…
"Socialism means the government owning the means of production" FWIW: Communism != Socialism