I never said it was completely separate;

You are delusional and/or a lying piece of shit.

Red vs. Blue is not "culture wars." Those are two different things.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Just avoid using LEDs in overhead applications. Pointing up (i.e. base down), they last a long time. Pointing down , they crash pretty fast. This will change in time, but it seems to be the norm today. It's a heat thing, and the only heat sensitive stuff is in the base.

OH, dear. Now you tell me. Well, most of the time I use spot lighting anyway; the overheads are there, but not much used. Well, thanks for the information.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

You are delusional and/or a lying piece of shit.

Red vs. Blue is not "culture wars." Those are two different things. That means you can't equate the two. That's what you do, as in, if I point out that something is a partisan issue, that automatically makes it a "culture wars" issue. Economics and global warming are not culture wars issues, but they are partisan issues. I am not lying; you are arguing over nothing. Why not just deal with what you know I meant, rather than just try to hang me on your interpretations of my words? And then engage in still more name-calling? But then, you'd rather do that than face the fact that I am right on the issue: more-severe storms and global warming is caused by fossil fuel CEOs supported by Republicans and those who vote for them.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Facts are facts, which is what I wrote, and ONLY what I wrote.

As for the post in question, the part I set out in blue is factual. The stuff I marked in red is opinion and would if placed in a newspaper for example, wind up on the op-ed section.

Voting D is a pretty good bet, although perhaps not in Oklahoma. You always have to pick and choose, and independent/third party votes are cool in my book too. As I stated, Dems have a much better record on the environment. I already posted the League of Conservation voters report here several times. The margins are like 90 to 0. But if it's "all good," then why do you call it cruft?

I call it cruft because the writing style reminds me of the old college habit of term paper stuffing. You're very good at it and should be proud. The professor specifies that a term paper has be be 10 pages long on the topic at hand. Now what professors never get is how resourceful some students get in stuffing as little actual information in as many words as possible. It also helps to be an ace on the SAT verbal section. You can stuff even better by using great big Latinate words in place of itty bitty Anglo Saxon words. Why use "like" when "simulacra" will do?

Originally Posted by Eric

1. There was no cruft to clean out

I consider the stuff I colored red as cruft.

Originally Posted by Eric

2. I'm not so sure about that. JDG just gets on my ignore list for doing it.

See. JDG indeed gets special attention. Remember this. Any time someone makes it to your ignore list, you're not ignoring them really. What you're really doing is letting that person do is rent space in your mind. After all, the ignore list is just a symptom of a basic fact: That person disturbs your aura/ space-time continuum to such a degree that you resort to dysfunctional behaviors.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Agreed. The label 'fascist' and comparisons to Hitler are usually a cheap form of ad-holmium used by those lacking originality.

Indeed such is so. Words have meaning lest communication be futile (as George Orwell demonstrates in 1984 as nobody else has done originally). A word so loaded as fascism merits discretion in use so that it keeps its meaning. Indeed Orwell, an unambiguous antifascist, insists that the word be limited lest it be cheapened:

Originally Posted by George Orwell

It would seem that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox hunting, bullfighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

http://www.orwell.ru/library/article.../english/efasc

I'm tempted to make a distinction between conservative dictatorships (like Chile under Pinochet, Spain under Franco, Portugal under Salazar, Austria under Dollfuss and Schuschnigg, and Hungary under Horthy) and the more militaristic and totalitarian regimes like Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, thug Japan, Croatia under the Ustaše, Hungary under the Arrow Cross, and Romania under the Iron Guard. The conservative dictatorships make no pretense of any revolutionary tendencies; indeed they are counter-revolutionary even in style and often prove cautious about war and ethnic strife even if they suppress working-class movements. Full-blown fascism always claims to be revolutionary -- and part of the revolution is often an attempt to establish some racial purification. I could easily make the case that Francisco Franco was closer to Sir Winston Churchill in ideology than he was to Hitler. There could be some gradation.

Perhaps the word fascist applies to death squads and to organizations that adopt many fascist traits (such as some KKK groups, although attributing fascism to the 1865 Klan is anachronistic). Some Klan groups have adopted Nazi styles and symbols -- in which case they cannot avoid being called fascist.

Now, PBower might see the World War II era as critically shaping the world as it is now. He does seem to reach to the culture and values of that time for examples of how we might perceive and act today. In a similar way I was shaped by the Consciousness Revolution, and am strongly influenced by the Blue Boomer values of anti-war, equality and ecology. JPT reads the Bible and attends church, which strongly effects his perspective and values. If PBower might possibly be accused of having a Nazi hard on, I'd suggest we all have strong values that tie us to a given time, place, culture and / or belief system.

I can hardly imagine any ideology more repugnant than Nazism. The Nazi Party was basically a syndicate of organized crime with the methods of a criminal gang imposed upon every possible aspect of life. Nazis corrupted almost everything German except for Judaism in Germany -- the economy, culture, education, media, the armed forces, professional life, and even the churches. Once in command in Germany it could only metastasize as a cancer in Western Civilization. (In view of this, how could anyone accuse me of fascism?)

All Crisis Eras are unique, but the last one is different in that people who did not live in it have powerful images of what went wrong in central Europe and in Japan in the 1930s and 1940s. Repudiation of WWII-era fascism is complete throughout most of the world.

It is far easier to predict what will remain from the last Crisis Era (the repudiation of fascism and the fatal weakening of colonial rule) than to predict what cultural trends from the Boom Awakening will prevail in the current Crisis Era. Maybe some of the cultural ephemera not tied to any ideology (the establishment of Gustav Mahler in the musical repertoire and the rediscovery of Art Nouveau and Art Deco) is about all that I could predict with certainty. This Crisis has shown so far an inordinate empowerment of right-leaning Boomer trends, most notably born-again Christianity that rejects objective science in favor of faith, at least in America.

"Peace, love, and dope" is kaputt. Much else has had to defer to a "Profits first/pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die" ethos that I associate largely with Red Boomers. If any Left Boomer agenda is to thrive, then such will happen because Generation X and Millennial adults find such useful -- and at terms not of Boomer choosing.

One of my repeating problems is those who label me as Boomer and talk to me as if I were a stereotypical Boomer, whatever that is. A lot of Boomer haters refuse to distinguish between Blue and Red Boomers. They attack some mythical group of people who share ugly Boomer traits shared by both Red and Blue, without being able or willing to respect or talk about the issues dividing Red and Blue. This inability to distinguish between vastly divergent value sets renders them incapable of communicating with either flavor of Boomer.

I am a Boomer. I am very much a Blue Boomer. I despise both the neo-con and Tea Party parts of the Red Boomer agenda. I recognize the weakness of any left-wing Boomer agenda. But know well: it is the last Idealist agenda that establishes the memorable legacy of that generation.

I see PBower as having a similar problem. I might be wrong. Yes, he is concerned about issues and values that dominated the World War II era, but that doesn't make him a Nazi any more than I'm a Red Boomer or JPT is a Sunni.

My anti-fascist credentials should be well established in these debates. Humanity has a shared bond while it lives, lest it have the common bond of mass, pointless death. I have read the theory behind Howe and Strauss, and anyone who understands the theory and does not have some trepidation at what is possible in a 4T has missed something paramount. A 4T can bring out the greatest human heroism, charity, and mercy in some. It can also bring forth the worst cruelty, cowardice, and opportunism. If we have a Crisis-era war do we have a heroic defense of everything that we cherish as the British did during the Blitz, using every tool of rational science available while exercising the normal decencies that the best of the moral teachers offered -- or do we use the fog of war as a pretext to rob, enslave, and murder helpless people?

Humanity needs to remember the smoking chimneys and the piles of bodies stacked like cordwood -- but it also needs to remember how to resist extreme, inexcusable evil.

It is appropriate to promote one's own value system, but I wish more people would spend some time attempting to understand the value system of the person one is supposedly communicating with. One would think one wins points by using an insult sound byte that one thinks ought to sting the stereotype one is attacking. Does anyone think one can win points by learning, by assimilating a bit of someone else's perspective into one's own?

I try to avoid ethnic, religious, and regional stereotypes. The winning side will need to convince those with a weak commitment to the Other Side that the Other Side offers questionable results. The basic distinction between Good and Evil is much the same in Baltimore as it is in Bangalore. Human life is precious wherever it is. I am convinced that a devout Christian and a devout Buddhist can have much in common in their ethical views even if they are completely ignorant of the religious fundamentals of each other.

I see much objectionable in the Religious Right -- but I recognize that the Religious Right seeks to protect its children from tendencies that debase human existence. As a Humanist I recognize that morality exists and precludes certain behaviors, and that those bad behaviors can be explained for their destructive tendencies on a rational basis. I'm sure that the Religious Right would concur with me that drunkenness, hard drugs, child sexual abuse, and violation of personal property rights are evil. I think that we would agree on most of the Ten Commandments (there might be some differences on interpretation, and I won't say that polytheism precludes human goodness -- I'll take Mohandas Gandhi over Miguel de Torquemada any day).

It's hard, though. World views and values seem to come with defense systems. It seem intuitive to dismiss conflicting values rather than honestly reevaluate one's own. It is easier to attack a generic nazi than to actually read and understand what another poster is attempting to say.

We are wise to avoid calling anyone a Nazi, Communist, Ba'athist, or fascist without the person so labeled showing the hallmarks of the ideology in question.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

As for the post in question, the part I set out in blue is factual. The stuff I marked in red is opinion and would if placed in a newspaper for example, wind up on the op-ed section.

Maybe, but no less factual just because it's partisan in nature.

I call it cruft because the writing style reminds me of the old college habit of term paper stuffing. You're very good at it and should be proud. The professor specifies that a term paper has be be 10 pages long on the topic at hand. Now what professors never get is how resourceful some students get in stuffing as little actual information in as many words as possible. It also helps to be an ace on the SAT verbal section. You can stuff even better by using great big Latinate words in place of itty bitty Anglo Saxon words. Why use "like" when "simulacra" will do?

I consider the stuff I colored red as cruft.

I thought it was quite compact; quite the opposite.

See. JDG indeed gets special attention. Remember this. Any time someone makes it to your ignore list, you're not ignoring them really. What you're really doing is letting that person do is rent space in your mind. After all, the ignore list is just a symptom of a basic fact: That person disturbs your aura/ space-time continuum to such a degree that you resort to dysfunctional behaviors.

Not dysfunctional, really. The ignore list is just a function provided on this forum. JDG was the first one on my ignore list, which I started relatively recently. Having him there saves me the trouble of scrolling past his long, ugly posts, which there is no possibility of discussing with him in any coherent way anyway. It's not a question of being disturbed; it just saves time not discussing things with someone (currently 9 folks) with which no constructive conversation is possible; at least for now.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Red vs. Blue is not "culture wars." Those are two different things. That means you can't equate the two. That's what you do, as in, if I point out that something is a partisan issue, that automatically makes it a "culture wars" issue. Economics and global warming are not culture wars issues, but they are partisan issues. I am not lying; you are arguing over nothing. Why not just deal with what you know I meant, rather than just try to hang me on your interpretations of my words? And then engage in still more name-calling? But then, you'd rather do that than face the fact that I am right on the issue: more-severe storms and global warming is caused by fossil fuel CEOs supported by Republicans and those who vote for them.

At the moment, the discussion seems to have been hijacked into a disagreement on definitions of the words / phrases, 'Red', 'Blue' and 'culture wars'. You have not been nitpick consistent in how you use these words and phrases. Thus, you have left yourself open to an opponent that would rather talk about nitpick definitions than attempt to defend his values or address the science. You might try apologizing for inconsistency, redefine your word usage, and stick with one set of word usage. Good luck. Consistency in how you use words is not your strong point, and attempting to shift someone else's values who doesn't want to be shifted isn't a fruitful exercise. If you aren't careful, you'll be side tracked into yet another meaningless side conversation that generates far more heat than light.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I can hardly imagine any ideology more repugnant than Nazism.

This briefly sounded like a challenge. Surely it is possible to find something more repugnant? Alas, I can't think of any examples at this point. There are certainly many cultures that have been ever so impressed by their own place in the universe, and ever so brutally callous towards other cultures or values, but the industrialized scale of the Nazi effort overwhelms comparison.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

"Peace, love, and dope" is kaputt. Much else has had to defer to a "Profits first/pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die" ethos that I associate largely with Red Boomers. If any Left Boomer agenda is to thrive, then such will happen because Generation X and Millennial adults find such useful -- and at terms not of Boomer choosing.

I would like to think a commitment to equality, to ecology and to avoiding war save as an extreme last resort might stand the test of time. I'd like to think that Generation X and the Millenials would find these principles useful. I will admit that the results are not in.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

My anti-fascist credentials should be well established in these debates.

They should be. I'm sorry if I forced you to reprise them. Still, the point to note is that many will totally disregard 'credentials' in favor of demonization. It is easy for some to utterly disregard your well known and oft stated values. Indeed it is easy and common place to use strawman and ad-hominem to attempt to misrepresent and demonize another's values. Use of the word 'fascist' is a common flag warning of demonization, strawman and ad-hominem.

The alternative would be to listen to what you are saying and review their own values with respect to what you are saying. Such would be dire. Few are eager to look in the mirror at their own soul.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Maybe, but no less factual just because it's partisan in nature.
I thought it was quite compact; quite the opposite.

I had to scroll back to get back to the origin of the text I highlighted which = cruft.

1. It is cruft because the information is not needed and doesn't accomplish anything. I can reduce the red text down to "Most Republicans are denialists. Most Democrats accept climate change as real and see the need to take certain actions."
2. It appears the origin of the whole post was a remark by Jordan.
3. This forum is MAR'ed. [ Lot's of folks are letting other people rent space in each other's heads. ]

Not dysfunctional, really. The ignore list is just a function provided on this forum. JDG was the first one on my ignore list, which I started relatively recently. Having him there saves me the trouble of scrolling past his long, ugly posts, which there is no possibility of discussing with him in any coherent way anyway. It's not a question of being disturbed; it just saves time not discussing things with someone (currently 9 folks) with which no constructive conversation is possible; at least for now.

I just wanted to make sure. With age comes wisdom. For if I feel disturbed about someone, I am the one who is handing over control of my well being to that person. I have nobody to blame but myself for allowing the person who disturbs me to rent space in my head and anger me such that my blood pressure goes up, my immune system gets all fouled up and allows other detrimental health effects to destroy me.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

I had to scroll back to get back to the origin of the text I highlighted which = cruft.

1. It is cruft because the information is not needed and doesn't accomplish anything. I can reduce the red text down to "Most Republicans are denialists. Most Democrats accept climate change as real and see the need to take certain actions."
2. It appears the origin of the whole post was a remark by Jordan.
3. This forum is MAR'ed. [ Lot's of folks are letting other people rent space in each other's heads. ]

OK, maybe I need you to edit my posts. Just kidding actually, I still think it was OK.

I just wanted to make sure. With age comes wisdom. For if I feel disturbed about someone, I am the one who is handing over control of my well being to that person. I have nobody to blame but myself for allowing the person who disturbs me to rent space in my head and anger me such that my blood pressure goes up, my immune system gets all fouled up and allows other detrimental health effects to destroy me.

Yeah, that's a wise approach for sure.

Originally Posted by B Butler

At the moment, the discussion seems to have been hijacked into a disagreement on definitions of the words / phrases, 'Red', 'Blue' and 'culture wars'. You have not been nitpick consistent in how you use these words and phrases. Thus, you have left yourself open to an opponent that would rather talk about nitpick definitions than attempt to defend his values or address the science. You might try apologizing for inconsistency, redefine your word usage, and stick with one set of word usage. Good luck. Consistency in how you use words is not your strong point, and attempting to shift someone else's values who doesn't want to be shifted isn't a fruitful exercise. If you aren't careful, you'll be side tracked into yet another meaningless side conversation that generates far more heat than light.

Well I think the heat quotient has already passed that level

I was thinking of engaging you about your values theory. It is mostly true, but to nitpik I would say it is ideologies that people are stuck on; that we really all have pretty much the same values, but how we believe in applying them varies. Like when Paul Ryan says he believes in equality of opportunity for all (a value we all pretty much share), but then says "I just have a different way to get there." In other words, trickle-down economics, which really doesn't get you there. But Ryan is stuck on the ideology and can't admit it. I think it may be a bit easier to change ideology than values. But it's rare for someone to change his/her mind about ideology through argument, including on this forum. Like they say about a psychologist changing a light bulb; the bulb has to want to change.

But then, I could be wrong about all that.

I don't think the issue between Jordan and I was about values or ideologies. He just thinks I am too partisan or something like that; making everything into a red/blue issue. And yet he's just as stubborn as if he were values-locked. The value in this case for both of us is probably the value of winning (an argument) or not losing, or perhaps of being understood, or agreement, etc. Values we all share. The way we are going about it (or that I think the way he is) may not be the same as the value itself.

I've been reading this thread for over a month now. Nothing new has happened and whole thing has now just turned into a ideological fight. I guess its time to throw my two cents in.


The climate change debate is a "debate" because those who are against the idea of global warming don't like what the current solution to the problem is: use less energy and have a lesser way of life. I agree with them, totally, in this regard. The more energy a society has the more it and its individuals can do. But this is what has us stuck on fossil fuels.


Global warming is very real, in fact I believe that it is probably worse than we think it is going to be. Every month a new report comes out on the effects that rising temperatures have on our ecosystem. When you change something in an ecosystem, other things have to change. This is common sense. Since Earth's environment is make of millions of interlocked things, changing one will change another, and another, and before you know it the environment is completely different. We humans were designed for the environment the Earth has today, so we would most certainly die.


You have two sides that want completely different things, in a country that's a leader in science and driven by trying to kill as many birds with one stone as it can. I'm becoming more and more convinced that one of the things that is going to lead to the end of this crisis is the development of practical nuclear fusion. It will either start in the private sector, come from a contractor, or a random foreign government. Either way, once it happens the US will have one of the "holy s…" moments it has every once in a while and hop up to the plate and develop the technology further at blinding speed.

One of aspects of the next 1T will consist of a huge infrastructure project to to get everyone and everything running off fusion energy. It will be the driver of a decentralized and completely underground electrical grid (for attack resistance, of course). Trigeneration will be used for municipal hot and chilled water for heating and cooling buildings and homes, powered by the huge amounts of waste heat that normally gets thrown away like with existing power stations. Nothing will be wasted.



It the closest thing to an "American" solution I can think of. It's scientific, industrial, exceptionalist, preserves the US way of life if not improving it, and pleases everyone who debates this stuff for hours on end. Only oil companies would fight it but there are a lot more industries that would support it. If the US pioneers the technology it will definitely put it in a superior position over the rest of the world, for a while anyway.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The scientists DO say that. Can't you read? If you want to promote global warming, then continue to repeat the arguments of the denialists.

No. They didn't. If you load a set of dice to increase the chances of rolling a twelve and then roll a twelve you can NOT say that particular twelve was because of the loading. Dice roll up twelves without loading. The planet rolls up large storms without global warming.

You can go back through and document the frequency of twelves (large storms) and compare that against the control, unloaded dice. But you absolutely, positively can NOT state any particular storm is a result of warming. You just can't. Anybody who goes around claiming that a particular storm is the result of warming is simply making stuff up.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

No. They didn't. If you load a set of dice to increase the chances of rolling a twelve and then roll a twelve you can NOT say that particular twelve was because of the loading. Dice roll up twelves without loading. The planet rolls up large storms without global warming.

You can go back through and document the frequency of twelves (large storms) and compare that against the control, unloaded dice. But you absolutely, positively can NOT state any particular storm is a result of warming. You just can't. Anybody who goes around claiming that a particular storm is the result of warming is simply making stuff up.

And yet, when the dice come up 12 yet again, it is valid to reconsider how one ought to place one's bets.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I was thinking of engaging you about your values theory. It is mostly true, but to nitpik I would say it is ideologies that people are stuck on; that we really all have pretty much the same values, but how we believe in applying them varies. Like when Paul Ryan says he believes in equality of opportunity for all (a value we all pretty much share), but then says "I just have a different way to get there." In other words, trickle-down economics, which really doesn't get you there. But Ryan is stuck on the ideology and can't admit it. I think it may be a bit easier to change ideology than values. But it's rare for someone to change his/her mind about ideology through argument, including on this forum. Like they say about a psychologist changing a light bulb; the bulb has to want to change.

But then, I could be wrong about all that.

I don't think the issue between Jordan and I was about values or ideologies. He just thinks I am too partisan or something like that; making everything into a red/blue issue. And yet he's just as stubborn as if he were values-locked. The value in this case for both of us is probably the value of winning (an argument) or not losing, or perhaps of being understood, or agreement, etc. Values we all share. The way we are going about it (or that I think the way he is) may not be the same as the value itself.

The above perspective might be useful if everyone could agree on a base set of values that everyone agrees on. If so, we could draw a clear line between common bedrock values and divergent ideologies.

My first thought, upon thinking of a bedrock common shared value, would be the Golden Rule. Alone, it wouldn't be sufficient, but I think it would be a good start. The question is, which Golden Rule? "Do unto others before they do unto you?" "He who has the gold makes the rules?"

The True Golden Rule is close to the core of what most to all value systems ought to be. One has to distinguish between what ought to be and what is real. In my reality, many individuals live within might makes right and cash makes right value systems. Said individuals are at the core of many of the issues discussed on these forums. Thus, to assume that everyone lives within shared values including the Golden Rule is questionable.

If you want to assert for point of discussion that most to all humans share a core value system, spell said value system out and we can talk about it. Draw a clean line between shared values and diverse ideologies if you can. (Keep whatever you propose consistent! Consistent use of language isn't your strong point!) When you think you have a consistent divide, ask if the Nazis share your common values. Are your common values truly global, or are you projecting your own Blue American values onto everybody?

But I have for decades been including what you call 'ideologies' in what I call 'values.' I can see why you might want to make a distinction, but I'm not inclined at this point to turn the language I use upside down. Show me that your distinction provides significant insight and I might change my mind.

Originally Posted by B Butler

This briefly sounded like a challenge. Surely it is possible to find something more repugnant? Alas, I can't think of any examples at this point. There are certainly many cultures that have been ever so impressed by their own place in the universe, and ever so brutally callous towards other cultures or values, but the industrialized scale of the Nazi effort overwhelms comparison.

The Commies killed more people -- but over a longer period. Maybe such was a consequence of Lenin being syphilitic, Stalin being extremely paranoid, Mao and Kim il-Sung being extreme narcissists, and Pol Pot misinterpreting bourgeoisie to mean "city-dwellers". At the least Marx has some relevance in warning of the consequences of pathological economics; healthy societies don't come close to having proletarian revolutions -- and people may find it wise to consult him on what the world can be like once productivity is so powerful that it can make deprivation a choice imposed by economic elites instead of by some economic necessity to produce more. The slave trade killed more people than did the Holocaust, but one can't personalize the evil of the slave trade. We become fully human or we slide into the abyss of cruelty.

The Religious Right is at least correct in recognizing the need for humility, a trait that brings no direct joy but can prevent some tragedy. Would that we Americans had not been so full of ourselves that we could recognize the danger of leadership (political and commercial alike) full of themselves in recent years. Would that we had recognized the need to create wealth through work instead of letting a few gamble on other people's money while taking a piece of the action even if they lost the gamble.

I would like to think a commitment to equality, to ecology and to avoiding war save as an extreme last resort might stand the test of time. I'd like to think that Generation X and the Millenials would find these principles useful. I will admit that the results are not in.

Obvious enough. The Boomer Left in the Awakening era was as adept as the Boomer Right would become in creating sound bites. We need to create substance and not simply attractive memes. "Peace, love, and dope" just isn't adequate. Solving the threats that our world faces will require some rational thought, some well-contemplated principles, and a recognition of the potential usefulness of another side. Peace is an objective and not a policy. Love takes some effort to make one desirable to others. We almost certainly get the best results while sober.

Boomers at their worst have attributed some mystical virtue to inequality in the service of new hierarchies that we can well live without. We have tried trickle-down economics, and such has not led to acceleration of progress. Technology can, and I will give far more credit to someone like the late GI agronomist (talk about a humble science!) Norman Borlaug for his Green Revolution than all the hedge-fund managers and corporate lobbyists combined. That is before I discuss the remarkable improvements in life resulting from the reduction of the material costs in our toys (such as the flat-screen HDTV, Blu-Ray disc player, and personal computers) that we have.

Maybe we are going to find how to live better with less urban sprawl, less energy use, and slighter use of natural resources (especially energy). Such will take some rationality. Above all, I doubt that anyone wants to live in an inegalitarian, hierarchical, repressive social order unless one is an exploiter or a well-paid (and probably sadistic) enforcer. Economic exploitation will be unaffordable and unsustainable.

They (my anti-fascist credentials) should be. I'm sorry if I forced you to reprise them. Still, the point to note is that many will totally disregard 'credentials' in favor of demonization. It is easy for some to utterly disregard your well known and oft stated values. Indeed it is easy and common place to use strawman and ad-hominem to attempt to misrepresent and demonize another's values. Use of the word 'fascist' is a common flag warning of demonization, strawman and ad-hominem.

It's the trolls who have called me a fascist because I believe in what they consider "big government". I of course oppose bad government irrespective of its size when government becomes cruel, perverse, exploitative, unresponsive, or inadequate. I see some of the libertarians and I can only wonder whether government could ever rescue people from something so hideous as debt peonage as a response to hard times imposed from above.

Size is not the sole measure of the pathology of a government. The current German government takes a bigger share of the economy than the Nazis did. The distinction between Bad Government and Big Government should be evident. If government makes people more competent and productive members of society then such is a win-win proposition. Weak, ineffective, or counterproductive government is the playground for schemers for new despotism. The Weimar Republic was weak and ineffective, and toward its end it was wasting public funds on subsidies for the Junker class that showed its appreciation for a weak and ineffective government by heavily supporting... you know who.

The alternative would be to listen to what you are saying and review their own values with respect to what you are saying. Such would be dire. Few are eager to look in the mirror at their own soul.

Much of America -- white, rural, traditionalist America -- sees the America that it thinks that it knows being inundated by people who, despite being unlike them, refuse to take the allotted place that white, rural, traditionalist America believes suited for people who are not white, Anglo, or Christian -- as the underclass. Some see the black, Asian, and Hispanic members of the middle class as threats to their self-image. But those people have earned everything that they have, including such self esteem as they have in America. Traditionalist America seems to want to get economic success (paradoxically, materialism at its crudest among those with the slightest or shakiest achievements) while preserving some silly superstitions. Such people need to use language better and master the arts of mathematics and science so that they can compete lest they be consigned forever to poverty. They will need to have government as an ally in uplifting them.

When someone recently trivialized the tragedy of mass death in the wake of Typhoon Yolanda I criticized that person for a specific offense and not for being a 'fascist' or even a 'racist'. Lack of empathy causes some nasty, crude behavior.

Originally Posted by B Butler

The above perspective might be useful if everyone could agree on a base set of values that everyone agrees on. If so, we could draw a clear line between common bedrock values and divergent ideologies.

My first thought, upon thinking of a bedrock common shared value, would be the Golden Rule. Alone, it wouldn't be sufficient, but I think it would be a good start. The question is, which Golden Rule? "Do unto others before they do unto you?" "He who has the gold makes the rules?"

The golden rule is a great place from which to build an ethical framework. It is taught by all major religions and ethical philosophies, from Jesus to Kant and beyond. The other rule is observed by most people in power. Are they values, though? Values are what we all want; what is valuable to us. Among the things we all want is prosperity. That's pretty basic. That doesn't mean that who has the gold should make the rules. That could be said to be the ideological interpretation that we are so familiar with today: often known as trickle-down economics. Give the gold to the wealthy, and it will trickle down. Ethics are methods and rules for obtaining values.

The True Golden Rule is close to the core of what most to all value systems ought to be. One has to distinguish between what ought to be and what is real. In my reality, many individuals live within might makes right and cash makes right value systems. Said individuals are at the core of many of the issues discussed on these forums. Thus, to assume that everyone lives within shared values including the Golden Rule is questionable.

If you want to assert for point of discussion that most to all humans share a core value system, spell said value system out and we can talk about it. Draw a clean line between shared values and diverse ideologies if you can. (Keep whatever you propose consistent! Consistent use of language isn't your strong point!) When you think you have a consistent divide, ask if the Nazis share your common values. Are your common values truly global, or are you projecting your own Blue American values onto everybody?

I don't know if my language is inconsistent; maybe the word would be sometimes careless or vague. I don't always have all the accurate words on the tip of my tongue. Sometimes people need to help each other by understanding what people mean; I mean sometimes it's pretty obvious, even if the words are inaccurate or hastily written. This is a discussion forum, not a dissertation reading for a masters degree. But people like Jordan prefer a fight over a discussion. That's their preference I guess.

I think values are what is valuable to us. Maslow laid them out pretty well, although he called them "needs."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow'...archy_of_needs
That's a pretty good place to start.

But I have for decades been including what you call 'ideologies' in what I call 'values.' I can see why you might want to make a distinction, but I'm not inclined at this point to turn the language I use upside down. Show me that your distinction provides significant insight and I might change my mind.

I understand. What I have said so far is that values are basic needs we all want, and ideologies are among the strategies or models/paradigms for how to achieve them. They may include socialism, scientism, populism, libertarian economics, religious right fundamentalism, radical centrism, new age or new thought spirituality, militarism, fascism, etc. and in many varieties. You can't really change your values, but you can wake up from deceptive ideologies. It is not easy though; people feel they are basic to what they support and what they do with their lives. Ideologies more easily change in 2Ts, and maybe in 4Ts. Just another point of view or different language; you don't have to adopt it.

Originally Posted by B Butler

They should be. I'm sorry if I forced you to reprise them. Still, the point to note is that many will totally disregard 'credentials' in favor of demonization. It is easy for some to utterly disregard your well known and oft stated values. Indeed it is easy and common place to use strawman and ad-hominem to attempt to misrepresent and demonize another's values. Use of the word 'fascist' is a common flag warning of demonization, strawman and ad-hominem.

The alternative would be to listen to what you are saying and review their own values with respect to what you are saying. Such would be dire. Few are eager to look in the mirror at their own soul.

Bob, Bob, Bob. You appear to be trying to mediate some sort of friendly resolution to our quarrel, but let me save you some electrons here. I think he is a repulsive human being and I believe it is safe to say that the feeling is mutual. I am quite satisfied with this arrangement if he is.

But to show both of you how magnanimous I am, I wish both of his parents exceptional health and very, very long lives.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Bob, Bob, Bob. You appear to be trying to mediate some sort of friendly resolution to our quarrel, but let me save you some electrons here. I think he is a repulsive human being and I believe it is safe to say that the feeling is mutual. I am quite satisfied with this arrangement if he is.

But to show both of you how magnanimous I am, I wish both of his parents exceptional health and very, very long lives.

How generous of you

I wonder though, Mr. Copperfield. You and some others have long stated or implied that you don't know a place unless you have visited there. Are words and debates in a discussion forum enough to conclude that someone is a "repulsive human being?" Have you met him? How long have you known and interacted with him in person?

Just turning your own ideals on you for fun. Whatever you wish to think about brower, myself, Bob or anyone else, is your own business. Best wishes to you.

I think we need a 4T meetup... We could make it a gaming convention.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Bob, Bob, Bob. You appear to be trying to mediate some sort of friendly resolution to our quarrel, but let me save you some electrons here. I think he is a repulsive human being and I believe it is safe to say that the feeling is mutual. I am quite satisfied with this arrangement if he is.

I have never pretended to be Albert Schweitzer. I don't always make my arguments from the highest of moral stances because such can turn hypocritical. Pragmatism has its usefulness because high-minded ideals can wear very thin very fast. If you despise me for my political views, then such is your problem and not mine. Mine are conventional, humanistic liberalism. Yours? I prefer to not to use the political F-word.

I don't know how repulsive a person you are. Of course I despise your politics, but I don't know much about your personal life. But you did expose a moral gap by saying that some brutal typhoon wasn't 'that bad'. By comparison to what? I am sure that 9/11 was a great tragedy to you because (I assume) you are an American. The death toll in the Philippines from Typhoon Yolanda has exceeded 4000. Are those human deaths not so tragic to you because they are not American?

I have seen people laugh about people getting killed in volcanic eruptions. I find such offensive. There is no jocular side of death.

But to show both of you how magnanimous I am, I wish both of his parents exceptional health and very, very long lives.

If they still had exceptional health I would have much more personal freedom. Past eighty, almost everyone has some problems. But as it is there is no material object that can make me feel happy as compensation for what is a miserable life. Not a car, not a boat, not some expensive electronics, not a new wardrobe -- nothing. All that can make me feel good is a little escape. Maybe a day trip to Chicago to see something awesome. Like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sues_skeleton.jpg

or this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:G..._Jatte_v2.jpeg

Originally Posted by B Butler

And yet, when the dice come up 12 yet again, it is valid to reconsider how one ought to place one's bets.

Sure. But, that has absolutely nothing to do with what Eric claimed about this particular storm.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Sure. But, that has absolutely nothing to do with what Eric claimed about this particular storm.

The loaded dice metaphor is a decent one. I thought I'd add a bit to it. I think I said what Eric should have been trying to say.

Eric tends to work best at an intuitive mystical level. He isn't as good with scientific language as he thinks he is. It is a fairly easy and uninteresting to convince those who are familiar with science that Eric didn't word his argument well. Getting him to admit it? Good day and good luck. Watch your heat to light ratio.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

3. This forum is MAR'ed.

MAR'ed? TLA comes up as the ticker for Marriott or the Missouri Association of Realtors.

Lots of people owe me past due rent. Unfortunately, they seem to be of the kind that do not go away when I follow your genuinely good advice. Your advice works well on internet boards, but not so well when they control your employment...

Originally Posted by B Butler

Watch your heat to light ratio.

Ironically, the subject of this thread is literally about a globally increasing heat to light ratio

Seems pretty clear to me despite all the heated rhetoric, that:

Eric understands AGW pretty well for an educated non-climatologist, but doesn't perhaps express his understanding perfectly well in the language of probability theory because he's more of an artist/humanist person than a scientist

PBrower isn't a fascist

Copperfield seems to enjoy engaging in heated arguments in this forum

My thoughts on AGW: I think there's a pretty good chance (flip a coin?) that we'll see some globally uncomfortable effects of AGW well before the next 2T would be expected to arrive. Things like an ice-free arctic ocean that could "phase shift" northern hemisphere climate to a different regime, ocean acidification leading to dramatically decreased ocean bio-productivity, possibly some dramatic ice-melting breakup of significant parts of the Greenland ice sheet. There is evidence in the geological record of dramatic climate "phase shifts" before over a span of 1 or 2 decades, and we're certainly creating a hockey stick graph of CO2 levels in the atmosphere that is unprecedented for at least the last few million years. I'm pretty sure the system we're discussing is nonlinear also. Interesting times...

So what happens if AGW causes an unavoidable crisis in the middle of a 1T? How does the culture respond if Miami & NY city suddenly go underwater? Or, if the breadbasket midwest turns into a semi-desert? Combined with a collapse of fisheries (both wild and domesticated)? Combine that with real energy and resource limits that would prevent any energy-intensive response/big projects like giant seawalls. What would a 1T and 2T look like in a such a scenario?