General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

whyamimrpink78
The Humanist Report
comments

Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "" video.

It isn't just Fox News, scientists like Myles Allen and Mike Hulme have brought up the same concerns. From Myles Allen "Today’s teenagers are absolutely right to be up in arms about climate change, and right that they need powerful images to grab people’s attention. Yet some of the slogans being bandied around are genuinely frightening: a colleague recently told me of her 11-year-old coming home in tears after being told that, because of climate change, human civilisation might not survive for her to have children." Later in the article "My biggest concern is with the much-touted line that “the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says we have 12 years” before triggering an irreversible slide into climate chaos. Slogan writers are vague on whether they mean climate chaos will happen after 12 years, or if we have 12 years to avert it. But both are misleading."
2
There is no strong evidence that current climate change will have devastating effects. Scientists like Myles Allen and Mike Hulme are critical of these alarmist basically saying they need to stop as it actually pushes people away as opposed to attracting them to help on the issue.
2
Scientists like Myles Allen and Mike Hulme have been critical of the fear mongering in climate change creating anxiety.
1
@anibalhyrulesantihero7021 people struggle in all systems. In capitalism the fewest struggle and typically it is something beyond their control where they would have struggled under socialism as well.
1
@anibalhyrulesantihero7021 most benefit from capitalism. The ruling class benefit from socialism.
1
@LittleAl016 wow, you know, I was very sure in my thoughts, but your well laid out argument makes me think again.
1
@anibalhyrulesantihero7021 just because they are rich does not mean they are poor. Jeff Bezos actually benefited a lot of people. I can shop online as opposed to driving around looking for something that might exist. Hurray capitalism.
1
@LittleAl016 again, I was very sure in what you said. But you well laid out argument with a lot of data and sources has me thinking again.
1
@anibalhyrulesantihero7021 what?
1
There is a lot of doubt when it comes to climate change. We do not know if it is even a threat. Heck, if climate alarmists were correct the earth will be on fire, under water and iced over all at once now. The fear mongering has been happening for decades.
1
@quinndawsonosgood5261 For the two scientists one works for the IPCC. Another works at the University of Cambridge. I love how your immediate reaction is to assume they are being funded by some source you disagree with. Funny is that Exxon Mobile funded to build wind mills in CA. You can see other articles. Read the Popular Technology article entitled "1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism" You can read the list of those papers who have to submit funding sources.
1
@LittleAl016 how so? I literally quoted Myles Allen.
1
Mike says "take care of climate change". Ok, how? And is it guaranteed to work? Never mind the question on if climate change is even a threat? The climate change alarmists have been spewing fear for decades and have been wrong every step of they way.
1
It isn't a contradiction. There is value in discussing the issue of emissions. The problem is that alarmists take it to the extreme where it actually causes people to tune out.
1
@joshuajames6481 the movie was a mess. To start, no scientist will ever say something is 100%. Next, you can't compare an asteroid heading to earth where using classical mechanics you can, with high accuracy, predict where it will land to something like climate change where there is a lot of doubt to it. Also, the idea the president did not want to go public with it was smart where the movie made it sound like to be dumb. If you were to tell the public a giant asteroid was heading to earth and will wipe out life people will riot and go crazy. At times, it is best to keep things private where the movie suggest that is wrong. But, as a whole, again, climate change is far more complex. We don't know how much man plays a role. We don't know if it is a major threat. If it is, we don't know the best approach. Very few people are deniers, they are skeptics on the whole fear mongering thing and skeptical on government using it for more power and control as we see with covid now.
1
@joshuajames6481 what study? If you dunked me I will remember as I learn from that. As for the movie and reading why it was developed to compare to climate change, I told you the flaws in that. Again, nothing in science is 100%. Next, it is much easier to predict and asteroid's direction compared to climate change where so much is unknown about climate change. It did not offend my politics. It offended me based on how anti science it was.
1
@joshuajames6481 "Scientists generally agree that the extent of climate change occuring now is going to end up threatening humanity at a level never seen towards the latter part of the century. " That is not true. Read the Popular Technology Article entitled "1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism" Also, as I said, climate scientists like Myles Allen and Mike Hulme disagree with the radical talks of threatening humanity and the world. Myles Allen said "My biggest concern is with the much-touted line that “the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says we have 12 years” before triggering an irreversible slide into climate chaos. Slogan writers are vague on whether they mean climate chaos will happen after 12 years, or if we have 12 years to avert it. But both are misleading." Mike Hulme said in his Nature paper entitled "Why setting a climate deadline is dangerous" "A more fundamental problem with deadline-ism is that it might incite cynical, cry-wolf responses and undermine the credibility of climate science when an anticipated disaster does not happen."
1
@joshuajames6481 "If you disagree, what exactly is unknown about climate change?" A lot. Mainly, how much does man play a role, is it even a threat, and if so, what can we do? There is so much on the line when it comes to climate change and so many moving parts. There are many moving parts involved all around. I suggest you read Mike Hulme's book "Why We Disagree About Climate Change" "Plus I think the effects of climate change as we have them now are severe enough to erase any doubt." Such as? If the fear mongering was correct we would be on fire, under water and iced over by now based on the radical talks of climate change decades ago. We aren't. As for the Harvard vaccine study, how did you dunk me? What I said was correct. There is no correlation between vaccine rates and infection rates.
1
@joshuajames6481 "it's severity and effects have been settled by the scientific community (95%) for a while now" That is 100% false as well. Again, there is a lot of doubt when it comes to climate change.
1
@joshuajames6481 but please, try to dunk on me again. This should be fun.
1
Capitalism has done better at taking on climate change.
1
@LittleAl016 please explain? The most technological advancement is because of capitalism.
1
@LittleAl016 "Socialism is objectively better than Capitalism" Stephen Michael Davis has a lot of videos showing that is not true. All of history showed that socialism fails.
1
@LittleAl016 how is Stephen Michael Davis a fascist? Because he promotes freedom? Last time I asked you how Trump was a fascist and you disappeared. I think you don't understand what fascism really is.
1
@LittleAl016 socialism is the opposite of freedom in many ways.
1
@LittleAl016 uh, freedom is not the goal of socialism. What socialism does is have members of the ruling class get rich while telling the working class to give up their earnings to those that don't work.
1
@LittleAl016 yeah, not true. Under every socialist regime the ruling class were members of the government making millions while the average man suffers
1
@LittleAl016 so under socialism, if I am making millions of dollars and refuse to give up a dime in taxes, then what?
1
@Rae Tavia but I am being told under socialism I have freedom? Thus, I will exercise my freedom and not pay taxes.
1
@Rae Tavia and who arrest me in a socialist nation? Also, it goes against what the other person is saying that under socialism I have freedom.
1
@jaym10918 people work to produce. If you don't work you don't get paid. What you are saying is under socialism people don't have to work, don't have to produce, but still get paid? That is why socialist nations fail. People don't produce but still get paid, thus you have less resources to go around. Under capitalism you have more resources to go around. As for ownership of production, under capitalism you own your own production. You are free to go to different jobs, enhance your skills, take on new careers. Yes, in my job I have a manager, a CEO, etc. However, that is by choice that I took that job. And what I get paid I value as I feel I am getting paid what I am worth. I put in hours and make my own profit. Thus, I get a surplus as well. In socialism some people work, others don't. And those that don't get the same resources regardless how much people work
1
@jaym10918 under socialism, if I don't work, then what? What happens to me?
1
@Rae Tavia it is not a strawman. I am told under socialism I have freedom. Ok, choose not to work but still make a living. Now who is going to stop me?
1
@Rae Tavia "are they socialist if they force you to pay taxes?" Who are "they"? The ruling class........
1
@jaym10918 ok. So under socialism I will just hang out at a cabin in the woods, enjoy a cigar, and nature. I will be expecting my resources so I can live as well.
1
@jaym10918 that is what other people will do when you give them that option. Look at now. We paid people to stay home and told them they did not have to pay rent. We are telling college graduates to not pay their loans. That is why now we have massive inflation and a poor supply chain and a bad economy. " But studies have already shown that the percentage of "unproductive" people in a system like this would be negligible. " What studies? History showed that socialist nations fail due to lack of resources. "Wouldn't they be better suited for a life in which they weren't burdened by responsibility? " Uh, that's life. So who is going to take away all our responsibility? They don't just disappear. Someone has to take them one. As for truly don what people want to do, most want to just be lazy. Watch TV, go on vacation, etc. Who enjoys cleaning toilets? Very few. So who will do that? That is why many democrat ran cities that push for socialism have feces on the streets.
1
@Rae Tavia who?
1
@jaym10918 you saying "google it" is flaw. What sources should I look at? Those from the Daily Wire? From Fox News? You can give me titles of the articles. "Again, these nations were not socialist. They were state capitalist. The lack of resources is a man made construct in capitalism. There's literally enough food and production to feed, cloth and house every human on planet earth many times over. It's the system of distribution that is the problem. " No, they were socialist nations. In the US we produce too much food because of capitalism. Watch Stephen Michael Davis's video entitled "Blame America First: Cuba vs. Taiwan". He compared Cuba, a socialist nation to Taiwan, a free market one. Taiwan was able to produce more food despite limited resources such as man power and land. You say there is enough food and production to feed, cloth and house every human. One, that is not true. For food, we produce a lot because of capitalism. Now who distributes it? Someone needs to gather it, ship it, distribute it, etc. That requires resources such as labor, oil, the vehicles such as trucks and ships, etc. It isn't just food. Same with clothes. With homes, looking at the housing crisis in 2007. Homes were essentially given away. When the economy tanked many people destroyed their homes. So there is that. Giving homes to freeloaders who are no responsible decreases the amount of homes we have. ""Uh, that's life." - No, that's capitalism. " Nope, that's life. "- Again, you're responding with projection. NOT EVERYONE WOULD BE LAZY. As a matter of fact, studies show that very few would be lazy in a socialist system. " A lot will be lazy. Also, who is going to take on the responsibilities? Right now one responsibility I have is going to the gym. Who is going to keep the gym clean? Who is going to ensure it is safe? And if I get hurt, who will care for my injuries? Who will take those responsibilities? You are assuming those goods and services will just magically exist. If given a choice people will be lazy. Do you really think the a good portion of the people at Amazon warehouse enjoy their jobs? If given the choice they will quite. Thus our supply chain will fail like we are seeing now as we did practice socialism during covid. "Well, in our current system, those who clean toilets are paid the least. Seeing as that cleaning toilets is a necessary job, shouldn't these people be paid very well? " So someone who cleans toilets, a job I did at the age of 20, should get paid more than a doctor? "Or, how about a super short work week for the toilet cleaner, so they can enjoy other things in life?" So less toilets get cleaned then. I hope you enjoy dirty toilets. "And then, they are paid miserably, yet insulted by being called "essential workers" by the capitalists. " I think every worker is essential. Current democrats are socialist and borderline communist.
1
@jaym10918 you flaw is that you think people will just "do the right thing" and work. Well, why aren't they working now? Businesses are hiring at a wage higher than ever. Why aren't they working now? Because they are being given the option to stay home. Again, students do not have to pay back their loans. So how many are going to pay it back? Very few. That is why you can't offer any studies. You also assume resources will just magically appear. They don't. Someone has to produce them, period.
1
@jaym10918 "Wrong. Inflation is a construct that is controlled by the capitalists. " That is 100% false. In the competitive market businesses want to give the best offer to the consumer.
1
@Rae Tavia making colleges free will makes a college education worthless.
1
@jaym10918 so organizes and distributes the resources? And what evidence shows productivity will go up under socialist systems? All of history showed socialist nations lack in productivity. That is why they all fail. The "labor revolt" are of lazy individuals. Businesses are paying more than ever. The problem is that too many feel that government will just bail them out now. Why work when government will just draft you a check? That is the mentality now. That is why inflation is high, productivity is low, our supply chain sucks along with our economy. This little "labor revolt" is of lazy, entitled people and it is going to blow up in their faces big time in the long run. It pretty much is because evidence is out there that many CEOs and management gave deals to this unions and the unions kept moving the goal posts. "You can't force people into a terrible job, pay them scraps, over work them, and then expect them not to push back" Define all of that? What is a "terrible job"? What is "paying them scraps"? What is "over work them"? It appears people are lazy. Work environment is the best it has ever been and the safest it has ever been. People are just lazy as, again, they feel government will bail them out. "As for the "higher than ever" wages, this is laughable. Even the bare minimum $15 an hour, which was turned down at the federal level, is not enough for most rent these days." Good thing almost no min. wage worker pays rent to begin and around 90% are not poor. "These folks are required to take on 2 or 3 jobs just to survive. Raising the wage from 7 to 15 is not enough with cost of living and now, inflation " Good thing the percentage of those working multiple jobs over the years, especially under Trump and capitalism, has been dropping. I am going to say this, the more I read your comment the more I support capitalism. Capitalism has led to wage increases, safer work environment and people not having to work more than one job. "When these workers were TOLD to stay home (not given an option), they had time to re-asses their priorities, and it turns out that their personal lives were more important than working an underpaid, crappy job for some greedy capitalist THEY KNOW is exploiting them" So you agree. They decided to be worthless, unproductive, and lazy. Thus, we have high inflation, a supply chain problem and low productivity. Thanks for proving my point. "In other 1st world countries students don't have loans, because they don't have to pay for school. All education is provided for them because in those countries, education is a RIGHT, not a commodity." And that is why the US has the best university program to begin with. Making college "free" makes it worthless. Also, almost everywhere in the US there exists a public library. Obtaining an education is on your. Consider college. How often do you spend in the classroom vs studying outside? Leave it to a socialist to feel they need to be spoon fed everything as opposed to work for it.
1
@Rae Tavia what problems?
1
@LittleAl016 "There was no member of the government in Socialist nations that were making millions while the average man suffered" Really? Look at socialist nations all throughout history. The members of the government were rich. But you are ignoring my questions. So in a socialist nation if I make millions and refuse to pay a penny in taxes, then what?
1
@LittleAl016 or if I refuse to work in a socialist nation? Will I still get the resources to live?
1
@jaym10918 "Someone working multiple jobs to survive is not lazy. And, what gives you the right to call these people lazy? " The percentage of workers working more than one job has been dropping for years. That is according to the BLS. And why are they lazy? Well, it is easy to complain and moan as opposed to work to move up in life. Spend less time complaining and more time trying to find a way to succeed. "No, they're not. I just explained this to you. " They are. In fact, if you look at unit labor cost in the food industry, which is the price of labor over productivity, it has been going up meaning the price of labor is outpacing productivity. According to the Atlanta Federal Reserve wages were going up under Trump. So please, explain again bud. " Unemployment pays a fraction of their income." During covid you had the expanded unemployment and the fact people did not have to pay rent. "If the work is so bad that a fraction of the income from that work is better then returning to that work, well that says more about the employer than it does the employee, now doesn't it. " Again, unemployment benefits were expanded. Many ended up making more on unemployment compared to working. The government was paying people not to work ruining our inflation. "No, the mentality is - People want a decent job and a living wage with enough time to enjoy other things in life. They're not getting that. Simple as that. " Define a "decent job". Define a "living wage". The fact they are alive shows they are paid just that. And they do get time off. All those people striking actually work jobs that offer paid time off. "I already explained this. Inflation is controlled by the employers. Productivity is low because the employees are tired of being exploited. " You don't understand economics. If business A charges a high price and business B can charge a lower price and still manage, business B will charge a lower price. What is causing inflation is the fact people don't want to work and the government is giving money away. This is economics 101. Any business that artificially raises their prices will lose customers. "Again, why does wanting a decent standard of living equate to someone being lazy? You're projecting. And also, you're wrong. It has and will blow up in the employers faces, as it has all throughout history, because the workers VASTLY OUTNUMBER the employers. " It is not blowing in the employers' faces, they will just automate or hire people that will work or just raise prices. This is another reason why inflation is up. Many don't want to work, so businesses are raising wages, but have to raise prices to earn a profit still. As for outnumbering, business owners are much more intelligent than the average worker. The average worker will "fight" for an oversimplified solution and the business owners, knowing how the system works, will do what they have to do to still manage that usually screws over average Americans. And define a "decent standard of living". "No, the employers are negotiating with unions to get their employees back for the least possible amount." Nope, there is negotiation and CEOs are essentially meeting the union's demands. The unions are moving the goals posts. Also, if running a business is so easy, why don't members of the union open up their own factors and businesses and go from there? "What is there to define? Working class people are unable to sustain themselves with the current wages. They are overworked because they have to take multiple jobs or side hustles just to pay for basic things. " Good thing the percentage of workers working more than one job has been dropping for decades. Data does not support your talking points. " Tell that to the Amazon workers that are crapping in boxes in order to meet their quotas. " Yeah, if that happened it was most likely a couple of times by lazy, disgruntle workers. I worked at Amazon warehouse at one time, it was not that hard. Most enjoyed it. "What? They either live in subsidized housing (which is a tax payer gift to employers by the way), or they have roommates. Wow, you're almost purposely obtuse about this. By the way, the poverty threshold for a single person is 12760 a year. Federal minimum wage is 7.20 an hour. That's about 15k a year (without any breaks). The average rent is 1098.00 a month for a 1 bed 1 bath. That's 13176 a year JUST ON RENT. These people are poor. The math is simple. And you're ignorant. " Well, good thing the economy is more complicated than 2nd grade math. Only around 2 to 3 percent of min. wage workers work full time. Most are younger individuals working part time, temporary jobs. They are not trying to raise a family or pay rent on their own. They are temporary jobs. Next, the whole average rent thing is just that, an average. In many places rent if very low. And why a 1 bedroom? Why not a studio? What is wrong with roommates? And a study released a few years ago showed they weren't poor, that their average household income was around $40,000. "The president has almost NO control over the labor market. " He does. He is creating uncertainty in the market where investors won't invest. " This is objectively wrong and shows your ignorance." Nope, the more I read your comments and look at the data I see that things have improved under capitalism. For example, you talk about people working more than one job I see that percent dropping for decades. Or when you said min. wage workers are poor where a study showed around 90% of them are not. "No, actually it doesn't. The US is 27th in education. " One, that is K-12 education, not college education. Next, those are based on test scores which are deceptive. Some nations, like Germany, only test their best students. Also, should test scores be the factor? The US for years has been in the top 10 in productivity. Do you want good test takers or productive people? "This is idiotic. Making college "free" means everyone has access to it, meaning more educated people for the workforce. Commoditizing education prevents many people from the opportunities education has to offer." The value in college comes from it being a investment, that you invest both time and finances to accomplish a long term goal. You make college free and accessible to all it becomes worthless. Employers will value workers who will work during their late teens and early 20s and on the side educate themselves. And again, the onus is on you to be educated. Resources exist out there for all to read up on. "So what? There's a first aid kit in my bathroom. So if I break my leg, I'll be just fine because, you know first aid and stuff. lol, idiotic." I earned a PhD in physical chemistry and an MBA. I feel I do have a lot of knowledge in healthcare compared to the average person, on cars compared to the average person, on athletics compared to the average person, etc. Why? Because I studied them myself on the side, or talked to expert. I did not go to college for that. Take athletics, I am a sports official. As such I know the rules of the games I work by reading the books and taking tests. I also watch film. No college classes needed. Or on driving a car, I learned how to drive a clutch very well as in towing and heel toe, with no college courses. " Well if you're a technical professional that works with computers and have multiple degrees, as I do, then about 10 years. Now, if I were an expert on wildlife, that would be different, but since you're trying a gotcha with idiotic reasoning I figured I would spell it out for you: IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE DEGREE IS." Many know how to work on computers without a degree. In fact, I have to on my job. My new job there are many software programs I never used in my life that I need to learn on my own. Again, the value of a degree is that you show employers you are willing to invest in yourself to accomplish a long term goal. Many obtain careers that have nothing to do with their degree. My career does to a degree, but again, there are skills I need to learn as well that I never learned in college. I just read up on it myself. "ANNNND you missed the entire point. I wasted my time trying to explain things to you, well I had time to kill. But you're who you are and it is what it is. In the end, history will prove your thinking wrong, as it has already has in the past." All throughout history socialism has failed, greatly.
1
@jaym10918 not to be rude, but here is your problem. On these complex issues you are hardly scratching the surface. Take the min. wage issue, for example. You are assuming min. wage workers are working full time and are poor when the data says otherwise. Or on a college education, you do not know the actual value of it. Or on inflation, you do not understand the complexity of inflation. You feel businesses will just raise prices to just do it where that is wrong. Please, go to your public library, or use the internet to learn more.
1
@jaym10918 now how am I too far gone when I have looked in depth on these issues and you clearly have not? Take the whole issue of people working more than one job. As I said, that percent has been dropping for decades.
1
@Rae Tavia how did I lose the argument? You saying I did does not make it so. All throughout history socialist nations failed. He said history will show I am wrong when that is not true. What socialist nation succeeded?
1
@Rae Tavia funny how you say I am uneducated. I have a PhD and MBA. The value of a degree is that you show employers you are willing to invest to accomplish a long term goal. If you make college free there is no longer an investment in it. Employers will see more value in people who spend their younger years working and studying on their free time. Almost everything in college you "learn" you can teach yourself. Most people get careers outside of their degrees. Why? They show employers they are willing to invest in themselves thus employers are willing to take a risk on them. If college is free what risk did the student take? So why should employers take a risk?
1
@LittleAl016 ok, now what socialist nation have actually succeeded? I told you about the Stephen Michael Davis video on Cuba vs Taiwan where he compared two nations and despite Taiwan having less resources they are doing much better.
1
@LittleAl016 right off the back he tried to argue against socialist nations skew data. He gives no citations to support his arguments. His second argument saying those socialist nations are capitalist nations is simply not true. They are still highly socialist. Why? It takes decades to change culture. He listed the USSR when the USSR still has that socialist/communism mentality. And again, he provides no sources to show they were doing better than socialist nations. He went on with the whole "that isn't real socialism" argument. And his childish voice really discredits him. I suggest you listen to experts, or at someone like Stephen Michael Davis who cites experts and not show some graph with zero context or a way to find out where it came from.
1
@LittleAl016 ok, what? Watch the video. The comparison was of Cuba, which is next to the US, and Taiwan, an island nation also next to a large nation. Taiwan does their own thing and is a capitalist nation and is doing much better than Cuba, a socialist nation.
1
@LittleAl016 again, what socialist nation has succeeded in history? None.
1
@LittleAl016 and Hakim is a.......? What makes him an expert? My point is Davis cites experts, books and articles for you to look up yourself. Hakim cited.......? And how is he a fascist? The fact you do not even know what fascism is makes me feel you cannot even define socialism. And what citations did Hakim give? One paper? Reading the comments one person wrote this "What the hell is this?!?!? This is a strawman argument that defends a paper that says that FOR THE SAME LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT socialism provides better overall living standards. The main point is that socialism generates poverty, hunger, and a lot of it. There is a reason why people that live in socialist societies seek to leave to capitalist societies and not the other way around. Look, why citizens from Cuban and Venezuela seek to move to Brazil, Mexico, EUA, and not the other way around. Last century, Socialism killed more people from hunger than two world wars. Please check the living standards of Venezuela. Why people still discuss these crazy ideas? Look, let me make a simple case, compare Eastern versus Western Germany, North versus South Korea, Haiti versus the Dominican Republic. These are the same people that had to live under socialism and capitalism. Check which one fair better." Which is true. Why are people fleeing these socialist nations? Why did East Germany fail but West Germany did well? Why did the USSR fail? And they are correct in that the paper said same level of development. Problem is, socialist nations do not become advance.
1
@LittleAl016 again, on Taiwan, it is an island by a large nation. Taiwan governs themselves which is why they are a threat to China for how well they are doing.
1
@LittleAl016 dude, you need to find better material to listen to. Still waiting for you to list socialist nations that are a success.
1
@LittleAl016 so you are admitting capitalist nations have better resources to "crush" socialist nations. Thanks for admitting that capitalist nations are so much better and stronger all around because they have the resources and ability to do so where socialist nations can't produce such resources. And who is Hakim? What are his credentials?
1
@LittleAl016 so capitalism, a system where I can freely look up almost anything online, on TV, in books brainwashes me? Whatever, you just admitted that capitalist nations are much stronger and more efficient than socialist ones. Thanks for agreeing with me.
1
@LittleAl016 "If Socialism is such a failure, then why do Capitalist countries spend all their time and resources trying to CRUSH Socialist countries?" To expand, despite the fact that you are admitting that capitalist nations go to war with these socialist ones and win because capitalist nations have far more resources and are much more successful and stronger. It is the fact that socialist nations are a global threat. For them to have "success" they need to kill their own citizens, and even attack other nations to take over their resources. Nazi Germany created a genocide to becoming successful and ended up attacking other nations. Under USSR people were dying all the time due to the shortcomings of socialism. People were eating dirt in East Germany. The inhumane actions brought on by socialist nations was a threat globally. We see it now with N. Korea being a threat to S. Korea. Luckily, as socialism fails, N. Korea does not have the ability to attack anyone yet. Fact is socialist nations were a global threat as their failures became an excuse to kill their own people and people in other nations. But again, history is on my side. If those socialist nations were so great and powerful, why do they lose all those wars? It is because they lacked the technology and resources to succeed as socialism hinders production of resources.
1
@LittleAl016 how so? Thier nations are so weak they lose wars
1
@LittleAl016 capitalist nations like the us build walls to keep people out. Socialist nations like east germany build walls to keep people in
1
@LittleAl016 What? How the allies won WW2 was because of the US and the fact that Germany changed route and did not take over Moscow to split the nation. Also, what happened in the long run with the USSR? Oh wait, it failed. As for the Vietnam war, that was a war many in the US did not want to be a part of so we never took it seriously. And again, in the long run Vietnam is failing. Look at their GDP per capita compared to the US. Yes, PRC, Cuba and DPRK still reman, and they are doing poorly. There is a reason why many people fled those areas. Again, in capitalism walls are built to keep people out. In socialism walls are built to keep people in.
1
@LittleAl016 no, USSR are was one participant of the war. Many European nations fought against Germany and the US entered later. Also, Germany was becoming a powerhouse until the US entered. The main reason why Germany lost to the USSR is because Hitler redirected his troops sending some away from Moscow as opposed to destroying Moscow all together to divide the nation. How did the US interfere with election? Under Stalin many people were being killed. The USSR was a mess, it was failing with huge famine and people being killed by the government. Vietnam is doing poorly because of socialism, same with Cuba. They can trade with many nations. Cuba, for example, hardly produces enough sugar for themselves, let alone trade. And PRC is only do well because of one, how massive they are in pure population and two, they are drifting away from socialism and becoming more capitalist. Your point on S. Korea is literally false. There is an imagine taking from space showing S. Korea with a ton of lights and N. Korea being dark. People are eating grass in N. Korea. People who try to leave N. Korea are shot.
1
@LittleAl016 "Everything that you're saying is literally false and propaganda." You know, I was really confident in what I said. But your well laid out argument, with many sources and facts really have me questioning it now.
1
@LittleAl016 the fact you feel Vietnam is an example of a successful socialist nation reveals all I need to know. If by "success" you mean "poor" then sure.
1
@LittleAl016 again, who is Hakim? Next, N. Korea is a fascist, communist state which is where socialism leads to when it fails. There is a reason why they kill people who try to leave the nation. Factual information is withheld from the people. The people believe that Kim Jung walks over rainbows. If you question the government in N. Korea you get sent to a torture camp. The people act the way they do because they have been brainwashed or have a gun held to their head to act "normal" or die. Really, the fact you praise N. Korea says a lot.
1
@LittleAl016 who in the hell is Luna? She admitted right off the bat she has no experience about the nation. But again, their GDP per capita is around $2000. Thanks for showing me how socialism continues to fail.
1
@LittleAl016 " It's literally impossible for anyone and any country to be both Communist AND Fascist. They're mutually exclusive ideologies." 100% false, but again, you feel N. Korea is a paradise we should follow. Please, keep this coming.
1
@LittleAl016 you also said that Trump is a fascist and when I pushed you on how you ran away. Same with Stephen Michael Davis. But again, you feel a nation with a GDP per capita of around $2000 is a success and we should just follow those models.
1
@LittleAl016 I live in the US. I feel capitalism is great and helped me out a lot. So I guess my experience overrides her considering, chances are if she lives in Vietnam, I am making more money and living a much better life.
1
@LittleAl016 Luna did not point out any lies by Amy Phan West. Point by point 1. It is hard to determine when a war actually ends. Take the Cold War for example, there is debate on when it started and ended. And even at that there is still disagreement between the parties involved. Take the Civil War in how the members from the north and south hated each other decades later. Also, with Phan's parents, it is very reasonable that her parents' lives were great before communism. 2. It was very common for communist to burn houses to the ground and kill old people. An article from the University of Hawaii entitled "STATISTICS OF DEMOCIDE" mentions it. Now you can play the game non-expert Luna plays and consider North Vietnam and South Vietnam to be different nations, but that is shifting the goal posts. She also said the houses burnt by the USA is not comparable to those by the North but provides zero evidence and data in that. 3. She said the communist did not kill people at random. Sure, they killed people who questioned the government and not obey them. And there is plenty of evidence that communists kill millions of people. As usual, she gives numbers saying the US kills more but, again, does not give references. With that, I am done. You support communism and thus, failure.
1
@LittleAl016 how is fascism a form of capitalism? And communism is no government? Even your girl Luna said there was a government in the communist regime in Vietnam.
1
@LittleAl016 and no capital exists? So no resources? You really don't know definitions well. But he, you feel N. Korea is a paradise. So great the have to use violence to keep their citizens from leaving.
1
@LittleAl016 the fact you feel N. Korea is a paradise is all I need to know.
1
What plans and science do you have? You do know that scientists disagree with the doomers like Greta.
1
@LittleAl016 so I cite actual climate scientists and you cite nothing. Go ahead and listen to a teenage girl from Sweden as opposed to actual scientists.
1
@jimbob3030 care to explain?
1
@LittleAl016 Myles Allen works for the IPCC. Mike Hulme has published papers in Nature as he is well respected. Now go listen to a teenage girl instead of experts.
1
@ayeguyy779 on the video of Myles Allen, I agree with what he is saying. Did you never read my comment? I said he was against people going radical and fear mongering. Listen to the video. He is critical of people saying we X amount of years to act. He said said such messaging is dangerous. So thanks for linking a video that supports what I am saying. On Mike Hulme, I agree with that video as well. So thanks for posting that video that agrees with me. He lays out what I agree. People disagree about climate because of different beliefs, lifestyles, etc. For example, it may be easy for people in urban areas to drive electric cars. Now try to do it in rural areas where it will be hard to install charging stations. Also, he said climate change is not a problem we can solve. But what we can do is consider other people's beliefs, lifestyles, community, etc., understand them and work together. So thanks for posting those videos to further support my argument.
1
@jimbob3030 well, a nature paper entitled "Little change in global drought over the past 60 years" Raises question if droughts are even worse. Even at that, we need to make adjustments. Many places with fires, like CA, are because of poor forest management. Instead of blaming climate change, try to work with it. There are short term goals and long term ones. Instead of focusing on the long term, consider the challenges we are facing now and work with them, such as better forest management. Many theist support the theory of evolution. Funny how you bring up evolution. A driving force of evolution is climate change. That drives the doubt as in what makes people think life on earth won't evolve?
1
@07Flash11MRC Mike Hulme published a Nature paper which is high impact. If he is not respected that would not happened. Myles Allen works for the IPCC
1
@schibleh531 I agree there is an issue we should look at. Here is the problem with radicals here. When you start questioning them those radicals will call them deniers. Like here, I question the alarmists and I get called a denier as if I want to do nothing. The answer is not to do anything. The issue is complex. Mike Hulme laid that out. As I said, it may be easy for someone in an urban area to buy an electric car with many charging stations. Now try to convince people in rural areas who don't have the resources to put in charging stations, or the local grid (more on that later) can't handle it. Being radical and alarmists actually chases away people who are on the fence. "A more fundamental problem with deadline-ism is that it might incite cynical, cry-wolf responses and undermine the credibility of climate science when an anticipated disaster does not happen" That is from Mike Hulme's paper entitled "Why setting a climate deadline is dangerous" As for you saying "Also, there's a lot of fucking evidence that climate change will screw us over royally. We can literally see its effects right now." What evidence?
1
@schibleh531 as for our grid, read the book "The Grid" by Gretchen Bakke. Our grid is complex. In that book there is a case study of how a power company was receiving electricity from wind mills. However, it was also receiving energy from water and damns. During a massive rain fall the damns had to open up to avoid flooding and fish dying. As a result the windmills had to be shut down. However, the company managing the windmills complained as they were going to lose money. Overall, this is a complex issue. I studied renewable energy on the side in my graduate studies. I see how complex it is. That is why being an alarmist is bad as there is are many people that have stock on this.
1
@schibleh531 bottom line, my approach is not "do nothing". This is a complex issue that involves many people. Just take the renewable energy sector. What do we use? I feel nuclear but people freak out over that. I gave you the example of the power company having to use hydro due to local law requiring them to and they had to shut down the windmills. The wind mill company loss money. How do you think they feel?
1
@anibalhyrulesantihero7021 I am in my 30s
1
@andrewkohler3707 yeah, as in we haven't had fires in the past.
1
@andrewkohler3707 what examples Mike gave? Also, as for fires, there are many factors involved. One is poor forest management. Maybe if CA would spend their money on forest management as opposed to welfare programs they could reduce fires.
1
@andrewkohler3707 as a nature paper listed, there has been no significant increase in droughts over 60 years. So what else explains the fires? The recent fires in CA were mainly due to one, poor forest management and two, lack of fire fighters as many refused to work or went on strike.
1
@andrewkohler3707 also, again, even if there has been an increase in fires there are short term goals and long term ones. Sure, we can work on reducing emissions which is very complex involving a ton of people in many different ways. But we can also focus on short term ones as well like forest management.
1
@andrewkohler3707 Fires have been happening in CO for decades. I see little data, if any, to suggest they are more frequent. As for acidification of oceans, the severity is in question. Also, it does not mean it is bad. The ecosystem can evolve as it has for over 4 billion years. You are making it sound like any change is bad
1
KamiEuKiTo you clearly did not read what I wrote. It isn't about them having electricity. You are sounding as ignorant as one of my classmates that when the professor said fossil fuels are going to run out and we have to find a way to have other sources of electricity. One of my classmates said they would just plug their things in the wall, as if it magically appears. You are just as ignorant. Car charging stations can't just magically appear. And if installed, as I said, it isn't like the grid in its current state can magically handle it in those rural areas. What is it with ignorant people like you thinking things can magically appear out of nowhere and magically work?
1
KamiEuKiTo forest management is literally a thing. It isn't all about rake the leaves. You have control burns as well as reducing the density of the trees. Climate change or not, we have to also look short term, and a part of that is forest management.
1
@Philbert-s2c I love how people like you, instead of trying to counter the argument I make, just call me a troll. How am I a troll? I come here for discussion and get met with insults and talking points. To m e it comes down to that people like you can't defend what you actually believe and thus say "he is a troll" and go back to your bubble. If your ideas are so sound you should have no problem defending your viewpoints and challenging mine.
1
@colico14 private businesses are actually doing better at progressing us towards renewable energy.
1
Fires happened in CO for decades.
1
A lot of the moving is more political.
1
The issues are one, how much does man play a role? Is current climate change a threat? And if so, what can we really do? Very few actually deny climate change. There are just so many moving parts and so many people involved that there is no clear answer and approach.
1