Politics & Stuff

[Spike 12,049]

In other weird and unimportant news, actress Mayim Bialik an Orthodox Jew (and a Zionist!) is registering as a Muslim in defiance of Trump. What is she defying? I'm not really sure, Trump isn't anti-Islam, but rather anti-Terrorism (and a lot of it happens to be related to Islam, sad but true). I know it's a grey subject and some people seem to obfuscate between the two but I fail to see what this achieves? I don't think Trump has ever made a negative statement concerning (correct me if I'm wrong).

I find it quite odd that a Jew would do this. Haven't the Jews been historically antagonised by Islam? Don't many Muslims despise Judaism due to the existence of Israel?  

I could understand the rationale if it was a 'love thy neighbour' scenario but this seemingly has more to do with Trump than Islamic and Jewish relations.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

6 minutes ago, Spike said:

For sure bro, I imagine we'd have a much better debate in person. A lot can be lost in translation, especially when it's just text on the net. 

I always respect your opinions even if I disagree with it, I hope you feel the same. Nothing ever changes when people are stubborn in their beliefs.

 Man, you have to realize that the vast majority of the English I know I've learnt from TV shows. My brain thinks that most of my sentences should end in a punchline!  

I genuinely really like debating with you because I know that the points you make are always sincere and never meant in a sinister way and that you actually read and consider what I'm saying. I promise I'll try to be more serious because I really don't want you to hate reading my posts. 

[Iggy Doonican 4,186]

4 minutes ago, CHOULO19 said:

 Man, you have to realize that the vast majority of the English I know I've learnt from TV shows. My brain thinks that most of my sentences should end in a punchline!  

I genuinely really like debating with you because I know that the points you make are always sincere and never meant in a sinister way and that you actually read and consider what I'm saying. I promise I'll try to be more serious because I really don't want you to hate reading my posts. 

Fair play to you mate learning English like that as a matter of interest what shows ?. A lot of people learnt English in the 60's from listening to The Beatles.

[Spike 12,049]

2 minutes ago, CHOULO19 said:

 Man, you have to realize that the vast majority of the English I know I've learnt from TV shows. My brain thinks that most of my sentences should end in a punchline!  

I genuinely really like debating with you because I know that the points you make are always sincere and never meant in a sinister way and that you actually read and consider what I'm saying. I promise I'll try to be more serious because I really don't want you to hate reading my posts. 

So I was reading a while back that 'people will double-down on their own opinions when confronted with facts that contradict them'. Ever since that came to my realisation I've always tried to have a mind open to every viewpoint I've come across and to even question my own notions. I always try to put the shoe on the other foot and understand the (ir)rationale behind everything. It's been a great experience to simply just accept that in life people are hugely different and their may or may not be a universal system of human morality. I've never wanted to change a person's mind but I provide them with my own views and reaches them, they can change their minds if they wish to. People need to come to their own conclusions when presented with the facts.

I'm always willing to listen unless someone is speaking down to me or being very aggressive. Nothing is more of a turn off when someone says 'I'm older than you', 'You're foreign, you don't understand', 'How could a white guy know', etc, etc.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

2 minutes ago, Spike said:

In other weird and unimportant news, actress Mayim Bialik an Orthodox Jew (and a Zionist!) is registering as a Muslim in defiance of Trump. What is she defying? I'm not really sure, Trump isn't anti-Islam, but rather anti-Terrorism (and a lot of it happens to be related to Islam, sad but true). I know it's a grey subject and some people seem to obfuscate between the two but I fail to see what this achieves? I don't think Trump has ever made a negative statement concerning (correct me if I'm wrong).

I find it quite odd that a Jew would do this. Haven't the Jews been historically antagonised by Islam? Don't many Muslims despise Judaism due to the existence of Israel?  

No idea how liberals think that Trump's Muslim registry would even work. Do they really think he'll allow people to register themselves on it? 

The relationship between Jews and Muslims depends really on how 'historic' you want to go back. Jews and Muslims got along probably better than any people of two different religions did the in the past 1400 years, but recently in the past 100 or so years, as you pointed out, Israel soured that relationship.

But currently in the 'west' with the right win climate Muslims and Jews are natural allies along with all other minorities that could be targeted. 

 

6 minutes ago, Iggy Doonican said:

Fair play to you mate learning English like that as a matter of interest what shows ?. A lot of people learnt English in the 60's from listening to The Beatles.

Tbf, I don't think I deserve much credit as I had little choice  In the 90s Cartoon Network was in English only and then in the early 00's the comedy channel didn't have subtitles!  

Seinfield and Frasier were probably the two I watched the most. 

[Spike 12,049]

16 minutes ago, CHOULO19 said:

No idea how liberals think that Trump's Muslim registry would even work. Do they really think he'll allow people to register themselves on it? 

The relationship between Jews and Muslims depends really on how 'historic' you want to go back. Jews and Muslims got along probably better than any people of two different religions did the in the past 1400 years, but recently in the past 100 or so years, as you pointed out, Israel soured that relationship.

But currently in the 'west' with the right win climate Muslims and Jews are natural allies along with all other minorities that could be targeted. 

 

Tbf, I don't think I deserve much credit as I had little choice  In the 90s Cartoon Network was in English only and then in the early 00's the comedy channel didn't have subtitles!  

Seinfield and Frasier were probably the two I watched the most. 

I don't know much of the registry but I imagine the idea of it is for Muslims entering and leaving the country to the middle-east and for 'normal citizens' that happen to be Muslim to register friends/family/acquaintances that are acting suspicious. 

Now we know why you type like a ponce Was Lebanon a more stable country socially and politically in the 90s? Kinda surprised that you guys had Cartoon Network because I doubt Australia got it much before that (though Australia is always late to trends). Beirut was always a city I wanted to visit.

So I'm in favour of free trade but TPP was a mystery surrounded in a riddle. I hated how clandestine the whole agreement was. I'm not in favour of protectionism because I believe that isn't how trade works. I'm honestly not sure if pulling out of a clandestine agreement and allowing China to forge their own TPP is a good thing. I just simply don't know enough of the climate to make a reasonable judgement. Out of everything that Trump has already done with his EOs this is the issue that concerns me the most. 

[CHOULO19 24,332]

5 minutes ago, Spike said:

I don't know much of the registry but I imagine the idea of it is for Muslims entering and leaving the country to the middle-east and for 'normal citizens' that happen to be Muslim to register friends/family/acquaintances that are acting suspicious. 

Now we know why you type like a ponce Was Lebanon a more stable country socially and politically in the 90s? Kinda surprised that you guys had Cartoon Network because I doubt Australia got it much before that (though Australia is always late to trends). I remember back in Australia, Lebanese people migrated en masse and their were no issues till about 2000 and 2001. A gang of Lebanese Muslims gang raped a lot of white Australian women and then of course 9/11 happened and people can't/couldn't/won't differentiate between a Muslim and an extremist. It was never the same. I also don't think having a huge Leb and Greek population next to each-other helped a lot.

So I'm in favour of free trade but TPP was a mystery surrounded in a riddle. I hated how clandestine the whole agreement was. I'm not in favour of protectionism because I believe that isn't how trade works. I'm honestly not sure if pulling out of a clandestine agreement and allowing China to forge their own TPP is a good thing. I just simply don't know enough of the climate to make a reasonable judgement. Out of everything that Trump has already done with his EOs this is the issue that concerns me the most. 

90s Lebanon is probably too politically complicated to explain in a post. A 15-year civil war had just ended and the country was turned into a neo-liberal capitalist wet dream with everything being privatized and the state literally taking on enormous debts to pay for projects for corporations. As I said, complicated. Basically the Syrian regime was running the country politically, the IMF financially and the Saudi's....well both. Anything that can possibly be consumed was here first. There was a breif period of hope and growth in the country before an economy that was designed not to work for everyone caught up with most of the population. Does that help you understand 90s Lebanon in any way? Probably not, but then again I don't think anyone actually understands it!   

[Spike 12,049]

14 minutes ago, CHOULO19 said:

90s Lebanon is probably too politically complicated to explain in a post. A 15-year civil war had just ended and the country was turned into a neo-liberal capitalist wet dream with everything being privatized and the state literally taking on enormous debts to pay for projects for corporations. As I said, complicated. Basically the Syrian regime was running the country politically, the IMF financially and the Saudi's....well both. Anything that can possibly be consumed was here first. There was a breif period of hope and growth in the country before an economy that was designed not to work for everyone caught up with most of the population. Does that help you understand 90s Lebanon in any way? Probably not, but then again I don't think anyone actually understands it!   

What a shame what has happened to the cradle of civilisation and the Levant. I blame the Mongols torching Baghad to the ground. It is an anecdote that the rivers ran black with the ink of thousands of years of knowledge for weeks.

Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if Persia didn't succumb to Islam and the Arabs. Funny how Zoroastrianism has almost faded to dust. Would we have a more peaceful world? Would Christianity have flourished in the Levant? Who knows but interesting to think about.

[Peace. 4,352]

On 25/01/2017 at 0:11 PM, Fulham Broadway said:

Agree with what youre saying Peace, but its too easy to fall into the trap of putting the emphasis on the individual.  I don't recycle because a) The supermarkets need to stop encasing their products in so much packaging ( quite often I take off the packaging and leave it in the trolley) and b )  I found out that a lot of the rubbish in recycling bins where I live, they just deposit in landfill anyway.

The bigger picture is the 3.4 trillion dollars given as tax breaks to oil and fossil fuel corporations. This is because governments and their donors are major shareholders. If the same tax breaks were given to Green energy initiatives, the planet would start to become a lot cleaner. Like most things it comes down to greed and money.

    I understand what you are saying yet I believe it is problematic on different levels. Let me explain, but before I start, I would like to stress that albeit I will heavily use the « you » and although it might appear at times that I am singling you out and point the finger at you, it is not the case. Firstly because I cannot hold any moral judgment as I am also a part of the problem I describe ; secondly, because when I will use the « you » I will be more specifically addressing to you, myself and basically everyone.

 

P.S. sorry for the long post, it was necessary to explain — but only partially — my perspective.

P.S.2. actually I am not sorry — the inability in today's society to go in depth when talking about 'politic' — and just about everything — is one of the core problems and one of the shortcomings that un-enables us to get forward.

 

****************************

 

    First of all, the debate « individuality Vs government/big companies ». You are saying it is too easy to fall into the trap of putting the emphasis upon the individual. I would answer it by two things : (i) it is actually putting the emphasis upon the government which is a trap easy to fell for ; (ii) we are not enough putting the emphasis upon the individual in this debate.

    Putting the emphasis — or the blame — upon the government is indeed an easy trap to fell for as it is very seducing and comfortable. Yet in reality all it does is to allow you to disregard your responsibilities and to transfert them onto a third entity.

    This is the true mistake to make. The only thing in life which upon you have control is your very own person. Of course you have control upon your children however they are not children for ever ; you can also have control over other people through coercion yet for obvious reasons this not a valid model for our debate. But ultimately, the only person you can change is you while you have little influence upon other people (the more they are, the truer) and little to no chance to change the government (not the president but policies and actions).

    To be more precise in my argument, you will have to wake up early if you intend to impose the government to drop fossil fuels. As long as your neighbor and — especially — you continue to use oil — whether directly or indirectly —, States or big companies will not alter their energy policies and will maintain their heavy use of oil. And that for two good reasons  : (i) if they do not provide for our needs in energy then the authority they have over us, and which is delegated to them by us, will no longer be justified as they would not fulfill they duty and therefore they would be delegitimized, which would ultimately lead them to lose their position of power ; (ii) they are making an incredible amount of money out of the use of fossil fuels — a gain which you legitimize and supply for, even though you disapprove it in words.

 

Quote

    « I don't recycle because a) The supermarkets need to stop encasing their products in so much packaging (quite often I take off the packaging and leave it in the trolley) and b ) I found out that a lot of the rubbish in recycling bins where I live, they just deposit in landfill anyway. »

    By saying this — or more precisely, by acting like this —, you are actually proving the veracity of my argument. Let me explain.

    You say that you do not recycle because « supermarkets encase their products in so much packaging » and because « the recycling bins ends in the very same place than normal garbage ». Well you are right about your two points. Indeed, why should we recycle when in the first place it is supermarkets that use too much packagings ? And albeit I ignore the proportion of this practice, it is true that a lot of garbages meant to be recycled are in fact thrown in with normal garbages (I know that it is practiced so your affirmation suggests that it is not a marginal practice).

    You are right in your conclusions yet you are wrong in the point of view from which you are thinking the situation. You are in reality adopting a post-consumption point of view. You went to an industrial retail — the supermarket — and you bought industrialized goods — the packaged products. You could have went into your local traditional market and bought vegetables, fruits or meat — unpackaged products coming from a local production.

    You could but you did not and you went in to consume industrialized goods and you ultimately legitimized this polluting industry. And albeit you choose to focus over the packaging, you are legitimating significantly more than that. First there is the oil in whatever quantity it took to produce the goods (trucks, heating, machines, etc.) but also other polluting stuffs (fertilizers, pesticides, chemical products, etc.) and the wasted water. Secondly, in the same principle, there are the oil, the polluting agents and the wasted water used in order to create to packaging and to package the products. Thirdly, there is the huge amount of oil burnt to put into motion the container carrier's millions of tonnes which has transported the goods as there are a lot of chances that the products you bought came from outside Europe. And if it is not the case, rest assured — there is still the oil burnt by the ships that have inexorably brought sub-products to manufacture your goods !! Then, on a fourth phase, there are the energy consumption and the pollution produced locally, i.e. from the docks to the supermarket. Finally, the fifth phase, it is the pollution due to the waste of the product itself (skin, plastic, paper, etc.).

    Albeit this schematization has its own limits, it allows us to draw the main structuration of the consumption process in regards to energy and pollution. This model can be divided in two parts : (i) the pre-consumption process which englobes the phases one to four ; (ii) and the post-consumption process which is limited to the last phase. As you are an integral part of the society of consumption, you are sitting between these two phases. And the fact that you are holding this position signifies that you have legitimized and factually allowed (it is you who have consumed) the energy combustion and the pollution created during the four first phases. It is also important to precise that although you are physically intervening after the fourth first phases, your consumption is not subsequent to the pollution but it is the pollution which is subsequent to your consumption as it is our structural and systemic need of consumption that has ineluctably created the process inducing mechanically — but only as by-product — energy combustion and pollution.

    To pin down my arguments under a more understandable phrasing, we globalized humans are responsible of the global warming and the pollution as a collectivity — a collectivity as in « a collection of individuals ». We are responsible because : (i) we are actors of the mondialisation and we are legitimating it ; (ii) we are actors of the industrialization and we are legitimating it ; (iii)  we are actors of the consumption and we are legitimating it ; (iv) we are actors of the overpopulation and we are legitimating it. All the pollution is subsequent to that — to our physical actions and our ideologies as individuals. If oil is the fuel that causes the pollution of the environment, we globalized humans are the fuel that causes the combustion of oil.

 

****************************

 

Quote

« The bigger picture is the 3.4 trillion dollars given as tax breaks to oil and fossil fuel corporations. This is because governments and their donors are major shareholders. If the same tax breaks were given to Green energy initiatives, the planet would start to become a lot cleaner. Like most things it comes down to greed and money. » Fulham Broadway

Quote

« Agreed. At this point it is impossible to go pre-industrial because of various reasons, and nobody really wants to because it makes our lives much more comfortable and advanced. You touched the correct subject, not nearly enough funding and resources go to developing green energy technology. There is a clear lack of incentive and even prevention due to greed. Take those trillions from tax breaks and also cut down from unnecessary bs like military expenditures and suddenly you have enough money to develop green energy across the world instead of building nuclear warfare... But this is just a pipe dream, our eyes won't see the day of such utopia. » Manpe

 

    In a secondary unfold, I would like to tackle the issue through a more pragmatic and factual approach. To start of I will highlight the deep shortcomings related to your affirmations which I have stressed in color.

    Well, at first glance these two similar affirmations are very impactful and they do seem to be the product of an implacable logic. Nevertheless, behind these nicely rounded words lies an extreme ingenuousness. To explain these harsh words, I will challenge you to answer this one question : how many solar panels would it take, according to you, to put into motion this « nutshell » ?

 

    Neither you nor I would be able to answer to this question because we probably never made the calculations before that. In order to solve — or trying to — this mystery, we can use the example of the Auriga Leader, a car carrier developed by the Japanese maritime company NYK Line and which is the first solar-assisted-powered cargo ship (in the picture below).

    According to the company, the 328 solar panels installed over the deck’s roof are able, I quote, « to provide 0,05% of the ship’s propulsion power and 1% of the electricity used on the vessel ». (1) In another report given by the Los Angeles Times, it is stated that the solar power was providing about 10% of all the energy used when the ship was idling and loading/unloading in the docks. (2)

    « 0,05% of the ship propulsion » !!! — This numbers are ridiculous. The calculation is probably more complexe than that, but we can grossly assume — in order to give us a better apprehension — that it would take 3 280 solar panels to provide for the entirety of the needs in energy when the Auriga Leader is idling in the harbor ; 32 800 solar panels to provide for the total use of electricity used while travelling ; and... 656 000 (!!) solar panels to thrust the ship !!

    Once again, I do realize that calculations are more complexe than that. Even then it is accurate enough to help us to understand that a car carrier such as the Auriga Leader  will not be propelled by anything else than oil in the foreseeable future (at least one generation). For instance, take a look at the above picture where we see the solar panels on the roof. We can safely assume that the panels are approximately covering 10% of the surface of the roof — which means that if the roof was fully covered there would be the equivalent of 3 280 solar panels which would provide for… 0,5% of the propulsion power.

    And let’s keep in mind that we are talking here about a car carrier and not a container ship which is fairly bigger than the Auragi Leader ; the later is 200 meters long while the former is more than 300 meters long — and the Jules Verne (first picture) is 396 meters long ! Furthermore and more importantly, car carriers’ shipment is in the deck while cargo ships’ is on the deck, meaning that they cannot have solar panels on them, nor a structure holding the panels as it would impede the loading/unloading process. In addition to that, as quoted in the Los Angeles Times, a spokesman for the Port of Long Beach explains that « S-Class ship » (the biggest class) requires significantly more energy than the Auriga Leader. According to him, such ship needs six megawatts when at port while supertankers needs eight megawatts to pump off the oil. In comparison, the Auriga uses only 400 kilowatts.

    If we did not already know what it does mean, the following quote from the Los Angeles Times should be enough to clarify our doubts : « Ports officials say that [the cargo ships’ needs in energy discussed above] shows there is no single technology that is going to quickly reduce a ship’s diesel emissions ». (3)

    The situation is actually quite simple as there is two paths in front of us. Either we come to an agreement and we put an end to the mondialisation which will mechanically decrease the pollution by a large margin ; or we keep rolling for the mondialisation and we accept unilaterally that our very way of life is what causes the pollution. When we will made our choice, we will finally be able to stop the pollution or be able to enjoy life at its fullest while burning oil like there is no tomorrow.

    Yet you are sitting on the middle of two chairs. You want to keep the mondialisation but you want it green. For that, your suggestion is to impede oil companies and (big) industrial companies that cause the pollution while funding the bioenergy. But how could it possibly produce a positive and coherent outcome ? Mondialisation and industrialisation come hand in hand with the pollution ; repressing those who pollute — never us but always them — while preserving our mondialised way of life can only lead to an implosion as the trade of goods and the industry will be more expensive and scarce but our need of (cheap) consumption will remain the same.

    You know, if governments, big companies, oil companies and such love to burn oil, it is not because they have a deep and burning passion for this dark smelly substance ; or because they are fascinated by the colours in display when rays of lights pass through a smog — it is because oil is the only source of energy that can sustain and provide for our demands and our way of life, as individuals.

 

 

    I will conclude by a little analogy. You want an omelette but you do not want to break eggs (shells). You do not want to do it because it is « bad » ; but damn you really desire that omelette. The only solution you have schemed to overstep this primary incoherence is to blame the eggs producer because he does not produce shell-less eggs while you are arrogantly eating a big fat omelette, confident in your innocence. The morality of the story is that if you want to stop breaking shells then stop eating eggs — it is not the producer’s fault to be unable to produce shell-less eggs and he does only supply you in your individual demands.

 

 

 

(1) http://www.nyk.com/english/release/31/NE_090908.html

(2) http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/02/business/fi-solar-ship2

(3) actually there is one : nuclear reactors — the only alternative to oil to power up heavy ships. But (i) I do not believe that people will be glad to go from oil to nuclear ; (ii) and not not believe having a nuclear device on a civilian ship travelling the world is a very good idea.... (iii) it would cost a lot.

[Fulham Broadway 17,306]

13 hours ago, Peace. said:

I would answer it by two things : (i) it is actually putting the emphasis upon the government which is a trap easy to fell for ; (ii) we are not enough putting the emphasis upon the individual in this debate.

I disagree with that because we vote in the governments to represent  us, and nearly every government is in the pocket of big business, fossil fuel corporations and especially oil companies. Yes, individuals have a responsibility to recycle, whatever, but that is a piss in the ocean compared to what corporations, oil companies and governments could be doing.

Thanks for the thought out and long reply ! BTW I am not a 'green' by any stretch of the imagination, but would like the planet not to be governed by greed and ignorance.

 

13 hours ago, Peace. said:

You could have went into your local traditional market and bought vegetables, fruits or meat — unpackaged products coming from a local production

I like France, and lived there for a while. I really miss the fact that every town and village had a weekly fresh produce market. Sadly in the UK vast swathes of the population only have supermarkets or something like Tesco Express. There are sporadic 'Farmers Markets' mainly attended by middle class people buying 'locally sourced' organic produce at inflated prices. So we don't have that option you have in continental Europe.

13 hours ago, Peace. said:

a collection of individuals ». We are responsible because : (i) we are actors of the mondialisation and we are legitimating it ; (ii) we are actors of the industrialization and we are legitimating it ; (iii)  we are actors of the consumption and we are legitimating it ; (iv) we are actors of the overpopulation and we are legitimating it. All the pollution is subsequent to that — to our physical actions and our ideologies as individuals. If oil is the fuel that causes the pollution of the environment, we globalized humans are the fuel that causes the combustion of oil.

Yes we're all individuals, but as I said, the capacity for change unless there is a collective will is negligible. We are beholden to big business and the whims of the oil greased palms of government.

13 hours ago, Peace. said:

how many solar panels would it take, according to you, to put into motion this « nutshell » ?

Solar panels were one of the earliest alternative energy options, and are effective in many scenarios. However if the trillions of dollars in tax breaks given to oil, nuclear and fossil fuel corporations were given to green energy initiatives and research, then I am sure scientists would have a clean air solution to most energy solutions

13 hours ago, Peace. said:

You know, if governments, big companies, oil companies and such love to burn oil, it is not because they have a deep and burning passion for this dark smelly substance ; or because they are fascinated by the colours in display when rays of lights pass through a smog — it is because oil is the only source of energy that can sustain and provide for our demands and our way of life, as individuals.

Yes this is true, but at what price ? The real danger for future generations in Trumps denial of climate change is that it ironically it lets his bogey man, China off the hook. They will say it's ok to continue to belch out billions of cubic metres of filth every day.

13 hours ago, Peace. said:

I will conclude by a little analogy. You want an omelette but you do not want to break eggs (shells). You do not want to do it because it is « bad » ; but damn you really desire that omelette. The only solution you have schemed to overstep this primary incoherence is to blame the eggs producer because he does not produce shell-less eggs while you are arrogantly eating a big fat omelette, confident in your innocence. The morality of the story is that if you want to stop breaking shells then stop eating eggs — it is not the producer’s fault to be unable to produce shell-less eggs and he does only supply you in your individual demands

That analogy is a bit simplistic, if you don't mind me saying so. OK if you were talking about car production or actual eggs, but sources of energy are a bit more complex. However I do agree with the 'stop eating eggs' bit. There is a massive over production of goods, and we all have too much 'stuff'. Incidentally this is what capitalism is predicated upon -production and growth. The problem is this growth is not sustainable, so in the end capitalism will eat itself - but usually they just create wars and start over.

[Iggy Doonican 4,186]

No alternative facts here this is fucking excruciating I lasted two minutes before I turned it off.

 

[kmk108 1,186]

I have yet to find a funny conservative

[oxfordblues 299]

[Spike 12,049]

2 hours ago, kmk108 said:

I have yet to find a funny conservative

Milo Yiannopolous, Gavin McInness, and Tucker Carlson are hilarious.

[Spike 12,049]

2 hours ago, oxfordblues said:

Completely wrong, it is the other way around. Identity politics is the core of modern political discourse.