The PPC Posting Board - Latest posts

It's nice to meet you. Here's some popcorn just because!

Just, please, SoH, read what I replied to Neshomeh further up the thread. Alaska has been hit. Hard. And will continue to be. Bet please, tell me it's just a hoax or overreaction.

I have seen the weather patters change.

Me.

My 20 year old self.

In Alaska alone.

There is not a silgle Alaskan I know of, not one who is not a politician playing the Republican party line, that does not belive in climate change. And I know a lot of old conseratives who would agree with every other point SoH has made. The natives have watched as the sea has grown rougher, to where they can barely sail what was once calm waters. They have watched the ice they have depended on for generations disappear before their very eyes. Villages have been slipping into the sea. Rivers widening and shortening. And the glaciers. I, personally, have watched once mighty sheets of ice turn into little better than some ice cubes in a very blue lake.

Heck! Let's take the easiest of anecdotal answers: what's outside my window right now? Usually, the first snowfall that sticks is somewhere around Halloween, and right now we would have a good three to four inches of snow built up, and not likely to go any time soon. Right now? There is some snow, yes. A lot of ice. And I can see grass. A lot of it. Majority of people's yards are still grass.

So, please. Tell me there's a hoax. Tell me that this is just natural warming that gradually occurs, and we're just overreacting. Tell that to the natives who have lost their homes, livelihoods, and very lives because of it.

Read these, and tell those native Elders that they are wrong:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/02/24/the-remote-alaskan-village-that-needs-to-be-relocated-due-to-climate-change/

https://www.adn.com/environment/article/eroding-alaska-village-urges-congress-address-climate-change/2014/01/17/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/interactive/2013/may/13/newtok-alaska-climate-change-refugees

https://www.adn.com/environment/article/alaska-climate-story/2015/08/29/

It will have to be short and sweet. Possibly an hours worth. So, starting at 10:00 EST,I will read part of one of two things.

1. The story of Denko. (´・ω・`)
2. The worst fanfic I have ever read: Pinkamena, the pink shadow.

Please, let me know which you would rather listen to. I may elect to ignore you and read what I want, but I would still value your feedback.

I don't remember why you left, though, so.
*shrugs*
Here, have a best hamster.

Hello-there!
Fond of the hyphen-thing, I-see!
Fair-enough. Links them-up. Gives it a sort-of sing-song nature.

Dunno who you are or what you've done, but, oy, you don't know who I am or what I've done, so it's all fair, in my eyes.
My gift upon you is: a spooky Halloween ghost. Because while Halloween may be over in reality, it is always present in my heart. And, hopefully, yours.

Welcome, again!

... a compelling argument for extending chances to people who say they've changed with time (twice, in fact).

So: chance extended.

Welcome back.

hS

Hey, I'm Lily, I used to hang around here a lot under the name Tray-Gnome, although I've been gone for a couple years now. Also changed my name! That is a thing that happened!

I left because I said some awful things that I regret, and I apologise for that. It's been a few years, and I think that I'm a different person now, and I hope everyone will give me the chance to prove that.

You're right. For some people, it's already here.

Thinking about this (because once I got the bit between my teeth I just couldn't stop), I remembered a couple of articles I read recently in Scientific American, and then I found some more that I hadn't read. First, "The Ominous Story of Syria's Climate Refugees," which discusses climate change as one of several causes of the Syrian migration.

Second, "Governments Should Plan for Climate Change Migrants." I note that "22 million people were displaced by extreme events in 2013, led by Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines" as opposed to "In the early 1970s, the total number of people displaced [by extreme events] was only about 10 million."

Third, this series about Bangladesh and climate migration.

TL;DR: Rising sea levels, storms, floods, and drought caused or exacerbated by climate change are forcing people to flee their homes and flock to areas that are already overpopulated. This is happening now, not 50 years from now. If sad polar bears don't move you-and-others-like-you to support decisive action against climate change, perhaps the plight of millions of human beings will?

~Neshomeh

P.S. I think the root of many of our problems is overpopulation. I don't believe in forcing people to limit their reproduction by means of something tyrannical like the One-Child Policy, but I do believe in making birth control and sex education freely, broadly, publicly available so we can all make smarter choices about how many humans we add to the viral load population. By extension, I also believe in supporting women's rights and education in particular. When women are educated and empowered to take control of their bodies, their entire community benefits. I don't have a link to back up that statement, but can I slide by with an It Is Known this time?

You're quite right. I'm sorry. I'm so used to the average climate change denialist who drags up one of the 3% of climate scientists who is also a denialist and then claims victory. I appreciate that you're taking the time to look at my sources rather than dismissing them.

I'm quick to dismiss people over climate denial because of something it says on the RationalWiki page - it's too late to convince the people who still reject the science; all we can possibly do is try to make the changes we have to make.

(Oh, I also noted you used Alex Jones's YouTube as a source in another part of this thread, hence my accusation of "YouTube as a source". So, yeah. I'm sorry for leaping, but you haven't been entirely perfect.)

And you know I'm more than willing to read for the Sue. Kya!~

("Blood Raining Night," for those who don't speak acronym.)

I'm thinking either next Saturday the 19th or Sunday the 20th, probably starting around 2:00 pm CST again. Anyone have a preference of one over the other?

We left off at chapter 14, so we'll be picking up at chapter 15, "School Days," and continuing until we get sick of it, or approximately 5-6:00 CST. We might even finish the thing, since we got about halfway through the first time. I haven't read all the later chapters, though, so I can't guarantee I'll keep my composure as well as it goes on. {= P

Oh, and if you want to read for a part (reprised or otherwise), please claim it in advance. It would really help things go more smoothly. Thanks!

~Neshomeh

It is not as if I pulled some random YouTube video out of my rear, so I believe that it is disingenuous to say that I am "using YouTube as a source"; I am simply citing to an actual published scientist who also happened to have posted a digestible-length video on YouTube. If I was posting to some random nutjob, then you'd be right to question the validity of my views.

Thanks for at least having the respect to point to other scientists as well.

But I believe that you completely missed the point I was trying to make. The climate is changing: on that we agree. Many scientists are saying the same thing: one would have to be blind to deny that. However, numbers alone do not prove truth.

The difference between someone with a legitimate minority position and a conspiracy theorist is that the conspiracy theorist can empirically be proven wrong; he just doesn't want to see that he's wrong. I've proven elsewhere on this Board that I am willing to admit when I've been mistaken in the face of contrary evidence. I'll take a closer look at your sources; and if I find any others for my position (I will admit that, as climate change is not my bailiwick, I do not have links at the ready), I hope you are willing to do the same.

Here and here. Have a beloved piece of my childhood. Share it with your young friends and relatives. And if you like that, there's more! Some of the concepts may be a bit outdated, but it's a start. And I still have a soft spot in my heart for the Bell Laboratory Science Series, too. MASSIVELY outdated, but the basics are still fairly sound, at least.

Also, if you want something a BIT more contemporary, Bill Nye the Science Guy is now on Netflix. I binge-watched all of it not so long ago. ^_^

~Neshomeh

I will try to express them as succinctly as possible so as not to go on for hours and give us both a headache. {= )

On Christian bakeries, etc.

I would like to attempt to disagree with you using a correct premise, so please correct me if I'm wrong:

I am under the impression that these businesses wish to refuse service to gay couples because they wish to avoid condoning sin. Is that right?

If so, then is it not their mission to avoid condoning all sin? Should they not strive to avoid selling to ex-cons, to adulterers, to rapists, to people who take the Lord's name in vain, etc.? Are they doing thorough background checks to be sure they aren't giving aid and comfort to anyone who violates the will of God?

I'm guessing no. So, why not? What is the difference between selling a cake to someone who just got out of prison for, say, vehicular manslaughter, and selling a cake to a gay couple? How about a guy who is abusing his would-be bride and a pair of lesbians? How come some sinners get service with smile and some don't? What's the difference here?

I submit to you that there is none. It's all accounted sin, isn't it, and if your business is selling cakes, or flowers, or whatever, it's all none of your business.

... Okay, I suppose if the name of your business is "Christian Weddings for Straight Christian Couples," you're exempt from the above logic. Have fun catering to your niche market; just don't be surprised if it doesn't pay enough to keep the doors open.

On "basic, obvious truths that have gone unquestioned for thousands of years"

There's a logical fallacy named argumentum ad antiquitam, which is the fallacy of assuming that something is good or right purely because it is old. Simply because a thing has been accepted as true for a long time does not, in and of itself, mean that it IS true. People thought the world was flat for a long time. People thought the Earth was the center of the universe for a long time. People thought the Sun went around the Earth for a long time. People thought some truly terrifying things could cure disease for a long time. I could go on and on.

The point is, "we've always believed this, therefore it must be true" is a fallacious argument. You'll have to do better.

(And yes, the opposite argument argumentum ad novitam, that something is good or right simply because it is new, is equally fallacious, just so that's out there.)

On climate change

I believe my thoughts on why denying climate change is ridiculous can be best expressed by this comic:



Seriously, so what if it's not as bad as 99% of reputable scientists say it is? Can't we make the world a better place anyway?

Also, I can't let this go without mentioning that I've seen a difference in weather patterns with my own eyes over my 31 years of life, which is an incredibly short period of time on a planetary scale. Winter comes later, it's not as cold, and when storms do hit, they're worse. Summers are hot and awful. In between, we're practically getting monsoon rains. This sort of thing is exactly what science has predicted, and consistently accurate predictions are exactly how a scientific hypothesis gets upgraded to a proven theory. (Note correct terminology; please do not take the "it's just a theory" tack with me, I might scream.)

~Neshomeh

No one- not one member of his administration- has, to my knowledge, stepped forward to protest against his supporters actions.

No one has said this isn't what they want, no one has advocated for peace. Trump has yet to distance himself from the violent outbreaks in any way.

And some people think this isn't what he wants?

Well, I'll admit that my first reaction was relief as well. Relief at knowing USA had elected a President more open to a multi-polar world, a President who is not going to try to go for another attempt at regime change, in my country or elsewhere, a President who's consistently signalled he's going to leave our Syrian operation be and not plunge the country into further chaos by giving more weapons to terrorists and imposing a "no-fly zone".

Of course, the human brain is naturally wired to detect threats and plan for them rather then rest on laurels, so now I'm also terrified about what he'll do to climate, alongside basically everyone else who takes heed. Though, I have learnt today that he signed a letter alongside lots of other businessmen telling Obama to do more about climate change before Copenhagen.

An uncharitable interpretation is that he only did it to spite Obama, of course, and his later denialism was his real view... but he has to understand it now, or else he wouldn't be building seawalls for his Scottish properties. Moreover, there was that thing he said about his deal-making principle when discussing the Iran deal, I believe: to first terrify everyone and get lots of concessions, but ultimately go along with the spirit of it. In that case, the current panic might even be more beneficial in long term than the complacency Hillary's years would've brought.

If all that fails and he does what he currently says... he's an enormously unpopular US leader worldwide, who would be taking up a position every other country's leader understands is highly dangerous for them. If that's not a perfect storm for open defiance of USA that will lead to the imposition of global sanctions, I don't know what is. In that case, the impact on the economy and the associated decrease in consumption will also help to reduce emission and probably counter much of his coal-loving.

As someone who doesn't live in the US and so isn't affected by its domestic policy (as fascinating as it can often be, for right and wrong reasons), these global-reaching issues were of main importance to me. From reading the board, I understand that many of you have legitimate grievances and reasons to feel unsafe now, but again, it's only four years before you can radically beat the tide back. The US is still one of the better countries in the world to be LGBTQ+, etc., and four years won't undo that.

Your prisons and police are a disgrace of course (in Russia, it's actually illegal for police to open fire without giving warning), and this is set to get worse, but like it or not, the rest of the world will barely notice this in comparison to above. Perhaps, you'll finally manage to recognise great and capable candidates before it's too late next time. You still had you could vote for in this election of course, named Jill Stein. Would've loved if she won it somehow, and hope she and Baraka will manage to put these four years to good use regardless.

... is on the buses. Each of our local buses has a picture of a plaque under the driver's window, and each one has the name and dates of a soldier who died in the Great War. It's an excellent way to promote remembrance without in any way glorifying what happened.

And one of the best places I know of to learn what it was like is the book Tolkien and the Great War, which is built around Tolkien's time on the Somme. He went out there at the same time as three of his schoolfriends; only he and one other came back. It's a heartbreaking book that I heartily recommend. (Obviously. TCBS forever!)

hS

Day one: Brother comes home saying kids were storming through the hallways, chanting "TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP!" No fewer than five different fights broke out over the election.

Day two: Hispanic students harassed in the cafeteria to chants of "Build the wall! Build the wall!"

Day three: Someone put sticky notes on a wall of lockers to spell out the N-word. He also got asked about his "dyke sister". Good to know that's how my old bandmates remember me.