The Tavern

Off-topic talk on music, art, literature, games and forum games.
Post Reply
Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Re: The Tavern

Post by Cirion Spellbinder » Mon Jul 13, 2015 9:51 pm

Anyway, opinions on the TPP?
And why do you think Obama supports it?
I've got a rudimentary grasp of what the TPP is, but I don't think I'm informed enough to provide a valid response. This is pretty important though, I'd think it deserves its own thread?
(I watched this short clip and few other sources http://youtu.be/RE902AMt7so)

Also has anyone else noticed that there are more guests online than usual?

User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3005
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Post by EquALLity » Thu Jul 16, 2015 8:16 pm

I found this cool quiz that shows how much you agree with the current American candidates for President! Here are my results:
http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016 ... 1136875757

Tell me what you get, and remember to click to show more all of the questions! :D
You don't have to answer all of the questions, btw. It will work with what you answer.

Also: If the site isn't able to determine the stance of a candidate on something, it will say that you disagree.
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx

Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Post by Cirion Spellbinder » Thu Jul 16, 2015 11:18 pm

Tell me what you get, and remember to click to show more all of the questions! :D
I got this: http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016 ... 1137770155

User avatar
miniboes
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1575
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 1:52 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan
Location: Netherlands

Post by miniboes » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:12 am

Cirion Spellbinder wrote:
Tell me what you get, and remember to click to show more all of the questions! :D
I got this: http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016 ... 1137770155
I got 5% more!
http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016 ... 1138205288

Dayum I really want Sanders to win now.

If he loses he can come run for Prime Minister of the Netherlands, he'll probably win.
"I advocate infinite effort on behalf of very finite goals, for example correcting this guy's grammar."
- David Frum

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 9499
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:14 am

I got 77% for Sanders, 75% for Hillary. Not a big surprise.

Most didn't have good answers for me.
E.g. I don't support alternative energy, I support nuclear power, only and exclusively (except places where solar is already used in off-grid low power use situations). We don't need to waste money on unknowns when we have the solution (and have had for a long time, no thanks to a fear mongering media that makes it sound like nuclear power is dangerous or not environmentally friendly).

Stuff like that.

User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3005
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Post by EquALLity » Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:35 am

^I thought that nuclear energy is a form of alternative energy?

Did you add in your own answers? If you did, it would automatically say that you disagreed.

Can you link yours, so we can see what you put?
Or maybe you didn't link it for that reason, because you don't like politics, and would rather not start a debate on this stuff?
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx

User avatar
Insert name here
Full Member
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 6:03 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Location: Insert location here.

Post by Insert name here » Fri Jul 17, 2015 12:28 pm

EquALLity wrote:I found this cool quiz that shows how much you agree with the current American candidates for President! Here are my results:
http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016 ... 1136875757

Tell me what you get, and remember to click to show more all of the questions! :D
You don't have to answer all of the questions, btw. It will work with what you answer.

Also: If the site isn't able to determine the stance of a candidate on something, it will say that you disagree.
This is what I got

http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016 ... 1138816653

93% for Bernie sanders, well I already knew at he is my favorite candidate out of all of them, I guess I really know my political ideology.
Though I did take it twice to be sure, the first time it was 95%, oh well, it about the same result anyway.
Insert signature here.

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 9499
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:04 pm

EquALLity wrote:^I thought that nuclear energy is a form of alternative energy?
Sometimes, but not usually:

altenergy.org
nutter wrote:Alternative energy refers to energy sources that have no undesired consequences such for example fossil fuels or nuclear energy. Alternative energy sources are renewable and are thought to be "free" energy sources. They all have lower carbon emissions, compared to conventional energy sources. These include Biomass Energy, Wind Energy, Solar Energy, Geothermal Energy, Hydroelectric Energy sources. Combined with the use of recycling, the use of clean alternative energies such as the home use of solar power systems will help ensure man's survival into the 21st century and beyond.
Most green nuts automatically exclude it.

Although Wikipedia, being sane and usually unbiased, includes it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternati ... ive_energy

Thorium has a lot of potential:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternati ... gy#Thorium

Why? It's not because Thorium is really that much better (the current technology is just fine), but because it's easier to convince nutters that it is different and special, and therefore help avoid the fear mongering usually associated with nuclear power.

EquALLity wrote:Can you link yours, so we can see what you put?
Or maybe you didn't link it for that reason, because you don't like politics, and would rather not start a debate on this stuff?
You know me too well.

User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3005
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Post by EquALLity » Fri Jul 17, 2015 2:33 pm

Ah, I see.
brimstoneSalad wrote: You know me too well.
:lol:

I promise to try very hard not to start a debate. ;)

I should be fine. I really don't think I'm going to disagree with you to the extent that I would feel compelled strongly enough to do it while trying very hard not to.

I'm just curious.
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 9499
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Fri Jul 17, 2015 4:35 pm

EquALLity wrote: I promise to try very hard not to start a debate. ;)

I should be fine. I really don't think I'm going to disagree with you to the extent that I would feel compelled strongly enough to do it while trying very hard not to.

I'm just curious.
The other main sticking points would be things like minimum wage:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/don ... imum-wage/

The evidence just isn't there -yet- but setting minimums at the federal level is NOT the way to learn (there's no control). We need different states with radically different policies, so we can see what works and what doesn't.
What really stimulates jobs and improves the economy?
According to CBO, hiking the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would increase wages for some 24.5 million workers, lifting some 900,000 people out of poverty. But the agency also found that a $10.10 minimum wage would eliminate the equivalent of 500,000 jobs.
In terms of economy, 24.5 million workers having more disposable income is really good (particularly for China's manufacturing sector, from which these people will buy more junk to dispose of their incomes), but that means little to nothing in terms of ethics and quality of life.
Having more money to waste (as long as you had enough before) doesn't make you happier. Dietary surveys also reveal that people tend to eat more animal products when they have more money (and less grain), which won't necessarily make them healthier either.

The bolded numbers are what are important.
Being lifted out of poverty is potentially good. Being unemployed really sucks -- being unemployable is worse.
Is it better that 1.4 million people have shitty jobs that have them barely scraping by in poverty, or that 0.9 million people get to live large above the poverty line, and 0.5 million can go fuck themselves?

That is something of a legitimate moral dilemma, and reasonable people can answer it differently.
I can tell you isn't not as simple as those 0.5 million people just disappearing though. Those people will be on unemployment for a while, some of them on welfare, and a large portion of them (in frustration, and running out of options) will turn to crime, and a lot of them will end up in prison (being supported by the state in one way or another). If we had better systems, and free education, to support these people and make them employable again, the equation might look quite a bit different.

Liberals who blindly carry on about raising the minimum wage like it's the best idea ever are just not living in reality; a reality where it's nowhere near clear (economically OR socially) that raising the minimum wage is a good idea. Maybe it is. But that's a faith based proposition that I can't get on board with.
Being scientifically minded, I want to see different states and different districts enact different policies rather than these policies be set blindly and without any experimental controls at the federal level, so we can collect actual data to understand how these policies affect the economy and overall quality of life (which I've said before, and that the PBS article actually mentions at the end -- smart writer).

Also, I strongly suggest reading the whole article, since it's a good overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage
There are a lot of important points on economics there, as well as surveys (that show the division is mostly ideological), and alternatives.
You may look at the subject differently when you learn more about it.

Try going back over those questions, and answer the quiz again thinking in terms of what makes a better experiment to gather data, try to remove the rhetoric and ideology and stick with the facts, and you'll get something closer to my answers.
That said, Sanders was still the closest fit at 77%
I think Sanders is an idiot (or he's lying and he's just pandering to his base, which is par for the course for a politician), but the rest of them are even more idiot (or pandering even harder, it's difficult to tell the difference), so I'll go with the least of idiots. :D
Also, I care much more about the environmental aspects than the economy (which would be hard for me to care less about at this point, I don't really have a horse in that race), and Sanders is relatively sensible on those points. Bush (W) was a huge nuclear supporter, you won't hear me praise him often but sometimes even the biggest idiots are right on some points. The warmongering was kind of unforgivable though.
Bush said that his plan to expand nuclear power would curb emissions contributing to global warming and would provide an "abundant and plentiful" alternative to limited energy sources. Bush called the nuclear sector an "overregulated industry" and pledged to work to make it more feasible to build reactors.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02072.html
I would have loved him if he wasn't such an fundamentalist asshole on other topics.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests