usually they borrow from their touring partners, save maybe guitars, cymbals and a snare drum

i've got plans with some friends to start selling "Carbon offset offsets", for when this whole green thing blows over, and people not only stop caring, but get tired of it enough to wanna do something about it.

to start, we'll have a parking lot of hummers just idling all day. later, as we get more and more investment capital, we'll be pouring crude oil and other contaminants into local streams and waterways.

we'll also take lots of overseas trips vie airplanes.

get in now while it's cheap. i'll even offer a special org discount. mention this post for 10% off your offset offsets.

Report  
shot_in_the_dark (July 21, 2008)

This is funny.

pardon me? and what exactly constitutes 'hippie shit'? caring? how about campaining for equality? is that hippie shit? i'm interested... do tell

Report  
Guy_Incognito (July 21, 2008)

Which kind of equality are we talking about?

Equality of opportunity = A worthwhile goal

Equality of outcome = Lazy hippie bullshit


Report  
crackpotdemagogue (July 21, 2008)

equality is about way more than opportunity... but unfortunatley in advanced capitalist 'democracy' people seem to think that equal opportunity is all that is required for society to be truly equal. meritocratic idiocy at its finest.

Report  
Guy_Incognito (July 21, 2008)
Ok, enlighten me. Why is meritocracy such a fallable system? It seems to me that it has driven all of the innovation and wealth creation on this planet in the past 200 years since the debut of modern Democracy.

Why does everything have to be equal anyway? Explain to me the basis for that. Why should I not be rewarded when I work harder than the next guy?

I know tons of people that spent their high school and college years partying and screwing off while I was working hard to get good grades and get a business going. Now that I make some decent money, those same people bitch about the inequality of it all. That shit pisses me off to no end.

I'm sorry, but people can't eat equality nor does it put shelter over their heads. We do need hardworking people in this world to make all the shit that we consume everyday. Why shouldn

show rest of commentOk, enlighten me. Why is meritocracy such a fallable system? It seems to me that it has driven all of the innovation and wealth creation on this planet in the past 200 years since the debut of modern Democracy.

Why does everything have to be equal anyway? Explain to me the basis for that. Why should I not be rewarded when I work harder than the next guy?

I know tons of people that spent their high school and college years partying and screwing off while I was working hard to get good grades and get a business going. Now that I make some decent money, those same people bitch about the inequality of it all. That shit pisses me off to no end.

I'm sorry, but people can't eat equality nor does it put shelter over their heads. We do need hardworking people in this world to make all the shit that we consume everyday. Why shouldn't those that excel at creating economic good reap the majority of the reward?

There are so many people that contribute absolutely zilch to the economy and live on the backs of those who go to work every day and kick ass. Equality is the least of my concerns for those people.

How are people going to be motivated to produce if equality of outcome becomes an entitlement? Please, explain.

Report  
LORD-OF-THE-GAYS (July 21, 2008)

you sound like a band against me record

Report  
Tom1022 (July 21, 2008)

I agree in part with the sentiment of your post; people should be rewarded on the basis of their efforts and abilities. On the other hand, I do find it hard to believe that any society has actually institutionalized the practice of "equal opportunity". For instance, are impoverished youth in miserable schools trying any less hard than you or me? Probably not. But how much chance do they stand to succeed in life? (I can't speak for you here) I came from a relatively wealthy family, and I'm doing fairly well for myself. I worked hard my entire life, but think that my socio-economic status had nothing to do with my success is naive.

Report  
TheMike (July 21, 2008)

"". For instance, are impoverished youth in miserable schools trying any less hard than you or me? Probably not. But how much chance do they stand to succeed in life?"

This is the argument for equality of opportunity. Which is what he's supporting. Equality of opportunity in conjunction with a meritocracy would be ideal. Everybody starts the same. Where they go from there is up to them.

Report  
Tom1022 (July 21, 2008)

I totally agree with that. If that didn't come across in my post then I should have been more clearly. I was simply trying to say that equal opportunity in conjuction with meritocracy does not exist in any society of which I am aware. America likes to talk the talk, and probably does better than a lot of places, but in reality class structures are a lot more rigid than you would expect in an ideal equal opportunity meritocracy. Example: Paris Hilton.

Report  
TheMike (July 22, 2008)

Oh sorry, right, I must have read your post too hastily. I still think it's a good goal to work on. But I see your point.

Report  
Guy_Incognito (July 22, 2008)
That's the thing. I don't disagree with you. My philosophy of equal opportunity over equal outcome allows for putting extra effort into impoverished areas to improve their schools in order to level the playing field.

I have zero problem subsidizing underfunded schools in impoverished areas with money from taxes generated by wealthier areas in order to give those kids the same standard of education.

However, once you graduate from school and become a man in your own right, its on you to perform.

Once again, I'm all for TRUE equality of opportunity. I 100% agree that this does not currently exist. Just because I'm against equality of outcome doesn't mean I by default think that our current system is the embodiment of equal opportunity.

Our system is neither equal in opportunity or outcome, but the country does have to take a

show rest of commentThat's the thing. I don't disagree with you. My philosophy of equal opportunity over equal outcome allows for putting extra effort into impoverished areas to improve their schools in order to level the playing field.

I have zero problem subsidizing underfunded schools in impoverished areas with money from taxes generated by wealthier areas in order to give those kids the same standard of education.

However, once you graduate from school and become a man in your own right, its on you to perform.

Once again, I'm all for TRUE equality of opportunity. I 100% agree that this does not currently exist. Just because I'm against equality of outcome doesn't mean I by default think that our current system is the embodiment of equal opportunity.

Our system is neither equal in opportunity or outcome, but the country does have to take a definitive stand on which philosophy we want to get behind in order to strive towards a more perfect system. Since our founding, the consensus has been that equal opportunity is the goal even if we aren't there yet. I still believe that is the correct goal and so far it proves to be the most successful model on the planet.


Report  
StuckInBielers (July 28, 2008)
"Since our founding, the consensus has been that equal opportunity is the goal even if we aren't there yet. I still believe that is the correct goal and so far it proves to be the most successful model on the planet."

I think implying that a capitalist based system can somehow create equal opportunity is a contradiction in terms. Capitalism is not a socially responsible ideology, it is about ruthlessness and the accumulation of wealth. People with these qualities are ambitious and individualistic, two qualities that are the antithesis of what is needed to create equal opportunity i.e sympathy and compassion . This is proved by the rising wealth gap. The successful do not put money back into areas where its needed for humanitarian reasons its invested back into areas to make more money. Also, somewhere else on this thread you said that capitalism creates innovations that help

show rest of comment"Since our founding, the consensus has been that equal opportunity is the goal even if we aren't there yet. I still believe that is the correct goal and so far it proves to be the most successful model on the planet."

I think implying that a capitalist based system can somehow create equal opportunity is a contradiction in terms. Capitalism is not a socially responsible ideology, it is about ruthlessness and the accumulation of wealth. People with these qualities are ambitious and individualistic, two qualities that are the antithesis of what is needed to create equal opportunity i.e sympathy and compassion . This is proved by the rising wealth gap. The successful do not put money back into areas where its needed for humanitarian reasons its invested back into areas to make more money. Also, somewhere else on this thread you said that capitalism creates innovations that help social progress. Again, i think you're putting too much faith in people's sense of social responsibility - our best minds are in the tower blocks thinking up new ways to make better iPods.



Report  
crackpotdemagogue (July 21, 2008)
your perspective is pretty brutal.. but it doesn't suprise me. i'm sure you've been one of the pro-capitalist rightwingers i've bickered with on countless occasions on this website.

Meritocracy is 'such a fallable system' because when you go beyond an imagined archetype of what it is, you see a reality. And that reality is not fair. Think here about the difference between a kid from a really poor family, and a kid from a really rich family and the opportunities that are available to each. This is assuming you acknowledge that the 'american dream' is a myth.

I'm not bitching that you worked hard, got good grades, made yourself some money. Far from it. The problems i have with a meritocratic, hyper-capitalist society are not with people like you. The problem is with the legislation that goes along with it all. The privitisation, the corporatisation,

show rest of commentyour perspective is pretty brutal.. but it doesn't suprise me. i'm sure you've been one of the pro-capitalist rightwingers i've bickered with on countless occasions on this website.

Meritocracy is 'such a fallable system' because when you go beyond an imagined archetype of what it is, you see a reality. And that reality is not fair. Think here about the difference between a kid from a really poor family, and a kid from a really rich family and the opportunities that are available to each. This is assuming you acknowledge that the 'american dream' is a myth.

I'm not bitching that you worked hard, got good grades, made yourself some money. Far from it. The problems i have with a meritocratic, hyper-capitalist society are not with people like you. The problem is with the legislation that goes along with it all. The privitisation, the corporatisation, the greed, the monopoly. It's the ideology that's the cancer.

Your position is typical of so many people i've spoken to about these kind of issues, related to welfare etc.. but the thing that gets me most, is you don't seem to understand you're own contradictory argument. you say, without even a pinch of irony, that 'There are so many people that contribute absolutely zilch to the economy and live on the backs of those who go to work every day and kick ass. Equality is the least of my concerns for those people.' Yet you don't understand that the very reason a huge proportion of 'those people' are unemployed because unequal distribution of wealth has led to their hereditory impoverishment, hence their position, attitude, outlook (and i am speaking in general terms here). It is a vicious spiral. Where is you're compassion, man?

By the way. I think it is a great thing that we can debate these issues here!
Report  
Tom1022 (July 21, 2008)

Hey. I will agree with you that what "we" (assuming you're American) have instituted is not a true equal-opportunity meritocracy, but I also believe that if such a thing could exist, then it would be the ideal system. Perhaps this makes me somewhat of an idealist, but I think it is a goal worth pursuing. If we make progress towards this end, but end up falling short, the resulting system would still be a lot better than a) what we have now and b) blanket-equality. If you care to debate more, I don't start work until next Monday... haha

Report  
crackpotdemagogue (July 22, 2008)

actually i'm from the UK (Scotland)! I totally get the point you're making, and although i'd agree that it would definetley be a progression from the current state of affairs, i'd have to disagree that i think it would be far from an 'ideal system'. And i'm not arguing for some kind of utopian 'blanket equality' because it's highly debatable that such a thing can actually exist, i'm arguing more in favor of an equal opportunity that does not have it's basis on some bullshit economic model of human nature. but anyway... everyone's an idealist, arent they?

Report  
Tom1022 (July 22, 2008)

Well I'm not an economist so I can't claim to know what the ideal system would be. But if opportunity were equal, then on what basis could rewards be allocated other than merit? If you have better ideas I'm all ears.

On an unrelated note, I went camping in Scotland last summer and it was beautiful. We went island hopping off the west coast. I think I was the only non-Christian on the isle of Iona. Very nice place, though.

Report  
crackpotdemagogue (July 22, 2008)
i think you need to think out of the box man. you seem to be stuck in this really capitalistic place in your mind... and i understand why. this is how we are conditioned to be. I find talk of 'rewards' pretty childish but i know where you are coming from. It's another argument i've heard loads of times...

What i'm trying to get at is that in a society free of all capitalistic pressures, the nature of the human will change (of course - this is obvious). But anyway. If you want to read more about alternatives to deregulated neo-liberal economics and the fundemental changes that come with it, you should read up on 'parecon' (participatory economics). Relating specifically to the idea of 'reward' read the following, which i pasted from wikipedia just now:

Remuneration for effort and sacrifice
Promoters of participatory economics hold that it

show rest of commenti think you need to think out of the box man. you seem to be stuck in this really capitalistic place in your mind... and i understand why. this is how we are conditioned to be. I find talk of 'rewards' pretty childish but i know where you are coming from. It's another argument i've heard loads of times...

What i'm trying to get at is that in a society free of all capitalistic pressures, the nature of the human will change (of course - this is obvious). But anyway. If you want to read more about alternatives to deregulated neo-liberal economics and the fundemental changes that come with it, you should read up on 'parecon' (participatory economics). Relating specifically to the idea of 'reward' read the following, which i pasted from wikipedia just now:

Remuneration for effort and sacrifice
Promoters of participatory economics hold that it is inequitable, and also ineffective, to remunerate people on the basis of their birth or heredity, their property, or their innate intelligence. Therefore, participatory economics advocates as a primary principle reward for effort and sacrifice. Therefore someone who works in a mine — which is dangerous, uncomfortable, and confers no power whatsoever on the worker — would get a higher income than someone who works in an office the same time, thus allowing the miner to work fewer hours and the burden of highly dangerous and strenuous jobs to be shared among the populace.

Additionally, participatory economics recognizes a certain leeway for exemptions from the remuneration for effort principle. It is suggested that people with disabilities who are unable to work, children, the elderly, the infirm and workers who are legitimately in transitional circumstances, can be remunerated according to need. This said, participatory economics posits an obligation for every able adult to perform some socially useful work as a requirement for receiving reward, albeit in the context of a society providing free health care, education, skills training, and the freedom to choose between democratically structured workplaces with jobs balanced for desirability and empowerment.

The starting point for the income of all workers in participatory economics is an equal share of the social product in the form of equal consumption rights for private and public goods and services. From this point incomes for private expenditures and consumption rights for public goods can be expected to diverge by small degrees reflecting the choices that individual workers make in striking a balance between work and leisure time, and reflecting effort ratings assigned by their immediate peers.


Report  
Tom1022 (July 22, 2008)

That sounds interesting. I am sure that there are equally interesting counterpoints to this argument, but I'll take it upon myself to find out more, and then I'll make an informed decision.

Just to be clear, I didn't mean "rewards" as a piece of candy for behaving like a good capitalist, I just meant economic and social incentives to promote hard work, the pursuit of education, civic behavior, etc. I don't see anything childish about that. Good talking to you, though.

Report  
crackpotdemagogue (July 22, 2008)

yea, i knew what you were implying about 'rewards', i was just being pedantic.

that's cool that you visited scotland anyway... where are you from? the west coast is beautiful. you should visit islay, or mull, or colonsay if you ever get the chance. these places will blow you away!

Report  
Tom1022 (July 22, 2008)

i'm from all over. born in canada, lived in germany, california, connecticut, and now michigan. i have family in england, scotland, spain, and belgium, so i get the chance to travel quite a bit with relatives from all over. i actually did visit mull when i was in scotland and it was fantastic. anyway, its good to know that it's possible to have an intelligent conversation with someone on this website, i'll look out for you in other stories.

Report  
crackpotdemagogue (July 22, 2008)

excellent, you are a real mixed bag! the best way to be! aye, thanks for the chat man, take it easy

Report  
Guy_Incognito (July 22, 2008)
Ok let's not start off with flinging the insults about who is a right winger and who is a left winger.

You misinterpreted my post 100% based on this quote:

"'There are so many people that contribute absolutely zilch to the economy and live on the backs of those who go to work every day and kick ass. Equality is the least of my concerns for those people.'"

The people I am talking about aren't the impoverished scraping by to make a buck. The people I am talking about are people that grew up in MY economic class with every advantage and have no problem screwing around and partying it up all up until the day that they barely graduate and bitch about not having enough money. I have no sympathy for THOSE people.

I know many of these people personally who had every opportunity to do well in school and do well in college but

show rest of commentOk let's not start off with flinging the insults about who is a right winger and who is a left winger.

You misinterpreted my post 100% based on this quote:

"'There are so many people that contribute absolutely zilch to the economy and live on the backs of those who go to work every day and kick ass. Equality is the least of my concerns for those people.'"

The people I am talking about aren't the impoverished scraping by to make a buck. The people I am talking about are people that grew up in MY economic class with every advantage and have no problem screwing around and partying it up all up until the day that they barely graduate and bitch about not having enough money. I have no sympathy for THOSE people.

I know many of these people personally who had every opportunity to do well in school and do well in college but decided to dick off and then get an easy dick off job when they graduated with low responsibility and low pay so they can afford themselves the time to go to the bar 4 nights a week. Those people create zero value for society and do nothing but consume on the backs of those that do real work. There is a big difference between those people and those who go do REAL work every day like miners, farmers, manufacturers, engineers, ect.

I have all the sympathy in the world for people who grew up poor and work as hard as they can to make a better life for themselves. My philosophy of equaly opportunity absolutely allows for society to subsidize those people particularly in the area of education and infrastructure in order to allow them the OPPORTUNITY to make it to the big game per se.

I don't buy the hereditary impoverished excuse entirely either. My grandfather grew up on welfare yet retired quite succesful by the end of his career by most standards. There is an entire generation of Americans that grew up impoverished yet ended up being the most productive generation we've ever seen due to the fact that they understood hard work and responsibility. We've since trained the poor that they have no hope and that the government is the only one that can feed them.

I also understand your frustration with the "hyper-capitalism" culture that leads to monopolies, greed, and corruption. However, that is not a failure of capitalism. That is a failure of our government to do their job of regulating externalities. When Joe CEO has his pay determined by a corporate board which is comprised of all of his frat buddies from college, that doesn't exactly match with a definition of what capitalism is about.

You can't take all of the corruption and broken aspects of our current system and try and claim that those are natural parts of capitalism. Any system can be corrupted by outside influences as we've seen with both Socialist and Communist systems in the past 100 years. That's why we call them externalities and that's why we have a government to regulate those externalities. The failure in oversight is a failure of our government and the people who elect it, not the capitalist system.



Report  
StuckInBielers (July 28, 2008)

"It seems to me that it has driven all of the innovation and wealth creation on this planet in the past 200 years since the debut of modern Democracy."

Not really, private companies create and sell innovative products but a lot of the time the science is discovered in state run institutions like government labs or universities.

Report  
Tom1022 (July 21, 2008)

i don't know many people who would expect a meritocracy to produce equality. the original poster was making a distinction between equality and equity, and expressing a preference for equity. personally, i do not find the idea of blanket equality particularly appealing, but to each his own.

i'm willing to pitch $2 for these knobs to stay in their basement.

Bringing fucking stencils to spray onto your shirt, I am sure they will be looking for a "donation" for providing the service. These assholes (is that better) are going to be driving around with their hands out claiming that they are eco-friendly so that they don't have to go get real fucking jobs, so they can use the money to buy weed.

Report  
KidNickelDynamiteBack (July 21, 2008)

hahahahahhahahahaha

Report  
TheLando (July 21, 2008)

i love these comments. so true. and funny.

Report  
Guy_Incognito (July 21, 2008)

Ouch, why do you have to put the truth so bluntly?



Report  
ughlee (July 27, 2008)

Eh, gotta agree. Since when is bumming people's equipment at every single fucking show anything but absolute mooching? This deal saves themselves money and stress, and it's all hidden under the guise of some noble 'green' cause. That's something Wal-Mart would do. Bullshit.

I was blunt because old crackpot called me out, his dumb ass can't see that these guys welfare is running out so it's time to go on tour again and rack up those "donations" again. I may go see these assholes on tour just so I can steal their stencils.

Not when you just look for donations.

does your brain just fart out these things uncontrollably or do you voluntarily commit these absurd utterances to type?

Report  
LORD-OF-THE-GAYS (July 21, 2008)

i'm retarded

Report  
SloaneDaley (July 21, 2008)

"You don't call retarded people retards. It's bad taste. You call your friends retards when they are acting retarded."

- Michael Scott

Report  
dev (July 21, 2008)

Haha, awesome. I forgot about that one.

The boys utterances make sense to me, it's a joke. Are they going to borrow musicians to play their songs too?

Report  
SloaneDaley (July 21, 2008)

you amke it seem like borrowing gear for shows is something this band invented. that simply is not the case. You can bag on the for being unoriginal bastards if you want but hippies, hardly.

Report  
LORD-OF-THE-GAYS (July 21, 2008)

it may be unoriginal, but it's ignorant and takes balls to think it's cool to show up in every town and leech off other bands and use their gear. What's going to happen if these guys blow an amp or break a guitar of some band that's nice enough to loan them gear? Something tells me their shitty stencil art isn't going to be netting them that much cash to cover the damages.

Report  
SloaneDaley (July 21, 2008)

when you organize this type of tour you would generally ask the person setting it up for you if it would be possible to share gear. You do this under the assumption that the band isn't going to fuck up your gear and when you swing through their town they'll hook you up with their gear or a place to stay or some food. This how bands have been doing things since the early 80's.

Report  
AndreTheGiant (July 21, 2008)

they're touring with rx bandits and borrowing their gear. i think they probably talked it over beforehand.

Report  
LORD-OF-THE-GAYS (July 21, 2008)

they're touring with RX Bandits? I like this band even less now.

But yeah, makes sense about borrowing gear in that case.

Report  
Phantom_Maggot (July 21, 2008)

I know their bass player Brandon...he was my housemate and friend at UCSC before he dropped out to do the band thing. These guys are serious and nice dudes who would treat anyone's gear with the utmost respect.

If they break their instruments all they have to do is ask for another "donation".

Their new stuff as a 3-piece is incredible.

Report  
cronophrog (July 21, 2008)

Their stuff as a four piece was fucking ace. This new stuff (All a this & heartbreak) are not doing it for me at all.

Report  
AndreTheGiant (July 21, 2008)

really? bummer. i can't stop listening to it.

you're right about their stuff as a four piece, though. it's for sure the best stuff they've done. so far.

Agreed.

That's gonna be one manly smelling four-door.

I lived with Brandon...I'll be super surprised if he packs more than what he is wearing...lord knows he pretty much wore two outfits when i lived with him.

Report  
shot_in_the_dark (July 21, 2008)

When you were living with him did he play sweaty shows every night, rarely have the chance to shower, and spend hours at a time in the cab of a corolla with you?

Report  
Phantom_Maggot (July 21, 2008)

No, but he might as well have....he lived like he was constantly on tour. For example he did not own a bed and slept on the couch most nights. He is also a Hell of a Risk player.

Actually, it's a natural phenomenon. I never bought into this Al Gore shit, though. Especially when he has such an enormous "footprint" and lets his Lincolns idle outside during a speech in which he encourages attendees to come on bikes. However, I do care about the environment. But this exaggerated incarnation of the cause is driving me insane. Carbon offsetting is bullshit. Kyoto is bullshit. In Canada, the Liberal Green Shift plan is bullshit. I'm for reducing my pollution for the sake of clean air. But if they climate is going to change, we can't stop it. I don't think we had anything to do Greenland going white. Etc etc. I've argued so many times, I can't even put my views into cohesive expressions anymore. I do apologize.

Report  
mikexdude (July 21, 2008)

Yeah, I saw a show on BBC with scientists that take every one of Gore's (from his movie) points and prove them wrong. I'm torn at the subject: as much as I think we are fucking up the enviroment, I think it's giving humans a little too much credit to say that we can ruin this earth single-handedly. Despite that, I think global warming is very much real and we all have the obligation to be better towards the earth. Call me a hippy.

Report  
NotPatriotic (July 21, 2008)

There could be a show produced with a bunch of scientists that could disprove those scientists points. Scientists disagree on many things, it's human nature to disagree. Pretty much every person in the media is coming from one end of the spectrum. I would say that the majority of scientists do believe in global warming, though.

Report  
mikexdude (July 21, 2008)

Oh no, I wasn't using that as basis for a point. I was just trying to include more to what TheMike said about Al Gore.

Report  
TheMike (July 21, 2008)

I agree that it is real to an extent, but it would be real even if we were living like Neanderthals. We should stop polluting, but for clean air / water's sake.

Report  
mikexdude (July 21, 2008)

That's pretty much how I feel.

Report  
acris (July 21, 2008)

The panel was probably consisted of scientists who were not specialized in the climate or were odd naysayers (this is what normally happens). I'm sorry, but you cannot rely on what you see on the TV because of the extreme bias that goes into who television shows pick for their "opinions".

Report  
mikexdude (July 21, 2008)

Is there an echoe in here? I wasn't saying that as what I believe, more how I don't like Al Gore. I am not relying on anything.

o rly?

What I find so interesting about these global warming naysayers is that most of them believe in God, heaven, and the bible. Yet, there is a lot more evidence for global warming than there is for the biblical stories in the bible.

Report  
TheMike (July 21, 2008)

There are also many that don't believe in God. And then there are those who do believe in man made global warming who do believe in God. Interesting. These are also different issues, so it's rather irrelevant.

Report  
NotPatriotic (July 21, 2008)

There are exceptions to everything. I guess I am referring to the hardcore republican/corservative/bible thumpers who are so quick to denounce global warming when they know nothing about it. These people blindly believe anything Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity says and it pisses me off. I seriously dislike a large percentage of the country. This is why we need a better school system.

Report  
TheMike (July 21, 2008)

Oh, yeah, I agree with that. I'm very apprehensive about man made global warming, but I will not stand alongside those folks. As respectful as I am of one's religious beliefs, I value reason a lot more.

Report  
Guy_Incognito (July 21, 2008)
What in the world does this have to do with God, heave and the bible? These two issues have absolutely nothing to do with each other and there is no known correlation between people that believe in one thing and dismiss the other as a result.

Last time I checked, Pat Robertson was one the main spokesmen the "We Can Solve It" campaign against global warming.

That said, you do have to realize that there is a difference between a naysayer and a skeptic. There are plenty of people with some very valid points regarding the theory of global warming that ought not to be shoved in the closet because they have evidence that contradicts the theory of global warming.

It's a pretty common theme in our history to look back on the minority scientific opinion only to find out they were right after all. I totally accept that Global Warming is a f

show rest of commentWhat in the world does this have to do with God, heave and the bible? These two issues have absolutely nothing to do with each other and there is no known correlation between people that believe in one thing and dismiss the other as a result.

Last time I checked, Pat Robertson was one the main spokesmen the "We Can Solve It" campaign against global warming.

That said, you do have to realize that there is a difference between a naysayer and a skeptic. There are plenty of people with some very valid points regarding the theory of global warming that ought not to be shoved in the closet because they have evidence that contradicts the theory of global warming.

It's a pretty common theme in our history to look back on the minority scientific opinion only to find out they were right after all. I totally accept that Global Warming is a fairly reasonable theory, but I also accept that there are plenty of other issues with that theory that need to be discussed.

The problem with all of the global warming zealots is that they spit and curse you if you even try to claim something that contradicts their theory rather than try and have an educated debate about it.

Bringing in a bunch of rhetoric about how there is a correlation between naysayers and belief in God isn't exactly helping the notion of an intellectual discussion of the topic. All you are doing is trying to marginalize anyone on the opposite side of the debate as yourself.

I'm not defending the OP, because its not like he brought anything to the table on this one. Just making a broader statement in general about it.


Report  
NotPatriotic (July 21, 2008)

Yo, I can't have an educational debate with anyone who uses Pat Robertson in their argument (unless we are discussing how terrible televangelists are). Go to this page:http://www.cygnus-study.com/pagepat.html
That is all you need to know about Pat Robertson. Brainwashing piece of shit. I don't respect anyone who says hateful things.

And to other points:
I'm fine with naysayers and skeptics. I just find it interesting that the bible thumper/republicans are on the front line, when there is a lot more evidence for the existence of global warming than there is for heaven. That's what I said in the orginal post.

Report  
I_Rock_Hard (July 21, 2008)

I'm an athiest democrat, actually. So you can go fuck yourself.

Report  
shot_in_the_dark (July 21, 2008)

It's also hard to have an educated debate with someone who spits logical fallacies like sunflower seeds (ie you).

Report  
NotPatriotic (July 21, 2008)

Explain...

Report  
shot_in_the_dark (July 21, 2008)

Ad hominem - attacking those who disagree because of their religion instead attacking them on the grounds of their argument.

Hasty generalization - assuming that most Conservatives/Bible thumpers shrug off the possibility of global warming.

I wouldn't have said anything because all of this goes on in every day conversation, but as soon as the words "educated debate" are used, then the scrutiny is justified.

Report  
shot_in_the_dark (July 21, 2008)

*instead OF attacking on the grounds of their argument.

Report  
Guy_Incognito (July 22, 2008)

Ah, I've been looking for that phrase for quite sometime. Thanks.

Ad hominem - Officially added to my vocabulary



Report  
Guy_Incognito (July 22, 2008)
"Yo, I can't have an educational debate with anyone who uses Pat Robertson in their argument"

I swear sometimes you are impossible on purpose. I just used him as a counterexample of one of the more outspoken religious types that is also fighting global warming since you said that religious people and global warming deniers go hand in hand.

It is a DIRECT counterexample, nothing more. Where exactly did I make a moral judgement on the guy either positive or negative? It's even harder to have an educated debate with someone who glazes over my statement and injects opinions that I never claimed to have in the first place.

I don't care if Pat Robertson is a good guy or a bad guy. That has nothing to do with this debate. I'm just debating your assertion that religion and denying global warming are correlated when there is absolutely now

show rest of comment"Yo, I can't have an educational debate with anyone who uses Pat Robertson in their argument"

I swear sometimes you are impossible on purpose. I just used him as a counterexample of one of the more outspoken religious types that is also fighting global warming since you said that religious people and global warming deniers go hand in hand.

It is a DIRECT counterexample, nothing more. Where exactly did I make a moral judgement on the guy either positive or negative? It's even harder to have an educated debate with someone who glazes over my statement and injects opinions that I never claimed to have in the first place.

I don't care if Pat Robertson is a good guy or a bad guy. That has nothing to do with this debate. I'm just debating your assertion that religion and denying global warming are correlated when there is absolutely now reason to say something like that.

"Brainwashing piece of shit. I don't respect anyone who says hateful things."

Well that is a hell of a contradiction isn't it?

Report  
TheMike (July 21, 2008)

Guy's right. We might have some impact, but it's vastly overstated. The climate is always changing. With or without us. But these carbon offset folks want us to believe that we are the sole reason for any form of climate change at all. Ass.

Report  
acris (July 21, 2008)

"No, global warming is a THEORY"

Uh, do you know what the scientific use of theory is? It's an educated and well-accepted explanation for how something works. Not a guess, as the everyday usage of it is defined.

Report  
TheMike (July 21, 2008)

But it is unproven. Leaving room for debate. Guy's comment was in refute to "Global Warming is a Myth". But anyway, when a theory is proven, it is no longer a theory, but a fact.

Report  
acris (July 21, 2008)

lol no. That's not how it works. A fact is an observation such as: over the past 150 the temperature of the Earth has risen at an alarming rate. A theory is explaining why. Facts don't really matter at all in the scientific community; theories do. Without theories, the science community would be nothing.

Report  
TheMike (July 21, 2008)
Yeah, there are a few different definitions, but guy's comment was referring to that one which refers to speculation.

From dictionary.com:

"1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture."


show rest of commentYeah, there are a few different definitions, but guy's comment was referring to that one which refers to speculation.

From dictionary.com:

"1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture."

See those bottom ones? They're valid. Once these theories are proven, they're facts. "I have a theory... yadda yadda" etc. You know. Man, I gotta take some sedatives. But seriously. Stop being so nitpicky. His comment was a valid one.
Report  
TheMike (July 21, 2008)

Shit, the second definition is the one I should have pointed out. Either way, I am not wrong. Neither are you, mind you. I gotta stop.

Report  
acris (July 21, 2008)

Ugh. Am I talking to a wall? That's. Not. How. It. Works. When in reference to a scientific theory, it does NOT mean the last two. It means SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

You're obviously not getting this. I think you're gonna have to read up on your wikipedia pages right now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Report  
mikexdude (July 21, 2008)

Omgz wikipedia has so much bias, blah blah, don't rely on it.

Report  
acris (July 21, 2008)

haha. It just provides a good definition and background on the term theory when applied to scientific ideas.

Report  
mikexdude (July 21, 2008)

Still biased.

Two can play at this nitpick.

Report  
TheMike (July 21, 2008)

"when applied to scientific ideas."

Yes. Right. I know. My argument is that you're deliberately ignoring the context and purpose of a certain use of the word by another individual. Your argument doesn't invalidate another's use of the word, regardless of the topic. No one's debating the the scientific use of the word theory. I'm trying to tell you, there are more definitions. Others have been used in this thread. Stop being so stuck up.

Report  
TheMike (July 21, 2008)

I'm saying, Guy's point was that it was REAL. BUT. NOT. FULLY. PROVEN. HENCE. THEORY.

You're obviously being too much of a snob to pay attention. I KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN. For fuck's sake. I'm just saying, when Guy Incognito said "Global Warming is a theory" he was debating "Global warming is a myth" in order to say that "Global warming is real an in the midst of popular debate". He's not being a scientist, and neither am I, so cut this scientific theory bullshit.

Report  
acris (July 21, 2008)

I don't get what you're saying about this theories meaning that they're not proven idea. Again, a theory doesn't need to be proven. That's not its "higher calling". I think most theories in usage today are not "proved". They are just supported by tons of evidence.

So, you're not being a scientist in regards to talk about a scientific topic? ...great idea.



Report  
TheMike (July 21, 2008)

You should start paying attention. We are not debating a scientific topic right now. As I have repeatedly countless times over the course of this redundant exchange, I am talking simply about Guy_Incognito's use of the word "theory", which has a number of meanings, some of which do NOT refer to any scientific matter. In case you haven't noticed, we aren't talking about global warming right now. We're talking about you being nitpicky about how and when uses a certain word.

Again, read those definitions. Some of them state, quite clearly, that "theory" is a word sometimes used in reference to something which is still subject for debate. So when someone says "Global Warming is a theory" they don't mean that it's a model for scientific analysis.

Report  
acris (July 21, 2008)

Well the thing is, global warming is also referred to as global warming theory, so it makes the most sense he was referring to the theory in that definition as the other, hence misunderstanding it. That's my point.

Report  
TheMike (July 21, 2008)

Yeah, that's true. Sorry is I got hostile there. I was a little off track when I first responded, but I'm glad we got it all sorted out.

Cheers.

Report  
Guy_Incognito (July 22, 2008)

Acris, chill out man. Both myself and Mike understand exactly what you mean and both of us get the fact that we are not being precise. So that bullshit aside, you do get what the meaning of my original post was correct?

I appreciate the clarification on the proper usage of the word "Theory", I really do and I will save that in my memory bank for the future. But at some point you've gotta relent when everyone gets your drift and its time to move on to the main INTENT of the post.

You can't debate the semantics of it indefinitely.



Report  
TheMike (July 21, 2008)

Although, I guess what I'm talking about is more of a hypothesis. but some variations of the word Theory do still apply. Whatever. Doesn't change the argument.

Report  
Guy_Incognito (July 22, 2008)

I think most people accept it as a theory at this point, hence the use of the term. I debated saying "Hypothesis" but I figured someone like you would take me to task on that as well stating how Global Warming is well accepted in the scientific community.

I guess I lose no matter what I say.

Report  
I_Rock_Hard (July 23, 2008)

saw your myspace... ure ugly

Report  
aaronsuspect (July 24, 2008)

Cute, and wearing a Lawrence Arms shirt. I mean come on.

Can I hug you?

Amen!

100% agreement!

I don't mind when people borrow my shit, as long as they are respectful. I think it's time for a new pope!

Report  
ThePopeofChilitown (July 21, 2008)

Its just presumptuous to expect everyone they are playing with would be cool with it.

Report  
royalt (July 22, 2008)

Well, it's possible that you're assuming that they are assuming. Considering the lengths they go to in the other facets of their band, it's entirely feasible that they call ahead and ask.

They are touring with RX Bandits. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that they spoke with the Bandits beforehand to make sure they were cool with it.

They are touring with RX Bandits. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that they spoke with the Bandits beforehand to make sure they were cool with it.

I've done it and I let people do it for me. I usually bring my cymbals, snare and bass pedal, so the other drummer doesnt really have to worry about me messing anything up. Like if a guitarist only asked to borrow the others amp

Two comments with the same complaint? Jesus, don't let them borrow your shit if you're so uptight about it. Problem solved.

Report  
mikexdude (July 21, 2008)

I could be wrong, but I have made this mistake too. I think this comment was supposed to go to my original comment after his above.

Report  
ThePopeofChilitown (July 21, 2008)

Correct.

Gas Prices should be some stoner band's name. "Hey, uh... we're the gas prices. We're really high right now, huh huh."

epic fail?