How to "Spin" Conservatives Into Worrying About the Environment

Make them feel disgust, say researchers.

According to the polls conservatives have become less concerned about environmental issues than liberals. In 1992, reports the Pew Foundation, 93 percent of Democrats and 86 percent of Republicans agreed that “there needs to be stricter laws and regulations to protect the environment.” In 2012, however, Democratic support for more environmental regulation hadn’t dropped while Republican support had fallen to just 47 percent. The Pew pollsters concluded, “Views on the importance of environmental protection have arguably been the most pointed area of polarization.” In another poll, the Pew Research Center reports that 85 percent of Democrats believe that there is solid evidence for man-made global warming whereas only 48 percent of Republicans believe so.

Why is the gap on environmental issues between liberals and conservatives growing? A new study in the journal Psychological Science, “The Moral Roots of Environmental Attitudes,” by Stanford University sociologist Matthew Feinberg and University of California Berkeley social psychologist Robb Willer argue that, in part, it’s because liberals and conservatives differ in their moral views with regard to the natural environment. Feinberg and Willer claim that liberals regard the environment in moral terms whereas conservatives do not. They then go on to suggest a rhetorical strategy for getting conservatives to moralize the environment.

The two researchers apply moral foundations theory developed by New York University social psychologist Jonathan Haidt and his colleagues to their analysis. Haidt proposes that most ethical thinking is intuitive and rests on six evolved psychological/emotional foundations: (1) care/harm; (2) fairness/cheating: (3) liberty/oppression; (4) loyalty/betrayal; (5) authority/subversion; (6) sanctity/degradation. (An earlier column of mine, “The Science of Libertarian Morality” reported some of Haidt’s findings, and his article, “Born This Way,” was the cover of Reason’s April 2012 issue.) Feinberg and Willer apply an earlier version of moral foundations theory that does not include the liberty/oppression dimension.

Haidt’s research finds that liberals and conservatives have different moral profiles when it comes to the five moral foundations. Liberals score higher on the care/harm and fairness/cheating dimensions whereas conservatives tend to score more equally on all five dimensions. Feinberg and Willer conducted five different studies to probe the salience of this insight. In their first study, nearly 190 subjects were asked about their ideological views ranging from extremely liberal to extremely conservative. Then they were read three vignettes about a person eating lunch. In one he recycles his plastic water bottle, in another he does not; in the control, the bottle is not mentioned. The participants were then asked how moral they thought the guy was. Conservatives basically didn’t think he was any more or less moral in any version of the story, whereas liberals rated him significantly less moral when he chucks the bottle into the garbage.

In a second study, about 500 undergraduates again rated their ideology and then were asked how important it was to behave in an environmentally friendly way on a six point scale. Finally, they were asked to write a couple sentences explaining their answers. More often than conservatives, liberals used moral terms to justify concerns about the environment. Willer and Feinberg concluded that these studies “support our claim that liberals but not conservatives view environmental issues in moral terms and that this helps explain liberals’ stronger proenvironmental views.”

Why do liberals see environmental issues in moral terms? To find out, the two researchers conducted two studies. The first winnowed through professionally made youtube.com videos lasting no more than two minutes with at least 10,000 views using search terms global warming, pollution, climate change, environmentalism, environment, and environmentalist. The second study identified 402 newspaper op-eds printed from January 2009 through March 2011 in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and USA Today containing keywords environment, climate change, global warming, or pollution. Coders blind to the study hypothesis rated on a seven point scale the extent to which each video and op-ed was grounded in the five moral domains. “Content analysis of environmental rhetoric from both video and print media revealed that such rhetoric resides primarily with the harm/care domain,” report the researchers. This (over)emphasis on the harm/care moral domain might thus account for “the stronger proenvironmental attitudes of liberals relative to conservatives.”

So how might conservatives be persuaded to moralize the environment? In their final study, Feinberg and Willer next had more than 300 subjects score their ideology and then randomly exposed them to three different narratives. The control narrative was a history of neckties. The other two were crafted around harm/care and purity/sanctity moral concerns. The harm/care message focused on the damage humans are causing and emphasized the need to protect the Earth, accompanied by pictures showing a clear cut, a barren coral reef, and a drought-cracked mudflat. The sanctity/purity message described the contamination of the environment and stressed the importance of purifying the natural world, accompanied by pictures of air pollution, a person drinking contaminated water, and a forest covered in garbage. Participants then were asked about their attitudes with regard to how important it is to protect the environment; their support for environmental legislation; and their belief that humans are causing global warming.

Conservatives were significantly less concerned about the environment than liberals in both the control and harm/care conditions. However, there was no statistically significant difference in pro-environmental attitudes between liberals and conservatives exposed to the purity/sanctity message. The researchers found that the purity/sanctity message provoked the moral emotion of disgust in conservative study participants boosting their concern about the environment. Therefore, the authors conclude that their “results suggest that political polarization around environmental issues is not inevitable but can be reduced by crafting proenvironmental arguments that resonate with the values of American conservatives.” They add, “The current research suggests that reframing environmental issues in different moral terms offers one way to improve communications between opposing sides.”

The central question not answered by the study is why are environmental issues moralized in the first place? Moralizing issues takes them out of the realm of trade-offs, costs, and compromise and puts them in the polarized domain of right and wrong. For an environmental moralist, asking how much it costs to save the endangered Delhi sandfly or an old growth forest is like being asked how much it would take to sell their kids. It’s a kind of blasphemy. Morality is meant to trump any considerations of trade-offs and costs. The background assumption of this study is that environmental issues are in fact moral concerns.

For example, study co-author Willer said, “Reaching out to conservatives in a respectful and persuasive way is critical, because large numbers of Americans will need to support significant environment reforms if we are going to deal effectively with climate change, in particular.” This highlights the fact that the implicit goal of the research is to figure out how better to propagandize conservatives into accepting liberal environmentalist policy goals. Assuming that man-made climate change is a significant problem, trying to enlist people into a moral crusade to impose "significant environmental reforms" like cap-and-trade carbon rationing is not necessarily the best way to deal with it. Moral foundations theory is correct that we are all differentially motivated by moral intuitions, but I believe that real moral progress has been steadily made and more firmly grounded by the application of reason to facts.

Aware of the implications of his study, Willer told the SF Weekly, "I think this speaks to the dangers and promise of propaganda—that there [are] ways of presenting issues that are more effective. Strategically reframing an issue ... could be canny moral strategy or a dangerous political weapon."

Of course, what one person sees as a canny strategy is another's propaganda.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    while the researchers declare that their aim is to help “improve communications” between liberals and conservatives, their implicit goal is how better to propagandize conservatives into accepting liberal environmentalist policy goals

    I'm stunned. Partisan "researchers" are partisan scum? It's un-possible!

  • Pro Libertate||

    I recall someone once saying that in truly understanding others, hate is impossible. Yet the more I know about these people, the more I despise them.

  • ||

    Well, I hate you, and I know you pretty well. Oh, wait, shit, my bad. I'm thinking of your wife.

  • sloopyinca||

    Oh, shit! CRIPPLE FIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • juris imprudent||

    More entertaining than NIU vs. Florida St.

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    Of course it never occurs to these useless idiots that the difference might be that liberals solve problems, whether or not they actually exist, under ever-increasing piles of regulations, and that conservatives, whether or not they see the environmental problems, do see the regulations, and consider them a worse problem than the environmental harm.

  • Oso Politico||

    The global term 'environment' is too broad, as I suspect that most people of any political persuasion have some concern for the environment in which they live.

    But the specific matter of AGW is not a question of morality at all. It is a question of scientific truth clashing with political objectives. Why do you think that all progressives are Warmistas? It is because the AGW agenda is exactly the same as the progressive agenda: Control. And to obtain that control government create laws, legislations and regulations to that end.

  • Killazontherun||

    The AGW agenda has become such a unifying force for environmentalist it has rendered them useless. In the seventies when the goals were closer to 'don't fuck with our water supply' and 'rivers should not be on fire, it's unnatural!' they were at the forefront of reversing a trend that began in the Progressive Era to exempt industries from civil law. It was a decent cause to get behind until the massive progressive power grab of the Superfund came about. If they began with non aggression principle, it would be one thing to make common cause with environmentalist (I'm speaking as a libertarian, conservatives can do whatever they want), but lacking that principle they are going to create more harm than reversing it.

  • sasob||

    ... as I suspect that most people of any political persuasion have some concern for the environment in which they live.

    Yes, it's called NIMBY - not in my back yard.

  • T o n y||

    Which, in the absence of scientific fact, is equally plausible as AGW deniers choosing to dismiss AGW because its solutions do not present themselves as small-government ones. Of course there is no excuse for rejecting scientific fact, as much as you may try to conjure one.

  • Contrarian P||

    What scientific facts are those? The latest global temperature data shows no warming for the last 14 years. One of the defining principles of a good scientific theory (not fact, there aren't any of those) is that its predictions agree with observation. AGW theory has not met that test.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    in the absence of scientific fact, is equally plausible as AGW deniers choosing to dismiss AGW because its solutions do not present themselves as small-government ones.

    AGW is a scientific theory(valid or not)and as such it does not have any 'solutions'.

    But thank you for accidentally confirming that AGW is a political movement and not a scientific theory.

  • T o n y||

    It's a theory about a potentially catastrophic environmental phenomenon. If you have evidence a volcano is going to erupt, do you refuse to move away from it because it's just a trivial matter of fact?

  • ||

    It's a theory that 30 years ago said we would be living in an ice age. Fuck off Tony.

  • cavalier973||

    What's the point? Hasn't the recent election shown that the Conservative Movement is doomed due to demographics?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    What the fuck is demographics?

  • Killazontherun||

    That system of population classification where guys with names like you and I have keep getting moved around in to suit one agenda or another.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • ||

    Look, I'm several kinds of Western European in heritage. To them, that means a lot! Don't I get a category? "Multi-eurotrash"?

  • kinnath||

    There is a slot for you to mark "oppressor".

  • sloopyinca||

    If you leave the "multi" and "euro" off of there, I think you're onto something. :-O

  • ||

    Did you just call me a NutraSweet?!?

  • sloopyinca||

    In a manner of speaking, yes.

  • ||

    I'm pretty sure the Feds haven't gotten around to trying to identify crypto-deep-dish lovers yet.

  • ||

    Did you just call me a ProL?!?

  • Ted S.||

    It could have been worse; he could have compared you to Michiganders.

  • sloopyinca||

    The greatest of insults is reserved for the greatest of imbecility.*

    *I may have to use that insult downthread.

  • ||

    Hey, he could have called you Warty.

  • sloopyinca||

    I'm pretty sure the Feds haven't gotten around to trying to identify crypto-deep-dish lovers yet.

    Chicago style politics = Chicago "pizza" eating monoloids.

    There, they've been identified.

  • ||

    The deeper the dish the stronger the stimulish.

  • ||

    Hey, guys, we're understanding people here. If you're just not man enough to lift a slice of deep dish off the plate, we won't make too much fun of you. Or, you could use a fork like the womenfolk.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yes, I too find that correlation disturbing.

  • Lyle||

    Funny.

  • Killazontherun||

    Euromutt.

  • ||

    I always use the write in box on any question that asks for race and put "Non-indigenous native American"

  • Harlequin||

    Tick the "Other" box, if there is one, and fill in "Master". That'll wake 'em up.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Only if you assume that political attitudes are forever tied to race/ethnicity, forever and ever without end, Amen.

  • Hyperion||

    They are.

    Rich old white men vote Republican, because they are greedy old bastards who want to starve children, put women and colored folks back into chains, and rape mother Gaia.

    Everyone else votes Democrat because they have empathy and want to save the world from rich old white guys.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Environmentalism could be a wedge issue to split the wealthy white proglodytes masters from the working class ethnic subjects; if the republicans ever pull their heads out of their asses.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You mean like school choice, gay marriage, and eminent domain?

    None of them have worked. They're locked securely in the D ghetto.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    School choice could be. Gay marriage - I don't think so. And eminent domain happens so sporadically that it's not going to ever be a major issue. Unfortunately.

    But highlighting the way that enrvironment regs throw poor people out of work and that crappy schools disadvantage poor people could split their coalition.

  • sloopyinca||

    If I run for the HoR, it will be a signature plank of my campaign. Nunes hasn't done nearly enough to bring up the plight of farmers in the valley IRT water rights and eminent domain taking land for the HSR boondoggle and new landfills.

  • sloopyinca||

    As a matter of fact, I may center my campaign on it.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Sounds like a winning issue to me.

    Especially in the CV.

  • sloopyinca||

    All Nunes has done is pander for more dairy or beef cattle subsidies, which unfortunately is a selling point. I'll get the citrus growers in my corner since we all know that citrus and dairy don't mix.

    Seriously, though, he's run on "bringing money to the CV farmers" every election since I've been out here, and people think that's a winner. And those guys bankroll him. Fortunately for me, I'm already a member of the WUD, the USCA and the NCBA.

    Not to mention, I'm a member of the ABC-CC and have been a vocal opponent of CARB in the central valley. And he's never once shown his face at a meeting.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Too many acronyms; didn't read.

  • sloopyinca||

    Fine by me, Tulpy-poo. But if you think associations of the largest industries in the part of the country you live in aren't important for politicians, you're sadly mistaken. It would be like a Yinzer politician not being involved with ASD (Association of Steel Distributors).

    And for future reference:
    WUD-Western United Dairymen
    USCA-United States Cattlemen's Association
    NCBA-National Cattlemen's Beef Association
    ABC-CC-Association of Building Contractors-Central CA chapter (which is heavily impacted by CARB {California Air Resources Board} regulations.

    Sorry, but I was talking to other Californians who probably know what those acronym stand for or understand their significance.

  • Diogenes of Sinope||

    Hasn't the recent election shown that the Conservative Movement is doomed due to demographics?

    Yep! Just like the one before that which showed the Republican Party to be a white, rural regional party.

  • SIV||

    Feinberg and Willer claim that liberals regard the environment in moral terms whereas conservatives do not.

    Progressive liberals live to legislate morality.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    If anyone posting comments on this article had actually read the article, I can't tell. Haidt has given us our liberty if we are just wise enough to seize it. He has shown us the way to reason with the so-cons and the proggies, but does anyone here notice the tools he has shown us? All I hear are the same old stereotypes that have gotten us nowhere with these groups. READ THE GOD DAMN ARTICLE. There are six, SIX bases for moral reasoning. If you don't understand them and what kinds of people use them, you will never, except by chance, communicate effectively (persuade). Get his book, The Righteous Mind, by Jonathan Haidt.

  • kinnath||

    Haidt study has been discussed at length many times before on H&R.

  • Hyperion||

    He has shown us the way to reason with the so-cons and the proggies

    You can, to some extent, reason with the SoCons. They will just insist that the earth is only 6000 years old. But I know several SoCons that I can have a reasonable and civil conversation with about a variety of issues.

    Proglodytes, however, just forget about any pretense of reasoning with them. It's not going to happen and anyone whow insists on continued efforts to do so, are only going to be frustrated.

    Try this on one of them.

    Want to end school shootings? End public education.

    Just try that and watch them freak out and go all hysterical on you.

  • sloopyinca||

    Why do you hate children, Hyperion?

  • ||

    A friend of my wife is organizing "a group of intelligent, progressive citizens" to change some things in our city council. She recently asked if my wife and I wanted to join, and I told her she didn't want me in her clique. She asked why and I told her my solution to the problems created by the city would be to do away with the city government. Her eyes widened in horror and she asked, "You mean privatize everything?" Yep, that's what I meant. She dismissed that with, "Well, our group is concerned with reality." I almost fell down I laughed so hard.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Privatizing "everything", like literally everything, is pretty unrealistic, so I can understand her response. If you'd said you wanted to privatize schools, garbage collection, and a few other commonly private services I'd agree that she's a pinhead.

  • ||

    Without getting into the details, that was the gist of it. Her group specifically wanted to make changes to the schools, city parks, and animal shelters.

  • Hyperion||

    The solution, to everything, is self evident to the progs. Need MOAR revenue, MOAR regulations, MOAR worthless parasites working for the government, doing nothing even remotely beneficial.

    The science is settled. Get it? In their world view, if they have a particular view on any subject, having a discussion about it means first of all, you agreeing with them.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    In their world view, if they have a particular view on any subject, having a discussion about it means first of all, you agreeing with them.

    So presuppositional apologetics, but for secular lefties....got it.

  • juris imprudent||

    doing nothing even remotely beneficial

    Dammit, you keep insisting on results when all that matters are GOOD INTENTIONS!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Oh, I see. You said you'd privatize everything she was talking about. Well then I agree with you.

  • ||

    Take away that handful of services and what in the actual fuck does a city government do besides sit around having public meetings on how to raise more money from the parking meters?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Police, sewer, road maintenance, firefighting, etc.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    You can, to some extent, reason with the SoCons. They will just insist that the earth is only 6000 years old.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    So the fuck what?

    Is the age of the earth a core libertarian principle now?

    ***Fuck You Squirrels***

  • Hyperion||

    Not for me it isn't. But if you want to tell me that the world is only 6000 years old, then I won't agree with you.

    I have had that conversation with some of my SoCon friends, and it never got heated, but their supporting evidence is lame as hell. Nowhere in the bible does it make such a claim. They like to say, well look at this, Adam begat Seth and he was 800 yrs. old and blahblahblah. It's pretty lame.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Don't disagree that it's lame, just saying that there's not reason to pick a fight over it.

    Leave me alone and I don't give a shit if you believe in that or the Ester Bunny.

  • sloopyinca||

    the Ester Bunny.

    I especially love it when he makes the orange blossoms smell so pretty.

  • ||

    Ester Bunny.

    What does he bring, a basket full of coloured chemical bonds? (Yes, technically that is already true, pedants.-)

  • sloopyinca||

    Doc, would you like to see a picture of the omphalocele to see how it is developing? We went to the pediatrician yesterday for a wellness checkup and they said all is exceptionally well. I just thought you might want to have a look since you've been following our baby's development from a medical point of view (in addition to a personal one as well).

    If not, you won't hurt my feelings, so just say so. I know you're a busy doc.

  • ||

    Sure. I'd be glad to. Also, I showed the pictures to one of my colleagues here, and she nearly shit bricks she was so amazed at both the omph and her subsequent recovery (I filled in a few blanks as best as I could.)

    Baby Reason is famous in UKR!-D

  • sloopyinca||

    I just emailed them to you. I'd rather not post them here because it's such a pain in the ass to post stuff to FB first and I'll be damned if I'm gonna get a fucking instagram account.

  • ||

    Outstanding! My colleague is actually sitting here with me ATM, so this is instructive.

    1) The skin grafting looks great! In fact, it may be possible to use an MIS (minimally invasive surgery, i.e. endoscopy). More on that in a moment.

    2) Since she is thriving, and based on your posts she is not regurgitating her feedings, so that tells me her lungs (there are diaphragmatic concerns here) and her stomach placement (cavity issues) are optimal.

    3) If I was doing the surgery, I have two approaches: A. Open, meaning big incision (what I would do separate the skin from the omph, retract the skin, expose the muscles, make two lateral incisions in the muscle, stuff everything back in and fixate, transect and reduce the peritoneum, then close)good exposure and operative site, but the down side is her risk of infection, since there is big hole == more chance for pathogens to slip in.

    (cont.)

  • ||

    Approach B: MIS. (This is more involved and the difficulty curve goes way high due to lack of operative view, but I am confident I could do it.)

    Baby Reason basically gets blown up like a balloon with CO2(this is called "insufflation") with very small incisions and trocar placement, and I work from the inside to pull in the liver from the dorsal aspect then fixate at the hepatic fixture and make sure the liver is in place. Then I have to look at her stomach to make sure it's not folding over itself (this is a big concern later on as she could develop hiatal hernias as she grows, leading to gastric reflux), then resect the peritoneum then close using the existing skin. This approach, while more involved and difficult, GREATLY lessens Baby Reason's risk of post-op infection, and the scars are much less pronounced.

    Then I craft her a perfect little navel, she gets better, and all is well.

    So, ask your surgeon about both: Open approach v. MIS (if she is confident enough to perform and thinks it's doable).

  • sloopyinca||

    Then I craft her a perfect little navel, she gets better, and all is well.

    Yeah, we're still not 100% on board with this part of either operation. (I keed!)

    As to the scarring, we're not as concerned with that as most people would be. The scars will be almost unnoticeable by the time she hits puberty anyway, won't they?

    I'll ask the surgeon on the 9th when we go in for our first consult since discharge. They have been pretty insistent since she got to Children's Hospital on the 6th that they'll not be doing anything soon, and for us to expect the skin to be covering the Omph before they do anything invasive, barring complications. And since she's eating the normal amount for a child her age/size and her stool is normal, their expectations are that she'll not have any of those.

    It's funny, though. If we had had her just 5 or so years ago, a primary closure would have been the first option. Now, it's the exact opposite and the standard plan is to wait for a period of time and let the Ab muscles develop considerably before surgery. I've just learned to defer to you professionals and put my faith in your abilities.

  • ||

    The scars will be almost unnoticeable by the time she hits puberty anyway, won't they?

    Hard to predict. Banjos is olive complexioned, so if Baby Reason takes her side of the family, most likely yes. You're a paleface, so if she gets yours (more likely) then, and again, this depends on the approach taken (sorry for being kinda brusque, but character limit and making it as simple as possible), yeah they are going to be more noticeable.

    us to expect the skin to be covering the Omph before they do anything invasive, barring complications.

    If it were me, I would actually take a more aggressive approach and proceed when ~75% of the omph is covered, but that is just my pref.

    I've just learned to defer to you professionals and put my faith in your abilities.

    Faith is for God. You put trust in us. Big difference. I, nor does any doc or nurse, heal the body. It heals itself. We licensed (that's right, EVIL! licensed) folk merely guide the body in the right direction.

  • ||

    "I don't heal..."

  • sloopyinca||

    OK, change "faith" to "trust" and you know where I'm coming from.

    As to the ~75% vs 100%, they were making a guess based on when they expected the skin to complete its grafting and when they expected to be able to do the procedure. Both are far enough into the distance that it was merely a guess, and they made that clear. And the % of skin coverage isn't going to impact when they do the procedure according any of the surgical team we've talked to. It was merely an aside.

    You're a paleface,

    I prefer the term "part of the Master Race" over "Paleface", thank you very much. Or is saying that still frowned upon in Eastern Europe?

  • ||

    And the % of skin coverage isn't going to impact when they do the procedure according any of the surgical team we've talked to. It was merely an aside.

    Fair enough.-) If nothing else, all the info I have given has been spot on, no?-D

    Or is saying that still frowned upon in Eastern Europe?

    If you want a powdered-form-instant-ass-kicking-just-add-water, that will do it.-D

  • sloopyinca||

    Fair enough.-) If nothing else, all the info I have given has been spot on, no?-D

    Yeah, you've been right on the money with what our docs on scene have been saying. You're probably a bit more aggressive in how you would approach it going forward, but they've been pretty clear that your course of action is one many docs take and it's not one they disagree with but it's not one they feel as comfortably doing themselves (likely due to the process/procedure they were trained to do).

    If you want a powdered-form-instant-ass-kicking-just-add-water, that will do it.-D

    I figured as much.

  • ||

    Awesome!-D I am so happy for you guys and Baby Reason! I have stuff to do now, so if you need me, you know where to find me.

    Yeah, you've been right on the money with what our docs on scene have been saying.

    I take pride in what I do (insert Malice soliloquy here). I try my best to be modest, however.-D I will take this quick opportunity to say I am, if nothing, damn good at what I do.

    they've been pretty clear that your course of action is one many docs take and it's not one they disagree with but it's not one they feel as comfortably doing themselves (likely due to the process/procedure they were trained to do).

    Precisely. Training is everything, and surgeon pref rules the day. What's most important is what is best for your daughter.-)

  • sloopyinca||

    Thanks for taking a look. Take care.

  • sloopyinca||

    Aw, fuck it.

    Here is picture 1

    and

    here is picture 2.

    (To those easily grossed out, you may not want to look at these. They're not your typical baby pictures.)

  • ||

    From her face she doesn't look like she's in pain. She's pretty cute, I hope everything being done goes well for her.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Progressive liberals live to legislate morality.

    Yep,

    They've just changed their religion from christianity to a wierd neo-pagan hodge-podge.

  • Killazontherun||

    Soy milk is the most disgusting form of penance any religion has ever devised. Followed by wheat germ and bee pollen smoothies.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    In other words, to make important public policy decisions abandon reason and use emotion instead. The "progressives" hate it when the proles think "too much".

  • ||

    When you don't have logic on your side, emotional appeals are the only alternative.

  • Diogenes of Sinope||

    Oh, I thought I recognized that photo. It's Tammy Faye Baker!

  • Michael Ejercito||

    California is an example of what happens when yopu have regulations top protect the environment.

    Fuck the environment.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    It's worth pointing out that there already exists a movement that is concerned about the environment that boasts a fairly large membership of conservatives: The Boy Scouts of America. Of course, they will never be reached out to "in a respectful and persuasive way" because they have the temerity, as an explicitly religious organization, to deny membership in two out of their four programs, to openly gay and/or irreligious adults.

  • kinnath||

    I was a boy scout at the end of the sixties, and I consider myself to be a pretty hardcore environmentalist (mostly because of my scouting experiences back then). And yet somehow, I still find the whole AGW mythology to be utter bullshit.

  • ||

    Aren't you guys more "conservationists" than "environmentalists"? I'm not trying to be pedantic, there is a difference.

  • sloopyinca||

    True, Epi. Conservationists care about conserving natural resources and the environment. Environmentalists care about creating an environment where they can gain total control over everybody's lives.

    I see a big difference there.

  • ||

    I am actually surprised that distinction doesn't get made more often. I can't think of a better way to appeal to non-leftists. The cultish environazis have made their particular brand really off-putting to a lot of people who would otherwise be in favor of conservation, and that would be a really good way to reposition it.

  • Diogenes of Sinope||

    I can't think of a better way to appeal to non-leftists.

    We did rather well with a cookout across the street from PETA's headquarters.

  • kinnath||

    If a someone owns a hundred acres of sensitive wetlands and wants to bury it with fill rock and build a shopping center, I say go for it. So that kind of disqualifies me as a conservationist. If a not-for-profit organization wants to raise funds to buy the property at fair market value to preserve the land, I am more than willing to kick in a few bucks.

    And, I am willing to let someone pollute the shit out of land they own so long as they can prove nothing bad will migrate out into the air or other peoples land or ground water. On the other hand, I frequently have the urge to shoot people that I see throwing trash out of a car window.

    So I am not totally certain if I fit the definition for either a conservationist or environmentalist.

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    "And, I am willing to let someone pollute the shit out of land they own so long as they can prove nothing bad will migrate out into the air or other peoples land or ground water."-kinnath

    what ends up happening alot of times though, is that it will be claimed that there is no perfect evidence that industrial chemical x is actually bad for us, and heck it might even be good for us. so therefore we cant stop it from being produced and we certainly cant tax the chemical.

    so basically it all falls apart anyway. not that i have a good alternative to that setup, just that i dont think it really works out the way we'd like it too

  • kinnath||

    what ends up happening alot of times though, is that it will be claimed that there is no perfect evidence that industrial chemical x is actually bad for us, and heck it might even be good for us. so therefore we cant stop it from being produced and we certainly cant tax the chemical.

    I'm sorry, but Google Translate couldn't convert that to English for me.

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    "I'm sorry, but Google Translate couldn't convert that to English for me." - kinnath

    its would definitely make an english teacher cringe, but you're a retard if you couldnt understand the basic point.

  • sloopyinca||

    He only speaks French, Zack. He doesn't speak imbecile.

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    "Environmentalists care about creating an environment where they can gain total control over everybody's lives." - sloopy

    so he doesnt understand this ^ ?

  • sloopyinca||

    I'm sure he does because its true. I was referring to your paragraph that resembled the result of Ron Jeremy smacking his member onto a keyboard for five minutes.

    I also note that you offer no support to your idiotic claim.

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    "I'm sure he does because its true. I was referring to your paragraph that resembled the result of Ron Jeremy smacking his member onto a keyboard for five minutes." - sloopy

    not bad, i usually imagine you rolling your face across the keyboard though.

    "I also note that you offer no support to your idiotic claim." - sloopy

    as opposed to all the other idiotic claims, some of which are your own, where you never ask for a citation.

  • kinnath||

    Actually, I struggled to understand just what message you were trying to convey. The syntax was terrible and the semantics were cloudy at best.

  • Ted S.||

    I think he's trying to advocate the Precautionary Principle. [puking]

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    "I think he's trying to advocate the Precautionary Principle. [puking]" Ted S.

    " not that i have a good alternative to that setup,"-ZTH

    not really advocating anything, just pointing out that while kinnaths idea sounds nice, it is susceptible to abuse like any other system.

  • ||

    not really advocating anything, just pointing out...

    See also, Concern troll.

  • sloopyinca||

    what ends up happening alot of times though, is that it will be claimed that there is no perfect evidence that industrial chemical x is actually bad for us, and heck it might even be good for us. so therefore we cant stop it from being produced and we certainly cant tax the chemical.

    [citation required]

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    damn it, just thought of another one.

    "Environmentalists care about creating an environment where they can gain total control over everybody's lives." - sloopy

    [citation required]

  • sloopyinca||

    OK, they want to create a carbon tax that they regulate and administer and reallocate the funds (after a small fee, of course) to nations of their choosing. They also want to pass regulations based on scientific studies they refuse to share raw data from, they refuse to show their methodology for and their internal communications show are absurdly fabricated (see: IPCC, East Anglia University, PSU).

    They want to create carbon exchanges, established by themselves of course, so they can force companies to adhere to their way of life all the while they are jetting around the world generating a carbon footprint the same size as a small American town (see: Gore, Al; Jarrett, Valerie)

    They demand adherence to strict regulations on DDT, which has been proven to eradicate malarial mosquitoes based on faulty research, yet they demand vast sums of money through their preferred programs to help control the economy and growth of an entire continent (see: UN in Africa).

    Do I need to go on? I could list a dozen programs in California alone.

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    "

    OK, they want to create a carbon tax that they regulate and administer and reallocate the funds (after a small fee, of course) to nations of their choosing. They also want to pass regulations based on scientific studies they refuse to share raw data from, they refuse to show their methodology for and their internal communications show are absurdly fabricated (see: IPCC, East Anglia University, PSU).

    They want to create carbon exchanges, established by themselves of course, so they can force companies to adhere to their way of life all the while they are jetting around the world generating a carbon footprint the same size as a small American town (see: Gore, Al; Jarrett, Valerie)

    They demand adherence to strict regulations on DDT, which has been proven to eradicate malarial mosquitoes based on faulty research, yet they demand vast sums of money through their preferred programs to help control the economy and growth of an entire continent (see: UN in Africa).

    Do I need to go on? I could list a dozen programs in California alone."

    [citation needed]

  • sloopyinca||

    Here's the Wiki article on the CRU's email scandal. There are 136 footnotes to the article.

    And here's all the support I need for my second point. If you need more please look up the CCX board and their financial backers.

    (cont.)

  • sloopyinca||

    For the DDT claim: here you go.

    And here's another story on it.

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    "Environmentalists care about creating an environment where they can gain total control over everybody's lives." - sloopy

    Your original claim is that environmentalists only want control over others. All you have shown with these links is that environmentalists can be wrong, and that some people will call themselves environmentalists to make a buck. Al Gore is an environmentalist like Bill Maher is a libertarian.

    Were environmentalists mislead by Rachel Carson? Yes. Does that mean they just wanted control instead of a cleaner environment that benefits everyone? No.

    Were you the one whining about goalposts the other day? Or was that someone else?

  • sloopyinca||

    Um, you asked me to provide a citation to this:

    OK, they want to create a carbon tax that they regulate and administer and reallocate the funds (after a small fee, of course) to nations of their choosing. They also want to pass regulations based on scientific studies they refuse to share raw data from, they refuse to show their methodology for and their internal communications show are absurdly fabricated (see: IPCC, East Anglia University, PSU).

    And I did, complete with over 100 footnotes.

    And if you want to pretend that regulating the entire carbon emissions of the world (which is what the IPCC wants to do) isn't gaining total control over everybody's lives, then feel free to do so.

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    "Um, you asked me to provide a citation to this:" - sloopy

    At that point, I only put that to annoy you. It doesn't change the fact that none of the stuff you mentioned supports your ridiculous claim.

    "And if you want to pretend that regulating the entire carbon emissions of the world (which is what the IPCC wants to do) isn't gaining total control over everybody's lives, then feel free to do so." - sloopy

    Do you know what the word total even means? Damn you're stupid.

  • sloopyinca||

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    lol, fuck salt is my favorite.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    and that some people will call themselves environmentalists to make a buck

    No true environmentalist would ever enrich themselves in the name of The Cause.

  • Brett L||

    Well, he's probably talking about something like bisphenol-A. Which is one of those hormone-like chemicals used as a stiffening agent in clear plastics. A couple Euro countries have banned it. However, large population epidemiological trends don't support any statistical harms. Additionally, the small population study I've seen on BPA elimination by the kidneys suggest that it doesn't stay in the system, nor does the body aggressively break it down.

    So if we dump BPA into the rivers is it a harm or not? We don't have any evidence saying it is. Do I want to drink a cup of it a day? No. But also, people don't dump shit like they used to. Something like 63 wt% of all industrial waste is straight up recycled. Industrial producers are pretty aggressive about "conservation" of their input chemicals. They try really hard NOT to dump shit they pay money for on the ground anymore than you'd be happy about spilling your Starbucks.

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    thank you brett, you put that far better than i could have and didn't misrepresent my point.

  • sloopyinca||

    Zack, then perhaps you should just email Brett what you want to say from now on since most of your posts are gibberish and his are concise, well-written and thought-provoking.

    Hey Brett, were you the one calculating the scoreboard for the NFL pick-em? I'd like to see what the standings are (not the total wins, but using the scoring system we came up with). That fuck Ghosts Boasts had a 3 game lead the other way, but a lot can change in the playoffs.

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    "Zack, then perhaps you should just email Brett what you want to say from now on since most of your posts are gibberish and his are concise, well-written and thought-provoking."- sloopy

    thats up to brett, i would be down for it though.

  • Brett L||

    No, Sloop. That's Auric. I'm boned this year. On the plus side, the Giants aren't in the playoffs, so Eli won't fuck me.

  • ||

    Brent, BPA is a sideshow. There are lots of chemicals used in plastics (and ones resulting from breakdown of plastics) with FAR more endocrine disrupting potential (i.e., ER binding affinity) than BPA.

  • ||

    Brett, not Brent. Jesus.

  • Brandybuck||

    And so you make a guarantee that none of that shit will ever leave your land, and you back it up with iron clad legal documents, and then the gub'ment goes and uses eminent domain to seize your land and build an elementary school on top of it....

    Look up "Love Canal".

  • kinnath||

    and then the gub'ment goes and uses eminent domain to seize your land

    The travesty known as eminent domain is not really relevant to the point I was making.

  • kinnath||

    At any rate, Epi's post spurred me to look up definitions of conservationist and environmentalist. Their are no good, consistent definitions that I could find, but there was a trend towards conservationists being concerned about managing use of natural resources and environmentalists viewing humans as alien invaders doing damage to nature.

    So I will stop calling myself an environmentalist. But I am not sure that conservationist is completely accurate either.

  • Brett L||

    Perhaps you're more of a Haydukian environmentalist, but one who respects private property too much to go full Monkey Wrench Gang.

  • ||

    ...and libertarian billboard torcher Doc Sarvis, M.D...

    I do not think that word means what Abbey thinks it means.

  • Brett L||

    Abbey didn't write the blurb. In the book, he's a more of a genial anarchist who only obeys the laws that don't upset him. And yes, there's a shocking (to a libertarian) amount of private property damage given the thumbs up.

  • Lord at War||

    Abbey didn't write the blurb. In the book, he's a more of a genial anarchist who only obeys the laws that don't upset him.

    Heinlein did that 50 yrs ago- as a "rational anarchist".

    We are all "rational anarchists", we just differ on the laws that we consider acceptable to ignore.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    See also: Ducks Unlimited.

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    "Moralizing issues takes them out of the realm of trade-offs, costs, and compromise " - R. Bailey

    not for a utilitarians and hedonists, in fact it is exactly the opposite for us lol. theres even words for it, eg. hedonic calculus.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Moralizing issues takes them out of the realm of trade-offs, costs, and compromise

    This is exactly why environuts HATE Bjorn Lundberg, despite his advocacy for enviro causes. He actually wants to implement policies that would be cost-effective, and would solve or mitigate the problems.

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    i really want to get his book, thanks for reminding me. i saw him on the daily show or stossel or something, and i liked what he had to say.

  • ||

    Bjorn Lomborg

    Bjorn Lundberg sounds like a cross between a tennis player and the boss from Office Space.

  • ||

    At least I never fucked Lundberg!

  • Hyperion||

    Well, I think it all comes down to the fact that all of you crazed anarchists that post here, all of you saw that commercial with the 2 sad polar bears standing alone on that floating chunk of ice, and you didn't immediately start sending all of your money to Al Gore, so that he can save the world.

    It is obvious that all of you only care about capitalism, which is raping mother ,and you have sold your souls to big oil and the Kochtopus.

  • Killazontherun||

    But then came along the mad libertarian guy with an armful of Clairol vixen brunette hair dye, he used it on the bears, and once finished, people realized they were just grizzlies. Who wants to save a grizzly from drowning?

  • ||

    So that's what happened to my hair color! God damn it!

  • Ted S.||

    So mad libertarian guy used it on the gay bears?

  • Killazontherun||

    I'm more shocked to learn that Epi is fat!

  • sloopyinca||

    Why is the gap on environmental issues between liberals and conservatives growing?

    Because conservatives are much more likely to realize that the government fucks up everything they regulate.

    Seriously, Bailey, are you fucking retarded?

  • Ted S.||

    Yes, he is. A fucking retarded cosmotarian. :-(

  • sloopyinca||

    Dammit, I hate that word but you're absolutely right.

  • BakedPenguin||

    He may have been asking the question rhetorically.

  • ||

    I don't think that's really true, they just have a different range of things they want the government to regulate. More and more, though, it's the same range as with liberals. The reason that, as Pew put it, that “Views on the importance of environmental protection have arguably been the most pointed area of polarization" is that environmental protection is the only holdout from the great conservative/liberal merge.

    Many of today's progressives/left-liberals are aptly termed as conservatives; they're just a different sort of conservative from right-conservatives. And many self-proclaimed conservatives today are fiscally liberal. The economy, civil rights, foreign policy; there aren't many significant differences between liberals and conservatives in those areas any more.

  • Canman||

    nearly 190 subjects were asked about their ideological views ranging from extremely liberal to extremely conservative. ......

    In a second study, about 500 undergraduates again rated their ideology ....

    more than 300 subjects score their ideology ......

    I've heard from Johna Goldberg and John Stossel that liberals don't think they're liberals.

  • Hyperion||

    I've heard from Johna Goldberg and John Stossel that liberals don't think they're liberals

    That's ridiculous. Everyone knows that liberals don't think. They emote.

  • Alan||

    Is it really a good idea to inflame passions on purity issues?

    Historically, concerns with purity have caused problems. Perhaps best to let sleeping dogs lie.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Here's what Canada's great environmentalist MP gave us this morning:


    @ElizabethMay
    2013 dawns as humanity is at a time of unparalleled danger, matched by collective willful blindness. Our hope lies in awakening.
  • Hyperion||

    Fuck Canuckistan, and their MP too!

  • Anonymous Coward||

    2013 dawns as humanity is at a time of unparalleled danger, matched by collective willful blindness. Our hope lies in awakening.

    Doom. DOOM. DOOM! DOOOOOOMMMMMMM!!!!!!!

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Canadian words, phrases or slang that most Americans don't understand

  • ||

    Bob McKenzie: I do.

    Doug McKenzie: I do.

    Bob McKenzie: I guess we're married, Clark.

    Doug McKenzie: Oh.

    Bob McKenzie: Where's the honeymoon?

    The Judge: Order, Order!

    Bob McKenzie: Gimmie a toasted back bacon, hold the toast.

    Doug McKenzie: Don't make me laugh, eh.

    The Judge: I remind you not to speak, until you are spoken to!

    Bob McKenzie: He's startin' to sound like the old man. Soon he'll be sending me out for beers.

  • Ted S.||

    Is there a difference between a Canadian toboggan and an American toboggan?

    Same question goes for knapsack.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Really? I realize that N.H. has its fair share of French-Canadians, but I recognize #2 and #8 and #s 3,4,5,7,11,and 12 are part of my everyday speech.

    *shrugs*

  • Lord at War||

    How retarded.

    The only one I missed was a "mickey".

    I can only hope they are referring to distilled spirits. (and if you can't pocket your pint, your pockets are too damned small!)

    Also, backbacon is an affront to mankind.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Also, backbacon is an affront to mankind.

    Isn't that a tad hyperbolic? Both pork belly and pork back have their uses and taste delicious if prepared correctly.

  • Lord at War||

    They take a perfectly good pork product and slice off the fat and roll it in cornmeal.

    Barbarians!

  • Generic Stranger||

    Gonna have to make this comment a two-poster, since it's over the 1500 character limit.

    1. Two-four (24 beers)
    Apparently, Canadians don't understand this either, since they had to explain it to their readers (who are presumably Canuks).

    2. Loonie (and, of course, toonie)
    You kidding me? That's one of those "if you know ANYTHING about Canada, you'll know this" deals.

    3. Toque
    Ok, you got me on this one. Wikipedia says it's a sort of nickname for a French-Canadian city, so I'll give myself a pass for this one.

    4. Klick (kilometre)
    Seriously? Any American who has ever served in the military, or ever read a book about the military, or ever seen a fucking movie about the military knows that a klick is a kilometer. It's not an obscure term.

    5. Toboggan
    Err...what? I call bullshit. Unless Canadians mean something completely different than the sled, then this article is full of shit.

    6. Peamealor back bacon
    Don't you mean Canadian Bacon, eh? :)

  • Generic Stranger||

    Continued...

    7. Washroom
    Seriously? Ok, I know that Canadians tend not to like us, but do they really think we're that fucking stupid? Unless that's what you flap-heads call your lover, anyway.

    8. Serviette
    Ok, another French thing. Wikipedia says it's a fucking napkin. I think we can all agree (except for the Quebecois), FUCK THE FRENCH (and also da police).

    9. Chinook (the wind, not the helicopter)
    The Chinook people were centered around the Columbia river, which is wholly within the United States. So I think we understand the term better than you do, as we use it for it's actual, original meaning.

    10. Mickey (e.g. a mickey of vodka)
    Eh, got me there.

    11. Knapsack
    Seriously? Again, unless this is some weird term for a sex position, I don't think most Americans would not understand this one.

    12. Kerfuffle
    Again, another word that is often and commonly used in American English.

    Sometimes I wonder about you Canadians. When your anti-Americanism gets so bad as to make you look fucking stupid like this you may want to re-examine your headspace.

  • Hyperion||

    Who gives a fuck about the evnironment? Western culture is doomed. You want proof? Right here the fuck it is. Warning, you better be near a good place to barf if you dare to click on this link.

    Dear Women ... *barf*

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    I lasted 13 seconds.

  • ||

    Wow, those guys REALLY want to get laid.

  • sloopyinca||

    We feel deep love, great respect and a growing sense of worship for the gifts of the feminine.

    Poontang means a lot to these two guys apparently.

  • Brett L||

    You go 30 years without getting any and see if you don't love and worship tail.

  • sloopyinca||

    Bullshit, Brett. You don't see Tulpa making those videos, do you?

  • Brett L||

    I thought he was the one with the facial hair.

  • sloopyinca||

    **watches part of video again**

    I withdraw my previous post.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Shows how much you know. I've gotten more pussy than Richard Simmons.

  • sloopyinca||

    +99

  • BakedPenguin||

    I wouldn't worry about shit like that. It's obvious that guys like that will never procreate.

  • John||

    Can't these clowns just hire a dominatrix?

  • Hyperion||

    No, John, that would be sexist and demeaning to women. Instead, they apparently get off on public self castration.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The cult of Magna Mater is alive and well, I see.

  • Brett L||

    I can't understand why these fucks don't get laid. Aren't there lesbians who like dick who would love to slap them around?

  • Anonymous Coward||

    I clicked to watch and the strangest thing happened: My index finger just moved of its own accord and closed the tab the video was in.

    About 8 minutes worth of "men" need to turn in their cards and their balls.

  • T o n y||

    If it takes a pacifier and a bottle of breast milk to get conservatives to believe in science, so be it. It would be better for all if they would just shut their stupid faces and live the small government life--by stopping trying to sticking their ignorant noses into every aspect of government. Science is not optional.

  • Hyperion||

    Ohhh, lookie here. Tony is having a unintelligible hissy fit. Awww, poor Tony.

  • sloopyinca||

    What "science" are you talking about, because if this is what passes for science today, I'm glad to call myself a denier.

    Science is not optional.

    Apparently it is when it comes to the CRU, the IPCC, NOAA, NASA and myriad other groups that claim to be scientists.

  • Hyperion||

    It's like watching the history channel, where diorite can only be cut with a diamond tipped tool and aliens built the pyramids.

    Also, bigfoot and UFOs are real topics for serious discussion.

  • T o n y||

    The planet is warming by human activity no less than the planet is round.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    except when its colder than normal, right?

  • Hyperion||

    Now, stop that! The weather is not part of the climate, except when it does something that the warmists can use as proof of AGW. Otherwise, it's irrelevant!

  • sloopyinca||

    The planet is warming by human activity no less than the planet is round.

    And on January 1, T o n y makes what will inevitably turn out to be his smartest post of the year.

  • Hyperion||

    The planet is warming by human activity no less than the planet is round

    Says Tony, right before he's off to watch this weeks edition of MonsterQuest.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 1.1.13 @ 4:04PM |#
    "Science is not optional."

    Thank you, shithead, now learn what that means.

  • Sevo||

    Here's a hint, shithead:
    "Feinberg and Willer claim that liberals regard the environment in moral terms whereas conservatives do not."
    Moral terms, shithead. That means 'feelings', not thought and reason. That's you, shithead, incapable of logical thought, but big on your 'feelings'.
    Go suck a turd.

  • juris imprudent||

    Science is not optional.

    But if you are the Obama Admin there is no problem with delaying until after an election.

  • ||

    God damn. Are you trying to win the most retarded post of the year right off the bat?

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Coders blind to the study hypothesis rated on a seven point scale the extent to which each video and op-ed was grounded in the five moral domains"

    Blind to the study hypothesis, eh?

    Yeah right.

    The coders would have to have been complete idiots not to have surmised what the exercise was about in being asked to rate moral dimensions of stories/videos all related to environmentalism in some way or another.

  • John||

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/a.....-1970s.php

    Two occutards found wih cash of weapons and explosives in their Greenwich Village apartment. What do you want to bet that they will get off with a slap on the wrist. If they were Muslim, they would never see the light of day again. But terrorism is an acceptable vice Ivy League leftists. They were just kids trying to change the world.

  • sloopyinca||

    ^^Burn the heretic!!!!!!!!!^^

    /climate change believer

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    i think its cache not cash. and shouldn't you be proud that leftists are jumping on the pro-gun bandwagon.

  • sloopyinca||

    I didn't say I was opposed to them having weapons, did I? All I did was mock climate change believers who would call John a heretic for questioning their motives.

    And if you plan on correcting John's typo's, you better quit your day job, (or more likely withdraw from your sophomore year of college), because doing so is a full-time occupation.

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    "I didn't say I was opposed to them having weapons, did I?" -sloopy

    I was talking to John, and i was mostly joking.

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    ""And if you plan on correcting John's typo's, you better quit your day job,""

    cash isn't a typo for cache, but i take your point.

    "" (or more likely withdraw from your sophomore year of college)""

    thats eerie lol.

    "", because doing so is a full-time occupation.""

    This line would be a criticism of John right? not me?

  • sloopyinca||

    I'll just make this a blanket post, because it applies to more than my comments on John's writing and whatever college year you are in the middle of:

    Lurk Moar!*

    *Apply generously.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Interesting that you chose to harp on "cash" and not "wih".

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    I wasn't intending to harp, I just like the word cache. It brings back memories of treasure and weapons on the forest moons of Dxun.

    Also wih is just a typo, those don't bother me.

  • Hyperion||

    That's only guns for them, to change the world with, not for you rednecks and bible thumpers.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Indeed, because an AK-47 in the hands of a swarthy revolutionary with 5 o'clock shadow is just so....dreamy!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Precisely. I don't jump for joy when Bloomberg and Feinstein buy bigger guns for their bootyguards.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Hope! Change!


    North Korean leader Kim Jong-un on Tuesday called for improving the economy and living standards of his impoverished nation
  • Brett L||

    Well, now that Dear Leader (or whatever they call the new Kim) has decreed it, it should happen in record time.

  • Sevo||

    Worked here!

  • ||

    And he will start improving living standards by imposing a tax on anyone making more than 250,000 Won.

  • Libertarius||

    Science used to be global warming and anticapitalism, now it is climate change and anticapitalism. Anti climate change is anti-science. Socialism is scientific. Individualism is doubleplus ungood.

    /Professor of Dialectical Obozoism

  • sloopyinca||

    Michigan fucking choked. That's pretty funny because that's the only thing I hate worse than the SEC.

  • Brett L||

    Man. No sooner did I start taunting my SEC homer buddy about LSU than the Big 10 goes and shits the bed against the SEC. And I'm not rooting for Notre Dame. Shit.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    If the bowl games were in the upper midwest the B1G would beat the snot out of the SEC. I'm beyond sick of the redn***s boasting about winning what are essentially home games.

  • ||

    Oh please, the tickets get split pretty evenly. And let's not pretend that the Badgers' upcoming loss will be because the game is in Pasadena.

    Yeah, I'm sure Stanford has a huge following in LA.

    Considering that the Big10 consistently does poorly in out of conference play during the season, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

    Penn State lost to OHIO (and OSU).

    Wisc didn't lose any home games ooc, but did mange to beat Utah St. by a whopping 2 points!

    Iowa lost at home to C Michigan.

    Illinois lost at home to LA Tech.

    Indiana lost at home to Ball State.

  • sloopyinca||

    I never attribute it to where the game is played, but rather to when they are played IRT to finals and how much time teams get to prepare for a one-off game. That's why I rarely judge a team by who/how they play the first game of a season or how they play in a game they have 4-6 weeks to prepare for. It's just not indicative of an overall body of work how a team does in a bowl game.

    I'd much prefer a playoff system with 1 or possibly 2 weeks off from the end of the season or having the bowls start 2 weeks after the season and ending 3 weeks after at the most.

  • ||

    I'm perfectly happy with the upcoming 4 team playoff. Let's give it a 10 year try and if it sucks, then go to an 8 teamer.

    The BCS proved to be inadequate a number of times and everyone agreed it needed replacement.

    I think a 4 team situation will still have holes, but they will be less glaring.

  • Ohio State cheats||

    "that's the only thing I hate worse than the SEC."

    As an Ohio State fan, I hate my team getting caught cheating, being known as scumbags, and being shunned for invitations to postseason play more than either of those.

    But hey, you're trash.

  • BigT||

    OSU players got caught trading their own property for stuff. Fuck the NCAA. They should work on safer equipment, like marshmallow helmets, rather than nannying.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The NCAA has to preserve the integrity of the college athletics not being about profit, but the advancement of young people's education.

    Plus, once you start letting the players think they can get paid, that will take a huge bite out of the TV contract money the universities are raking in.

  • ||

    "The NCAA has to preserve the integrity of the college athletics not being about profit, but the advancement of young people's education."

    Nobody still believes that B.S.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    That was intended as sarcasm, which my second sentence was supposed to indicate.

    The reality is that the unis know that a pro-type system where college football players were free agents would be disastrous for them. Personally I think the players should be paid a small stipend (like $10K-$20K a year) and THEN told they can't take any more money without losing eligibility.

  • sloopyinca||

    Personally I think the players should be paid a small stipend (like $10K-$20K a year) and THEN told they can't take any more money without losing eligibility.

    "Title IX, motherfucker."

    /female college basketball participant with better fundamentals than their male counterparts

  • Sevo||

    "female college basketball participant with better fundamentals"

    Is that what you call them?

  • ||

    I think the football programs of FBS schools should be spunoff entirely from the Universities.

    Let it be run like the business it is, and let them pay a market rate for labor.

  • sloopyinca||

    I'd support that to a certain degree. They could set up university-run foundations to administer it I guess. I'm afraid it would result in a lot of programs shutting down, so it would never happen.

    I would also support a football exemption to Title IX*, allowing for a stipend.

    *SLD applies obviously.

  • sloopyinca||

    I love my Buckeyes, but they knew the idiotic rules and broke them.* Besides, the only reason they got the bowl ban was because Gordon Gee talked shit and acted like they were above the rules. It was nothing more than the NCAA slapping the school in the face because he wouldn't keep his mouth shut. Had he done so, the NCAA would have likely accepted their self-imposed sanctions.

    *Not to mention the cover-up was a lot worse than the infraction, which Tressel knew yet did it anyway.

  • ||

    We might see 3 Big10 losses on the day!

  • sloopyinca||

    Then Wisconsin better win, because we've already seen losses by Nebraska, Purdue and the school up north.

  • ||

    New York Times writer and constitutional law professor sick and tired of that damned constitution getting in the way of democracy.

  • Hyperion||

    Geez, what a bunch of meaningless babble, with no specific conclusion.

    Democracy is working quite fine. The people discovered that they can vote themselves free stuff and the political class have discovered that handing out the free stuff can keep them in power, forever, with no consequences at all for whatever bad behavior they engage in.

    The problem is the political class. That is what we need to be ridded of if we have any chance at all to turn this ship of fools around.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Hyperion||

    The NDAA and penaltaxes have pretty much made moot the constitution, anyway.

    The government can now do whatever they want to, with impunity.

    And the people will never rise up against that as long as the free stuff train continues to roll.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The penaltax does not have anything to do with violations of the Bill of Rights. Jesus CHRIST you people are melodramatic.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    So for Tulpa, the Bill of Rights ends at the 8th.

    Good to know.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    ????

    Nobody in the OC case argued it violated the 9th or 10th amendments.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Why would government cronies argue against the very encroaching power of the Federal government, even if to score temporary points against the other team?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    *ever

  • ||

    You do realize that the constitution is more than just the BoR, right?

    Jesus Christ but you have become a mendacious asshole.

  • Gladstone||

    You know who else thought their constitution was useless and constraining?

  • BlueBook||

    Emily Dickinson?

  • sloopyinca||

    Karen Carpenter?

  • SIV||

    Ann Cox-Chambers?

  • ||

    OMFG!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The harm/care message focused on the damage humans are causing and emphasized the need to protect the Earth, accompanied by pictures showing a clear cut, a barren coral reef, and a drought-cracked mudflat. The sanctity/purity message described the contamination of the environment and stressed the importance of purifying the natural world, accompanied by pictures of air pollution, a person drinking contaminated water, and a forest covered in garbage.

    And there's the devil in the details. Only one of the pictures actually involves a person being harmed, and that's the one conservatives responded to.

  • Russell||

    One sees the editors of Peace and Security

    http://www.sicherheit-und-frie.....2/issue-4/

    deem geoengineering an ethically dubious " Issue for peace and security"

  • ||

    At first I read that as "ethnically dubious", and I was not shocked.

  • Drave Robber||

    OT: Stats on French national sports published again:

    France Counts 1,193 Cars Torched on New Year's Eve

  • sloopyinca||

    "The French people know how stimulus works, and are willing to do their fair share."

    /Pauli Krugnuts

  • Drave Robber||

    "Breaking windows in not enough anymore!"

    /Krugabist chorus

  • sloopyinca||

    Of course its not enough. That's why we need natural disasters to augment the destruction of man.

  • Drave Robber||

    I googled 'Sandy boost economy' and was quite shocked by the level of Retard I saw. I'm afraid this experience is going to boost my consumption of alcohol a bit.

    Some people however still seem to believe in an advanced version of broken windows fallacy - that it only works if done consciously.

  • JeremyR||

    This has nothing to do with economics, it's another one of those religion of peace deals

  • DK||

    1,193 fatalities in a single day? Where are the French on an assault matches ban?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The AGW issue involves 4 questions at its heart.

    1. Is fast global warming happening?
    2. Is it caused by human activity?
    3. Is it a bad thing?
    4. How can we stop/reduce it or mitigate its effects?

    Even if you agree with the enviros on 1-3, as I mostly do (but not with the quasi-religious faith many enviros do), they go totally off the rails on #4. You're not going to get atmospheric CO2 down to 1900 levels without killing off most of the world's population. Far too many people have empty stomachs and cold beds in this world, and the only ways for that to change are death or fossil fuel consumption.

  • sloopyinca||

    Serious questions, Tulpa: How can you believe #2 when there is absolutely no supporting evidence (on any realistic scale) whatsoever? And how can you believe #1 when the only evidence supporting the claim has been shown to be fabricated and/or embellished?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The hockey stick isn't all the evidence there is for #1. #2 is very difficult to ferret out either way with the data we have but it seems plausible.

  • sloopyinca||

    Well, the hockey stick isn't evidence since it has been proven to be bogus. As for other evidence, there's none out there that can show where man is a leading cause for either PM, methane, or elevated CO or CO2 levels. Sorry, but I'm gonna need a lot more than "plausible".

  • juris imprudent||

    That is my problem with Muller's defense of the data - what the hell was generating massive amounts of CO2 from the mid-18th century until the early 20th?

    Industrialization only had a toe hold on a global scale.

  • Drave Robber||

    The AGW issue involves 4 questions at its heart.

    1. Is fast global warming happening?


    There are two more before this:
    0a. Surface temperature is a good proxy for system's total energy content.
    0b. We have an ability to measure the average surface temperature to any reasonable degree of precision.

    Climate change is quite real but mostly takes the form of local wetting, not global warming. I'm not happy with the changes in precipitation at my place, but can live with that.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The AGW issue involves 4 questions at its heart.

    1. Is fast global warming happening?
    2. Is it caused by human activity?
    3. Is it a bad thing?
    4. How can we stop/reduce it or mitigate its effects?

    There's some evidence for number 1 minus the fast adjective. Which is hardly surprising since the climate on earth has constantly been changing for 4 billion years.

    Number two is pure conjecture, an interesting scientific question that merits objective investigation.

    Number three - Is it a bad thing? can be demonstrated as false by the long historic record of humanity thriving in warmer climates and suffering in colder ones.

    The answer to number four (assuming numbers 1 & 2)4. How can we stop/reduce it or mitigate its effects? is that we can't. All we can do is adapt to the changing climate. An outrageous assertion to proglodytes because it's not like humans have been adapting to changing climate for 100,000 years, or something.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I'm sure humans can adapt to a few degrees of warming, but the problem is can the rest of the world that we depend on -- in many unseen and heretofore unknown ways -- do the same? Don't forget ocean acidification is the forgotten twin of global warming.

    It's pretty hubristic to think we understand everything we need to about this. For example, if the Gulf Stream shuts down due to glacial melting, that would make the western European climate start to resemble Quebec's.

  • sloopyinca||

    It's pretty hubristic to think we understand everything we need to about this.

    Funny, isn't it the proponents of AGW that are doing exactly this? I don't see any "deniers" proposing we do anything other than continue researching the climate and allow multiple forms of energy to compete with each other on an open market.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Some "deniers" actually do deny AGW (not merely say there isn't sufficient evidence) or claim GW wouldn't be a big deal. Some of them are right on this here thread.

    Though the hardcore enviros classify anyone who's not fully on board with their policy response as a denier.

  • sloopyinca||

    My point, that flew right over your head, was that the "deniers" aren't the ones proposing we all radically change our lifestyles* based on their conclusions.

    *Under threat of force

    [full disclosure: I am an AGW denier]

  • General Butt Naked||

    I am an AGW denier

    Which part?

  • sloopyinca||

    The "Anthropogenic" part.

  • General Butt Naked||

    So you think that a couple centuries of industrial processes and deforestation have had no effect on CO2 levels?

    That is a rather bold claim.

  • sloopyinca||

    A couple of centuries of industrial processes has had a smaller cumulative effect of every particulate being put into the upper atmosphere than the Mt Saint Helen's eruption has. CO2 claims are speculative and dubious, not to mention they are based on faulty and massaged data which cannot be duplicated in independent peer-reviewed studies. Methane gas falls in the same category as PM above.

    As far as deforestation: that's pretty much a myth, seeing as forests produce a very small %age of the earth's oxygen and the vast majority of those forests have been repopulated to higher levels in the last quarter-century.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Then you don't believe that heightened CO2 levels can raise the temperature of a planet?

    Regarding your deforestation claims: I'd need to see some numbers to comment on that.

  • sloopyinca||

    I believe the amount of CO2 mankind can out into the atmosphere is so minuscule as a % of total CO2 already there as to be considered negligible.

    It's like saying if you piss into the ocean, you're increasing the urine content enough to damage the entire oceanic ecosystem.

  • sloopyinca||

    Here are some numbers to support my deforestation claims. I'm assuming this guy is reputable, but cannot confirm that. His credentials look pretty legit.

  • ||

    200 ppm...400 ppm

    Two times nothing is still nothing.

  • ||

    Oh, wait...

    FEEEEDBAAAAAKKK LOOOPZ!

  • juris imprudent||

    Centuries of industrial processes? Where was the global industrial base in the 18th century (when CO2 started to rise)?

  • juris imprudent||

    Ack, temp started to rise - not necessarily CO2.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Don't forget ocean acidification is the forgotten twin of global warming.

    Which is even more speculative than AGW itself.

    It's pretty hubristic to think we understand everything we need to about this.

    That's not my position and not what I said.

    There is historical evidence supporting the idea that warmer climates are better for humans. The burden of proof is on people claiming the opposite will be the case going forward. Something that they have not even tried to do.

    For example, if the Gulf Stream shuts down due to glacial melting, that would make the western European climate start to resemble Quebec's.

    The last time that happened was when the NA ice sheet melted. Maybe a series of volcanic eruptions under Greenland's ice sheet would cause a similar effect. But the slow melting that is forecast now will not.

  • ||

    You're not going to get atmospheric CO2 down to 1900 levels without killing off most of the world's population.

    That's not going off the rails, Tulpa. That's exactly what the Malthusian idiots want.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I don't think most of them are malthusians.

  • ||

    I can only speak for the watermelons I've met personally, and they very much believe that most people should die.

  • Hyperion||

    Ask them to set a good example and make a good start by offing themselves immediately.

  • ||

    I like to ask them which people they would specifically like to kill to make Gaia happy.

  • sloopyinca||

    Since most of them hate immigrants that take "good-paying union jobs," I wouldn't be surprised if "Mexican" was the first word out of their mouths.

    Oh wait, I'm sure they'd say "gun nuts" need to go first, not realizing the entire world would devolve into a Snake Plissken adventure were it not for legal gun owners.

  • JeremyR||

    Wait, what? Liberals/Greenies love Mexicans, they hate Anglos just like they do.

  • Hyperion||

    Teabaggers, of course.

    In their infinite wisdon, they never consider that in some insanely evil scheme to reduce the population of the earth to 500 million, that they may just become a victim of such scheme, and in fact that it's likely. Dummies.

  • juris imprudent||

    But they are Gaia's Elect!

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I don't think most of them are malthusians.

    True, Malthus never advocated the slaughter of 90% of the world's population. Not even the Austrian corporal advocated that. So they're literally worse than ...

  • Almanian.||

    You know who else is worse than you know who....

  • sloopyinca||

  • ||

    Wait...

    Chuck Norris jokes aren't Funny?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Genghis Khan.

  • Marshall Gill||

    Careful how you talk about my/our ancestor!

  • ||

    Bill Maher?

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Science never stands still – and despite earlier predications, given what we know now about climate, there is almost no way that the feared large temperature rise is going to happen

  • Hyperion||

    Some of the elitist warmists have already come out and stated that it doesn't matter if AGW is actually happening, or not. It's the social engineering that can be accomplished by the fear of it that is important.

    In other words, same old progressives, different lie.

  • Sevo||

    Hyperion| 1.1.13 @ 6:00PM |#
    "Some of the elitist warmists have already come out and stated that it doesn't matter if AGW is actually happening, or not. It's the social engineering that can be accomplished by the fear of it that is important."

    Gross and Levitt in "Higher Superstition..." (sort of) take some lefty catastophists to task for this crap of this description, but then they sort of take it back, since 'it's meant well'.
    Similarly, I 'sort of' like that book, and they along with shithead can go suck turds for giving those folks a pass.
    And I do mean that in a 'friendly manner'.

  • sloopyinca||

    Wisconsin (the Big Ten champions team that came in third in their division) are in for a long day, methinks.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    It's also not helped by the rampant hypocrisy of prominent environmentalist leaders. Be it Al Gore's fossil fuel guzzling mansion, or BO's love of jetsetting around the world with a thousand person entourage when he could just as easily Skype.

  • JeremyR||

    Indeed. If they are convinced there is truly a problem, why don't they act like it?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    They're too busy telling us plebes to unplug our chargers from the wall and banning light bulbs and shower heads.

  • SIV||

    Hell, how did I miss this old story?

    Apparently the CDC Deputy Director is still deputy-directing but her dog-fucking career is on hold, pending trial.

  • sloopyinca||

    Of course the Daily Fail has a more indepth article on it. Funny that there's no word on the internet of the case ever going to trial even though she was arrested 15 months ago.

  • SIV||

    The AJC says as of September 23 2012 Kimberly the CDC's Dog-Fucking Deputy Director of Laboratory Science Policy is still on the job. Obama just gave her a raise too.

    A highly regarded scientist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta has been arrested over allegations of bestiality and child molestation.
    The alleged sex acts involving the child took place between January 2010 and August 2011. The child (6 years old) would allegedly spank Lindsey and use an electric sex toy on her.

    The bestiality charge is a result of evidence recovered during the investigation, investigators allegedly found photographs of Lindsey performing lewd acts on two pets.
    Dr. Kimberly Quinlan Lindsey, 44, of Decatur, was arrested in DeKalb County Sunday after a six-week investigation into allegations she molested a young boy.

    During her long and "distinguished" career as a health scientist, Lindsey served as deputy division director in the Training Services Division of the Office of Workforce and Career Development and as deputy branch chief in the Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention.

    Her primary role as the senior scientist was to provide "oversight of the $1.5 billion fiscal allocation process for Terrorism Preparedness and Emergency Response funding agency wide.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Didn't HIV start when someone in Senegal fucked a rhesus monkey?

  • sloopyinca||

    Maybe she's just using herself as a living example of how to combat AIDS/HIV. After all, what better way to prevent AIDS/HIV than only having sex with clean 6 year old virgin kids and the family dog?

    This woman is fucking sick.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    None of the women I know have ever fucked the family cat, for obvious reasons.

  • ||

    That dog was coming on to her with all that leg humping. It wasn't her fault!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Maybe he was just tired of fucking bitches.

  • Sevo||

    "Maybe he was just tired of fucking bitches."

    Obviously not!

  • SIV||

    Details at time of arrest

    I suppose her alleged penchant for getting spanked naked by a 6 year old boy while he works the ol' Hitachi Magic Wand could be a false charge, dog fucking pictures don't lie.

    latest update

    What do you have to do to get fired from a government job? I guess $150 Billion doesn't spend its own self and private sector dog-fuckers deputy director just won't work for public sector peanuts.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You mispelled "penis".

  • sloopyinca||

    Pending? That was 15 months ago. I guess they're not too concerned with getting things to trial in GA.*

    * I wonder if she would have gone to trial yet if she were a black male allegedly caught selling drugs that didn't have a sweet government gig.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Yeah. Reminds me of the "investigation" the DC cops are doing in regard to David Gregory waving a felonious piece of contraband around in his DC studio on national TV.

  • SIV||

    This is my home county but I spent the fall of 2011 working in SW Texas and must of missed it. I do recall another DeKalb case where a lesbian judge shot her domestic partner dead on a public street in their upscale community. Read it in the paper, saw it on TV news, then nothing. Last I checked there was not a trace on the internet.

  • Hyperion||

    What do you have to do to get fired from a government job?

    And here I thought you had to be in Congres to get away with stuff like that and not lose your job.

    It must be the trickle down immunity thing happening here.

  • Ted S.||

    Nah; nothing happened to TurboTax Timmy.

  • sloopyinca||

    Or the cunts found "responsible" for the Americans killed running guns/operating a CIA detention center in Benghazi.

  • Ted S.||

    What do you have to do to get fired from a government job?

    Be somebody useful for political bashing.

    Hence, the difference between this woman and Jerry Sandusky.

  • sloopyinca||

    Well, there are more than just this difference.

    For example, Jerry Sandusky didn't suck off any Labradoodles as far as I can tell.

  • Hyperion||

    How long will it be before progressives start marrying their pets and demand equal rights for human/pet unions.

    Hell, I am all for it, at least they won't be able to reproduce.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    That'll teach you not to question the wisdom of Santorum.

  • SIV||

    I will live to see National Pet Care passed into law.You can't expect people to buy their own veterinary services.

  • Hyperion||

    I think pets should be able to vote. They probably know just as much about why they are voting for who they are, as their human owners do, and they have no idea that they would be able to vote themselves free stuff.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Maybe I would support giving the vote to those cats who can operate a toilet. Because that's just amazing.

  • sloopyinca||

    Not sure about toilet-flushing cats, but I'd support giving Kidogo the right to vote.

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    What's the hardline libertarian argument against sex with animals and children? If it's voluntary then it doesn't violate the non-agression principle. If they are just property that can't give consent then she can do whatever she wants with her property.

  • sloopyinca||

    Children must be able to consent, and I'd wager that a 6 year old doesn't understand sexuality to the point he/she can consent to sex.

    As far as animals go, they are property so I wouldn't have them prosecuted for it, although I would have no problem with the public shaming of a woman that would fuck a dog or a donkey.

  • Hyperion||

    I would have to agree with you, on both points.

  • General Butt Naked||

    As far as animals go, they are property so I wouldn't have them prosecuted for it, although I would have no problem with the public shaming of paying a woman that would fuck a dog or a donkey.

    Tsk, tsk.

    How soon we forget our own bachelor party.

  • ||

    Because they are all at least minimally cognizant, I think animals should be treated as a unique case of property. Sticking, say, a soda can some place it wouldn't normally go and fucking your dog are not the same thing, and anybody can see why. Being minimally cognizant and incapable of giving consent, I think animals should be accorded some level of protection, though not actual rights.

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    If the children can't consent though what are they? Wouldn't they be the property of someone, probably the parents?

  • sloopyinca||

    A human being as a piece of property? You know, there's a term for that.

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    The above comment was not to PM. This one is.

    "I think animals should be accorded some level of protection, though not actual rights."-PM

    I agree with this (for animals and children) and the other things in your post, however I don't see how they are consistent with libertarianism.

  • ||

    A six year old cannot give consent to sex because they lack the full ability to be informed enough to consent.

    Ditto with animals. Though if you don't buy into the concept of animal cruelty laws (and regard them as nothing more than property), then there is no justification for it.

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    If the children can't consent though what are they? Wouldn't they be the property of someone, probably the parents?

  • sloopyinca||

    A human being as a piece of property? You know, there's a term for that.

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    Libertarian rights either apply to you or they don't. You said that children can't consent to things, that makes them property.

    Do you know of a third option that I'm not seeing? One that is consistent with libertarianism?

  • ||

    Yes, they are human beings who are too young to make decisions on their own.

    Your premise...You said that children can't consent to things, that makes them property.... is false.

  • sloopyinca||

    to FdA:
    Your response:
    Yes, they are human beings who are too young to make decisions on their own.

    Your premise...You said that children can't consent to things, that makes them property.... is false.

    and my response:
    Are you fucking retarded? Human rights still apply whether a person is capable of giving consent or not. By your idiotic logic, someone could be kidnapped in their sleep and sold into slavery since they were unable to give or refuse consent at the time.

    When does your spring semester begin again? I was just wondering if you were enrolled in a human development or basic physiology class so we could avoid these questions when you return in the summer.

    I think I've hit upon a reason why a political career for me will be fraught with difficulties. :-)

  • ||

    Somebody in office who would actually tell you where he stands would be a refreshing change compared to the spineless shitbags we are now forced to deal with.

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    "Yes, they are human beings who are too young to make decisions on their own."-FdA

    so the criteria to have libertarian rights granted to you is to be a human being? I always thought it was based on ability to act rationally and follow contracts or something along those lines.

    Your definition leads to some complications I think. What if there is an intelligent alien species, or an animal here evolves the ability to reason? What constitutes a human being, are gametes or fetuses humans?

  • sloopyinca||

    so the criteria to have libertarian rights granted to you is to be a human being? I always thought it was based on ability to act rationally and follow contracts or something along those lines.

    What would give you that idea? Everything libertarianism stems from is respecting the rights of the individual, and that means from start of life (which is a topic widely debated on here and elsewhere) until the end of life and all points in between. And there are times when people are tasked with being stewards for the life of others, namely while in the womb (again, an area of debate), infancy through childhood and during old age for some people or while injured or otherwise not mentally capable of making rational or informed decisions.

    Your definition leads to some complications I think. What if there is an intelligent alien species, or an animal here evolves the ability to reason?

    Or what if a strawman develops the ability to fart electricity?

    What constitutes a human being, are gametes or fetuses humans?

    That's a topic we debate furiously on here, in case you haven't noticed.

  • ||

    What if there is an intelligent alien species, or an animal here evolves the ability to reason?

    I imagine it would need to pass some sort of sentience test.

    Fetuses? All depends on when life begins. Let me know when you get a definitive answer to that.

  • sloopyinca||

    You said that children can't consent to things, that makes them property.

    Are you fucking retarded? Human rights still apply whether a person is capable of giving consent or not. By your idiotic logic, someone could be kidnapped in their sleep and sold into slavery since they were unable to give or refuse consent at the time.

    When does your spring semester begin again? I was just wondering if you were enrolled in a human development or basic physiology class so we could avoid these questions when you return in the summer.

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    ochem 2 and phys 3 are the only confirmed ones I have right now. I'll let you know.

    So my question for FdA was why do only humans get rights? What about an intelligent alien?

  • sloopyinca||

    What about an intelligent alien?

    What about strawmen? Do they not get rights as well?

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    "“What would give you that idea? Everything libertarianism stems from is respecting the rights of the individual,”"

    which individuals though? that individual rock over there has rights?

    ""and that means from start of life (which is a topic widely debated on here and elsewhere) until the end of life and all points in between.""

    so for this example could we define the start of life to be 7?

    ""And there are times when people are tasked with being stewards for the life of others, namely while in the womb (again, an area of debate), infancy through childhood and during old age for some people or while injured or otherwise not mentally capable of making rational or informed decisions.""

    If they are paid or volunteer. Otherwise there is no such task in libertarianism.

    ""Your definition leads to some complications I think. What if there is an intelligent alien species, or an animal here evolves the ability to reason?
    Or what if a strawman develops the ability to fart electricity?""

    what strawman? We are talking about how these rights are handed out, this is an important question.

    ""What constitutes a human being, are gametes or fetuses humans?
    That's a topic we debate furiously on here, in case you haven't noticed.""

    What’s your opinion? I don’t understand why some pieces of matter are getting rights and others aren’t.

  • sloopyinca||

    I'm not trying to hurt your feelings or anything, but you really need to learn about libertarianism before you make assumptions about it. And yes, that question is a strawman since it's not based in reality.

    And saying humanity and/or human rights start at 7 is moronic. Would you be OK with murdering a child the day before their 7th birthday? Their second? Their first?

    I'm sorry that it took me this long to figure out that you're a troll. Good day, sir.

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    ""Would you be OK with murdering a child the day before their 7th birthday?""

    I wouldn't, but I'm not claiming to be libertarian.

    "" but you really need to learn about libertarianism before you make assumptions about it.""

    I think I could say the same to you, I'm looking for libertarian reasons why children aren't property or autonomous persons. I'll let you know if I find someone who has a real argument that is consistent with libertarianism. You certainly aren't that person though.

  • sloopyinca||

    I think I could say the same to you, I'm looking for libertarian reasons why children aren't property or autonomous persons. I'll let you know if I find someone who has a real argument that is consistent with libertarianism. You certainly aren't that person though.

    Just out of curiosity, what argument have I made that is inconsistent with libertarianism? I mean, I've been accused of being to rigid in my libertarianism where pragmatism would be better received, but I've never been told my arguments are not consistent with libertarianism. And where, by the way, did you get your definition of what libertarianism is? Was it from actual libertarians or from a social "science" professor?

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    ""Just out of curiosity, what argument have I made that is inconsistent with libertarianism? ""

    ""And there are times when people are tasked with being stewards for the life of others, namely while in the womb (again, an area of debate), infancy through childhood and during old age for some people or while injured or otherwise not mentally capable of making rational or informed decisions.""

  • sloopyinca||

    How is that inconsistent with libertarianism? I never said people should be punished if they refuse or fail to uphold the task. There are others that would or could take it on of their own volition. You, for some reason, think libertarians believe any being that is incapable of making their own way is no longer worthy of individual liberty or human rights. IOW, you think Sparta is Libertopia. And you couldn't be more wrong about our core beliefs.

    Above all things, I respect human life and human rights. Without that core belief, I fail to see how one can be a libertarian.

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    then wtf even say it like you did? why didn't you say if someone has the means and will to do so, they could help people in this condition.

    whatever sloop, ive seen many types of libertarian, and many different philosophical ways of arriving at it. you insist on informing me that i don't know your exact definition for it instead of explaining to me what it is, and why it's right. so fuck it, idrc anymore.

  • sloopyinca||

    kthxbai

  • ||

    I already did. That you do not accept it is due to your misunderstanding of libertarianism.

  • ||

    Something tells me that Rothbard's chapter on children and rights would blow his mind.

    (A passage that I personally cannot wholly endorse since it suggests that allowing a child to starve is somehow not a crime)

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    Someone brought it up in a libertarian blog, and were criticizing it for inconsistencies.

    Saying it is not a crime when you allow a child to starve is one of the more consistent parts.

    I might have to read the whole chapter I think it's free on the mises.org site.

  • sloopyinca||

    Someone brought it up in a libertarian blog, and were criticizing it for inconsistencies.

    Was that person the end-all be-all of libertarian thought?

    Saying it is not a crime when you allow a child to starve is one of the more consistent parts.

    Says one fucking person.

    I might have to read the whole chapter I think it's free on the mises.org site.

    You might want to read a lot more than that one chapter to get a better grasp on libertarianism.

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    "Was that person the end-all be-all of libertarian thought?"

    you certainly seem to think you are you hypocritical jackass.

  • sloopyinca||

    Whatever, fuckhead. You know, instead of assuming so much, you may want to lurk a while before telling us what we think and what our premises are after reading a few posts. You might learn enough to not come off so obviously uninformed.

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    ""what we think and what our premises are ""

    look there it is again.

    /bow before end all be all libertarian.

  • sloopyinca||

    I mean we as individuals so you can address us individually instead of making assumptions on what we believe or are supposed to believe because of what you read in a book or were told in a classroom, you dope.

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    ive never heard libertarianism discussed in a classroom, so you can stop bringing that up you paranoid piece of shit. yea its crazy, but not everyone is talking about you.

    and how the hell am i supposed to know what you believe since all you ever say is that i dont know what you believe?

    oh you said that humans have rights. i asked what humans are. OMAGERD STRAWMAN!!1!

  • sloopyinca||

  • ||

    I'd also recommend that you read more than one book, since Rothbard isn't the be-all end-all gatekeeper of what qualifies as libertarianism.

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    im working on bastiats economic sophisms right now, slowly but surely.

  • ||

    "bastiats economic sophisms"

    and on that note...go fuck yourself.

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    :O why? is bastiat not libertarian?

  • ||

    sigh.

    How about you don't use pejoratives to describe work you haven't finished.

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    pejoratives?

    pejoratives plural of pe·jo·ra·tive
    Noun
    A word expressing contempt or disapproval.

    no idea what you are talking about. unless you think libertarian is a pejorative, i guess that would work if you're an ancap or something.

  • ||

    sophism is a perjorative...

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    oh lol, sorry that was the title of the free ebook. damn dude relax.

  • ||

    Italics go a looong way to making that clear.

    Bastiat's Economic Sophisms

    is very different from

    bastiat's economic sophisms.

  • sloopyinca||

    Haha. Sorry, but you're on your own the rest of the way here, George. I've got more important stuff to discuss upthread.*

    *No offense, but Groovus is giving me his thoughts on Baby Reason, so I've gotta go.

    Bye to you as well, Zack. Lurk more next time.

  • ||

    It is free on mises.org

    I've never noticed any inconsistencies.

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    the inconsistencies were between various essays, not in the chapter itself.

  • Hyperion||

    Cali passes 876 new laws. No, that's not a type-o according to the Ventura County Star. 876 new laws? WTF?

    Cali passes 876 new laws

    Well, if it's true what progressives say that the more regulation, the better, Cali should be getting close to paradise on earth by now.

  • ||

    By historic standards it was a somewhat low number but was the most new laws put on the books in the state since 2006.

    What. The. Fuck.

  • Hyperion||

    According to most liberals I know, what's important is that they are doing 'something'.

    They are always making statements like 'well, if Congress would just do something!'. If you ask them, do what? What if what they do is bad? They just stare at you like they don't understand the question.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

  • ||

    I have several small-l libertarian friends here in SoCal, but we're so absurdly outnumbered by statists from both TEAMS. Damn I'm tired of California and all these busy-bodies. I love the climate and the wonderful motorcycling roads around here so much that it pains me to think of leaving, but every story like this gets me thinking more seriously about finding another state.

  • sloopyinca||

    Are you in Ventura? I may be down there next week, and if so will need to find a place to drink.

  • ||

    I'm 12 minutes from Ventura in Santa Paula. We have a great little Irish bar downtown, and, as of yet, the state hasn't regulated away the kegerator in my garage.

  • sloopyinca||

    If I end up down there, I'll shoot you an email. I'll be in Camarillo, but will likely stay in Santa Paula.

  • ||

    If you stay in Santa Paula you want to go to the Santa Paula Inn, which is stumbling distance from Garman's Pub.

  • cavalier973||

    I was listening to Norman...someone (Coleman? Goldman? I think it was Goldman), some no-account prog on the radio, and he promised that the GOP controlled House of Representatives were about to shut down the FedGov for two years straight, based on what they were doing about the "Fiscal Cliff".

    He, being a prog, of course described this as a "bad thing", but I was actually starting to feel somewhat optimistic, for a while. Then I remembered that progs like Norman Snowman actually think that the GOP House is controlled by far-right conservatives rather than moderate squishies.

  • juris imprudent||

    You ain't seen nothin' yet. The incoming legislature has 2/3rds majorities for the proglodytes.

  • sloopyinca||

    OT: What are the odds the House passes this abomination of a spending bill to avoid the "fiscal cliff"? I think it would have passed if they'd have voted for it 5 minutes after the Senate, but after some scrutiny, I'd have to put the odds at less than 50/50. NASCAR tax credits? Hollywood tax breaks? Over $100B on special interest breaks alone while business owners get a hot poker jammed up their asshole? I'm thinking the Team Red members in the House know they're signing their death warrant if they vote Yea. The Tea Party is gonna flip its shit even more than in 2008-9.

    And if my Team Red Congressman votes for it, I may just primary his ass.*

    *Seriously.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Taking a line from the Reagans--who the GOP worship, right?--"Just say no."

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    They'll get crucified in the media as "protecting the rich from taxes" if they do that, and it's complicated enough that people won't understand their real reasons for voting no.

    What the House should do is just pass a bill renewing all the tax cuts at every level and send it to the senate with a picture of Ron Paul masturbating and saying "SUCK THIS HARRY!"

  • Pro Libertate||

    I just do not get why the GOP hasn't loudly and persistently attacked the Democrats on the total irrelevance taxes have to the current and long-term fiscal crisis. The Democrats are crazy vulnerable on this issue, as even if they doubled the tax rate, we'd still be doomed.

    In fact, the fact that the Democrats are focusing so much on raising taxes could be used to show that they're far more interested in class warfare and redistribution bullshit than the messed up fiscal situation.

  • Hyperion||

    Spending cuts mean massive piles of dead children and women in the streets, tomorrow.

    The Dems will never stop spending and taxing until there is nothing left to tax and no more money to spend. And the Republicans, outside of a few, are a bunch of wimps who will never take meaningful action to stop them.

    Even if they were able to double revenues this year through tax increases, they would spend every single dime of it, and borrow more. We would be right back where we are at this time next year. So where does it end? It will never be enough. This is the one most important thing that the 'tax the rich' crowd does not understand.

  • Pro Libertate||

    The boom we could have with massive spending cuts, tax reform, and deregulation would likely be so huge as to make all of this handwringing pointless. Increased wealth and technology have done tremendous good. Government, not so much.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    While that's the best thing to do for the long term, I'm not convinced there would be an immediate boom if they did that. More like an immediate crash. Our economy has become addicted to govt spending and the marketplace is adapted to existing regulation. It's a long way down when all the knots we've tied have come undone.

    It's a perfect booby trap the statists have set for us. If Ron Paul had become president and Congress agreed to cut spending and lower taxes and deregulate, the immediate impact would cause the idiot voters who make up the majority of our electorate to be screaming for libertarian blood in 2014. Look at what happened in 1981-82, and that was just getting the monetary policy under control, forget massive spending cuts.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The regulations cause more economic destruction than the spending. And they can be eliminated painlessly. Aside from bullshit media stories.

  • cavalier973||

    IIRC, Ron Paul's plan was to cut the war spending first, then phase out the domestic side spending gradually.

  • ||

    The Dems will never stop spending and taxing until there is nothing left to tax and no more money to spend. And the Republicans, outside of a few, are a bunch of wimps who will never take meaningful action to stop them.

    It is compromise that has gotten us here.

    Dems: We want to spend $2 TRILLION more.

    Reps: We want to keep spending static.

    Dems: Thank you for coming to the table with your proposal...let's compromise. $1T increase. Isn't working together grand?

    American people: Yay, compromise. Our government works.

    Reps: Ow, my ass!

    Wash, rinse, repeat.

  • Sevo||

    Admittedly, the articles were in the SF Chron, so they are left to the point of capsizing, but the pitch was that the GOP wasn't 'compromising'. IOWs, the actual issues at hand are irrelevant, it's just that one team is being a poopy-head and sticking to a point.
    Shame on them! The dems are compromising all over the field, aren't they? Why, they promised they'd cut some spending some time in the future!

  • VG Zaytsev||

    And if my Team Red Congressman votes for it, I may just primary his ass.*

    *Seriously.

    You should whether he votes for it or not.

    Seriously.

    The only way to retain a politicians fidelity to the voters is through constant pressure and threat of firing his ass. Take that away and the influence of lobbyists and bureaucrats will come to dominate his worldview.

  • sloopyinca||

    You wanna come down to CA-21 and help unseat Devin Nunes? He's a lion-tower, so I expect him to vote however the Oompa-Loompa tells him to vote.

    And yes, I am serious.

  • ||

    I'd donate to this campaign.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I'll donate to your campaign at the very least.

  • sloopyinca||

    Nunes voted No. Looks like I'm going to wait until another occasion to announce my candidacy.

  • Sevo||

    'Nother OT:
    Wife and I tour north up the CA coast from SF. Pretty weather, pretty views, good food, and then we pass a ranch in Sonoma County signed clearly as "permanently protected". I can't say for a fact, but I'd bet that ol' bottom dollar that this means the land can *never* be used for anything other than farmland.
    Now this means that someone has the capability to "permanently protect" this farmland, and is stupid enough to presume they can decide the highest and best use of a piece of land in perpetuity.
    Who might this be? Some google-foo says the "permanent protection" is "granted" (you might use a different word) by, yep, a government agency; this one: http://www.sonomaopenspace.org/
    Notice they call themselves and "org", but check the site; it is 100% funded by government, and uses government coercion to enforce its "protection".
    And they got the voters of Sonoma County to agree! Hey, even SF isn't *that* stupid!

  • Hyperion||

    It's been too long since we have had a thread about the terrible marijuana scourge that has been unleashed upon an unsuspecting citizenry in WA and CO.

    Where is our president on this? Does he realize that they are opening up dens of iniquity in Denver where people are allowed to gather to use illegal drugs?

    Pot clubs open in Denver

    What will the president have to say after reefer maddened zombies are prowling the streets of Denver, feasting on the flesh of our children? Why does the president hate the children?

  • sloopyinca||

  • ||

    I'm ok with Reid coaching us. But I do not want Vick as our QB.

  • waaminn||

    That whoel thing soudns kinda scary to me dude.

    www.DareAnon.tk

  • CLM1227||

    I find it very difficult to listen to lessons in morality from progressives.

    Haidt proposes that most ethical thinking is intuitive and rests on six evolved psychological/emotional foundations: (1) care/harm; (2) fairness/cheating: (3) liberty/oppression; (4) loyalty/betrayal; (5) authority/subversion; (6) sanctity/degradation

    I feel that this is inadequate. They forgot to ground it in a worldview. What is fair to a liberal is not fair to a conservative. Same goes for a number of these categories.

    It sounds like B.S.

  • Sevo||

    Surprised you haven't gotten a response.

    "Haidt proposes that most ethical thinking is intuitive and rests on six evolved psychological/emotional foundations: (1) care/harm; (2) fairness/cheating: (3) liberty/oppression; (4) loyalty/betrayal; (5) authority/subversion; (6) sanctity/degradation"

    If so, Haidt reverses the claims of Napoleon that there is no room for a god in there. His claim is that there is no room for logic in there.

  • Banjos||

  • ||

    Cthulhu has been asking the same question.

  • ||

    Home already? I thought like 2 months in hospital?

  • sloopyinca||

    That was our original expectation as well as that of the surgical/medical teams. She has been a "best-case" baby every step of the way, and we got her home on Christmas Day.

    Just a miracle to be honest with you.

  • ||

    GREAT news!

  • sloopyinca||

    You're telling me. We went to her first doctor's wellness appt yesterday and all they had to say was that she's ahead of every schedule for every developmental aspect of the omphalocele as well as lung/heart growth and capacity, which is a problem area a lot of the time with babies that have this malformation.

    We meet the surgical team for their first follow-up next week and I'm curious to see what they think.

  • juris imprudent||

    Been a long time since I said "too cute".

  • sloopyinca||

    Thanks. Notice she's using the Reasonable extension?

  • sloopyinca||

    Oh, sweet mother of fuck. Matt Millen is doing the Orange Bowl? God dammit!

  • ||

    Well, I will end up spending the first half watching Philadelphia's version of Mardi Gras.

    Hopefully NIU makes a game of it, as I would love to see a reenactment of the Boise St/OU thriller from a few years ago.

  • JeremyR||

    He does to TV broadcasts what he did to the Detroit Lions.

    How does this clown keep getting hired? For anything except appearing at children's parties

  • sloopyinca||

    He can't appear at children's parties because I heard he a sex offender? I know he hasn't denied it.

  • ||

    Neither has Harry Reid!

  • écharpe burberry||

    What a fool. If you oppose a law, work to change it, don't just violate it.

  • z80kid||

    This whole article is propaganda. From the first paragraph on it measures "caring about the environment" on one's support for federal environmental laws.

    Most of the people I know in my neck of the woods are hunting, fishing, and camping conservatives. They have a vested interest in the environment. But by the standards in this article, they don't care about the environment because they don't believe in AGW.

    Waste of a read.

  • دردشة العراق||

    thank you

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement