china and the US combined have far more more pollution than the rest of the top 20 combined like 3k metric tons more. China being almost double what the US does.
Maybe. But I mean, if a socialist means has extensive social programs, then most countries are socialist.
On the other hand, if it means communist, then I guess it's basically, what, China? North Korea? Neither of which have very large per capita CO2 emiisions.
america does 4 to 8 times as much as any of the individual country in the top twenty other than china. China does 8 to 16 times more than any other than america.
Also having socialist style programs in a capitalist country does not make the country socialist.
Also there aren't any communist countries left. China and north korea and both oligarchic totalitarian governments. A you can call a duck a goose all you want. Doesnt make it anything but a duck
2
deleted
· 5 years ago
Let's pretend China is a socialIst country for the sake of the argument, alright. Who are they producing most of their goods for?
lets not pretend something exactly contrary to fact. A lose of objectivity is all you gain from your proposed make believe making the entire point of the idea moot as it is objectively wrong.
China, India, US, Indonesia are the 4 largest populations (largest to lowest) it would stand to reason that they would be the highest consumers of resources.
Funny that of all the signers of the Paris Accords, only the US has reduced emissions since. All of your "wonderful" socalist countries have increased theirs. (Wall St Journal)
This isn't academia. This is the internet. If your source cannot be accessed it is not a source it is a thing you can point at and say "i paid for this." If i can't read your source without paying im going to ignore the parts of your argument that require it as will everyone else that anyone tries to use pay walled sources on. Hell even parts of academia will disallow pay walled sources in papers on certain subjects.
·
Edited 5 years ago
deleted
· 5 years ago
So if I choose a textbook as source for a claim, you'll not only feel free to ignore it as you'd have to pay for the book, but will even call it illegitimate? That's just ludicrous.
If the person you are in a debate with cannot access the information for free you cannot use it. That simple. No one is going to pay to debate on the internet and no one should be expected to accept information they cannot access to verify the legitimacy nor should anyone be expected to pay for said information to verify the claims of someone on the internet. It's not gonna happen, you aren't in academia you are in the closest thing to the real world that the internet can be on the surface web and if you want your points to be paid attention to you will find sources that anyone can access or suck it up and find a different point.
deleted
· 5 years ago
But you can have access if you want. You could choose to pay one (1) Dollar to access the source and find out or not to pay and say "Nah, I'm not that interested" or just say nothing. Instead you chose to just make up some random nonsense. But I get it, we're in the internet, the place where any moron can make up the rules according to which s/he's right.
What guest did is not citing a source. He cited the paper that published the source. A proper source has the name of the article, date and author, or just a simple link.
Since i don't know which specific article guest is talking about I don't knkw which date it's from, but with a little google search I found another article on the same matter from NY Times
(Here’s How Far the
World Is From Meeting
Its Climate Goals by Brad Plumer, New York Times, 6th November 2017)
Where it states that the US is not the only country who has reduced emissions. It quite clearly shows that the EU was already going down. Since my source states otherwise either guest is twisting what he read or either article is twisting the facts. Either way I'm sceptical until guest can give some more sources on that ONLY the US has reduced emissions.
Sorry, I'm afraid your arguments are completely illegitimate because you're not wearing a rainbow colored hat with a propeller on top while making them.
I updated the comment. Seems like my phone doesn't wanna copy from the google app.
.
Almost all news articles are biased. However, knowing my country and the EU I highly doubt the US is the only ones cutting down on emissions.
1
deleted
· 5 years ago
Ok, just found that this no paywalled source thing is a thing on some subreddits, mainly coming from the "why would I pay for anything on the net" faction. So @bethorien didn't make this up, my bad and my apologies. Still a foolish concept though
It's about as foolish a concept as people complaining about a multiplayer game being pay to win. One should not have to pay money to fully participate in a discussion on a free website.
▼
deleted
· 5 years ago
Oh, again with the absurd comparisons, way to go. So, if I quote a text from a paywalled source, it's not legit because you would have to pay to read the very same words for yourself? As you said, this is not academia, there is no debate prize to win, just a casual exchange of ideas, right? What if I made a screenshot of said text? I could still have it photoshopped, right? If I gave you my log-in and password to said paywalled source, that'd turn it magically into a legit source? What an "ability to logic" indeed...
If you quote text from a paywalled source its hearsay as the other people in the discussion cannot confirm it without paying.
Not only is it stupid to expect that anyone will ever pay to access the information to confirm your source (no one ever will) its stupid to act like people should have to.
Even ignoring the section about whether or not there is any reasonable expectation to be able to use a paywalled source (there is not, you have no reason to be able to use such a source) The amount of people that would ever be willing to accept a paywalled source as anything but hearsay is so small there isn't a point in trying to use it anyways.
▼
deleted
· 5 years ago
Your comment would probably make sense if you had read mine.
Even the friggin Buffalo need is paywalled. I have a log in for that rag. Does that mean that every story I read there is to be considered false if I reference it anywhere else? That’s insane. That means the only real sources you’d go suffer are the unbearable cunts at vox and buzzfeed
Its considered hearsay. Not to be taken as any further proof than an unsourced statement. As i said before even if we take away the "should you be allowed" part of the discussion there's still the "you'll never find a situation where a paywalled source will be given credence except by other's that have already paid to get through the wall"
It doesn't matter if you should or shouldnt use them no one will accept them as they cannot check your source without paying. No one is going to pay to check your sources. If your argument hinges on a single paywalled source and you can't find a source that's free it's not very strong anyways.
deleted
· 5 years ago
I love how you're really, really convinced that if you wouldn't do something, "no one" would. And that everything important to know must be for free. What a small, simple world you live in.
1. There's presentment on a very large portion of the internet that pay walled sources aren't accepted. The only people youll find that will accept paywalled sources are people that want to use paywalled sources.
2. "And that everything important to know must be for free." Any argument that doesn't work without a single source is a weak argument. If you can't find a free source to use don't make the argument. You're making up statements to make your point which shows you don't have an actual argument to make. If you don't know how to make your point without a strawman you don't need to be in any serious discussions
It’s funny that there are so many criticisms of capitalism posted on social media using portable information devices that suck in information just bouncing around near space. Capitalism drives the innovation that you use every day.
deleted
· 5 years ago
I agree if you're referring to people who claim to reject capitalism in its entirety. They have valid points, but the irony of a fiend of capitalism agitating on his/her Iphone on a Verizon data plan is solid. Criticism of capitalist excesses is legit though.
On the other hand, if it means communist, then I guess it's basically, what, China? North Korea? Neither of which have very large per capita CO2 emiisions.
Also having socialist style programs in a capitalist country does not make the country socialist.
TLDR - emission went down during the first months under his "government" but not because of his policies. Guess whose policies made for that drop. And guess whose policies (ie coal) are pretty likely to stop that trend.
.
Btw: " it's pay walled so its not to be considered a legitimate source" - that is peak bullsh!t.
(Here’s How Far the
World Is From Meeting
Its Climate Goals by Brad Plumer, New York Times, 6th November 2017)
Where it states that the US is not the only country who has reduced emissions. It quite clearly shows that the EU was already going down. Since my source states otherwise either guest is twisting what he read or either article is twisting the facts. Either way I'm sceptical until guest can give some more sources on that ONLY the US has reduced emissions.
.
Almost all news articles are biased. However, knowing my country and the EU I highly doubt the US is the only ones cutting down on emissions.
Not only is it stupid to expect that anyone will ever pay to access the information to confirm your source (no one ever will) its stupid to act like people should have to.
Even ignoring the section about whether or not there is any reasonable expectation to be able to use a paywalled source (there is not, you have no reason to be able to use such a source) The amount of people that would ever be willing to accept a paywalled source as anything but hearsay is so small there isn't a point in trying to use it anyways.
It doesn't matter if you should or shouldnt use them no one will accept them as they cannot check your source without paying. No one is going to pay to check your sources. If your argument hinges on a single paywalled source and you can't find a source that's free it's not very strong anyways.
2. "And that everything important to know must be for free." Any argument that doesn't work without a single source is a weak argument. If you can't find a free source to use don't make the argument. You're making up statements to make your point which shows you don't have an actual argument to make. If you don't know how to make your point without a strawman you don't need to be in any serious discussions