Political Thread Of Fail And AIDS (Geeto ahead!)

[Geeto67]

So are you saying that if Leonardo Dicaprio got a southwest flight from LA to NY with the general public it would actually be worse for the environment than if he flew on a private jet essentially by himself?

 

Depends on a lot of factors. You can't say something is objectively better or worse without factoring in the data.

 

The problem with the way you phrase it, is that it focuses on one person, which is a stupid way to look at it. If you are looking at per person emissions, the airliner will always look better because it's basically a city bus in the sky - it has lots of people to spread the emissions load over, vs a private jet which at most has a 12 person capacity. Doesn't mean the Airliner isn't a dirtier way to travel, it just means we are moving more people.

 

How about this instead: Leonard DiCaprio takes off off from NY to Dallas Texas using a Falcon 7x at 5:30 am on a Wednesday. His plane has a crew of 4 and he has 6 guests. At the same time there is a commuter flight 737 taking off right behind his aircraft on the same route under-booked with 15 people on-board plus a crew of 5.

 

here is some more info:

- a Falcon 7x burns 347 gallons per hour. A 737 burns 750 gallons per hour. The Falcon has a cruise of 559mph vs the 737s 564mph.

 

- Leo is making this trip once there and once a week later on the way back. The Airline runs this route at this time weekly regardless as to whether it is overbooked or underbooked.

 

- the route is approx 1500 miles, average flight time is about 4 hours 30 minutes weather permitting.

 

Which is worse for the environment? Please calculate for that day, for the 2 weeks, and for the month.

 

Does adding more people make the airliner cleaner?

 

Please show your work.

[BStowers023]

See your big flaw here is that you are saying Leo = Every pedestrian on a commercial flight. You are wanting me to calculate it by airline when the point I am making is that Leo would save emissions by flying with the general public, but he's too good for that so he's willing to sacrifice our environment for his comfort. Yet he will speak out about how we need to all come together and better the environment.

 

With all of that being said, I would do exactly the same as he does and fly private if I had the means. What I wouldn't do is speak out about an issue that I don't in fact practice myself. It's the whole Hollywood not practicing what they preach. Similar situation is Cunty Perry, I mean Katy* telling everyone in society that we all need to learn how to live together and co-exist with love and peace while she tweets behind her gated compound with armed security.

[Geeto67]

See your big flaw here is that you are saying Leo = Every pedestrian on a commercial flight. You are wanting me to calculate it by airline when the point I am making is that Leo would save emissions by flying with the general public, but he's too good for that so he's willing to sacrifice our environment for his comfort. Yet he will speak out about how we need to all come together and better the environment.

 

I set the question up so that you could calculate it by airline, by person, and by overall efficiency. You chose only to look at it by airline. You are trying to say it is environmentally damaging because it is economically inefficient to have Leo fly private when a seat on an airliner would be available to him, it's a false equivalency. The correct answer is...complicated: overall the Falcon is emitting less than the 737, and per person an underbooked airliner and a private jet can come in about the same on the emissions front. If all the famous people flew the airline there would be no need for private, but it would cost the airline and both airport terminals more money in extra security thus driving up fees in operation, and not really reduce all that much emissions because it isn't like Leo is flying to Dallas twice a day every day of every month for a year.

 

What in the world does being "too good" have to do with it. Some famous people fly private because flying the airlines puts extra strain and cost on the airline and airport facilities with the extra security measures. The last thing you want from a security standpoint is a panic in your terminal because everyone want's leo's autograph. And could you imagine the airplane if he had to sit in coach and everyone wanted to get an autograph? Some fly commercial but have to fly private in some cases because there is not a commercial flight to the city they want to do to. It's not really always about comfort. Could you still say Leo flying commercial was the emissions friendly choice when he has to fly from Dallas to Plattsburg, NY where nearest commercial is 4 hours drive away (or he can take a prop commuter) but the local airport could support his Falcon?

 

The overall point I am trying to make, which went sailing over your head like a falcon and a 737 both bound for Dallas, is that there are many ways to look at the information and draw environmental conclusions. Looking only at one piece and making an overarching declarative statement like you have is very narrow minded...which coming from someone whose common sense can't alert him to when something is white supremacist propaganda is about par for the course.

 

The reason they calculate average per person emissions is that it is a translatable data point. You can look at the average emissions that a person is responsible for across the planes he flies on, the car he drives, the appliances he buys and get a general sense of the overall emissions. Then you can generally target the areas for reductions.

 

Small private jets are always cleaner than a big dirty airliner (which are way cleaner than they used to be), but it is economically in-efficient to have everyone fly private, just as it is economically inefficient to have airline flights operating under capacity. But, and you should know this as an advocate of free markets, the current situation with airlines and private is at it's maximum efficiency given the circumstances (because the market always normalizes), and it would require some outside force like legislation or technological advancement to drive a change.

 

With all of that being said, I would do exactly the same as he does and fly private if I had the means. What I wouldn't do is speak out about an issue that I don't in fact practice myself. It's the whole Hollywood not practicing what they preach. Similar situation is Cunty Perry, I mean Katy* telling everyone in society that we all need to learn how to live together and co-exist with love and peace while she tweets behind her gated compound with armed security.

 

So this isn't about the environment at all, this is just you wanting to shit on people with your moral superiority. Quelle surprise.

[Geeto67]

I'm going to take a page from the BStowers play book and post some highly opinionated polarizing nonsense just to get the conservatives worked into a frothy foam. Look at this Jackass:

 

http://theslot.jezebel.com/us-congressman-instructs-members-of-christendom-to-murd-1795814467

 

Here’s what Higgins wrote, in a Facebook post that he clearly would have vastly preferred be delivered orally 900 years ago to a group of bleeding knights in a ditch outside Jerusalem:

 

The free world... all of Christendom... is at war with Islamic horror. Not one penny of American treasure should be granted to any nation who harbors these heathen animals. Not a single radicalized Islamic suspect should be granted any measure of quarter. Their intended entry to the American homeland should be summarily denied. Every conceivable measure should be engaged to hunt them down. Hunt them, identity them, and kill them. Kill them all. For the sake of all that is good and righteous. Kill them all.

 

-Captain Clay Higgins

 

fortunately, most of the media seems to be ignoring this.

[BStowers023]

So this isn't about the environment at all, this is just you wanting to shit on people with your moral superiority. Quelle surprise.

 

 

I originally typed out a big counter response to continue this argument but I'm just going to end at least this debate with calling you a fucking douchebag because that's what you are. No way you have any friends or people who enjoy being around you if this is how you act in person

[Mallard]

I'm going to take a page from the BStowers play book and post some highly opinionated polarizing nonsense just to get the conservatives worked into a frothy foam. Look at this Jackass:

 

http://theslot.jezebel.com/us-congressman-instructs-members-of-christendom-to-murd-1795814467

 

 

 

fortunately, most of the media seems to be ignoring this.

You also missed the 2 Breitbart reporters calling for modern crusades.

 

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[Geeesammy]

Frontbutt gonna frontbutt

[Geeto67]

I originally typed out a big counter response to continue this argument but I'm just going to end at least this debate with calling you a fucking douchebag because that's what you are. No way you have any friends or people who enjoy being around you if this is how you act in person

 

nobody likes a sore loser.

 

This is your thread, these are the things you want to discuss...you are really going to get all butt hurt because someone points out something you are actually doing? I thought you were made of stronger stuff.

 

Point to the part of this sentence that is actually about the environment and not just you questioning the integrity of people you don't know:

 

I would do exactly the same as he does and fly private if I had the means. What I wouldn't do is speak out about an issue that I don't in fact practice myself.

 

"I wouldn't do what the rich billionaire does because I have integrity and he doesn't" is what this translates to. Do you somehow not agree?

 

You also missed the 2 Breitbart reporters calling for modern crusades.

 

Probably because I don't read Breitbart. I only saw this because I read jalopnik and they cross promote articles, and I used to live in Louisiana. Higgins life story is a model for how a fanatical populist nutjob can fail his way into congress.

[BStowers023]

nobody likes a sore loser.

 

This is your thread, these are the things you want to discuss...you are really going to get all butt hurt because someone points out something you are actually doing? I thought you were made of stronger stuff.

 

No, you're just annoying as fuck. You literally can never be wrong. Even when you are and you recognize it, you skew some sort of bullshit argument and then call whoever is arguing against a moron or a jackass or some other insult followed by conservative. It's literally no different than me calling you a liberal fuckboy, the only difference is I don't pretend have some moral high ground like you. I'll admit I'm an asshole and quite frankly I don't give a fuck. I'll call it how I see and I see you as a pussy ass bitch that thinks he's better than everyone. How's that for stronger stuff, pussy?

[Geeto67]

No, you're just annoying as fuck. You literally can never be wrong.

 

Is this a competition? If it is who is judging and what is the criteria? (and how many points do I have?) Are you just not open to the concept that both viewpoints can be right and wrong on various points because of the distortion of point of view or the omission of facts?

 

The point of political discourse from my perspective is that you explain your point of view, and I explain mine, we agree and dismiss the common ground and then focus on the points where we disagree and discuss to find out why. It seems to me that the point of these discussions for you isn't about listening to another viewpoint or dissecting the difference but as a sounding board for why you are right and we are somehow in competition. I learn a lot from these little chats we have, it's interesting because I am not capable of thinking the way you do - but something tells me you don't get out of it the same thing.

 

 

Even when you are and you recognize it, you skew some sort of bullshit argument and then call whoever is arguing against a moron or a jackass or some other insult followed by conservative.

 

I'd say this is a pot and kettle situation but really I don't want to have another conversation with Orion and Mensan about the entomology of that phrase.

 

it's a message board, and honestly this is the discourse that CR supports. Don't like it complain to the mods.

 

It's literally no different than me calling you a liberal fuckboy, the only difference is I don't pretend have some moral high ground like you.

 

You have in the past (maybe not those exact words) and honestly I don't really care.

 

I honestly can't believe you typed this with a straight face:

I don't pretend have some moral high ground

 

immediately after typing this:

What I wouldn't do is speak out about an issue that I don't in fact practice myself.

 

this is almost the definition of "moral high ground" but somehow you don't count it because...what...you don't know anybody famous personally?

 

 

I'll admit I'm an asshole and quite frankly I don't give a fuck. I'll call it how I see and I see you as a pussy ass bitch that thinks he's better than everyone. How's that for stronger stuff, pussy?

 

You're cute when you are angry. This is adorable. Weak as wet toilet paper.

[Mallard]

nobody likes a sore loser.

 

This is your thread, these are the things you want to discuss...you are really going to get all butt hurt because someone points out something you are actually doing? I thought you were made of stronger stuff.

 

Point to the part of this sentence that is actually about the environment and not just you questioning the integrity of people you don't know:

 

 

 

"I wouldn't do what the rich billionaire does because I have integrity and he doesn't" is what this translates to. Do you somehow not agree?

 

 

 

Probably because I don't read Breitbart. I only saw this because I read jalopnik and they cross promote articles, and I used to live in Louisiana. Higgins life story is a model for how a fanatical populist nutjob can fail his way into congress.

I don't read Breitbart either, but it made news (and fake news) pages. They said it on Twitter, at least one of them was actually fired for it, although she had said stuff like this in the past with no recourse.

 

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[BStowers023]

Who said I was angry? I'm simply calling you a fucking pussy because that's what I believe you are. I can call you that and not be angry, clown.

[Geeto67]

I don't read Breitbart either, but it made news (and fake news) pages. They said it on Twitter, at least one of them was actually fired for it, although she had said stuff like this in the past with no recourse.

 

Crusade is one of those words that GWB kinda ruined for every american president afterwards. It's such a common word, but politically it just stands for a religious conflict and given the current climate I am not surprised anybody is drawing those parallels.

 

so...I go to brietbart's home page and this is the top headline:

Ratings: ‘Sunday Night with Megyn Kelly’ Premiere Loses to Rerun of ’60 Minutes’ in Total Viewers

 

*puts on tinfoil conspiracy hat

 

considering how focused the POTUS has been on TV ratings, esp of those that are critical of him, I wonder how much influence the White House has on these headlines?

 

It could be that they are just really good at knowing what Trump wants to see....or....they could be getting information and direction from the administration in conflict of existing ethics rules now that we know those rules and things like the emoluments clause have almost no enforcement teeth.

[Geeto67]

Who said I was angry? I'm simply calling you a fucking pussy because that's what I believe you are. I can call you that and not be angry, clown.

 

LOL

[Geeesammy]

If i was middle aged and balding with a front butt the size of big sur id be argumentative as well

[Geeto67]

If i was middle aged and balding with a front butt the size of big sur id be argumentative as well

 

Balding? you really don't know what I look like do you? And you internet stalk me so either you are the laziest internet stalker alive, really suck at it, or you have literally run out of things to make fun of me for so now you are just lying. Either way it's sad. Like really sad.

[BStowers023]

Excited for this to come out

 

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/no-safe-spaces-college-university#/

 

I won't be surprised if some college campuses *cough* UC Berkeley *cough* riot before these guys even show up on campus :dumb:

[TTQ B4U]

Excited for this to come out

 

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/no-safe-spaces-college-university#/

 

I won't be surprised if some college campuses *cough* UC Berkeley *cough* riot before these guys even show up on campus :dumb:

 

 

If grown men and woman actually needs "safe spaces" to go color, play with clay and generally deal with anything related to what's going on in this let alone any gov't administration, their going to have an extremely difficult time addressing life in the real world. WTF is this world coming to...

[BStowers023]

If grown men and woman actually needs "safe spaces" to go color, play with clay and generally deal with anything related to what's going on in this let alone any gov't administration, their going to have an extremely difficult time addressing life in the real world. WTF is this world coming to...

 

Pretty soon there will be advocates for safe spaces in the military :lolguy:

[SpaceGhost]

Is Adam Carolla actually pan handeling to make a movie? I'm guessing even Jimmy Kimmel told him to take a hike.

[Geeto67]

Excited for this to come out

 

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/no-safe-spaces-college-university#/

 

I won't be surprised if some college campuses *cough* UC Berkeley *cough* riot before these guys even show up on campus :dumb:

 

yeah because that's the only way you seem to think people react to this intentionally offensive nonsense. :dumb:

 

 

If grown men and woman actually needs "safe spaces" to go color, play with clay and generally deal with anything related to what's going on in this let alone any gov't administration, their going to have an extremely difficult time addressing life in the real world. WTF is this world coming to...

 

1) For someone whose mantra seems to be all about personal liberty, I am always surprised you have an very restrictive opinion on what a private, non governmental, institutions can do. You don't like what a private college is doing? great - don't attend. It isn't like you don't have a choice.

 

2) I don't know why but I always imagine you thinking a safe space is a physical room people can hide away from other in. Maybe it is because you talk about it that way. And while those do exist in a completely different context, All a "Safe Space" is in the context of a collegiate institution is a policy that doesn't tolerate harassment or violence against women, minorities, and LGBT students. Considering that harassment and violence against women and minorities are covered by hate crime laws but LGBT is not, the safe space policies benefit the LGBT community the most. In practice, you can privately hate gay people all you want, you can think whatever you want about LGBT lifestyle, but you can't walk around campus calling the kid in eyeshadow "faggot" and then beat the shit out of him on Saturday night after you get drunk. You know, how these things used to go down years ago.

 

You can bitch and moan and whine that you think people are going to be too soft without dipshit jocks walking around calling them queers, and faggots, but honestly that's just stupid. We shouldn't need anti-harassment/violence policies against LGBT people because generally people should try not to be assholes to other people...but here we are.

 

To put it simply - to be against "safe spaces" you are anti-personal liberty and anti-LGBT. If you are ok with then then fine, so be it.

 

Pretty soon there will be advocates for safe spaces in the military :lolguy:

 

Safe spaces (as I am sure you are thinking about it - the room kind) already exist in the military - they are part of psychological treatment usually associated with PTSD. As for Military policies against harassment and violence...well you have to solve the rape problem in the military first - that is of course unless you like rape.

[Geeto67]

Is Adam Carolla actually pan handeling to make a movie? I'm guessing even Jimmy Kimmel told him to take a hike.

 

Everyone should tell him to take a hike. There is nothing I can think of wanting to hear less than an opinion on colleges and tolerance from a guy who never went to college (carolla) and an open anti-arab bigot who thinks white privilege is a myth because white men commit suicide more often (prager).

Edited June 12, 2017 by Geeto67

[TTQ B4U]

1) For someone whose mantra seems to be all about personal liberty, I am always surprised you have an very restrictive opinion on what a private, non governmental, institutions can do. You don't like what a private college is doing? great - don't attend. It isn't like you don't have a choice.

 

I don't care what these colleges do.

 

I don't know why but I always imagine you thinking a safe space is a physical room people can hide away from other in.

 

not sure why you assume I always anything. point being though, many colleges have come forth with exactly what I described.

 

To put it simply - to be against "safe spaces" you are anti-personal liberty and anti-LGBT. If you are ok with then then fine, so be it.

I stand by my pretty simple point.

[BStowers023]

So a "Safe-Space" is supposed to deter people who commit hate crimes? This is the same logic as making guns illegal will prevent gun crimes. It's a joke. Protect yourself by all means necessary. Do I think it's okay to commit a hate crime? Absolutely not, but you're living in some bubble if you truly believe creating a "Safe-Space" will prevent anything. What a crock of shit. Guess what, breaking and entering into someone's home is illegal, do I rely on a law that states that it's illegal? Nope, I keep a loaded .357 magnum on my night stand and a Remington 12GA next to my bed. If I go buy something off craigslist from a stranger or am working in a sketchy area, do I rely on a law that says murder is illegal? No, I bring my gun with me just in case. That's the problem, everyone wants to complain instead of actually taking care of themselves. If you think it's a real problem, go take MMA self defense classes, carry a weapon, do what the fuck you have to do. Somewhere in the midst of all of this liberal agenda BULLSHIT, doing what the fuck you have to do to survive has been lost.

[Geeto67]

I don't care what these colleges do.

 

Clearly you do, if colleges weren't being accommodating on this issue I doubt you would have this vocal an opinion about it.

 

 

 

point being though, many colleges have come forth with exactly what I described.

 

we have talked about those before. Physical "safe spaces" and the alternative therapies that go with them come from psychological treatment and have had their best success in treating veterans for PTSD and other combat related psychological trauma. College are self contained communities that have a variety of their own issues to deal with, including a variety of psychological ones that lead to an above average suicide rate. I am not comparing student trauma to combat trauma, but what's wrong with using something that works for veterans for other groups that might also be served by the same treatment? because you think it is going to make them sissies? because it doesn't sound tough?

 

Either way it still isn't the same "safe space" we are talking about when an institution declares itself a "safe space" by enacting policies to address inequality.

 

I stand by my pretty simple point.

 

And that point is what exactly? that safe space sounds weak and not macho and therefore private citizens should reject it and institutions should shun it at the cost of enabling discrimination?

 

 

So a "Safe-Space" is supposed to deter people who commit hate crimes? This is the same logic as making guns illegal will prevent gun crimes. It's a joke. Protect yourself by all means necessary. Do I think it's okay to commit a hate crime? Absolutely not, but you're living in some bubble if you truly believe creating a "Safe-Space" will prevent anything. What a crock of shit. Guess what, breaking and entering into someone's home is illegal, do I rely on a law that states that it's illegal? Nope, I keep a loaded .357 magnum on my night stand and a Remington 12GA next to my bed. If I go buy something off craigslist from a stranger or am working in a sketchy area, do I rely on a law that says murder is illegal? No, I bring my gun with me just in case. That's the problem, everyone wants to complain instead of actually taking care of themselves. If you think it's a real problem, go take MMA self defense classes, carry a weapon, do what the fuck you have to do. Somewhere in the midst of all of this liberal agenda BULLSHIT, doing what the fuck you have to do to survive has been lost.

 

wow. just wow. you literally have no idea how law and policy works.

 

Let's break it down: Our entire system of laws is predicated in part, but not whole, on deterrence through punishment. Another part is more of a credit system regarding harm to society involving money and time, another is about being consistent about the approach to a problem, and yet another is more about enabling certain people/groups/institutions to take action against specific action in the first place and not leaving it up to interpretation from a broader policy/law.

 

There are a certain number of people that a harsh punishment attached to a law deters from committing the crime. It doesn't stop everyone, but it does stop some. Is it a good system? I don't know but it works to some extent and until someone comes up with something better - it is what we have. when it comes to the policy of a private institution, they are free to enact anything they like within the boundaries of those laws, and most follow the same pattern.

 

So if it doesn't fully deter, then why the more narrow policy? Well in the past colleges would normally have a broad policy that takes action against students that have broken a law, with some discretion to the type of law broken. Speeding tickets? they ignore. The occasional fight? probably probation. Theft, destruction of property, sexual assault? usually expulsion. They also had policies for behavior that wasn't illegal per se such as drinking on campus (even if you are over 21) and not paying your bill. In the case of policies that relied on law, usually there had to be a conviction to take ultimate action - accusation wasn't enough to do anything other than temporary if at all. By enacting policies above and beyond the law, the university can take action without a conviction.

 

Remember, attendance at a university is contractual. The university cannot break it's contract with a student unless there is a violation of the university policies which are incorporated as terms of the contract. If there is no policy, then there is nothing by which the contract can be broken.

 

When you look back at the history of LGBT and it's treatment by institutions there generally weren't any policies that would separate it out from other things like the random fight or sexual assault. This lead to a very inconsistent enforcement policy and a lot of abuse in the system that sometimes even negatively affected the victim. Additionally, as the same "crimes" motivated by racial or gender difference became elevated to hate crime, the inconsistency widened and started to send the signal that LGBT people were considered a lesser group by the institution.

 

A private university is a corporation, and like every other corporation it's policies protect the institution first and foremost. Having a policy that restores consistency to acts committed against LGBT people means that the institution reduces it's civil legal exposure, and elevating that policy to the same treatment as racially or gender motivated acts, means it avoids sending the wrong signal and the negative PR that usually accompanies that.

 

I don't mean to make it sound like the university is completely self serving - how does it protect the students? by offering at least a predictable and consistent institutional approach that gives them a baseline from which to work off of so they can take further action to protect themselves. Also the policy means it is more attractive for a greater diversity of students to attend the school and the student body benefits from overall diversity of experience as well as a consistent approach to education.

 

The overall goal of the policy isn't to prevent everyone from committing the prohibited action, but it takes out some of the uncertainty in how it will be dealt with should it happen and keeps the university from being sued from allowing something like this to happen without exhausting it's preventative options.

 

understand?