David Brooks on the Newshour:

All my life, I have had a certain idea of about America, that we're a flawed country, but we're fundamentally a force for good in the world, that we defeated Soviet Union, we defeated fascism, we did the Marshall Plan, we did PEPFAR to help people live in Africa. And we make mistakes, Iraq, Vietnam, but they're usually mistakes out of stupidity, naivete and arrogance. They're not because we're ill-intentioned.

Apropos of what I was saying. Very typical. Laughable.

What are your thoughts on the decision to fight the revolutionary war and declare independence from Great Britain? Justified or no? — BitconnectCarlos

I think they had good reasons, yes. I’m also mostly in favor of slave revolts— like the one seen on October 7th. Don’t like seeing innocent people killed— but hey, as you said, “that’s war.” You make a strong case for Hamas. Especially considering they’ve killed far less people than the Israeli or US government.

Oh wait— right, you’re just rooting for your team and everyone else is antisemitic. Scratch all that: just replace Hamas with Israel and the same arguments hold — always justified in killing.

:100:

But having been a moderator myself, I can sympathize — you can’t be everywhere at once. I think perhaps most mods also have a different opinion on climate change. It’s fine— I’ll just discuss this particular topic privately and on other websites.

Since the climate change threads are allowed to become a cesspool of denial and misinformation, I’m no longer posting on them— I’ve moved any serious discussion to private group chat. Feel free to message to join if you haven’t been invited already. :up:

defend themselves — BitconnectCarlos

Yeah yeah yeah. Like when the US invaded Vietnam because it was “defending” Vietnam.

Everything is defensive when it’s your team. And intellectually bankrupt apologists don’t have the slightest self-reflection to see it. But it’s conventional, and common. You’re in a large company.

think this mineral deal is no longer about the war, but a way for Ukraine to barter for continued US involvement in the post-war rebuilding. — Tzeentch

Certainly.

Putin is weak and on the ropes. — Punshhh

Nope.

What Trump wants is money. — ssu

I think it’s power and praise. A Nobel prize would be nice. Plus war is costly and unpopular. He’s driven by media, as well, and can read the writings on the wall. He likes money too, of course, but I don’t think that’s a major factor here.

It’s good that Trump wants peace. How he’s going about it is, as usual, a disaster. But hopefully something happens.

Russia will keep the territory they annexed and there will be a guarantee of no NATO membership— either that happens or there’s no end to the war, other than a ceasefire and a long cold war. If Trump actually pushes for that, I’d be surprised.

I don’t think Ukraine could ever agree to it— but without US support they have 0 chance of taking back territory, let alone “winning” the war. They’re not going to win even with US backing. Maybe when Zelensky is out, things change. But it’s unclear to me what exactly happens here, with a mineral deal.

I heard carbon monoxide more specifically. But I don’t think they know yet— nor why (ordinary) pills were scattered everywhere.

He was very old in any case— but still. I’d like to know, just out of curiosity.

Gene Hackman. That’s a big one.

You may not care whether a death was intended or not, but civilized nations do. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, the same civilized nations that murder with impunity, because their intentions are always humanitarian. If you believe all that, you’re welcome.

But speaking of taking action, I think some little twit following me around, slinging insults and interjecting himself in things I haven’t once involved him in, is certainly actionable. Borderline harassment, one night say.

Just sayin’. But it is certainly funny.

No one cares what you think. Least of all the moderators. Sorry that it triggers you.

(Actually, I’m not— it’s making my night to see your pretentiousness and hypocrisy prominently displayed.)

Looks like the courts are blocking most of these bogus executive orders. Not too surprising.

You would certainly know. You’re behaving like one.

Wolff is fantastic.

:lol:

:: shrug ::

Ok. Next time you exhume a dead thread for no reason other than some weird obsession/vendetta, take your own advice. Cool? Good— now run along, risible child.

:lol:

I love it when pretentious, sanctimonious lecturers of manners and positivity reveal themselves for what they are. It’s risible.

Its beyond me why we allow a child to run around this forum insulting everyone, — AmadeusD

You're a dick. — AmadeusD

:lol:

(Risible.)

Oh cool, it’s “risible” guy again. Yeah, coming from you I’m sure this all means a lot. Contributions like “What a thread” and laughing emojis really deepen the forum.

I hope you find something that brings you joy in life. This forum clearly isn’t it.

(PS—1. I only insult rude, sanctimonious twits; fortunately they’re a small minority— I’m good with everyone else. 2. If asking whether it’s cool if I start a separate thread is “insane,” maybe try a little self reflection. 3.— not sure where this obsession with me started, as I have no memory of you, but it does give me great joy that my presence here triggers you so. Must be rough. But also risible.)

Watched “The Apartment” (1960) and “It Happened One Night” (1934). Both good. I never saw either.

Is intention morally relevant to you? — BitconnectCarlos

Minimally. Why? Because professing benign intentions is the norm for states (and individuals) that commit crimes.

You do realize intention isn't purely internal, correct? — BitconnectCarlos

Hence why they’re professed.

I think you'd really like the climate change subreddit. — frank

:up:

But just as you can't troll, you can't bully either. — frank

I’m actually really nice. If people were equally nice, there’d be no problems.

I picked up on that bit from your OP. Sounds like a new rule for all posts. — Fire Ologist

No. Staying on topic isn’t a new thing.

universal rule — Fire Ologist

I haven’t once mentioned universal rules. The question was clear and simple. That people are struggling with it by — for various reasons — turning it into something it isn’t, really isn’t my problem. (But goes to show just what “studying philosophy” can do to the mind — and why most people should probably avoid it.)

Let the bombs and missiles fly! The Palestinians, like the Germans, need to get stomped on till they too wouldn't dream of ever voting in someone like Hamas again. — RogueAI

Usually something this gross doesn’t get said out loud. But I appreciate the transparency.

ISIS doesn't have an air force either. — BitconnectCarlos

True.

special stricture — Leontiskos

Nothing special about it.

Staying on topic isn’t that hard to enforce. I’ve done it; you’ve done it.

Also, I’d refer to this:

you may express yourself strongly as long as it doesn't disrupt a thread or degenerate into flaming

as basically what I was asking about. If it’s found to be the case that making a more specific thread is just as hard to moderate, fine.

I don’t see why people who want to discuss a particular topic must inevitably be disrupted and drowned out by useless “debate,” but so be it. In that case I should go to all the “God” threads, ignore the specific topic, and just bring the conversation back to how God doesn’t exist. Then keep doing so, even if ignored. I’m sure that would be within the spirit of the forum.

When Hamas gets an Air Force, let me know. But since they’ll be doing it with evil intentions in their hearts, I don’t see how it would change things.

climate change skepticism has to do with the effects of climate change. — Leontiskos

No it doesn’t. Any more than Holocaust denial “has to do” with the consequences of the Holocaust. You can make up a story about how “Gee, they ARE talking about the consequences—they just believe the consequences were nil,” but I don’t have time for silliness.

Accidental, intentional... doesn't matter. — BitconnectCarlos

When we do it it’s always with the best intentions.

What country do you live in? — RogueAI

It’s right there in my profile.

that is not the same as shooting a baby at point blank range — BitconnectCarlos

True, there is no moral equivalence. Bombing from the air is morally worse. But I’m glad you can see into people’s souls now. When they kill, it’s because of race and evil intentions — when we do it, it’s accidental and unintended.

You’re in good company though — basic tribalism. Your equivalent is out there, only they justify Hamas’ killings. And have better arguments.

rejected — BitconnectCarlos

Nope — laughed at it.

Yep. If you make a thread on geophysics or evolution, then posts from flat-earthers and creationists would be on topic. I'm glad you're figuring this out. :up: — Leontiskos

Then it’s truly remarkable how wanting to avoid those discussions by narrowing the conversation down in a separate thread is considered problematic. According to you, there’s basically no way to do so. Fine—point made. I don’t agree.

It's instructive that it is not only your opponents who believe you are attempting to prevent free expression, but ↪even those who agree with you. — Leontiskos

So is there an actual problem with reading comprehension here? Or are you just being lazy? Or perhaps just wanting to be silly for some reason?

The suggestion isn’t to prevent free expression, however ignorant, or to ban anyone— however deserving.
— Mikie

Whereas my suggestion is precisely the opposite, to prevent the expression of nonsense and rubbish, and ban people who persist in so doing. I guess it must be an ideological disagreement. — unenlightened

How someone can read this and conclude that he believes I’m attempting to “prevent free speech,” I don’t know. But you do you.

My ↪point was that the topic as you defined it includes the folks you are attempting to exclude. This is no coincidence. — Leontiskos

Yeah, and geophysics includes flat-earthers, and evolution includes creationists, etc. Got it. Whatever you say.

So this is another logical error, — Leontiskos

Which implies one has already been made. Which is not true, except my you.

Denying the Holocaust in a Holocaust thread is not against the philosophical ethos of the forum. — Leontiskos

Then your idea of what the “ethos” of the forum is is your own problem.

I don’t see any issue whatsoever with keeping things on topic, and don’t see it contravening anything— whether it’s rules or poorly-defined spirits.

Speaking of which — I’m moving this to the other thread.

.

It's not about Climate Change Skepticism, but about Climate Change Amelioration Skepticism — kazan

I can’t say I fully understood all of your post, but appreciate the effort. There’s certainly a lot of debate about how best to mitigate the problems we’re already seeing and will continue to see. No doubt.

The OP was really just a question for moderators. It was about whether I could create another thread without it being considered redundant (and therefore merged). In retrospect I might have just submitted it to them privately —thus giving the many people who have a beef with me one less opportunity to display their motivated reasoning.