The US is Getting Hit By Extreme Weather From All Sides (nbcnews.com) 281
The hazards are many. And they seem to come in all forms. From a report: The southwestern U.S. is reeling from record rainfall and extensive flooding from a rare tropical storm. Much of the central and southern parts of the country are in the grips of yet another oppressive heat wave. Nearly two weeks after catastrophic wildfires devastated the Hawaiian island of Maui, more fires are raging in the Pacific Northwest. And after a quiet start to this year's Atlantic hurricane season, activity in the basin is ramping up. All told, the various extremes are making for a turbulent week in nearly every corner of the country. Climate scientists also say it's an all-too-real look at how global warming increases the risks -- and consequences -- of the deadly events. "We're looking at a multi-hazard situation, where we're being hit by a string of different events over a short period of time," said Gonzalo Pita, an associate scientist and expert in disaster risk modeling at Johns Hopkins University. "It's like a double or triple whammy, and when they happen frequently or at the same time, the negative effects are compounded."
While it's sometimes difficult to measure the exact role of climate change in any particular weather event, scientists know that global warming is having an overall effect on the frequency and severity of such events. Studies have shown, for instance, that heat waves and drought are more likely in a warming world. Dry conditions subsequently increase the risk of wildfires. Similarly, warmer-than-usual oceans are a key ingredient for tropical storms and hurricanes to form. A warmer atmosphere can also hold more moisture, making the storms rainier and likelier to cause flooding. Those types of compounding risks will be on full display this week. Tropical Storm Hilary on Sunday became the first to hit Southern California in 84 years, dumping record rain over the region and causing widespread flash flooding. Though Hilary has weakened into a post-tropical cyclone, 26 million people were still under flood alerts Monday across parts of California, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Oregon and Idaho.
While it's sometimes difficult to measure the exact role of climate change in any particular weather event, scientists know that global warming is having an overall effect on the frequency and severity of such events. Studies have shown, for instance, that heat waves and drought are more likely in a warming world. Dry conditions subsequently increase the risk of wildfires. Similarly, warmer-than-usual oceans are a key ingredient for tropical storms and hurricanes to form. A warmer atmosphere can also hold more moisture, making the storms rainier and likelier to cause flooding. Those types of compounding risks will be on full display this week. Tropical Storm Hilary on Sunday became the first to hit Southern California in 84 years, dumping record rain over the region and causing widespread flash flooding. Though Hilary has weakened into a post-tropical cyclone, 26 million people were still under flood alerts Monday across parts of California, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Oregon and Idaho.
Causality is unimportant. (Score:2)
The climate doesn't give a shit about who thinks what when it comes to causality. Good thing, too, because the entire planet could burn to a cinder, and at no point will the camps reach a consensus. I no longer worry in slightest about who believes what. It's completely unimportant. Whatever the climate does, that's what will need to be worked with.
I don't believe in the ability of the world to unify and make aligned decisions, so as far as I'm concerned, that's out. I suspect the ship has sailed on a lot o
Re: (Score:3)
I don't believe in the ability of the world to unify and make aligned decisions, so as far as I'm concerned, that's out.
We can do it, for example, switching away from CFCs to save the ozone layer. The ability to make such decisions is predicated on replacement technology existing, which it still doesn't yet for CO2. Technology is improving though, and when it arrives, we'll switch to it.
You should not expect people to make a massively expensive investment in energy when the problem can be solved by a much, much smaller investment in fire control (especially since fire control needs to be done anyway).
Re: (Score:2)
You should not expect people to make a massively expensive investment in energy when the problem can be solved by a much, much smaller investment in fire control (especially since fire control needs to be done anyway).
How is fire control going to stop coral bleaching, flooding, droughts, hurricanes, failed crops, etc. If only this were a mere one-dimensional problem but it's not and it doesn't just affect humans. The increased severity and frequency of these events is more than a mere inconvenience to us, it is pushing all of living things across the planet out of a stable equilibrium.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll go on a tangent here. My apologies.
The state of the ecosystems of the planet at any time is transitory. This state has never existed before, and it will never exist again. There's nothing "special" about this time, save for the fact that it happens to work really well for us. But this current balance is guaranteed to fade out no matter what we did, we do, or we don't do.
The planet is never in stable equilibrium, except on the timescale of a human lifetime. Not really. It is always moving to another sta
Re: (Score:2)
How is fire control going to stop coral bleaching, flooding, droughts, hurricanes, failed crops, etc.
It's not, but now you're just scaremongering.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the beauty of reality. It doesn't go away if you don't believe in it. It's not a religion.
Hurricane Hilary (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Hurricane Hilary (Score:5, Funny)
It's been a very nice, typical summer (Score:2)
It's been a very nice, typical summer here in the northeast. Wish it was hotter, it heats up my swimming pool more.
As usual it's cooling down as we approach Labor day, which is much nicer weather for motorcycle riding.
Re: (Score:2)
Cool story bro!
Re: (Score:2)
Cool story bro!
Getting cooler every day, bro!
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually been a cold summer in Canada. We didn't even get a heat wave at all. I used my pool I think 3 times back in June and it hasn't been really hot enough since for it.
Usually get at least 8 weeks of pool worthy weather, and at least 2 weeks of unbearable humid eat where you can barely sleep without 3 fans blowing or the AC turned on. Not this year.
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually been a cold summer in Canada. We didn't even get a heat wave at all. I used my pool I think 3 times back in June and it hasn't been really hot enough since for it.
Usually get at least 8 weeks of pool worthy weather, and at least 2 weeks of unbearable humid eat where you can barely sleep without 3 fans blowing or the AC turned on. Not this year.
If this keeps up were gonna need to install pool heaters.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's global warming season now, but global cooling season is upon us. That's the natural order of climate change.
There is a Simple Solution (Score:2)
Only question is who should volunteer?
Northeast (Score:2)
And this is why i still live in the north east. Other than extra Rain we have had a gorgeous summer. Even with a bit of smog feom Canadian bacon cookers.
Re: (Score:2)
The good part of the NE is that we have actual seasons. :D
Winter can be well below freezing and summer over 90.
It can be dry or wet or whatever.
I think the smoke from Canada is how they are attacking us.
They don't use armies but weather.
wildfires irrelevant (Score:2)
Can tell a blathering alarmist wrote the article when wildfires are included as climate issue. The natural periodic wildfires have become huge conflagrations because of man.
Re: What rights do you want now, you fucks? (Score:4, Insightful)
Outside of snark, do you actually have an idea of what we can/should do? Or are you one of those thinking we should blow our savings now before we die, screw the kids what have they done for us?
If we want a future for humans, even if you donâ(TM)t believe we caused it, should we fix it or start figuring out how to make our fallout shelters for the future?
It's so hot in Arizona right now... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's so hot in Arizona, if you accidently trip and fall, you might end up with life-threatening burns [cnn.com]. And if you don't fall, sometimes your shoes might melt right off [nypost.com].
Re: (Score:3)
I visited Arizona a decade ago and it was like that.
Re: (Score:3)
I visited Arizona a decade ago and it was like that.
1980s -- same.
Re: (Score:2)
It's so hot in Arizona, if you accidently trip and fall, you might end up with life-threatening burns
The same was true in Phoenix in the early 1980s. You could stand in the street and in minutes feel the heat burning through the sole of your shoe. If your skin had been in contact with that road it would have been a nasty burn.
Re: (Score:2)
I was only in Tucson once but a buddy of mine grew up in Phoenix. He told many stories of things melting and the oppressive heat when he was a kid in the 70s/80s.
Re: (Score:2)
It's so hot in Arizona, if you accidently trip and fall, you might end up with life-threatening burns. And if you don't fall, sometimes your shoes might melt right off.
Yah but a young lady hurt my feelings, so there's nothing we can do.
Re: It's so hot in Arizona right now... (Score:2)
yes that also happened in Michigan when i was kid. I'm 60 and laughing at you zoomers losing your shit over weather.
And throwing irrelevant thing like wildfires in, forest management is down the hall.
Re: (Score:2)
.... which is actually something not uncommon. It's not even remarkable - it's normal, and has been since at least the 1990s.
It's been regularly the case that SD is colder in the winter than Alaska, and hotter than AZ in the various parts of the year since I've lived here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep.
They just stand there being (not just looking) stupid.
Re: (Score:3)
There *is* no future for homo sapiens sapiens. For the creature that steals resources on a planetary scale, multiplies uncontrollably, tries to evade death, damages its environment, has no predator, no differentiation, does not cooperate not only with its environment but not even amongst itself, the future is the same as that of a cancer: death.
This species has chosen to go extinct. You may wish for a future for your offspring, or for others' offspring, but you are irrelevant; as am I.
There is nothing sad a
Re: What rights do you want now, you fucks? (Score:2)
haha what a goth edgeboy you are. Population actually will go down very soon, prosperity will do that. Mankind only faces solvable engineering problems. Just look at the doom-tardery in this article, even throwing irrelevant wildfires in with climate and weather issues.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you seriously so stupid you make up cause and effect in your head and don't realize even the IPCC says the wildfires have other causes than climate?
Guess what, NASA says for past 21 years the earth has been getting greener. Wise up. Climate change doesn't work the way your imagined "common sense" predicts.
Greentard.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite uncertain what you are trying to argue.
Global human population has been growing, only growing, for ever.
Re: (Score:2)
And will now start shrinking as the current "blob" of people on the demographic charts age out of their child rearing years and their kids who are smaller in number have fewer kids as well.
It's just simple math and statistics.
You can most easily find demographic charts for China because their one child policy created such a huge and visible demographic shift but charts are available for pretty much any country you'd want with a tiny bit of effort.
We are peaked out on population and it will start to decline
Re: (Score:2)
So, if your neighbor takes a dump in the middle of the street, you are going to do the same and ask the police to arrest HIM, because his dump is larger and stinkier.
Gotcha.
Re: (Score:2)
Do things that are convenient. But until the big plans do not exclude the biggest polluters (ex China), are not ventures the political leaders and they friends and allies have invested their personal fortunes in, do not permit our leadership to continue using private jets (ex Kerry) or engage in any sort of thee-but-not-me behavior, ... remain suspicious of those big plans and scrutinize them ruthlessly. Otherwise its just campaign shenanigans.
So, if your neighbor takes a dump in the middle of the street, you are going to do the same and ask the police to arrest HIM, because his dump is larger and stinkier. Gotcha.
When my neighbor takes a dump in the road I am going to tell them to stop doing that or I will stop shopping at the store they own.
Re: What rights do you want now, you fucks? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there are lots of assumptions in that train of thought.
For one, I don't think 10,000 rich people traveling by plane twice a week are nearly close to 853 MILLION passengers who flew last year in the USA alone. Not even if, say, each rich person would have used a jumbo just just for themselves.
That mentality is plain stupid envy, that's all.
Re: (Score:2)
Gotta love how anything contrary to a very specific axial alignment gets instantly moderated into the ground on here : anything contrary to the NWO political agenda on climate change, vaccines, health, et cetera is almost always an automatic negative moderation, with no indication as to who performed said moderation.
Re: (Score:3)
Uh how do you know the editors are doing it?
On my UI there is no indication of who did a mod.
Re: (Score:2)
If you still want to have affordable groceries in the future, well, yeah.
Re:What rights do you want now, you fucks? (Score:5, Insightful)
To answer your questions respectfully: maybe. It depends on how bad things get and how much difference each things would make.
More realistically, I think we should consider *marginal* changes first, like raising car fuel efficiency standards and moving to carbon-free electricity sources. Those are not going to force you into some kid of third world lifestyle. One great area for applied research would be reducing the carbon footprint of concrete, which accounts for a staggering 8% of all human CO2 emissions. Addressing problems like that wouldn't involve *any* radical lifestyle changes, but it *does* require funding, like anything else.
As for lifestyle changes, you can also consider eating meat from local farmers, which has a much lower carbon footprint. Yes, it's a little more expensive so you'll be eating somewhat less, but eating a little less, higher quality meat isn't a hair shirt. France eats about 20% less meat than we do, and Italy about 30%; nobody thinks they eat *worse* than we do. The US produces the highest total food *waste* in the world -- around sixty million tons pe year. That waste entails carbon emissions that do nothing for our quality of life. And that counts calories we mindlessly shovel into our mouths to produce the highest obesity rate of any advanced country as "not wasted". We could be living better for less CO2 emitted.
It sounds like you don't like the idea of being forced to make changes. I understand that completely. But we're all in the same boat, and the current is carrying all of us to a changed future. If you really don't like big changes, then it makes sense to consider smaller voluntary changes to avoid being forced to make big ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, stalker mod has no sense of humor. EU guys so hilarious!
Re: (Score:3)
And extreme views like that will get you a big "Fuck You" from the majority of people in the world.
No one is really going to be willing to just give up the way of life they've known since birth (in the western world).
If you work by convincing th
exactly incorrect (Score:5, Insightful)
Combine a VERY active sun, with an El Nino and an underground volcano, the 2022 eruption of Tonga’s Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai are
what's causing this.
And I remind you that all of the effects you mention are measured and accounted for, and none of them are anywhere near large enough to account for the observed heating. The contribution of the Tonga Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai eruption is, hold on to your hats, a roughly 0.035 degree C temperature increase, decreasing to zero over a period of five years.
The rest of your post is just complaining about politicians and rich people. I don't like politicians and rich people either, but what they do or don't do has no relevance whatsoever to your ignorance of what is causing warming.
Weather (Score:2)
The contribution of the Tonga Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai eruption is, hold on to your hats, a roughly 0.035 degree C temperature increase, decreasing to zero over a period of five years.
Correct, referring to the global mean temperature over the background warming trend.
But, weather is not climate. There are heat waves over the coasts of North America. Meanwhile, the center of the continent is generally cooler than usual. I'm in the midwest and this has been one of the mildest summers I can remember.
So the effect of the eruption to overall global warming might be minimal, but there haven't been detailed studies on it's effects on localized weather systems, yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Still incorrect (Score:2)
Correct. We measure the output of the sun and it has not changed over the period of interest.
You're saying that the sun, which is responsible for the vast majority of our seasonal temperature changes (if not all of them) and makes all the difference between "so hot out it melts your shoes" and "so cold that motor oil is frozen"
No, seasons are changes in the angle of sunlight hitting the Earth. The sun itself doesn't change between summer and winter.
has been "fully accounted for"
Yep. We measure it.
and couldn't possibly be the cause of change in weather (despite the fact that sun output has increased significantly since the 1800s, and even moreso since 2006 when this was published)...
The paper referenced by the space.com article is here: https://www.aanda.org/articles... [aanda.org]
. About all I can say is that the space.com speculation goes well beyond anything the actual research says or implies. In any case, though, regardless of the accuracy of reconstruction of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't volcanos coolers of the air, not increasers?
Re: (Score:2)
How do you want them to be? /joke
*holds palm up, ready for greasing*
Aren't volcanos coolers of the air (Score:2)
Sulphur Dioxide in the upper atmosphere can cause a cooling effect, however they also emit lots of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses.
During some of the volcanic mass extinction events it was a lot hotter over the whole world.
Re: (Score:2)
"and an underground volcano"
Do you know any volcanoes that don't start underground?
That Tongan eruption was an underwater volcano, thats why it put so much water into the atmosphere.
Re:What rights do you want now, you fucks? (Score:4, Informative)
Ninth Amendment. In general Americans have enjoyed freedom of *movement* since the beginning of the republic, over all public and even over private land where public use is established. Cars are just a different means of exercising those long established rights. So driving is clearly covered under the Ninth Amendment.
That said, because something is a *right* doesn't mean you get to exercise it without regard to the consequences to others. The government *can* regulate a right like speech through punishment, so long as those regulations are *narrowly tailored* to address identifiable and important concerns. One example would be publishing classified documents, which is an unusual situation because even *prior restraint* is allowed by constitutional precedents.
Likewise we can require drivers to pass driving tests, pay for licenses and insurance, and maintain the car mechanically to a certain standard in order to abate the enormous potential nuisance of people driving irresponsibly. These are practices that never existed for the exercise of any constitutional right until cars became popular. The framers would never have dreamed of such regulatory practices, because they lived in a primitive agricultural society which had roughly the population of the Charlotte NC metropolitan area and an average overall population density comparable to modern Wyoming.
Re: (Score:2)
Ninth Amendment. In general Americans have enjoyed freedom of *movement* since the beginning of the republic, over all public and even over private land where public use is established. Cars are just a different means of exercising those long established rights. So driving is clearly covered under the Ninth Amendment.
Um, no.
Driving is INCLUDED in the means of transportation, but not ENFORCED or MANDATED.
Big difference.
As long as you have the freedom of movement through at least ONE method, the 9th amendment has you covered. It, in no way, shape or form, gives you the right to use ANY means of transportation you see fit.
The Government can't stop you from going inside the public zoo, but they definitely can (and will) stop you from going inside the public zoo while driving a truck.
Re: (Score:2)
Driving is not even remotely covered under the 9th Amendment.
Movement is. The idea that the nature of the movement being unaddressed means it cannot be regulated vs. it's assumed that it will be is the height of fucking stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
Person is claiming that driving is a right under the 9th Amendment.
That's not what the 9th Amendment says.
Interpreting
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
as "I have any right I can imagine" is incorrect.
The 9th Amendment only indicates that the list is not conclusive. It does not imply that you have any particular right.
Re: (Score:2)
My point is that the USSC doesn't control driving. At all. Regulating driving is a State level power/right. How do we know that? Because it is how we actually do it and no one to my knowledge has ever grumped about it in any way. The 9th neither protects nor limits driving. Talk to your local State dmv office about driving "privileges". We don't even call it a right at the State level.
As much as I love driving I don't believe it is a constitutionally protected right nor should be and our daily handli
Re: (Score:2)
I meant USC not USSC but any challenge would have gone there anyway I suppose but that's a typo.
Oops.
Re: (Score:3)
Government has no power whatsoever to punish speech, including publishing classified documents. This was what the Pentagon Papers was about.
It can punish spies, or employees who agree not to expose secrets (this is Manning), or journalists or publishers who help the person steal the stuff (this is what supposedly the government has over Mr. Wikileaks, we shall see.)
But once it gets into the hands of publishers, that's it.
Re: (Score:2)
But they did have cannon. A round of cannister shot can wipe out a room of people *instantly*. And cannon could be and in fact were routinely purchased by private individuals, usually to outfit ships.
Cannons weren't regulated because there was no need to. They were not a public nuisance. In fact they still a lot less regulated than people think, again because it's never really been a problem.
So there is little to no tradition in the US of regulating cannon. But I don't think that means it's necessarily u
Re:What rights do you want now, you fucks? (Score:5, Informative)
It says so right here [cornell.edu] and here [cornell.edu].
Right there in the Constitution, otherwise known as the 9th and 10th amendments that explicitly declare that rights enumerated in the Constitution are not a complete list, and any unenumerated rights that are not mentioned are retained by the states, or the people, depending on context.
So there you go, 'without resorting to anti-capitalist "wah wah wah the rich wah wah wah" rhetoric'.
Re: (Score:2)
It does indeed say that rights unenumerated are reserved to the States or the People.
That in no way is to say that anything unenumerated in the Constitution is somehow a fucking right. I reserve my right to give you swirlies.
Re:poor argument (Score:5, Informative)
The Supreme Court has ruled that just because weapons were not in use then, or did not exist, does not mean they are not protected by the Second Amendment.
This was the Taser case, were localities outlawed using that argument. Which was strange, because it was less lethal.
Anyway, if you, stupidly, let government outlaw ostensibly protected things that did 't exist then, goodby freedom of speech on the Internet. It isn't a mechanical printing press (mass production of speech is protected, kings would outlaw such) so I guess government can restrict it. Whaaat?
Re: (Score:3)
However, that doesn't mean that the second amendment ever meant what it's interpreted to mean today.
Today's bizarre interpretation of the term "regulated" meaning something difference in this one single clause of the Constitution, and something else everywhere else (unless maybe they were talking about the military fitness of the Supreme Court... hm...) and the idea that the word milit
Re:poor argument (Score:4, Informative)
"Poppycock" is the claim that the second amendment does not mean what it plainly says, and that the word "regulate" is not used in the context of its contemporary meaning with regard to a body of troops
“The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day or even13 a week14 that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions as often as might be necessary, to acquire the degree of perfection which would intitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labour of the country to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expence of the civil establishments of all the States.15 To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labour and industry to so considerable an extent would be unwise; and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
That's from Federalist 29, and you can absolutely see that the words "well regulated" do not mean what you are implying that they do. A "well regulated militia" is one that is well trained and well equipped.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Well trained and well equipped under State guidance.
Jimbob Joe who considers himself well trained is not well regulated.
The intent of the passage is indicated at the very end of it:
Little more can reasonably be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.
It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.''
It is quite obvious here that "regulation" is used in its normal form (a rule or directive made and maintained by an authority.)
In this instance, the intended rule is regarding the military fitness of the state-controlled militia, but only a disingenuous shit-stain would try to argue that regulated didn't mean that the rules didn't come down from an authority.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, then. The 2nd amendment doesn't give you a right to own a firearm other than a flintlock or matchlock, no matter how many 1/2-round-per-minute barrels it has.
BTW, the rights in the US Constitution are in no way inalienable. There are countless countries now and throughout history where some or all of the rights are or were most certainly *not* granted by the government. (This includes the good old US of A, back when you could be only 3/5 of a person.) I encourage you to go to some of those places and try to assert your "inalienable" rights.
Completely clueless, both as to the 2nd amendment and the meaning of the 3/5's compromise.
Here, learn something: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
No need to read past the first sentence of that article:
The Three-fifths Compromise was an agreement reached during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention over the inclusion of slaves in a state's total population
Look at the bold word.
Did these people have "inalienable rights"? Yes or no?
Re: (Score:2)
No need to read past the first sentence of that article:
The Three-fifths Compromise was an agreement reached during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention over the inclusion of slaves in a state's total population
Look at the bold word.
Did these people have "inalienable rights"? Yes or no?
Keep reading. "It is worth noting that, although the compromise gave slave holding states more representation in Congress than they originally had, the compromise of counting only 3/5 of the slave population succeeded in reducing what would have been an overwhelming influence in Congress by slave states, had those states been able to send a larger complement of Representatives to Congress that reflected the entire slave populations of those states."
Would you have preferred that slave states had more power?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't give a fuck how many votes states had. That's not what we're talking about.
The topic is: Did those slaves have the "inalienable rights" that the writers of this piece of paper were supposedly referring to?
It's a simple question. Yes or no?
No the question is, is what you wrote correct: "This includes the good old US of A, back when you could be only 3/5 of a person."
And the answer is NO. That's not what the 3/5ths compromise was about.
Re: (Score:2)
I cannot remember ever interacting with a person as dense as you.
I WASN'T talking about the goddamned 3/5 compromise. I just mentioned the fraction in passing, but I guess I was "too clever" for you. The 3/5 compromise is totally irrelevant to what I was discussing.
Forget the ratio 3/5! Now go back and read the thread from the start. While you're at it, answer the question I repeatedly asked.
Re: (Score:2)
That is exactly what the 3/5ths compromise was about.
The Southern States wanted their chattel to be both people, and property.
The compromise was to make them 3/5th of a people.
This meant they could be taxed for them as property and they could use those people in the census to bolster their federal representation.
Re: (Score:2)
I cannot remember ever interacting with a person as dense as you.
I WASN'T talking about the goddamned 3/5 compromise. I just mentioned the fraction in passing, but I guess I was "too clever" for you. The 3/5 compromise is totally irrelevant to what I was discussing.
Forget the ratio 3/5! Now go back and read the thread from the start. While you're at it, answer the question I repeatedly asked.
You wrote it, you don't understand what you wrote, it's irrelevant to whatever point you thought you were making anyway, and it's someone else's fault that it makes no sense.
OK
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they had the right to remain silent...
Re: (Score:2)
You can't be that fucking stupid.
You can't. Right?
You call a claim that the rights are in no way inalienable completely clueless, and present direct evidence of them being alienable.
Your self-own powers are fucking legend.
In other words, you still don't understand the 3/5's compromise
Re: (Score:2)
The 3/5ths compromise set the compromised level of alienation of the rights of enslaved peoples.
Re:poor argument (Score:5, Informative)
Rights are not granted by government, or the powerful, or the rich, or even democracy and the vote. Rights are inherent in you by fact of being a human. They pre-exist government, and men institute governments to protect and secure these rights.
Any time someone says otherwise, they are claiming to abridge your rights to increase their power aggrandizement, nothing more.
Why in god's name would you start with that as a basic principle? That some thug's desire to put a boot on your neck is equally arbitrary to your desire not to have a boot on your neck?
Who thinks that, aside from the thug?
Re: (Score:2)
Rights are not granted by government
Actually in reality, they kinda are. And by "government" we mean "society enforced by the democratic state".
The concept of "natural rights" that are above some sense of the material earth is a philosophical concept that we use to construct actual laws and society out of. They don't *actually* exist because without some sort of state apparatus with a monopoly use of force there is no one to enforce them but your individual self and when it comes to that well, I've got more guns and more people, so what "na
Re: (Score:2)
They don't *actually* exist because without some sort of state apparatus with a monopoly use of force there is no one to enforce them but your individual self and when it comes to that well, I've got more guns and more people, so what "natural" rights do you actually have?
The US Declaration of Independence says precisely this. That Government is formed to ensure/protect those rights, directly acknowledging that no government, or bad government, directly leads to you not having those rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Natural rights pre-exist government, this is true.
Legal rights do not.
And further, the existence of natural rights does not mean that anything you wish to call a right is in fact so.
Further, nothing in the bill of rights is a natural right.
The Bill of Rights is a list of man-made rights that exist to protect your natural rights.
right are not inherent (Score:3)
Actually , they are. Without a government enforcing those right, through a legislative and judicial framework, you have ZERO right : this becomes an anarchy of the strongest enforcing their wish over the weakest. Look at all places in the world where the government fails, or disappear : the inhabitant then have zero rights , with the local warlord doping whatever he wants from torture, to killing, to slavery and worst.
Your right are only as good as far as the government
Re: (Score:2)
The bill of rights didn't even constrain the Federal government until the Civil War era.
States. It didn't constraint the States until the Civil War era (14th amendment). It always constrained the Federal government, that was its entire purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hunga Tonga anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, a massive underwater volcano eruption that increases atmospheric water vapor, the most effective green house gas, by over 13% couldn't possibly be behind this year's odd weather...
Correct, it couldn't.
The water vapor from the Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai eruption contributed an estimated 0.035 degree C temperature increase for a period of five years. (And also 0.004C of global cooling due to aerosols).
That's in the noise.
Re:"No, it is empirical data." (Score:5, Informative)
> Can someone rephrase that or show actual tables of data?
You'll get data in another 10-30 years. If the models are right, these are the beginnings of real discernible effects. ie, when you get data, part of humanity/civilization is already toast. But we do have something:
8 out of 10 hottest years were in the 2010s. Last June was the hottest in 100k years: no, we do not have exact measurements, we have proxies and probability ranges.
And those are only headline things.
We have data on ice sheets, temperatures, CO2.
We know we pretty much killed everything: 70% of insects gone in 30 years, 96% of mammalian mass are humans and their livestock.
Also, we test our models, and they pretty much work: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.... [wiley.com]
Re: (Score:2)
https://public.wmo.int/en/medi... [wmo.int]
And the report:
https://library.wmo.int/index.... [wmo.int]
Interesting is that the number of reported number of disasters was lower in the period 2010-2019 than in 2000-2009.
Other info: The number of deaths is decreasing and the economic damage increasing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on if you look at national averages or regional ones. Down in some places, but now occurring in places that they were never common before.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:"No, it is empirical data." (Score:4, Insightful)
I've given up responding to posts like this with data. If what we have isn't enough, it's not a good faith request. It's an excuse to not do anything about the problem you are contributing to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please, let's not introduce caution or reason to what is otherwise a perfectly unstable emotional argument based on hand waving and reckless bloviating. Special interests have pockets which need to be properly lined with taxpayer money.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, of course we are. Did you expect to live forever?
Re: (Score:2)
My money can survive abroad, but I won't be so lucky.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't try to dodge taxes. What for? I already make way more money than I need after tax, so why bother wasting energy trying to come up with schemes to pay less?
I am quite happy with the services provided for the cost, too, that's one of the reasons I chose this country to live in. Sure, taxes are high, but so is the service performance.
Acting like the animals (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)