CaptainGemini's page

Free idea guaranteed to make you a millionaire:

Start a kickstarter-esque website for racist cops and homophobic local government officials. Call it "be the footprint." bethefootprint.com is available, by the way.

General idea is summed up in this sales pitch:

"Help support your brethren in Christ as they fight the war against Christianity we face everyday. In their time of need they look down and see just a single set of footprints in the sand. Will you be the one who carries them? Will you be their footprint in the sand?"

Collect money for bigots from bigots and scalp 20% off the top.

Oh, by the way, I'm not a millionaire because I like to sleep at night.

I'm not a millionaire because I just started doing this strategy, only with a few modifications.

Hey, I'm a jerk anyway, so why not profit from it?

CaptainGemini wrote:

Coriat wrote:

CaptainGemini wrote:

And I would like to know how the Ancient Greeks nearly developed basic atomic theory without the scientific method being involved somewhere.

They didn't, and it wasn't.

If you're looking for empiricism and early scientific method in ancient Greece, I'd suggest looking at other fields rather than atomism. Medicine in particular would be fruitful, since you have doctors actually running experiments, revising old ideas based on new observations, dissecting things to try to figure out how they worked (instead of relying on abstract reason), and so on.

Admittedly, my info on atomism comes from a particularly famous source. The first paragraph of that, despite the differences, is almost exactly word-for-word how modern atomic theory is explained on its most basic level.

The results from it on their thought patterns are similar to some of the outcomes of thought experiments on how atoms might form under different laws of physics. Of course, the results were vastly different than our universe on the macro scale.

I'm not denying that atomist schools of philosophy existed in Ancient Greece. They clearly did.

But for one, they weren't very close to modern atomic theory.

And for two, they weren't very involved with any scientific method we might recognize.

Finally, for three, the Greeks had lots of competing cosmologies. If I have a hundred blind men throw darts at a board, and end up with darts all over the wall, the door and the board, should I conclude that the men who hit the board have blindsight? Having a pack of philosophical schools, each one insisting upon a cosmology, and one of them happens to include atoms - that's not the same thing as society possessing atomic theory.

One thing I will say regarding the Greek philosopers involved with or surrounding atomism is that they tended to want empiricism driven out of their philosophy...

The sad part is, I can name fields of science that almost qualify as wanting to escape empiricism. So, I'm failing to see how that is that much of a difference. Especially since they didn't really have the tools to empirically prove the atom, making this a purely theoretical field for their era. But, I'll bow to your expertise on this and accept that it is.

And, I did make it a point to limit my comments to basic theory. Not the entirety of modern atomic theory, because I knew how vastly different the two are. Even within science, I've noticed how a slight change in a model of how something works can result in vastly different outcomes when the combined work of several people is put together. Having just a tiny difference in how atoms are structured on the most basic level would easily account for the vast difference between their philosophy and modern atomic theory. After all, that single difference produces different logic paths; you see similar happen within modern fields of purely theoretical physics.

CaptainGemini wrote:

And I would like to know how the Ancient Greeks nearly developed basic atomic theory without the scientific method being involved somewhere.

They didn't, and it wasn't.

If you're looking for empiricism and early scientific method in ancient Greece, I'd suggest looking at other fields rather than atomism. Medicine in particular would be fruitful, since you have doctors actually running experiments, revising old ideas based on new observations, dissecting things to try to figure out how they worked (instead of relying on abstract reason), and so on.

Admittedly, my info on atomism comes from a particularly famous source. The first paragraph of that, despite the differences, is almost exactly word-for-word how modern atomic theory is explained on its most basic level.

The results from it on their thought patterns are similar to some of the outcomes of thought experiments on how atoms might form under different laws of physics. Of course, the results were vastly different than our universe on the macro scale.

CaptainGemini wrote:

And I would like to know how the Ancient Greeks nearly developed basic atomic theory without the scientific method being involved somewhere.

It wasn't really atomic theory it was just the word atom, a hypothetical mini partical that wound up being... vastly different than what they thought it was. If you keep splitting clay further and further you get something thats not clay.

I did say "nearly."

Plus, the modern theory had more than a few basics wrong when it was first proposed. Science marched on from the Greek idea and marched on from the original modern idea. I'm certain it'll march on again in the future. Who knows? Maybe we'll discover that gravitons are both the tiniest particle with mass and dark matter at the same time. Or something else equally bizarre.

thejeff wrote:

If you really want an answer, the modern scientific method developed basically from the 17th century through the 19th and it changed the world. When we talk about science today, that's what we're talking about.

So the reason I'm wrong is because you insert the word "modern" into everything that I say, and then wonder why it doesn't make sense. Got it.

The modern scientific method also existed prior to that period. The Catholic Church was known for practicing it (but not consistently). Galileo is just the most famous of the scientists who worked for them.

And I would like to know how the Ancient Greeks nearly developed basic atomic theory without the scientific method being involved somewhere.

Science does sometimes shoot itself in the foot a bit. In particular, it has a problem with not employing the KISS strategy with its conclusions. Which, in turn, means that two research articles on a heat mitigation system within Earth's climate can be easily turned into a cohesive argument that the science is wrong about a coming climate disaster. Of course, it doesn't help that they've been misusing science to make an argument against climate change for quite some time, as that link shows with the links inside the article.

Science has this particular problem that not all of its opponents actually dislike it. Some are very, very adept at using the weaknesses of scientists themselves to argue against science.

MMCJawa wrote:

We actually have a nice analog for the current climate change in the PETM event (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum), which was a period of incredibly fast global warming precipitated by a large input of CO2 being pumped in the atmosphere. There is still debate over the source of the carbon, but mostly recently I have heard it was the result of uplift of Himalayas resulting in massive subduction of carbon rich continental shelf and/or methane clathrate eruptions. The global warming in that event is probably more severe than most realistic current predictions for our change, but from a geologic perspective it was rapid, in common with today.

* Starts a pool on when someone comes along in this thread to claim the PETM proves anthropocentric global warming is a hoax to make money and kill most of the human population off. Or something equally insane.

While you're at it, start a pool on how long it'll take someone to use this model-based study to argue that the warming is an insignificant threat.

If we see that in Nat Geo under Murdoch, we'll know for certain he's taking it in a dark direction.

To the folks in this thread, i would encourage taking a look at the mechanics of a D&D 4.0 game.

I love the Pathfinder community and have been playing vastly more Pathfinder lately than D&D 4.0. But, man, the mechanics for D&D 4.0 are just so much smoother.

Move, minor, Standard. At-Will, Encounter, Daily. No martial vs caster disparity. Healing surges for everyone. Yada, yada, yada. There's a lot to like there. It's not all perfect, but damn does it feel like it all ties together better than the mess that is the Pathfinder rules.

I really wish WotC would have gone the Pathfinder route with their game license. Still one of the biggest tragedies to modern table top gaming in my mind. They have a good system, it's just not being used by nearly as many people as it could be!

CaptainGemini sighs as she opens up her weapon case and pulls out the fully-modded New Vegas laser rifle and her supply of grenades.

"Run! I'll provide covering fire!"

D&D 4 is a way superior game in mechanics and game flow. But the market was a mess, and the books are incredible tedious to read because it feels like a manual of a game.

CaptainGemini grumbles and hands the grenades to Metal Sonic.

"If you're not going to run, start tossing!"

And he's paying me a lot of money to keep it secret, too.

The next poster has confused this for the Goofus and Gallant thread.

Flagamarsk

Russian patriotic flag dancing.

Splatiborp

Yes! That's right, Batman! Your friend was murdered by the Night itself! Hahahahahahaha!

The next poster is already working on how Batman can defeat darkness itself.

Goofus always makes sure he's paid for the expensive components of all possible spells in advance despite not being a spellcaster.

Gallant always makes certain to return a rescued maiden to her family.

They're wearing mirrored shades.

Perhaps if we danced the Mamooshka, we can distract them enough that someone could create a working idea without them somehow overhearing it?

CaptainGemini wrote:

Washington actually wasn't a slave owner by his choice. They were his wife's slaves. His choice is seen where he made it a point to free them upon his death.

Mount Vernon has a good piece on Washington's slaves, though I think it's a little more sympathetic than I'd be.

He had ten from age eleven, which he inherited from his father. Not entirely his fault and you can expect he wouldn't instantly free them since he's eleven and all. But they were his property and he ended up buying more for himself. His dower slaves made up only around half of his total holdings.

He also elected to keep them until, you know, they could no longer personally enrich him. That's better than condemning them in perpetuity, and he did order that the elderly slaves be provided for out of his estate, but it's also a particularly easy path for him.

He actively pursued runaways, even including Ona Judge who got all the way to New Hampshire. He opted to leave her there only when it appeared to be a political liability to go after her. When the national government was in Philadelphia and thus within the bounds of Pennsylvania's emancipation law (the first in the country), Washington followed the normal practice of slaveholding officeholders and got around PA's laws on keeping slaves from other states indefinitely by regularly cycling them out through another state. I think mostly he sent back to Mount Vernon and got replacements, but I recall seeing references to more cynical trips that were just across the river to New Jersey for a day. This was enough of a hassle, especially given Philadelphia's large free black community, that Washington eventually transitioned to using German indentured servants.

I think my college history professor owes me an apology. Because my education on it turned out to be full of ****.

I'm going to withdraw from this discussion while I dig more deeply into what I've said to verify it.

Claim: Slavery was on the way out anyway because it wasn't economically sustainable.

Answer: Untrue, at least for the future forseeable to antebellum southern whites. This claim actually has an impressive pedigree. The first proper historian of the American South, Ulrich Bonell Phillips, argued it. This served to make the Civil War a needless tragedy, since slavery would have somehow fixed itself anyway. However, while parts of the South struggled with low crop yields and exhausted soil the truth is that the 1850s were an economic bonanza. The ten largest cotton crops and thus ten biggest years of the antebellum Southern economy were the 1851-60. Even before that, the 1840s had been relatively good to the section. The boom was so big that it helped insulate the South from the economic contraction of the late 1850s.

A friend of mine and I discussed that and our private guesses were that slavery would have continued well into the 1900s, but eventually collapse due to the manpower needs of both World Wars. May I ask your take on this?

Moonlight

Kamelot

Crodo

What happens when you give halflings enchanted sentient rings that are Lawful Evil.

Surplebenarch

1. Is this a high enough Dexterity roll to pull down my pants?

2. Who will cause World Wars 3, 4, and Plaid?

3. Hey, is pi rounded to three in another universe?

Answers below, my following poster!

1. Maybe, but why a mongoose and a duck?

2. If you use Fahrenheit instead, it won't randomly explode. Next time, use a bigger display screen.

3. Please put your pants back on!

He was dressed as Superman and kept saying he was immune to bullets! I had no idea a kryptonite bullet would do him in!

The next poster is Batman and very unhappy with what I did.

An apocalypse of Cthulhu.

A _________ of moon-beasts.

A luna of moon-beasts.

A _________ of awakened kittens.

Goofus fires a submachine gun into the ceiling to help his players get into the proper mood for their surroundings.

Gallant always tries to make certain the place he leaves is in at least a good a shape as it was when he arrived.

The only reason I didn't take it to a new thread already is because it is tangent to my comment about the nuts who back Davis being out of touch with the times.

However, if people wish to continue it, I'll take it to another thread. My point is getting lost in the current discussion anyway.

CaptainGemini wrote:

It's been known for nearly 20 years that dams affect the Earth's rotation. Stop and consider what affect that might have on climate, just due to ecosystem and orbital impacts. Now stop and consider the one they built in China. Even China admitted that it's an environmental disaster entirely on its own.

From the article:

Quote:

These effects are several hundred times smaller than natural variations in Earth's motion, Dr. Chao said in an interview, and they pose no danger to people or the global environment.

Admittedly, I should have tagged my post with sarcasm markers. That's my fault.

If you wanted to actually call me on something, you really should have read the third article. What I said about the dam being an environmental disaster is backed very much by science.

CaptainGemini wrote:

Krensky wrote:

That's a pleasant myth, but the actual debate on the Second Ammendment is pretty clear it has to due with the North's desire to avoid a standing army and the South's desire to have an armed force handy to keep the slaves in line.

Which is why it is I can find quotes from Washington, Jefferson, Samuel Adams, George Mason, Patrick Henry, Alexander Hamilton, and so on stating that they wanted people to be armed and the entirety of the public to be armed or that they considered all citizens to be part of the militia when it comes to the Second Amendment. And Jefferson outright calling for the populace to overthrow the government if it starts to ignore the Constitution.

Seriously, where's your evidence for this?

You missed my point too. I was commenting on how out-of-touch those groups are, not trying to start a gun debate.

Do remember that both Washington AND Jefferson were southern plantation slave-owners. Also the Second Amendment refers to a regulated militia, not amateur gun-toting lynch mobs.

Washington actually wasn't a slave owner by his choice. They were his wife's slaves. His choice is seen where he made it a point to free them upon his death.

Also, both Washington and Jefferson were ones who called for the populace itself to be that regulated militia. So the difference between those lynch mobs and the militia isn't even academic when discussing those two.

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. It's not a primary driver of climate change. Largely because the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is limited by the temperature. It can't, by itself, drive a disastrous feedback loop - it rains out.

As other greenhouse gasses raise the temperature, more water vapor can be held, raising it even further, but that leaves the other gasses as the primary driver, even if they're not the primary greenhouse gasses.

I was wrong on that one.

Okay, primary driver on greenhouse gases.

And, actually, there's some evidence within the ice core data that water vapor by itself can drive a disastrous feedback loop. Not strong evidence, but some. In addition, NASA themselves even showed back in 2008 that increased water vapor feedbacks into itself as well as enhancing the feedbacks from all of the other greenhouse gases. Meaning that, with the proper conditions, water vapor actually can use its self-reinforcing mechanism to be the cause of a climatic disaster.

But, it is still the primary driver of the climate change itself; that's long-established science. Without it, the other gases don't have near the impact. Which is why I differentiated between driver of climate change and cause of climate change.

CaptainGemini wrote:

Bad example on the flooding. Most sane people, even those with a science education, would point out that a lack of rain right now is generally evidence that it's not flooding right now.

Which was rather my point... just because various ocean/atmosphere heat transfer cycles (e.g. AMO, PDO, ENSO, et cetera) can cause the atmosphere to warm less quickly (it isn't raining right now), that doesn't change the fact that the climate as a whole is still warming at the same rate and the atmospheric temperature will surge up faster when that cycle comes back around (rain is still a global phenomenon and will cause flooding again in the future).

Um, you might want to reexamine the bolded and italicized statements. You switched from a short-term measurement to a medium-term average without indication when oversimplifying your statements. To someone less educated, this could easily come across as you contradicting yourself.

Also, you're trying to argue a predictive statement as a certainty. That is what typically gets climate science in trouble and serves to do the most to aid the skeptics. After all, if a severe drought sets in, by the time the rain came your reputation would already have been destroyed to the point no one pays attention to what you say.

The general public is indeed often ignorant of the details of climate science (and many other subjects)... but that doesn't change the fact that greenhouse gases are the primary driver of current climate change.

Secondary driver. The primary driver is water vapor, which isn't actually a greenhouse gas*. However, the greenhouse gases are the primary point of system disruption; so even though they are not the primary mechanism of climate change, they are still the primary cause of it due to the disrupted temperature regulation systems.

There's a lot of deniers who know the actual science on that one and are not afraid to use links to NASA and similar organizations to prove their point as part of a verbal beat down.

Edit-

*Water Vapor technically isn't a gas, if I remember my science correctly. It is still a greenhouse agent, though. Just not a greenhouse gas. But, then, not all greenhouse agents come in gaseous form.

CaptainGemini wrote:

CBDunkerson wrote:

I'd say rather that he owns a few news sources that have managed to remain mostly unbiased.

Fair enough.

Quote:

Climate science DOES take 'everything into consideration', and the focus on greenhouse gases is simply because that is the factor currently causing significant changes.

Climate science ain't the debate. You're arguing against the wrong stance.

Quote:

As to heat moving around within the climate system causing 'decreased warming' at the surface... it always amazes me that people could think a temporary decline in the rate of atmospheric surface temperature increase is at all meaningful when the rate of increase of heat within the climate system as a whole hasn't changed. It's like thinking that there is no such thing as flooding because it isn't raining right now.

Bad example on the flooding. Most sane people, even those with a science education, would point out that a lack of rain right now is generally evidence that it's not flooding right now. Dam bursts and other human technology failures, the other common cause, are generally too rare to be a real concern for most people. Naturally, they apply the same logic to climate as a whole.

Of course, most people are not educated on climate, including a surprising number of those who are supporters. You'd be surprised how many people argue that the very heat movement you're talking about is purely a denialist lie.

That ignorance on both sides is the point of my complaint about the debate focusing so much on gases.

Flooding often lags the rain. In fact, it can occur downstream in a place where it hasn't rained at all. :)

The deniers may not be lying about the heat movements, but they lie when they use the heat movement to deny climate change.

A lot of flooding isn't of the river or ocean variety, to further muddy it.

That they are. Which is why I said I foresee it being a hurdle.

Are there any particular stories I should check out first:-)

At the Mountains of Madness.

I'd say rather that he owns a few news sources that have managed to remain mostly unbiased.

Fair enough.

Climate science DOES take 'everything into consideration', and the focus on greenhouse gases is simply because that is the factor currently causing significant changes.

Climate science ain't the debate. You're arguing against the wrong stance.

As to heat moving around within the climate system causing 'decreased warming' at the surface... it always amazes me that people could think a temporary decline in the rate of atmospheric surface temperature increase is at all meaningful when the rate of increase of heat within the climate system as a whole hasn't changed. It's like thinking that there is no such thing as flooding because it isn't raining right now.

Bad example on the flooding. Most sane people, even those with a science education, would point out that a lack of rain right now is generally evidence that it's not flooding right now. Dam bursts and other human technology failures, the other common cause, are generally too rare to be a real concern for most people. Naturally, they apply the same logic to climate as a whole.

Of course, most people are not educated on climate, including a surprising number of those who are supporters. You'd be surprised how many people argue that the very heat movement you're talking about is purely a denialist lie.

That ignorance on both sides is the point of my complaint about the debate focusing so much on gases.

Read his works. You'll understand a lot more about American horror after.

CaptainGemini wrote:

Krensky wrote:

That's a pleasant myth, but the actual debate on the Second Ammendment is pretty clear it has to due with the North's desire to avoid a standing army and the South's desire to have an armed force handy to keep the slaves in line.

Seriously, where's your evidence for this?

The Congressional Record.

And I got mine from the speeches of the people I cited, as well as their private records and the Congressional Record.

Your statement about I said is still bunk.

CaptainGemini wrote:

Murdoch owns a number of liberal news sources as well as Fox News, so I don't think National Geographic will change much. Typically, if it's news, Murdoch is involved somewhere.

Edit: And, in my investigation, it turned out he already owned the National Geographic channel for TV.

Fox News is just his pet station to voice his real views; the rest are all pure business.

Oh, and my contribution to the climate debate: There might not be much warming over the next couple of decades. Climate is massively more complex than just the gases in the atmosphere. But given the debate has stupidly focused mostly on the gases instead of being more proactive about taking everything into consideration, I foresee this being a major hurdle to efforts to reduce pollution before everything hits home.

Either that, or the Earth is trying to drive the IPCC bonkers before it slams us into the stone age.

I don't think that report says what you think it says. Mostly, they're not making detailed predictions for the next couple of decades.

Quote:

Record or near record temperatures last year and so far this year, along with the expected warming effects of El Niño, mean that decadal temperature trends are likely to increase. Barring a large volcanic eruption or a very sudden return to La Niña or negative AMO conditions which could temporarily cool climate, ten year global average warming rates are likely to return to late 20th century levels within the next two years.

Quote:

Further long-term global warming is expected over the coming decades but variations of climate worldwide from year to year or decade to decade will always depend on the subsequent variations in the patterns of climate variability described in this report.

The AMO operates in 50-90 year quasi-cycles. Regimes can last around 10 to 20 years.

Here's the relevant quotes from the articlw on the possibility:

The current warm phase is now 20 years long and historical precedent suggests a return to relatively cool conditions could occur within a few years (Knight et al., 2005). However, the short observational record precludes a confident prediction based on observations alone.

What would a shift towards relatively cooler North Atlantic conditions mean for our climate? Historically, the AMO has shown an impact on temperature and precipitation in Northern Hemisphere summer (Fig. 10). In cold AMO phases, the continents surrounding the North Atlantic generally have cooler summers (Knight et al. 2006). Summertime precipitation in Northern Europe tends to decrease as a result of a northward shift in the path of low pressure centres that bring clouds and rain (Folland et al. 2009, Sutton and Dong 2012). In contrast, summer rainfall over the United States is increased by cold Atlantic conditions (Enfield et al. 2001, Sutton and Hodson 2005). Rainfall in the African Sahel region is also reduced because cold North Atlantic conditions favour a southward displacement of the tropical rainfall zone that brings this region its seasonal rains (Giannini et al. 2003). In addition, this shift modifies wind patterns, which is one of the factors inhibiting the development of strong Atlantic hurricanes (Knight et al. 2006). Observational (Folland et al. 2013) and model (Knight et al. 2005) estimates further suggest AMO shifts have an effect on global mean near-surface temperatures of about 0.1˚C. A rapid AMO decline could therefore maintain the current slowdown in global warming longer than would otherwise be the case.

Paper says exactly what I said it did.

Murdoch owns a number of liberal news sources as well as Fox News, so I don't think National Geographic will change much. Typically, if it's news, Murdoch is involved somewhere.

Edit: And, in my investigation, it turned out he already owned the National Geographic channel for TV.

Fox News is just his pet station to voice his real views; the rest are all pure business.

Oh, and my contribution to the climate debate: There might not be much warming over the next couple of decades. Climate is massively more complex than just the gases in the atmosphere. But given the debate has stupidly focused mostly on the gases instead of being more proactive about taking everything into consideration, I foresee this being a major hurdle to efforts to reduce pollution before everything hits home.

Either that, or the Earth is trying to drive the IPCC bonkers before it slams us into the stone age.

I was reading about Shub-Niggurath and planning a Sargava game when something clicked. Could the "Black Goat"'s name be a pun on a racial slur?

No. Shub-Niggurath's best-known spawn are animated trees. The "Black Goat" nickname is definitely intended to come across as Satanic. It's an insult to environmentalists.

People get so caught up in his racism that they forget he was also anti-religion and anti-science. And wasn't even too fond of his own people, given the fates of his protagonists. Take a look at how many of them turned out to be monsters as well.

It's been known for nearly 20 years that dams affect the Earth's rotation. Stop and consider what affect that might have on climate, just due to ecosystem and orbital impacts.

Now stop and consider the one they built in China. Even China admitted that it's an environmental disaster entirely on its own.

That's a pleasant myth, but the actual debate on the Second Ammendment is pretty clear it has to due with the North's desire to avoid a standing army and the South's desire to have an armed force handy to keep the slaves in line.

Which is why it is I can find quotes from Washington, Jefferson, Samuel Adams, George Mason, Patrick Henry, Alexander Hamilton, and so on stating that they wanted people to be armed and the entirety of the public to be armed or that they considered all citizens to be part of the militia when it comes to the Second Amendment. And Jefferson outright calling for the populace to overthrow the government if it starts to ignore the Constitution.

Seriously, where's your evidence for this?

You missed my point too. I was commenting on how out-of-touch those groups are, not trying to start a gun debate.

Goofus insists that his Halfling Barbarian "IS the ranged weapon!" and expects other players to throw him at the ranged foe du jour.

Gallant, liking the idea of roleplaying "Two souls in the same body", asked if he could play a synthesist summoner. The GM said no, and Gallant took the same concept and turned it into a Medium.

Goofus threatened to let his murderous alternate personality roleplay his character when the GM denied him.

Gallant does not read aloud from the Necronomicon, having heard of its properties.

For some reason, the screensaver is just red glowing eyes and Latin chanting...

The next poster's soul is eaten by my computer.

1. Is this really a bunch of gnomes tied to a vest?

2. No! The thermite doesn't go there!

3. Can I live with my head popped off?

Answers, ye next poster!

1. 42.

2. 42!

3. Weren't you listening? 42!

Ejrik the Norseman wrote:

I, for one, actually like the fact that there is a group whose purpose is to ultimately make the government accountable to the People and the Constitution. After all, who REALLY has kept the government in check? The People?

Yes. And, frankly, we, The People, have done a pretty decent job of it. Almost none of our safeguarding of rights was accomplished by threatening our own government with violence, however. It's irresponsible, counterproductive, immature, and, frankly, delusional to believe that is a worthwhile tactic.

The problem these people (Oathkeepers, and other self-styled champions of the Constitution) almost uniformly have is that they imagine themselves as being opposed to the government. That isn't how a democratic government works, nor is it how a democracy is maintained. It is, however, exactly how one might imagine themselves if their primary concern was feeling important.

So while a bunch of arsenal-toting crazies have been pretending at relevance, the rest of us are actually maintaining our democracy.

I've been busy in real-life, so I missed most of what was said.

But, there is a problem with what you say: Some of the very people who founded this nation believed very much that the people should be always threatening the government with violence to safeguard their rights. They thought the government should be terrified of the people. That's why some of them fought so hard for the Second Amendment.

Of course, those were typically the same ones that also hated the idea of a democracy and had to use word games to convince themselves a republic is not a democracy. To their minds, the fact that threats of violence is not how a democratic government works would be a bonus.

Then again, it was gun-toting crazies who ticked off the British to the point the American Revolution was forced to happen. So they pretend at relevance because they're why America exists in the first place. Naturally, their descendants would think the same tactics still work.

Breaking news via CNN.

"Kentucky clerk Kim Davis vows to defy court order, says no marriage licenses "will be authorized by me.""

No more details at this time, but check back in an hour.

My money is on her trying to use this to build a case for her being persecuted.

I have to agree with the sentiment given earlier: We may have crossed the line of no return on this nation continuing. Too many fires related to oppression, and the same old nuts are trying to use the flames to light a new one.

CaptainGemini wrote:

Samnell wrote:

I submit that armed vigilante bands have rarely improved any situation, though I know I'll upset the armchair Maoists in doing so. I base this judgment on the fact that we have tried them often enough and the results are almost perfectly disastrous. Sometimes they're even disastrous for the cause the the vigilantes support, though in a way that's a recommendation for the rest of us. Sometimes they have their successes, which are calamitous by design. I don't think we've been improved much by those experiments. Indeed, some guy noticed a while back that they're actively corrosive even if their effects appear good in the short term.

In this, he anticipated a major point of Pauline Maier's classic work Popular Uprisings in Eighteenth-Century America, which is well worth the price of getting a used copy of the collection it's in if you can't get it through a library or something. If you want to argue the legitimacy of mob action with reference to eighteenth century British North America, you've got to read her to know why mobs came into fashion and why they went out.

I dunno. I can name at least one case where it turned out rather well.

And America is one of very few cases where violent revolution didn't beget either tyranny or more violent revolution (granted, whether our Revolution did not beget the second is actually rather debatable). It really does seem like we are the exception, not the rule.

Other examples worth noting include Scotland, Korea, and China. Mexico is also an arguable example, though their history causes them to zigzag a lot on whether or not they are one.

There's a long history in the world of violent mobs successfully ending up in revolutions that don't lead to tyranny or more violent revolutions, but the U.S. is at current the only relatively modern example.

Which is why the people backing Davis are likely doomed to fail.

CaptainGemini, on a flippant level you're right. But there are differences. That was much more arguably a defensive effort. The colonists/revolutionaries announced themselves. There weren't precedents of peaceful efforts working. The colonists didn't have the rights available it them that Clerk Davis and the Oath keepers have.

So I was thinking about making that same point, but it's worth pointing out that it's too clever by half.

Now, let's see how ninjaed I am.

Edit: Answer: very. So much so that Samnell subtly did so in his post. Well played, sir.

I pointed out the big, glaring flaw in Samnell's post: The United States.

It's not just a flippant level; the British government actually made some very big overtures to the colonists. There were groups of the colonists not willing to accept them, which is why the efforts didn't work out. Notice the similarities between that case and this one?

The difference: The American government is exactly aware of what these groups are doing, while the British government wasn't. That's why the American government goes out of its way to avoid engaging them directly. They refuse to make the same mistake the British did. But that doesn't stop these groups from trying to incite that direct engagement while still leaving themselves room to look the victim.

CaptainGemini wrote:

Samnell wrote:

I submit that armed vigilante bands have rarely improved any situation, though I know I'll upset the armchair Maoists in doing so. I base this judgment on the fact that we have tried them often enough and the results are almost perfectly disastrous. Sometimes they're even disastrous for the cause the the vigilantes support, though in a way that's a recommendation for the rest of us. Sometimes they have their successes, which are calamitous by design. I don't think we've been improved much by those experiments. Indeed, some guy noticed a while back that they're actively corrosive even if their effects appear good in the short term.

In this, he anticipated a major point of Pauline Maier's classic work Popular Uprisings in Eighteenth-Century America, which is well worth the price of getting a used copy of the collection it's in if you can't get it through a library or something. If you want to argue the legitimacy of mob action with reference to eighteenth century British North America, you've got to read her to know why mobs came into fashion and why they went out.

I dunno. I can name at least one case where it turned out rather well.

I think that's the case where he recommends reading Pauline Maier's classic work Popular Uprisings in Eighteenth-Century America.

That said, and without having read that work, there are cases where they may be the least bad option. But those cases are far worse than anything they're being suggested for here. Cases where the situation is bad enough that revolution, likely with millions displaced and hundreds of thousands dead and a good chance of ending in tyranny anyway, is still better than letting the current state go on.

There's a number of groups that believe we've hit the point where revolution would be better than letting things continue.

Plus, the American Revolution was an undesired outcome for violent mobs. They didn't want it. The British Empire gave them no choice.

Many of the groups supporting this woman are in a different situation; they do want it. It would justify their persecution complex and give them a shot at either taking over the government or establishing their own nation that runs by their rules. After all, it worked out a lot better than expected last time.

There's a local company that makes root beer the traditional way, typically for events like SantaCaliGon.

After tasting their root beer, I've been unable to drink store-bought root beer ever since. It just doesn't taste as good.

I submit that armed vigilante bands have rarely improved any situation, though I know I'll upset the armchair Maoists in doing so. I base this judgment on the fact that we have tried them often enough and the results are almost perfectly disastrous. Sometimes they're even disastrous for the cause the the vigilantes support, though in a way that's a recommendation for the rest of us. Sometimes they have their successes, which are calamitous by design. I don't think we've been improved much by those experiments. Indeed, some guy noticed a while back that they're actively corrosive even if their effects appear good in the short term.

In this, he anticipated a major point of Pauline Maier's classic work Popular Uprisings in Eighteenth-Century America, which is well worth the price of getting a used copy of the collection it's in if you can't get it through a library or something. If you want to argue the legitimacy of mob action with reference to eighteenth century British North America, you've got to read her to know why mobs came into fashion and why they went out.

I dunno. I can name at least one case where it turned out rather well.

Goats can climb fences. Sometimes, better than humans can.

Sören Mogalle wrote:

BigDTBone wrote:

The next president comes in and wants some pulled pork sammiches.

She took office in November 2014. At that time the Winsor-Case was already one year old, and Obergefell worked it's way up to the supreme court. It was obvious that some ruling would be implemented, she had to know that this could happen. Still she took office, and talked to no one about it.

Well, she hasn't given any other indication that she would stand out, intellectually speaking, in a box of corn flakes. And even total idiots have the right to due process.

.... which, of course, she got.

I think Krensky was right when he said there's no possibility of accommodation. Just that the reason isn't what he stated, but because she simply won't accept it.

CaptainGemini wrote:

One of the largest sources of groundwater pollution is raising crops. Specifically, the fertilizers used on the crops.

The bigger stupidity? I looked up the pollution costs. It would actually do less environmental damage for humanity to switch to a completely carnivorous diet than to switch to a vegetarian diet.

Why? Because of nitrogen shortages in soil. Nitrogen that is best found in manure, with the most sustainable manure source being livestock. And last time I saw anything on it, the current livestock population doesn't produce enough manure to be a replacement for the nonsustainable methods.

We're literally eating vegetables faster than the nitrogen they need to grow on can be naturally replaced in the soil, and there's currently no way to fix it that won't cause an even worse environmental disaster. Going vegetarian as a species would only exacerbate the problem.

Does that consider all the crops we grow to feed to animals? It's not like we would stop fertilizing feed corn if we just ate more cows.

Yep! The only way I could come up with for an all-vegetarian diet, or even for a continuation of the current diet, is an eventual switch over to bovine-sourced fertilizer. Which means we need a lot more cows.

The corn cost is going to increase no matter what dietary path we take.

Samnell wrote:

Zelda Marie Lupescu wrote:

So, did this happen in the 60's too when they legalized interracial marriage? I'm sure it had to... Wonder how long it took to get it all figured out.

Less how long it took to figure things out and more how long it took to drive opposition underground. Same arguments, same tactics, same people. Every time. They might as well just glue the white hoods on. So a realistic timeline until they give up the ghost? (Usually literally. Medical advances have their cruel side.) Alabama had laws banning interracial marriage on the books until 2000. Call it thirty-three years.

Less I suspect. Though there will be some dead-enders essentially forever, just like there are some opposed to miscegenation today. Opinions are gay rights are changing far faster than on racism though. Even gay marriage has far more public support now than interracial marriage did when it was legalized.

OTOH, I don't think the "religious freedom" legal angle was really tried back in the 60s. Tactics for fighting change do change.

To be fair, gay marriage doesn't have seriously entrenched opposition on both sides of the privilege line, while interracial marriage does. One of the common threads I've seen in stories posted by interracial couples on their dealings with family is that the more privileged side tends to be more accepting of the marriage than the more oppressed side, but not by much. But there is still ingrained societal opposition in general and certain race mixes still face heavy ingrained opposition from all sides.

This issue is unlikely to go away as long as the concept of "race traitor" remains heavily ingrained within the American consciousness.

One of the largest sources of groundwater pollution is raising crops. Specifically, the fertilizers used on the crops.

The bigger stupidity? I looked up the pollution costs. It would actually do less environmental damage for humanity to switch to a completely carnivorous diet than to switch to a vegetarian diet.

Why? Because of nitrogen shortages in soil. Nitrogen that is best found in manure, with the most sustainable manure source being livestock. And last time I saw anything on it, the current livestock population doesn't produce enough manure to be a replacement for the nonsustainable methods.

We're literally eating vegetables faster than the nitrogen they need to grow on can be naturally replaced in the soil, and there's currently no way to fix it that won't cause an even worse environmental disaster. Going vegetarian as a species would only exacerbate the problem.