Sociopath Community

MissCommunication said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

Inquirer said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

Earth isn't the only planet in the solar system warming. Us being the cause of global warming is a heated debate among scientists. Carbon tax is a cash grab. It doesn't stop global warming. If they are so concerned about this, then they should expand hydro electric technology.

Anthropogenic global warming is beyond dispute today and the overwhelming majority of scientists back it. There are several ways of addressing it and both carbon taxes and various deductions/subsidies for climate neutral energy sources should be (and are!) used.

I will say this topic is more contentious than a lot of people lead on, and I mean it as a scientific topic purely. 

Inquirer said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

Earth isn't the only planet in the solar system warming. Us being the cause of global warming is a heated debate among scientists. Carbon tax is a cash grab. It doesn't stop global warming. If they are so concerned about this, then they should expand hydro electric technology.

Anthropogenic global warming is beyond dispute today and the overwhelming majority of scientists back it. There are several ways of addressing it and both carbon taxes and various deductions/subsidies for climate neutral energy sources should be (and are!) used.

This is kind of an aside but... The science is no longer debatable and there's an urgent impetus for change right now, which I don't think is going to happen. But, ignoring all of the ramifications of a warming planet, and the mitigation strategies government's will be forced to develop to deal with them, addressing climate change is just economically smart. 

The renewable energy industry has become a major U.S. employer. ... Nearly 335,000 people work in the solar industry and more than 111,000 work in the wind industry, compared to 211,000 working in coal mining or other fossil fuel extraction.

Big oil and the fossil fuel industry are the most corrupt actors on the planet and they've been the ones undermining climate science. Although, what's pretty interesting in Canada is that in the last 3 years some big producers have been divesting from oil extraction and putting more new capital into renewables. Last year at this time people were saying oil would peak in 2050. Three months ago many economists were saying big oil may have peaked now. 

Science is always debatable, dogma is the thing that is not debatable. 

I' glad you recognize constraints derived from basic behavioral economics, though.

Spatial Mind said: 

Yes. Giving the rich tax breaks, is good for any nation.

What tax rate for the rich do you think is appropriate?

Inquirer said:

What tax rate would you impose on the rich if you were President?

Honestly if it were up to him I think he'd charge the lower class more money than the upper class as some sort of punishment. 

Spatial Mind said: 

I can see why you're so eager to one up me Inq.

The things I say shatter your perspective, then you're stuck scoffing at evidence that support my claim. Then it probably frustrates you how this stuff comes to me so easily.

No, you haven't bothered to really prove it. This Cassandra assumption of yours is being self-inflicted. 

You have to actually prove things instead of assume you'll be taken at face value by the merits of being you, something no one should expect. 

Yes. Giving the rich tax breaks, is good for any nation.

I'm sure the banks agree with you...

But you can't accept that. No no no. Not after what the mainstream media did to your thought process. I know it upsets you when you're told Trump is just enriching himself and hus rich friends. 

This stuff is very simple.

It's not, you're just oversimplifying it. You can't even list ideal figures, but rather just vague ideas of how "TAX = BAD". 

Turncoat said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

I can see why you're so eager to one up me Inq.

The things I say shatter your perspective, then you're stuck scoffing at evidence that support my claim. Then it probably frustrates you how this stuff comes to me so easily.

No, you haven't bothered to really prove it. This Cassandra assumption of yours is being self-inflicted. 

You have to actually prove things instead of assume you'll be taken at face value by the merits of being you, something no one should expect. 

On the contrary, I posted evidence a year ago, and pointed out how hard it is for him to digest anything without the aid of the media.

 

Yes. Giving the rich tax breaks, is good for any nation.

I'm sure the banks agree with you...

I'm sure they do.

Big business is profitable, but in most cases the bigger bulk of income goes to employees and other operating costs.

It's common sense. If you take away more than half of a company's income, they will have to shrink their operations, let employees go, no raises. 

 

But you can't accept that. No no no. Not after what the mainstream media did to your thought process. I know it upsets you when you're told Trump is just enriching himself and hus rich friends. 

This stuff is very simple.

It's not, you're just oversimplifying it. You can't even list ideal figures, but rather just vague ideas of how "TAX = BAD". 

 But TC. I never said tax is bad. 

I've told you before and I'll tell you again. You have to be at a certain level of intelligence to hold a conversation with me. I like progress, not me having to run in circles going on about this backward silliness. "Because Tony thinks taxes are bad !" 

On stage you'd only embarrass youself. However I'll give you credit for responding to a message for Inq, better than he would've.

Spatial Mind said: 

Turncoat said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

I can see why you're so eager to one up me Inq.

The things I say shatter your perspective, then you're stuck scoffing at evidence that support my claim. Then it probably frustrates you how this stuff comes to me so easily.

No, you haven't bothered to really prove it. This Cassandra assumption of yours is being self-inflicted. 

You have to actually prove things instead of assume you'll be taken at face value by the merits of being you, something no one should expect. 

On the contrary, I posted evidence a year ago, and pointed out how hard it is for him to digest anything without the aid of the media.

You're welcome to quote it then, the search here still works when it comes to searching by username. If not, you otherwise don't want or expect to be taken seriously. 

I've told you before and I'll tell you again. You have to be at a certain level of intelligence to hold a conversation with me.

The level of intelligence where you don't have to prove anything? 

What's there for me to prove here ?

Spatial Mind said: 

What's there for me to prove here ?

The legitimacy of your points. 

Vague as usual.

Spatial Mind said: 

Vague as usual.

How is it vague for me to ask for you to elaborate and otherwise post sources?

As I've said before, 'this Cassandra assumption of yours is being self-inflicted'.