Why has politics become even more extreme?

[Endus]

Why do say that? I have many opinions but what I don't have, and nobody has, is a crystal ball that can predict the future. Lines on a graph can't determine the future and we should avoid making assumptions that a trend will always continue and that the future will continue the same as it has in the past.

Literally no one is claiming to have a magic crystal ball. It's a straw man you continually use to justify your completely irrational rejection of science and statistical mathematics.

[Elegiac]

Literally no one is claiming to have a magic crystal ball. It's a straw man you continually use to justify your completely irrational rejection of science and statistical mathematics.

I dunno man just because non-rotational monoculture has increased soil salinity and reduced nutrient content in the past doesn't mean it will ALWAYS happen. /s

Tfw you're literally arguing against talking points that were debunked in the Bronze Age, for fuck's sake.

[Endus]

I dunno man just because non-rotational monoculture has increased soil salinity and reduced nutrient content in the past doesn't mean it will ALWAYS happen. /s

Tfw you're literally arguing against talking points that were debunked in the Bronze Age, for fuck's sake.

It's an argument that states that, if you have a dog, then you should be regularly surprised when you see that it's still the same dog. And not, say, a velociraptor. Or an M4 Sherman tank. Just because the laws of physics and chemistry and such as we understand them assure us there's no chance that will happen, that's just a "trendline" and you can't presume anything about the future based on that; maybe tomorrow, Fido will be 400 feet tall and shooting laser beams from its eyes. Totally just as reasonable as "still the same dog it was yesterday".

It's such an obviously ridiculous argument that I can't believe for one second it's actually offered in good faith.

[Omega10]

It's an argument that states that, if you have a dog, then you should be regularly surprised when you see that it's still the same dog. And not, say, a velociraptor. Or an M4 Sherman tank. Just because the laws of physics and chemistry and such as we understand them assure us there's no chance that will happen, that's just a "trendline" and you can't presume anything about the future based on that; maybe tomorrow, Fido will be 400 feet tall and shooting laser beams from its eyes. Totally just as reasonable as "still the same dog it was yesterday".

It's such an obviously ridiculous argument that I can't believe for one second it's actually offered in good faith.

Second time I laughed hard today. Nice post

[Elegiac]

It's an argument that states that, if you have a dog, then you should be regularly surprised when you see that it's still the same dog. And not, say, a velociraptor. Or an M4 Sherman tank. Just because the laws of physics and chemistry and such as we understand them assure us there's no chance that will happen, that's just a "trendline" and you can't presume anything about the future based on that; maybe tomorrow, Fido will be 400 feet tall and shooting laser beams from its eyes. Totally just as reasonable as "still the same dog it was yesterday".

It's such an obviously ridiculous argument that I can't believe for one second it's actually offered in good faith.

Why is it I feel like we've been here before...

[JohnBrown1917]

At-least now we know you don't care about the Environment and Animals as long as Humans have something to Gain from it.



Says the person who ignores Scientific Data.

The rich humans who will benefit from it*

[Mormolyce]

If you read my post again you'll see that I specifically referenced what is hospitable for *humans*, I make no claim that the growth of civilization won't be correlated with a decline in other species. In fact I'd be shocked if there wasn't some necessary and minimum amount of reverse correlation.

Well, weirdly you're wrong again:



And no, the increasing rate of species extinction isn't a "black swan event" you hack lol.

[PC2]

Well, weirdly you're wrong again:

[img]https://i.imgur.com/zfsHvXL.png[img]

No I don't have a problem with that, if you look closer at the graph you'll see that for the green line they posed it in terms of extinctions instead of starting with the total amount species in the top left section. The person who made the graph probably felt that it would be easier to interpret that way.

And no, the increasing rate of species extinction isn't a "black swan event"

My avatar isn't about Taleb's black swan event. It's about how you can't ever prove a theory is right no matter how much supporting evidence there is, but you can prove them wrong with only a single counterexample.

you hack lol.

Mormolyce try to focus on *ideas* as opposed to ad hominem and name-calling. Personal attacks don't actually do anything. It's like if I say "Mormolyce you're an idiot!" it wouldn't strengthen my argument so it seems pointless to me.

[szechuan]

No I don't have a problem with that, if you look closer at the graph you'll see that for the green line they posed it in terms of extinctions instead of starting with the total amount species in the top left section. The person who made the graph probably felt that it would be easier to interpret that way.

LMAO it won't matter, you said.

Lines on a graph can't determine the future and we should avoid making assumptions that a trend will always continue as it has in the past.

[PC2]

LMAO it won't matter, you said.

What's the issue here? Graphs are good for looking at the data but they can't tell us how the population and extinction will change in the future because it depends on what people decide to do. For example if people start becoming more anti-natalist then the population will start to go down, if they become more pro-natalist then it goes up faster. Both options are possible.

[szechuan]

What's the issue here?

That you refuse to listen to facts and reason no matter what.

Both options are possible.

And one is more likely the other isn't according to graphs, you decided to ignore facts.

[Wyrt]

I think the best thing for US politics would be introducing ranked choice voting, remove first past the post, and campaign finance reform that significantly reduced the amount of money used in elections.

This would help 3rd parties be actually viable and would give voters more of a choice. It'd also force parties to stand on policies rather than on opposition to the other party.

But doing this would require Democrats and Republicans to give up a ton of money and power so it'll never happen.

[PC2]

That you refuse to listen to facts and reason no matter what.

You're making a point about me as a person though, it seems pointless because it's not real argument.

And one is more likely the other isn't according to graphs, you decided to ignore facts.

How likely either option is depends on how convincing each side is, which we can't know which memes will spread at a faster rate tomorrow, and the day after that, and the next after that, etc.

[szechuan]

You're making a point about me as a person though, it seems pointless because it's not real argument.

Yes it is.

How likely either option is depends on how convincing each side is, which we can't know which memes will spread at a faster rate tomorrow, and the day after that, and the next after that, etc.

Which shows you'll refuse to listen to concrete science as long as the Lie is Convincing enough.

[PC2]

Yes it is.

Which shows you'll refuse to listen to concrete science as long as the Lie is Convincing enough.

But what are you trying to convince me of? I don't get it.

[szechuan]

But what are you trying to convince me of? I don't get it.

Nothing, just stating that you'll refuse to listen to concrete science as long as the Lie is Convincing enough.

[PC2]

Nothing, just stating that you'll refuse to listen to concrete science as long as the Lie is Convincing enough.

lol you confuse the hell out of me. What am I suppose to do with that?

I'm online right now listening by reading posts, if you have something scientific you can post it now. The thread is about extremism though so I don't think this is a very scientific topic.