metalslug

That's fair comment, although it may be argued that religion and antivaxxers have some parallels.

I take your points, but it has been argued by some that receiving a vaccination is a medical procedure that some regard as invasive. Personally I was fine with getting jabbed, and I won't presume to know how anti-vaxxer logic works in a context of medical phobias vs not wearing shoes. I totally get that the vaccines reduce the susceptibility of the recipient, but that's not what I was asking. How much are the unvaccinated more likely to transmit to others ? If you already included that somewhere above then forgive me, but I didn't see it.

All true, and to ride a motorcycle in most US states you need a licence, but not necessarily wear a helmet. Would there be a fuss if that changed tomorrow to mandate helmets for all ? Would we hear arguments about 'my body, my choice' ? This is largely why I'm keen to know the outcome of studies into the relative infectiousness of the vaccinated vs the unvaccinated and the relative danger to others. In fairness to your comment; perhaps there are no actual documented rights to eat at a restaurant, go to a concert, or visit a gym. I lived in South Africa for many years before 1990 so I know all about "right of admission", but I wasn't entirely comfortable with it.

Do you have a citation for that ? I've been struggling to find published consensus on how much more infectious such people are. To be clear; I agree that vaccination is wise and necessary, I was amongst the first 14% in my country to be twice-vacc'ed. I also agree that the unvaccinated place an unnecessary burden on healthcare resources. All good points. With that being said; some parts of the toxic vitriol being directed to the unvaccinated includes denial of rights (venue admission, employment, public care & services, etc.). Critics who are advocating, in effect, a two-tiered society; those with rights and those without, depending on the documents that you carry, and thereby establishing a new kind of Untermensch . That fundamentally gives me a sense of unease in democratic countries. Ultimately I believe the greater good of society does trump individual freedoms, as I expect most forum members here do, but it's a bitter choice to have to make.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9899709/Academic-sacked-calling-right-wing-commentator-house-n-o-sues-discrimination.html A fair bit to be dismayed about here; for me the gemstone is quoted from this other article; I never imagined anyone from the left would make that argument.

I'm feeling a bit conflicted over this. I agree with the decision to pull out troops, for the reasons that Biden, and some others, have said. However, this is probably not good news for Taiwan if the 'world police' are standing down from foreign engagements. I wouldn't be totally surprised if China takes them within a year.

Then maybe you shouldn't be posting in this thread. The world is a little larger than just 'merica. FWIW; I'm no longer an SA citizen, but my remaining contacts there report the situation is mostly under control again, but will take a fair while to repair and recover the damages.

Using that spin; food charities can feed three squares daily, over 30 days, to 100 people, and claim to have fed 9000 people. In an innocuous mistake and, yes, Trump has done worse, but this wasn't merely 'misread' twice; The leader of the free world doesn't seem to be aware of the population of his own country. For what it's worth; I'm not entirely anti-Dem; I have huge respect for both Clinton and Obama, but this man's health status is becoming more obvious.

According to Biden; 350 million Americans have now been vaccinated. (He said it twice so it must be correct). That's 106% of the population. Well done

I accept that's the most common (and definitely the historical) definition for CRT, although on the same Wiki page that has been referenced a few times in this thread there is also a mention; "More recently, CRT has been taught internationally, including in the United Kingdom and Australia". The CRT being taught or proposed in those countries is not the US version; it's reshaped for the circumstances and history of those respective countries. This is either evidence that the definition or scope of CRT is dynamic ...or grounds for an argument that these countries should not be calling it CRT, that perhaps they should formulate a more nationally distinctive name for their own studies. If the scope of CRT is dynamic and expandable, then what authority gets to define what CRT is, to avert it from becoming whatever influencers want it to be including the 'scaremonger' version ? Political parties might not control that definition but if the proposed content is seen as negative or divisive then it's voted out of the state or national curriculum. I have already compared CRT to the study of religious scripture; a theory better suited as a separate and optional curriculum subject. In any place where CRT is optional curriculum (student's choice) and still banned, I would agree that's unfair.

Have an broad-brush opinion about South Africans, do you ? ...or ex-SA's ? I'm sure the founder and administrator of this site and forum would be thrilled to hear it.

I do; as a caucasian in post-apartheid sub-Saharan Africa for 20 years. If one doesn't like the perceived systemic slights against oneself in one's country of residence, and if there is no realistic prospect to change that, then one may work hard to go someplace else. I did, by emigrating. It's not an entirely invalid argument. As an ex-South African even I would say that article is stretching. The riots were a blend of ethnic-specific protest (Zuma is Zulu - most riots were in KZN area) , increased economic stresses of Covid lockdowns and standard criminal elements under a guise of political protest. Not much that can be attributed to CRT on this one.

And so it begins again... Nah, I feel trolling may include a pattern of asking questions with an advance awareness that the answer cannot reasonably be known to the question recipient, for the sake of "Aha, gotcha !", or someone incessantly repeating questions because they cannot be bothered to read and/or comprehend pre-existing statements. That's shitty.

Has anyone perhaps been aware of this published a few days ago ? A REPORT ON THE FIGHTING CULTURE OF THE UNITED STATES NAVY SURFACE FLEET Now, before someone jumps on the obvious; Yes, I'm aware that all four names under "Conducted at the Direction of..." are Republicans (yeah, I looked those guys up because I'm aware that politics loves to drive reports). If forum members choose to dismiss it out of hand on that alone though, then we might as well apply the same bias to dismiss any report the left conducts. In the event that some forum members decide to troll me on this; I'll state in advance that I cannot effectively debate this particular report as I have no significant knowledge of the modern US Navy or the veracity of statements in this report, and without better knowledge I expect it would be tricky for any forum member to shoot meaningful flak at this unless , heaven forbid, "it's perfectly OK for combat training to take a back seat...". If you happen to be a senior and current naval officer who can debunk this then, by all means; have at it ! It's a long report and it's not all anti-woke sentiments throughout; but for relevance to this thread topic you may ready your fully-woke battleship cannons because, for what it's worth, here are some excerpts; ----------------- A recently retired senior enlisted leader suggested that this dynamic was more a lack of proper prioritization. “I guarantee you every unit in the Navy is up to speed on their diversity training. I’m sorry that I can’t say the same of their ship handling training.” “Sometimes I think we care more about whether we have enough diversity officers than if we’ll survive a fight with the Chinese navy,” lamented one lieutenant currently on active duty. “It’s criminal. They think my only value is as a black woman. But you cut our ship open with a missile and we’ll all bleed the same colour.” ...destroyer captain lamented that, “where someone puts their time shows what their priorities are. And we've got so many messages about X, Y, Z appreciation month, or sexual assault prevention, or you name it. We don't even have close to that same level of emphasis on actual warfighting.”

If you're not following yet, there's little more I can say that will clarify this for you.

My (public) school syllabus many years ago included Christian religion studies. Of course most of us knew it was horseshyte and I'm not aware of anyone who converted during that time, but knowledge of scripture was regarded as educational, if not actual faith. My preference would certainly be to not have CRT taught at all, but I'm willing to make some compromises so long as CRT studies can honestly be considered as actual academia and not activist nonsense. "This is what you should know", as opposed to "This is what you should do (or believe)". I had also inferred in my earlier post that I'm not yet willing to dismiss all of CRT in it's entirety, some aspects of it (such as redlining and zoning laws, some legal precedents) may have some merit. I would be a bit curious why CRT is considered a separate subject; If it's factual academia then it could probably be folded into civics or history ?

Your post had thoughtful and rational comments. Thank you. If the parent in the video is not speaking accurately as to the true definition of CRT, then we can at least infer that he is speaking in response to how CRT was, is, or will be, (mis)applied at his daughter's school. A scope-creep to include things in CRT that were never intended and ultimately distort the original definition over time. Who polices that ? Which authorities will regulate the correct training of CRT ? As with most schooling; do it right or don't do it at all. Even if we consider the very mildest definition of CRT, it would be difficult to dismiss every comment made by either video speaker as being irrelevant to the topic. I don't doubt that it's a complex combination, but being 'colour-sensitive' is a very slippery slope as it opens the door of hypocrisy and subjective bias; Racial profiling is OK for 'this' but not for 'that'. The lefts will take it left and the rights will take it right. 'Colour-blind', if not perfect, appears to be the only objective neutral.

Then by all means take the full two minutes into account; he speaks as much in the present tense as he does in the future, you're cherry-picking the specific parts that suit your narrative of what was said. I'm gobsmacked that you're being obtuse about a recorded event for sake of a cheap slur.

Although, if you had actually watched the clip in the first link , you would know that person is speaking against what his child's school actually did, not what they said or 'scaremongered'.

As with many topics; it appears that there are several aspects to CRT: from potentially valid concerns such as redlining and zoning laws (which I don't know enough about to have an opinion) , and yet also some absurdities that damage CRT or it's intended purpose. Two samples here and here are people of colour speaking out against CRT, and it would be curious if members of this forum were to argue that the opinions of these two people are 'wrong'. Neither of these videos include redlining and zoning laws, but that may be because redlining and zoning laws are not at the forefront of the school policies and fallacies that the speakers in these videos are speaking out against.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease ? If the ethnicity aspect of crime statistics (Floyd's fate was a crime, I agree) should be used to determine a preferred remedial action then.... if law enforcement were to disproportionately stop, search, detain specific groups based on statistical data indicating a crime trend within such groups, or within an area having a demographic majority of such a group, then that's OK too ? ..or does it not cut both ways ?

I don't think that's an accurate metaphor. Consider perhaps if my friend was with 8 other people in a bus, which suffers an impact by some random event killing those 8. My friend survives the initial event, severely injured, but another driver subsequently crashes into the accident scene, killing him as his health is already compromised. I'd feel a bit sour about that for sure, because it's a subjective interest, but is my friend's life necessarily more valuable than the other 8 lives in the bus ? Objectively it's not.

There's an online link somewhere (I'll find it if needed) mentioning research by U.C. Berkeley and U Washinton that places the average temperature difference between the two hemispheres at around 3°F since climate change. If the Northern hemisphere is impacted 5 to 10 degrees (per billvon estimate?), and the difference between hemispheres is 3 degrees (placing the Southern hemisphere at 2 to 7 degrees increase if applying the Berkeley difference number), and the average of both together is 1-2 degrees higher, then I'm not seeing how that math works. It's not a trick question, I'm genuinely keen to know. There seems to be a fair bit of 'spitballing', even by experts, around climate estimates and this is very unfortunate considering the impacts of this topic and, in some cases, extraordinary grandstanding. billvon has stated that warm weather that kills people is a combination of heat wave, geographical features, and the climate change. So, when heat waves killed people several decades ago there was nothing to talk about, but when they kill people now then we have a soapbox to stand on. It's sounding as though we can now assign blame for every death and the entire event to a single cause. I would however like to thank (genuinely, not sarcastically) the replies to my questions. I have been swayed and enlightened on a few things, specifically a better understanding of relative economic cost, which were largely my original questions. I reserve some skepticism on other aspects of the topic which I don't think can be effectively debated here.

It's an extraordinary claim to assert that a full 115 degrees lies squarely at the feet of global warming. Hypothetically, if the world was net-zero tomorrow, and/or a full degree lower on average, would the 115 degrees reduce to a more survivable 95 degrees ? , with no chance of seeing even 114 degrees ? Forgive me, but I doubt that. The very gradual loss of Manhattan Island; would you regard that as "destroying people's lives" or "reducing the earnings on their 401ks" ? Sure, I don't have the personal budget to relocate it, or any other place, but neither do I have a budget for the wide river of lithium batteries as one of several things that would need be recycled or responsibly disposed. A poster replied that, yes, they can be recycled, but apparently not for much profit, some cursory reading suggests we're barely recycling 20% of them globally at the moment, so who will fund the incentive to recycle more ? If one properly relocates an island, that's once in several thousand years, and some of that would be construction 'attrition'. Thunberg-predictions aside; how much time does Manhattan currently have ? I seem to be reading an estimated 50% loss by 2060. Based on that; I have to also believe that property prices in Manhattan are currently in freefall, and that the attrition of that area as old buildings are demolished and new buildings are constructed, are not being constructed on Manhattan Island anymore ? ..as nobody would add new infrastructure to a doomed island ? Is that what is actually happening there now ? Again; hypothetically, if we were net-zero tomorrow, would that save Manhattan in time by instantly stopping ocean rise or, indeed, reversing it ? Is the effect that fast ? It might not be a stretch to say the island is doomed already, if assuming that it was ever at that level of danger. At what point does one cut and run ?

Would there be any realistic way to approximate the relative cost of all these proposals vs gains, in economic terms ? I don't consider myself a denier; I accept the NASA stats of rising average global surface temperatures and sea levels over many years, but we're talking about very small amounts here, and are more-than-matched by technologically advancing and very resourceful humans and, indeed, nature itself which is very resilient. A lot of 'green energy' solutions require manufactured components that leave their own pollutants, waste and energy costs in their wake; batteries, solar panels, wind blades, etc. If the intention is to replace all our petroleum vehicles with electrics by year xxxx, that's a lot of batteries with few recyclable parts consuming a lot of electrical energy that will have to come from somewhere. In some countries that will still be their coal power stations, and a lot of energy gets lost in those transfers from source to end-user. Is it ultimately still efficient ? ...efficient enough to fully balance or gain with the development, manufacture, maintenance and waste disposal costs vs our current fuel-powered machines ? When it gets stated that global warming threatens 'the world', is it not more accurate to say that it threatens specific countries and/or cities while actually benefitting other areas ? Many members here may be aware of higher than usual crop yields in many parts of the world, directly attributed to higher rainfall, perhaps even higher CO2, and indeed the coolest summers in 15+ years (this year's grape and grain crops in Australia for example). Much gets said about island nations shrinking in size although other islands are indeed growing in size, neither of which is necessarily related to sea level, as islands can be affected by coastal erosion and coral reef sediment respectively, as can mainlands. Parts of the world have seen devastating bush fires in recent years. I mention this not because I think they are related to global warming but rather as a reference to the remarkable recovery of those areas within a few years or less, or the near total recovery of Australia's Great Barrier Reef barely 5 years after a brief warmer current bleached parts of it and had climate change activists screaming "Armageddon !". It's a testament to the resiliency of nature to recover from extreme events, and yet climate change activists are encouraging a literal 'break a sweat and scream' panic over a few degrees within a century, with some gullible followers wondering if the very air around them would be too hot to breathe within their lifetime. It's dangerous fear-mongering, as damaging to society (or worse) as the deniers. I believe there is a rational middle ground where one can accept the facts of warming without spreading an absurd panic on impressionable people, especially in view of many climate predictions that have proven false since they were made ("there will be no snow at location xxx by year 2020....."). Again I state that I do not deny the very small global average rise, but wild predictions and doom prophets do a great disservice to that side of the debate. True; several large coastal cities are threatened by even a small rise in ocean levels, but this won't happen overnight, surely there would be time and resources to relocate such structures and areas with ample time ? Society has a remarkable ability to rebuild and recover. It would certainly be lousy, as an economic loss, for the people who own or reside in those threatened areas, but if we think that converting the whole world to net-zero emissions energy is not going to be an economic loss for billions of other people, in other business, in other areas, then we're kidding ourselves. Either way here, we'll have a lot of losers. Can we be sure where the most economically fair global average gains will be made, vs the losses ?