The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#181  Postby Fallible » Jun 12, 2019 7:26 am

I always thought Juju was a nasty little twat.
John Grant wrote:They say 'let go, let go, let go, you must learn to let go'.
If I hear that fucking phrase again, this baby's gonna blow
Into a million itsy bitsy tiny pieces, don't you know,
Just like my favourite scene in Scanners .
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 48945
Age: 46
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#182  Postby Thommo » Jun 12, 2019 8:07 am

I'm just sad that nobody commented about the methodology that was used to generate the graphic.

I found it to be yet another cautionary tale about results from the social sciences, even when they get widely reported in the media.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 25995

Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#183  Postby tuco » Jun 12, 2019 8:21 am

Are you? How about predictions to 2200 or 2B population scenarios to be taken seriously? Not sad about those? I am not being mean now, just curious.
tuco
 
Posts: 15238

Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#184  Postby Svartalf » Jun 12, 2019 8:25 am

Fallible wrote:I always thought Juju was a nasty little twat.

but whose sock was it?
PC stands for Patronizing Cocksucker Randy Ping

Embrace the Dark Side, it needs a hug
User avatar
Svartalf
 
Posts: 951
Age: 49
Male

Country: France
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#185  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 12, 2019 8:30 am

Svartalf wrote:
Fallible wrote:I always thought Juju was a nasty little twat.

but whose sock was it?


See post #178. It's not, you know, anything you'd recognize as scientific evidence. You have to go with what's available. Examine the posting histories of the two. Otherwise, there's software that pretty much seals the deal. Start a feedback thread, which seems obligatory for some when someone is banned.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28416
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#186  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 12, 2019 8:36 am

tuco wrote:Are you? How about predictions to 2200 or 2B population scenarios to be taken seriously? Not sad about those? I am not being mean now, just curious.


Why would someone be 'sad' about a mere scenario? This really underestimates the power of denial, especially given that nobody discussing this topic today plans on being around in a hundred years. Tons of points, though, for worrying about people who aren't nearly born, yet.

But then, I'd be sad, too, if I felt compelled to comment substantively but failed to show evidence of the tools necessary to do so.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28416
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#187  Postby BlackBart » Jun 12, 2019 9:24 am

Fallible wrote:I always thought Juju was a nasty little twat.

I assume he's glopping off about it over at Ratz as we speak.
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Posts: 11678
Age: 57
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#188  Postby Svartalf » Jun 12, 2019 9:27 am

not at all, if it's indeed Rainbow, he's totally mute on the subject of Ratskep.
PC stands for Patronizing Cocksucker Randy Ping

Embrace the Dark Side, it needs a hug
User avatar
Svartalf
 
Posts: 951
Age: 49
Male

Country: France
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#189  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 12, 2019 9:29 am

Svartalf wrote:not at all, if it's indeed Rainbow, he's totally mute on the subject of Ratskep.


And why would he not be?

Getting oneself banned as a sock is embarrassing, is it not? The only thing to boast about it how long it took, and that has its drawbacks.

This is the wrong time to bring skepticism into the topic of muteness. Silence is diagnostic of nothing unless you know why it should be making some noise.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Jun 12, 2019 9:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28416
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#190  Postby BlackBart » Jun 12, 2019 9:30 am

Oh well. Both dicks either way so nothing lost. :coffee:
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Posts: 11678
Age: 57
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#191  Postby BlackBart » Jun 12, 2019 9:33 am

Some Ratz members have form about boasting about socks over here. Why would Rainbow be any different?
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Posts: 11678
Age: 57
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#192  Postby Thommo » Jun 12, 2019 9:40 am

tuco wrote:Are you? How about predictions to 2200 or 2B population scenarios to be taken seriously? Not sad about those? I am not being mean now, just curious.


I didn't see any that weren't appropriately qualified. So no.

I wouldn't take them too seriously if they were expressed with undue certainty. And I might get sad if people were unduly sure.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 25995

Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#193  Postby Svartalf » Jun 12, 2019 9:42 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
Svartalf wrote:not at all, if it's indeed Rainbow, he's totally mute on the subject of Ratskep.


And why would he not be?

Getting oneself banned as a sock is embarrassing, is it not? The only thing to boast about it how long it took, and that has its drawbacks.

This is the wrong time to bring skepticism into the topic of muteness. Silence is diagnostic of nothing unless you know why it should be making some noise.

Well, rEv often gives as a blow by blow account of his exploits when he socks here, , why would Rainbow not do the same?
:lol: @Blackbart Great minds and all that...
PC stands for Patronizing Cocksucker Randy Ping

Embrace the Dark Side, it needs a hug
User avatar
Svartalf
 
Posts: 951
Age: 49
Male

Country: France
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#194  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 12, 2019 10:08 am

Svartalf wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Svartalf wrote:not at all, if it's indeed Rainbow, he's totally mute on the subject of Ratskep.


And why would he not be?

Getting oneself banned as a sock is embarrassing, is it not? The only thing to boast about it how long it took, and that has its drawbacks.

This is the wrong time to bring skepticism into the topic of muteness. Silence is diagnostic of nothing unless you know why it should be making some noise.

Well, rEv often gives as a blow by blow account of his exploits when he socks here, , why would Rainbow not do the same?


Hey, THAT'S entertainment. I mean, every pathetic troll is going to have the same wants and needs, right?

I almost hate to say it, Svartalf, but all this is sooooo five years ago.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28416
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#195  Postby tuco » Jun 12, 2019 10:14 am

Thommo wrote:
tuco wrote:Are you? How about predictions to 2200 or 2B population scenarios to be taken seriously? Not sad about those? I am not being mean now, just curious.


I didn't see any that weren't appropriately qualified. So no.

I wouldn't take them too seriously if they were expressed with undue certainty. And I might get sad if people were unduly sure.


I don't know what "appropriately qualified" means but alright. I guess you missed the part with the claim that the current level of consumption would be sustainable if the population were 2B people, leaving alone where the 2B came from.
tuco
 
Posts: 15238

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#196  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 12, 2019 10:20 am

Thommo wrote:I'm just sad that nobody commented about the methodology that was used to generate the graphic.

I found it to be yet another cautionary tale about results from the social sciences, even when they get widely reported in the media.



I read it, just didn't have much to say on it. I think there are some reasonable excuses as to why they've done as you'd identified, but the resulting confidence bar should be impacted.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24120
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#197  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 12, 2019 10:21 am

tuco wrote:Are you? How about predictions to 2200 or 2B population scenarios to be taken seriously? Not sad about those? I am not being mean now, just curious.


Why don't you try reading what's already been written instead of ignoring it all and pretending you're the judge, jury and executioner?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24120
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#198  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 12, 2019 10:22 am

Svartalf wrote:
Fallible wrote:I always thought Juju was a nasty little twat.

but whose sock was it?



R-r-r-r-rainbow!

Oh Jeffrey!
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24120
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#199  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 12, 2019 10:22 am

Svartalf wrote:not at all, if it's indeed Rainbow, he's totally mute on the subject of Ratskep.



It was assuredly Rainbow - no doubt about it anymore.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24120
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#200  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am

tuco wrote:
Thommo wrote:
tuco wrote:Are you? How about predictions to 2200 or 2B population scenarios to be taken seriously? Not sad about those? I am not being mean now, just curious.


I didn't see any that weren't appropriately qualified. So no.

I wouldn't take them too seriously if they were expressed with undue certainty. And I might get sad if people were unduly sure.


I don't know what "appropriately qualified" means but alright.


That might well be the trouble!

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... l#p2700174

Spearthrower wrote:
tuco wrote:There will not be 2B people, stop dreaming ;)


tuco wrote:lol there will not be 2B people. Period. Babble all you want.


I'm not convinced you understand the concept of hypothetical scenarios.



I tried to help you here:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... l#p2700239

Spearthrower wrote:Perhaps it's cultural. In the English language, we use either 'if' or 2nd Conditional to enter into a notional scenario where we can think about the world being different than it is.


I don't think you want to be helped to understand what it is that causes no one else any trouble.


tuco wrote: I guess you missed the part with the claim that the current level of consumption would be sustainable if the population were 2B people, leaving alone where the 2B came from.


That's not quite an accurate rendition, is it? Shame you're taking on Rainbow's mantle now.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24120
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest

cron