MovieChat Forums > warrior-poet > Replies
warrior-poet's Replies
Very cool to have that input from him. Thanks for posting that. So this literal city-shaking idea was his from the get-go it sounds like. Kudos to him for stretching beyond the more juvenile scope of the original series and infusing some maturity into the story.
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
For anyone else who comes across this (since all these posts predate the move from IMDB forum)...
Seeing that this was a remake of the 1989 TV movie Nick Knight staring Rick Springfield, the answer would be no.
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
And yet during the Cambrian Explosion when life thrived, experiencing its biggest expansion in Earth's history, CO2 was at least 6,000 ppm (around 14 times higher than today’s approximate 425 ppm, and some studies put it about 20 times higher than today) and global median temperature was more than 10 degrees hotter than it is now (which is what in part raised CO2 as trapped CO2 was released into the air, and was a major factor driving the explosion of life). Right now, we're a hair’s breadth from descending back into a "snowball Earth", a period of time when life barely survived (albeit without today’s technology).
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/65fca7e0cc547c6c7696f190/Climate-The-Movie-The-Cold-Truth
Of course, life was quite different back then (mostly aquatic), which must be considered. It would be quite uncomfortable to exist in that environment, although manageable with today’s technology. But it proves there’s no “tipping point”. I don’t dismiss the possibility of anthropogenic impacts contributing to a warming planet, but the CO2 narrative widely misses the mark. Decades of experimentation has yet to back it up. In fact, several experiments have all but proven that the connection is tenuous at best. Plus, CO2 <i>follows</i> heat. And it doesn’t help that non-scientific entities are obfuscating any real science being done in that arena.
Yes, there’s more CO2 in the atmosphere than in recent history, a byproduct of an expanding industrial age. This is indisputable. Anyone disagreeing is ignoring verifiable measurements. But empirical observation indicates a strong net positive even if a bit of heat is retained (which is questionable, and is something that has yet to be reproduced experimentally). What <i>has</i> become quite clear is that a warmer climate and higher levels of non-pollutant CO2 produce much greater crop yields and plant growth, i.e. even if CO2 caused warming, it’s a net gain. But the warming itself is fully explainable by solar cycles and ice age retraction.
In fact, if CO2 caused warming, and if the highly dubious models held up, it would be <i>much</i> warmer than it is now.
https://ozonedepletiontheory.info/Papers/Ward2018JGRResponse.pdf
https://whyclimatechanges.com/pdf/Papers/Ward2018InconvenientRealityJGRrev.pdf
https://www-f9.ijs.si/~margan/CO2/Refs/Mean_Free_Path.pdf
Additionally, the alleged negatives being claimed (e.g. more severe weather, hot days and fires, less glacial ice, etc.) are demonstrably false, with every prediction failing the test of time. Real science would call the entire theory into question at this point, with so many failures. Which is a telltale sign that what’s going on has very little to do with genuine science, and more to do with belief, an apocalyptic doomsday cult predicting the end of days time and again, only to have each date pass by uneventfully.
So are all “climate scientists” wrong? No, in fact the majority don’t even hold a position about anthropogenic CO2-driven climate change (despite what some feebly claim regarding the erroneous 97% consensus). But an alarming number of so-called "scientists" are indeed quite mistaken, and not just in this field, because they don’t practice actual science (i.e. rigorous experimentation to validate theory with consistently repeatable results). They’ve forgotten the wisdom of Richard Feynman:
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/62a15aa9e8e40e2cb2ce412d/If-anyone-who-disagrees-with-man-made-climate-change-wants-to-have-a-serious-conversation?reply=62a6bb358d399c712446914d
While yet others perpetuate a narrative that keeps their jobs funded and their pocketbooks lined.
In-Depth Chats with Additional References
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/64c407284a2c9a4b43319f78/Climate-Change-Perspectives?reply=64c48cf464cc4461dc65bba0
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/620678b4ac86d617c749b134/Why-cant-conservatives-accept-scientific-consensus?reply=620ac419bbc0e93442d0fa98
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/62a427cc971324170703acc9/Poll-Who-looks-like-an-idiot-in-this-thread?reply=62a4cccd971324170703b167
Papers
https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/14/8/1244
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0273117721009054
https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf
Articles
https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/climate-scientist-whistleblower-patrick-brown-reveals-how-the-media-s-obsession-with-global-warming-manipulates-the-truth-about-wildfires-80-are-ignited-by-humans/ar-AA1ghfMR
https://www.thecollegefix.com/scientist-says-he-left-out-full-truth-to-get-climate-change-paper-published/
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/09/why-we-cant-trust-the-science-journals-a-climate-scientist-explains/
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
The tools he's put in place that draw from the raw datasets is very comprehensive. The raw, unmanipulated data doesn't lie.
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
That's weird. It goes right there for me. I see it around several places. It's on Vimeo also, and a few channels on YouTube. Could Google it maybe. But the URL works for me. Not sure what's going on there.
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
I questioned that as well, but then I proceeded to listen (something we all need to start doing). I hadn't heard of Andrew Bustamante until that video. I suspect that title was designed to sensationalize and try to pull in more clicks.
That title was created by the podcast interviewer, not by Bustamante. After listening, I can see why they titled it that, but it was a poor choice and is very misleading, invoking preconceptions that aren't quite in line with Bustamante's message.
For example, listen to this bit from the second video: https://youtu.be/l46oWMu3b9M?t=7820.
There were a few bits he says in that particular discussion that I don't agree with, but what I absolutely do agree with is his approach to life and mindset. To your point, go into everything cautiously. However, never outright dismiss without due diligence.
You know, that old adage of "never judge a book by its cover". Don't rush to judgement, either in the affirmative or the negative. Delve into it first, scrutinize it, and only then render a judgement in a slow, measured manner. Or in other words...
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
Well-said, and agreed (mostly-I don't see it as "woke", and although there are dumb-ish parts, as a whole I wouldn't deem the premise completely dumb, even if a stretch). Despite the story's weaknesses, it serves as a morality tale all of humanity should heed.
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
He said that in jest. He was making a Star trek reference. If I.S.S. had any type of strategic value in a conflict those orders make sense. However, I don't think, and highly doubt, it does in reality. It's a research facility. Having said that, in the movie, however, a radiation poisoning cure was being developed onboard the I.S.S., so there's your strategic value. He who controls the cure, controls who gets cured. A character states something to that effect in the movie. That's a bit tenuous, granted, but perhaps it suffices.
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
Couldn't agree more. Britian has hung onto some very silly traditions for hundreds of years. Dump the wigs, I say!
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
The term "woke" has a sordid history and has been "abused" by both sides of the political aisle.
It began as slang among young people who considered themselves wise and "awakened" (usually seeing discrimination where there was none), when in fact they were just as meritlessly self-righteous and delusional as all young people have been throughout history, who think they know better than their elders, blind to the reality that they're just immature and don't know what they don't know.
Unfortunately for society some who should have known better encouraged propagation of this mindset for political purposes.
Because of the absurdity of that origin it was fairly quickly coopted, mostly by those on the Right, with a facetious usage to denote people who thought of themselves that way (some not so young, but either just as delusional or using it as a political tool). It then just as quickly morphed into an overused, overexaggerated term applied to anything and everything those on the Right didn't like.
In light of that, it probably has been rendered meaningless (and probably always was), even if spawned from good, albeit misguided intentions. Somewhat akin to terms "racist" and "fascist". Although they at one time did possess meaning, they've long since been rendered as moot as "woke", if not more so, due to the same type of overusage and exaggeration (primarily by those on the Left).
Bottom line: ideologues will be ideologues, and will always dig in deeper to the extent of achieving counterproductivity.
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
No. They could be open only 1 day a week if they wanted. It's every company's prerogative to decide what's best for it. The government should back off. Ponder this to compare: many Asian restaurants close on Mondays, so the same question could be asked of, "should Asian restaurants be forced to be open on Mondays?" The answer isn't just "no", it's "hell no". The reason for closing one day over another is irrelevant. It's a private business that has full autonomy as long as all customers and employees are treated equally.
The creator of Chick-Fil-A established being closed on Sundays in 1946 when he started the restaurant, and it's stuck to it ever since. It's a well-established practice by the company. In my view it's potentially counterproductive, but they have been quite successful despite the practice. It would be interesting to see if they'd bow to this demand if it applied to existing locations, or if they'd just choose to leave the traveler-centric locations the bill pertains to. However, that doesn't matter, because the bill doesn't apply to existing locations.
<i><b>As written, it would only be applicable to newly opened future establishments, rendering this entire thread moot.</i></b>
https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/government-verify/no-a-new-york-bill-would-not-force-current-chick-fil-a-rest-stop-locations-to-open-on-sunday/536-3c3c6448-22a0-4eba-bb55-8c39785b7a76
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
MUCH closer to the 6'5" character in the books.
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
Ooooookayyyy. And I stand by what I said. SMH.
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
Plus:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-predictions/
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/50-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions-hashim-sheikh/
https://www.agweb.com/opinion/doomsday-addiction-celebrating-50-years-failed-climate-predictions
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/doomsday-predictions-rely-on-flawed-climate-models
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-were-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1e5HAZo4iw
https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/earth-day-2022-past-predictions-of-an-imminent-environmental-catastrophe-have-all-been-false
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
Fool me hundreds if not thousands of times, shame on... cultish groupthink?
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
hy·per·bo·le ( hº-pûr“b…-l¶) n. 1. A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect.
Although barely. Simple empirical observation reveals that nearly every poster on this board picks a side in lieu of nuanced reality, and they do so not only on this topic but almost all conceivable topics, adhering to party and/or ideological tribal lines. Having said that, my "every one of you" comment was in the OP, not in what you replied to. You suggested that my follow-up posts were devoid of reality and have yet to explain that claim in simple terms, much less in detail. You then proceeded to completely ignore the factually verifiable items I laid out.
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
You still have yet to explain how anything I said is "devoid of reality" when in fact its empirically factual. Let's try a different approach with a series of questions and see what you don't agree with.
Below are the points I've made above:
1) Floyd's own life choices led to the situation that culminated in his death
1a) He had a long history of criminal activity, and the police were called due to exactly that
1b) His heart was a ticking time bomb due to extensive drug abuse, with an artery completely blocked
2) The cops that arrived on scene, including Chauvin, completely ignored his medical distress
2a) Their callous treatment of someone they'd already restrained imposed undue stress on his heart
3b) This extraneous physical stress contributed to and almost certainly hastened his death
3) The video you showed and correctly pointed out was subterfuge in no way directly led to:
3a) Billions in property damage due to mass rioting, looting and wonton vandalism by large mobs
3b) 26 deaths during the 2020 summer riots
What about any of that is delusional?
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
That's a terrific point. There is a pattern, a culture, of letting wayward cops slide in certain precincts.
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
That leans into my point. They failed at their duty in my view. He was acting erratically and resisting so restraining was reasonable. But he was also claiming various medical issues. Pinning him to the ground was unnecessary once restrained, and a step too far. It doesn't matter that doing so fell in line with established procedure. Chavin failed to exhibit either common sense or empathy.
Watching all the footage, Floyd was clearly in medical distress long before he was even restrained. They handled the situation woefully. Did they willfully murder him due to his race? No. Anyone who claims as much is delusional. Did they callously ignore even the possibility that without immediate medical attention he could experience a cardiac event, instead putting his heart under even more stress which undoubtedly exacerbated the situation and was probably what pushed his weakened heart over the line? Almost certainly.
Their actions contributed to his death, a.k.a. manslaughter. So did the actions of those in the ambulance, allegedly.
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
Yeah, you're going to have to explain that one. I want no less than 2,000 words before Monday morning.
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
Well said. And event more broadly than just the position of restraint (which I agree with), that cops remain vigilantly mindful of the medical condition of those they've got in custody, taking complaints of medical distress seriously, regardless of whether or not the subject might be faking it. They certainly shouldn't cavalierly be pinning someone to the ground who before he was even restrained was complaining about having trouble breathing. Could he have been lying? Of course. But clearly he wasn't in this case. His body was so damaged from drug abuse that even just mild distress (no more harmful than any activity in a high school wrestling match) proved to be fatal. Without knowing that history (and how would they?), cops need to remain wary of that possibility once someone is restrained and in custody. They are in the position of authority. It's our responsibility to comply (i.e. not resist, which complicates the situation for them). But it's their responsibility to take their position of authority seriously and not abuse it, even inadvertently.
In my view that's where Chauvin failed as a cop in this situation.
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.