Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

[serious] Charity thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Kuciwalker View Post
    The inability to precisely price an externality given limited information does not make it subjective.
    But it is filosofy according to KH.
    I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
    - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Ecofarm View Post
      Well, if it was objective, I'd think we could precisely measure it.
      1) were. Use the damn subjunctive properly.

      2) OK. Tell me precisely the mass of the Earth. I mean exactly, with 100% precision.

      Comment


      • "subjective" does not mean "imprecise". Subjective means pertaining to or characteristic of an individual.

        Comment


        • Dude, you can't get 50% precision on the questions I've asked. Don't tell me that's objective.


          Yes, the inputs are objective. But the impacts are not. We cannot reasonably quantify the impacts in economic terms, beyond scattered and incomplete direct and obvious effects studied over a short period of time.


          Diet today is a classic case of consumer imperfect knowledge causing a massive market distortion.
          Last edited by Ecofarm; April 17, 2010, 13:50.
          Everybody knows...Democracy...One of Us Cannot be Wrong...War...Fanatics

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Kuciwalker View Post
            "subjective" does not mean "imprecise". Subjective means pertaining to or characteristic of an individual.
            Shut up with your filosofy!
            I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
            - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Ecofarm View Post
              Dude, you can't get 50% precision on the questions I've asked. Don't tell me that's objective.
              Precision and objectivity are orthogonal concepts!

              I can't believe we're having this conversation. You are a ****ing moron. Goodbye.

              Comment


              • We must be able to at least agree what impacts are "bad", before we can claim objectivity. Quantifying the impacts is one way of proving this. How can you laim we have an objective view of impacts when people do not agree what impacts matter let alone how much.


                Is a carbon tax an objective number? No, it's subjective almost to the point of being arbitrary.
                Everybody knows...Democracy...One of Us Cannot be Wrong...War...Fanatics

                Comment


                • The badness of an impact is the total of unhappiness it causes. Different people will have different levels of unhappiness from an impact because of their subjective preferences, but the total is objective. At least, I think that's how it is.

                  Comment


                  • If the total is objective, then the numbers are indisputable.


                    Total yardage for Tim Tebow last year = objective fact.

                    Total impact of 1 ton of carbon emission = largely arbitrary number.
                    Everybody knows...Democracy...One of Us Cannot be Wrong...War...Fanatics

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Ecofarm View Post
                      If the total is objective, then the numbers are indisputable.
                      If we have sufficient knowledge, which we don't. With estimates, not everyone agrees.

                      We are nowhere near the level of knowledge needed to calculate what carbon emissions do and different people prefer different methods of arriving at estimates.

                      Comment


                      • That's the case with the majority of environmental impacts.


                        It's nice to think we've got it all figured out and know exactly what does what but the unforunate truth is we don't. That's the first step... realizing how much we don't know. Environmental science (or "Impact Science") is a relatively new discipline. Only in the last couple decades have universities begun to offer multidisciplinary graduate degrees, so that we can begin to quantify environmental impacts including the economic, social and ecologic factors.

                        That's why I'm gonna teach public highschool. To give back and to talk-up this new discipline, in hopes of science garnering the next Sylvia Earle or Rachel Carson.



                        Originally posted by Kuciwalker View Post
                        I can't believe we're having this conversation. You are a ****ing moron. Goodbye.

                        BA Environmental Studies
                        MSc International Environmental Science
                        PhD (candidate) Interdisciplinary Ecology (agriculture specializing in gender)

                        Let's be honest and realistic about our knowledge.
                        Last edited by Ecofarm; April 17, 2010, 14:19.
                        Everybody knows...Democracy...One of Us Cannot be Wrong...War...Fanatics

                        Comment


                        • Get a proper qualification.
                          The genesis of the "evil Finn" concept- Evil, evil Finland

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Ecofarm View Post
                            That's why I'm gonna teach public highschool. To give back and to talk-up this new discipline, in hopes of science garnering the next Sylvia Earle or Rachel Carson.
                            Please don't teach English, Math, or Science, since we've established you can't actually handle any of them.

                            Also, Rachel Carson is responsible for millions of deaths. She has had a profoundly evil impact on the world.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Drake Tungsten View Post
                              I don't get any love?
                              God, you're such a needy little *****.
                              I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Kuciwalker View Post
                                Also, Rachel Carson is responsible for millions of deaths. She has had a profoundly evil impact on the world.
                                How do you figure?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X