Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
GLOBAL WARMING (AGAIN WITH THE CONTRAVERSY...)
Posts
CAVE_DOG_IS_BACK
View playlists
CloseGenerally, anecdotal evidence is not good evidence.
How is a tax on carbon emissions (These do not detract from innovation. If anything, it's the opposite because the provide an incentive to produce more efficient ways of producing energy) a missappropriation of wealth? Like, in what way, are those two things, the same thing, by any definition? Sorry about not having "moderate intellect." Your explanation as to why empires collapse is extremely simplistic and also plainly not true by virtue of the fact that several empires have collapsed for wildly different reasons (expanding too much, weak inheritance, etc.)
You didn't answer my question. What evidence do you have that the various countries that employ emission standards or whatever ecological terrorist buzzword of the hour are failing because of that? Is California going to enter a state of famine because it regulates greenhouse gasses? Because that is a thing you said would happen.
How is a tax on carbon emissions (These do not detract from innovation. If anything, it's the opposite because the provide an incentive to produce more efficient ways of producing energy) a missappropriation of wealth? Like, in what way, are those two things, the same thing, by any definition? Sorry about not having "moderate intellect." Your explanation as to why empires collapse is extremely simplistic and also plainly not true by virtue of the fact that several empires have collapsed for wildly different reasons (expanding too much, weak inheritance, etc.)
You didn't answer my question. What evidence do you have that the various countries that employ emission standards or whatever ecological terrorist buzzword of the hour are failing because of that? Is California going to enter a state of famine because it regulates greenhouse gasses? Because that is a thing you said would happen.
Wow... I think people are more passionate here than the religion conversation. Who'd have thought?
In terms of "carbon taxing" (or more specifically, carbon credits), it's pretty much a scam. Most of the websites that deal in carbon credits are made in people's basements, usually by a single person. For the most part, all they do is collect money from people that feel guilty about how much carbon (or whatever the site seems to be worrying about) into the atmosphere. Al Gore (I'm so glad someone else bashed his ass... now I feel like I can open up a bit) has his own carbon credit site. He actually used it to say "I pay carbon credits! See here? I gave umpteen million dollars to this site!" Fortunately for him, he basically paid himself. Douche...
Maybe "carbon taxing" is a bit different, but I don't see how it could work any better. Yes, imposing regulations can help something grow into something better, but if the regulations kill that something, it only hurts the system as a whole. Plus, you can't fix problems just by throwing money at it.
Also, California is a pretty bad example to use in order to support a claim that things are working, in any area. Last I heard, they're not doing to hot. I don't know what the core cause is, but my point still stands that the state is pretty much broke.
In terms of "carbon taxing" (or more specifically, carbon credits), it's pretty much a scam. Most of the websites that deal in carbon credits are made in people's basements, usually by a single person. For the most part, all they do is collect money from people that feel guilty about how much carbon (or whatever the site seems to be worrying about) into the atmosphere. Al Gore (I'm so glad someone else bashed his ass... now I feel like I can open up a bit) has his own carbon credit site. He actually used it to say "I pay carbon credits! See here? I gave umpteen million dollars to this site!" Fortunately for him, he basically paid himself. Douche...
Maybe "carbon taxing" is a bit different, but I don't see how it could work any better. Yes, imposing regulations can help something grow into something better, but if the regulations kill that something, it only hurts the system as a whole. Plus, you can't fix problems just by throwing money at it.
Also, California is a pretty bad example to use in order to support a claim that things are working, in any area. Last I heard, they're not doing to hot. I don't know what the core cause is, but my point still stands that the state is pretty much broke.
The question was, are they not doing too hot because of emission regulations, so I feel it still works as an example. Perhaps it is instead the fault of the gays?
I dunno man like of course if the regulations kill *something* then it is probably harmful (What is something???) but where is this happening?? How is this just throwing money at something? Carbon taxing is different from emission standards in that emission standards are an actual thing regulated by the government.
I dunno man like of course if the regulations kill *something* then it is probably harmful (What is something???) but where is this happening?? How is this just throwing money at something? Carbon taxing is different from emission standards in that emission standards are an actual thing regulated by the government.
author=Oblic
Wow... I think people are more passionate here than the religion conversation
Also one of the very negative effects of the supposed human responsability
in the global warming is to divert people's attention from their daily life problems, i.e. politics.
author=CAVE_DOG_IS_BACK
The question was, are they not doing too hot because of emission regulations, so I feel it still works as an example. Perhaps it is instead the fault of the gays?
Whoa, where the hell did that come from? Calm down, bud; it seems like you're taking this personally. And what do gays have to do with any of what has been said up to this point?
First, taxing is way to produce money. In this specific example, the money is aimed at funding a problem. Ergo, the tax money is being thrown at the problem.
Next, businesses have gone bankrupt due to over-regulation. I am not talking about a specific regulation or a specific business, but it happens, and usually to the smaller upstart companies that may have some good ideas.
author=chanaauthor=OblicAlso one of the very negative effects of the supposed human responsability
Wow... I think people are more passionate here than the religion conversation
in the global warming is to divert people's attention from their daily life problems, i.e. politics.
True, I never thought of that...
Dyhalto
7536
author=CAVE_DOG_IS_BACK
You didn't answer my question.
Because I can't, in the way you want it answered.
I'm sitting here telling you the inevitable destination of restrictive policies preventing the flourishing of free and open scientific advancement. Take each proposed "cut back on CO2" government/UN program on a case-by-case example, follow it through a hypothetical scenario, and you'll see exactly where the flaw lies. It takes a little intuitiveness. Try it.
If you're going to continue to ask me for a big bold headline "Carbon Credits Destroyed Rome/Britania/Soviet Union", well, shit. You're acting like you need to be eaten by a tiger to get an idea of what it's like to be eaten by a tiger.
author=CAVE_DOG_IS_BACK
Your explanation as to why empires collapse is extremely simplistic and also plainly not true by virtue of the fact that several empires have collapsed for wildly different reasons (expanding too much, weak inheritance, etc.)
It's simplistic because it's a boil-down. There are multi-volume chronologies of what led to Rome's collapse, and the same could be done for all others.
btw, "expanding too much, weak inheritance" are both examples of wealth misallocation.
How do I learn to posit a hypothesis that has no evidence backing it up and just say "haha think about it for a second little baby" Please I want to hear the nightmare scenario in which kyoto protocol>starvation
Does it have to do with big hair
holy shit no they aren't you can't just *say* things. gar gar goalposts are we somehow now on the topic that the byzantine empire would have not been rocked by the crusaders if it was a socialist society. would cao cao not have puppeteered his emperor if the peasants had more wealth. let's go even farther back. perhaps all empires collapse, not because of their wealth, but because of their early ancestors not having sex with the right people?
Does it have to do with big hair
btw, "expanding too much, weak inheritance" are both examples of wealth misallocation.
holy shit no they aren't you can't just *say* things. gar gar goalposts are we somehow now on the topic that the byzantine empire would have not been rocked by the crusaders if it was a socialist society. would cao cao not have puppeteered his emperor if the peasants had more wealth. let's go even farther back. perhaps all empires collapse, not because of their wealth, but because of their early ancestors not having sex with the right people?
Dyhalto
7536
author=CAVE_DOG_IS_BACK
Please I want to hear the nightmare scenario in which kyoto protocol>starvation
Which you can easily deduce on your own.
Instead of asking me to explain the myriad of things that could go wrong, why don't you explain to everyone how it would work? Explain the methods by which you can cut greenhouse gases without blowback from manufacturing decline and selective subsidies.
You begin with national dignitaries (bureaucrats) at some confab signing a treaty that says "we're all going to cut greenhouse gases by X% each year". When they all go home, what happens next? How do they keep their end of the treaty?
author=CAVE_DOG_IS_BACK
holy shit no they aren't you can't just *say* things. gar gar goalposts are we somehow now on the topic that the byzantine empire would have not been rocked by the crusaders if it was a socialist society. would cao cao not have puppeteered his emperor if the peasants had more wealth. let's go even farther back. perhaps all empires collapse, not because of their wealth, but because of their early ancestors not having sex with the right people?
I'm going to assume you're just slandering me, because there's no way anybody could be dumb enough to actually believe that single events sink empires.
Nations and laws are ideas. They're a social contract that everybody agrees to abide by. When times are good and everybody's belly is full, patriotism runs high. When stomachs are growling, the law of the land is only valid if you get caught. Empires, fiefdoms, and nation-states are faced with problems all the time. How well they weather the storm and recuperate depends on the will of the people to preserve national identity and the social contract. If a meteor wiped out the capital city of Rome, patriotic Romans would rebuild, but unpatriotic Romans would mind themselves and the Roman identity would soon die out.
In case you aren't catching it; evenly-distributed wealth -> patriotism -> "fight for the country" -> the country survives. Unevenly-distributed wealth -> no patriotism -> "I'm not interested" -> the country dies.
"Instead of asking me to explain the myriad of things that could go wrong, why don't you explain to everyone how it would work? "
because the burden of proof actually isn't on me to prove why carbon emission regulations don't and cannot cause starvation, just like I don't have to explain to anyone why the earth is round.
that's a great treatise on why empires operate according to video game logic. i should have known that byzantine would not have lost all those battles because their Command and Conquer Morale™ was not high enough. If only we were more patriotic and were able to form the spirit bomb, mayhaps constantinople would not have been conquered? I mean, I guess being "not killed" isn't enough incentive, I also need a sandwich, because rpgmaker.com says I'm starving too. I mean, sure, constantinople's conquest was what disrupted the affluence of Byzantine, but that wouldn't have happened if we had more wealth. chicken>egg>chicken>egg. Watch out, turks! Look how high our morale is! We literally cannot be defeated
because the burden of proof actually isn't on me to prove why carbon emission regulations don't and cannot cause starvation, just like I don't have to explain to anyone why the earth is round.
that's a great treatise on why empires operate according to video game logic. i should have known that byzantine would not have lost all those battles because their Command and Conquer Morale™ was not high enough. If only we were more patriotic and were able to form the spirit bomb, mayhaps constantinople would not have been conquered? I mean, I guess being "not killed" isn't enough incentive, I also need a sandwich, because rpgmaker.com says I'm starving too. I mean, sure, constantinople's conquest was what disrupted the affluence of Byzantine, but that wouldn't have happened if we had more wealth. chicken>egg>chicken>egg. Watch out, turks! Look how high our morale is! We literally cannot be defeated
I feel like some people are taking some of the things said a bit too personally. I understand that this is a hot topic issue, but there is no reason to lash out at others within the discussion. Lashing out on politicians and similar figure heads is fair game.
Dyhalto
7536
author=CAVE_DOG_IS_BACK
because the burden of proof actually isn't on me to prove why carbon emission regulations don't and cannot cause starvation, just like I don't have to explain to anyone why the earth is round.
I know I'm going to regret this, but... okay, I'll bite.
Give me something to dissect. Pick your tax, regulation, subsidy, whatever. Be specific. Don't just say "emission regulations".
As for the empire topic, I'll be repeating myself if I go further. If you don't understand now, you won't after 10 pages of back and forth.
facesforce
442
author=DyhaltoPrecisely. All war is built on trade and resources, without exception. Wars built on other causes that do not lead to acquisition of resources, create the second scenario that Dyhalto has illustrated so beautifully.
In case you aren't catching it; evenly-distributed wealth -> patriotism -> "fight for the country" -> the country survives.
Unevenly-distributed wealth -> no patriotism -> "I'm not interested" -> the country dies.
The fact of the matter is, and I will be quite plain and blunt on the subject: Global Warming is a Tax Excuse.
It does not really matter how you try to stop it, another man is going to do the exact opposite just re-enforcing whatever golden age lex luthor scheme that will apparently kill all of mankind.
It is just another bogeyman in the closet to scare you into doing certain things, namely you paying additional taxes and buying "Environmentally Friendly" products.
This planet has taken good care of us for the 5000 or so years we can safely prove mankind has been around, and even when we used devices that supposedly damaged the ozone layer beyond repair.
For example, look up "The Montreal Protocol of 1989" wherin majority of the major nations decided to phase out chemicals that they deemed damaged the environment beyond repair, but in reality 20 years later they want to try to claim whatever else seems to be convenient to do the same thing. It is just a excuse for some men to gain more wealth and power, and that is how the world works.
We sacrifice our energy to work everyday to earn money, we spend money to survive. Said money makes a partial circle back to the men whom work, after losing some value along that way.
So, I will just stand behind my belief of more industry, less complaining about the environment. We are humans, so let's enjoy the works of humans. Face it, no matter what you do, the result stays the same. Besides, If you were to believe everything the scientists claim, you would be committing suicide in order to save the environment. That is the end result, and the most efficient one according to their logic. Luckily for us, Rome does not run on Logic. It runs on money, pure and simple old fashioned greed. And you know what? That is something I can understand at the end of the day.
author=OblicI was already insulted by Cave Dog, and quite frankly the old saying applies here:
I feel like some people are taking some of the things said a bit too personally. I understand that this is a hot topic issue, but there is no reason to lash out at others within the discussion. Lashing out on politicians and similar figure heads is fair game.
It is worthless to try to change the mind of a man whom will not listen.
I left this topic out of pure disgust for how he lashed out at me.
author=Dyhalto
I know I'm going to regret this, but... okay, I'll bite.
Give me something to dissect. Pick your tax, regulation, subsidy, whatever. Be specific. Don't just say "emission regulations".
how about
You can see it now with goofy things like carbon taxes, carbon emission limits, and even that Carbon Credit scheme that, once you understand how it works, turns out to be a rigged-market that commoditises production and makes a garden of eden for parasitical speculators.
The end result of those types of policies, intended or not, is deindustrialisation and scarcity. Backwardation and famine. No thanks.
any of these, since that was what you posited. whatever thing you would like. faminize me baby
As for the empire topic, I'll be repeating myself if I go further. If you don't understand now, you won't after 10 pages of back and forth.
i'm not surprised you can't defend the assertion that every empire has collapsed because their enconomic framework was not socialist enough. i couldn't defend it, and i'm really strong and good looking. perhaps our morale isn't high enough?
It is just another bogeyman in the closet to scare you into doing certain things, namely you paying additional taxes and buying "Environmentally Friendly" products.there's mountains and mountains of evidence that confirms global warming to be a real thing, if you care to do a google search and not close your eyes. i agree that buying eco-friendly products isn't going to really stop anything because the problem is on a way bigger scale than that.
I was already insulted by Cave Dog,
hey man, I don't know which insult you are referring to, whether it me calling you an egghead, the dozens of PMs I sent to you saying I was going to burn your house down, or saying you needed to see a brain doctor, but I actually do think you need to see a brain doctor because some of the stuff you say, in addition to citing 1000 year old alchemists, is completely nuts. i was actually deathly afraid i was being trolled by the most skilled fakeposter our time has ever seen.
User was warned for this post
Dyhalto
7536
author=CAVE_DOG_IS_BACK
any of these
Okay. I'll pick the easy one : Carbon Emission Limits.
You have a factory that makes Jigs. All your finances are in order and you're all set to go. So you start making Jigs in January. By September, you've produced 10,000 Jigs. Demand is high for more, so there's no reason to stop making them.
Except that the government says you can't make any more because you've emitted your annual Carbon allowance.
The next year, you're only allocated enough Carbon to make 9,500 Jigs, so you have to stop around mid-August. Remember, demand is high. Rationing and extending production is impossible without turning away customers.
There are two options when September/mid-August arrives. Shut down the factory until next January and send all workers home without pay for 4 months, or buy more carbon allowance/pay a fine to keep producing. The former option, dumping useful labor onto the street, is extremely bad for the economy. Families will struggle while they try to make ends meet until January. The latter option quickly becomes a Tax On Everything. Everything is produced via fossil fuel these days. Food, clothes, cars, houses, everything. Even plants that make solar panels or windmills burn fossil fuels.
And the magical scenario where everybody switches to green this, low-carbon that doesn't hold water. If it's manufactured, it comes out of a fossil fuel burning plant.
And the reason they burn fossil fuels is because nothing else compares. If solar or wind were worth a squat, you'd see everything from steel mills to welding shops putting solar panels on their roofs. But they don't. Is it because they're economically unfeasible and the companies would go bankrupt trying? No, it's because they're evil corporations.
author=CAVE_DOG_IS_BACK
there's mountains and mountains of evidence that confirms global warming to be a real thing
You should correct this.
Everybody is well aware that humans generate CO2. The climate change debate is about the magnitude of our impact. Is Al Gore right, or are we pissing in the ocean?
Suggesting that we're discussing whether it exists or not, well, that would just make you look like an irrational twat running his mouth off about something he doesn't really understand.
facesforce
442
author=CAVE_DOG_IS_BACK
hey man, I don't know which insult you are referring to, whether it me calling you an egghead, the dozens of PMs I sent to you saying I was going to burn your house down.
As Someone whom has actually lived through a House-fire, and woke up to be surrounded by flames, I call you a bastard and I wish you to go burn in a bloody abysss. Grow up kid before you really play with people's buttons. Threatening me with fire can get you burned, real fast.
You are just being an immature twat who will not look at the full picture. Next time you even dare mention trying to burn down my house, I will spend the next week consulting with the admins to try to locate your scrawny ass, where I will begin a full fledged lawsuit against you starting with the fact you decided you would threaten me with bodily harm against me and my property. I would like you to try and edit that, Boy. Actually, I would advise it. According to American law, which I doubt you are overseas, even a threat on the internet directed at a certain individual in a hateful and malicious manner is the same as receiving a threat by other vise versa means such as a cell text, and thus will hold its wait in a courtroom with the proper records. And yes, If you send me even one PM mentioning anything of the sort and I believe you to be serious on the fact, I can subpena Rpgmaker.net for the IP adress and other information that can help me find you, all from you making foolish threats. Of course, If I really felt like I was in danger, I am sure Kentona or Deckkiller would comply, not that a arrogant brat like you poses any threat at all, boy. If you want to be burned, go ahead and try it. If I catch a brat like you around my place trying to burn it down, I will take my favorite sword and cut your legs down a few inches. All perfectly legal in my home state as part of protecting your property. You better be happy you did not send me a pm of that sort, boy. So, I know I am going to be warned for this, but : Fuck you, you little twat. Go play with your damn dolls, boy. Let the men do the talking here.
author=Dyhalto
The latter option quickly becomes a Tax On Everything. Everything is produced via fossil fuel these days. Food, clothes, cars, houses, everything. Even plants that make solar panels or windmills burn fossil fuels.
And the magical scenario where everybody switches to green this, low-carbon that doesn't hold water. If it's manufactured, it comes out of a fossil fuel burning plant.
And the reason they burn fossil fuels is because nothing else compares. If solar or wind were worth a squat, you'd see everything from steel mills to welding shops putting solar panels on their roofs. But they don't. Is it because they're economically unfeasible and the companies would go bankrupt trying? No, it's because they're evil corporations.
Exactly. It does not produce enough to be feasible for our quality of life. Technically the corporations are just greedy, but I suppose that can be called an evil. Either way, my point about their being no way to truly change anything is true, unless we just abandon our quality of life, which many people including myself, has no interest in doing.
Sorry about that, I am like a different person when anyone mentions about trying to burn my home down. I am sure it can be forgiven, judging on circumstances.
User was warned for this post
damn this is going the wrong way
I agree with Dyhalto, if we stopped burning fossil fuels, we would be really stuck since everything is made with it. :(
I agree with Dyhalto, if we stopped burning fossil fuels, we would be really stuck since everything is made with it. :(
