Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


human_murda last won the day on March 11

human_murda had the most liked content!


About human_murda

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Country
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Copyright

Recent Profile Visitors

1837 profile views
  1. Are you suggesting that a police (C) arresting murderer (B) who killed victim (A) is an initiation of force? Clearly C was NOT there in the act of B against A, C was never attacked, and hence any use of force by C could not be retaliatory? You don't need to be personally victimized to use retaliatory force, especially when the victim is dead and could not possibly retaliate. The problem here is that the retaliatory force was carried out by a mindless mob, not the fact that retaliatory force was carried out at all, on somebody else's behalf, which is perfectly valid. Nope. Plenty of laws protect police who initiate the use of force. They're not acting independently of the police institution. (Of course, you could be arguing about some abstract, perfect police station that works this way, but this case is very specific).
  2. There's nothing particularly quantum mechanical about Noether's theorem (it was proven just before quantum mechanics was widely accepted). It applies to classical mechanics too.
  3. Also, this nonsense (of per capita emissions) is what international agreements are based on. No international agreement asks all countries to have identical emissions.
  4. Austere has a very limited negative connotation. dictionary.com defines "austere" as: 1) severe in manner or appearance; uncompromising; strict; forbidding 2) rigorously self-disciplined and severely moral; ascetic; abstinent 3) grave; sober; solemn; serious A terrorist should not be described as having a strict or extreme adherence to morality, even if the word has minor negative connotations.
  5. It's not just this. India and China are leading the world in reforestation and shifting to renewable energy (and India is a dirt poor country). The idea that USA (or western countries in general) is unjustly punished, especially in comparison to India is retarded. India hasn't even started to industrialize and these American morons are already blaming India for shit that hasn't happened yet. They should at least allow us to fuck shit up before blaming us.
  6. There are plenty of sources with the same information: 1) Climate Analytics, 2015 (Pg 😎 https://climateanalytics.org/media/historical_responsibility_report_nov_2015.pdf 2) World Resource Institute: Per Capita (Historical): (India and China are not even on the list) 1. Luxembourg: 1,429 tonnes 2. UK: 1,127 tonnes 3. US: 1,126 tonnes 4. Belgium: 1,026 tonnes 5. Czech Republic: 1,006 tonnes 6. Germany: 987 tonnes 7. Estonia: 877 tonnes 8. Canada: 780 tonnes 9. Kazakhstan: 682 tonnes 10. Russia: 666 tonnes 3) CDIAC (US Department of Energy; It was shut down, apparently after Trump got elected): Ranking as of the start of 2019: 1) US – 397GtCO2 2) CN – 214Gt 3) fmr USSR – 180 4) DE – 90 5) UK – 77 6) JP – 58 7) IN – 51 😎 FR – 37 9) CA – 32 10) PL – 27 4) Global Carbon Budget (Pg 19) 5) OurWorldInData (Data from CDIAC): India has a lot of plastic pollution as well as dust pollution from construction and particulate matter which lowers air quality. But if you're talking about greenhouse gases, India has next to nothing to do with it. India is not industrialized enough. India could not possibly have caused global warming in the last century (and global warming didn't start in 2017). India may contribute to global warming in the future, but as of 2019 (and talking about things that have already happened), India hasn't emitted that much. 97% of world CO2 emission (historical total) happened outside India.
  7. Of course you didn't. Not that you have the intellectual capacity to understand this, but if you're comparing the total emissions of different countries, you're comparing India's total emissions to Vatican City's total emissions by implication. Your precious data is irrelevant. And India's CO2 emissions are still close to zero. And USA's cumulative emissions are 10 times that of India anyway (even with one-fourth of the population). So whether it's per capita or total, USA still pollutes way more than India (and "the west" in its entirety obviously pollutes way more than India): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH1bD8IE6BU
  8. http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?/topic/32439-rebloggednumbskull-is-too-kind-a-word/&tab=comments#comment-360740 Comparing total CO2 emissions of India to that of Vatican City is nonsense. Only per capita figures matter. Otherwise, you're just comparing populations, not emissions. Everything from Total GDP to total number of rapes to total CO2 emissions are higher in India. None of that can be used to construct a moral argument (you cannot claim India is richer or has high rape rates or is a major pollutant based total figures). I already typed it out before. India has an infinite population. Anyone who expects any total statistic for India to be the same as that of Vatican City has no sense of reality, which is that India's per capita emissions are close to zero.
  9. Stupid socialist: "Capitalism is bad" Stupid capitalist: "If capitalism is so bad, why don't you nuke third world countries first? HMM?" If stupid capitalists keep characterizing Nordic countries as socialist and countries like India as capitalist, they shouldn't cry when people vote for socialism. When people attack capitalism, these idiots should stand up for themselves instead of pointing fingers at barely developed third world countries which are not capitalist. It is not inconsistent that socialists who attack capitalism/industry does not want to attack India.
  10. Why the fuck does this idiot keep dragging India into this again and again. India's greenhouse gas emission is extremely low. It was practically zero until recently and the only way it can go is up. India is barely industrialized. On the bright side, he didn't randomly start talking about rape and street-shitting.
  11. I could, but you usually deny any implications for your statements. Besides, your reasoning is circular (according to you, suspicion would be established even before collecting intelligence. Then you use this intelligence to establish suspicion to search people). Why would there be license plates in a world where cars don't need to be registered (and even if they did, suspects could just get out of the car and just walk across the border)?
  12. And by what right are these intelligence agencies allowed to spy on people? Isn't that a violation of right to privacy of foreigners? Intelligence agencies wouldn't exist if right to privacy was an absolute right. And how would these border patrol agents know that the person standing in front of them is the person that they're looking for, without asking for identification?
  13. If you can't convict a person before you have any information, wouldn't you have to "initiate force" (by your own logic) to search potentially innocent but suspicious people, then gather information and convict them? Or are you suggesting that it's not a violation of rights to initiate force against innocent people, as long as they're "suspicious-looking"? Or do people stop being innocent if they're "suspicious-looking"? Why are you using double standards for immigrants? If innocent but suspicious citizens can be searched for information without violating rights, why can't immigrants be asked for information? Also, your magical solution to let anyone walk through the border without being asked for information is probably the stupidest immigration policy ever and hurts legitimate immigrants. For example, across the India-Pakistan border, the Pakistani Agency (ISI) trains and sends terrorists and insurgents across the border, disguised as immigrants. Pakistan has government projects setup to infiltrate India, disguised as immigrants. Since these terrorists are part of the Pakistani government, they can easily obtain Pakistani passports and fake visas to India. Now your solution to all this is to just let the Pakistani Army just walk in, no questions asked?
  14. So, the focus should instead be on blaming India even though literally every western country (and non-western country) emits more CO2 (per capita) than India? Of course, most of the increases are coming from India, but India is basically starting from zero. Most of the reductions are coming from Western countries, but they're starting from very high numbers (way higher than India). The only way India's emissions wouldn't increase is if it was left at zero (comparing increases in India to reductions in Western countries and assigning blame accordingly is non-sense, because we're starting from different base levels). Even after the "reductions", emissions by Western countries are orders of magnitudes higher than India (but apparently, "depriving only Western economies of the fuel they need" is the real injustice). India's emissions should be way higher, if "equality of blame" is the goal.
  • Create New...