POTF 26 - Nominations

[Lord Thesaurian]

POTF is about recognising the very best posts, the best arguments and discourse in the D&D, and appropriately rewarding it.

You shall progressively earn these medals once you achieve enough wins, but first you must be nominated in threads such as this one. And it works like this.

Post of the Fortnight - Rules

-Each user can nominate up to 2 posts per round, and the only valid form of nomination is by quoting with a link as shown below the chosen post in the PotF thread designated for it.

Looking forward to getting this kicked off for real!

-Each 15 days there will be a new Nomination thread put up, and all the posts written during this period are considered eligible, if properly nominated. Exception are posts who are somewhat breaking the ToS; upon being acted by Moderation, they are always considered uneligible.

- Remember: It is possible to nominate up to 2 posts each round of the competition; it is also possible to change a nomination anytime before the actual round of nominations ends.

- There will be two competitions held every month, with a period for nominations followed by a period of voting. The submitted posts can be discussed in a dedicated space.

- Only posts that have not participated in a previous poll and that have been published in the current period of given time in any section of the D&D area may be nominated.

- The authors of the nominated post will be informed so they can withdraw the candidacy if that is their wish.

- The maximum number of participating posts in the final vote will be ten. If more than ten nominations are submitted, seconded nominations will take priority. After seconded nominations are considered, earliest nominations will take priority. If the number of posts submitted to the contest is less than ten, the organizing committee may nominate posts if it considers it appropriate.

-The members of the committee will never nominate a post belonging to one of them, but the rest of the users can nominate their posts (organizers posts), and vice versa.

-In the event of a tie, both posts will be awarded and both posters will receive rep and 1 competition point.

- Public or private messages asking for a vote for a candidate post are forbidden. Violators (and their posts) may not participate in the running contest.

- People are expected to consider the quality and structure of the post itself, more than the content of the same. While it's certainly impossible to completely split the two aspects when making our own opinion on a post, it remains intended, as also explained in the Competition Commentary Thread, that commenting and discussing on the content rather than on the form/structure of the post is considered off-topic for the purpose of this competition. You are free to nominate and vote for whatever reason you want, but what happens in public has to strictly follow up with the competition rules.

A nominated post should:

1. Be focused and relevant to the topic(s) being discussed.
2. Demonstrate a well-developed, insightful and nuanced understanding of the topic(s) it is discussing.
3. Be logically coherent, well organized and communicate its points effectively.
4. Support its contentions with verifiable evidence, either in the form of links or references.
5. Not be deliberately vexatious to other users.

Good luck everyone!

[Cope]

A valiant effort by The spartan.

I am not saying you have God-given super specialness, you are implying that by saying you know the "proper" limits to firearm ownership. You have done nothing to demonstrate why ARs are 1) necessary for a militia in a way other restricted weapons aren't; and 2) Why ARs would not facilitate crooks and extremists in a way you are claiming restricted weapons would. The Constitution is not going to help you with that.

Compromise?! You mean sell out our 2A rights?! What a shill. For someone as hardline as you on access to firearms, you can compromise on some aspects of it real easy.

I never said you said that. You are implying that restricting sales of ARs is on the pathway to tyranny; which I can only take to mean in this thread that you are saying that Libs restricting AR sales is a step toward tyranny or a threat to the 2A or whatever. But again, we have already done this with the FAWB and it didn't increase government tyranny or alter the 2A. So, it is apparently not as easy as "this follows this", now is it? It's just another instance of the partisan chant "they are going to do it this time for sure!" that we get every single election cycle.

I wasn't the one claiming to note a huge threat to the 2A, so I would be confused as to why I would be getting that criticism. You, on the other hand, seemed quite sure and quite passionate about ARs and their relation to the 2A, so I would read that an assume you have a well thought out understanding of ARs and why they would be a limit. That apparently wasn't the case. And I never acted as if you rejected the premise of some level of regulation; just that despite your alarmist claims about the 2A, you don't really have a rational behind why ARs are the key limit to the 2A. Instead you reference "weapons which are necessary to arm a militia" and "weapons which, were they to be openly accessible to crooks and extremists, would threaten the 'free state'" of which both criteria have nothing specifically to do with ARs. I was not trying to argue a clear line for the 2A; you were.


Oohhh. You mean like the difference between a rifle and a "military-style assault weapon"?

I am as well; battle rifles are different than ARs so I would have to see how the proposed legislation would try to define these weapon systems. And the Dems would not possibly go after all semi-auto weapons; that is truly next level insanity. That is like, the majority of the US's nearly 400 million firearms. The Dems would need to take severe amounts of control to even expand law enforcement to the levels needed to begin enforcing such restrictions. I think my grandpa's M1 Garand is safe from the big scary Libs, but thanks for the concern.

Well no, my argument wasn't trying to say there there is a specific weapon system necessary for the formation of a militia; but the formation of a militia is an organizational thing not a weapons thing. What you are actually arguing for isn't the ability to "form" a militia, you could do that with muskets if you wanted, you are arguing for a certain level of combat potency (self-loading rifles). Now, there are plenty of militia who actually exist in the real world, so you can take a look at them for inspiration as to what weapons are "necessary" (I guess up to opinion?) for them when fighting a military: it's every single weapon they can get their hands on. If a militia group in Syria is stuck with only ARs, they are in a real sorry spot just against the Syrian army or their proxies. That militia group would most likely be asking for anti-vehicle guided missiles right out the gate, but yes, they would also very much want mortars and grenade launchers. Now, imagine the organization group your militia is up against is the US army, or the national guard, or some enhanced version of the ATF (they needed more funding to go out and take those hundreds of millions of guns from citizens) and thinking ARs are the limit of "what is neccesary" for a militia to resist them.


Well of course, because their reasoning is much like yours is for limiting what weapons citizens should have: "weapons which, were they to be openly accessible to crooks and extremists, would threaten the 'free state'". That's pretty much how they would phrase it. They just seem to think ARs are included in there and you don't; but your reasoning for dismissing machine guns, mortars and grenade launchers is virtually the same. Btw, how many homicides are committed every year with explosives? According to the FBI, it seems to be in the single digits for the years they list. So what exactly is your justification for limiting explosive weapon systems?


I'm sorry, wanting you to clarify why ARs meet that sweet balance between "militia's need it" and "too powerful for crooks to have" is an impossible standard? If you are fuzzy on why they are then maybe you shouldn't have such a hardline position on it. Also, claiming that bringing up mortars and grenade launchers in regards to what a militia would need or want is ad absurdum is absurd. Maybe if I had tried to pitch nukes you would have a point; militias having mortars or grenade launchers is not really fanciful or extreme.

What do you mean "if you agree with the 2A"? You can't "agree" with it, you are just giving me your interpretation of it. You already said you don't care what SCOTUS says on the matter and this is your own opinion, so it's just your ideas on where you think limits in the 2A should be. I called you out on using the same type of argument as the gun control activists you dismiss when stating why heavier weapons should be restricted (bad guys and terrorists will use them!), but that is just to show that you picked ARs because that is where you heard the battle was at and not that you arrived to ARs as a limit of actual criteria.

Don't worry I don't dream to ever match your level of double standards (infeasible promises being made in the primaries?! what a scandal!). I bow to your partisan kingliness.

*He cackles while adding another mark to his 'win' column*


Hm, I don't think I have personally seen anyone say "orange man bad" in an unironic way before. How many times have you said it on here, ironically?




I am not about to argue about "the creeping authoritarianism of European governments" in this thread. I would just say: learn more about geopolitics if you want to know where the "authoritarian" countries are.

Sure, and people who want to ban government recognition of gay marriage believe that homosexuals deserve lesser legal status What's your point?

No, it just means it wasn't that big of a threat and that restrictions on gun sales cannot be assumed to progress into more controls. And that was from an actual bill passed in congress. Dems chances in 2020 for Congress is anything but certain right now, so your stance seems to be "the Dems are just going to do this somehow if they get a president in office". And hey, if they don't need congress and just need a Dem president to be a threat to the 2A, I guess a Dem president would just always be a threat if elected. Man, how convenient for you, huh?


I don't think mortars or grenades should be unregulated, but for different reasons than the capabilities of private militias. If I were to use your criteria of "militia need enough fire power to resist government agents", I would be for much less regulation on mortars and grenades.

Are you really throwing the Founding Fathers at me now?

You have no idea what the position of the Founding Fathers would be and you would be presuming a lot to say they would align with you.


Pro-tip; in the year of our lord 2020 the political Right in the US prescribe no more to Conservatism than the US liberals do Liberalism. They like the parts they agree with and don't like the parts they don't agree with. After all, the "establishment" has failed the people, has it not? The current system is what got us here, isn't it? The president should have more power to do what is necessary, not more restrictions by other parts of government, right? It is like HH said, the US needs a new "August Caesar" to lead us into the future and out of liberal degeneracy and corruption. Not typical Conservative outlooks; Conservatives were the old fuddy duddies that got purged (primaried) from Republican ranks by the Tea Party circa 2010 and onwards for compromising with Dems too much.


Well no, it wasn't no danger/mortal danger, it was imminent danger/"incrementalism". I thought you agreed the 2A is under no immediate danger, you were saying "at some point, Dems will do something" but don't go on about how they would do so or what that would look like. My whole point was that if you can't even come up with a hypothetical on how Dems would even effect such a policy (that doesn't sound outlandish) I doubt there is much a Dem president could do to the 2A while in office and your rants about tyranny seem rather inapplicable. Like, what do you think is going to happen? The current SCOTUS is going to bend over for a Dem president? I would be shocked if Dems got both houses in November; have you seen the states that are up for Senate this year?



Well no, you just need some standard rather than, you know, no standard. I get it: unkept campaign promises=bad evil lie when it is in the Dem primaries; but it is "meh, who cares, usual politics" when it's in the GOP primaries. We know that when you express repugnance while saying "you mean the Dems are lying?" it's not "lying" part of that statement you find repugnant.

Ok, and what do the fantastical dreams of politicians have to do with real policy in the US, exactly? I am sure there are leading GOP members who would love to snap their fingers and make the US a Christian theocracy, but you don't see me ranting in threads about how the GOP will subject us to Christian oppression if elected (in their own "incrementalist" way, I assure you). You seem to have this paradigm that AR regulation is, by far, the most important single issue to these Dem candidates if they are willing to pursue it no matter how infeasible or unpopular the policy is. Truth is, Dems don't care enough about eradicating guns enough to sacrifice all their other platforms for it.


Bad faith implies I am being purposefully dishonest about a position of mine, and if you think that is the case I would appreciate knowing what I have been dishonest about. I am struggling to follow your accusations at me, though; I have argued leading libs don't really want to ban assault weapons? What does that mean? I agreed that Dems wanting to ban the sales is good indication that they don't think citizens should privately have ARs. The part I disagreed with was that they were so committed to the idea of private citizens not owning ARs that they were willing to force through (details unclear on how) draconian policy to achieve it. So in that sense I don't agree that Libs "really" want to "ban assault-weapons", if that is what you mean by that. If those policies weren't so horribly unpopular and impractical than yeah, I can imagine Dems would be more keen on achieving them, of course, but we don't live in that world.


I also denigrated gun control activists who want to get rid of guns in the US, but you sure seem keen to forget that.


Hssss, just listen to me, hsssss. When Hilary Clinton was Sssecretary of Ssstate she had Trump's presidential campaign investigated, hsssss.


No, of course not, you are just cool with the Republican brand of tyranny


Sanders was certainly a desperate candidate, even if his fanboys were unaware. It's kind of a winner-take-all game, if you aren't leading you should probably be worried. And are you still pretending to be ignorant of how American primaries work? See, this is what I mean when I bring up bad faith: you're obviously aware enough about politics to know candidates give hardline and strong stances on policies to appeal to the more limited pool of voters that invariably get's watered down in the general to appeal to the broader pool of voters there. You know this, yet you still want to play pretend otherwise.

Right, and I said I am only calling Sanders a liar insofar as I am calling any politician who makes primary promises they know they probably can't keep is a "liar"; which is not something I do. That was the point. It's primary politics that you wanted to boil down into either "he will pursue this policy no matter the costs or consequences" or "he is lying", which would be impossible position for Sanders to hold on all his platforms at the same time. The much more likely reason for a "bold" position on guns (illegal to own, period) would be to signal strength or confidence to Dem primary voters; much in the same way a GOP candidate will talk about reversing Roe v Wade. I guess that means they are going to dismiss SCOTUS to achieve that goal, huh?

I guess he didn't promise to destroy enough guns if he wasn't popular, eh?

You could literally level this claim at any politician about any policy ever. Watch: Trump is refusing to publicly present his proposal on getting rid of the 1A (in order to sue people who say bad things about him) in order to avoid the negative press and inevitable backlash he'd get which could damage his presidential bid. Once reelected in the Oval Office we could very well see him attempt to act on his claims to "open up libel laws". Speculating on secret positions politicians hold (especially "the enemy's") isn't a new or interesting game, so why play?

And an aside about liars: "liars" aren't a real category of people nor is it a synonym for "bad". Only gradeschoolers think that "lying" is always a bad thing or that that only bad people ever say something untrue. Every guy who has ever told his girlfriend that she looks pretty at a time when he honestly thinks she doesn't is not cast into the category of a dirty rotten "liar". Your attempts to try and emotional load "either Sanders is a liar (bad) or he's a constitutional threat (bad)" are silly.

What are you talking about? I thought the interpretations around the 2A currently are that the 2A prevents the Federal government from requiring licensing (in essence, government permission) for weapons considered protected by the 2A. The problem always seems to be what is and is not considered protected by the 2A as new weapons are invented over time that have to be considered and no one seems to actually believe that all weapons are protected, so lines have to be drawn. Poorly, it seems.

Sure, everything is an A step on the road to C; waking up in the morning is a necessary first step on the road to being dictator. That's the point of a slippery slope, you point to something and say "this is will lead to that" when you don't actually know it does. It can just be it's own thing, it doesn't have to go down a slippery slope. Ordering thoughts that way, A is a necessary first step on the road to C, is how you get to conspiracy theories; the government closing down public spaces "to prevent the spread of Covid 19" is a necessary step on the path to martial law. It's not technically incorrect, I would imagine closing public spaces is necessary to achieve martial law, it's just stupid to think that closing down public spaces is a clear indication that martial law is coming.

I forgot, tyranny is a partisan issue, only one side can do it. Off topic question: what's your favorite type of cake?

[Aexodus]

Competence is relative. By the time the CCP’s coverup had been foiled by the rapid spread of the virus, the disease had already gone global, as the timeline shows. Competence was not going to spare the west from the disease through effective containment at that point. Korea, for example, has been able to substantially limit the surge there, by adopting a strategy similar to what was additionally proven more effective than the CCP’s during the H1N1 outbreak, as I referenced earlier:

The CCP’s authoritarian coverup and political theater is responsible for this pandemic, regardless of the reaction of the rest of the world being delayed by the CCP coverup, or the reaction time of other governments.

[Akar]

As a mining engineer, allow me to say that your interpretation of those sources is very wrong.
- Coal contains some elements that you can find in oil. Not many and not in high percentage.
- when George R. Hill talks about rapid heating aiding the creation of high rank coal, he means "just" a few hundred centuries in their 300 million years of history, not minutes. Yes, 5000 years is a short period in 300 million years. If you go above the correct temperature (like being close to a geothermal event), the hydrocarbons and carbon chains start cracking. You need a lab to do what Dr Hill did and it may well not work if you don't do it well.
- Using cracking on organic garbage to create oil is not possible in nature.
- IF what you say about the article in Organic Geochemistry Vol. 6:463-471, 1984 is correct... these guys are wrong, you can't create coal by burying wood in anaerobic conditions for 36 weeks. Well, not what we call mineral coal, i.e. neither lignite, bitumen coals or anthracite. IF things go well, you will get something like charcoal but not that good.
HOWEVER, I found that article and I didn't see that reference, I saw nice stuff about the creation and oxidization of coal and how it would take millions of years, so they had to do it in the lab accelerating the process.
And the reason you need the lab is that if you go above the right mix of temperature & pressure, the fuel is ruined. As such, it would be impossible in nature to do the right combinations for the right time. Simply put, the high temperatures from a volcano etc would have cracked the organic components and ruined the coal.


Long story short: Yes, the formation of coal is like cooking a pie. And you can make pies in your furnace but good luck baking pies by burying the dough in random places in nature, hoping for the right conditions. It will take you millions of years to get them.
Meanwhile, in the lab you can cook lignite if you follow the recipe. Because science works.


And yes, of course oil is being produced by Earth as we speak, with well understood procedures. But that compressed crust of dead bacteria, plankton and organic matter requires millions of years to turn to oil/natural gas. As such you can tell the age of the reservoir. That's how well this is understood.
There are "immature" fields that will perhaps (small chance, it's always a small chance) become proper oil in millions of years.
As such they are "finite" in the form that we remove billions of barrels of oil per year, while earth needs millions of years to recreate what we burn in a month.


Of course, if oil price is above 70-100$ then cracking lignite to create oil becomes a possible, viable alternative. We can create liquid hydrocarbons. And not just from coal.
That wine your uncle is drinking? With enough money you can turn it to oil. The problem is that it is too expensive (compared to oil prices) to do that, especially with wine.

[Gaidin]

I think I'll run with this one.

As a mining engineer, allow me to say that your interpretation of those sources is very wrong.

- Coal contains some elements that you can find in oil. Not many and not in high percentage.

- when George R. Hill talks about rapid heating aiding the creation of high rank coal, he means "just" a few hundred centuries in their 300 million years of history, not minutes. Yes, 5000 years is a short period in 300 million years. If you go above the correct temperature (like being close to a geothermal event), the hydrocarbons and carbon chains start cracking. You need a lab to do what Dr Hill did and it may well not work if you don't do it well.

- Using cracking on organic garbage to create oil is not possible in nature.

- IF what you say about the article in Organic Geochemistry Vol. 6:463-471, 1984 is correct... these guys are wrong, you can't create coal by burying wood in anaerobic conditions for 36 weeks. Well, not what we call mineral coal, i.e. neither lignite, bitumen coals or anthracite. IF things go well, you will get something like charcoal but not that good.
HOWEVER, I found that article and I didn't see them suggesting that you can bury wood and get coal in 36 weeks. I saw nice stuff about the creation and oxidization of coal and how it would take millions of years, so they had to do it in the lab accelerating the process. Here's the article. You can see how they sped the process using the lab.
And the reason you need the lab is that if you go above the right mix of temperature & pressure, the fuel is ruined. As such, it would be impossible in nature to do the right combinations for the right time. Simply put, the high temperatures from a volcano etc would have cracked the organic components and ruined the coal.


Long story short: Yes, the formation of coal is like cooking a pie. And you can make pies in your furnace but good luck baking pies by burying the dough in random places in nature, hoping for the right conditions. It will take you millions of years to get them.
Meanwhile, in the lab you can cook lignite if you follow the recipe. Because science works.


And yes, of course oil is being produced by Earth as we speak, with well understood procedures. But that compressed crust of dead bacteria, plankton and organic matter requires millions of years to turn to oil/natural gas. As such you can tell the age of the reservoir. That's how well this is understood.
There are "immature" fields that will perhaps (small chance, it's always a small chance) become proper oil in millions of years.
As such they are "finite" in the form that we remove billions of barrels of oil per year, while earth needs millions of years to recreate what we burn in a month.


Of course, if oil price is above 70-100$ then cracking lignite to create oil becomes a possible, viable alternative. When the oil prices were in the 100-120$, I met a German guy that was working in Nikaia, outside Constantinople, investigating whether the Turkish lignite could be turned to natural gas.
We can create liquid hydrocarbons. And not just from coal.
That wine your uncle is drinking? With enough money you can turn it to oil. The problem is that it is too expensive (compared to oil prices) to do that, especially with wine.4

The hot wet mud layers that existed after the Flood of Noah would have provided the perfect locations and conditions for rapid coal, oil and gas formation.

Nope, because if we take the most probable explanation, that the Flood of Noah was the ice age or something similar, It was too recent for "rapid" coal, oil and gas to form. Not to mention that coal was already done by that time.
And I tell you that as a scientist that has studied mineral resources engineering more recently than the 70s and is an academic. You need more than 60,000 years for all those to form, even in optimal conditions. Simply put, "baking that pie" in earth takes much longer.

But, let me ask this: The wet mud layers after the Flood, if we take the Old Testament literal... how long do you think they will take to dry? Have you seen the earth after a few months of heavy rain? It dries quite fast. It doesn't take years.
Before you say that it was a lot of water, I would remind you that to make oil, you need a waterproof sedimentary cap like limestone else the oil would not form (because the organic components will escape to the surface). You need to trap the organic components under the correct formations, else they will migrate and not transform.
Thus, no, the Flood could not have accelerated the formation. The "wet mud layers" would not have done anything for the organic components you mention.

[Prodromos]

I have my criticisms of some of China's actions, much like I have criticisms of the United States lack of action. But, moreover, it points less to the country than it does to the person who is running it. Speaking against China he gets a nationalism outlet much like for the first three years he had a nationalism outlet against Central America refugees. But here's the thing. He won't coordinate a national effort against this mess for the fifty states and territories and is largely leaving the governors to fend for themselves. He likes to say he appointed Pence, but he interferes. He tells Pence not to work with X, Y, or Z governor. Luckily Pence typically works with them anyway. But the interference is noted. He won't have companies ramp up production and buy all that is produced and coordinate mass shipping to locations that is needed on levels that is needed. So whatever he says about China, what he doesn't do for America pretty much lines up.

Is his approval up? Yea. Maybe by 10 points depending on your poll. He's subsisting on bumbling news conferences, woe-is-me complaints, offers scant empathy over growing fatalities, and won't do anything substantial. For his own country. Let's look at history. Rising poll numbers in a crisis are pretty normal. In March 1991 Operation Desert Storm and kicking Hussein out of Kuwait shot HW's approval sky-high to 89%. He lost office for the economy. In September 2001 W's approval was at 90%. Bush started two wars, walked out with 24%, and McCain lost the election for the Great Recession not focusing the talk on wars that were actually taking place. The Iran Embassy Seizure and Carter's initial handling of it shot his numbers from 32% to 61% and right back down after a botched rescue effort.

Forget the economy. The economy will come back if the people are here after COVID is taken care of. But Trump is botching this for nationalism and money so badly he wants to just let people die.

[mishkin]

Broken keyboard aside....

I agree. Shutdowns have been implemented too late. But it is better late than never. Evidence from countries that have managed to contain the outbreak is that social distancing and in particular closure of popular gathering spots does work - most modelling suggests a long term 80% reduction in people movement and interaction. Long term as in at least a month after the last known case. As I said, the 3 week incubation period is not 'making excuses ahead of time for the failure' It is easily evidenced - by looking at results 3 weeks from implementation and comparing it to what is about to happen in places that can't.

We'll see soon enough what happens when the disease has it's own way when the emerging outbreaks in poorer parts of Africa and India really take hold. When a disease with exponential potential and a 1-5% death rate does to poor countries with almost no health care. What we've seen already is horrifying - and if it doesn't make you pause and take a deep breath you're most likely a sociopath. But what would have happened in Italy and Spain without lockdowns - there are no words. And this is what is set to happen in poorer countries. We can revisit this debate in a few weeks if you like. I wish to hell you're right. But I know you're not at all.