2 tips.

1. Negative air pressure is your friend. If you open the windows upstairs and down and blow air out of the house it’ll suck air from the downstairs to the upstairs cooling the entire house.

2. Bernoulli’s principle is your friend. Rather than having fans right next to the windows you’ll move more air if you back the fans a meter or so from the window. https://youtu.be/BhWhTbins_A?si=9LGd0_EmfPFBNnDJ

Man, I remember laughing at Romney in his presidential run when he said Russia was over the greatest global threats. Boy was he on point.

to people like you that can’t see past the hollow optics.

Umm, ok, Like I agree with you that charities in general tend to be a bad way to solve public problems. But I’m also pointing out that charities rich people tend to contribute to are often even worse than ineffective for addressing public needs.

It’s, frankly, more than most billionaires and 100 millionaires do.

Most billionaires are setting up fake charities as tax shelters so they can publicize “Elon musk gave money to the Elon musk charity for fueling billionaire private jets foundation”.

You can pretty much pick a billionaire and find that billionaire’s charity that does dog shit.

Except for Dolly Parton who apparently didn’t get the memo that she’s supposed to be scamming :D

https://fortune.com/2022/12/12/elon-musk-gave-5-7-billion-to-charity-last-year-where-it-went-was-a-mystery-until-now/

Eh, don’t really disagree with what you are saying. The problem is money and industry influence in politics and it’s something that needs to be eliminated. I don’t quiet take your point that regulations don’t matter. Assuming money and industry influence are removed from politics we’d see laws and regulations more line with the public interest over corporate interest.

Even if we fully ditched capitalism, you’d still need/want regulations setting the bounds on how government can/should operate.

Not really, PFAS have been almost completely unregulated. It is just in the last 2 years that we are starting to see PFAS regulations globally. Up until that point, we allowed companies to literally just dump them down the rain or in a lake.

If regulations were so worthless, you should be asking yourself why every single industry fights new ones. Why the supreme court in the US has taken a position to kill Chevron Deference which weakens federal agencies ability to regulate.

The failure isn’t regulations, the failure is a government system that severely neuters the ability of a government to regulate. The failure is a bunch of science denying corporate captured politicians that don’t care how they destroy the planet.

Yup.

The same trick is played with recycling. Blame the end consumer for a supply chain completely out of their control.

The biggest polluters are corporations and we stop their pollution by regulation. These mega corps would have you believe that it’s really your fault PFAS are everywhere because you shouldn’t have bought those Teflon coated products. Nevermind the fact that Teflon is everywhere a nonstick surface is needed.

The other treks are more idealized, heroized, professional.

Which is something LD likes to poke fun at.

Not just as easy. There’s a lot of room for someone to say “this was actually just metaphor” or even “these are just stories to convey values”.

Take the tower of Babel, for example, we know it never happened. However, a more progressive Christian or Jewish tradition can use the story to talk about how sometimes cultural differences are simply surface level, we are all ultimately the same people. Mormons aren’t so lucky because the book of Mormon was pitched as a literal history and part of the book has literal refugees from the tower of Babel.

Unlike the Bible, we have the author of the religion who very well documented how literal everything is. We don’t even know who authored nearly any book in the Bible or their motivations.

I’m not arguing for a god, I’m an atheist exmo. However, there’s a pretty big difference between a bunch of old stories compiled together into a book and a book of fiction that the author went out of his way to claim was “the most correct book ever written”.

It’s harder to believe because it’s easily disproven. Turns out Joseph’s “translation” of ancient Egyptian wasn’t inspired.

Thank God cars didn’t exist when the constitution was written. We could actually solve this with legislation.

I had a 98 ranger for farm work. The new ranger is as big as the old F150.

https://youtu.be/oAHbLRjF0vo?si=8NRov1SyjtNxIOsF

Funnily, just opening the gates is near ideal for boarding. Doing almost any grouping slows things down more than random boarding.

At least for Delta, they’ll book your carry-on for free. So there’s that.

It’s mostly a religious belief. There are a couple of Bible verses that say things like “the earth will be rolled up like a scroll” and “spread to the four corners of the earth”.

Biblical literalists cannot handle the Bible being incorrect about anything, so it’s everyone else that’s wrong.

Is there even a non-capitalist government in existence? Even the communist nations generally have a currency and tiered income based on position.

Let us now double down. Previously (Block 2005; 2013) wrote that slavery, in the absence of violence, compulsion, NAP violation was ―not so bad.‖ That was a poor choice of words. It was an inaccurate understatement. The truth of the matter is that under these conditions ―slavery‖ would be a positive good. There, I said it. I will say it again: ―Slavery‖ would be a positive good, under these conditions. Make of that what you will, New York Times and other enemies of freedom and logic. But note that when I assert that ―slavery‖ would be a benefit, two things occurred. First, I placed quote marks (―‖) around the word ―slavery‖ and second I mentioned that under these conditions it would be beneficial. I did not say, and I entirely reject the notion that slavery as actually practiced was anything other than a disgrace, a stark horrid evil. It is my view that the movies ―Django Unchained,‖ ―Twelve Years a Slave,‖ and the television series ―Roots‖ are roughly accurate depictions of this monstrous practice

We currently have a set of laws that’s like twenty feet long when you print it out, bind it, and put it on the shelves.

Turns out, life is complex. It’s either this or you end up having “rules for me but not for thee”.

But to this point, what would you have your central government in charge of? I’m certainly for axing parts of the central gov and expanding others (For example, I’d nationalize healthcare and drug production and abolish ICE and the DEA). That is, I’d push for a government more concerned with taking care of citizens and less concerned with penalizing inconsequential things like not being born here.

The reason for the miles long laws is because when you don’t have them, a capitalist society will work around them. A recent behind the bastards episode on the hawks nest tunnel ( https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/part-one-the-deadliest-workplace-disaster-in-u-s-history/id1373812661?i=1000632417312 ) is a perfect example of how these sorts of regulations get created and grow.

Pretty sure the libertarian stance on slavery is that it is wrong

Libertarians are VERY individualistic (shocker) which means no 2 libertarians define libertarianism the same way.

HOWEVER, you literally just have to search for “slavery libertarian” in the google box to find all sorts of fairly high profile libertarians arguing about how slavery can actually be a good thing that we should allow.

For example, from Walter Block: http://www.kspjournals.org/index.php/JEST/article/view/346

The decision to kill would an act of defense. Organized sex trafficking preys on members of a community. If you see it happen, stop it. If that means killing the perpetrator, you’d need to justify it to your community, but you don’t have to kill them to stop it.

The argument you use there is the same argument used for genocide “We had to defend ourselves from X who are corrupting our society and way of life!”. The appeal to community only works if the community doesn’t hold prejudices against others.

But further, not how sex trafficking/child porn works. It’s not this secret cabal of kidnappers stealing babies in the night. Sex trafficking is almost always perpetrated by a trusted individual. Where this gets real bad is cults like the Oneida cult which pushed for free love of children. And this gets back to my original point, how does the community address a problem when the community IS the problem?

Both of those systems would thrive in a libertarian model and they would have a lot less red tape to contend with in order to liberate the cult members.

Red tape is not what stops people from addressing cults. It’s actually funny you mention Jonestown and mormons because both movements famously relocated their members to escape government control and interference. So you are saying that a libertarian model with even less government control would somehow end cults faster? I really suggest you read up on how cults function and move because quiet literally they are hoping and looking for libertarian areas to setup shop. Cults LOVE to pick and take over small remote locations precisely to escape the pesky government red tape and oversight. (see: Rajneeshpuram as an example).

What checks to cults do we currently have?

Not enough, but more than you’d expect. You can leave a cult, sue it if they start tracking you. Cults that abuse children (such as the FLDS) can be dismantled and their leaders arrested. Cults that physically harm or imprison their members can be subjected to legal actions (which is why scientologists put their member prison in international waters). Certainly the current system isn’t perfect, slow evolution is the nature of centralized governments. However, that slow evolution also (usually) prevents overreaction.

Why hasn’t the state eliminated cults if they’re so capable?

It’s not a question of elimination. You can’t eliminate cults anymore than you could eliminate religion itself. (and, in fact, it’s likely easier to eliminate religion as there are non-religious cults). The question is one of harm reduction to citizens. One of checks and balances to make sure the state isn’t overreaching while simultaneously penalizing organizations that do. It’s a game of cat and mouse, ultimately. The issue is these are things only fixed by regulation. Take away all the regulation and you are basically just saying “Well, hopefully that cult will sort itself out”.

Jonestown is a really good example of why just leaving them alone is a bad idea. Jonestown happened because the leader of that movement became so paranoid that when a senator visited the community, that was enough to have him push for mass suicide.

Just for your future arguments, ruby ridge is a much better example of centralized government absolutely doing the wrong thing.