Ashley Olsen Spotted Sporting $39,000 Backpack By The Row

[Slargos]

Nice try, Slargos, but "Dumb Swede" is still just a myth.

How fucking ironic.

[Admiral Yi]

And I never understood the logic you employ.  Both Moore and Buffett are making arguments about how a system should be set up, not about what people should do voluntarily.  Systems require coercion.  Your argument is pretty much the same as the argument that goes like "Think taxes should be higher?  Why don't you donate to the Treasury?"

My argument is the same as saying that if you think global warming is a problem you should be making efforts to reduce carbon emissions even if there are no government regulations in place.

[Slargos]

And I never understood the logic you employ.  Both Moore and Buffett are making arguments about how a system should be set up, not about what people should do voluntarily.  Systems require coercion.  Your argument is pretty much the same as the argument that goes like "Think taxes should be higher?  Why don't you donate to the Treasury?"

My argument is the same as saying that if you think global warming is a problem you should be making efforts to reduce carbon emissions even if there are no government regulations in place.

But if no one else is doing it, why should you inconvenience yourself? It wouldn't be fair. 

[Razgovory]

Le sigh.

What causes Norway to have relatively less arable land than Sweden is the rather higher percentage of naked bedrock. IE mountains.

The other differences in top soil are marginal. In fact, some of the most arable land in Scandinavia is in Norway.

Arguing that "the climate" or "the soil" are the reasons why Norwegians left Norway for the Americas is obtuse beyond belief.

By the same token, the reason Norwegians left Norway is actually the Big Bang.

I thought you wanted to know why there are more people in Sweden then Norway.  Make up goddamn mind.

[Slargos]

I thought you wanted to know why there are more people in Sweden then Norway.  Make up goddamn mind.

It was a rhetorical question.

[Razgovory]

I thought you wanted to know why there are more people in Sweden then Norway.  Make up goddamn mind.

It was a rhetorical question.

What was the point?

[Slargos]

I thought you wanted to know why there are more people in Sweden then Norway.  Make up goddamn mind.

It was a rhetorical question.

What was the point?

Sometimes I wonder myself.

If some goddamned idiot believes "the climate" and "the soil" are sufficient reasons for the scandinavian migrations of the 19th century, they are clearly not salvagable.

[Razgovory]

Think about what you want to say before you say it.  That might prevent instances like this.

[Slargos]

Think about what you want to say before you say it.  That might prevent instances like this.

Since the problem here is your immense capacity for stupidity, whatever I have to say is completely irrelevant and will neither prevent nor promote anything.

[Razgovory]

I feel bad for you.

[DGuller]

And I never understood the logic you employ.  Both Moore and Buffett are making arguments about how a system should be set up, not about what people should do voluntarily.  Systems require coercion.  Your argument is pretty much the same as the argument that goes like "Think taxes should be higher?  Why don't you donate to the Treasury?"

My argument is the same as saying that if you think global warming is a problem you should be making efforts to reduce carbon emissions even if there are no government regulations in place.

But that doesn't make sense either.  In a free market, voluntarily constraining yourself is self-defeating.  Others will make you suffer competetively for it, and in the process they will undo most of the savings to the environment (or society in general).

[DGuller]

Think about what you want to say before you say it.  That might prevent instances like this.

Since the problem here is your immense capacity for stupidity, whatever I have to say is completely irrelevant and will neither prevent nor promote anything.

I have to say that I have no fucking idea what point you're trying to make either.

[Slargos]

Think about what you want to say before you say it.  That might prevent instances like this.

Since the problem here is your immense capacity for stupidity, whatever I have to say is completely irrelevant and will neither prevent nor promote anything.

I have to say that I have no fucking idea what point you're trying to make either.

Don't worry about it. If you are under the belief represented [I assume humorously] in grumbler's post, I doubt there's anything I could say that would help you.

[Admiral Yi]

But that doesn't make sense either.  In a free market, voluntarily constraining yourself is self-defeating.  Others will make you suffer competetively for it, and in the process they will undo most of the savings to the environment (or society in general).

I'm not sure I follow.  I'm not talking about the production and pricing of goods and services in the market, I'm talking about the use of disposable income.  If Michael Moore buys health insurance for one person his propaganda films are not going to be undercut and driven out of the propaganda market by more cold-hearted producers of propaganda films.

[DGuller]

Let's say you want to save the environment by cutting out your oil consumption.  What would be the result of that?

The first result is that your quality of life would go down, or at least you're going to have to spend more on replacement goods (hopefully cleaner than oil).  The second effect is that some of the savings of oil consumption from your personal refusal to use it would be negated by other people increasing their oil consumption, since oil is cheaper now. 

Your savings won't be completely negated, unless the oil supply curve is perfectly inelastic, but it would be negated to a significant degree.