Anastasia Ocasio-Cortez

[_subgenius]

because of context, Bernie is putting forth socialism not Denmark per se...the "equating" is in the premise.
Besides, not all conservatives, so dial that back a bit.

Can you describe how Sanders' policy proposals are more like Venezuela than Nordic socialism that you don't want to call socialism.

(You can't, but have fun.)

Nordic socialism doesn't exist brother...you are confused, like Sanders, by thinking that when a country has an economy where some industries are government owned and tax rates are comparatively super duper high that said country is "socialist" or at least enough to make the concept palatable...but the reality is that Nordic countries having government control over an industry like Oil skews your economic perception because Oil is a big ticket. The truth is, relying on Sanders to define economic systems is silly...and Sanders' policy proposals are sans description because they are rhetoric....its akin to saying Ross Perot had a great "policy" of 'we gotta clean out the barn'....so yeah, there is that.

Neverhteless, I don't know why you want to assume I am a spokesman for an entire strata of people that you stratified, it would seem sensible that if you are the one creating this delusion that "all conservatives" or "all Republicans" thin this or think that - it would be your responsibility to fill in those blanks yourself...its obviously your script, so you write it.

[Guest]

It absolutely helps because it distinguishes between two very different systems whereas you would seemingly prefer everyone keep conflating them for their polemical purposes. I mean, really. What's the big deal about distinguishing between DS and S? You know damn well that virtually everyone on the Right assumes that by mentioning the S word in any context, the implication is basically "She's a communist" who wants to steal all your private property and give to the poor. I know, because this is what they do already.

Is it helpful?

All it does is muddy the waters and helps them with their agenda of disinformation and scare tactics.

Is the reason you don't admit that there are socialist countries is that it gives people ammunition to show what it is? That is what you appear to be saying?

Isn't distributing wealth, and nationalizing industry necessary to socialism. There is a line many folks, including you, are not willing to cross...in moving further and further into a socialistic system.

Every country and system is different, and there are different types of socialism, like I wrote earlier, putting your definition of socialism into a little box does not mean it does not exist outside that box.

[_EAllusion]

Nordic countries having government control over an industry like Oil skews your economic perception because Oil is a big ticket.

What's my economic perception? In any case, this does not in any way explain how Sanders' policy proposals are more like Venezuala's than Nordic countries.

As an additional layer of ignorance to this post, Venezuela has a nationalized oil industry with the largest proven oil reserves on the planet. Denmark does not have significant oil reserves underwriting its welfare state. You are confusing the countries under the "Nordic Model" with Norway.

If you want to argue those countries aren't really socialist, knock yourself out, but they are socialist in the sense that someone like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is. So you are then implicitly criticizing the popular conservative tactic of arguing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's beliefs are a slippery slope to Venezuela because they have socialism in common.

The truth is, relying on Sanders to define economic systems is silly...and Sanders' policy proposals are sans description because they are rhetoric....its akin to saying Ross Perot had a great "policy" of 'we gotta clean out the barn'....so yeah, there is that.

Sanders has actual policy proposals. I agree that they are chosen more for rhetorical purposes than something that would actually work, but they nonetheless exist. Elizabeth Warren he is not. If you want to defend comparing Sanders style socialism more to Venezuela than to European socialist countries, it'd be incumbent upon you to actually justify that comparison. If you want to argue those socialist countries aren't socialist, cool cool. The problem remains that those countries are his north star.

Neverhteless, I don't know why you want to assume I am a spokesman for an entire strata of people that you stratified, it would seem sensible that if you are the one creating this delusion that "all conservatives" or "all Republicans" thin this or think that - it would be your responsibility to fill in those blanks yourself...its obviously your script, so you write it.

Did this make sense to you when you wrote it?

[_Res Ipsa]

Come on. [deleted] isn't a real college, subs. You claim to be [deleted] but don't know that volume is increasing at the cube of the radius for a sphere. Don't you remember your debate with steelhead about volume calculations of water required to flood the earth?

Please could you post a link to the point in the discussion where it becomes clear that subgenius has a mistaken idea of the relation between the volume of a sphere and its radius? I have scrolled down a number of pages without finding it.

I believe this is the correct thread, but I haven’t tracked down the entry to which Kevin refers. http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... =3&t=24669

[_canpakes]

Please could you post a link to the point in the discussion where it becomes clear that subgenius has a mistaken idea of the relation between the volume of a sphere and its radius? I have scrolled down a number of pages without finding it.

I believe this is the correct thread, but I haven’t tracked down the entry to which Kevin refers.
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... =3&t=24669

Note that KG also has a link buried in his response.

Related, there exists a claim - possibly held by subs and mentioned in the awesome Rainbow thread - that weasels around the question of how much water is needed by claiming that enough exists if all land masses were “smoothed down”, which would presumably require backfilling into all oceans, etc., as required to make the solid surface ‘smooth’, which would predictably leave ocean water above all now-submerged land. It’s a nonsensical theory that doesn’t even jive with Biblical history but apparently is how some folks justify a literal global flood.

By the way, that’s a great thread. I’ll have to find a link to it. It offers a fascinating look into how subs’s mind works, for lack of a better way to put it. Basically, the only things that are ‘true’ are what he wants to believe are true; he has no consistent methodology for dismissing or accepting any reality or facts.

[_Chap]

Please could you post a link to the point in the discussion where it becomes clear that subgenius has a mistaken idea of the relation between the volume of a sphere and its radius? I have scrolled down a number of pages without finding it.

I believe this is the correct thread, but I haven’t tracked down the entry to which Kevin refers.

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... =3&t=24669

You seem to be correct:

Page 10

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 30#p623330

Use the formula for the volume of a sphere to calculate the amount of water needed to raise the sea level over the Himalayas.

1st calculate the volume required to cover the highest mountains. (Hint radius of the earth at sea level + 8.84 km).

umm which radius are you assuming? this link states the radius 6.4 million meter
Wikipedia
notes the following 3 radii
Mean radius 6,371.0 km
Equatorial radius 6,378.1 km
Polar radius 6,356.8 km

can't seem to find the +8.84 km you are referencing?

the highest mountain (Mt Everest) is about .07% of the earth diameter..or a difference in radius of about .035%....but lets be generous and increase your 8.84km radius into 8.85km (which would be a 0.07% increase of radius...otherwise the values start to get insignificant)

volume of 8.85km sphere equals 2903.5 cu. km

2nd calculate the volume at sea level.

volume of 8.84 sphere equals 2893.6 cu. km

3rd. Subtract 2 from 1.

2903.5 cu. km - 2893.6 cu. km = 9.9 cu. km

4th Multiply by .9 to roughly account for landmass.

arbitrary value seemingly

Now find the resultant volume of water.

9.9 cu. km

Roughly 4.5 billion cubic kilometers of water. Or more than 3 times the existing volume of the seas & oceans.

your math is off, your logic is oversimplified, and your premise seems to be flawed.

Where did it go?

it followed your reasoning out the window?

let us look at actual numbers.

• The volume of all the water on earth is approx 332.5 million cubic miles
• This much water just atop the United States would be 170 miles deep
• There is more freshwater "inside" the earth than "on" it (lakes, rivers, etc..)
• 70.8% of earth's surface is water, thus 29.2% is available for flooding....this assumes that 29.2% was available during Noah's flood, not more and not less..there is no way to determine either with any degree of accuracy.(20% of the land surface is already covered with snow/ice)
• 1,603,176,817,000,000 sq ft of land surface
• the highest point on land is Mt Everest at +29k feet
• 48,095,304,510,000,000,000 cu.ft of water...or 326,738,952 million cubic miles

So, we see that there is enough water currently available on earth to flood the entire available land surface to over the top of the highest point of land (Everest). However, this only leaves 5.8 million cubic miles of water to "fill in" where there was no previous available land surface....which was a water surface area of 3,887,192,497,000,000 sq feet or 139,433,845 sq miles...or about 221 feet of water depth for that surface area.

Now realize that with regards to the earth, it is not a sphere...it is an oblate spheroid, but our calculations can illustrate the point. Furthermore one must realize that the radius of the earth is only increased by .035 percent (.0007) if we take Everest as its outer radius, as compared to taking sea level. Besides i am not sure that all the assumptions being made are valid...for example, if the entire subsurface water evacuates to above surely there will some significant collapsing of land surfaces, a sinking effect for some land masses...probably not significant to mountains but perhaps meaningful.

Now, obviously there is enough water to actually cover the entire earth, albeit asymmetrically applied (as it is applied today)...but there may be cause to consider this as feasible considering that water may well ebb and flow, swell and squall to being less than an evenly distributed elevation over great expanses...especially since it already does that significantly across our earth today (ie. tidal bulge due to moon).

See a graphic model of this asymmetric distribution at the bottom of this page

that image represents the major flaw in your assumption above, which is that the water would have to be a consistent depth across the subsurface of the planet....and this influence is just from a solar/lunar source.

The assumption that the flood would have to be to the depth of Mt Everest consistently across the entire earth is rather naïve, unnecessary, and just not rational. The scientific data supports that our planet is actually asymmetric in shape and thus the surface of the sea at any given point is not actually equidistant from the earth's center....and arguably since a large portion of Everest is under ice already, complete coverage may not be necessary for one to consider it "flooded" for the purposes of extinguishing life....but i still maintain that the earth is capable of being "waterworld" and current science and the tradition of religion support that conclusion. The only objections are fro those who want to simply assume that the flood is some sort of linchpin in the fall of the Bible, wherein their only argument is that "it just seems to not be possible", yet we see that science is revealing more and more that indeed it is possible.

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 46#p623346

Sub,

Serious math fail.

Take the radius of the earth. Pick any of the three you listed. Calculate the volume of the sphere. I'll use the smallest value listed in wiki 6353 km. (This one gives the smallest delta v and is the best result for some one trying to prove the flood...... But it doesn't help)

1074051671474.8 cubic km

Now add 8.85 km to the radius that you used previously.

Use this radius and again calculate the volume of the sphere.

1078546526571.3 cubic km

Subtract the first result from the second. The result is the volume of water needed to go from sea level to the top of Everest.

4494855096.49 cubic km

My initial figures also accounted for some terestrial displacement.

Pretty simple.

You can't use a % extrapolation as the volume increases at the cube of the radius.

There is nothing approaching this volume of water on the earth, not combing ground water, ocean water, frozen water, and atmospheric water, etc etc etc.

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html

Seeing how you fail at basic math I start to grok your lack of understanding science.

Page 12:

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 51#p627351

subgenius reappears, but does not attempt to answer steelhead's rebuttal.

So it appears that an architect was under the impression that if the dimensions of an object were increased by x%, then its volume would also increase by x%. However, if x is small, then since the volume increases as the cube of the radius, the increase in volume is more like 3x%.

For example, if the radius increases by 5% from from 1.00 unit to 1.05, then the volume increases from 1.00 unit to

1.05^3 = 1.158, somewhat over 15%.

Years ago, an architect in a town known to me made a similar error. He designed a building, which the client then complained was too small. So he simply scaled it up by about 5% in its linear dimensions. The volume of the component parts of the building, and hence its weight thus increased by a bit over 15%, while strengths of the supporting pillars and walls only increased by 10%, since their strength depended on their cross-section area rather than their volume, and hence only increased as the square of the linear dimensions. Thus the building's safety margin of strength fell below the regulations, and it has to be demolished.

Now in defence of subgenius, I suspect that he (like most architects), does a design and then gets a structural engineer to stress it for him. However he must have learned the basic mechanical and geometrical principles in college, so I can only assume that they had slipped his memory when he made his post.

[_Kevin Graham]

subgenius reappears, but does not attempt to answer steelhead's rebuttal.

So it appears that an architect was under the impression that if the dimensions of an object were increased by x%, then its volume would also increase by x%. However, if x is small, then since the volume increases as the cube of the radius, the increase in volume is more like 3x%.

Yes, the same "architect" who can't wrap his mind around this notion that people can beat a wall with a ladder.

[_subgenius]

Sub - You engage in strawmen without actually reading what was said.
Tell you what Sub - what countries on the planet are purely capitalist and which are purely socialist, and which purely communist?

I am pretty sure I stated my opinion on socialism in an earlier post....read upthread.

your question here is irrelevant to the thread and context of any argument here.

[_subgenius]

there exists a claim - possibly held by subs and mentioned in the awesome Rainbow thread -

man, I miss that thread (good times)….wonder how Drift is doing?

[_subgenius]

Yes, the same "architect" who can't wrap his mind around this notion that people can beat a wall with a ladder.

and people can open your front door with a swift kick, yet you still shut and lock it at night...go figure.