Jump to content

J.C.MacSwell

Senior Members
  • Posts

    5119
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

Posts posted by J.C.MacSwell

  1. 32 minutes ago, CharonY said:

    In the graph there were actually three periods when taxes went down. The clearly did not refer to the amount of reduction, but the fact that reductions happened.

    There are also economic reasons why taxes go up in certain countries in certain periods which is not caused by governmental desires to increase taxes:

    I am not sure what the graph you posted means. It appears that income is rising faster than taxes since the 2000s whereas taxes where much higher and rose more sharply with income until the 70s/80s? (by eyeballing it)?

    Also, it looks like the values are not inflation-adjusted, so basically any non-normalized monetary plot would go up over the years. 

    They did not. The graph shows three periods where it went down, fairly substantially, relative to cash income. That doesn't mean it went down.

    My point was that it, clearly, doesn't clearly refute MigL's generalization that taxes "always go up".

    Your graph...again...makes a good point with regard to the tax burden...but doesn't clearly refute what you claim it does.

    1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

    "Burden" and you have a point. Clearly refutes the "always increases"...not so much...though maybe a different graph is needed to display that.

     

    52 minutes ago, iNow said:

    Your graph lacks labels on the axes or even a source to go find out. Are we looking at revenues? Rates? Number of people paying? Online submissions? Other?

    Here is an article that actually contains both graphs. While I don't see it stated I recognize "my graph" to be based on taxes in Canadian Dollars not adjusted for inflation.

    https://globalnews.ca/news/3691159/canada-taxes-incomes-fraser-institute/

  2. 16 minutes ago, CharonY said:

    Could you clarify that? To me a claim of "always increases" would indicate that values only go up. If there are periods where it decreases it would invalidate that claim.

    You can argue otherwise, but I don't believe the slight dip circa 1992 clearly refutes MigL's generalization that taxes always go up. But even if you think it does, your graph doesn't show it.

     

    image.png.628ce5087a80eaa6d603224cd40e30e3.png

  3. On 1/14/2022 at 7:32 AM, CharonY said:

     

    Moreover tax burden have gone up and down over the long term, when accounting for inflation. See below a plot of tax burden in Canada, which clearly refutes the always increases parts.

     

    Fig-4_FI-report.png

    "Burden" and you have a point. Clearly refutes the "always increases"...not so much...though maybe a different graph is needed to display that.

  4. 18 minutes ago, CharonY said:

    I mean there were arguments that seatbelts were unsafe and similar things in the past:

    https://www.businessinsider.com/when-americans-went-to-war-against-seat-belts-2020-5

    At this point I am almost convinced that in human history there are no original discussions left anymore. We just keep rehashing old things and convince ourselves that somehow we are making progress.

    I do remember the "thrown clear" argument...complete with factual anecdotal evidence. So maybe we just need time and maybe some of the right type of "air bags" to convince everyone.

    18 minutes ago, CharonY said:

    At this point I am almost convinced that in human history there are no original discussions left anymore. We just keep rehashing old things and convince ourselves that somehow we are making progress.

    You can probably include most of human prehistory in that thought...but more information and science at least tends to win.

  5. On 11/16/2021 at 12:22 AM, iNow said:

    They  didn’t underestimate death rates in the US so much as they underestimated idiocy, ignorance, and intransigence.

    Much like car accidents still kill people despite the introduction of seatbelts. Obviously, seatbelts don’t work and shouldn’t be worn at all. That’s just common sense right there.

    We should also get rid of airbags and crumple zones and stop lights while we’re at it. If it’s not perfect, it’s not needed… that’s what I always say. 🙄 ;) 

    More people are killed wearing seatbelts than not...yet somehow we don't hear that argument despite the obvious why.

    On 1/12/2022 at 1:10 PM, MigL said:

    It's starting to happen in Canada.
    Not content with educating people ( or evidently, doing a really bad job at it ), Canadian Governments are vilifying unvaccinated people.
    This is especially true of the Quebec provincial government

    Chris Selley: Quebec's anti-vax tax could lead us to some very dark places (msn.com)

    and the federal Liberal government of J Trudeau

    Tasha Kheiriddin: The unvaccinated must be deterred from harming others (msn.com)

    I would assume the next group of people that will be taxed for 'stressing' the universal ( ? ) health care system, will be smokers, drinkers, overweight people, drug users, malnourished people, etc.
    Exactly the people who are disadvantaged/uneducated, and immigrants or indigenous. The same people who can least afford the extra taxation.

    I have always said ideologies are a dangerous thing.

    It's like they have no concept of human nature. I've had friends that were against vaccination that despite still being against it came around and got one...it wouldn't have taken much more for them to dig in their heels.

    Another, avid golfer, was barred from playing golf at his Club. I can understand the argument for barring him from the clubhouse, but barring him from the course is vaccine coercion IMO.

  6. 3 hours ago, TheVat said:

      Don't most riders prefer their horses to be shirtless?

     

    Going that way, are we?

    4 hours ago, StringJunky said:

    Speaking of nuclear: the Russians wouldn't have  such leverage if that was the preferred energy source, instead of gas, until other greener sources matured or new ones realized.

    Or we could be in for a coaled war...

    3 hours ago, TheVat said:

    Maybe.  Kazakhstan, by a wide margin, is the world's leading source of uranium.  The Russians might have found a means to interfere there.  In any case, to paraphrase Chris Hitchens, ideology poisons everything.  

     

     

     

    Did not know that. More than 3 times Canada (or Australia)

    (+1 except I already +1ed the shirtless horse)

  7. 8 hours ago, swansont said:

    It only works a very small fraction of the time (near noon near the equinoxes), because it’s only over the equator

    The sun’s rays are very nearly parallel, so it’s about a square km

     

    A shield that was perpetually blocking the sun would heat up and radiate, reducing the effectiveness of the shield.

    How about controlling something/s at the Lagrange point between Earth and Sun. Close enough that it wouldn't need to be exceptionally large to have a considerable effect, and far enough that most of any re-radiation would not effect the Earth, assuming it's/they are shaped, oriented, and controlled correctly.

  8. On 12/24/2021 at 2:28 PM, CharonY said:

    Comparing ongoing omicron infections with the previous wave it seems that in most areas we got data, we have lower hospitalization:infection ratio with omicron in many areas. However, it does not necessarily mean that omicron is intrinsically more harmless, it could for example reflect higher overall vaccination status. However, as transmission is higher, it could still mean that we might end up with overall more hospitalizations without additional measures to slow down transmission.

    Is it statistically less harmful in the unvaccinated (and/or not previously covid infected population, though I doubt we have good data on that)?

    You meant less there, correct?

  9. 8 hours ago, Genady said:

    Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was kidding. Such headlines, I guess, are just click baits. Thought about it because the thread topic mentions impressing scientists. I don't enjoy claiming that scientists are easily shocked but rather enjoy making fun of popular science reports.

    Just semantics, but I thought "impressed" was more accurate than "astounds", and thus the thread title.

    From the link:

    "It is an amazing specimen...I have been working on dinosaur eggs for 25 years and have yet to see anything like it," Zelenitsky told CNN through email. "Up until now, little has been known of what was going on inside a dinosaur's egg prior to hatching, as there are so few embryonic skeletons, particularly those that are complete and preserved in a life pose."

  10. On 12/5/2021 at 8:10 PM, MigL said:

    No idea, INow.
    Our Prime Minister likes to talk the game, but doesn't have the means, or the stomach, to back it up.
    Canada is, as a result, not taken seriously in international matters.

    Not directed at the Taiwan situation, but Trudeau weighs in on some of China's economic tactics.

    Though not directed at military concerns, I think it is relevant given the importance of politico-economic pressures, or the potential threat of them.

    https://globalnews.ca/news/8466217/trudeau-china-countries-need-united-front/

    "Xi Jinping’s China today is “no longer the China that we thought about 10 years ago or even five years ago in some ways,” Trudeau said."

  11. On 12/22/2021 at 6:18 PM, swansont said:

    If it could interact electromagnetically it would emit thermal EM radiation. The ability to emit light has implications about how it behaves - easy dissipation of energy would allow it to “clump” more readily. And “dark” is also an acknowledgement that we don’t know what it is, as beecee has noted.

    Is this why it can maintain a halo while (I'm presuming) orbiting galactic centres, and not form dark matter "planets" or major black holes?

    I've often wondered why it didn't form a localized mass and eventually clear it's orbit like planets tend to.

    Which would essentially remove the halo.

  12. 33 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

    And remember, in order to spend the requisite maturation period for each species to become their messiah, he would have to put in millions or billions of years in recordable mortal time, while humans are back here, busily cutting the planet out from under themselves.

     

    When you can be as omnipresent as required...how is this difficult?

    Also why would He choose to to be the mortal Messiah for each species? Don't forget He works in mysterious ways.

    33 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

    Sure, but why should he want to?

    For all the questionable things done in his name...by "official accounts" He seems like a pretty good guy.

    i'm starting to think you lack a little faith...

  13. On 11/23/2021 at 11:38 AM, Phi for All said:

    Matt. 1:18-20 tells us Jesus didn't have a birth father from the tribe of Judah also descended from King Solomon and King David, which were the prerequisites for the Jewish Messiah, as recorded elsewhere in the Bible.

    I've always been curious about the reaction to someone claiming to be Jesus come back for the second time. Plenty have made the claim over the centuries, so wouldn't it require some sort of evidence, like walking on water or turning the water into wine and then walking on it? And if this latest Jesus could show miraculous powers on command, in a testable, reproduceable, and predictable way, then does anyone need faith anymore?

    Fairly easy to do. A bit harder but much for effective if the conditions  are right is to wear boots with steel blades attached and add the ability to glide on it.

     

    On 11/23/2021 at 11:38 AM, Phi for All said:

    Matt. 1:18-20 tells us Jesus didn't have a birth father from the tribe of Judah also descended from King Solomon and King David, which were the prerequisites for the Jewish Messiah, as recorded elsewhere in the Bible.

    I've always been curious about the reaction to someone claiming to be Jesus come back for the second time. Plenty have made the claim over the centuries, so wouldn't it require some sort of evidence, like walking on water or turning the water into wine and then walking on it? And if this latest Jesus could show miraculous powers on command, in a testable, reproduceable, and predictable way, then does anyone need faith anymore?

    At that point it's no longer religion. It's in the realm of science.

    On 11/25/2021 at 12:37 AM, Peterkin said:

    Assuming there was a real person named Jesus (or something like) and he was (something like) the man those four books (plus several more apocryphal ones) were written about, why should he come back? The people he met on this planet were not so nice to him that he'd want to visit them again. It's a big universe - assuming the whole universe has just the one creator, rather than each galaxy having its own, each ruling a separate fiefdom.... *

    So, anyway, depending on whether his dad rules one galaxy of all of them, Jesus has a choice of a bazillion and a gazillion planets inhabited by intelligent life to choose from. Pretty good chance, if they're intelligent, they all need saving. He won't be coming around here again until we're long gone and forgotten and the earthworms have developed city-states, money and organized religion, with giant statues.   

    *I like that idea, actually. They have conferences sometimes, like the G20 or the climate summits, where the gods get together an bullshit about their unkept promises over excellent victuals and potables. Every now and then, an alliance is formed or a war declared, and then galaxies clash. Spectacular from a distance of a few million years, but no fun be in. 

    I think you might be underestimating Jesus a little here. If St. Nick can cover all of Earth in one night, bringing gifts to all the children as appropriate to what they have become accustomed to, an infinitely greater being with omnipresence would manage all you've mentioned above, and more, without problem.

  14. So...here we are half a year later and I'm scheduled for a booster shot between Xmas and NewYear. After two Pfizer shots that I tolerated well, I was wondering whether to get that again or a Moderna booster. I chose Moderna despite slightly higher safety risks of Myocarditis or Pericarditis (I'm guessing driving to get vaccinated poses similar level of risk), mostly due to availability.

    Moderna also seems to be considered more effective. Apparently Pfizer shots only have 30% of the mRNA load of the Moderna shots, so the Pfizer boosters are full doses where the Moderna boosters are half doses.

    Related to that, for those without vaccine (and even those that have been), can the Omicron variant serve as a "vaccinator" (or booster)? Not that it would be recommended, but if it is a better "non-option" than say Delta, could it eventually be useful in that way?

    Also, are the variants competing with each other? Can some strains crowd others out?

  15. 34 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

    This sentiment is absurd for the vast majority of trans-females. Not to put too fine a point on it, but what are they going to 'get off' with if they have been surgically reassigned? It's an incredibly serious commitment. The real reason for feminists kicking off about it is that "women have fought for a long time for equal rights, now men are hijacking it"... words to that effect. They want to keep that gender/sex space for themselves; for those that "menstruate"! Clearly, they wish to discriminate. Ironic.

    I think a significant minority have surgical procedures but still far from a majority:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6626314/#:~:text=As a whole%2C less than,in the future (7).

  16. 1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

    This BBC article came out yesterday. It's this discussion being played out in real life:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-59584638

    +1 for the article. Hard to pick sides. A classic example of "They said, she said".

    33 minutes ago, iNow said:

    Wait, what? Are we reading the same thread here? 

    Well...I did skip to start posting on page 7, after scanning page 1.

  17. 1 hour ago, iNow said:

    I’ve never called any single one of you names or suggested ill intent in this thread (if only the same could be said of those responding to me). Please try again. 

    Are you "B." INow? I assumed "A." and "B." were composites you made up of members in this thread, for the purposes of mocking the "B." leaning arguments, even while most making those arguments have accepted from the outset that, depending on context, sex can be more than binary.

  18. 31 minutes ago, iNow said:

    There. FTFY

     

    More accurate fix:

    B: Nope. Even by that definition...what about water? You're starting to sound hydrophobic. You're not hydrophobic, are you? Because that seems like the type of argument a hydrophobe would make.

    Lather, rinse...repeat as necessary

  19. 30 minutes ago, iNow said:

    We already have one. It’s called “accepting that there’s more than 2 binary categories.”

     

    This thread is like:

    A: Do ALL substances contract when they freeze?

    B: Nope.

    A: Of course they do, and that’s what science has said FOREVER.

    B: Nope. There’s different behavior for water and other related substances when they freeze, for example. Not everything contracts. 

    A: Right, but water is an anomaly. Everything contracts when it freezes. 

    B: Well, I guess if you ignore water and related substances with different behaviors when they get cold then that’s true, but you can’t just ignore water if you wish to remain accurate.

    A: Yeah, but there’s only a tiny tiny fraction of substances that do this. MOST don’t.

    B: So what? Clearly not ALL substances contract when they freeze.

    A: I’m SO tired of the PC agenda that’s ruined science and can’t believe this nonsense is being taught to students. You should be ashamed of yourselves and just stick with the facts. It’s obvious that EVERYTHING contracts when it freezes and I can’t believe you idiots don’t see this!

    B: Sigh. There’s bismuth, too. 

    A: I wish someone would give me an example of something that doesn’t contract when frozen. 

    B:  Silicon, gallium, germanium, antimony, plutonium… I could go on. 

    A: I’m just going to keep waiting for an answer from the experts. 
     

    Lather. Rinse. Repeat. 

    You forgot:

    A: What if we only consider substances that contract when they freeze...can we categorize them all as substances that contract when they freeze?

    B: Nope. Even by that definition...what about water?

     

  20. 10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

    Aren't we all?

    Yep. We await the technology from our biology community, just as we await a more precise definition of biologically male and female that can include everyone...with no guarantee whether it is theoretically possible...or not.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.