I don't see the distinction you're trying to make. They're directly helping you and you're indirectly hurting people? They're injecting you with an inactive harmless version of the disease that will protect you, while you're infecting other people with an active harmful version of the disease that may kill them. In either case, the sanctity of someone's body is being violated and it seems to me that what you're doing is worse in every way that matters. Therefore, if they deserve death, you deserve it more.

Also what's your stand on inhalable vaccines? If you're not injected, but instead required to breath in the vaccine does that make a difference to you? Are you still allowed to murder people for violating your body or is it hunky-dory because it's not "piercing someone else's skin"?

Am I allowed to pre-emptively kill you and your unvaccinated disease-machine children before you infect me and mine? I really want to know, because according to your philosophy, "self-defence will cover tearing [you] limb from limb" afterwards, but I'd rather do it before I get sick.

That works as long as you're not infectious. However, as soon as you become ill you are now violating those rights for everyone you come into contact with. You might think you would just avoid other people while you're sick, however, some diseases like the mumps (The second M in MMR), are infectious for days or weeks before you show symptoms.

If we take the road your propose what is your responsbility to those who died because of your choice? Do you owe their families a life time of financial support for the victims of your pathogens?

No, that's anarchism.

Libertarianism eventually boils down to "Fuck you, I've got mine and your taxes are going to help me keep it."

After all, the primary things that libertarians actually think taxes should be used for are police and armies, which both happen to be useful in protecting their property from other people. Effectively, they're just too cheap to pay their own way, even when it comes to protecting their own property.

Yes. Murdering millions of non-Americans is worse than murdering one American.

Are you really this fucking stupid?

You're American. Everything your country does is part of "a reverse robin hood scam".

Yes, it has. Globally every year since 1990 has been warmer than 1936.

Actually, that would be Steele city in North Dakota on July 6th, 1936. No other Canadian border state has ever recorded a temperature of 121 F. Also note that North Dakota and south Dakota both recorded record lows of -60 F and -58 F in 1936. However, as previously pointed out, North America is about 4.8% of the world's surface and around 16.5% of the land area A record-shattering warm year in the U.S. might be barely noticable in the global record. On average, the 2000-2010 decade was 0.5 C warmer than the 1930-1940 decade. Which means for 1936 to lift the global average, the average temperature in North America would have be 10 C above average for the entire year, if the rest of the world was experiencing merely average temperatures for the decade.

That's not an accurate quote. Even the quote you gave contradicts itself. It's also important to note that he was talking about 20 years from when he said that, and if you check your calendar you might note that it's not 2020 yet. Additionally, I'd bet he actually said "if the current trends continue" but it was dropped from the quote in the article because it wasn't pithy enough with the qualifier. Of course, we have seen a reduction in the rate of warming in surface air temperatures since 2000 so it may take longer to get there than he predicted, but the world has continued to warm, so it may still come to pass that England sees very little snow.

You just changed the definition of Social Justice Warrior (SJW). This is different from the definition you previously gave me, which is exactly my point: SJW is a label applied to people with a different political alignment than you and you project whatever flaws are convenient to make you right and them wrong onto them. It's too bad you aren't self-aware enough to see that you're doing it while you protest that you are not.

Is "thief" an identity? I say you're projecting an identity on a group of people you label as SJWs because I don't know if the group you think exists actually exists in any cohesive manner. Also, it's a bit like "racists" or "misogynists", most of the people you would put in the group probably wouldn't think they belong there. Often, I suspect the term is used to identify "people who have called me racist or sexist". I also suspect that more often than not the person has been called on their attitude multiple times and believes that since it's happened so often, the person choose to believe that there must be a conspiracy to silence them, rather than accepting that their beliefs or attitude is genuinely disliked for valid reasons by the people around them.

As far as I know there is not. There are people who use the terms too freely, but as far as I know, they are not part of any organised effort to police public behaviour.

I'm not arguing that the term needs to be changed. After all, what would be the point? I'm saying it is already effectively meaningless, much the way conservative talking heads have made liberal and progressive meaningless by ascribing it to virtually everything they don't like.

You've already projected the SJW identity onto them. I don't see how you can label a group and then claim it's not an identity.

This is your personal definition of SJW, it is not the same as the others I have been given, so it does appear that you are projecting your own personal beliefs about what is wrong onto this group and then dismissing their role in "civil society" based on what you think they have done. It seems like you're doing exactly what I said you would be doing.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that comments like that make my point. SJW is just another de-humanized group for people to project their personal devils onto.

Most of us are made by a woman, but I'll assume you mean the shirt. The people who are upset about this, and it doesn't seem like there's that many of them (your mention of this was the first time, I'd heard of it), are more upset that he wore it to a major press event and that no one thought to say, "Hey, before going on international television, maybe you'd like to change into something more appropriate?" To them, at least, this is indicative of a casual sexism endemic to the sciences and science reporting, where female scientists are judged by the appearance and male scientists by their accomplishments. The fact the shirt was made by a woman wouldn't actually matter to them and would appear to be disingenuous deflection because it's not the shirt, it's the where and the why it was worn that matters to the critics.

I would suspect that you're suffering from the false-consensus effect and projecting your beliefs onto other people in Gamergate, possibly also the halo effect with respect to the people who don't like Gamergate. Of course, if you are correct about Gamergate having a libertarian base, then everyone else would be relatively more authoritarian, virtually by definition since just about the only group less authoritarian than libertarians are anarchists.

Additionally, when I spent some time looking over the posts on the Gamergate hash tag, I noticed several references to culture war against the left, and in particular how offline conservatives should follow Gamergate's tactics (against Gawker and Kotaku) to deny left leaning publications advertisers, which is certainly not what I would expect from a mostly left leaning group that advocates against corruption in journalism. For that matter, why do some of these supposed libertarians think that censorship of views they dislike is a valid solution to "corruption"?

Beyond that, I wasn't actually talking about Gamergate itself, which is a somewhat random assortment of people who all happen to be outraged about vaguely similar things and have twitter accounts, but more specifically about the people who use SJW as a pejorative epithet (which may or may not significantly overlap the people in Gamergate). Of course, on the other hand, I'd never heard of the SJWs until a bunch raging Gamergaters start spewing it all over Slashdot, so there is that.

You must be new here, "SJW" is the new "liberal". As a straight white conservative male, everyone you hate is a obviously an "SJW", because it's just another synonym for evil, like liberal, progessive, gay or female.

Nothing, but I found it interesting to look at the price competitiveness of coal for new builds, which actually isn't very good and getting worse.

Natural gas appears to be the clear winner right now on pure price, even with a CCS system, they cost 2/3rds ($2.095 per KW to build) of what the cheapest coal plant without a CCS costs with comparable operating costs. Without a CCS system, they can get as low as 1/5th ($676 per KW to build) of what a new coal plant would cost with dramatically lower operating costs too.

Well there's a California wind power farm that covers 36 square kilometers and currently contains 490 turbines and generates 1,320 MW, with a planned capacity of 3,000 MW. So it looks like you can squeeze about 100 MW into a square kilometer (rounding up) than can be used for other purposes (such as agriculture or pasturage), so you'd have to dedicate 32,300 square km of land to meet the minimum power demand in ideal circumstances and 96,900 even we divide that by three. With 9,629,091 square km of land, you'd need to dedicate about 1% of the continental U.S. to meet that demand entirely using wind.

As a side note, it seems like the U.S. used 4.6 TW of power in 2013 (according to Wikipedia) so you've underestimated the amount of power the U.S. uses a bit. Also according to the Wikipedia, that's about 1/4 of the world's total electricity usage, used by less than 1/20th of the world's population. Apparently the average EU citizen uses electricity at about one half the per-capita rate of the average American. Anyway, using those higher figures, that would be about 1.5% of all of the contiguous United States land assuming you followed a wind-power only approach.