Muslim Ban... It's Happening

[EquALLity]

https://twitter.com/cenkuygur/status/825528525029400576

Hey, [Sam Harris] & [Bill Maher] - you wanted Muslims profiled. Congratulations! Mission accomplished! You must be so proud

This is a recent manifestation of what I was on about.

https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/a-few-thoughts-on-the-muslim-ban
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsVtM0RFQJI

It's not the same as the meat vs Holocaust thing.
Bernie Sanders is Jewish himself, he has family who died in the Holocaust, and he has fought for civil rights his entire life. There are other ways to point out a specific commonality. To use Hitler is just... insensitive. I mean, there are just certain things that aren't ok, and I think likening a person to the person who wiped out his father's side of the family (according to Bernie himself) is one of them.

Also, as for Sam Harris, saying we should anti-profile people who look like non-Muslims sounds awfully like another way of saying we should profile Muslims.

[miniboes]

https://twitter.com/cenkuygur/status/825528525029400576

Hey, [Sam Harris] & [Bill Maher] - you wanted Muslims profiled. Congratulations! Mission accomplished! You must be so proud

This is a recent manifestation of what I was on about.

https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/a-few-thoughts-on-the-muslim-ban
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsVtM0RFQJI

It's not the same as the meat vs Holocaust thing.
Bernie Sanders is Jewish himself, he has family who died in the Holocaust, and he has fought for civil rights his entire life. There are other ways to point out a specific commonality. To use Hitler is just... insensitive. I mean, there are just certain things that aren't ok, and I think likening a person to the person who wiped out his father's side of the family (according to Bernie himself) is one of them.

Also, as for Sam Harris, saying we should anti-profile people who look like non-Muslims sounds awfully like another way of saying we should profile Muslims.

I do agree it's not the most classy way of putting it, but that doesn't make Brimstone's argument less valid.
Do you disagree that intentions aren't worth shit if your policies achieve the very opposite?

[EquALLity]

https://twitter.com/cenkuygur/status/825528525029400576



This is a recent manifestation of what I was on about.

https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/a-few-thoughts-on-the-muslim-ban
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsVtM0RFQJI

It's not the same as the meat vs Holocaust thing.
Bernie Sanders is Jewish himself, he has family who died in the Holocaust, and he has fought for civil rights his entire life. There are other ways to point out a specific commonality. To use Hitler is just... insensitive. I mean, there are just certain things that aren't ok, and I think likening a person to the person who wiped out his father's side of the family (according to Bernie himself) is one of them.

Also, as for Sam Harris, saying we should anti-profile people who look like non-Muslims sounds awfully like another way of saying we should profile Muslims.

I do agree it's not the most classy way of putting it, but that doesn't make Brimstone's argument less valid.
Do you disagree that intentions aren't worth shit if your policies achieve the very opposite?

In terms of whether or not you should be elected, I agree that the consequences are what matters in terms of policy, largely. Other things matter besides policy, like how the rest of the world reacts.

[brimstoneSalad]

I think you've fallen into the trap of a personality cult.
My points have all been valid, and you're responding emotionally rather than rationally. That was uncool, and I appreciate other members speaking up about it.

Hitler is a common analogy everybody gets. I don't care that Sanders is Jewish and I'm not going to give him special treatment and walk on egg shells with respect to anything I say about him because he's a "victim". I did not specifically choose that comparison because he's Jewish, it was just the easiest to make. You know I don't subscribe to the social justice mentality of the sacred victim or triggering language/etc.

You're perfectly capable of seeing my point and responding to it regardless of the comparison I used.
Replace it with Mao if you want (although I don't think you're as well educated on that topics, so it's a harder comparison in terms of conveying the point). The point I'm trying to drive home is that the danger he poses to the world and the amount of suffering he will cause is literally on that order of magnitude.

Sanders, if he comes to power, will cause as much or more suffering than did Hitler, Mao, Stalin, or others who are responsible (intentionally or by accident of bad policy) for mass deaths. This is an issue of a global holocaust by way of promoting climate change and cutting off developing countries from an essential economic lifeline.

In terms of whether or not you should be elected, I agree that the consequences are what matters in terms of policy, largely. Other things matter besides policy, like how the rest of the world reacts.

How the rest of the world reacts is an issue of consequence. It's also one of very little consequence. Trump is terrible, and yet we see no real blow back from his election. Why? Because the leadership of other countries are rational enough to know that it's consequence to them that's important, and they aren't going to overreact until he actually does something that affects them or the world that they can condemn.

You could argue that Trump's rhetoric will increase terrorist attacks, and it probably will, but that's not really a big deal given that the odds of being killed by a terrorist are (and the number killed annually is) so low. A hundred times increase in deaths from terrorism wouldn't make a dent against the mass suffering and death Sanders would cause.

Please list all of the things that matter which are unrelated to consequence, if any.

[EquALLity]

Because I think it's inappropriate to compare the most liberal Senator in the country whose family died in the Holocaust to Adolf Hitler, apparently I'm apart of some type of personality cult. o_O

Your points have not all been valid, and assuming this one point is, what you said comparing Bernie Sanders to Hitler is not representative of everything that you've said.

Anyway, call it what you want. It's uncool to compare someone whose family was slaughtered in the Holocaust to Adolf Hitler. It's not rude for me to point that out.

I know you, of course, didn't actually do it because he's Jewish. But he is, and now that this context has been pointed out to you, I don't understand how you still see nothing wrong with this analogy. It has nothing to do will being a 'social justice warrior', it just violates... well, basic kindness to other people, to compare someone to someone who killed that person's loved ones.
Instead of understanding this is wrong, you say Bernie will be responsible for a global holocaust if he becomes President.
.....

I don't think nuclear energy is as significant as you think it is in terms of climate change. Bernie Sanders might try to diminish it, but he would also promote solar, wind, etc. and regulate the fossil fuel industry more in a way that Hillary Clinton just wouldn't.
As for stopping certain trade deals, that helps workers in America. Countries prioritize themselves first. In AMERICAN politics, it's kind of impossible to make the argument that we should ship jobs overseas to help other countries. It's just not in the interests of America.

I was referring to policy consequence, not consequence overall.

[Red]

I don't think you're getting the point. Maybe I can help out by saying what I am interpreting from brimstone's arguments.

Bernie being Jewish is pretty irrelevant. Brimstone is finding similarities between these 2 individuals; they probably do have good intentions, but they mean jack-diddly-fuck when the consequences are bad.

It wouldn't have mattered if brimstone chose another infamous leader from history: (Mao, or just about anybody who committed a major atrocity really). Hitler is just the easiest to go by, since most people are familiar with it.

As said before, Brimstone is claiming to find similarities between these 2 individuals, in that both can commit horrible things once into office (only Hitler made it into office). Now I can't validate these claims, but I don't see what's so bad about comparing Hitler with Sanders, just to give a historical example and, say, apply it to current events.

I agree that you're a personality cult, because no matter what, you insist that Bernie is the best candidate there is, even after all the arguments you've had with brimstone. Maybe it's the backfire effect? You've even admitted that he has his flaws, but you're so obsequious to him, honestly, for me, it's becoming quite annoying.

If this doesn't help, then I pretty much give up, and there may not be any hope for you.

[brimstoneSalad]

Anyway, call it what you want. It's uncool to compare someone whose family was slaughtered in the Holocaust to Adolf Hitler. It's not rude for me to point that out.

I know you, of course, didn't actually do it because he's Jewish.

I did it because it was the best comparison to be made. You're kind of saying I'm not allowed to make certain arguments, and that is very rude.
Not using that comparison would be to compromise the argument by using a poor analogy. This fits, and it's the most well known example.

If you will go spend several hours reading about Mao and the great leap forward from various sources (sympathetic and not), then we can swap out the comparison.

If I used it because he was Jewish to be mean when there were better well known comparisons, that would be uncool.
It would be fine if you didn't like the comparison and mentioned that while addressing the argument, but that's not what you did. What you did was rude.

But he is, and now that this context has been pointed out to you, I don't understand how you still see nothing wrong with this analogy.

It's apt, and I don't believe in walking on egg shells for fear of triggering somebody who is a "victim".
You know this, we've discussed this at length elsewhere. It should not be a surprise that I have no problem with this analogy.

It has nothing to do will being a 'social justice warrior', it just violates... well, basic kindness to other people, to compare someone to someone who killed that person's loved ones.
Instead of understanding this is wrong, you say Bernie will be responsible for a global holocaust if he becomes President.

If I were talking TO Sanders privately, I would have used a Mao comparison. He's a student of history, and he probably knows about the communist revolutions and what went wrong and why; he's probably also a bit more sympathetic to Mao, and wouldn't react as emotionally, so it would be more effective.
Here that isn't a very useful comparison. Maybe 1% of people reading this thread would understand the nuance there; they just don't teach that stuff in high schools.

If Sanders were to be offended personally about the Hitler comment, maybe I could understand. But you have no place to be offended on his behalf; that's SJW territory.

Maybe you could say:
"Hey I'm totally cool with whatever analogy you want to use because I can examine it rationally, but other people might have a problem with it and miss your point because of this analogy, maybe you can find a better one?"

I might not have agreed, but that wouldn't have been rude.
Unnatural Vegan says stuff like that in her videos sometimes. I don't totally agree, because I think an analogy that is emotionally impactful can be more effective in some contexts, but you do have to be aware of your audience. I thought you would be rational enough to take my point for what it was.

I don't think nuclear energy is as significant as you think it is in terms of climate change.

We have a whole thread on this. If you want to discuss the science some more, that's great. Then focus on that.
I've explained how solar is not ready for prime time; it's nuclear or gas/oil/coal. Likewise, wind is not suitable... and there's this:

https://theecoreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Griffon-vultures-Navarre-Spain.jpeg

Bernie Sanders might try to diminish it, but he would also promote solar, wind, etc. and regulate the fossil fuel industry more in a way that Hillary Clinton just wouldn't.

Hillary Clinton is anti-coal, which is the worst, and pro-gas (which is the best of the emitting) and pro-nuclear, because she understands the nation needs energy.
You can't take away the nation's power without a replacement (and solar and wind are not viable) unless you want people to die of heat stroke, freeze to death, and starve.
It's just not going to happen. It would be business as usual for polluting fuel sources. If Sanders raises the tax, for the most part that just gets passed onto consumers and makes it so that poor people can't afford to fill up their tanks to drive to work (pretty progressive huh?), and food and other essentials would become more expensive.

We need to stop coal, promote gas in the mean-time, and work to replace all of them with nuclear.
In the distant future, solar and wind may be viable options, but they are very limited and it takes power to make power.

As for stopping certain trade deals, that helps workers in America. Countries prioritize themselves first. In AMERICAN politics, it's kind of impossible to make the argument that we should ship jobs overseas to help other countries. It's just not in the interests of America.

Sanders' America does, so does Trump's. Hillary was for free trade, and even dreamed of open borders. As she said, we are great because we are good.

You're probably too cynical about her to imagine that's because she's a humanitarian, but it doesn't matter if she favored it because she's a good person or because she was paid off by money in politics, the consequences are good and those are what matter.
By the way, this is one of those good consequences of money in politics I was talking about. Promoting free trade helps a lot of people, and a nationalistic country won't necessarily do that on its own accord without corporate influence (unless the country gets lucky enough to elect a true humanitarian rather than a protectionist. A humanitarian like... Hillary Clinton).

I was referring to policy consequence, not consequence overall.

Overall consequences are what matter, but consequences unrelated to policy are pretty minor or unpredictable.
I did mention how Trump could damage the Republican party enough to radically change politics in America; not related to his policies, but it's one of those silver linings. I'd rather focus on concretes though.

[EquALLity]

I did it because it was the best comparison to be made. You're kind of saying I'm not allowed to make certain arguments, and that is very rude.
Not using that comparison would be to compromise the argument by using a poor analogy. This fits, and it's the most well known example.

If you will go spend several hours reading about Mao and the great leap forward from various sources (sympathetic and not), then we can swap out the comparison.

If I used it because he was Jewish to be mean when there were better well known comparisons, that would be uncool.
It would be fine if you didn't like the comparison and mentioned that while addressing the argument, but that's not what you did. What you did was rude.

You think the best comparison to be made to prove good intentions can go wrong must involve Hitler? :/

I understand the concept of good intentions + bad ideas still = bad consequences. I get that. But you were basically saying he was a super corrupt terrible person, and then you go and compare him to Hitler (when he's Jewish and has family who died in the Holocaust).
There are two issues going on here - Is Bernie Sanders corrupt/bad and would he be a good President. Those are separate questions and I think they're getting morphed and it's making this confusing.

If you don't think it's rude to say a Jewish person, who has fought for civil rights his ENTIRE life, is like Adolf Hitler (when his family, again, was brutally slaughtered in the Holocaust), and think I'm rude for saying that's rude... I don't even...
I never at all said you could not make a comparison, of course you CAN do whatever you want. I'm just saying I think it's rude. You can still do it, I'm just saying you shouldn't.
This could easily be twisted around. I could say that, with these statements, you're really saying that I can't object to what you're saying, and that's rude.

Except you're not doing that, you're just defending what you said. I'm just disagreeing with what you said. I'm not trying to take away your freedom of speech just because I disagree with you anymore than you are trying to take mine away by saying my criticism is wrong.

It's apt, and I don't believe in walking on egg shells for fear of triggering somebody who is a "victim".
You know this, we've discussed this at length elsewhere. It should not be a surprise that I have no problem with this analogy.

It's not apt, and it's not walking on egg shells, and it's not about triggering. It's just... Rude.
This isn't about political correctness. It's not outrageous to say it's not right to compare someone to someone who killed that person's loved ones.

If I were talking TO Sanders privately, I would have used a Mao comparison. He's a student of history, and he probably knows about the communist revolutions and what went wrong and why; he's probably also a bit more sympathetic to Mao, and wouldn't react as emotionally, so it would be more effective.
Here that isn't a very useful comparison. Maybe 1% of people reading this thread would understand the nuance there; they just don't teach that stuff in high schools.

If Sanders were to be offended personally about the Hitler comment, maybe I could understand. But you have no place to be offended on his behalf; that's SJW territory.

Maybe you could say:
"Hey I'm totally cool with whatever analogy you want to use because I can examine it rationally, but other people might have a problem with it and miss your point because of this analogy, maybe you can find a better one?"

I might not have agreed, but that wouldn't have been rude.
Unnatural Vegan says stuff like that in her videos sometimes. I don't totally agree, because I think an analogy that is emotionally impactful can be more effective in some contexts, but you do have to be aware of your audience. I thought you would be rational enough to take my point for what it was.

Yeah, I don't know much about Mao. He was the leader of some country in Asia... Vietnam? Or China? Cambodia? He caused lots of starvation with his economic policies, or something.
Again, I get the concept of good intentions can still lead to bad consequences (but you were basically saying he doesn't have good intentions because he was corrupt). I didn't respond to your full post at the time because I didn't have time to, but I wanted to address that one thing in your response.

We have a whole thread on this. If you want to discuss the science some more, that's great. Then focus on that.
I've explained how solar is not ready for prime time; it's nuclear or gas/oil/coal. Likewise, wind is not suitable... and there's this:

https://theecoreport.com/wp-content/upl ... Spain.jpeg

More animals are going to die from climate change than from wind turbines, and the oil spills we've had alone have probably damaged marine life more than wind turbines will for 100 years.

Hillary Clinton is anti-coal, which is the worst, and pro-gas (which is the best of the emitting) and pro-nuclear, because she understands the nation needs energy.
You can't take away the nation's power without a replacement (and solar and wind are not viable) unless you want people to die of heat stroke, freeze to death, and starve.
It's just not going to happen. It would be business as usual for polluting fuel sources. If Sanders raises the tax, for the most part that just gets passed onto consumers and makes it so that poor people can't afford to fill up their tanks to drive to work (pretty progressive huh?), and food and other essentials would become more expensive.

We need to stop coal, promote gas in the mean-time, and work to replace all of them with nuclear.
In the distant future, solar and wind may be viable options, but they are very limited and it takes power to make power.

Bernie Sanders is anti-coal as well, and he doesn't get money from the fossil fuel industry.

Why exactly aren't solar and wind viable? Because of intermittency?
Yeah, that's a problem... But energy can be stored and then released later. When there's excess sun and win, we can store the energy, and then use it when it's not sunny or windy. We can also transport energy from really windy areas to non-windy ones, and in fact there are projects underway doing that.

Sanders' America does, so does Trump's. Hillary was for free trade, and even dreamed of open borders. As she said, we are great because we are good.

You're probably too cynical about her to imagine that's because she's a humanitarian, but it doesn't matter if she favored it because she's a good person or because she was paid off by money in politics, the consequences are good and those are what matter.
By the way, this is one of those good consequences of money in politics I was talking about. Promoting free trade helps a lot of people, and a nationalistic country won't necessarily do that on its own accord without corporate influence (unless the country gets lucky enough to elect a true humanitarian rather than a protectionist. A humanitarian like... Hillary Clinton).

See, that's not true. I'm not too cynical to imagine that she's a humanitarian. Maybe she is, maybe that's really why she supports NAFTA and TPP. But in American politics, that's never going to be supported by the people, because it's taking away their own jobs. That's just not going to fly.
It might be wrong for people and politicians to oppose free trade, but it's a justified wrong.

Overall consequences are what matter, but consequences unrelated to policy are pretty minor or unpredictable.
I did mention how Trump could damage the Republican party enough to radically change politics in America; not related to his policies, but it's one of those silver linings. I'd rather focus on concretes though.

I don't think they're necessarily minor or unpredictable. How our allies and foes around the world view us matters.

[brimstoneSalad]

You think the best comparison to be made to prove good intentions can go wrong must involve Hitler? :/

In this case, yes, because he was an anti-establishment politician, the case is very well known, and the harm I'm talking about is on the same scale.
Like I said, if I were talking to Sanders about this, I would have used Mao. China, by the way, and it was his agricultural policies which seemed like a good idea at the time but had unintended consequences.
I didn't want to use Stalin or other examples because I'm less well versed in those, or they're less well known (again).

Godwin's law exists for a reason: because of how well the comparison is known, and how much most people know about Hitler.
Also, Hitler is a good example because people generally agree what he did was bad (other cases can be more contentious), and people aren't usually very sensitive about it (if they've spent time on the internet).

This isn't about political correctness. It's not outrageous to say it's not right to compare someone to someone who killed that person's loved ones.

I do find that outrageously P.C. Why is that not right? Is it causing somebody, somewhere, to die a horrible death? It is triggering the reader to commit suicide? What exactly is it doing, aside from maybe hurting somebody's feelings a little (if the wrong person reads it)?

And are you saying it's not right to make an argument that I believe is valid and useful for the greater good if it might hurt somebody's feelings? How about when I believe that argument is essential to make to help save the lives of millions of people? (Not just my argument, but the millions that will be made by others too).

Feelings > Human lives?
How many hurt feelings does it take to equal one human life?
Maybe we can estimate this.

If you think my arguments are incorrect, maybe you don't think they'll save lives. But I do.
From my perspective, your attempt to shame me for making an argument I believe is useful and valid, and that I'm doing with good intentions, is wrong.

If you responded that you thought the argument might put some people off, so you recommend another comparison, that would be more reasonable. But you're just straight up calling me rude and wrong with no mention of any consequential concern. That's rude and wrong.

But you were basically saying he was a super corrupt terrible person,

I made an ad hominem argument as a counter to your pro hominem arguments for Sanders, and your ad hominem against other politicians in calling them corrupt etc.
Money in politics goes both ways, in and out. Out is worse than in, and I think I made a strong argument for that.

I also hope it shows how not useful it is to attack a person's character aside from in rhetoric.
Yes, if you're going to attack Booker's character and imply he's corrupt and link to TYT about that, I'm going to attack Sanders' character on the same basis since he does far worse.

None of that is relevant to consequence, though.
If Sanders said tomorrow that he would stop supporting possibly politically motivated subsidies like to animal agriculture, which don't benefit the world, and that he would support nuclear power despite it being unpopular because it's the lesser of evils, then I would believe him and support him since he mostly votes how he says he will (the same with any politician).

It's kind of irrelevant since he wouldn't get elected again if he said that. The dairy farmers would not vote for him if he threatened to take away their bribe money. Money can come from anywhere; whichever side of politics you're on, somebody will like you. If you owe somebody loyalty due to relying on their votes to stay in power, though, they have your balls in a vice.

There are two issues going on here - Is Bernie Sanders corrupt/bad and would he be a good President. Those are separate questions and I think they're getting morphed and it's making this confusing.

Thank you.
I originally tried to focus on consequences, if you remember (back before trump was elected, and with the money in politics stuff). I would prefer to leave out ANY mention of ad hominem, or pro hominem, or political money, or accusations or insinuations of corruption -- it can all go both ways, and it means nothing. I would prefer to look exclusively at the consequences of these candidates getting elected; their policies, and non-policy related consequences if you think they're predictable and significant.

It's fine to say something like "Muslims will perceive Trump as hostile, and that will breed more terror attacks, here's evidence of a similar situation". It's not fine to say "He's a racist/sexist etc. I can't believe you'd support him over such a nice person who spent his life fighting for civil rights".

Again, I get the concept of good intentions can still lead to bad consequences (but you were basically saying he doesn't have good intentions because he was corrupt).

I don't care what his intentions are, I care what he'll do. I was countering your pro hominem arguments.

More animals are going to die from climate change than from wind turbines, and the oil spills we've had alone have probably damaged marine life more than wind turbines will for 100 years.

Nuclear will kill basically no birds.
Can you show me some numbers on this (wind vs oil)?
Oil spills are rare, and basically kill animals all at once which gets news attention. It's likely similar to the plane crash vs. car accident mortality.

Wild animals will actually be affected very little by climate change. There will be a little displacement, and a few species die-offs, but these are over generations. For the most part, animals have time to drift; they don't have the nearly impossible task of rebuilding entire countries of infrastructure in a couple decades. The most meaningful effect is on human beings. In some ways, climate change will be good for wild animals (certain species), because it will expand their ranges. All in all, I don't regard the "climate change is bad for the natural environment" as very credible.

Bernie Sanders is anti-coal as well, and he doesn't get money from the fossil fuel industry.

I don't care. Please stop bringing up these meaningless pro hominem arguments.

He's anti-coal, that's great. What's he replacing it with, seriously?

Why exactly aren't solar and wind viable? Because of intermittency?
Yeah, that's a problem... But energy can be stored and then released later.

You say that like it's easy. No problem, just store it and release it later.

odnsstorepower.jpg

Statements like this reveal a fundamental ignorance of the engineering task at hand.
Trump's wall is expensive and ridiculous enough... this is leagues beyond that.

If you abolished the military, NASA, Medicare, Social Security payments (but kept the tax), all transportation spending, and basically devoted the entire federal budget (including increasing the national debt) to such a project, you might get it done before the world flooded, but the country would be ruined.

It sounds so simple. It. Is. Not.

We can also transport energy from really windy areas to non-windy ones, and in fact there are projects underway doing that.

This is slightly more viable, but it's only so over short distances. Most practical is offshore wind. Again, immense infrastructure costs, and this is also extremely limited. Wind power is in itself quite an investment. And that's assuming you're fine with killing so many birds.
I think I discussed this with miniboes in another thread. Maybe he would be so kind as to link it and discuss the logistics more with you.

See, that's not true. I'm not too cynical to imagine that she's a humanitarian. Maybe she is, maybe that's really why she supports NAFTA and TPP. But in American politics, that's never going to be supported by the people, because it's taking away their own jobs. That's just not going to fly.
It might be wrong for people and politicians to oppose free trade, but it's a justified wrong.

Likewise it can be justified to support some industries and take their money so that you can get into office and do more good.
It's not true that politicians advancing free trade are unelectable, though. This is a case where corporate money and ethics are in alignment, and there are a lot of forces at work to help here.
If we educate people about automation being the real problem and push for basic income, we can solve the problems stemming from unemployment, spur innovation, AND help the developing world.

I don't think they're necessarily minor or unpredictable. How our allies and foes around the world view us matters.

Can you show me something that indicates the scale of the importance?
If this is just a feeling you have, that doesn't mean much. I need evidence on this. You can't say feelings matter without showing what the consequences are. We have clear data on the importance of nuclear power and the dangers of climate change. Less so on what bad things would happen if people think our president is a jerk. We've survived asshole presidents before, and plenty of countries are led by narcissistic idiots. The problem seems to be what they DO, not how people feel about them.
In terms of feelings, I only see good coming out of the negative attitudes about Trump, since it's motivating his opposition across party lines. If somebody's trying to do something harmful, I'd rather people NOT like that person, since it makes it harder for him or her to be effective.

[miniboes]

This is slightly more viable, but it's only so over short distances. Most practical is offshore wind. Again, immense infrastructure costs, and this is also extremely limited. Wind power is in itself quite an investment. And that's assuming you're fine with killing so many birds. I think I discussed this with miniboes in another thread. Maybe he would be so kind as to link it and discuss the logistics more with you..

http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1837&start=20

We discussed it on pages 3-5 of this thread.