"I am a fan of the social policies that you find in Europe."The answer? As Tom Lehrer says, "Now, let's not always see the same hands."A. Idi Amin
B. Pol Pot
C. Saddam Hussein
D. Hillary Clinton
BTW, don't miss applying "Pascal's Wager" to climate change:
Should you believe in this Global Warming? This is where our Wager comes in, providing an analytical process for the masses to evaluate their options:(via reader Nina B.)
From these possibilities, and the principles of Marxist ethics (anything is moral as long as it advances Socialist Revolution) we deduce that it would be better to believe in man-made Global Warming unconditionally.
- The masses believe in Global Warming and it really exists: we prevent climate change and kill capitalism: our gain is infinite.
- The masses believe in Global Warming but it doesn't exist: we lose nothing but kill capitalism anyway and claim we saved the planet.
- The masses don't believe in Global Warming and it doesn't exist: the growth of capitalist prosperity will continue unabated, distracting the masses from the need to fight capitalism. Faith in socialism withers away: our loss is infinite.
- The masses don't believe in Global Warming, but it exists and arrives to smite the nonbelievers: See #3, plus our beach homes get washed away: our loss is infinite.
The following table shows the values that we assigned to each possible outcome: . . .
source: The People's Cube
Given the values, the option of believing in Global Warming (B) dominates the option of not believing in it (~B). The actual probabilities make no difference to the argument, since any non-zero chance multiplied by infinity yields an infinite expected value.