or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Laurie David: Contributing to global warming by being a giant bag of gas
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Laurie David: Contributing to global warming by being a giant bag of gas - Page 2

post #41 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

See Adda, here is the problem with your little premise.

I can suppose you are entirely right. Those who are entirely full of shit, like Mark Foley, who like to fuck, gamble, cheat and rob are entirely in the wrong.

The problem though is anyone who really follows the teachings of Christianity, even if those teachings are the ravings of nutjobs who smell worse than overripe bullshit believe and have faith that an unknowable, unprovable God is going to grant them a reprieve from all their wrongs and give them a good afterlife.

From my perspective, even if they are deluded, self-interested assholes this makes sense. They can play today, not even have to pay tomorrow and via grace get a magic get out of hell free card that acts as fire insurance to an afterlife that no one can even prove.

Those actions are entirely consistent for self-interested, self-righteous assholes.

Now the problem with your reasoning related to these environmental self-righteous assholes is that instead of lying about the afterlife and God, something we can't prove, their actions relate to the planet and the present. Two items that are definitely provable. Likewise if a Mark Foley wants to declare that homosexuals are going to hell while letting some guy rub him down and give him butt sex, he can take it up with God in the afterlife. If Laurie David wants to be a hypocritical bitch, she has to take it up with the factors that effects which happens to be the planet, and me.

Also the actions of these self-righteous assholes are not consistent and do not make sense. There is no magic get off the planet, or save the planet for free cards that work in some unknown, unprovable afterlife. By their reasoning, they die, we die, the planet dies and their actions, which have not changed, contribute not to some unknown and unprovable afterlife, but to the known and very proven present planet.

Nick

Let me see if I can follow this:

1) The fact that there may be people who advocate for environmental causes who themselves are not entirely environmentally hygienic means that environmental causes are dishonest and compromised because you don't like the people who so advocate and the implications for what you are free to do, which somehow calls into question the factual basis for any claims made by such people or causes, but

2) This is very different from the notion that the fact that there are people who advocate for right wing "morality" who themselves are not entirely morally hygienic in any way compromises the explanatory power of such morality because said morality has no factual basis and therefore cannot be said to have any implications for what I am free to do, and so cannot be held to the same standard as environmentalism-- which may have the power to dictate my choice in light-bulbs and toilet paper as opposed to such ephemera as abortion rights, stem cell research, and our nation's relationship to such fantasies as the existence of verifiable truth and the explanatory power of science.

Which is to say, right wing moral hypocrisy has no bearing on perceived hypocrisy among environmental advocates because environmental advocacy makes testable claims about the factual nature of the world and therefore is entirely refuted by the hypocrisy of its champions, whereas right wing morality makes untestable claims about the values of the world that can be used to moot the entire basis for environmental advocacy and is therefore unsullied by the morality of its practitioners. Mooting of the basis for advocacy having virtually no effect on our day to day lives compared to advocacy itself.

Gotcha. I guess my little premise failed to take into account your magisterial grasp of the subtle issues in play.

Also, just out of curiosity, why is Laurie David a "bitch", again?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #42 of 115
Duh.

IOKIYAR.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #43 of 115
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Let me see if I can follow this:

Apparently you cant.

The reason you can't follow is because, unlike you, I can let actions speak for themselves instead of making it all about me.

Quote:
1) The fact that there may be people who advocate for environmental causes who themselves are not entirely environmentally hygienic means that environmental causes are dishonest and compromised because you don't like the people who so advocate and the implications for what you are free to do, which somehow calls into question the factual basis for any claims made by such people or causes, but

The factual basis for their claims are not called into question based off what I like. They are called into question based off how they utilize the information. If it is a fact that use of fossil fuels harm the planet. Then my enlightened actions should reflect a desire to discontinue their use in all capacities. A compromise, not that you can compromise with facts, but a compromise might be to absolutely minimize their use, pool their use in ways that allow the most benefit for the most people while minimizing harm, etc while hoping that technology and time can solve the problem and reverse present and future harm while not sacrificing human existence.

When you go jumping on your private jet while still living in MULTIPLE homes that are several hundred to several thousand percent larger than necessary all while claiming good intentions, your actions call into question your belief into the validity of those facts because they endorse and reflect the most harmful course of action one can take knowing those facts.

The choices are lunatic or liar. Since it does not appear I am allowed to dispute their facts, they must be liars.

Quote:
2) This is very different from the notion that the fact that there are people who advocate for right wing "morality" who themselves are not entirely morally hygienic in any way compromises the explanatory power of such morality because said morality has no factual basis and therefore cannot be said to have any implications for what I am free to do, and so cannot be held to the same standard as environmentalism-- which may have the power to dictate my choice in light-bulbs and toilet paper as opposed to such ephemera as abortion rights, stem cell research, and our nation's relationship to such fantasies as the existence of verifiable truth and the explanatory power of science.

The difference here is I can label them a lunatics or liars and no one can know what they claim with regard to the afterlife or existence of supreme being. They can believe it and I can choose to believe or not believe it. If they go against their own teachings they are either liars or insane knowing the ramifications.

Quote:
Which is to say, right wing moral hypocrisy has no bearing on perceived hypocrisy among environmental advocates because environmental advocacy makes testable claims about the factual nature of the world and therefore is entirely refuted by the hypocrisy of its champions, whereas right wing morality makes untestable claims about the values of the world that can be used to moot the entire basis for environmental advocacy and is therefore unsullied by the morality of its practitioners. Mooting of the basis for advocacy having virtually no effect on our day to day lives compared to advocacy itself.

You need to stop running your posts through the post-modern gibberish generator.

The champions, those who claim to be closest to those well tested claims, who claim to know them best and thus consider them factual, are acting in the exact opposite manner necessary according to those claims/facts.

A claim that is untestable can at least be ignorant and thus be assigned a good intention. What do you assign to someone who has a tested claim who then acts in defiance of it?

You can claim that God hates anyone who engages in butt sex and that he will send them to hell.

I can claim that God loves it when people have butt sex and he will shower them with vanilla pudding when they die.

As you have said, both of our claims are untestable. We can both act in accordance with our beliefs and although we may not like each other very much, there is really no way to know who is right. Even if I think they are bad or evil people I can't prove it.

The difference with the environmental folks is, as you said, I can prove it. I don't have to deal with good or bad intentions. I can't say, "well I was talking to God and he said something very different to me."

The planet is here. The facts (according to them) are in. People that act in opposition to those facts are not just imperfect, misinformed or ignorant people. They are bad people. I can claim the misinformed or ignorant people aren't bad, just misinformed or ignorant and I can fix them via education about the "facts."

But the people that know the facts... who are informed.. they aren't just well intentioned, or imperfect. We reserve those terms for people who disagree with us but where the outcome really can't be known with regard to actions. They also aren't just hypocritical because we use that for someone who believes something but has actions that are the opposite of their beliefs. Again we can't fully confirm or prove their beliefs These folks are not hypocrites. They are bad people. They are killing the planet. They are undertaking their killing actions at rates unprecedented and in manners unjustifiable in any form or fashion.

When bad people engage in bad actions. They either have to be lying about them being bad, or we have to call them what they are, bad people. Factually proven bad people.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #44 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

When bad people engage in bad actions. They either have to be lying about them being bad, or we have to call them what they are, bad people. Factually proven bad people.

And that's all you really need to know folks. Hate. He hates "bad" people, even though he hasn't proven a goddamn thing about Laurie David being "bad". It's also his assumption that fighting against global warming is, inherently, bad. Why? Because it "liberal". Hence, everything liberals fight for are "bad" and perpetuated by "bad people".
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #45 of 115
So Uber-conservative Sarkovsky recently said,

Quote:
He then called on the United States "not to impede" in the fight against global warming. "On the contrary, they must lead this fight because humanity's fate is at stake here."

Why do bad people want to do bad things to our country?

I hope he didn't use an airplane during his campaign. Otherwise he'd be a hypocrit, no?
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #46 of 115
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

And that's all you really need to know folks. Hate. He hates "bad" people, even though he hasn't proven a goddamn thing about Laurie David being "bad". It's also his assumption that fighting against global warming is, inherently, bad. Why? Because it "liberal". Hence, everything liberals fight for are "bad" and perpetuated by "bad people".

North, get a refund on the lobotomy. It didn't work.

I don't think you could have missed the point more if you tried.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #47 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

North, get a refund on the lobotomy. It didn't work.

I don't think you could have missed the point more if you tried.

Nick

You think you're so clever. And yet you're just a sad little man who can't think beyond his own pocketbook.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #48 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Apparently you cant.

The reason you can't follow is because, unlike you, I can let actions speak for themselves instead of making it all about me.

If by "all about you" you mean "the quality of your argument", yeah, I guess that's what I would respond to. Or are you under the impression that your notions are objectively true so that questioning them must perforce be an attack on "you"?

Quote:
The factual basis for their claims are not called into question based off what I like. They are called into question based off how they utilize the information. If it is a fact that use of fossil fuels harm the planet. Then my enlightened actions should reflect a desire to discontinue their use in all capacities. A compromise, not that you can compromise with facts, but a compromise might be to absolutely minimize their use, pool their use in ways that allow the most benefit for the most people while minimizing harm, etc while hoping that technology and time can solve the problem and reverse present and future harm while not sacrificing human existence.

This is gibberish (not, you'll notice, you are gibberish, but rather what you have written here).

You appear to be claiming that the factual basis for a belief is undermined if that belief's adherents behave in ways contrary to what one would expect of such believers.

It follows that I must suspect the links between smoking and cancer because some doctors smoke.

Quote:
When you go jumping on your private jet while still living in MULTIPLE homes that are several hundred to several thousand percent larger than necessary all while claiming good intentions, your actions call into question your belief into the validity of those facts because they endorse and reflect the most harmful course of action one can take knowing those facts.

Whether or not Laurie David is sincere in her profession of concern for global warming has exactly nothing to do with the factual basis for global warming.

Quote:
The choices are lunatic or liar. Since it does not appear I am allowed to dispute their facts, they must be liars.

You're free to label anyone anything you want. The only place you are "not allowed to dispute their facts" is in the perpetually victimized fantasy world of poor little beleagured right wingers.

However, you should note that this tortuous conflation of "not behaving consistently with professed belief" and "speciousness of that belief" forces us to dismiss pretty much every belief at large, since human beings are kinda fallible, that way.

Quote:
The difference here is I can label them a lunatics or liars and no one can know what they claim with regard to the afterlife or existence of supreme being. They can believe it and I can choose to believe or not believe it. If they go against their own teachings they are either liars or insane knowing the ramifications.

Which chooses to ignore my point about the real world ramifications of those belief systems. You seem to be mostly indignant about real world ramifications of environmental policies, presumably if people like Laurie David championed no particular course of action this thread wouldn't exist.

Since the "moral" beliefs held by many demonstrably hypocritical office holders do, in fact, have direct bearing on my day to day life via the agency of legislation and law, I think it's only fair to use their shortcomings to overturn the entire idea of "moral" public life. Tom Foley; therefore, abortions for all. Yes?

And if you're really stuck on the "testable vs. untestable" thing, consider that there are professed advocates for reasonably real world matters such as a given economic policy who do things contrary to the expected demands of that policy. Even people holding office! Oh, well, there goes supply side economics, the free market and lowered tax rates.....

Quote:
You need to stop running your posts through the post-modern gibberish generator.

You need to learn that "post modern" is not a synonym for "over my head".

Quote:
The champions, those who claim to be closest to those well tested claims, who claim to know them best and thus consider them factual, are acting in the exact opposite manner necessary according to those claims/facts.

Most of us had never heard of Laurie David before you started this thread. As far as I know, anyone can declare themselves a champion of anything and behave anyway they want, so are you sure you want to use such behavior as a marker for the authenticity of the thing being championed?

Of course you do, because this is nothing but a pointless piece of petty snark arising out of your animus towards a certain type of person and a certain category of political persuasion. You're getting in trouble because now have to explain why petty snark actually means something beyond what it is.

Quote:
A claim that is untestable can at least be ignorant and thus be assigned a good intention. What do you assign to someone who has a tested claim who then acts in defiance of it?

"Inconsistent"? Oh, I'm sorry, was the answer you were looking for "the devil"?

Quote:
You can claim that God hates anyone who engages in butt sex and that he will send them to hell.

I can claim that God loves it when people have butt sex and he will shower them with vanilla pudding when they die.

As you have said, both of our claims are untestable. We can both act in accordance with our beliefs and although we may not like each other very much, there is really no way to know who is right. Even if I think they are bad or evil people I can't prove it.

The difference with the environmental folks is, as you said, I can prove it. I don't have to deal with good or bad intentions. I can't say, "well I was talking to God and he said something very different to me."

The planet is here. The facts (according to them) are in. People that act in opposition to those facts are not just imperfect, misinformed or ignorant people. They are bad people. I can claim the misinformed or ignorant people aren't bad, just misinformed or ignorant and I can fix them via education about the "facts."

And resolutely onward into the weeds. Again, the "testable" vs. "untestable" thing isn't really the point, beyond giving you something to crouch over and chew. The point is that finding someone who professes a belief yet acts in ways contrary to what we might expect from such a believer, whether or not that belief is the flying spaghetti monster or gravity, and using that inconsistency as a cudgel against that belief is spurious, at best. More probably pointless.

Quote:
But the people that know the facts... who are informed.. they aren't just well intentioned, or imperfect. We reserve those terms for people who disagree with us but where the outcome really can't be known with regard to actions. They also aren't just hypocritical because we use that for someone who believes something but has actions that are the opposite of their beliefs. Again we can't fully confirm or prove their beliefs These folks are not hypocrites. They are bad people. They are killing the planet. They are undertaking their killing actions at rates unprecedented and in manners unjustifiable in any form or fashion.

Uh, we may be drifting into Hippy Trauma Syndrome here, but nevertheless all of that chooses to disregard my point about how right wing, anti-science crypto-religious "morality" is actively seeking to undermine the very mechanisms of science, so that people like you can claim to "know" that global warming has no basis in "fact".

Quote:
When bad people engage in bad actions. They either have to be lying about them being bad, or we have to call them what they are, bad people. Factually proven bad people.

Nick

And right out the other side of the weeds and into a witch burning. Which would explain why you think the nice lady you've never met is a "bitch".
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #49 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Apparently you cant.

The reason you can't follow is because, unlike you, I can let actions speak for themselves instead of making it all about me.



The factual basis for their claims are not called into question based off what I like. They are called into question based off how they utilize the information. If it is a fact that use of fossil fuels harm the planet. Then my enlightened actions should reflect a desire to discontinue their use in all capacities. A compromise, not that you can compromise with facts, but a compromise might be to absolutely minimize their use, pool their use in ways that allow the most benefit for the most people while minimizing harm, etc while hoping that technology and time can solve the problem and reverse present and future harm while not sacrificing human existence.

When you go jumping on your private jet while still living in MULTIPLE homes that are several hundred to several thousand percent larger than necessary all while claiming good intentions, your actions call into question your belief into the validity of those facts because they endorse and reflect the most harmful course of action one can take knowing those facts.

The choices are lunatic or liar. Since it does not appear I am allowed to dispute their facts, they must be liars.



The difference here is I can label them a lunatics or liars and no one can know what they claim with regard to the afterlife or existence of supreme being. They can believe it and I can choose to believe or not believe it. If they go against their own teachings they are either liars or insane knowing the ramifications.



You need to stop running your posts through the post-modern gibberish generator.

The champions, those who claim to be closest to those well tested claims, who claim to know them best and thus consider them factual, are acting in the exact opposite manner necessary according to those claims/facts.

A claim that is untestable can at least be ignorant and thus be assigned a good intention. What do you assign to someone who has a tested claim who then acts in defiance of it?

You can claim that God hates anyone who engages in butt sex and that he will send them to hell.

I can claim that God loves it when people have butt sex and he will shower them with vanilla pudding when they die.

As you have said, both of our claims are untestable. We can both act in accordance with our beliefs and although we may not like each other very much, there is really no way to know who is right. Even if I think they are bad or evil people I can't prove it.

The difference with the environmental folks is, as you said, I can prove it. I don't have to deal with good or bad intentions. I can't say, "well I was talking to God and he said something very different to me."

The planet is here. The facts (according to them) are in. People that act in opposition to those facts are not just imperfect, misinformed or ignorant people. They are bad people. I can claim the misinformed or ignorant people aren't bad, just misinformed or ignorant and I can fix them via education about the "facts."

But the people that know the facts... who are informed.. they aren't just well intentioned, or imperfect. We reserve those terms for people who disagree with us but where the outcome really can't be known with regard to actions. They also aren't just hypocritical because we use that for someone who believes something but has actions that are the opposite of their beliefs. Again we can't fully confirm or prove their beliefs These folks are not hypocrites. They are bad people. They are killing the planet. They are undertaking their killing actions at rates unprecedented and in manners unjustifiable in any form or fashion.

When bad people engage in bad actions. They either have to be lying about them being bad, or we have to call them what they are, bad people. Factually proven bad people.

Nick

IMHO, hypocrisy is a matter of degree, it doesn't matter if it's based on observable facts (and subsequent negative behaviors) or an unprovable belief systems (ditto). In either case, whomever goes against their belief system (fact based or otherwise), telling others how to behave based on a set of facts/beliefs, while doing just the opposite themselves, is a hypocrite to some degree.

In some sense we are all hypocrites, we are all sinners, to ideals that each of us holds, but cannot follow 100% of the time.

Now the question becomes, are these high profile hypocrites doing more harm than good, are they causing more people to conserve energy, that would otherwise not be as energy conservative?

Don't know the answer to that question, but I'd like to think more good comes from a heightened awareness of the potential future problems than by a BAU mindset. But in the end I think their impact is negligible in the overall scheme of things currently (e. g. voluntary constraints).

Finally, I think that wealth play's an important role in one's carbon footprint, mo' money means mo' toys. I think there's a strong correlation there! And since when have the wealthy (or the powerful) not had a disproportionate amount of influence over the rest of us anyway?
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #50 of 115
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

If by "all about you" you mean "the quality of your argument", yeah, I guess that's what I would respond to. Or are you under the impression that your notions are objectively true so that questioning them must perforce be an attack on "you"?

My positions are objective because I'm not assigning labels like "right wing" as a supporting fact for an argument. Sadly, you don't realize this is where you are coming from. You call something right wing and think you have presented "facts" to prove your case. Labels are not facts.

Quote:
This is gibberish (not, you'll notice, you are gibberish, but rather what you have written here).

You appear to be claiming that the factual basis for a belief is undermined if that belief's adherents behave in ways contrary to what one would expect of such believers.

It follows that I must suspect the links between smoking and cancer because some doctors smoke.

Well first of all, you are the one who would be calling such doctors "health gurus" while I would not. Also your analogy is false because you link a personal attribute with one that is a planetary attribute. The doctor who smokes undermines his own health, not the planets. He kills himself, not 6 billion present and all future people.

That said, since not all of us have the ability to go out and conduct the science ourselves, we must rely on those who can. There is such a thing as leadership by example. There is a reason we call certain people experts, or informed and their actions need to reflect that state.

To modify your example, it isn't as if some doctors still smoked, it would be like EVERY doctor still smoking and claiming others can still smoke as well, as long as they buy lung cancer "credits" from those who do not smoke. It wouldn't change the facts about smoking. However we shouldn't call those folks good doctors. We should call them bad because by their own evidence, they are living badly.

Every major figure who advocates for action against Global Warming undergoes no serious or substantive change in their own lifestyles while demanding them of others. All of them are raising "awareness" but doing nothing when their own calls are for drastic action.

Quote:
Whether or not Laurie David is sincere in her profession of concern for global warming has exactly nothing to do with the factual basis for global warming.

What good is knowledge that is not applied?

Also you are trying to turn this into a thread that discounts Global Warming. That is not the point I have tried to put across. My point is that when something is factually proven to be right (global warming) you cannot treat the informed parties who give it lip service with respect or give them credit for good intentions in the face of bad actions. We can do this in other areas because the results cannot be proven. I can't prove you are going to be a bad dad just because you didn't marry mom. I have to give you credit for trying, for half-steps, for good intentions. In the factual realm I don't. I can condemn you. I can call you a bad person.

Gore and his ilk with their "awareness" and huge energy consuming ways should be held up as examples of what is bad and instead they are treated as examples of what is good. They may be working to give knowledge to others, but how can they expect others to apply it if they do not themselves?

Quote:
You're free to label anyone anything you want. The only place you are "not allowed to dispute their facts" is in the perpetually victimized fantasy world of poor little beleagured right wingers.

That would be one of those nice support "facts" I mentioned earlier.

Quote:
However, you should note that this tortuous conflation of "not behaving consistently with professed belief" and "speciousness of that belief" forces us to dismiss pretty much every belief at large, since human beings are kinda fallible, that way.

Leaving a light switch on is fallible. Owning a fleet of homes and private jets is not fallible. You not coming to terms with this because you prefer to think in terms like "beleaguered right wingers" is part of the planet killing problem.

Quote:
Which chooses to ignore my point about the real world ramifications of those belief systems. You seem to be mostly indignant about real world ramifications of environmental policies, presumably if people like Laurie David championed no particular course of action this thread wouldn't exist.

Since the "moral" beliefs held by many demonstrably hypocritical office holders do, in fact, have direct bearing on my day to day life via the agency of legislation and law, I think it's only fair to use their shortcomings to overturn the entire idea of "moral" public life. Tom Foley; therefore, abortions for all. Yes?

So basically you endorse the thinking you argue against here. You complain that facts cannot be changed by the fallibility of the humans executing them and then proceed to ignore facts due to human fallibility. In fact you endorse this course of action.

Quote:
And if you're really stuck on the "testable vs. untestable" thing, consider that there are professed advocates for reasonably real world matters such as a given economic policy who do things contrary to the expected demands of that policy. Even people holding office! Oh, well, there goes supply side economics, the free market and lowered tax rates.....

We can find many experts who profess all sides of all arguments in all human endeavors. The testable versus untestable "thing" has to deal with the actual results. Is it possible to raise tax rates high enough that they will become confiscatory and thus effect human economic endeavors. Sure. Is this as true at 35-37% as it was at the 70% top rate Reagan cut it down from, probably not so much.

We can debate the merits of most human endeavors because there is no objective yardstick to prove them right or wrong. However killing the planet is objectively wrong. The parties undertaking those actions we can call objectively bad. You shacking up instead of getting married, might be bad in one book, but not another. It might be a failure or success in one book but not in another. Killing the planet, failure in every possible perspective.

Quote:
You need to learn that "post modern" is not a synonym for "over my head".

You need to learn that perspectives are not facts and thus arguing from perspectives is not arguing with facts. That is what continues to go over your head.

Quote:
Most of us had never heard of Laurie David before you started this thread. As far as I know, anyone can declare themselves a champion of anything and behave anyway they want, so are you sure you want to use such behavior as a marker for the authenticity of the thing being championed?

Of course you do, because this is nothing but a pointless piece of petty snark arising out of your animus towards a certain type of person and a certain category of political persuasion. You're getting in trouble because now have to explain why petty snark actually means something beyond what it is.

Hahahaha... I like that term. Petty snark. It is the exact sort of term that I was labeling in the post-modern gibberish generator vain. You think you've stated a fact here when all you've done is call me a name and discount the argument based off what you think my bias or perspective happens to be. It is very sad. You defend bad people and bad actions because exactly because they have a "certain category of political persuasion" because their actions alone are indefensible.

That isn't over my head. Perhaps it is over yours. Their political persuasion will not save the planet. Their actions will. Claiming fleets of home and jets are just "human fallibility" is your own misguided bullshit line of reasoning. Objectively, the actions are bad and planet killing. You label them as fallibility instead because these parties have a "certain category of political persuasion" and thus you cannot hold any animus against their factually proven harmful actions.

The rest of the quotes are just more of the same. You do not condemn that which you ought to and that which is factual because the parties have a certain political persuasion. Objectively, factually their actions and lifestyles are harmful. You excuse them. You declare them fallible instead of simply bad. You let them off the hook for private jets much like leaving a light switch on. Opps, I charted a private jet to fly me cross country and burn up as much fuel as most people use trying to survive while driving to work for a year. Opps... oh well.


Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #51 of 115
OK I have a theory about this. The environment is a perfect example of a social dilemma. A social dilemma is a situation in which an individual's actions don't matter at all, but collective action matters immensely. The dilemma is that collective action is made up of many individuals' actions.

I think this is something that just doesn't mesh with conservative thinking. They just don't make the leap from individual to collective action.
post #52 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I think this is something that just doesn't mesh with conservative thinking. They just don't make the leap from individual to collective action.

On account of them all being evil, right? Right?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #53 of 115
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

OK I have a theory about this. The environment is a perfect example of a social dilemma. A social dilemma is a situation in which an individual's actions don't matter at all, but collective action matters immensely. The dilemma is that collective action is made up of many individuals' actions.

I think this is something that just doesn't mesh with conservative thinking. They just don't make the leap from individual to collective action.

I have to take issue with your characterization of social dilemma. It isn't that the individual's actions do not matter. It is that when only viewed from their own perspective, instead of the collective perspective, it makes more rational sense for them to act in their self-interest. If enough self-interested people act in a manner that might benefit them, it hurts everyone collectively.

It is a very good example of what we are talking about here. A Laurie David, an Al Gore or a John Kerry might seem to be individually pursuing a rational course. It makes rational sense to all of us individually pursue multiple large houses, a fleet of cars and private chartered jets for travel.

However collectively it represents terrible decision making and terrible actions.

To bring about collective change, you have to call out the individual actions that cause harm. You have to be willing to call and label them as bad. To excuse the actions using individualist rationals plays right into the hands of those who do not seek to change.

You can't call for collective change using individualist rationals for your own personal actions can you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

On account of them all being evil, right? Right?

I've still got that quote from him around somewhere.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #54 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I have to take issue with your characterization of social dilemma. It isn't that the individual's actions do not matter. It is that when only viewed from their own perspective, instead of the collective perspective, it makes more rational sense for them to act in their self-interest. If enough self-interested people act in a manner that might benefit them, it hurts everyone collectively.

It is a very good example of what we are talking about here. A Laurie David, an Al Gore or a John Kerry might seem to be individually pursuing a rational course. It makes rational sense to all of us individually pursue multiple large houses, a fleet of cars and private chartered jets for travel.

However collectively it represents terrible decision making and terrible actions.

To bring about collective change, you have to call out the individual actions that cause harm. You have to be willing to call and label them as bad. To excuse the actions using individualist rationals plays right into the hands of those who do not seek to change.

You can't call for collective change using individualist rationals for your own personal actions can you?

I agree with how you've defined it, but I think my point still stands: Conservatives generally don't buy into anything that goes beyond individual actions and outcomes. It doesn't make sense to call for the kind of collective action that any environmental proposal would necessitate.

Between moral hazard and now social dilemmas, I think I've got you guys completely figured out!
post #55 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Hey, screw you buddy, I CHANGED my lightbulbs.

I also only use my private jet when I REALLY have to, and I feel terrible while doing it.

Nick

LOL!!!!!!

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #56 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

This is the same ideology that brought you Eastern Europe and Chernobyl... those great vacation destinations of pristine environmental enjoyment.

Golf claps.
Never had ONE lesson.
Reply
Never had ONE lesson.
Reply
post #57 of 115
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I agree with how you've defined it, but I think my point still stands: Conservatives generally don't buy into anything that goes beyond individual actions and outcomes. It doesn't make sense to call for the kind of collective action that any environmental proposal would necessitate.

Between moral hazard and now social dilemmas, I think I've got you guys completely figured out!

So you've got figured out why conservatives won't buy into what Gore and similar parties say. Can you now figure out why liberals will justify how Gore and similar parties live? Shouldn't they be the ones who use collectivist views to deny the rights of those who cause harm with their (in their view) limited individualist perspectives? Instead they are the ones using individualist dogmas to insure lack of change.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #58 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

My positions are objective because I'm not assigning labels like "right wing" as a supporting fact for an argument. Sadly, you don't realize this is where you are coming from. You call something right wing and think you have presented "facts" to prove your case. Labels are not facts.



Well first of all, you are the one who would be calling such doctors "health gurus" while I would not. Also your analogy is false because you link a personal attribute with one that is a planetary attribute. The doctor who smokes undermines his own health, not the planets. He kills himself, not 6 billion present and all future people.

That said, since not all of us have the ability to go out and conduct the science ourselves, we must rely on those who can. There is such a thing as leadership by example. There is a reason we call certain people experts, or informed and their actions need to reflect that state.

To modify your example, it isn't as if some doctors still smoked, it would be like EVERY doctor still smoking and claiming others can still smoke as well, as long as they buy lung cancer "credits" from those who do not smoke. It wouldn't change the facts about smoking. However we shouldn't call those folks good doctors. We should call them bad because by their own evidence, they are living badly.

Every major figure who advocates for action against Global Warming undergoes no serious or substantive change in their own lifestyles while demanding them of others. All of them are raising "awareness" but doing nothing when their own calls are for drastic action.



What good is knowledge that is not applied?

Also you are trying to turn this into a thread that discounts Global Warming. That is not the point I have tried to put across. My point is that when something is factually proven to be right (global warming) you cannot treat the informed parties who give it lip service with respect or give them credit for good intentions in the face of bad actions. We can do this in other areas because the results cannot be proven. I can't prove you are going to be a bad dad just because you didn't marry mom. I have to give you credit for trying, for half-steps, for good intentions. In the factual realm I don't. I can condemn you. I can call you a bad person.

Gore and his ilk with their "awareness" and huge energy consuming ways should be held up as examples of what is bad and instead they are treated as examples of what is good. They may be working to give knowledge to others, but how can they expect others to apply it if they do not themselves?



That would be one of those nice support "facts" I mentioned earlier.



Leaving a light switch on is fallible. Owning a fleet of homes and private jets is not fallible. You not coming to terms with this because you prefer to think in terms like "beleaguered right wingers" is part of the planet killing problem.



So basically you endorse the thinking you argue against here. You complain that facts cannot be changed by the fallibility of the humans executing them and then proceed to ignore facts due to human fallibility. In fact you endorse this course of action.



We can find many experts who profess all sides of all arguments in all human endeavors. The testable versus untestable "thing" has to deal with the actual results. Is it possible to raise tax rates high enough that they will become confiscatory and thus effect human economic endeavors. Sure. Is this as true at 35-37% as it was at the 70% top rate Reagan cut it down from, probably not so much.

We can debate the merits of most human endeavors because there is no objective yardstick to prove them right or wrong. However killing the planet is objectively wrong. The parties undertaking those actions we can call objectively bad. You shacking up instead of getting married, might be bad in one book, but not another. It might be a failure or success in one book but not in another. Killing the planet, failure in every possible perspective.



You need to learn that perspectives are not facts and thus arguing from perspectives is not arguing with facts. That is what continues to go over your head.



Hahahaha... I like that term. Petty snark. It is the exact sort of term that I was labeling in the post-modern gibberish generator vain. You think you've stated a fact here when all you've done is call me a name and discount the argument based off what you think my bias or perspective happens to be. It is very sad. You defend bad people and bad actions because exactly because they have a "certain category of political persuasion" because their actions alone are indefensible.

That isn't over my head. Perhaps it is over yours. Their political persuasion will not save the planet. Their actions will. Claiming fleets of home and jets are just "human fallibility" is your own misguided bullshit line of reasoning. Objectively, the actions are bad and planet killing. You label them as fallibility instead because these parties have a "certain category of political persuasion" and thus you cannot hold any animus against their factually proven harmful actions.

The rest of the quotes are just more of the same. You do not condemn that which you ought to and that which is factual because the parties have a certain political persuasion. Objectively, factually their actions and lifestyles are harmful. You excuse them. You declare them fallible instead of simply bad. You let them off the hook for private jets much like leaving a light switch on. Opps, I charted a private jet to fly me cross country and burn up as much fuel as most people use trying to survive while driving to work for a year. Opps... oh well.


Nick

Look, let's skip the point by point things since it gets old and cut the crap.

Your one and only point is that people who advocate for a response to global warming who are insufficiently rigorous in their personal lives are evil. Everything else is just hand waving.

I understand why you would want a lot of hand waving, because that central point is more or less insane.

To defend it, you've been obliged to

1) Claim that global warming is unique and makes unique demands on advocates for change, so that we cannot apply your reasoning to any other area of human enterprise to test its efficaciousness, which is convenient for you but transparently dishonest,

2) Claim that a single example of hypocrisy somehow tars the entire notion of advocating for change in response to global warming, which is merely silly,

3) Decouple that evil of hypocritical environmental advocates from any argument about the factual basis for global warming, which I realize you intend as a clever "taking them at their word and hoisting them on their own petard" trope but in fact just robs your talk of "evil" of any import or sense, and

4) Persist in this mincing imitation of a dispassionate observer who is simply dealing with the facts at hand, whereas everyone here knows exactly how you feel about the merits of global warming and the character of those who would advocate for change. Oh, and

5) My objections lack merit because I'm noticing how phony this imitation is and that means I'm "labeling" you, as if your views on the matter weren't right here for all to see.

You hate Al Gore, you think global warming is a crock, and you'll seize on anything you can to put the entire enterprise in a bad light. Trying to flesh that out into some kind of grand unified theory of environmental advocacy as "evil" is just incoherent and sort of scary, and no amount of pretending to carefully parse the variables changes that. It just makes it more tedious.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #59 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

So you've got figured out why conservatives won't buy into what Gore and similar parties say. Can you now figure out why liberals will justify how Gore and similar parties live? Shouldn't they be the ones who use collectivist views to deny the rights of those who cause harm with their (in their view) limited individualist perspectives? Instead they are the ones using individualist dogmas to insure lack of change.

Nick

Sure: Liberals take the other side of the social dilemma. Any given individual's behavior (e.g., Gore using a plane) won't have any discernible effect whatsoever on the environment, but millions of small actions (e.g., Gore persuading everyone to use a hybrid or replace their bulbs) will have a huge effect.
post #60 of 115
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Sure: Liberals take the other side of the social dilemma. Any given individual's behavior (e.g., Gore using a plane) won't have any discernible effect whatsoever on the environment, but millions of small actions (e.g., Gore persuading everyone to use a hybrid or replace their bulbs) will have a huge effect.

It is amazing that millions of people replacing a light bulb will save the planet, but millions of people not consuming thousands of kilowatts of elective energy or taking millions of flights won't.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #61 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

It is amazing that millions of people replacing a light bulb will save the planet, but millions of people not consuming thousands of kilowatts of elective energy or taking millions of flights won't.

Nick

It's sort of like how you always hear that 300 rich people in America pay more taxes than 150 million middle class folks.

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #62 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

It is amazing that millions of people replacing a light bulb will save the planet, but millions of people not consuming thousands of kilowatts of elective energy or taking millions of flights won't.

Nick

Your basic premise of "save the planet" is bogus, I think Planet Earth will do just fine without us!

Besides, the basic argument is about rate of change (ROC) in Earth's environment (current/future), and attempting to slow the apparent future ROC over BAU, for obvious reasons (from my take of the GW science). It isn't a black and white issue, it isn't do or die, and we won't allow you to frame it in such context (try as you might), TYVM!

And you seem to be arguing for "one person one carbon footprint" (e. g. everyone would be allowed a per capita footprint), so that if you are above the average you are "bad" and if you are below the average you are "good." As I stated previously, mo' money means mo' toys, e. g. people who are wealthier will have a larger carbon footprint, and it doesn't matter whatever their political stripe, prove otherwise.

Coming from you, that's a "twofer," both ironic and hypocritical.

Those of us who consider ALL the facts surrounding GW, know that it's the MESSAGE that is important, not the MESSENGER!

Your viewpoint is a classic ad hominem!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #63 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

It is amazing that millions of people replacing a light bulb will save the planet, but millions of people not consuming thousands of kilowatts of elective energy or taking millions of flights won't.

Nick

Take a look at this Nick:

"The tour is the Queen's first carbon-offset state visit, where a donation is made to an environmental charity to offset the plane journeys made by the royal party."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6633591.stm

and:

" Germans stay home for eco-holiday"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6632615.stm

It looks like the new fad is being a "green snob"

Don't get me wrong I have no issue with people taking care not to be wasteful.

BUT does it not seem there is a new fad to out-green your peers.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #64 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

To bring about collective change, you have to call out the individual actions that cause harm. You have to be willing to call and label them as bad. To excuse the actions using individualist rationals plays right into the hands of those who do not seek to change.

Efforts to stop global warming are far more concerned with systemic change-- EPA regulations, treaties, rules, etc-- than voluntary individual effort.
post #65 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post

well numbnuts if every incandescent lightbulb was changed for an energy eficient one, that would IIRC in a single stroke flatline the rate of CO2 growth in the atmosphere.

If we all change our lightbulbs and drive the Prius, will this cunt and all the rest of the green assholes like you go away and quit blaming me for destroying the earth? The sky is falling, the sky is falling and we will all die tomorrow if we don't do something.

Well it ain't our fucking fault there are any problems. Our little car has nothing to do with it. Go to any major city in China and see how fucking polluted it is. Go to Brazil and see how fucking polluted it is. Go to Romania and see how fucking polluted.

We have nothing to do with that; it aint our fault and I am sick of these cunts saying its our fault. If the earth wanted to, it can kill us all off and start fresh, fresh without cunts like Laurie David and Mr. Carbon himself, Algore.
post #66 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwinkler View Post

If we all change our lightbulbs and drive the Prius, will this cunt and all the rest of the green assholes like you go away and quit blaming me for destroying the earth? The sky is falling, the sky is falling and we will all die tomorrow if we don't do something.

Well it ain't our fucking fault there are any problems. Our little car has nothing to do with it. Go to any major city in China and see how fucking polluted it is. Go to Brazil and see how fucking polluted it is. Go to Romania and see how fucking polluted.

We have nothing to do with that; it aint our fault and I am sick of these cunts saying its our fault. If the earth wanted to, it can kill us all off and start fresh, fresh without cunts like Laurie David and Mr. Carbon himself, Algore.

Tell us how you really feel.
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
post #67 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post

well numbnuts if every incandescent lightbulb was changed for an energy eficient one, that would IIRC in a single stroke flatline the rate of CO2 growth in the atmosphere.

Just one more thing.

Once five years or so have passed after this Great Lightbulb Switch, who's going to cleanup all the mercury from these bulbs leaching into the environment?

Will Al Gore and David Suzuki drive across North America picking up this toxic waste?

Doesn't it make sense to wait the extra 18-24 months for the necessary mercury-free and even more power efficient LED technology to replace our lightbulbs?
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #68 of 115
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Look, let's skip the point by point things since it gets old and cut the crap.

Goodness knows we wouldn't want to address the point someone is making. It is so much better to shout down and insult them instead.

Quote:
Your one and only point is that people who advocate for a response to global warming who are insufficiently rigorous in their personal lives are evil. Everything else is just hand waving.

They are evil. Unlike other beliefs and perspectives where there is some philosophy, worldview or other means where disagreements can still fester, in this case they can be proven scientifically to be evil.

Also you water the facts down with your language that suggests mere philosophical disagreement. If the planet cannot absorb the carbon they produce as a result of their lifestyle, it isn't just "insufficiently rigorous," it is party to planetary murder.

Quote:
I understand why you would want a lot of hand waving, because that central point is more or less insane.

To defend it, you've been obliged to

Insanity is psychology silly. We are talking about a true hard science. Sure it may be at the proto-science stage but the models show that unless we all significantly change, we all die.

Quote:
1) Claim that global warming is unique and makes unique demands on advocates for change, so that we cannot apply your reasoning to any other area of human enterprise to test its efficaciousness, which is convenient for you but transparently dishonest,

Global warming is unique in that as a moral issue it has a scientific provable right and wrong outcomes. This isn't possible with other moral issues. I can't say science has proven that if you shack up with your girlfriend, you are guaranteed to get an STD. I can say that science has proven that if you live in the future as you live now and do not undertake dramatic change, the planet will die.

Quote:
2) Claim that a single example of hypocrisy somehow tars the entire notion of advocating for change in response to global warming, which is merely silly,

First of all it isn't a single example. The majority of the leadership of the entire movement acts in the same manner. They simply pay their carbon offsets/indulgences which are of questionable return and then continue to live as they previously had done.

Quote:
3) Decouple that evil of hypocritical environmental advocates from any argument about the factual basis for global warming, which I realize you intend as a clever "taking them at their word and hoisting them on their own petard" trope but in fact just robs your talk of "evil" of any import or sense, and

I think you assign some sort of strange intent here for NOT wanting to claim global warming is a lie. However if a person's mouth speaks the truth, but their actions do not follow the truth, what do you call the person?

Quote:
4) Persist in this mincing imitation of a dispassionate observer who is simply dealing with the facts at hand, whereas everyone here knows exactly how you feel about the merits of global warming and the character of those who would advocate for change. Oh, and

It isn't an imitation. If I take you at your word about a subject. Then note that you don't seem to follow your own conclusions, I can question your word without questioning the subject.

You are simply so used to personal attacks that you can't imagine a subject being outside of a person. You think by discrediting the person, you've discredited the point.

Quote:
You hate Al Gore, you think global warming is a crock, and you'll seize on anything you can to put the entire enterprise in a bad light. Trying to flesh that out into some kind of grand unified theory of environmental advocacy as "evil" is just incoherent and sort of scary, and no amount of pretending to carefully parse the variables changes that. It just makes it more tedious.

You didn't have to work so hard to prove my just mentioned point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Your basic premise of "save the planet" is bogus, I think Planet Earth will do just fine without us!

I'm sure it did just fine before we were here as well and will after we are gone.

Quote:
Besides, the basic argument is about rate of change (ROC) in Earth's environment (current/future), and attempting to slow the apparent future ROC over BAU, for obvious reasons (from my take of the GW science). It isn't a black and white issue, it isn't do or die, and we won't allow you to frame it in such context (try as you might), TYVM!

It wasn't me alone framing it this way. I'm taking parties like Laurie David and Al Gore and repeating their own assertions. Are you suggesting we might only manslaughter the planet instead of merely murder it?

Again, this is why we don't want to debate global warming in this thread. The claims that you suggest, that we might be talking about inches of say, sea level rising instead of flooded cities can be claimed as a attempt to deflect from the need to change. I'm not trying to suggest there is less of a need for change. I'm simply saying that those who claim a great and dramatic need for change do not take great or dramatic changes upon themselves. They aren't even especially efficient compared to a lay person.

Quote:
And you seem to be arguing for "one person one carbon footprint" (e. g. everyone would be allowed a per capita footprint), so that if you are above the average you are "bad" and if you are below the average you are "good." As I stated previously, mo' money means mo' toys, e. g. people who are wealthier will have a larger carbon footprint, and it doesn't matter whatever their political stripe, prove otherwise.

Well since income and wealth can be created from nothing, it is silly to claim it is limited and thus should be redistributed. However we cannot create a planet from nothing, and the ecosystems within do appear to have limits. If you can think of a more fair system than per capita then you are more than welcome to put it forward. I suppose we could all have more carbon if there were fewer people to share it with. As you noted the rich in this case must pay the poor to endure a more carbon deficient lifestyle. That is the reasoning behind a Kyoto type treaty.

Quote:
Those of us who consider ALL the facts surrounding GW, know that it's the MESSAGE that is important, not the MESSENGER!

Your viewpoint is a classic ad hominem!

We don't have to shoot the messenger, but if they don't seem to understand their own message, then shouldn't we question the messenger?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

Take a look at this Nick:

It looks like the new fad is being a "green snob"

Don't get me wrong I have no issue with people taking care not to be wasteful.

BUT does it not seem there is a new fad to out-green your peers.

Fellows

Damn them, they will probably be boasting about their mpg on their vehicles next.

I'm just having fun with you Fellows and thanks for the links. Due to our past discussions, you know I was bringing up carbon and energy footprints per capita long before we were discussing Laurie David.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Efforts to stop global warming are far more concerned with systemic change-- EPA regulations, treaties, rules, etc-- than voluntary individual effort.

The website of Al Gore doesn't agree with you. Sure systemic change is part of the solution, but individuals are absolutely encouraged to act.

In case you don't think I should tie Al Gore and Laurie David together you should remember that she was the one of the producers of his movie.

You will also note the link from her own site advocates smaller and more personal actions as well.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #69 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Doesn't it make sense to wait the extra 18-24 months for the necessary mercury-free and even more power efficient LED technology to replace our lightbulbs?

NO. You must submit now.
We're all about to fry. The world is going to end. Soon. Albert Gore says so.
You must be assimilated.

THOUGHT is contrary to PANIC. Panic is at a premium right now.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #70 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

if you shack up with your girlfriend, you are guaranteed to get an STD.

yea, that depends on your girlfriend.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #71 of 115
Thread Starter 
For the newest bit of fun, I have to note that Laurie David has published a book for children.

Her words regarding it were linked to by Drudge today and were on the Huffington Post

Quote:
We hope that by the time you read this, the solutions to global warming will be well under way. You already know from living with us, how concerned we are about this problem. Sometimes, we go over board with our reactions to everyday annoyances like over -packaged products, leaving lights on in the room, taking too long a shower or leaving your chargers in the wall. We embarrass you when we glare at hummer drivers and or get emotional when we talk about drowning polar bears. But we do this because all of the things that we love and care about are at stake. We do this because we do not want the day to come when you ask us why we did not do more.

We hope that when you read this, you won't question why living in a hummer sized house on two different coasts is good, but driving an actual hummer is bad. We hope you don't realize that we could have released this book for free as a .pdf and not killed a tree while informing the entire planet. Our private flights to promote this new book will likely leave a few polar bears floating face down and likely will offset millions of people removing their energy vampire chargers from the wall, but damn it, you have to understand, we really care!

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #72 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

We hope that when you read this, you won't question why living in a hummer sized house on two different coasts is good, but driving an actual hummer is bad. We hope you don't realize that we could have released this book for free as a .pdf and not killed a tree while informing the entire planet. Our private flights to promote this new book will likely leave a few polar bears floating face down and likely will offset millions of people removing their energy vampire chargers from the wall, but damn it, you have to understand, we really care!

Nick

Careful Nick...



You forget Nick, that we cannot properly push this crap on our kids unless we can get it into the school book fairs and libraries..
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #73 of 115
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Careful Nick...



You forget Nick, that we cannot properly push this crap on our kids unless we can get it into the school book fairs and libraries..

They could have made it a video/audiobook and released on iTunes. $.99 for individuals and free for schools.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #74 of 115
Quote:
They are evil. Unlike other beliefs and perspectives where there is some philosophy, worldview or other means where disagreements can still fester, in this case they can be proven scientifically to be evil.

Oh boy, a FORMAL PROOF, link please TYVM! Or even a set of equations will do showing a probability of exceedance > 6 sigma!

Quote:
Also you water the facts down with your language that suggests mere philosophical disagreement. If the planet cannot absorb the carbon they produce as a result of their lifestyle, it isn't just "insufficiently rigorous," it is party to planetary murder.

Hyperbole!

Quote:
Insanity is psychology silly. We are talking about a true hard science. Sure it may be at the proto-science stage but the models show that unless we all significantly change, we all die.

More hyperbole!

Quote:
Global warming is unique in that as a moral issue it has a scientific provable right and wrong outcomes. This isn't possible with other moral issues. I can't say science has proven that if you shack up with your girlfriend, you are guaranteed to get an STD. I can say that science has proven that if you live in the future as you live now and do not undertake dramatic change, the planet will die.

Even more hyperbole! Again, please provide a link to "your scientific proof!"

Quote:
First of all it isn't a single example. The majority of the leadership of the entire movement acts in the same manner. They simply pay their carbon offsets/indulgences which are of questionable return and then continue to live as they previously had done.

Nick the Socialist!

Quote:
I think you assign some sort of strange intent here for NOT wanting to claim global warming is a lie. However if a person's mouth speaks the truth, but their actions do not follow the truth, what do you call the person?

OK, you don't need to keep repeating your B&W version of the world! Like I said, it's a bogus premise to begin with, arguing from a flawed premise is not logical!

Quote:
I'm sure it did just fine before we were here as well and will after we are gone.

Duh!

Quote:
It wasn't me alone framing it this way. I'm taking parties like Laurie David and Al Gore and repeating their own assertions. Are you suggesting we might only manslaughter the planet instead of merely murder it?

You are the ONLY one suggesting a "murdered" or "manslaughtered" Planet Earth! To me, it's more like cancer, the biosphere/atmosphere/oceans may need a few centuries (or millennia) of chemotherapy, but I'm sure the patient (Planet Earth) will recover quite nicely, TYVM!

Quote:
Again, this is why we don't want to debate global warming in this thread. The claims that you suggest, that we might be talking about inches of say, sea level rising instead of flooded cities can be claimed as a attempt to deflect from the need to change. I'm not trying to suggest there is less of a need for change. I'm simply saying that those who claim a great and dramatic need for change do not take great or dramatic changes upon themselves. They aren't even especially efficient compared to a lay person.

Nope not at all! Perhaps in Nick's B&W POV of Planet Earth, but NOT the scientific opinion of many, Many, MANY climate scientists. The universe is probabilistic, or haven't you heard?

Quote:
Well since income and wealth can be created from nothing, it is silly to claim it is limited and thus should be redistributed. However we cannot create a planet from nothing, and the ecosystems within do appear to have limits. If you can think of a more fair system than per capita then you are more than welcome to put it forward. I suppose we could all have more carbon if there were fewer people to share it with. As you noted the rich in this case must pay the poor to endure a more carbon deficient lifestyle. That is the reasoning behind a Kyoto type treaty.

Could you please send me a "Nick Decoder Ring?" Whatever you are trying to say above, DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!

Quote:
We don't have to shoot the messenger, but if they don't seem to understand their own message, then shouldn't we question the messenger?

Your set up (e. g. your B&W premise) is flawed to begin with, so your following arguments fall flat on there face, as it were.

It's so much "hot air!"

Please don't waste your energy!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #75 of 115
Thread Starter 
Label, label, label, scoff, dismiss, scoff, dismiss, label.

The shortened version of your reply.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #76 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Label, label, label, scoff, dismiss, scoff, dismiss, label.

The shortened version of your reply.

Nick

Dude, you labeled yourself! No proof, no argument! Go figure!

[CENTER][/CENTER]
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #77 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Goodness knows we wouldn't want to address the point someone is making. It is so much better to shout down and insult them instead.

Yep, deciding that it's tedious to do a line by line rebuttal is "shouting you down and insulting you". Following that with points of my own is "refusing to address your point". It sucks to be you.

Quote:
They are evil. Unlike other beliefs and perspectives where there is some philosophy, worldview or other means where disagreements can still fester, in this case they can be proven scientifically to be evil.

Also you water the facts down with your language that suggests mere philosophical disagreement. If the planet cannot absorb the carbon they produce as a result of their lifestyle, it isn't just "insufficiently rigorous," it is party to planetary murder.

OK, what the hell, I'll play: since your amazing conversion to a born-again global warming activist, what have you done to reduce your contribution to planetary murder? I'm assuming you're taking all possible action, since you have come to see the problem in such stark terms.

I think we can agree that if you haven't taken such measures you are, in fact, evil?

Quote:
Insanity is psychology silly. We are talking about a true hard science. Sure it may be at the proto-science stage but the models show that unless we all significantly change, we all die.

No, it's all good, I got you. What significant changes have you made, again?

Quote:
Global warming is unique in that as a moral issue it has a scientific provable right and wrong outcomes. This isn't possible with other moral issues. I can't say science has proven that if you shack up with your girlfriend, you are guaranteed to get an STD. I can say that science has proven that if you live in the future as you live now and do not undertake dramatic change, the planet will die.

Just a reminder: I'm not the one who is artificially limiting possible analogous scenarios to "moral issues". That's something you've seized on because you think.... actually I have no idea why you've seized on it, I think it just came up once and you can't think of anything else.

Quote:
First of all it isn't a single example. The majority of the leadership of the entire movement acts in the same manner. They simply pay their carbon offsets/indulgences which are of questionable return and then continue to live as they previously had done.

I think we both know that you have no idea if this is true, or even what might constitute "the majority of the leadership of the entire movement". I'm also at a loss why you would consider an issue that you so vigorously agree is the most pressing in history, backed by good solid science, to be a "movement". Do you regard efforts to control widespread outbreaks of infectious disease to be "movements"? I would have thought that, given your professed beliefs, you would see the fight against global warming to simply be the rational response of right-thinking people. As such, there really isn't any "leadership", and what any given public figure does or does not do has no bearing on the issue, right?

In fact, focusing on the shortcomings of any given public figure is a tremendous waste of energy, I think you'll agree. Given the gravity of the threat, the better, more moral course is to get crackin' and pitch in to solve the problem! Or you're evil!

Quote:
I think you assign some sort of strange intent here for NOT wanting to claim global warming is a lie. However if a person's mouth speaks the truth, but their actions do not follow the truth, what do you call the person?

I dunno, Nick. I think you might have better insight into that particular pathology than I.


Quote:
It isn't an imitation. If I take you at your word about a subject. Then note that you don't seem to follow your own conclusions, I can question your word without questioning the subject.

You are simply so used to personal attacks that you can't imagine a subject being outside of a person.

Yes, it's a terrible burden, so inured to personal attack I can no longer fathom.... wait, what now? Was that a defense of you pretending to be a global warming activist? Because the subject and the person are not the same, you can argue from a position you patently do not believe and bring no discredit to yourself?

Quote:
You think by discrediting the person, you've discredited the point.

(Irony meters slam into the red, explode)

Quote:
You didn't have to work so hard to prove my just mentioned point.

Sigh.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #78 of 115
Thread Starter 
I'm going to borrow from myself. I posted this on my blog and I think it is a better explanation of what I am trying to explain here. It is helped along by Mr. Al Gore himself who is concerned about reason dying.

Quote:
Unfortunately, the legacy of the 20th century's ideologically driven bloodbaths has included a new cynicism about reason itselfbecause reason was so easily used by propagandists to disguise their impulse to power by cloaking it in clever and seductive intellectual formulations. When people don't have an opportunity to interact on equal terms and test the validity of what they're being "taught" in the light of their own experience and robust, shared dialogue, they naturally begin to resist the assumption that the experts know best.

Gore should follow his own advice. I've pointed out the hypocrisy of himself and others within the Global Warming Movement. Others dismiss these notations as an attempt to kill the messenger, a bad bit of ad-hom logical fallacy posing as reasoning. However the reality is shown by Gore himself. People do not have the ability to interact on equal terms. We all do not have the ability to go to Antarctica and measure the ice sheet. They do not have the ability to run massive global environmental computer models. Thus, they turn to leaders and experts, those who do get to interact with this information. As Gore noted this one way train of information carries with it, a predisposition toward cynicism by those on the receiving end because it is possible to manipulate and attempt to disguise an impulse for power by those who have the information.

It is because of this natural predisposition, that leaders within such a movement must lead by example. That means no homes that are 10-20 times larger than the typical American home and multiples of those homes on both coasts, in vacation spots, etc. Do not cry for communal solutions while chartering private jets and scooting around in large motorcades often made up of large SUVs. They must not just be messengers, they must be leaders that demonstrate through actions so as to not allow the natural cynicism to crop up.

They aren't and so it does.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #79 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I'm going to borrow from myself. I posted this on my blog and I think it is a better explanation of what I am trying to explain here. It is helped along by Mr. Al Gore himself who is concerned about reason dying.



Gore should follow his own advice. I've pointed out the hypocrisy of himself and others within the Global Warming Movement. Others dismiss these notations as an attempt to kill the messenger, a bad bit of ad-hom logical fallacy posing as reasoning. However the reality is shown by Gore himself. People do not have the ability to interact on equal terms. We all do not have the ability to go to Antarctica and measure the ice sheet. They do not have the ability to run massive global environmental computer models. Thus, they turn to leaders and experts, those who do get to interact with this information. As Gore noted this one way train of information carries with it, a predisposition toward cynicism by those on the receiving end because it is possible to manipulate and attempt to disguise an impulse for power by those who have the information.

It is because of this natural predisposition, that leaders within such a movement must lead by example. That means no homes that are 10-20 times larger than the typical American home and multiples of those homes on both coasts, in vacation spots, etc. Do not cry for communal solutions while chartering private jets and scooting around in large motorcades often made up of large SUVs. They must not just be messengers, they must be leaders that demonstrate through actions so as to not allow the natural cynicism to crop up.

They aren't and so it does.

Nick

Nice try, but your short answer is basically ad hominem.

There is no logic or rational in "leading by example." Seriously slave owners and the KKK lead by example. Do anarchist "lead by example?" I guess GWB is "leading us by example." Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Christianity, et. al. all "lead by example?"

I guess these "Front People" must lead monk like (or caveman like) existence's in order for us to pay any attention?

And what of the "rank and file" the thousands of scientists doing the research, seemingly coming to one basic conclusion? They too must "lead by example" or else we all don't need to pay them no mind.

Your setup - Earth's doomidness,
Your canard "lead by example,"
Your conclusion;



Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #80 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Gore should follow his own advice.

Yeah he should. Seriously.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Laurie David: Contributing to global warming by being a giant bag of gas