[quote=“Vay”]I’m perfectly willing to feel some pain - if and only if I know others aren’t gonna get a free ride while I make that sacrifice.
[/quote]
Typical liberal mentality: Always pointing the finger at others while avoiding all personal accountability. Remember, YOU are the free rider. You’re only willing to be a responsible global citizen if everyone else on the planet decides to agree with you? What kind of example are you really? How is it you’re not a complete hypocrite?
[quote]
Solution? Fucking ~mandatory offsets~. No free riders, and an ~actual~ impact.[/quote]
The real solution: forcibly sterilize selfish hypocrites who insist on having children and destroying the planet while blaming others
[quote=“buzzkill1”][quote=“Vay”]I’m perfectly willing to feel some pain - if and only if I know others aren’t gonna get a free ride while I make that sacrifice.
[/quote]
Typical liberal mentality: Always pointing the finger at others while avoiding all personal accountability. Remember, YOU are the free rider. You’re only willing to be a responsible global citizen if everyone else on the planet decides to agree with you? What kind of example are you really? How is it you’re not a complete hypocrite?
[quote]
Solution? Fucking ~mandatory offsets~. No free riders, and an ~actual~ impact.[/quote]
The real solution: forcibly sterilize selfish hypocrites who insist on having children and destroying the planet while blaming others[/quote]
Typical conservative. Always seeing things in black and white and worrying about allocating blame instead of actually dealing with issues. Your ‘personal initiative’ solution has less hope of having any positive effect than does your ridiculous ‘celibacy only’ strategy against teen pregnancy.
I could do what the typical moderate American does (ignore the problem) or conservative (actively deny it - as I’ve seen you do). My Catholic conservative cousin, for example is totally morally consistent: he’s perfectly fine that his wife’s pregnant with their NINTH kid- because he parrots the same bullshit right-wing blogs and Fox News have trained you all to say: ‘the climate’s changed before’, 'no warming since ‘98’, ‘they grew grapes in England in the Middle Ages’ etc. So who does greater harm: morally-consistent him, or morally-inconsistent me?
I maintain my intellectual honesty and focus on mitigating the harm I cause while focussing on promoting actual solutions.
How many children/cars do you have? You appear to be a “multiple ignorer.”
You mean like actively denying that your children and car are contributing seriously to the problems about which you claim to care a great deal?
Well, again, given that you are the one who claims that these issues are a problem, then I would suggest it is really more about you. While it is nice to say, but he has nine kids, he doesn’t believe that there is a problem that needs solving, you claim that you do. Therefore, you should have NO children and you should STOP driving your car. While it would cause some legal and moral issues for you to remedy the climate problem that is the existence of your children, you could certainly stop driving that car, right? You could move to a house on a bus line and take public transportation.
I am going to save that. Can somone advise how I can make this my signature line? Your intellectual honesty? while focusing on promoting (notice the typical kant of the double verb here) actual solutions? So all you are going to do is “focus” and this “focus” will lead you to “promote” actual solutions? Why don’t you just engage in some sort of behavior that will lead to actual solutions? Maybe we could simplify this even further to actually do (notice the need for only one verb here?) something? and you could start by getting rid of the car… what is holding you back?
Bwahah nice try Fred. Mud-slinging and holding ideological opponents to unreasonable standards (while being SO forgiving of in-group members… ‘The Druggar family believe in Jesus, so of course it’s forgiveable that they covered up a bit of child moleststion!’) is a favored distraction among you guys. Since you’ve parroted (special emphasis on that word) those afore-mentioned rightwing talking points MANY times here, that remark must’ve stung. But no, there is no moral agent at work in the universe that makes internally-consistent bad behavior less harmful.
And speaking of silly religious beliefs, why don’t you just admit the real root of your long-standing, ever-waffling position on this issue: a tax on carbon - an obvious and necessary part of the solution - is just abhorrent to you?
As far as giving up my car, that would require getting rid of the wife - but really, by your reasoning, i suppose first I should do away with my daughter - since she’s by far my biggest carbon footprint- and I’m apparently only allowed to have an opinion on this issue if I’m a carbon saint. Of course it’s all typical conservative moral absolutist nonsense, the only result of which is to smear opponents and obstruct real action.
What then are your standards? I assumed that your frequent pronouncements on the subject indicated that you genuinely cared and that we all must DO SOMETHING!!! So, everytime, this is presented to you, you fall back on the inability to be able to do something because you are waiting for the world to change. I think that this is hypocritical and constantly point to others who are not doing anything does not absolve you from doing nothing in return, no?
And, how many times have I raised this topic?
parroted? oh you mean the part where I directly quoted you to say you were going to “focus” on “promoting” action? Yes, consider that a parroted phrase… it explains the hypocrisy and emptiness of your sentiments far better than anything that anyone else can say… so why did you say it?
Not feeling stung so maybe I am unsure as to which remark you are referring.
so you say… most convenient for your moral posture… er… you do have one, don’t you? One wonders… so are we to conclude that you care and that this is enough? since others will always be worse than you, you are absolved from taking any action… other than of course to “focus on promoting” it?
Is tax policy now to be relegated to the realm of religion?
What does your wife have to do with your car? You have made a number of statements regarding your “concern” and how you “actively” engage in the important work of “focusing on promoting.” I am merely asking you what steps you have taken to actually DO something? Seems to me that getting rid of your car would be something that would be important to you, knowing as you do the importance of ACTING URGENTLY!!! to prevent global warming (SORRY!!! CLIMATE CHANGE!!!)
Again, these are YOUR words. I think that if you want to raise the Druggar family as an issue, then perhaps this is a discussion that you should have with the climate change flouting cousin? I have no children. I have no car. I am thus, by your standards, morally superior to you. Now, that has gotta sting!
I also don’t use a car or have children. How ironic. When are you going to get with the program Vay and stop destroying the planet? If you cared about your daughter’s future you would at least attempt to be a better steward of the world’s resources like Fred and I are doing.
[quote] Vay wrote:
As far as giving up my car, that would require getting rid of the wife[/quote]
Are you suggesting your wife is going to leave you if you try to stop destroying the planet? I find it shocking you would marry someone who cares so little about the planet. But then again, you yourself are destroying the planet. I just hope you come to recognize the error of your ways and follow Fred’s example for the sake of the world and all of humanity
Guys you’re killing me. On my phone now (on the bus), and Fred’s barrage of misstatements above deserves a point-by-point response, but for right now, let me just ask, ever heard of ‘ad hominem’ arguments? ‘To quoque’ fallacy? Red herring? Straw man’? In wiping the floor with me and my moral failings above, I think you’ve managed to work in a little of all of them. Will look forward to getting back to you, this time tomorrow.
Ooooohhhhhh how I look forward to receiving that! Will it go something like this:
I actively focus on promoting action.
My focus is on promoting action.
I cannot do (note the simple verb) anything because someone is not doing anything to a greater degree than I. That person needs to start doing more before I focus on promoting action of any kind that will actually see me DO something.
Global warming (SORRY!!! CLIMATE CHANGE) requires that we all act URGENTLY NOW!!! except for me because I am busy “focusing on promoting” action to deal with the problem that many do not see as being urgent.
I would like to commend Frederick P. Smith v. and Buzzkill for ACTING to stave off the URGENT THREAT of global warming (SORRY!!! CLIMATE CHANGE!!!) by not engaging in wantonly selfish and self-serving behavior like having children or driving a car.
Couldn’t you just say “direct quote?” Do you always engage in such convoluted syntax? I mean, first, we had you “focusing on promoting” and now this?
Ah… So you DO recognize reality when you see it. Good!
But let me also write in return about the thoughts that I have been having…
It is patently unjust and unfair to engage in the labeling of someone regarding the postures (moral or otherwise) that he/she focuses on promoting to have others adopt to act. It is very hypocritical of those who do not see a problem for expecting those who do see a problem and who clamor for URGENT ACTION to expect that those who focus on caring about a problem do less (far less) than those who claim not to care about a problem because it is not the focus of their promotion to act. Henceforth, I call upon all to moderate their discussions to reflect the reality that focusing is more important than promoting, which in turn, is more important than acting or engaging to conceivably aim to focus to promote to doing something about the problem that we don’t agree exists but still should ACT URGENTLY to focus to promote to engage in action to actually do something! Got it?
[quote]Ah… So you DO recognize reality when you see it. Good!
But let me also write in return about the thoughts that I have been having…
It is patently unjust and unfair to engage in the labeling of someone regarding the postures (moral or otherwise) that he/she focuses on promoting to have others adopt to act. It is very hypocritical of those who do not see a problem for expecting those who do see a problem and who clamor for URGENT ACTION to expect that those who focus on caring about a problem do less (far less) than those who claim not to care about a problem because it is not the focus of their promotion to act. Henceforth, I call upon all to moderate their discussions to reflect the reality that focusing is more important than promoting, which in turn, is more important than acting or engaging to conceivably aim to focus to promote to doing something about the problem that we don’t agree exists but still should ACT URGENTLY to focus to promote to engage in action to actually do something! Got it?
[/quote]
Caring is the ultimate carbon offset, which explains the irony free Al Gore phenomenon. Caring is also the ultimate tax offset, land use offset, NIMBY offset, private school offset and, in Bill Clinton’s case, apparently even suffices as a rape offset. Go figure.
I think I might have a clue as to why Vay thinks feelings alone are tantamount to physical reality:
I couple of small clips from the article, “I’m a Liberal Professor, and My Liberal Students Terrify Me”
[quote]
I am frightened sometimes by the thought that a student would complain again like he did in 2009. Only this time it would be a student accusing me not of saying something too ideologically extreme — be it communism or racism or whatever — but of not being sensitive enough toward his feelings, of some simple act of indelicacy that’s considered tantamount to physical assault. As Northwestern University professor Laura Kipnis writes, “Emotional discomfort is [now] regarded as equivalent to material injury, and all injuries have to be remediated.” Hurting a student’s feelings, even in the course of instruction that is absolutely appropriate and respectful, can now get a teacher into serious trouble. [/quote]
You see, Vay is signaling his goodness and can’t understand why his sincerity is being questioned due to his contradictory physical behavior.
Outrageous! Are you dismissing my efforts to get people to “focus on promoting” efforts to engage in behavior to demonstrate willingness to contemplate and visualize steps needed to take action on these issues? er, that is URGENT action on these issues! I have been at the forefront of posting requests that people ACT URGENTLY NOW! I feel that you are being very disrespectful of my efforts and that you are denying my voice in the narrative that populates the engagement regarding the vibrant, multihued tapestry that is our very human interaction on this subject. You have been warned. Hurt my feelings again and I will sue you!
Vay, you’re efforts would be much better spent on people who have at least a basic understanding of the subject of fracking. Changing a few minds who are on the fence is great, it’s whats needed to get the ball rolling and get awareness into the majority rather than just a concerned minority. But you’ll never change the mind of someone who can’t even find the damn fence in the first place.
Buzzkill says fracking does nothing to the water as it is of course done deeper down I guess he hasn’t read one single study anywhere that shows plenty of contamination throughout the drill site, nearby water sources, and even the air from the open air pits used. He literally can’t comprehend that although fracking is a deep well process, it has real verifiable effects elsewhere from the start of the process right through to the end product. This is the epitome of not being able to put 2 and 2 together…
He didn’t know what AGW was. Are we supposed to be surprised he doesn’t know about fracking either?
But he cares and he is seriously thinking about focusing on promoting discussions to look at ways to initiate action… URGENT action. That is ALL that matters, surely?
I surrender. You’re right. It’s hard to realise that there are people this fucking stupid sitting on the Supreme Court making laws.
[quote] The body of scientific evidence supporting creation science is as strong as that supporting evolution. In fact, it may be stronger…. The evidence for evolution is far less compelling than we have been led to believe. Evolution is not a scientific “fact,” since it cannot actually be observed in a laboratory. Rather, evolution is merely a scientific theory or “guess.”… It is a very bad guess at that. The scientific problems with evolution are so serious that it could accurately be termed a “myth.”…
[/quote]
Read more: freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/#ixzz3cTt1yWqH
OTOH, a large portion of Republican legislators are equally ignorant, as are most of the presidential contenders.( Actually, I don’t know if that’s true of the presidential candidates, or if they’re just willing to lie because they realise the average Republican primary voter is this fucking stupid).
Er, no. This is the biggest problem with your supposed “gotcha” here. I never said that.
Never. I never said you did. It was just an example of typical conservative permissiveness when it comes to the astounding wrong-doings of their in-group members.
[quote]parroted? oh you mean the part where I directly quoted you to say you were going to “focus” on “promoting” action? Yes, consider that a parroted phrase… it explains the hypocrisy and emptiness of your sentiments far better than anything that anyone else can say… so why did you say it?
…Not feeling stung so maybe I am unsure as to which remark you are referring.[/quote]
Um, according to your “direct quote” of me, you were “parroting” right-wing talking points. Specifically:
‘the climate’s changed before!’
‘they used to grow grapes in England!’
'there’s been no warming since ‘98!’
Sorry if you somehow confused other stuff I said with “right-wing talking points”… though I’m not sure how that could be very confusing
So I say? So are you disputing this? Then please, just show me up by providing some proof of a moral agent acting in the universe to police people’s internal consistency.
No, again, I never said that. If you’d actually read what I wrote instead of mis-characterizing it (as usual), you’d know that is not what I meant.
Oh. My. God. After how many times you mocked me with some ad hoc apostle’s creed just because I trust the collective assessment by hundreds of experts of over 9,000 pieces of research, it just takes the cake for you to ask me this. But in any case, I say “religious” because it’s pretty obvious that this is a deep-seated proclivity that stems from tribal affiliation and ideology, and has little to do with causes and effects in the real world.
Aint no way on Earth she’s gonna let me get rid of it, is what she has to do with it. Never been married, I take it?
Yes, I am concerned. And yes, I am doing “things”. Just not the things you think I should be doing. Above, I said as much, and I’ve said basically the same before… not that you pay any attention. I use public transportation whenever I can. I’m very careful about energy usage. Everything in my place is the most energy-saving we could get. Looked into getting solar panels, but apparently the government won’t subsidize them because part of our construction is illegal. I’m obsessive about not wasting and teach my daughter likewise. I also donate regularly to the Nature Conservancy and Earthjustice.
Now of course none of this is any of your goddamn business, and you’ll find ways to mock me regardless. Like I said, mud-slinging and squid ink are what y’all are best at. But here’s the kicker: NONE OF THIS IS RELEVANT TO ANYTHING. I could be the biggest hypocrite in the fucking world and it wouldn’t matter to the argument we keep having. Asserting so is a blatant Ad Hominem fallacy.
Why should it sting? I never claimed to be morally superior to you. That was never relevant to the argument, though no conservative on Earth seems to be able to wrap their heads around this fact. (I notice even Rowland’s chiming in now to wag his finger at me!) ‘Sure, there’s a mountain of evidence that the Earth is warming, human emissions are responsible and this is mostly a very bad thing, but I’m gonna argue anyway, because, goddamnit, Al Gore flies a private jet!!!’
And you shouldn’t make fun of my cousin. He and others like him are your voting base.
Oh, and speaking of logical fallacies, I wasn’t going to be pedantic and point this out, but Buzzkill, since you’re being such a dick about totally irrelevant issues while avoiding substantive ones, I think I’ll just go ahead and note that basically your whole line of argument here is kinda a red herring, as the safety of fracking isn’t the central issue stemming from the OP. The question is this: is it right for states to literally ban local bans on fracking - particularly in light of the Grand Oligarchy Party’s professed love for the principle of local control?
To take a related example: I’m opposed to labeling GMO’s. But that doesn’t mean I think states should legislatively ~ban~ such labels. And I say this in spite of the fact that, unlike with fracking, there is a fairly clear, explicit and broad-based consensus on the safety of GMO’s.
I wonder how your daughter intellectualizes her father preaching about energy conservation, a man who operates a car and states he will sacrifice if and only if everyone else sacrifices according to his own standards
True, the world will ignore you regardless
What do you base this on? Do you even have a basic idea how GMOs are made, how they’re approved? How many countries ban GMOs because of safety concerns? How many peer-reviewed studies worldwide are there in the scientific literature claiming the safety of GMOs? How many GMO products have been discontinued due to health concerns? What percentage of the total studies on GMOs were conducted by the scientists working for the company producing them for market? How many independent studies show serious health concerns regarding GMOs? How many experienced and successful scientists explicitly detail how and why GMOs are inherently unsafe? What is the EPA’s standard for approving GMOs? Please feel free to demonstrate how ignorant you are on the subject
Still playing at the ad hominem game. Still providing no evidence of a scientific consensus on the safety of fracking. Still creating false caricatures.
Yes, while I’m sure you’re out there moving mountains.
Again with the red herrings. I was just making a relevant observation; even if it were false, it wouldn’t affect the gyst of what I’m saying. In any case, since you’ve asked for it:
Guys you’re killing me. On my phone now (on the bus), and Fred’s barrage of misstatements above deserves a point-by-point response, but for right now, let me just ask, ever heard of ‘ad hominem’ arguments? ‘To quoque’ fallacy? Red herring? Straw man’? In wiping the floor with me and my moral failings above, I think you’ve managed to work in a little of all of them. Will look forward to getting back to you, this time tomorrow.
I guess he hasn’t read one single study anywhere that shows plenty of contamination throughout the drill site, nearby water sources, and even the air from the open air pits used. He literally can’t comprehend that although fracking is a deep well process, it has real verifiable effects elsewhere from the start of the process right through to the end product. This is the epitome of not being able to put 2 and 2 together…
