RE: Newest climate change threat revealed

RE: Newest climate change threat revealed (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DesideriScuri -> RE: Newest climate change threat revealed (5/3/2013 5:30:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: TricklessMagic I'm not going to argue climate change. As far as I'm concerned, there cannot be a meaningful discussion, until the little wanna-be dictators and exploiters of the issue, as illustrated with Congresswoman fucktard above, are purged from the process. So a "meaningful discussion" is out of the question until TH vets and approves all those participating to ensure they conform to his standards of political correctness. Perhaps a room full of looney Right wingers and Tea Party types would fit the bill admirably. Good heavens, we couldn't possibly allow any body well informed on the subject or capable of thinking for themselves - the discussion might then actually be a meaningful one. Why not be honest about it and say you don't want to have any meaningful discussion about climate change in the first place because the facts are not compatible with your ideology? Actually, until you separate the ones who want to use AGW to gain power over people from the conversation, you'll never actually have a meaningful discussion, or it will be much more difficult. Al Gore had heavily invested in the carbon credit scheme that he backed. While that is definitely putting his money where his mouth is, it may be disingenuous as he stood to profit massively if government took his suggestions. And, that's one of those Catch-22's for him. His message is tainted with the specter of greed, no?

DaddySatyr -> RE: Newest climate change threat revealed (5/3/2013 6:43:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Actually, until you separate the ones who want to use AGW to gain power over people from the conversation, you'll never actually have a meaningful discussion, or it will be much more difficult. Al Gore had heavily invested in the carbon credit scheme that he backed. While that is definitely putting his money where his mouth is, it may be disingenuous as he stood to profit massively if government took his suggestions. And, that's one of those Catch-22's for him. His message is tainted with the specter of greed, no? Algore can't be greedy. He *means* well and he has a "D" after his name. It's the other side.

Lucylastic -> RE: Newest climate change threat revealed (5/3/2013 7:56:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic http://www.examiner.com/article/house-democrats-claim-global-warming-will-drive-women-to-prostitution quote: A resolution put forward by Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., and a dozen other House Democrats claims that global warming could drive women to prostitution, The Hill reported Monday. According to Democrats, climate change will affect women worse than men and could force poor women into the sex trade. Hmm. So back to commuting in the SUV then? [;)] quote: When you aren't competent to handle an idea, just make up stupid lies, and try to argue that instead. Shame you dont see the ironing in your own words, seeing your own "misrepresentation(hah)

TheHeretic -> RE: Newest climate change threat revealed (5/3/2013 6:22:31 PM)
That's pathetic, Lucy. I offered the fun version, because I'm a fun loving guy, but was perfectly happy to get right into the meat of how an atmospheric concern gets twisted to serve an unrelated social/greedhead agenda, which was where you came back with a lame attempt an insult me, and Tweak jumped in to impugn my character and assign me a position she felt she might be competent to challenge. It's also when the domestic global-warming cultist bailed Hell, some who know me might even think I deliberately selected the fun version, that put the most insane part of the proposal into the lead (which you seem perfectly fine with, when offering tidbits about Republican proposals - ironing much?), just to lure in dumbasses who would never show up in a thread on something that so clearly exposes the rot which has hijacked the environmental movement. Maybe you just should have stayed clear. I'm not going in to the office this weekend, and have spent enough time lately working politely and professionally with punks and ankles that I might be up for plainly telling people smart enough to know better that it's time to pop their heads out of their asses. Cheers!

Lucylastic -> RE: Newest climate change threat revealed (5/3/2013 6:48:44 PM)
yeah sure Rich, whatever you say,LMAO you are just a fun guy! snorts

TheHeretic -> RE: Newest climate change threat revealed (5/3/2013 7:00:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic yeah sure Rich, whatever you say,LMAO you are just a fun guy! snorts Not to be confused with a fungi, of course. I stopped living in the dark, and being fed shit, when I turned my back on the Democrat Party. [;)]

tweakabelle -> RE: Newest climate change threat revealed (5/3/2013 9:25:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: TricklessMagic I'm not going to argue climate change. As far as I'm concerned, there cannot be a meaningful discussion, until the little wanna-be dictators and exploiters of the issue, as illustrated with Congresswoman fucktard above, are purged from the process. So a "meaningful discussion" is out of the question until TH vets and approves all those participating to ensure they conform to his standards of political correctness. Perhaps a room full of looney Right wingers and Tea Party types would fit the bill admirably. Good heavens, we couldn't possibly allow any body well informed on the subject or capable of thinking for themselves - the discussion might then actually be a meaningful one. Why not be honest about it and say you don't want to have any meaningful discussion about climate change in the first place because the facts are not compatible with your ideology? Actually, until you separate the ones who want to use AGW to gain power over people from the conversation, you'll never actually have a meaningful discussion, or it will be much more difficult. Al Gore had heavily invested in the carbon credit scheme that he backed. While that is definitely putting his money where his mouth is, it may be disingenuous as he stood to profit massively if government took his suggestions. And, that's one of those Catch-22's for him. His message is tainted with the specter of greed, no? So, in this scheme of things, any one "tainted with the specter of greed" isn't allowed to participate in "meaningful discussions" on a given topic. So all stakeholders are to be excluded from discussions on their areas of interests. So no farmers participating in discussions about agriculture, no car makers or airlines in discussions about transport and so on. That makes a lot of sense doesn't it? This is just another transparent excuse not to engage in meaningful discussions on climate change. Why the need for such an excuse? Because beyond blanket denials, deniers have nothing to contribute to meaningful discussions on climate change except ideologically inspired ill informed obstruction

TheHeretic -> RE: Newest climate change threat revealed (5/3/2013 9:52:20 PM)
God, the irony is fucking delicious, Tweak. You just can't wrap your head around having authoritarianism rejected, can you?

tweakabelle -> RE: Newest climate change threat revealed (5/3/2013 11:06:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic God, the irony is fucking delicious, Tweak. You just can't. wrap your head around having authoritarianism rejected, can you? Pro-authority? Meeeeee? Congratulations TH, that's another first! I've never been accused of that in my life, though I have frequently been accused of being anti-authority. I am not the one laying down the law on who is permitted to contribute to the discussion or not. It's not me who is seeking to limit the discussion to those whom I might deem to be politically correct. Nor am I the one who gets their talking points from some Koch Bros financed looney Right site. Nor am I the one contributing childish snark to this discussion. If you have anything meaningful to contribute to a discussion on climate change, right here and now is a good place to contribute it. ,

DesideriScuri -> RE: Newest climate change threat revealed (5/4/2013 4:23:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle So, in this scheme of things, any one "tainted with the specter of greed" isn't allowed to participate in "meaningful discussions" on a given topic. Do you not see how "meaningful discussions" can be tainted, twisted, and turned by money? If you are going to profit immensely from a governmental decree, are you guaranteed to be the honest in your arguments? On the other side of it, if you are going to lose immensely from a governmental decree, are you guaranteed to be the honest in your arguments? It goes both ways, doesn't it? It's the whole "conflict of interest" thing. quote: So all stakeholders are to be excluded from discussions on their areas of interests. So no farmers participating in discussions about agriculture, no car makers or airlines in discussions about transport and so on. That makes a lot of sense doesn't it? This is just another transparent excuse not to engage in meaningful discussions on climate change. Why the need for such an excuse? Because beyond blanket denials, deniers have nothing to contribute to meaningful discussions on climate change except ideologically inspired ill informed obstruction This is not an excuse to disengage from meaningful discussions on anything (and this same line of reasoning pertains to everything). I'd much rather have people who stand to neither gain nor lose to lead the discussion. quote: Pro-authority? Meeeeee? Congratulations TH, that's another first! I've never been accused of that in my life, though I have frequently been accused of being anti-authority. I am not the one laying down the law on who is permitted to contribute to the discussion or not. It's not me who is seeking to limit the discussion to those whom I might deem to be politically correct. Nor am I the one who gets their talking points from some Koch Bros financed looney Right site. Talk about "ironing" [sic]! You have no problem with those who stand to benefit with climate change legislation taking part, but sure do seem to have a problem with those who stand to lose with climate change legislation taking part.

YN -> RE: Newest climate change threat revealed (5/4/2013 5:20:21 AM)
Prostitution is one of the world's oldest trades, and we legalized it many years ago. I doubt many women are "driven" to it as claimed, any more the people are driven to farm work or any other profession or trade.

TheHeretic -> RE: Newest climate change threat revealed (5/4/2013 6:28:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Pro-authority? Meeeeee? Congratulations TH, that's another first! I've never been accused of that in my life, though I have frequently been accused of being anti-authority. I am not the one laying down the law on who is permitted to contribute to the discussion or not. It's not me who is seeking to limit the discussion to those whom I might deem to be politically correct. Nor am I the one who gets their talking points from some Koch Bros financed looney Right site. Nor am I the one contributing childish snark to this discussion. If you have anything meaningful to contribute to a discussion on climate change, right here and now is a good place to contribute it. LOL, Tweak. Nope. Not a hint of lefty dictator in denial anywhere in that...

DomKen -> RE: Newest climate change threat revealed (5/4/2013 7:50:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri This is not an excuse to disengage from meaningful discussions on anything (and this same line of reasoning pertains to everything). I'd much rather have people who stand to neither gain nor lose to lead the discussion. Who precisely does not stand to lose or gain from AGW? You're setting an impossible standard.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Newest climate change threat revealed (5/4/2013 1:21:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri This is not an excuse to disengage from meaningful discussions on anything (and this same line of reasoning pertains to everything). I'd much rather have people who stand to neither gain nor lose to lead the discussion. Who precisely does not stand to lose or gain from AGW? You're setting an impossible standard. Are you, Ken, heavily invested or heavily speculating in carbon credits? What about the technologies that will be hurt by AGW legislation? I know I don't fall into either category, sooooo, I'm one of those that don't stand to gain/lose from AGW legislation.

DomKen -> RE: Newest climate change threat revealed (5/4/2013 2:09:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri This is not an excuse to disengage from meaningful discussions on anything (and this same line of reasoning pertains to everything). I'd much rather have people who stand to neither gain nor lose to lead the discussion. Who precisely does not stand to lose or gain from AGW? You're setting an impossible standard. Are you, Ken, heavily invested or heavily speculating in carbon credits? What about the technologies that will be hurt by AGW legislation? I know I don't fall into either category, sooooo, I'm one of those that don't stand to gain/lose from AGW legislation. We all stand to lose or gain from AGW. Even if you don't believe it threatens human civilization it will still cause more violent weather and cause food shortages which will at least drive up food prices.

leonine -> RE: Newest climate change threat revealed (5/4/2013 3:30:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri This is not an excuse to disengage from meaningful discussions on anything (and this same line of reasoning pertains to everything). I'd much rather have people who stand to neither gain nor lose to lead the discussion. Who precisely does not stand to lose or gain from AGW? You're setting an impossible standard. In the short term, the fossil fuel industry stands to lose its entire livelihood if the facts that are accepted by every climatologist, meteorologist and geographer in the world were to be accepted by politicians. That's more than enough reason for them to have poured money for the last twenty years into creating the fiction that there is "doubt" on the issue. In fact, the only scientific doubt is whether there is still a chance to save things, or if the politicians and their paymasters have already screwed us all beyond repair. In the long term, anyone who needs food to eat and water to drink stands to lose big time if we just go on as if we didn't know better. If that's not you, you can afford to be neutral on the subject. Excuse this brief intrusion of facts. Feel free to return to your regularly scheduled political squabble.

tweakabelle -> RE: Newest climate change threat revealed (5/4/2013 5:42:02 PM)
quote: I'd much rather have people who stand to neither gain nor lose to lead the discussion. So would I. But there's a small problem with that. Everyone in the world has something at stake in this issue if the scientific consensus is correct. That includes everyone from residents of tiny Pacific Ocean islands which will be overrun by rising oceans to the richest most powerful individuals and corporations in the world. So if you insist on a discussion limited to those "people who stand to neither gain nor lose" from AGW, no one in the world will be able to participate in the discussion. Rather silly to say the least.

tweakabelle -> RE: Newest climate change threat revealed (5/4/2013 5:48:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Pro-authority? Meeeeee? Congratulations TH, that's another first! I've never been accused of that in my life, though I have frequently been accused of being anti-authority. I am not the one laying down the law on who is permitted to contribute to the discussion or not. It's not me who is seeking to limit the discussion to those whom I might deem to be politically correct. Nor am I the one who gets their talking points from some Koch Bros financed looney Right site. Nor am I the one contributing childish snark to this discussion. If you have anything meaningful to contribute to a discussion on climate change, right here and now is a good place to contribute it. Not a hint of lefty dictator in denial anywhere in that... The very same person who wants to limit the discussion to those he considers politically correct accuses someone who wants to include everyone in the discussion of dictatorial tendencies. How amusing! Projecting much TH? I had suspected you were unable or unwilling to contribute anything meaningful to the discussion. When asked to contribute something meaningful, your response was this wholly fictitious irrelevant snark. Which goes to confirm my suspicions. Bar protecting the interests of its billionaire funders, the looney Right has nothing to contribute to this discussion.

TheHeretic -> RE: Newest climate change threat revealed (5/4/2013 6:06:48 PM)
Did you actually just attribute a desire for "political correctness" to me, Tweak, on top of your other stupid lies about my position? Really? Thanks for your contributions, but I have all the psycho I need in my internet experience.

Aylee -> RE: Newest climate change threat revealed (5/4/2013 6:19:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic http://www.examiner.com/article/house-democrats-claim-global-warming-will-drive-women-to-prostitution quote: A resolution put forward by Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., and a dozen other House Democrats claims that global warming could drive women to prostitution, The Hill reported Monday. According to Democrats, climate change will affect women worse than men and could force poor women into the sex trade. Hmm. So back to commuting in the SUV then? [;)] Yes! Throw another log on the fire! On a serious note, I do not recall much discussion of prostitution because of climate change in The Last Centurion or Fallen Angels. (Yes, there was a type of prostitution in TLC.)

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875