|
It's also a minority of the posts following that new guy's introduction post, but your worldview demands it be the majority
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 23:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 19:43 |
|
|
Without the capacity to cast yourself as the only reasonable "But actually  " man in the middle, you're without an online identity
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 23:51
|
|
|
I am literally laughing in the face of anyone who would argue that Americans would take kindly to adopting the living conditions of the French, and wouldn't poo poo themselves crying about how they're being impoverished and it's the death of the American dream and muh taxmoney!! I mean, when someone ITT suggested to an American ITT that they should ride planes a little less often, the response was outraged. Imagine telling them that they literally have to take the plane 2,5 times less often! Imagine telling them to renounce their idiotic suburban model of residential development. Y'all have nationwide resistance movements springing up when people suggest making plastic straws a little less available
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 23:57
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:It's also a minority of the posts following that new guy's introduction post, but your worldview demands it be the majority No it wasn't? I guess we could go back and tally it, but from a skim it looks like there's about a 50/50 split on the first page of the replies and then another page and a half devoted almost entirely to personal austerity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 23:58
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Being a sanctimonious jackoff demanded that everyone "make sacrifices" (while usually refusing to make any oneself), telling them they have to stop having kids, this is not political action. It is obnoxious noise. Y'all are going to have to make sacrifices, friend, everybody knows it. You could start by sacrificing Trump voters. EDIT: it's often said that the best way to reduce your carbon footprint is to not have children. But now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure murdering Americans would probably be the best way to offset one's footprint. Flowers For Algeria fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Jul 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 00:00
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:No it wasn't? I guess we could go back and tally it, but from a skim it looks like there's about a 50/50 split on the first page of the replies and then another page and a half devoted almost entirely to personal austerity. Actually I have to agree here In my defense, reading this thread involves going over a lot of minimized posts where I've muted people who have lost hope
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 00:01
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Y'all are going to have to make sacrifices, friend, everybody knows it. You have to calculate the effects of the volatile gasses released from firing a gun buddy, that has to change the math.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 00:04
|
|
|
Airburst doesn't kick up and irradiate soil all that much, so...
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 00:09
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I have no problem with taxing people, (especially rich people), to pay for decarbonization, if that's what you're asking. This is entirely different from the solutions offered earlier, which are all about not having kids or traveling. Excellent. I think I've got everything now. Then, let us take a moment to behold the mind of the moneyed upper-middle neoliberal: As a reasonable left-leaning, but right-thinking individual, he of course understands that Climate Change is an issue that would cause untold human suffering, and therefore must be addressed. However, for him political action that advocates lifestyle changes - his lifestyle changes - is unacceptable. A total non-starter, really. It's just obvious it wouldn't work, in fact historically it's never worked, and you'd need to be suffering from some mental illness or outright be a dullard to even consider it. I mean, please. But then, what is to be done? Well, naturally, he believes the problem must be tackled at its real source: the economy. If transportation and industry are what's causing carbon emissions, then it's only obvious they must be shifted to non-carbon emitting paradigms through innovation and roundabout forced implementation. Taxes, incentives, and legislation. It's just so simple. Of course, there'd be growing pains. This would increase costs of living. But that's okay. Because he can afford it. Most importantly, it means he can feel good about himself, for in advocating this course of action (but without actually taking action; that is not his responsibility, after all) he has contributed to the real solution, and without compromising his core values. Truly, this is the enlightened mind that through colossal willpower and sheer intellectual fortitude, keeps this thread from completely veering off into fantasy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 00:11
|
|
|
Your psychoanalysis is very poor. As I expected, you're much too stupid for this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 00:13
|
|
|
It's always great when people in this thread accuse me, a person living well below the poverty line with no car or AC, of being a rich rear end in a top hat. But even better when those same people later post about their tropical vacations and how devastated they are about how much worse the coral reefs are compared to last year.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 00:16
|
|
|
I actually meant to quote oocc's post below my reply to yours but lol this works too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 00:19
|
|
|
Our most vulnerable citizens will take the hit of global political destabilization the hardest That's cruel, so the indicator canaries are absolutely important to pay attention to. They help this issue become concrete and visibly real in our society so maybe we'll do something about it
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 00:20
|
|
|
There's a reason silent spring was so effective. Visibility and clarity is the name of the game, whether we're talking about improving civil rights, tackling poverty, or unfucking our energy infrastructure
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 00:23
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:brb let me bike 12 miles to work in 100 degree weather I just built an electric bicycle for 500 EUR that can do that trip in 30min, charging it is so cheap it's basically free
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 00:45
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Excellent. I think I've got everything now. I mean, this seems exactly right. Except you are saying it all sarcastic for some reason. Pollution is an actual physical problem, it's not some abstract moral thing. There is a number of tons of carbon released and a presented solution objectively does or doesn't reduce that number. We have real life examples of real life first world countries that produce less pollution with solutions that can be implemented here and other places. And many of them are phenomenally successful compared to america and none of them involve any sort of moral self denial of wants and needs. Like it seems more important to you that the right people suffer for their sins than it matters if the suffering actually fixes anything. It sounds like you'd be happier if people stopped having things they like if they refuse to repent than it sounds like you'd be if someone found out a way to give them more of the things they like at reduced carbon cost.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 02:01
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:<nails it> Owlofcreamcheese posted:I mean, this seems exactly right. Except you are saying it all sarcastic for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 02:55
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:There's a reason silent spring was so effective.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 03:47
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I mean, this seems exactly right. Except you are saying it all sarcastic for some reason. Wait a minute, are you implying that CO2 is "pollution"? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 08:41
|
|
|
lol @ trying to start a dumb semantics argument
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 11:28
|
|
|
OhYeah posted:Wait a minute, are you implying that CO2 is "pollution"? Skip the questions and just say whatever dumb right wing talking point you are leading to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 13:01
|
|
|
I think that using correct terminology is a good start to having a discussion that is based on reality and not hysteria. Lumping the subject of overall pollution levels together with CO2 in the atmosphere is disingenuous at best.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 13:31
|
|
|
the dose makes the poison
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 13:37
|
|
|
OhYeah posted:I think that using correct terminology is a good start to having a discussion that is based on reality and not hysteria. Lumping the subject of overall pollution levels together with CO2 in the atmosphere is disingenuous at best. lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 13:42
|
|
|
OhYeah posted:I think that using correct terminology is a good start to having a discussion that is based on reality and not hysteria. Lumping the subject of overall pollution levels together with CO2 in the atmosphere is disingenuous at best. No that is really stupid and there is no other examples of people declaring things "Not Pollution" based on something being naturally occurring or natural. If someone dumped waste salt into a salt sea to the point it was changing the sea's environment literally everyone would call the factory doing it polluting, even if the sea started with salt already in it and everything in the sea needed salt to live.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 14:01
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:No that is really stupid and there is no other examples of people declaring things "Not Pollution" based on something being naturally occurring or natural. That is true. How much do we need to increase atmospheric CO2 until it becomes acutely toxic to humans? Around 150 times. No, not by 150%, 150 times (around 60-70k ppm). Considering the highest it has been in the last 500 million years is around 7000 ppm, I'm not really that worried.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 14:55
|
|
|
OhYeah posted:That is true. How much do we need to increase atmospheric CO2 until it becomes acutely toxic to humans? Around 150 times. No, not by 150%, 150 times (around 60-70k ppm). Considering the highest it has been in the last 500 million years is around 7000 ppm, I'm not really that worried. Yeah, but that is an extremely stupid argument using a definition of pollution that you would never apply to anything else that you are applying to this to make some dumb bad faith argument. There is plenty of pollution that is not acutely toxic but has some negative effect and is easily labeled pollution.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 15:12
|
|
|
Run up on you (but, like, physically run due to carbon logistic chains) and beat you with a carbon sequestered brick with the energy of a thousand turnips. Real Ecologist hours
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 15:45
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:In what way are people in france "impoverished"?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 16:18
|
|
|
OhYeah posted:That is true. How much do we need to increase atmospheric CO2 until it becomes acutely toxic to humans? Around 150 times. No, not by 150%, 150 times (around 60-70k ppm). Considering the highest it has been in the last 500 million years is around 7000 ppm, I'm not really that worried. Humans also aren't the only living creatures on the planet, oddly enough. A non-toxic effect of increased CO2 concentrations for grain crops is that they seed less and grow more, decreasing crop yields. e: Incidentally, there's not a single "talking point" you've attempted to raise that isn't answered here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php, so gently caress off and come back when you've got an issue you can't answer yourself with google. Hello Sailor fucked around with this message at 16:34 on Jul 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 16:27
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:I don't know where these dsa-rose gang tags come from but how the gently caress is this suburban republican sporting one? Not sure what part of that struck you as republican but you're welcome to go through my proposed ideas and say which ones. As far as I'm concerned the notion that individual lifestyle choice can change the way our society functions is a right-wing libertarian idea that a lot of centrists have embraced because they aren't or wouldn't be willing to give up their upper middle class lifestyle in the burbs to make the changes that are actually necessary to have an impact on global warming. Or by privileged folk who want to give themselves a few pats on the back and think they're so intelligent for making the right choice. The real fact of living here in the US is if you can make the choice to not own a car, to afford a condo that can fit a family in an urban area, and to eat a diet that entirely cuts out meat you are privileged. If got to choose where you live you are privileged, the rest of us live where we can afford to pay rent or a mortgage and the reality is that the majority of those places where you can afford that poo poo probably also don't have a reasonable public transportation system. For example in my state, WA, the government has pretty massive incentives for moving OUT of urban centers in the form house buying programs for people who make under certain thresholds. That isn't even counting the fact that the cost of living in the urban centers along I-5 is skyrocketing to the point where people are being priced out of where they live even in the smaller towns south of the seattle-tacoma area. Doorknob Slobber fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Jul 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 16:37
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:There's a reason silent spring was so effective. Visibility and clarity is the name of the game, whether we're talking about improving civil rights, tackling poverty, or unfucking our energy infrastructure
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 20:56
|
|
|
Not having a family, living in a tiny unheated apartment, and not having a car or enough money for airfare should require very little sacrifice for most goons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 21:51
|
|
|
Defining a pollutant is a lot like defining a weed or a pest: there is no objective definition and it mostly comes down to "we don't like it". The EPA defines CO2 as a pollutant, (or at least did before Trump came in), and I don't really see a reason to argue about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 22:28
|
|
|
porfiria posted:Not having a family, living in a tiny unheated apartment, and not having a car or enough money for airfare should require very little sacrifice for most goons. Written while sipping a drink with a plastic straw.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 22:31
|
|
|
twodot posted:Follow up: Do you think forcing people to pay a cost for a thing they don't want impoverishes them? Are you trying to pull "taxation is theft"? Clearly part of public infrastructure requires building it good. That applies to car infrastructure as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 23:26
|
|
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:Not sure what part of that struck you as republican but you're welcome to go through my proposed ideas and say which ones. As far as I'm concerned the notion that individual lifestyle choice can change the way our society functions is a right-wing libertarian idea that a lot of centrists have embraced because they aren't or wouldn't be willing to give up their upper middle class lifestyle in the burbs to make the changes that are actually necessary to have an impact on global warming. Or by privileged folk who want to give themselves a few pats on the back and think they're so intelligent for making the right choice. - a republican Doorknob Slobber posted:The real fact of living here in the US is if you can make the choice to not own a car, to afford a condo that can fit a family in an urban area, and to eat a diet that entirely cuts out meat you are privileged. If got to choose where you live you are privileged, the rest of us live where we can afford to pay rent or a mortgage and the reality is that the majority of those places where you can afford that poo poo probably also don't have a reasonable public transportation system. StabbinHobo posted:Saying "it would cost money" to economically account for something that is currently an un-priced externality is like one of the most amazingly dumb thank-you-captain-obvious/no-poo poo-sherlock takes you can possibly have.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 00:50
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:dons fedora, strokes neckbeard, 'clearly you see in order to solve climate change all you have to do is not have children and thats why im still a virgin'
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 02:10
|
|
|
thats the other way we can tell you're a republican me: "have one less child than you otherwise would have" you, a triggered reactionary: UR A VIRGIN its ok you're like guy number one million who's reaction to the info that they're the baddie is to go into a hyper defensive temper tantrum, its normal, the question is will you cry it out and then get to work? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 02:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 19:43 |
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:thats the other way we can tell you're a republican To be fair, if I wish to reduce the global child population by one below what I would normally contribute, it would involve activities that are traditionally frowned upon by law enforcement.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 02:44
|
|
