|
down with slavery posted:
Most green party people I know, tend to put alot more importance in social issues, idiocy about vaccines, and alternative energy then helping the poor. Also as the green party says being all big about killing nuclear energy. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Jun 1, 2014 |
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 01:49 |
|
|
down with slavery posted:
Hmmm, nope, literally saving people from death and chronic diseases does in fact do more good then getting one minor political functionary in office. down with slavery posted:I did write exactly what I wanted to say. you were the one who changed those words into "you just claimed all charity is bad and prevents change" when I said no such thing. Those might be ways of saying charity is "bad" (note that this is walking back from what you said previously) but either way they definitely don't imply the words you're putting in my mouth. So you do hate charity then. Ok. I'm not calling you a secret operative, I just remember what you posted more than 30 seconds ago, which you apparently don't. No, every political party does not degenerate into a bunch of weirdos who want to bring back preventable disease because of faked autism studies from a British fraudster, or people who want to ban wind mills because they disrupt energy fields. down with slavery posted:
Their platform is poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
the goal of social change is to you know, not have to have people dependent on charities and poo poo. But in the meantime things really are pretty lovely and by saying "charity does more harm than good" you are saying that the people who's suffering has been eased by charity is less important than dumping some money into political campaigns. That sounds terribly uncompassionate. Like, charity literally saves lives. You can be aware of the fact that charity is not the only way to help the disadvantaged and that it can cause people to believe that they're doing enough by donating their time and money to a charity and that political change is not needed. But you are going out quite a bit further on that rhetorical limb and I'm afraid it isn't going to bear much weight.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
Hmm organic agriculture and anti-nuclear power, truly a compelling and realistic platform.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
The funniest part of the Green Party platform with regard to energy is that they want to remove Coal (correct) and Nuclear (absolutely wrong)... but they don't proclaim opposition to Natural Gas power plants.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
rscott posted:the goal of social change is to you know, not have to have people dependent on charities and poo poo. But in the meantime things really are pretty lovely ... be aware of the fact that charity is not the only way to help the disadvantaged and that it can cause people to believe that they're doing enough by donating their time and money to a charity and that political change is not needed. Everyone needs to stop feeding the fish though. The thread is getting murky with fish poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 18:44
|
|
rscott posted:the goal of social change is to you know, not have to have people dependent on charities and poo poo. But in the meantime things really are pretty lovely and by saying "charity does more harm than good" you are saying that the people who's suffering has been eased by charity is less important than dumping some money into political campaigns. That sounds terribly uncompassionate. Like, charity literally saves lives. You can be aware of the fact that charity is not the only way to help the disadvantaged and that it can cause people to believe that they're doing enough by donating their time and money to a charity and that political change is not needed. But you are going out quite a bit further on that rhetorical limb and I'm afraid it isn't going to bear much weight. Do you know what "more harm than good means". I don't understand why everyone takes this statement as to mean charity is a universally bad thing. "more harm than good" does in fact imply that good is being done and that it is not bad. I am not saying charity is a complete evil, only that the societal institution does not exist to change society for the better, but to ensure that those strewn aside by the broken economic systems don't rise up and kill the people benefiting from that economic system. That doesn't make it an evil thing, it's just the purpose of the societal institution. Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Hmm organic agriculture and anti-nuclear power, truly a compelling and realistic platform. I challenge you to find a political party with a platform that long where you can't find problems. Beyond that, there are other leftist third parties outside of the Greens. http://www.justicepartyusa.org/issues might float your boat a bit better, does mine down with slavery fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:I challenge you to find a political party with a platform that long where you can't find problems. The Democratic Party platform is objectively better than the Green Party platform due to not vowing to actively harm the environment and global health. This is because the Green Party platform is really loving awful, not because the Democratic Party platform is good. down with slavery posted:Do you know what "more harm than good means". It literally means "bad". When a normal rational human being says it, they mean that the thing is bad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 18:45
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The Democratic Party platform is objectively better than the Green Party platform due to not vowing to actively harm the environment and global health. http://www.democrats.org/issues/energy_independence quote:Expanded domestic oil production by speeding up the leasing process Whoops! Nintendo Kid posted:It literally means "bad". When a normal rational human being says it, they mean that the thing is bad. Nope, it means that there is both a good and a bad side, one of which is the more important or more primary effect. So in this case, people being helped is a good thing. But allowing the political system to become entrenched and giving those who would otherwise see the need for change an outlet to absolve themselves of their responsibility to make the world a better place? Way worse imo.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
This is objectively less bad than ending nuclear power and creating massive public health threats by reducing vaccinations while supporting alternative aka fake medicine, and starving the country by using magical-thinking based agriculture.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 18:49
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:This is objectively less bad than ending nuclear power and creating massive public health threats by reducing vaccinations and starving the country by using magical-thinking based agriculture. That's fine, you said quote:The Democratic Party platform is objectively better than the Green Party platform due to not vowing to actively harm the environment To which I found a direct counter-example. If we're getting in to "less bad", well, now that's a whole new line of discussion. Pretty sure most Democrats don't want to go there. Honestly thought, the Democratic platform is a great example of a non-platform. Here's the democrats position on "The Environment": quote:From protecting endangered species to restoring our ecosystems and investing in clean-energy solutions, the Obama administration and Democrats are committed to working to address our biggest environmental challenges. This is literally the entire platform.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:That's fine, you said You did not find a direct counter example though. Expanding domestic oil production is not bad (it primarily involves reactivating mothballed areas). Sorry you can't think. down with slavery posted:Honestly thought, the Democratic platform is a great example of a non-platform. Here's the democrats position on "The Environment": A non-platform is better than an actively harmful platform aka the Greens. The Greens despite claiming to be environmentalists supoport measures that would grossly damage the enviroment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 18:51
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Expanding domestic oil production is not bad (it primarily involves reactivating mothballed areas). Didn't say it was, said it actively hurts the environment, which it does. Here's a spoiler alert for you: you aint getting energy unless you're hurting the environment, pinning "actively vows to hurt the environment" as a negative on a political party, well, that's just dumb Nintendo Kid posted:A non-platform is better than an actively harmful platform aka the Greens. The Greens despite claiming to be environmentalists supoport measures that would grossly damage the enviroment. The kicker being that the non-platform (ie status quo) is so much horrifically worse that if they even put the text on to the page they know it would be a huge backlash. You see their lack of ability to voice their platform as a plus (lol) whereas I see it for what it is, avoiding telling the truth because their base would basically revolt.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Didn't say it was, said it actively hurts the environment, which it does. It doesn't. down with slavery posted:Here's a spoiler alert for you: you aint getting energy unless you're hurting the environment Congratulations on admitting to having no understanding! down with slavery posted:The kicker being that the non-platform (ie status quo) is so much horrifically worse that if they even put the text on to the page they know it would be a huge backlash. You see their lack of ability to voice their platform as a plus (lol) whereas I see it for what it is, avoiding telling the truth because their base would basically revolt. The conspiracy theorist trifecta here!
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
more harm than good means a thing you should not do, because on the balance, you know it's doing more harm than good. So it's bad. And you shouldn't do it. That is what that phrase means to most people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 18:55
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Congratulations on admitting to having no understanding! Alright, let's go down this rabbit hole. I guess you'd like to start by defining "hurts the environment"? rscott posted:more harm than good means a thing you should not do, because on the balance, you know it's doing more harm than good. So it's bad. And you shouldn't do it. That is what that phrase means to most people. Yes, and do you not agree that you shouldn't? Would you not tell Bill Gates there are better ways to spend billions if he asked you?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
rscott posted:more harm than good means a thing you should not do, because on the balance, you know it's doing more harm than good. So it's bad. And you shouldn't do it. That is what that phrase means to most people. An example of more harm than good: DWS attempting to evangelize his brand of leftism. down with slavery posted:Alright, let's go down this rabbit hole. I guess you'd like to start by defining "hurts the environment"? Sorry you made the claim first, you have to define it!
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 18:56
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Sorry you made the claim first, you have to define it! Wrong as usual (you must have some of the worst reading comprehension in D&D) Nintendo Kid posted:The Democratic Party platform is objectively better than the Green Party platform due to not vowing to actively harm the environment So what is "actively harming the environment" Nintendo Kid?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Wrong as usual (you must have some of the worst reading comprehension in D&D) Nope, you're wrong, you still haven't shown where getting any energy ever harms the enviroment. That's because it's impossible. Implementing the Green Party Platform is however actively harmful, they want to end the cleanest most reliable source of electrical power on the planet and they also don't seem to have any problem with using natural gas en mass. They also demand the introduction of magical-thinking farming which requires vastly more land and resources for the same output.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 19:03
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Nope, you're wrong, you still haven't shown where getting any energy ever harms the enviroment. That's because it's impossible. So your issue is with that statement? Look, that's more of a philisophical statement than anything. My point is that the Democratic policies are just as, if not more so, environmentally dangerous than the Greens. It doesn't really matter though because "the Green Party" doesn't speak for the American left. http://www.justicepartyusa.org/platform do this one next Also, if we ended Coal and Nuclear simultaneously it would be "does more good than harm"  But yes, I agree that Nuclear power should be a part of any energy future in America.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:So your issue is with that statement? Look, that's more of a philisophical statement than anything. That's a fancy way of saying "it's a false statement", sure. down with slavery posted:My point is that the Democratic policies are just as, if not more so, environmentally dangerous than the Greens. Your point is wrong. down with slavery posted:It doesn't really matter though because "the Green Party" doesn't speak for the American left. http://www.justicepartyusa.org/platform do this one next I don't give a poo poo about whoever that is, my point has specifically been that the Green Party is an awful party and it's good they'll never hold power. down with slavery posted:
It most certainly wouldn't, the only viable thing in that event would be massive growth of Natural Gas power, which would put out far more pollution than the nuclear plants did while only barely reducing the pollution out of the coal plants replaced. The Green party platform by the way explicitly says nothing about ending or even curtailing natural gas electricity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 19:09
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:That's a fancy way of saying "it's a false statement", sure. No, it's a way of saying "you can't even comprehend basic logic, not going to go into the depths of that one" quote:Your point is wrong. deepwaterhorizon.jpg quote:I don't give a poo poo about whoever that is, my point has specifically been that the Green Party is an awful party and it's good they'll never hold power. Ok? So is the GOP, the Democrats, except that they do hold power
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:No, it's a way of saying "you can't even comprehend basic logic, not going to go into the depths of that one" So again it's another way for you to try to pretend your objectively false statement is totally still true, your philosophical abilities are matched only by Ayn Rand. Has nothing to do with anything you've said. Nah the democrats are mediocre.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 19:12
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:So again it's another way for you to try to pretend your objectively false statement is totally still true, your philosophical abilities are matched only by Ayn Rand. No, it's just that most of our energy generation methods involve destruction of the environment, if for nothing else than to obtain the raw materials required to create the devices themselves (in the case of solar, nuclear, wind and tidal, this it), the fuel (fossil fuel extraction and some forms of uranium extraction). That's ignoring the problem of emissions, which is a factor in any type of carbon-burning fuel source. Feel free to find some weird fringe example I didn't think of but for the most part, energy generation and environmental destruction go hand in hand. quote:Has nothing to do with anything you've said. Democrats approved/rushed it. Led to environmental damage. Could have easily been prevented by responsible management of the environment. quote:Nah the democrats are mediocre. I guess if you're a rich white male.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:No, it's just that most of our energy generation methods involve destruction of the environment, if for nothing else than to obtain the raw materials required to create the devices themselves (in the case of solar, nuclear, wind and tidal, this it), the fuel (fossil fuel extraction and some forms of uranium extraction). That's ignoring the problem of emissions, which is a factor in any type of carbon-burning fuel source. This isn't true. Deepwater Horizon has its approvals done during the time Bush was in the White House and Republicans were in control of Congress, so this is a hillarious stretch. This is very hilarious coming out of you, though I guess it's nice of you to call trans women males
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 19:21
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:This isn't true. So the MMR didn't judge it as safe multiple times while the Democrats had complete control of the political structure? Allowing a company with a record as poor as BP's to continue to operate in the Gulf while failing to adequately regulate the industry... yeah I'm going to go ahead and say that was a bipartisan effort. quote:This is very hilarious coming out of you, though I guess it's nice of you to call trans women males The important part was rich. White and male were just for you  Thanks for the buzzfeed link by the way, kinda wondered where you got your news from.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:So the MMR didn't judge it as safe multiple times while the Democrats had complete control of the political structure? Allowing a company with a record as poor as BP's to continue to operate in the Gulf while failing to adequately regulate the industry... yeah I'm going to go ahead and say that was a bipartisan effort. It is standard practice to assume that the people who did the extensive first time inspections did it right, and not do major checkups every year. But now you've already wheeled the goalposts back from "democrats did it" to "well both of them did it" soooo. Interesting that you assume everyone who disagrees with you is male. Buzzfeed is just the first result that comes up btw.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
What a coincidence, here's Chris Hedges laying into the Green Party for holding pointless seminars and running hopeless electoral candidates rather than building grassroots support by helping their local communities through direct nonviolent action and providing basic needs and services! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8H0ty327o0&t=285s
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 19:28
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:It is standard practice to assume that the people who did the extensive first time inspections did it right, and not do major checkups every year. But now you've already wheeled the goalposts back from "democrats did it" to "well both of them did it" soooo. The distinction between the GOP and Democrats is pretty small in the grand scheme of political ideologies so forgive me for placing the blame of lax regulation and being overconfident in "the free market" at both of their feet.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:The distinction between the GOP and Democrats is pretty small in the grand scheme of political ideologies so forgive me for placing the blame of lax regulation and being overconfident in "the free market" at both of their feet. This is an interesting path to go from "Deepwater Horizon is all the Democrat's fault".
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 19:57
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:This is an interesting path to go from "Deepwater Horizon is all the Democrat's fault". Is it? I never said it was "all the Democrat's fault" (wouldn't be a Fishmech post if you didn't insist on putting words I never said into my mouth) but the reality is it's that Democrat's lax environmental policies that allowed the disaster to happen as much as it is the GOP. Either party could have prevented it, neither did.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Is it? I never said it was "all the Democrat's fault" Pray tell then what these were supposed to be?   Oh, that's you directly saying that Deepwater Horizon was the result of Democratic Party policy with no mention of anyone else! That was really easy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 20:04
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Pray tell then what these were supposed to be? No, I'm saying that the Deepwater Horizon wouldn't have happened had the Democratic Party had an environmentally responsible platform. Saying someone could have prevented something and saying they caused it are two entirely different things. I like your dark forum theme btw, very cool. It really is amazing how direct and how many times I have to repeat myself for you to understand a single statement. You're so eager to read into what I'm saying and put words there before I do. Just chill out and read the words instead of just posting with your gut. down with slavery fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:No, I'm saying that the Deepwater Horizon wouldn't have happened had the Democratic Party had an environmentally responsible platform. Which is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:What a coincidence, here's Chris Hedges laying into the Green Party for holding pointless seminars and running hopeless electoral candidates rather than building grassroots support by helping their local communities through direct nonviolent action and providing basic needs and services! All of this is what I am talking about, the left cannot have a flock if it does not meet the needs of that flock, and telling the flock what to do without providing for them, will not bring them to us.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 20:27
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Which is wrong.  Takes you 10 posts to even figure out what I'm saying and you can't even formulate a basic counter-argumentCrowsbeak posted:All of this is what I am talking about, the left cannot have a flock if it does not meet the needs of that flock, and telling the flock what to do without providing for them, will not bring them to us. I think Chris Hedges has a lot of legitimate complaints but he ignores(well, he doesn't ignore it, people who take a few lines out of an entire speech and try to use that to attack the Greens do) that there are people doing those things. The Left as a whole has groups that are focused in those areas, even if the Greens aren't one of them. Like I said, I'm more partial to other parties like the Justice party or the PSL but I think that the Greens are a much more progressive political party than 90% of the alternatives, including both the GOP and the Democrats. edit. Also, Chris Hedges voted Green in the 2012 presidential election, even if he's critical of the Greens he knows drat well it's better than voting for the boys in blue (maybe a lesson hidden in there for you guys) down with slavery fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:
You're just wording once again. "Having an environmentally responsible platform" has nothing to do with the project already being approved before they had any ability to enforce the platform, due to first not controlling either presidency or congress, and then only controlling congress. Rhesus Pieces posted:What a coincidence, here's Chris Hedges laying into the Green Party for holding pointless seminars and running hopeless electoral candidates rather than building grassroots support by helping their local communities through direct nonviolent action and providing basic needs and services! It is good that the Green Party is worthless at building support though, because their platform is largely detrimental to health and the enviroment, the two things they talk up the most.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 20:59
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You're just wording once again. "Having an environmentally responsible platform" has nothing to do with the project already being approved before they had any ability to enforce the platform, due to first not controlling either presidency or congress, and then only controlling congress. Maybe you missed it but the Deepwater horizon spill happened in 2010, which is after Obama had appointed the head of the MMS (body that regulated offshore drilling before they hosed it up so bad they had to change the name) and well into his presidency. So yes, if the Democrats had been more intent on assuring that environment regulations and safety were adhered to(let's call it environmentally responsible), Deepwater Horizon would have never happened. Period. As much as you'd like to pretend otherwise, the Democrats are just as complicit if not more so in capital's right to destroy the environment in the name of profit.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
After reading the past couple of pages I still have no idea why leftists have so much trouble forming a cohesive political movement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 01:49 |
|
|
Fojar38 posted:After reading the past couple of pages I still have no idea why leftists have so much trouble forming a cohesive political movement. It's because of Fishmech. Destroy Fishmech, and the world will be at peace.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 21:12
|
|
