Is feminism off track?

[icehorse]

To some extent, yes.

Oh come on... we've been mean to the poor cuddly - wuddly politicians???

If one behaves badly, one is despised, & loses credibility for the entire side.

Oh please, please, please, reveal to us the official manual for how to get politicians to stop pillaging the planet, I'm all queued up! I have to say I'm a bit peeved that you've been keeping this from us!

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh come on... we've been mean to the poor cuddly - wuddly politicians???

I'm not concerned because of compassion for them,
but rather about the negative effect of heaping abuse.

Oh please, please, please, reveal to us the official manual for how to get politicians to stop pillaging the planet, I'm all queued up! I have to say I'm a bit peeved that you've been keeping this from us!

Advocate, discuss, argue, vote, demonstrate, donate & even run for office.
Earn respect for a reasoned argument.
That's what the manual says.

 

[icehorse]

I'm not concerned because of compassion for them,
but rather about the negative effect of heaping abuse.

Advocate, discuss, argue, vote, demonstrate, donate & even run for office.
Earn respect for a reasoned argument.
That's what the manual says.

How's that working out for the planet?

Again, one on one, I'm with you! But these guys are the worst sort of crooks.

 

[Revoltingest]

How's that working out for the planet?

It's still here.

Again, one on one, I'm with you! But these guys are the worst sort of crooks.

So if the problem isn't cured immediately by civil discourse,
the only solution left is to become abusive?
Well, you've been trying that here.
Has it worked for the planet yet?

 

[icehorse]

So if the problem isn't cured immediately by civil discourse,
the only solution left is to become abusive?

In your opinion, is there any behavior pattern a person can embody that would merit a strong response? (I don't think calling planet pillagers Hitler-esque is abusive BTW).

If you come home night after night to find your neighbor assaulting your family, might you stoop to being abusive? Or would you stick with civil discourse?

 

[Revoltingest]

In your opinion, is there any behavior pattern a person can embody that would merit a strong response? (I don't think calling planet pillagers Hitler-esque is abusive BTW).

Yes, I know where you stand on the issue.
I just think you harm your own cause...making'm look crazy.

If you come home night after night to find your neighbor assaulting your family, might you stoop to being abusive? Or would you stick with civil discourse?

I don't think differing views on AGW rise to the level of violent assault.

By your reasoning though, I should be viciously insulting all the socialists,
Democrats, Republicans, communists, Greens, moderates, conservatives, etc.
And regarding politicians, I should be calling non-Libertarians "Hitler!".
That's the best way to make'm all change their ways, & agree with me, right?

 

[icehorse]

I don't think differing views on AGW rise to the level of violent assault

Apart from nuclear war, I can't think of many things more consequential than global warming.

So it seems you're pushing a false equivalency here?

 

[Revoltingest]

Apart from nuclear war, I can't think of many things more consequential than global warming.

So it seems you're pushing a false equivalency here?

Actually, you are the one claim AGW denial is like Hitler & nuclear war.
And I've been charitable in avoiding the "false equivalency" charge.
(Am I the only poster here who knows how to correctly use it?)

Given a choice, I'll take GW over nuclear war any day.

 

[icehorse]

And I've been charitable in avoiding the "false equivalency" charge.

Wait, I thought you were lumping GW in with greens vs. moderates? Did I misunderstand? I thought you were saying that if I'm abusive towards big oil, it's the same as being abusive towards greens? No?

 

[Revoltingest]

Wait, I thought you were lumping GW in with greens vs. moderates?

GW is "global warming", which is a phenomenon in the physical world.
"Greens" & "moderates" are political orientations.

Did I misunderstand?

Yes....they're not the same thing.

I thought you were saying that if I'm abusive towards big oil, it's the same as being abusive towards greens? No?

No.
I'm saying that if you believe in being abusive to those who pursue things believed wrong,
then it would mean I should be abusive towards my political foes....
....ya pastry eat'n, tomato polish'n, panty folder!

 

[icehorse]

GW is "global warming", which is a phenomenon in the physical world.
"Greens" & "moderates" are political orientations.

It appears that you're trying to obfuscate or misquote me here?

No.
I'm saying that if you believe in being abusive to those who pursue things believed wrong,
then it would mean I should be abusive towards my political foes

Not all wrongs are equally consequential. This is why I'm thinking that you are making a false equivalency here. I'm saying that climate change deniers are in a very different category than people we might disagree with politically. I don't think we should lump them together, I believe that that would be a false equivalency. Not all disagreements have equal import.

 

[Revoltingest]

It appears that you're trying to obfuscate or misquote me here?

No.

Not all wrongs are equally consequential.

I agree.
For you to equate AGW denial with Nazis is absurd.
Moreover, it's counter-productive.

Don't make me bring out the book!

 

[icehorse]

For you to equate AGW denial with Nazis is absurd.

Well depending on whether you want to look 20 years or 50 years into the future, GW will displace 10s of millions and then 100 of millions of people from their homes. And LOTS of the world's major cities will be displaced. And of course not only homes, but farmland...

How cataclysmic does an event have to be for it to be equated with the holocaust? This might well be the biggest "sin of in-action" ever perpetrated.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well depending on whether you want to look 20 years or 50 years into the future, GW will displace 10s of millions and then 100 of millions of people from their homes. And LOTS of the world's major cities will be displaced. And of course not only homes, but farmland...

How cataclysmic does an event have to be for it to be equated with the holocaust? This might well be the biggest "sin of in-action" ever perpetrated.

I agree it's worth taking evidenced based measures for the reasons you state.
That's not our area of disagreement.

 

[icehorse]

I agree it's worth taking evidenced based measures for the reasons you state.
That's not our area of disagreement.

It's not clear to me that most folks understand the implications of GW. If they did, we might see the kinds of (appropriate), women's marches we saw last week.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's not clear to me that most folks understand the implications of GW. If they did, we might see the kinds of (appropriate), women's marches we saw last week.

Even believers typically don't take action.
It just doesn't hit home because consequences are theoretical & delayed.
Look at Obama.....
His typical Hawaii vacationfor a family of 4 burned 100,000 gallons of jet fuel.
That's 25,000 gallons burned per person, & dumped straight into the atmosphere.
Other than this poster, I saw no concern whatsoever for it.
This makes him like.....well....you know.

 

[icehorse]

Even believers typically don't take action.
It just doesn't hit home because consequences are theoretical & delayed.
Look at Obama.....
His typical Hawaii vacationfor a family of 4 burned 100,000 gallons of jet fuel.
That's 25,000 gallons burned per person, & dumped straight into the atmosphere.
Other than this poster, I saw no concern whatsoever for it.
This makes him like.....well....you know.

For the sake of discussion, let's say everything you just said is true...

There are a few "leaders" in politics and commerce who are trying to put blinders on the rest of us. Several years ago people found out that Wall street bankers were really nefarious and we got the "occupy" movement. We just had amazing women's marches. How do we get AGW marches going? So far your response boils down to "it's hard". I can also agree on that, but it's also, IMHO, urgent!!

 

[Revoltingest]

For the sake of discussion, let's say everything you just said is true...

I did the calculations.

There are a few "leaders" in politics and commerce who are trying to put blinders on the rest of us. Several years ago people found out that Wall street bankers were really nefarious and we got the "occupy" movement. We just had amazing women's marches. How do we get AGW marches going? So far your response boils down to "it's hard". I can also agree on that, but it's also, IMHO, urgent!!

I called Obama to task.
Few cared.
And lefties even defended his actions.
Perhaps if the much hated Trump does the same, they'll finally feeling the calling.

 

[icehorse]

I did the calculations.

I called Obama to task.
Few cared.
And lefties even defended his actions.
Perhaps if the much hated Trump does the same, they'll finally feeling the calling.

A philosophical friend of mine recently commented that perhaps a sea level rise that wipes out a hundred million homes and puts a big "ding" in humanity's population explosion is - if you take a REALLY LONG view - a blessing. Such an orientation might be an interesting thread in the philosophy forum (hmmm..), but I'm working from the premise that GW is a BAD thing. There are some plausible discussions of the REALLY BAD things that will happen to most of western Europe when Greenland's glaciers melt into the gulf stream and cool it down. This could well make the UK and France's climates a lot like Siberia.

So I have no issue saying that Obama ought to be included in the list of politicians who should be doing more about this. But perhaps the deniers ought to be more reviled than the do-littles? That said, it could well be that EVERY current politician who doesn't make GW a top priority will be reviled in the history books.

 

[Revoltingest]

There are some plausible discussions of the REALLY BAD things that will happen to most of western Europe when Greenland's glaciers melt into the gulf stream and cool it down. This could well make the UK and France's climates a lot like Siberia.

Global warming will cause subarctic conditions in Europe?
I don't believe climate models are mature enuf to predict that.
But sea level rise, & the consequent loss of habitable land is reliable.

Obama might be the biggest enemy of GW mitigation, since he claimed
it was so serious while being so personally irresponsible about it.
AGW advocates have a serious credibility problem with deniers, & anyone
who exacerbates it by speaking with forked tongue is the enemy.