-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is feminism off track?
- Thread starter icehorse
- Start date
@Revoltingest
This article claims that a new study predicts that GW won't - after all - negatively impact Europe's climate. But the key point here is that this study enters into a credible debate. Seems like if this is a credible debate, the stakes are such that we ought to be on the safe side... ah what the heck, let's gamble western Europe whole stock, wheeeeeeeee!
https://phys.org/news/2016-07-gulf-stream-slowdown-europe-worst.html
This article claims that a new study predicts that GW won't - after all - negatively impact Europe's climate. But the key point here is that this study enters into a credible debate. Seems like if this is a credible debate, the stakes are such that we ought to be on the safe side... ah what the heck, let's gamble western Europe whole stock, wheeeeeeeee!
https://phys.org/news/2016-07-gulf-stream-slowdown-europe-worst.html
A lot of feminists own property in Florida.I've noticed that - in the heat of debate - we've strayed just a tad from the OP
Although there is a sort of meta-topic here which is "are we focusing on the correct problems?"
Wonderful laugh earlier, thanks.
But do you really think this argument from earlier is valid?
The claim about fuel usage, yes.
The claim about his hypocrisy & damage to efforts to fight AGW, yes.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Then you are clearly an ism
Yet another interesting (philosophical?), debate we could have. I'm guessing that when the Pres (any Pres), travels, he needs the whole darned airplane - he can't fly coach with citizens. So I understand your fuel usage numbers.
The (philosophical?) part is whether ANY pres is just gonna use more fuel than Joe Citizen, and it's a necessary side-effect of the job? We need ANY pres to be as well rested as possible, as mentally healthy (ouch does THAT ever sting these days), as possible.
This gets us to a sort of slippery slope, but I think we can come up with some sort of balance point, some calculation to determine what's a necessary expenditure of fuel (for anyone), and what's excessive.
As I see it, because of the exorbitant cost, environmental damage, & inconvenience to locals,
the Prez should accept some loss of recreational travel freedom as part of the job. It only lasts
4 years....8 if he's really lucky. The "staycation" or a trip to Camp David should suffice.
You've won me over!
