Matt Walsh: Climate alarmists, I can’t take you seriously until you start living like the Amish

Christians, I can’t take you seriously until you start living like Jesus said to.

I can only assume that you don’t believe it because your actions do not at all resemble what one would expect from someone who does believe this sort of thing. With very rare exceptions, you continue living just like the rest of us. Maybe you give some change to a homeless guy, maybe you said a prayer before bed last night, but for the most part you are just another doomed sinner condemned to hell for all eternity. Why? How? You think your immortal soul hangs in the balance, for God’s sake. What are you doing sitting on your couch watching TV like the rest of us? Why haven’t you sold all your possessions and given the money to the poor? Why haven’t you left behind your houses & brothers & sisters & fathers & mothers & children for Jesus’ sake? Why aren’t you doing… anything?

I can only imagine how I would react if I actually believed that the damnation of my soul was imminent, and my lifestyle was directly contributing to it.

A point of order; even if we all lived exactly like Christ, we’d still be doomed sinners. Unless we ask for grace with sincere humility. There’s no way to know for certain if it will be granted, though. Hence… Faith.

OTOH, because Grace, living like Christ is not required. Only that we do our level best to follow the precepts and teachings. We’re going to fail - that’s a given.

Please, please let’s go off topic. Insults are a great way to go.

It certainly would smell of something. :dubious:

BTW, did we settle whether this is Rutgers.troll or DerekMichaels.troll?

Maybe make some short jokes and see who bites?

Hey, Trolly McTrollFace!

You’re so SHORT that you can bungee jump off a curb!

You are SO short you that when you pull your socks up you can’t see!

I’d go on, but I’m tired of stopping to your level.

Sure they are. If they live in a home, they are no longer homeless.

Cute. :rolleyes:
Also, wrong.
Because some of them - quite a few, in fact - Won’t. Go. So, what do you propose, and how do you propose to do it - Involuntary commitment? Warehouses for the Homeless? And how do you propose to deal with those that are mentally ill, and would be destructive and/or disruptive in any facility intended for people without mental illnesses?

I propose that anyone who feels strongly about the homelessness issue should be willing to take in a homeless person who WANTS a place to live but can’t get one for some reason.

Similarly, those who feel strong about climate change should alter their behaviors to those that have the least impact on the environment.

Similarly to almost every thing that people feel strongly about. If you are not personally doing all you can, why the hell would I listen to you and change MY behavior? I wouldn’t.

What “everybody else” does is irrelevant, since those people will be able to say they’ve done everything they PERSONALLY can in order to alleviate the issue.

You know, this argument has been demolished in this thread already. Thoroughly.

The logistical illogic alone should be enough to dissuade any thoughtful person - Even a shallow thinker should be able to figure it out. It’s clear you’ve given this no rational thought at all.

I’m not sure what logistical issues you think may arise. You require a significant logistical trail to do anything related to helping the homeless or reduce your personal impact on climate change?

That’s like saying that slaves have no business wanting to be free so long as they continue to eat the master’s food, live in the master’s shack, and wear the master’s rags.

In other words, it’s incredibly fucking stupid.

Doing what you have to do to get by in the world that is now is not inconsistent with wanting to cause a better world to be in the future.

I’ll point out just one to you - that’s all it takes to invalidate your claim (or make you a towering asshole, if you stick to your guns - yes, it’s a trap. One you laid yourself).

You said:

So - How about those whom do not control their residence - minors, under a lease that constrains who may reside there, folks who live in dormitories, etc? Are they now hypocrites? What about people whom are of constrained means, even when they do control the number of residents under their shelter? Small appartments? Large number of residents already in place? Poor income? Are they now voiceless on the issue?

Make up your mind - either you were grossly simplistic, even dismissive, or you’re a towering jackass. Your call.
Edit:
Same goes for the simplistic stance on Climate Advocacy.

Sorry, I cannot be trapped by my own reasoning. Since it is well-reasoned and all.

I can break them all down for you:

Minors: Can persuade their parents to provide room and board for a homeless person; Can donate their allowance to homeless shelters since they cannot make the decision to allow a homeless person into their home

Under a lease that constrains who may reside their: Move to a different place after the lease expires; Let a homeless person have room and board in spite of the lease, since helping a human being is more important that some paperwork.

Folks who live in dormitories: Finish college and get a job so you have more money to help the homeless; Pool money with other like-minded dormitory residents and get a house that has an extra room that you can give to a homeless person.

People whom are of constrained means: work on improving your life instead of complaining uselessly on a message board about the homeless problem. Once you are in a better situation, help provide room and board to a homeless person

People in small apartments: Studio apartment? Gets a pass; donate more to a shelter

People with poor income: Work on improving your income; Use the extra income to help those less fortunate than you; save your extra income until you can afford a better place; Give room and board to a homeless person in your new place.

Any other scenarios you’d like me to run down?

I’d honestly forgotten those were two different people. The hamper full of old socks is starting to blur together by this point.

On behalf of all the current and former (such as myself) homeless people: go fuck a cactus.

This seems a strange view to take. Would you care to elaborate?

Sure: you sound like the current resident of the White House. There are no simple answers for the over 500,000 homeless in the US and those are just the ones HUD managed to count.

I fail to see what lack of simple answers for the entirety of the homeless problem has to do with what YOU personally can do to help a homeless person.

Homeless people aside, even if every single person who’s concerned about climate change were hopelessly hypocritical in their personal behavior, that would say more about human nature than it does about climate change.

Facts are facts and flawed human nature doesn’t change that.

[quote=“bobot, post:5, topic:785702”]

Amish Butter:

  1. Churn butter.
[/QUOTE]

Presumably step one would begin “Milk cows.”

***NOW ***you apply reasoning. Disjoint, incoherent,and based upon glib assumptions, but still an improvement on before. A tiny bit.

Not going to follow any further down this road - you’re too dim. Correcting your delusions is impossible, absent you remove your head from wherever it’s inserted, and insulting you is like sandblasting a soupcracker: only briefly fun, and completely effortless.

Hey, if you want to try to insult an anonymous message board poster in order to assuage your guilt for doing nothing to help the homeless population except complain about it on a message board, more power to you! Hope you have fun :slight_smile: