Telling pro-lifers they should be killing abortionists is like telling global warming alarmists they should be blowing up coal fired power plants.
The abortion analogy to energy conservation might be telling pro-lifers that you can’t take them seriously because they won’t refrain from abortions. After all how much of a difference does one abortion make? The important thing is to change policy to affect the millions of abortions worldwide and the million or so abortions every year in the US.
How would you view a pro-lifer that procured an abortion for their teenage daughter but still advocates for an absolute ban on abortion?
I do have tap water. But it doesn’t have alcohol in it. Does yours? If so, where do you live so I can move there. I’d love free alcohol out of a tap in my kitchen.
I like Bud Lite better than Coors, so I don’t buy Coors.
Please point out a post by me that said the government should do nothing to help the homeless, and that the problem should be solved by individual action instead of government action. I’m pretty curious where I would say that, since it is not something I believe at all. I was drinking last night, so maybe I missed it.
Nope, I didn’t say that. I specifically did NOT mention anything that the government should or should not do.
I listed some things that individuals could do to help individual homeless people. And for that, I get told to go fuck a cactus. Seems strange to me for someone to take that attitude.
I am not one of those to say that people should live like the Amish if we’re to take global warming seriously. But I am one to say that I will take it as seriously as those who scream the loudest about it. Whatever effort they are making is how important I think it must be. And so far, the effort being made by extremely prolific emitters is rather lacking.
The thing is, even living like Amish wouldn’t get it done. The thing that is most lacking in the alarmism is proposals big enough to actually matter.
Hard to get so much willful ignorance (yes, willful as this was been explained many times before) in a short post, but you managed…
First, about the issue of “not making big proposals to actually matter”. Really, not enough time to begin how asinine that is, but protesting about the proposals that are big enough is the bread and butter of the lukewarmers that end up with the same solutions as the climate change deniers: to do nothing anyhow, with the main argument that it is too expensive to deal with the issue.
As for the idiotic argument from the OP (that of course you are supporting here) that is almost the same as the ones made at the time of the big stink in London.
The opposition to a clean water and a sewer system was made indeed that it would destroy the economy of the city, but even though germ theory was not accepted then there was still the coincidental association that the bad smell had a connection with cholera and other diseases related to bad water. So one of the first modern sewer and water systems was approved and the gains to the economy were not only beneficial but there was also the incalculable benefit of having a healthier population.
And yes, back then there was also the argument of the ones making the proposal to go forward to do the job themselves before being taken seriously. IIRC a few very rich Londoners had simple and small sewage systems but the problem was that since there was no connection to a big treatment system for the sewage the stuff ended in the Thames anyhow, making the problem worse. The point is that the efforts of a few were not enough at all, and the less well to do in parliament were open to the same idiotic argument of the OP, they were not “good enough” to afford their own systems. But they were smart enough to see that to solve the issue a big effort by the government was needed and **eventually **paid by all, and most of it by the rich of course that had more property and therefore more of the refuse to be treated.
Today it is clear that stupid arguments are put forward to prevent humanity to stop treating the atmosphere as a sewer.
How do you propose these people ensure a bunch of their stuff doesn’t walk out the door with the homeless they invited in?
What is needed are a few million affordable homes so those who are homeless or on the verge of being homeless can have their own place. Then they’d be stealing from themselves.
Forget the cactus, get out there and build some homes with Habitat for Humanity.
A question, then: is the problem of homelessness among veterans easier or harder to solve, or about the same level of difficulty as, homelessness in the general population?
ETA: Other than the relative sizes of the two groups, I mean.
This would be a more effective putdown if I was on this message board openly advocating that others should pay more taxes to help the homeless, or complaining that our government isn’t doing enough to combat the homeless problem.
But manson1972, I cannot do that, because you have not, as far as I can see, said such a thing.
And neither have I said that you said such a thing. (Following?)
Let’s see. What’s this thread about?
Oh yeah, it’s about this dumb suggestion that until “climate alarmists” start living like the Amish they shouldn’t expect the government to do anything to fix the problem. Pretty stupid, I know.
To help illustrate the stupidity of this argument, Gyrate likened it to saying the dire problem of homelessness could be solved if everyone who gave a dam just made some small gesture.
This is where you stepped in to counter the analogy by stringing it out.
And again, I didn’t say that you said squat about government actions.
I pointed out that, in your trite countering of the analogy, you are essentially proving the point that to fix a serious problem (climate change/homelessness), MORE needs to be done by those who CAN do more. And I’m saying that it is government and industry that are not only in the best position to have the biggest effect, but also shoulder the greatest responsibility for having caused the problem(s) (primarily, I’m talking about climate change, but I think the same goes for our analogy of homelessness).
Far be it for me to speak on behalf of Skywatcher, but maybe (s)he’s pissed precisely because you “specifically did NOT mention anything that the government should or should not do” and have instead “listed some things that individuals could do to help”. In the context of this thread and the totally arse-backwards thinking of the OP, that kind of comes across as a suggestion that government shouldn’t have to do anything to fix the homeless crisis and concerned individuals should stop whining about it and just offer up their own homes as homeless shelters. PROBLEM SOLVED YO!
Now since you have clarified that this “is not something [you] believe at all” it may just be an unfortunate misunderstanding due to your apparent support(?) for the OP’s way of thinking.
So, again, *do you agree with the OP? *
And as is typical from the scumbag deniers, they never listen to the simple facts and science that show the climate is changing and the solutions of what we can do about it. This Op is a bad joke.
I’ll add, we need to stop clear cutting forests, cut a tree, plant a tree.
**The science is sound and well established and the solutions are obvious to any with the abilitity to use rational thought. There are no silver bullet or magic solution, but there are fairly simple steps we can take to avert losing our coastal cities. We need to do over a dozen things, but they are quite doable and many have benficial results and effects above helping to solve the climate change crisis. **
I’m sorry, but I don’t get that reasoning out of that article. The point I think the author is making is “Don’t wait for the government to fix a problem. Start with what YOU can do WHILE waiting for the government to fix a problem. If you care about an issue, I will take you more seriously if you act like you believe the issue”
And this goes for almost any issue - Climate change, homelessness, IDs for voting. As was my point with homelessness. Yes, of course our government should be helping the homeless. And yes, our government should be studying ways to curb climate change or whatever (and I say “or whatever” because I’m not to well versed beyond the basics of climate change, because, well, I just don’t care that much). That the government should provide these services is such an obvious concept to me, I didn’t think I would need to state it along with my other suggestions about what an individual could do. My bad.
Yes, I agree that people who are warning about climate change should alter their own lives to lessen their impact on climate change. And if they do that, they will be taken more seriously by others. Also, the government should work towards preventing climate change at the same time (added on just for you)
I think you’ll find that most activists trying to get people and governments to change to reduce the damage of Climate Change have done a lot to reduce their own personnel foot print. For some it might be as simple as a hybrid or low emission car, or changing over to efficient lighting and appliances. For others it is also installing wind and solar solutions. For most it is a well above average recycling (which has a limited effect but shows a willingness to live as they preach if you will.).
