Stossel on Global Warming

No, I'll just reiterate that you have an incredibly simplistic view of the problem and do not understand the true nature of it.
 
I don't have a simplistic view of it, I just don't feel like writing a book about it on an online forum to show my point... As such, as I've even mentioned in my posts earlier, I explain a simplified version of it.
 
Uzor said:
Money will still do them good. Provide them with food and they'll still live longer, thus producing less offspring, as they no longer need a lot of children to support them when they grow old. Which is my entire point. You don't have to provide them with pure money, as I mentioned earlier. You can spend it on education (as I mentioned earlier), food, build farms, wells etc. All of these are means of providing them with food, thus reducing their need to produce offspring. Which, again, was the entire point of my argument. And, again, aren't in the shape of pure offspring.

Or will you somehow manage to distort food by going out of a limb to find reasons how that will ruin the world too.
Click to expand...

Your point it total fail. Every dollar you send to these countries is immediately confiscated by the local corrupt government who then spends it on guns to commit genocide against it's own people. They have trillions of dollars in natural resource buried under there feet and they are still starving. How you believe throwing even more money at the problem will somehow fix it is plain sad.

Maybe if you could shed your white guilt for 5 minutes you could see that they have no one to blame but themselves.
 
Last edited:
Tomasello said:
Your point it total fail. Every dollar you send to these countries is immediately confiscated by the local corrupt government who then spends it on guns to commit genocide against it's own people. They have trillions of dollars in natural resource buried under there feet and they are still straving. How you believe throwing even more money at the problem will somehow fix it is plain sad.

Maybe if you could shed your white guilt for 5 minutes you could see that they have no one to blame but themselves.
Click to expand...
Because, as I said, you don't give them pure money?

You do know there's countless of wells that we have built in their countries (and wells cost money), as well as providing them with nets to avoid mosquitos, etc.? Do explain to me how a corrupt government confiscate these to commit genocide against its own people.

And Tomasello, I don't have any frikkin' white guilt. So stop that bullshit. The way I see it there's 2 ways to solve the problem. One is more humane, and the other I'm sure even you would agree is cruel. the first one is to help them out, the other one is to just wipe them out. Both reaches the same solution. From an environmental stand-point, both would reach the same end-result. It just so happens one is more humane than the other, and the other one would be Hitler all over again.
 
Last edited:
Skaw said:
Y2K was real, it just wasn't an issue since no government, commercial, or private computer worth a damn was running on the hardware that was threatened by it. Unless your computers bios formatted date with two digit year stamps, there was no cause for alarm. And if it did, you should have got out of the fucking 70s.
Click to expand...

I forgot I had posted in this thread. Anyway...

That is what I was gettin' at by that statement. Y2k was real, but did it do what the people said it was goin' to do? Not even close. It was not even worth the time spent thinking about it much less the money Crazy Steve spent to stockpile his basement with food and supplies.
 
Hey, hey guys.

Corrolation does not imply causation. Just an FYI.
 
Miros said:
I just created some killer methane gas.
Click to expand...

We all know gay farts are made of rainbows and glitter. =P

Tomasello said:
Your point it total fail. Every dollar you send to these countries is immediately confiscated by the local corrupt government who then spends it on guns to commit genocide against it's own people. They have trillions of dollars in natural resource buried under there feet and they are still starving. How you believe throwing even more money at the problem will somehow fix it is plain sad.

Maybe if you could shed your white guilt for 5 minutes you could see that they have no one to blame but themselves.
Click to expand...

Tom, White guilt is more an American trait (especially in the US), and Uzor isn't a US citizen unless I've misunderstood all these years (sorry if that's the case). Either way, the first step in erasing "white guilt" or similar is to stop accusing people of any racial improprieties to include "white guilt".
 
Javir said:
Either way, the first step in erasing "white guilt" or similar is to stop accusing people of any racial improprieties to include "white guilt".
Click to expand...

Actually the first step is to abolish racist policies like affirmative action that are the direct product of white guilt.
 
Tomasello said:
Actually the first step is to abolish racist policies like affirmative action that are the direct product of white guilt.
Click to expand...

Isn't that just a specific example to what I said? Yes affirmative action is meant to cover more than race, but it's inherently the same concept all around. All of which, if you're opposed to one, you should be opposed to all or I'd think you a hypocrite.
 
I wonder if MLK is rolling in his grave over affirmitive action/extra points on tests.

It really spits on the intro to his famous speech...
 
Is there anything we do that DOESN'T destroy the earth nowadays?


after reading that article im blown away by the stupidity of it, they fail to take into account that the animal would still be alive regardless of whether our not i own it. If pets are really that big of a problem they need to be talking to the breeders not the owners. He calls fancy feast "choice cuts of meat" give me a fuckin break.



How long after this is the "house pet tax" coming?
 
Last edited:
Thelona said:
Is there anything we do that DOESN'T destroy the earth nowadays?


after reading that article im blown away by the stupidity of it, they fail to take into account that the animal would still be alive regardless of whether our not i own it. If pets are really that big of a problem they need to be talking to the breeders not the owners. He calls fancy feast "choice cuts of meat" give me a fuckin break.



How long after this is the "house pet tax" coming?
Click to expand...

While I totally agree that people take it a bit over the top, I can guarantee you that your pets would likely not be alive if we didn't breed pets.
 
Uzor said:
While I totally agree that people take it a bit over the top, I can guarantee you that your pets would likely not be alive if we didn't breed pets.
Click to expand...

i said go to the breeder uzor! not the owner, my dog would still be alive if i had never met him, he would just be owned by a diff person. those shelters out there arnt gonna dissapear because i refrain from adopting a pet to help the environment

I don't breed my pets, infact if you follow this articles twightlight zone logic, then me adopting an animal and having it fixed will HELP the environment because that pet will no longer reproduce.

so NO uzor, I can Guarantee YOU my dog would still be alive had I never contacted his breeder and adopted him.

The only way that argument would work is if your talking about pets adopted from shelters, where if a pet isn't adopted its put to sleep.

If you think it better to just put all of them to sleep right off the bat instead of "damaging the environment" by trying to find a good home for em. well that just proves the lengths a liberal will go threw to control everything how they see fit.

Would you sign over your rights and liberties to make us safe from terrorist?

no?

oh. well what about to save the environment?


CIA being able to tap your phone lines on oversea calls without a warrant is sacrificing freedom for safety.
yet letting the government control how much power you use, how many pets you have, what you eat, where you smoke, what appliances you use, etc.etc.etc. is perfectly fine because the terrori-err global warming will kill us all.
 
Last edited:
Thelona said:
i said go to the breeder uzor! not the owner, my dog would still be alive if i had never met him, he would just be owned by a diff person. those shelters out there arnt gonna dissapear because i refrain from adopting a pet to help the environment

I don't breed my pets, infact if you follow this articles twightlight zone logic, then me adopting an animal and having it fixed will HELP the environment because that pet will no longer reproduce.

so NO uzor, I can Guarantee YOU my dog would still be alive had I never contacted his breeder and adopted him.

The only way that argument would work is if your talking about pets adopted from shelters, where if a pet isn't adopted its put to sleep.

If you think it better to just put all of them to sleep right off the bat instead of "damaging the environment" by trying to find a good home for em. well that just proves the lengths a liberal will go threw to control everything how they see fit.

Would you sign over your rights and liberties to make us safe from terrorist?

no?

oh. well what about to save the environment?


CIA being able to tap your phone lines on oversea calls without a warrant is sacrificing freedom for safety.
yet letting the government control how much power you use, how many pets you have, what you eat, where you smoke, what appliances you use, etc.etc.etc. is perfectly fine because the terrori-err global warming will kill us all.
Click to expand...

No, what I ment is that if people wouldn't be interested in owning animals, or if it was forbidden, your pet wouldn't be alive. Your pet is a direct result of humans breeding animals. Hell, the dog as a species wouldn't even exist, as that's a direct result of humans taming wild hounds and breeding them towards specific traits.

No, I wasn't suggesting we put them all to sleep, nor that owning animals should be illegal. I'm just stating facts, if humans didn't breed animals, your dog wouldn't exist. It is a direct result of human interference.

And no, I'm also not suggesting that breeding dogs, cats etc. is a bad thing.
 
Thelona said:
If you think it better to just put all of them to sleep right off the bat instead of "damaging the environment" by trying to find a good home for em. well that just proves the lengths a liberal will go threw to control everything how they see fit.
Click to expand...

We should turn off the lights, throw the stop breakers on society, and all take a cyanide pill. Kill ourselves in the name of trees and fluffy squirrels everywhere. Mission accomplished, nature is saved. (If not everyone, then at least the hippies of the world should try to take one for the team.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top