Philosophy Now Forum

How much am I spending now to care for the other guy's kid?

How much am I spending now to kill the other guy's unborn kid?

Ain't about the money, honey.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 4:29 pm I said I (please note I) don't fully understand. I am not a climate scientist. Climate scientists understand .

Well, the climate science is ambiguous at present, and solutions are not part of their area of expertise. So we need more than a vague trust that "somebody somewhere has the solution we lack." That won't float any boats.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2019 7:18 pm

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2019 5:51 pm Both you guys see what's happenning but you say let's wait to see what happens next.

You don't read very well.

What we're advocating is using science. What you're advocating is using panic. And between those two, I think the choice is pretty clear.

Let's not panic (you seem to be in a tizzy). Let's take logical steps and evaluate the results as we go along.

On the coast, homeowners might install small wind turbines, in the desrt solar panels, on the roads hybrids that get power from their own small engines and thermal heat pumps where cost/benefit makes sense.

Doing nothing accomplishes nothing.

Immanuel Can wrote:

the climate science is ambiguous at present, and solutions are not part of their area of expertise.

The future is sufficiently known for any reasonable person. Even I, Immanuel, can tell you exactly what your personal solution will be.

Eat less dead animals.

You're missin' the point.

Mannie sez we don't know as fact that climate chsnge is human-driven, but, even if it is, no one is comin' out with any 'real' solutions, just virtue-signalin' malarkey.

Me: I say the notion of human-driven climate change is horse manure so nuthin' need be done.

Either way: doin' 'something' (anything) is -- at the least -- just a 'feel good' exercise or -- at most -- counterproductive & harmful.

##

B,

"Eat less dead animals."

The hell you say!

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 6:17 pm You're missin' the point.

Mannie sez we don't know as fact that climate chsnge is human-driven, but, even if it is, no one is comin' out with any 'real' solutions, just virtue-signalin' malarkey.

Me: I say the notion of human-driven climate change is horse manure so nuthin' need be done.

Either way: doin' 'something' (anything) is -- at the least -- just a 'feel good' exercise or -- at most -- counterproductive & harmful.

##

B,

"Eat less dead animals."

The hell you say!

The foundation for global warming has been scientifically verified by many scientists: the average global temperature is higher than any time in the 20th century, Ice fields are melting, carbon in the atmosphere is increasing and the trend is concerning. Your foundation is "don't worry". your premise is "Scientists are alarmists" and your conclusion is "Jay is an alarmist".

Am I being fair to you?

However you are on a philosophy forum and you should make a logical argument which you don't seem to know how to do.

Do I insult you or do you, by your posts, insult my intelligence?

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:35 pm Doing nothing accomplishes nothing.

Doing the wrong thing Is only fine if the problem isn't really serious.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 6:09 pm Eat less dead animals.

Right!

At least for some. Oysters are best while still alive.

"The foundation for global warming has been scientifically verified by many scientists"

And refuted by others.

#

"the average global temperature is higher than any time in the 20th century"

Formal temp records don't go back far. The 'informal' record shows earth has had it hot times before.

#

"Ice fields are melting"

No, they're not.

#

"carbon in the atmosphere is increasing"

Which is not problematic.

#

"and the trend is concerning."

There is no human-driven trend to break a sweat over.

#

"Your foundation is "don't worry".

Nope. Worry all you like. I won't, don't.

#

"your premise is "Scientists are alarmists" and your conclusion is "Jay is an alarmist"."

Nope. Never used or implied 'alarmism'. Was pretty clear...it's a goddamned scam, cold and deliberate.

#

"Am I being fair to you?"

Meh...fairness is for children and retards.

#

"However you are on a philosophy forum and you should make a logical argument which you don't seem to know how to do."

Sez you.

#

"Do I insult you or do you, by your posts, insult my intelligence?"

You don't bother me.

"Doing the wrong thing Is only fine if the problem isn't really serious."

Doing anything, just for the sake of 'doing sumthin', is stupid and -- as I say -- counterproductive and hurtful.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 4:28 pm My point, Lace (which leapt over your head like a tree frog): your perspective is dumb.

'nuff said

Your stupid response showed that you didn't even understand my perspective. You were speaking to the garbled extremism in your own head... so it is only your own delusional interpretation of my perspective that is dumb.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 8:52 pm "Doing the wrong thing Is only fine if the problem isn't really serious."

Doing anything, just for the sake of 'doing sumthin', is stupid and -- as I say -- counterproductive and hurtful.

Not really. I think what I think because there is good reason for that and I do what I want to do because I want to be doing something constructive.

I don't think what you want nor do I do what you do but who cares what you think or what you do? or for that matter what I do or do not do.

It's really none of your business (Oil business?)

Have I got to the root of your stupid refrains?

Too funny to see Henry - the man who is more happy than anyone to see children and adults left to die, eg. war policy, health policy, yet a splash of protoplasm has him pretending to be all human rightsy. What an utter, utter hypocrite and lightweight.

If Henry was honest, his answer would be that it doesn't matter whether it's human or not. If it can't save itself or doesn't have someone to help, then let it die. That is the REAL Henry. Hardcore libvertarian, law of the jungle.

If his beloved Trump didn't start playing the right to life game for political advantage you'd never have heard a thing about it by Henry. A once slightly original thinker has now apparently become a complete Trumpian drone. No doubt the red cap looks just right on him.

I gues you missed the part where I admited to moving from an indifferent atheism/agnosticism to a somewhat less indifferent deism. Along with that, I guess you missed my declaration of bein' a natural rights libertarian.

So -- no -- I'm not a hypocrite: My perspective has shifted, is all.

Is that okay with you?

Am I allowed to shift in viewpoint?

If I'd shifted in your commie direction I bet you'd throw a parade and call me 'comrade'.

Oh yeah, almost forgot... 凸(-_-)凸

"Your stupid response..."

凸(-_-)凸

#

"Have I got to the root of your stupid refrains?"

凸(-_-)凸