Philosophy Now Forum

This person...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexand ... sio-Cortez

...proposes this...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal

...a thing several steps beyond just usin' less oil & capturin' carbon.

The wiki piece unfortunately doesn't convey just how outlandish the proposal was: her own site, wherein her plan was laid out in excruciating detail, was taken down within days of goin' up. She was taken aback by the strong push back & rejection of her ideas (showin', of course, the typical misreading her kind does [she actually thought Americans would welcome bein' knocked fifty or more years]).

This bartender & her misbegotten notions is just what came to mind; there are other folks in high places with equally nutty plans.

Here's the thing: it's all manure. Someone in the bartender's camp admitted recently the green new deal was never about the enviroment, but about controllin' economies (that is, replacin' state capitalism with state socialism).

Anyway: there ya go.

"On the one hand you might be the poor guying trading everything you own for a half gallon of water, hopefully with very little piss in it. But on the other you will be able to buy a very nice car for half a gallon of water that's secretly half urine."

Don't be such a gloomy gus, guy.

The Apocalypse has a shiny (radioactive) side: mutant super powers, giant Mad Max vehicles, all manner of big ass guns, Barter Towns powered by pig shit methane, weird wasteland cults, suicide brothels, turf wars, and on and on.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2019 12:04 am This person...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexand ... sio-Cortez

...proposes this...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal

...a thing several steps beyond just usin' less oil & capturin' carbon.

Yeah, but that's a big bold eye catching but bad plan that will obviously never happen. If you guys can ever manage to do bipartisan legislation ever again (yeah I know, it's AAAAALLLLL the other guy's fault) then this would be a starting point from which to negotiate. Job creation and environmental thingies are for different projects, not something to bundle into one gargantuan clustersnafu of a law. The Democrats know that, even if AOC doesn't quite get that sort of distinction.

Just out of interest, why do you guys have such a hard on for referring to her as a bartender? Is she the only person in the House with a history of blue collar, low wage work? Ought that sort of thing not be allowed?

henry quirk wrote: suicide brothels

This is the way the world ends, first with a bang, then a wimper!

"Yeah, but that's a big bold eye catching but bad plan that will obviously never happen."

Thank Crom for small miracles.

#

"If you guys can ever manage to do bipartisan legislation ever again (yeah I know, it's AAAAALLLLL the other guy's fault) then this would be a starting point from which to negotiate."

Bite your tongue! Last thing I want is cooperation among the powers that be. Stay divided Washington! Self-cannibalize, Congress!

#

"Job creation and environmental thingies are for different projects, not something to bundle into one gargantuan clustersnafu of a law. The Democrats know that, even if AOC doesn't quite get that sort of distinction."

You neo-liberals...

#

"Just out of interest, why do you guys have such a hard on for referring to her as a bartender? Is she the only person in the House with a history of blue collar, low wage work? Ought that sort of thing not be allowed?"

Meh, I don't like her (she is a hot lil number, though). And: I call her bartender cuz that's what she ought to be doin' (again). Bartendin' is honorable work. I'd respect her more if she'd stuck to it.

Now: if she were a minarchy-minded former bartender who'd made it to Congress I'd be callin' her Madam Congresswoman.

#

"This is the way the world ends, first with a bang, then a wimper!"

cum & go

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2019 12:04 amrs]).

This bartender & her misbegotten notions is just what came to mind; there are other folks in high places with equally nutty plans.

It's not intended as a specific plan. It's a stake in the ground to move the conversation. I guess that's a mangled metaphor. She has raw feral political brilliance like Trump. They're two of a kind. I don't agree with her politics but I like her spunk and I'm a fan. I don't have to agree with someone's ideas to find their style interesting.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2019 9:44 pmSuperficially this might look a bit like how economies have always grown in the past, but this time it's ... erm... hmmm. Well it's bad this time.

Well, if I'm quick, I might be able to drink myself to death before the shit hits the fan.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2019 12:04 amThis bartender & her misbegotten notions is just what came to mind; there are other folks in high places with equally nutty plans.

Personally, I'd much sooner trust a bartender than a draught dodging, nepotist plutocrat. Ah well, cheers!

"It's a stake in the ground to move the conversation."

In the wrong direction, in my view.

##

uwot

"Personally, I'd much sooner trust a bartender than a draught dodging, nepotist plutocrat. Ah well, cheers!"

Don't 'trust': 'use' (and discard as necessary).

It’s really quite simple for thinking folks.

- The climate changes.
- Human effect on climate change is negligible.
- Therefore, changing human activity, even to the extent of ending all human activity, has a negligible effect on the climate.
- Therefore, controlling populations via arbitrary, capricious changes in human activity, for the ostensible fantasy hope of stopping the climate from changing, can only be justified by circular reasoning based on an assumed, unproven premise.
- By employing true Progressive doublethink, critics of this virulent idiocy are accused of the very thing the brainwashed minions of Al Gore support, namely, trying to stop the climate from changing.
- To make their self-indulgent fantasy more appealing, those who would deny the climate from its changes should throw the switch on a T-shirt day of nothing blue skies, pretty clouds, and no worries. If not for the high odds that these morons would choose a Murderous Che T-shirt, we could call them the Eloi.



btw: AOC is an actress, improvising on a script she didn't write.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h5iv6sECGU

The irony of course being that it was the oil companies who first did the research into the effects of us burning fossil fuels and the effects upon the climate and the warnings and predictions were clear and are being met.

Why do climate change deniers exist as such ? Is social psychology the appropriate expertise wherein to find the answer?

denial is a response to something we fear, and we know from animal and human studies that fear induces freezing and passivity. But studies also demonstrate that giving a fearful animal or human a task that even symbolically addresses what is feared can minimize freezing and promote action. Thus, recommending tasks that we can perform in our daily lives may help us overcome our feeling that mitigating climate change is a hopeless enterprise and motivate us join the voices insisting on ending burning fossil fuels.

From 'Psychology Today'.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog ... ezing-fear

It's true that when one leaves the lawn unmown all summer, plants an oak, takes car off the road , not eat meat for weeks, not drink milk, one feels better less depressed about climate change. One is a normal person and one's choices are a small small indication of how other normal persons will choose.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2019 9:34 am The irony of course being that it was the oil companies who first did the research into the effects of us burning fossil fuels and the effects upon the climate and the warnings and predictions were clear and are being met.

It occurs to me: I never actually read that research (the reports or reports in their entirety, as issued by the 'oil companies'). No, all I've ever seen are unsourced excerpts and claims by folks like yourself.

Surely, you've read the report or reports in their entirety, yeah? You must cuz you've mentioned "it was the oil companies who first did the research into the effects of us burning fossil fuels and the effects upon the climate and the warnings and predictions were clear and are being met" more than once, with certainty.

Be a good egg: post a link to the report or reports, in their entirety, please.

Sure.

http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/ ... se-effect/

http://www.climatefiles.com/shell/1988- ... reenhouse/

And here's a nice study on how ExxonMobil delibrately followed a disinformation campaign against its own predictions.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1 ... 326/aa815f

And here's one on how much the oil business has been spending on lobbying politicians to do nothing.

https://influencemap.org/report/Climate ... uel-Sector

But if you don't fancy digging through them here's a nice synopsis by your favourite paper.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... e-warnings