Disagreement makes good debate. As much as i dont agree with pretty much everything pivottechno writes, it keeps things interesting. And i dont take anything written on here personally as some of my biggest TA adversaries who have met me in person can attest to. Right Intangible? :)
Having said that, carry on....
LOL!
VDub
quote:
Originally posted by fayraree
oh yeah? well you're a douchebag too now!
ps. Pivottable is being more of a pretentious prick than Digi, which is why Digi wins.
I've got news for you FAG-had....
You're man crush named me a douchebag years ago...
DigiNut
quote:
Originally posted by PivotTechno
All of the environmental, ecological and economic reports circulating at the moment
...are interesting, important, but ultimately inconclusive and manipulated into pushing specific agendas - like yours.
quote:
These rules are not MY rules, they're ways of living that willfully go beyond the 3' diameter of me, myself and I, working toward the realisation that everything I do has repercussions, from where I spend my money (recycled wares, supporting ethical production and manufacturing), to my method of transportation (cycling) to the type of business I conduct (one that endeavours to assist, but does not take advantage of others). I don't have any particular political leanings and I don't belong to any religion or movement - these things just make sense to me.
Holy you're a fag. I mean honestly, there are a lot of enviro-nuts and left-wingers on the board but you out-fag them all by a factor of 50.
To summarize your argument: Your rules are the rules because you are enlightened and "ethical", which is basically the same narcissistic bull I just called you out on with the previous post. And to subsequently say you "don't have any political leanings" when yours are the most blatantly transparent and obvious of all... wow.
Tell me then, which scientific studies have you scientifically read that scientifically verify all your scientific facts about science, scientifically? I mean, discounting all the empty rhetoric about population sizes and "limited resources" which doesn't contain a modicum of "science", all these things that just make sense to you, like recycling, aren't always what they're cracked up to be, and it's not that hard to realize if you actually start digging a little.
But hey, I should give you the benefit of the doubt and give you a chance to prove that you're not completely full of before I start sounding off on these things, so tell me, where does your pristine, golden sciency data come from that qualifies you as an economic and ecological expert in a position to tell other people how they should run their lives?
Go on, we're listening. This should be good.
DigiNut
quote:
Originally posted by VDub
You're man crush named me a douchebag years ago...
You, on the other hand, are the pinnacle of politeness and never call anyone names. :gsmile:
PivotTechno
quote:
Originally posted by DigiNut
Holy you're a fag.
There's that fag talk we talked about!
quote:
Originally posted by DigiNut
so tell me, where does your pristine, golden sciency data come from that qualifies you as an economic and ecological expert in a position to tell other people how they should run their lives?
Considering that in your mind you've already dismissed everything I might have to say, there's little point in my trying to explain anything to you. But if you must know, my main source for environmental info (obviously dumbed down so my little brain can comprehend it) is my best friend of over 25 years. He's a University-level professor (paleolimnology) and an avid environmentalist who works with large-scale funding from the EPA.
Here's your inconclusiveness:
And I don't claim to be an expert on economic matters by any means, but common sense tells me that if a small portion of any population lays claim to an exorbitant portion of available resources, that the remainder of that population will suffer as a result.
Ever live at street level in a developing country, sharing a 3-bedroom apartment with 10 people who are all doing their best to get by, while a relatively small group of policy-makers who are supposedly doing everything in the interest of the people are actually concocting ways to further empty public coffers?
quote:
Originally posted by DigiNut
Go on, we're listening.
You mean you - for some reason, you need to be convinced one way or the other that I'm either 100% wrong, or 100% right. Most everyone else doesn't seem to take much issue with my little tirades, but you have made it your mission to douchebag me into submission. Carry on as you please.
And you aren't listening, you've outright shut your mind off to what I have to say. Excercise, meet futility.
zoogla
just gonna throw it out there--apart from keeping a thesaurus handy, what level of education have you completed*?
*dropping out doesn't count
the reason I ask is that when you're pressed for meaningful* information, you cop out faster than...[insert joke here].
*meaningful to most people who appreciate an intellectual discussion, complete with evidence to support your claims.
VDub
quote:
Originally posted by DigiNut
You, on the other hand, are the pinnacle of politeness and never call anyone names. :gsmile:
Me????
Never...
I'm a gem...
Jayx1
the problem with that cartoon is the co2 is not pollution. Andclimate warmists are all about c02. c02 is what plants and photoplankton need to survive.
pollution on the other hand is a different matter and is not part of climate change talk.
Pollution involves ACTUAL chemicals and waste.
Dont confuse the two.
PivotTechno
quote:
Originally posted by fayraree
just gonna throw it out there--apart from keeping a thesaurus handy, what level of education have you completed*?
*dropping out doesn't count
the reason I ask is that when you're pressed for meaningful* information, you cop out faster than...[insert joke here].
*meaningful to most people who appreciate an intellectual discussion, complete with evidence to support your claims.
1. Thank you for the compliment on my vocabulary - it's taken me a number of years to develop it, and I still find it entertaining to learn subtly different ways to convey similar sentiments.
2. Why is my education of importance to this discussion? Are you saying that because I may not have completed a certain level of education that my words carry no credibility or that I should have zero say in certain matters? Is my citing a trusted friend who has a PhD in an environmentally centred field of biology and referring to my first-hand experience living at street level in a largely impoverished country not cred enough for you to work with, or have you just become that mistrusting of common wisdom?
3. It isn't my fault that you fail to find meaning in my words.
4. Re. "intellectual discussion" - you mean all head and no heart? Science as fanatical religion? Sorry, but I prefer to mix a little humanity in with my hard data - tastes a little dry without it.
Originally posted by Jayx1
the problem with that cartoon is the co2 is not pollution. Andclimate warmists are all about c02. c02 is what plants and photoplankton need to survive.
pollution on the other hand is a different matter and is not part of climate change talk.
Pollution involves ACTUAL chemicals and waste.
Dont confuse the two.
Jay, you're connecting dots with an empty pen. Who cares what colour the elephant in the room is, as long as it gets talked about?
Jayx1
quote:
Originally posted by PivotTechno
Jay, you're connecting dots with an empty pen. Who cares what colour the elephant in the room is, as long as it gets talked about?
to hell with the facts as long as people comply?
yeah thats about how it works too
PivotTechno
So why doesn't your (inferred) support of reducing the pollution that's affecting climate include the pollution that comes from automobiles?
