|
European Politics Thread: Netherlands, France, Germany, Great Britain, and Narnia 2017 (pg. 15)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| wotyzoid |
| You want me to tell you Bloomberg is a great guy for doing that? Sure, good for him. I don't ing how much of his wealth that donation is to be able to even start trying to quantify his nobility for this particular action. I don't know what you want from me. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by wotyzoid
You're calling my ideals dog , that's very respectful. |
Begging the question. I respect well-reasoned positions, even if I don't agree with them. Hence why I make compromises.
The issue here is environmentalism and reducing emissions. Your rambling bull ended up focusing on one particular source of emissions: utilities. Now, the real solution here is phased replacement of dirty power sources with green technology, and how to practically implement that in the real world. This is perfectly achievable with privatised utilities as long as you have a government and a voting populace who are motivated to achieve it.
You aren't interested in any of that. You skip straight to nationalisation, with the extremely circuitous argument that if you nationalise all the utilities, the government can then force them to be converted to green technology. Again, practical concerns of cost, implementation and efficiency don't even enter your argument. You're only concerned with blathering on irrelevantly about profit-motivation. It doesn't enter your consideration that a government-driven conversion of electricity production could still go disastrously wrong, could still be poorly implemented and inefficient. That these failures could turn public opinion away from green technology when opinion is already sceptical. That's because you don't actually have anything to say about all these steps of the way. Your argument is quite simply that if there's no profit margin, these things will magically be better, because without the evil of profit and capitalism everything will work better for the people.
It's just horse. It's ad hoc, it's poorly glued together, it's not relevant. You blatantly half-understood something someone was saying, crowbarred your into the debate and are now trying to hang in there desperately. You're having this debate with people who are pro-environmentalism and you're getting scorned. Imagine if you took this faulty, tenuous claptrap out into the world of sceptics. We're better off without people like you discrediting the whole platform.
And that is why I don't respect your idealism. The great agents of all meaningful political achievement are the un-engaged, moderate centre. If you can't speak to these people with reasonable, compromised, practical positions you are going nowhere. Anyone who doesn't realise this will be a political fool for as long as they live. It says everything that you think "compromise" is some kind of criticism of my ideals, when in any other discourse "compromise" denotes bridge-building, deal-making and conflict resolution. |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
I have a bagillion apples and I donated a gazillion.
*slow clap* |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
Jack, you cite the things I say and then say I don't consider the things I didn't. By now you must realize that you're doing an awful lot of assuming in that ugly rant.
Because you are resolute in ideals that doesn't mean you lack the ability to compromise in solutions. All the you say about me could be pointed right back at yourself. So much for glueing together. And let me get this straight. Just because my ideals don't fit into your mold of moderate center, and don't play into your particular view practicality, I shouldn't be able to express them when questioned?
What if I think your phasing is poor implementation of green technology? What if I think that legislation should have been passed yesterday that the whole grid should be publicly owned regardless of how we're getting our energy? Straight up. You say it would be bad I say it would be good. What evidence do you have? Other calling me names, what do you have? Only your assumptions. To say my position is not well reasoned is to make a bunch of assumptions and glueing them together and making a conclusion based on that.You see how you're a hypocrite? Might as well wear one of these.
Also you're full of . Get a ing personality. |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by wotyzoid
You want me to tell you Bloomberg is a great guy for doing that? Sure, good for him. I don't ing how much of his wealth that donation is to be able to even start trying to quantify his nobility for this particular action. I don't know what you want from me. |
Why do you have to [know?] anything about his wealth to know if that is a noble act or not? Consequentially speaking, a whole lot of good is going to come from such a donation. Why do you need to know more?
| quote: | Originally posted by wotyzoid
What if I think your phasing is poor implementation of green technology? What if I think that legislation should have been passed yesterday that the whole grid should be publicly owned regardless of how we're getting our energy? Straight up. You say it would be bad I say it would be good. What evidence do you have? Other calling me names, what do you have? Only your assumptions. To say my position is not well reasoned is to make a bunch of assumptions and glueing them together and making a conclusion based on that.You see how you're a hypocrite? Might as well wear one of these. |
Considering that you were literally reading up on emissions in the middle of this thread, just a few days ago, it seems rather obvious that your views on combating climate change are not well reasoned. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by wotyzoid
What if I think your phasing is poor implementation of green technology? |
Well then you'd be actually discussing the topic at hand for the very first time. What's your beef with offshore wind, then?
| quote: | Originally posted by wotyzoid
What if I think that legislation should have been passed yesterday that the whole grid should be publicly owned regardless of how we're getting our energy? Straight up. You say it would be bad I say it would be good. |
I didn't say it would necessarily be bad. I said it's stupid, tedious idealism to assume it would be good just because it isn't profit-driven. And more to the point, it doesn't address any of the practical considerations to ensure it is good, but instead focuses entirely on redundantly idealising a particular starting point. |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Well then you'd be actually discussing the topic at hand for the very first time. |
Now that I'd like to see. |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
Why do you have to [know?] anything about his wealth to know if that is a noble act or not? Consequentially speaking, a whole lot of good is going to come from such a donation. Why do you need to know more? |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
So how exactly is that more noble than, say, Michael Bloomberg giving away $600m last year? |
| quote: | | Considering that you were literally reading up on emissions in the middle of this thread, just a few days ago, it seems rather obvious that your views on combating climate change are not well reasoned. |
I don't see how. What does my understanding of proportionality and separation of responsibility of the main culprits of co2 emissions have to do with the fact of whether or not I think it's a problem?
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Well then you'd be actually discussing the topic at hand for the very first time. What's your beef with offshore wind, then? |
None?
| quote: | | I didn't say it would necessarily be bad. I said it's stupid, tedious idealism to assume it would be good just because it isn't profit-driven. And more to the point, it doesn't address any of the practical considerations to ensure it is good, but instead focuses entirely on redundantly idealising a particular starting point. |
You're characterizing it that way, just because it's 'extreme'. I'm not particularly concerned with any considerations, I think it's a given regardless of anything that you might bring up. Solutions are worked around. |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
| You guys are ing retarded, seriously. Nerd central. TA Nerd squad. Advocating political correctness extensive substantiation of ideology since 2009. |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by wotyzoid
I don't see how. What does my understanding of proportionality and separation of responsibility of the main culprits of co2 emissions have to do with the fact of whether or not I think it's a problem? |
Well, a strategy being 'well-reasoned' normally entails some significant amount of time considering an issue and the various pros and cons of dealing with it in different ways. Considering that you clearly do not even understand the issue, as you have no idea what causes the problem, makes it rather clear you haven't considered the issue - let alone the pros and cons of various strategies.
| quote: | Originally posted by wotyzoid
I'm not particularly concerned with any considerations, I think it's a given regardless of anything that you might bring up. Solutions are worked around. |
What does this mean? |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
| How is this for a strategy? Call your ing representative and pass the ing legislation. Period. |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
| Publicly owned grid. Taxation. Invest in Green. Publicly owned green, with government money, instead of missiles. Done. |
|
|
|
|
