Teens promise to fix "climate change" with great idea

[kumikochan]

There's a current consensus that generalization is somehow evil or wrong, but it's not and it's basically a starting point for diving into any specific issue. You can't simply list and address every single person and their individual values or traits, so you start with generalization. It's a useful and valid way to go about things. So is stereotyping. The problem people have is when you generalize or stereotype about something that offends them or they disagree with. Liberals have no problem generalizing or stereotyping about people they disagree with. So to use it to try to control an argument is going to work on me. I've got no problem with generalization or stereotyping regardless of who's doing it. Like I mentioned, both have valid uses.

Looking at the sky any saying "that's a beautiful blue sky" is generalizing about the color blue.



Homeless people can vote as much as they want to. Registering to vote is free. Per say, if some junkie is too busy doing drugs and refuses to spend any money they earn by getting handouts to obtain the required material to register to vote than that's their fault. What is a more likely scenario is that a homeless person will simply "not have the time" or "wouldn't be willing" to either register to vote or go vote. They'll just sit in their encampment, drinking beer, smoking weed and blaming their sorry existence on everyone else.



Trump this, Trump that. Blame Trump for everything that happens. Trump is some almighty otherworldly being that controls every aspect of everyone's life. Everything that happens is because of Trump. Trump is the de facto reason why the world orbits the Sun. Trump controls the universe. Everything revolves around Trump. Yeah, right ... More like people are obsessed with the man and see Trump in their sleep. That's a personal problem that luckily I don't have. Sorry that you're experiencing these sorts of symptoms as they don't seem to be healthy. Maybe you should seek professional help.

Well here homeless can't vote. I never said everything happened thanks to Trump, the only thing i said Trump is the reason the US started using more coal plants and made it so big companies can start dumping shit again in the air and water and so forth and that's fact. Also explain to me how generalizing can tribute to something good ? I'm really intrigued how you can say that is a good thing so explain how that is good ? You said it's a good thing but didn't explain how that can be good while not doing at all in comparison ?

 

[morvoran]

actually no that is what you are doing, since you're blindly following data by self proclaimed pseudo scientists without any real hard data to back up what they're saying as they've constantly taken back their claims and said sorry for it.

oh, good defense by throwing my words back at me (I'm rubber, you're glue, everything you say bounces off of me and sticks to you). Very mature.
These pseudo "climate" scientists only show the "evidence" that back up their agendas. What good would it do to their "career" if they disproved their rhetoric? It's funny how sheeple just can't see how they are being lead with lies to fight against an unstoppable force (real climate change) and a made up foe (human caused climate change). Whenever somebody tries to add some discourse against their leaders talking points, the blind followers always go, "bah, bah, leader says I cause co2, bah, you is dumb, bah, my leader is good and right, bah, they never lie to us, bah, our future is their only concern, bah" while they are being lead to the slaughterhouse. Read the book "Animal Farm", this is the Democrat leaders' guidebook.

It's like re-arranging the deck chairs on the titanic after it hit the iceberg.

Better than just waving their fist at the trash while throwing more trash on the ground and expecting others to clean it up.

Again, relatively pointless stuff that won't make a difference in the long term.

I guess they should just stay home and play video games, huh? Why bother even trying?

Of course they are. You just feel threatened by them.

No, just like the hateful liberals on this site, they just make me laugh at their ridiculousness and false beliefs. I actually have pity on them for wasting their time and lives when they could do so much more to actual cause positive change in this world.

either way im done. It doesnt matter. You will just quote some petroleum industry group or conspiracy theorist. The cool kids that want to be contrarians will defend you. I am sure next you will say the moon landing was fixed too.

No, I'll just say, "Good day to you. See you in 13 years when humans will still be alive and nothing will be different than today except the climate may be a little cooler."

You can't fix "changing climate" ...

That's what all these man-made climate change believers can't seem to understand no matter how many times we tell them. You can't control mother nature as she's a fickle bitch.

 

[notimp]

These pseudo "climate" scientists only show the "evidence" that back up their agendas.

Those are actual climate scientists. Which are in the mast majority. Also - the agenda ultimately is one of the UN. In a very direct and kind of obvious way.

Now - in the US especially, it benefits people with a globalist mindset, while doing nothing is part of a nationalist agenda.

At heart of the argument its pretty simple.

Regardless of who done did it (humans vs nature fake argument) - there are several reasons, of why people maybe should want to start looking at a concept called 'energy transition' (getting onto renewable forms of energy soon).

If one of the major players like the US says - ehh... *fuck it*, more people already are projected to die. Not in the US, not necessarily in Europe - but certainly in more affected parts of the world (also - with higher population densities). Less access to drinkable water as one pressing issue - f.e..

Now - at the driving helm of those movement are always people that might profit from it (because the idealists with money - are such a small fraction. )

And yes - there is an odd angle of - If you are good at engineering social movements, that work, last - and change peoples behavior 'almost volentary' - that even can move market actors, investors, and so on. If.

And yes - I personally prefer, for people to act as somewhat rational actors with their own short/mid term interests at heart - because they can be manipulated less well if they do, at least in theory. Give them a greater goal by all means (it is what has been missing from politics for years), but at least make it political - so it can be voted off as well.

Make it 'almost religious' - and I will always think its highly problematic. Put up children in front of it to make it spread better in old age populations, and I'll always think, that its highly problematic.

Fair?

The proposals cant be 'your scientists are fake' because - large parts of the world are acting already. It has already become an economic issue/driver.

Now - if you are betting on - not my problem, public interest will not last, fair - do what the US is doing currently. But cut out the "evidence missing" part just to make you look good. Or make your populations less bothered by it collectively. Essentially - you cant push 'epistemes' with 'doubt' much longer. Thats just too easy of a way out.

Also note - that all of that is part of (popular) politics.

 

[Lacius]

That's what I just said.

No, you said:

If your goal is the betterment, advancement of longevity of the human race then not having children is counter productive to that goal.

That's not true for the reasons I stated previously.

 

[billapong]

No, you said:

That's not true for the reasons I stated previously.

You seem to be over analyzing things. After reading some of your posts you should learn to be more subjective. What I meant by my statement was that I agree with your overall point. Yes, it's not the literal meaning of what I typed, but it seems when you're supporting your views you tend to communicate on a very dry level. Could it really hurt to be more imaginative and less Liberal? (Subjective Hint - That's not a question that I want you to actually reply to).

 

[kumikochan]

oh, good defense by throwing my words back at me (I'm rubber, you're glue, everything you say bounces off of me and sticks to you). Very mature.
These pseudo "climate" scientists only show the "evidence" that back up their agendas. What good would it do to their "career" if they disproved their rhetoric? It's funny how sheeple just can't see how they are being lead with lies to fight against an unstoppable force (real climate change) and a made up foe (human caused climate change). Whenever somebody tries to add some discourse against their leaders talking points, the blind followers always go, "bah, bah, leader says I cause co2, bah, you is dumb, bah, my leader is good and right, bah, they never lie to us, bah, our future is their only concern, bah" while they are being lead to the slaughterhouse. Read the book "Animal Farm", this is the Democrat leaders' guidebook.

Better than just waving their fist at the trash while throwing more trash on the ground and expecting others to clean it up.

I guess they should just stay home and play video games, huh? Why bother even trying?

No, just like the hateful liberals on this site, they just make me laugh at their ridiculousness and false beliefs. I actually have pity on them for wasting their time and lives when they could do so much more to actual cause positive change in this world.

No, I'll just say, "Good day to you. See you in 13 years when humans will still be alive and nothing will be different than today except the climate may be a little cooler."

That's what all these man-made climate change believers can't seem to understand no matter how many times we tell them. You can't control mother nature as she's a fickle bitch.

They have constantly taken back the claims they made and even said multiple times that their own data was wrong. A prime example of one of the major climate change deniers is Tony Heller who has taken back what he said and that his own numbers weren't correct. Also those scientists that do say climate change is a hoax is less than 5 percent of the total people who are scientists. There's actually a list and there's only 66 scientists who don't agree with climate change due to human activity and that's actually not a lot if you take in to consideration the total amount of scientists over the entire world that are known in that sector and branch. Denying climate change wich can be more seen in Europe, not in extreme weather patterns but in a lot of different manners like more and more exotic animals and insects starting to migrate to Europe and the climate being differently in Western Europe compared to 25 years ago. A prime example would be an event that The Netherlands was known for and took place every year but didn't happen for ages now because it just doesn't snow or freeze below zero on a constant basis anymore in The Netherlands compared to many years ago.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-the-dna-a-warming-climate-could-change-that/

 

[Lacius]

You seem to be over analyzing things. After reading some of your posts you should learn to be more subjective. What I meant by my statement was that I agree with your overall point. Yes, it's not the literal meaning of what I typed, but it seems when you're supporting your views you tend to communicate on a very dry level. Could it really hurt to be more imaginative and less Liberal? (Subjective Hint - That's not a question that I want you to actually reply to).

It's absurd to think I can correctly discern when you mean the opposite of what you say. All I have to go on are your words. This isn't an issue of context or sarcasm, but I am not particularly interested in having a linguistically semantic or pragmatic debate.

 

[notimp]

The not having children argument is a non mainstream compatible part of any proposal surrounding this.

Here is the deal.

You will have to make it voluntary, you will have to make it socially acceptable. Which - if we are talking open, western societies - you cant. (To any noticeable extent.)

End of story.

Bringing this up as part of the popular discussion - serves one purpose only - to allow people, that for various reasons have gone that route - not to be ostracized by society. Thats it. It will never be more mainstream than that.

--
Now - if you look at it from the big numbers perpecitive - for people to have less children - you either need, wars, or periods of large social unrest - or on the opposite side - functioning social institutions (pension systems) people trust in, higher education (so women will start to develop a taste against having 8 children in their lives), cities (much more else to do in the evening - other form of social structures, .. other aspects I cant remember, .. ). Birth control (them babies!).

If you do nothing. And then do nothing. And then do nothing for a bit. Wars will get larger. Because food security is not so easy to guarantee looking at current trends.

(Here is the less mathematical abstract for exponential growth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_and_chessboard_problem )

But also - thats not the issue anymore - population growth is already projected to peter out. When it does, and population rich agegroups die out - problem solved (somewhat). The problem always is in the transitional periods, and how to get the concept into people, that economic growth - kind of is a problem, if you dont have more people wanting access to a certain good 'almost automatically'.

 

[comput3rus3r]

They have constantly taken back the claims they made and even said multiple times that their own data was wrong. A prime example of one of the major climate change deniers is Tony Heller who has taken back what he said and that his own numbers weren't correct.

wtf is a climate change denier? Climate on earth has been changing since the earth began. The earth is how it is today because of climate change. Do you know anything about how planet earth formed? Nothing we can do can stop climate change because change in general is inherent in creation. Next thing people will want to stop are the seasons...

 

[kumikochan]

wtf is a climate change denier? Climate on earth has been changing since the earth began. The earth is how it is today because of climate change. Do you know anything about how planet earth formed? Nothing we can do can stop climate change because change in general is inherent in creation. Next thing people will want to stop are the seasons...

I'm talking about how people view the word '' climate change '' these days. Words do change over time due to things happening in that time period and evolve because of that so you know pretty well what i mean with the use of that wording. Ofcourse i know what climate change means don't try to act like i don't. You know pretty well what i meant and if you want me to use a different term for it that makes you a tiny bit happier than i will

 

[billapong]

Well here homeless can't vote. I never said everything happened thanks to Trump, the only thing i said Trump is the reason the US started using more coal plants and made it so big companies can start dumping shit again in the air and water and so forth and that's fact. Also explain to me how generalizing can tribute to something good ? I'm really intrigued how you can say that is a good thing so explain how that is good ? You said it's a good thing but didn't explain how that can be good while not doing at all in comparison ?

Video games are fun.

I enjoy playing video games.

Zelda is a fun game.

I enjoy Action RPGs.

There's a few sweeping generalizations that people make on a daily basis in the video game scene. Generalizing is a simple form of stating something. It's neither positive nor negative. It depends on how you use it and how you view how it's being used.

Per example, if someone states that Trump supporters do not support the environment. There's some truth to that generalization, but as being an educated person that doesn't take things too literally I can deduct that the poster was making a generalized statement based on the majority of the Trump supporters. Not all Trump voters support his administrations and his personal views on the environment. I'd admit it could help people who aren't experienced when it comes to comprehension that it would have been more proper to state "most Trump supporters", but I don't think that generations of the past should have to change the way they go about making statements because some people can't deduct and reason correctly.

It's also like Liberals or the Left in general don't make generalizations. It's very common and everyone does it, but like I said, when someone generalizes about a sensitive issue, then the disagreeing person will try to rebuke their point by simply state they are generalizing. Well, yes they are and there's nothing wrong with that. It's a starting point. Both sides then can dive deeper into specifics after that.

Zelda is a fun game.

- Which Zelda game?

Link's Awakening

- The original or the remake?

The remake

See how that works? You can't tell me that using it in this context is negative (well, I guess you could, that's if you dislike Zelda or the new port).

As for Trump, his administration is responsible for relaxing laws regarding coal. I know that he's the commander in chief and takes the blame for everything that happens under his watch, but that's like saying you're responsible for someone that broke into your house and shot your dog because you left the the front door unlocked.

He's technically not the only person who needs to be blamed, but I do agree that promoting coal is a bad idea, but we didn't need regulations to begin with. I'm firmly against laws and regulations. People should be allowed to make their own mistakes and learn from them. No one needs the Government looking over their shoulder and holding their hand their entire life.

 

[baxzxd]

Imagine making this a political issue for some reason.

 

[billapong]

It's absurd to think I can correctly discern when you mean the opposite of what you say. All I have to go on are your words. This isn't an issue of context or sarcasm, but I am not particularly interested in having a linguistically semantic or pragmatic debate.

Get out more and talk to more people? Practice some more and earn some XP?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Imagine making this a political issue for some reason.

Politicians are good at doing that, but in this case their motivation is sadly not in actually helping the environment.

 

[kumikochan]

Video games are fun.

I enjoy playing video games.

Zelda is a fun game.

I enjoy Action RPGs.

There's a few sweeping generalizations that people make on a daily basis in the video game scene. Generalizing is a simple form of stating something. It's neither positive nor negative. It depends on how you use it and how you view how it's being used.

Per example, if someone states that Trump supporters do not support the environment. There's some truth to that generalization, but as being an educated person that doesn't take things too literally I can deduct that the poster was making a generalized statement based on the majority of the Trump supporters. Not all Trump voters support his administrations and his personal views on the environment. I'd admit it could help people who aren't experienced when it comes to comprehension that it would have been more proper to state "most Trump supporters", but I don't think that generations of the past should have to change the way they go about making statements because some people can't deduct and reason correctly.

It's also like Liberals or the Left in general don't make generalizations. It's very common and everyone does it, but like I said, when someone generalizes about a sensitive issue, then the disagreeing person will try to rebuke their point by simply state they are generalizing. Well, yes they are and there's nothing wrong with that. It's a starting point. Both sides then can dive deeper into specifics after that.

Zelda is a fun game.

- Which Zelda game?

Link's Awakening

- The original or the remake?

The remake

See how that works? You can't tell me that using it in this context is negative (well, I guess you could, that's if you dislike Zelda or the new port).

As for Trump, his administration is responsible for relaxing laws regarding coal. I know that he's the commander in chief and takes the blame for everything that happens under his watch, but that's like saying you're responsible for someone that broke into your house and shot your dog because you left the the front door unlocked.

He's technically not the only person who needs to be blamed, but I do agree that promoting coal is a bad idea, but we didn't need regulations to begin with. I'm firmly against laws and regulations. People should be allowed to make their own mistakes and learn from them. No one needs the Government looking over their shoulder and holding their hand their entire life.

Well if you generalize about something that isn't alive i do agree that it isn't mostly negative but it tends to be when directed at a group of people. I do stand corrected that it can be used in a positive manner like '' that was a fun group '' but in theory it can't be that way and is mostly used in a negative manner since the definition does say a generalization is made with not knowing, seeing or hearing about the thing you're generalizing about. So if you do it like in that manner '' well that was a fun group '' than it means you actually have seen or experienced the group wich made you say that so by the definition of generalization it isn't really generalizing anymore. I'm just trying to be difficult here but i do stand corrected that it can be used positively. I agree with the way you explained it mostly but not fully

 

[billapong]

Well if you generalize about something that isn't alive i do agree that it isn't mostly negative but it tends to be when directed at a group of people. I do stand corrected that it can be used in a positive manner like '' that was a fun group '' but in theory it can't be that way and is mostly used in a negative manner since the definition does say a generalization is made with not knowing, seeing or hearing about the thing you're generalizing about. So if you do it like in that manner '' well that was a fun group '' than it means you actually have seen or experienced the group wich made you say that so by the definition of generalization it isn't really generalizing anymore

That depends on where you're getting the definition from. I learned the definition of the word back in the early 80's and just know how it's been used from years of experience, but after a quick check I see that Merriam Webster's definition hasn't been skewed to appease modern political movements. Surprisingly, the current climate has also not sunken their teeth into the Wikipedia definition either (which is weird, because it's trendy to edit a Wikipedia page to push your agenda and then refer to the Wiki entry as it's some Godly fact).

I dunno, when I debate I don't poke at the simple action of making generalizations, stereotyping or spelling/typing mistakes. I find people that nitpick about such insignificant things are simply desperate in their attempt to control the debate (as opposed to continuing the conversation and learning something). Yes, that statement in itself is a generalization. because it's not always the case.

 

[Lacius]

Get out more and talk to more people? Practice some more and earn some XP?

Does this post serve any purpose other than to try to make a person feel bad? That's not how an adult appropriately talks to someone. I'm sorry you regret posting what you did, but gaslighting isn't a very good tactic, nor is the projection of one's own insecurities.

 

[billapong]

Does this post serve any purpose other than to try to make a person feel bad? That's not how an adult appropriately talks to someone. I'm sorry you regret posting what you did, but gaslighting isn't a very good tactic, nor is the projection of one's own insecurities.

Nope, just a bit constructive humor. If it provoked bad feelings that's all on you.

 

[smf]

I guess they should just stay home and play video games, huh? Why bother even trying?

You're the one suggesting they should give up, not me. I think they should double down.

That's what all these man-made climate change believers can't seem to understand no matter how many times we tell them. You can't control mother nature as she's a fickle bitch.

You can't control her, but you can provably upset her though & it hurts us more than it hurts her. That is what all these climate change deniers can't seem to understand no matter how many times we tell them. Sad!

wtf is a climate change denier? Climate on earth has been changing since the earth began. The earth is how it is today because of climate change. Do you know anything about how planet earth formed? Nothing we can do can stop climate change because change in general is inherent in creation. Next thing people will want to stop are the seasons...

It doesn't mean that the climate doesn't change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

Climate change denial, or global warming denial is denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human action

It's way more nuanced than your incorrect definition, so it seems you built your strawman too early.

 

[kumikochan]

The only remaining cents that i have to share in a topic where everything already has been said by 2 major sides and 1 side mostly being neutral is that i agree with most arguments that politicians, goverments, lobbyists and companies do use '' man made climate change '' ( before people go saying that i use the world climate change ) to further and widen their own pockets. I don't agree with young people hijacking a movement of stronger young individuals to not even go to school that eventually damages the real smarter wiser younger people that actually do have good things to say. I don't agree with Greta entirely but i do respect her as a young person with autism that stood strong for what she believed in ( people tend to say she became the large icon she is because the left used her but in Europe she already was a big thing before the left even used her ) but i do agree that politicians use her and demonstrations and so forth to damage the whole essence of the movement and turned it basically in a fight between different movements of politics, companies and so forth. I agree that we have to take a stance as a people to do what we can and start taking responsibility instead of using a movement to further each others own goals and use it to make money. I don't agree with everything they said but countries, politicians, companies and so forth have to stop using the movement for their own goals wich by now just turned in to one of the biggest non human fought wars of the century on a global scale involving the entire world and the sad thing is that the whole world finally connects to each other on a single topic and it's not for the benefit of our own as a race, as protectors instead of destroyers but just to fight senseless wars based on ideology that can easily put aside, greed, power and money. How can the essence of all that so easily be forgotten like a perfect examply of that being seen here where everybody just attacks and starts agressively calling other people out by names and so forth. Just my couple remaining cents on the entire matter. It is a sad thing that something that needs people to come together as a race sadly does the entire opposite due to greed, exploitation, power and money. Don't have to agree with it but just thoughts about it in general and the whole 1 side vs the other side

 

[billapong]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

Climate change denial, or global warming denial is denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human action

It's way more nuanced than your incorrect definition, so it seems you built your strawman too early.

Heh, "I found it on Wikipedia so it must be factual and truthful". Meh. Although, this particular definition does somewhat address the issue about people simply straight out claiming that their actions don't effect the climate. The problem is that no one is sure exactly to what extent our influence is and no one is agrees on what will change or reverse it (if anything).

Planting a tree is always a good idea. Using less resources in your own personal life will also help out, but I don't think anyone is going to be able to control the weather or the climate in general. We can't even accurately predict local weather patterns and our records don't go back millions of years.

We just don't know, but I'm not going to vote for more laws, more restrictions, more taxes to just put other people in power and make them rich when they have no intentions on doing anything about making less of a negative environmental impact themselves. I also am not going to vote for policies that encourage companies to pollute the environment. Then in my own personal life I have made choices to be less "trashy". That's about all one can do.

I'm not going to try to force other people to bend to my will based on limited knowledge and mass speculation that's has consensualization by the majority of a single group. Science is constantly evolving, which means that shit right now is most likely inaccurate. I don't limit myself to one side of the issue. The scientists who buck the trend and have lost dearly due to it should have their voices taken into consideration. Simply ignoring facts and only making decisions based on the data that you only want to look at is foolish and so it expecting or trying to force everyone else to do the same.

I think there's a song about this by The Who called "Won't Get Fooled Again". It's a good song that reminds me of the lessons I've learned throughout my years about honesty coming from authority figures (or lack thereof). Remind me, when is the world going to end this time?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

The only remaining cents that i have to share in a topic where everything already has been said by 2 major sides and 1 side mostly being neutral is that i agree with most arguments that politicians, goverments, lobbyists and companies do use '' man made climate change '' ( before people go saying that i use the world climate change ) to further and widen their own pockets. I don't agree with young people hijacking a movement of stronger young individuals to not even go to school that eventually damages the real smarter wiser younger people that actually do have good things to say.

One thing you're going to probably come to realize is that these politicians and companies with their lackey lobbyists control us. They are our modern lords. You won't find any of them in their multi million dollar homes that take up more energy than 10 houses protected by large walls, driving around the car of the day, flying around in jets, spending what most people make in a single day on a single meal doing anything about the climate themselves. The majority of the hero figures the Liberals hold up on pedestals have zero intention of doing anything about the climate.

Now, this particular youngster seems adamant about the issue and looks to be genuine and maybe she'll get some of the other kids her age to adopt more environmental friendly attitudes, but I don't think we should be pulling our children out of school and parading them around about such issues (as it's not okay to so when it relates to issues that Liberals don't agree with).

It's not like these kids are making up their own minds about issues as the Liberal education system is doing them a disservice by teaching them what to think instead of independent thinking skills. When I was young I never liked when adults would tell me what to think, what to wear, what to say, etc ... I was happier when I was allowed to make my own decisions (that includes making my own mistakes).

Schools have no right to tell our children who to vote for or what stance they should take on political issues. They should simply inform our children about how things work and let them decide on how they wan't to work them on their own.