Are leftists good for the environment? Let's look at the evidence.
Quote:
|
Re: 5 Reasons why Freehold pools have no lifeguards
Quote:
|
Re: 5 Reasons why Freehold pools have no lifeguards
Quote:
|
Re: 5 Reasons why Freehold pools have no lifeguards
Quote:
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7v2cC-Qhn...llution007.jpg http://russiatrek.org/blog/wp-conten...ted-city-1.jpg No lifeguards here either. At least we have that in common. By the way, the #1 cause of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the leftist opposition to nuclear power. After communist incompetence killed 54 people at Chernobyl, the left decided to defend communism by scapegoating all nuclear power. One less data point to use against communism, at the cost of one less planet for us to live on. But there are lots more data points against communism, and no other planets. Oops. |
Re: 5 Reasons why Freehold pools have no lifeguards
Quote:
|
Re: 5 Reasons why Freehold pools have no lifeguards
Quote:
|
Re: 5 Reasons why Freehold pools have no lifeguards
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: 5 Reasons why Freehold pools have no lifeguards
Quote:
I guess you lack even the most rudimentary cognitive capabilities. Be blessed... |
Re: 5 Reasons why Freehold pools have no lifeguards
Quote:
I believe we can make a Christian of you yet, son. Your mind is as narrow and closed as it is required of True Believers™. :thumbsup: |
Re: 5 Reasons why Freehold pools have no lifeguards
Quote:
|
Re: 5 Reasons why Freehold pools have no lifeguards
Quote:
I'm half impressed that you finally learned to write in complete sentences, though. |
Re: 5 Reasons why Freehold pools have no lifeguards
Quote:
|
Re: 5 Reasons why Freehold pools have no lifeguards
Quote:
|
Re: 5 Reasons why Freehold pools have no lifeguards
Quote:
|
Re: 5 Reasons why Freehold pools have no lifeguards
Quote:
Quote:
:jester: |
Re: 5 Reasons why Freehold pools have no lifeguards
Quote:
Marx, denied that claim and instead argued that Malthus’ trap was instead a function of wage labor exploitation in the capitalist economy. Furthermore it also benefited the capitalist to keep is his/her employees at this subsistence living level so they couldn’t afford to step out of line. People just barely holding on to an existence tend to not for Fight their oppressors. |
Re: 5 Reasons why Freehold pools have no lifeguards
Quote:
|
Re: 5 Reasons why Freehold pools have no lifeguards
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
(He's technically a capitalist because he owns one car dealership and a restaurant or two, but he didn't get his billion dollars from that). If Air Jordan isn't typically proletariat enough, here's some other "subsistence wages" for you: Elevator Installer and Repairer Electrical and Electronics Repairers, Powerhouse, Substation and Relay Commercial Pilot Air Traffic Controller Quote:
Are you accusing me of changing the subject? You, who answers everything with a whataboutism, are all about staying on topic now? So did you come to this thread to talk about lifeguards, or what? Anyway, I can always just move this to a new thread where we debate the communist record on the environment, and then we're back on topic, or maybe the topic is back on us. |
Re: Are leftists good for the environment? Let's look at the evidence.
We've had a reminder how far removed from reality these wretches are with their ersatz economics and scientific somnolence. It's true, when things started blowing up they did flutter an eyelid but the butterfly effect took over and the whole edifice collapsed.
Not wishing to be more broadly critical than is warranted, I'll allow that some of their engineers probably knew the meanings of words in their own jargon. Sure; otherwise how would they get those inane statues of Lenin to stand up? The problem was that people who actually knew how to do things were not the ones deciding how things should be done. Correct understanding of science is a prerequisite for engagement with the environment. Even Nebuchadnezzar knew that. Stalin, not so much. Daniel 1Whatever masquerades as "science" in the minds of leftists has nothing to do with God and very little to do with the environment. The proof of this pudding is very much in the eating: what leftist-developed science project has been less than catastrophic for the environment? I can't think of one. Take nuclear energy for example. There had been a few illnesses associated with this and one or two accidents that had nothing to do with the science but everything to do with muttonheaded administrators who far from knowing what the words meant probably didn't even know those words existed: from drawing board to meltdown, dumbbells were in charge. Compared to something like coal, according to their own statistics, the health risks are tiny. How many millions have suffered from the fumes and airborne particles, died in mining catastrophes, been poisoned from town gas? Check it out. The problem of nuclear waste however has been addressed in principle with the advent of fourth generation reactors.
Another benefit of Very High Temperature Reactors 1,000-1,500˚C is that hydrogen can be produced without oil refineries. You don't even need to look anything up! Here's what Stanford has to say: Are leftists good for the environment? The track record is abysmal. Whether it's due to their delusions, or to the obvious absence of joined-up-thinking, or is an inherent aspect of their doctrine—forever appealing to 19th century dilettantism and rejecting trump cards out of hand—who knows? But even allowing that they may identify an environmental issue occasionally and occasionally be correct, to jettison solutions with no consideration (because of their dogma) is to shoot oneself in the foot. With an elephant gun. Absolutely. Christians are not like that. And it's easy to see why. Not everything pretending to be science actually is science. It's right there in The Bible. Without due consideration, without reflection, how could we tell the difference? I Timothy 6 |
Re: Are leftists good for the environment? Let's look at the evidence.
Lots of tangential squabbling has been moved here.
Quote:
Technology is like money or food or personal physical energy, or personal emotional energy: you're not better off having less. Even if you've made different priorities in the past, or made mistakes, it's never better to be poor, malnourished, lethargic, or depressed, or ignorant or technologically backward. Environmental problems were caused because people didn't consider the environment a problem when they chose which technology to adopt. Henry Ford could have chosen electric cars but at the time the only pressing environmental issue was the growing piles of horse manure that were threatening to make cities unlivable. The only rising sea level was the sea of horsecrap. The only smog clouds were the clouds of flies that lived in the horesecrap piles. That's like saying "how can more money solve problems caused by money?" Well, if you bought bad things before, you don't have to buy them again. You can buy good things with more money. Having more money is overall better than having less money. The solution to bad spending choices is not poverty. Or health. Or confidence. Say you were feeling healthy and confident, so you did a dumb dance move and hurt yourself. Okay, don't do dumb dance moves. The answer is not to be crippled and depressed. If you ate bad meat and got food poisoning, starvation is not the answer. Choosing better food is the answer. Or you wasted years studying philosophy and it turns out you should have learned math: ignorance is not the answer. When will technology answer X? Well, when we choose technology designed to solve the problem of X. When CFCs were a problem we didn't ban all fridges, we built better fridges. When leaded gasoline was found to be a problem, we didn't go back to manure piles, we got the lead out of gas (and got a generation of wimps). When the dust bowl trashed Oklahoma, we didn't decide to go hungry, we learned about land management and made it a priority. When a coal-cloud killed newsworthy numbers of people in London, they didn't decide to ban all heating and get used to shivering. They changed their technology. People have faced many environmental problems in the past, and the solution has always been new technology. It has never been austerity, or backwardness, or nagging people to be more caring and charitable. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 04:34 PM. |
Powered by Jesus - vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Landover Baptist Forums © 1620, 2022 all rights reserved