You may have more in common with radical environmentalists than you think! [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : You may have more in common with radical environmentalists than you think!


IndianaMatt
05-29-2012, 10:19
I was reading about environmental movements, in particular the ones often considered more extreme.

One of the main tenets of one of the major "deep ecology" movements is the belief that industrial civilization will inevitably collapse.

The Deep Green movement holds that current environmental and land use policies are totally unsustainable, one of the main reasons being that we extract far more energy than the land can sustainably provide, and also that we PRODUCE far more waste than the system can abosrb.

Ergo, total social collapse is inevitable, as our ecological bank account is vastly overdrawn.

What do you think?

kirgi08
05-29-2012, 10:49
Our 30ys of food will outlast the guesses.'08. :dunno:

Bolster
05-29-2012, 12:18
Total societal collapse is a constant theme in human history, belonging to all sorts of creeds and ideologies. The "world has been ending" since it began, in the minds of humans.

barbedwiresmile
05-29-2012, 14:12
I would have more respect for radical environmentalist's point of view if 1) they ever got their hands dirty farming & ranching (tough to take urban environmentalists seriously) and 2) they recognized the left's embrace of environmentalism as a Trojan Horse for socialism. If we could just separate the statism from the environmentalism, we might have a meaningful dialogue.

The good news is that the natural food movement is full of good ole fashioned folks who get their hands dirty practicing what they preach. These folks, unlike the 'environmentalists', recognize the danger of our increasing trajectory towards statism, our drift into proto-fascism, and the brazen corruption of our lawmaking process.

quake
05-29-2012, 15:39
...The Deep Green movement holds that current environmental and land use policies are totally unsustainable, one of the main reasons being that we extract far more energy than the land can sustainably provide, and also that we PRODUCE far more waste than the system can abosrb.

Ergo, total social collapse is inevitable, as our ecological bank account is vastly overdrawn.

What do you think?

I'd agree with bolster & barbedwiresmile both on this. As far as their decry of "...environmental and land use policies...", those policies are government-set by their very nature. Similar to what barbedwiresmile said, those folks would have more credibility with me personally if they'd protest against the people who create those policies (the govt) and seeing them as the problem, rather than constantly running to them and touting more nanny-govt policies as somehow being the cure.

Syclone538
05-29-2012, 16:21
Well, yeah, I'm pretty sure we are using oil, natural gas, and coal faster then it's being created. That can not go on forever.

G29Reload
05-29-2012, 17:55
I was reading about environmental movements, in particular the ones often considered more extreme.

One of the main tenets of one of the major "deep ecology" movements is the belief that industrial civilization will inevitably collapse.

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2012/05/24/ctm_unabomber_052412_244x183.jpg


We, most of us here, don't have anything in common with that.

Bolster
05-29-2012, 18:40
Here's some other things I have in common with radical environmentalists:

They wear pants, I wear pants.
They eat food, I eat food.
They vote, I vote.
They watch MSNBC & vote blindly for Democrats, and ... well, I don't do that.

But you should see the list of things I have in common with Hitler!

racerford
05-29-2012, 20:51
Well, yeah, I'm pretty sure we are using oil, natural gas, and coal faster then it's being created. That can not go on forever.

I thought sheep and cattle and human flatulence were endangering the ozone layer? That is methane being released at a tremendous rate. There is a contention that "oil" may be produced abiotically. Coal is carbon. It is one of the most abundant elements on earth. Short of fusion and fission, and meteorites we have the same amount of carbon that we had one million trash ago.

How do you explain methane on Jupiter and its moons if HCs are not abiotic?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

RWBlue
05-29-2012, 21:49
Many of the green people would make good survivalists, with one exception..........they for get the number one rule.

pugman
05-30-2012, 05:26
The Deep Green Resistance has valid concerns. They argue a great deal of traditional knowledge has been lost; I tend to believe this knowledge hasn't been lost but squeezed into a smaller and smaller sect of society. Randomly take ten people into the woods with no tools and ask them to try and start a fire under the best possible conditions - unless you get lucky and grab a handful of eagle scouts or preppers I bet 3 in 10 might have the knowledge to even try and make some sort of frictional tool. I bet 1 in 10 even on the nicest and driest day in July might actually get a fire going. Lets not even start to try and think how many might be able to field dress an animal or cast their own bullet (I can do the first...never did the second)

They also argue personal changes (aka taking shorter showers) isn't enough and in order to deal with the threat and that you need to hold industries, institutions and governments accountable - makes sense to me. I see the national debt the same way; our current federal government (and in a greater sense the world's economic climate) IMO is unsustainable. Some of their ideologies are extreme only in the sense its a radical different approach to the way we live today. You will never get 310 million Americans to suddenly start farming

Their problem is they don't condemn violence as a means to an end - in this sense they are ecoterriorts. Que the 12 Monkeys music...

If you want a different opinion but along the same lines look into Bright Green Environmentalism

Bren
05-30-2012, 05:32
What do you think?

I think we can do anything we want to the earth and it will still last longer thahn I have any use for it.

Yes, I am serious.

cyrsequipment
05-30-2012, 05:55
I believe MANY of the same things that the environmentalists believe, just for different reasons...

I want to reduce my use of oil, not because of the environmental impact (well that isn't the primary reason) but because I want to be as self-sufficient as I possibly can.

I want to expand the use and efficiency of "alternative energy" not because I believe that we are about to run out of oil and coal any minute, but because eventually we will and we need to shift the infrastructure now and not when we are about to run out, mainly for economic reasons.

I don't like pollution, not because I think that "man-made global warming" has ANY truth to it whatsoever but because I think that releasing toxins into the environment ain't a real good idea for those of us that have a nasty habit of breathing and eating.

I want to live in a very rural area and grow my own food, not because I am a hippie and want to pontificate that capitalism is bad, but because I am a capitalist and want to be left the freak alone as much as possible.

The differences between me and the stereotypical environmentalist is that they are opposed to any sort of "progress" (ironic that most of them consider themselves progressives) in the way of the environment, while I am open to new ways of dealing with the environment. They oppose any use of the natural environment, while I think that we have a right to utilize our resources responsibly. They think that the solution to their percieved problems is government intervention, while I think that the government should stay out of most of the issues.

On top of that, most environmentalists are rather childish in their theories and "solutions" and can't think beyond an elementary school level, while I realize that most problems require in-depth solutions from a variety of areas.

Plus, I like shooting guns and I think environmentalists smell really bad.

Stevekozak
05-30-2012, 06:27
I believe MANY of the same things that the environmentalists believe, just for different reasons...

I want to reduce my use of oil, not because of the environmental impact (well that isn't the primary reason) but because I want to be as self-sufficient as I possibly can.

I want to expand the use and efficiency of "alternative energy" not because I believe that we are about to run out of oil and coal any minute, but because eventually we will and we need to shift the infrastructure now and not when we are about to run out, mainly for economic reasons.

I don't like pollution, not because I think that "man-made global warming" has ANY truth to it whatsoever but because I think that releasing toxins into the environment ain't a real good idea for those of us that have a nasty habit of breathing and eating.

I want to live in a very rural area and grow my own food, not because I am a hippie and want to pontificate that capitalism is bad, but because I am a capitalist and want to be left the freak alone as much as possible.

The differences between me and the stereotypical environmentalist is that they are opposed to any sort of "progress" (ironic that most of them consider themselves progressives) in the way of the environment, while I am open to new ways of dealing with the environment. They oppose any use of the natural environment, while I think that we have a right to utilize our resources responsibly. They think that the solution to their percieved problems is government intervention, while I think that the government should stay out of most of the issues.

On top of that, most environmentalists are rather childish in their theories and "solutions" and can't think beyond an elementary school level, while I realize that most problems require in-depth solutions from a variety of areas.

Plus, I like shooting guns and I think environmentalists smell really bad.
This was a good post, and I wholeheartedly agree!

sebecman
05-30-2012, 06:46
PLEASE. :rofl:

Radical environmentalists like ELF have been responsible for Arson, Murder, Extortion, B&E...millions of dollars in property damages and lost jobs/production all across the country.

I know men that worked as loggers who can't walk like you and I can because they cut into a tree that was spiked by one of these nuts. Their only crime was trying to feed their families.

ELF protests wind farms in my state by driving their gas guzzling SUV's up here from New York and Conn, then shackled themselves to the construction equipment, preventing good people from working and creating clean energy, all in the name of "not obstructing the views and wildlife" of Maine.

They form coalitions to buy up forest and "preserve" it by shutting down all access for trapping and hunting, not realizing that in today's world with human pop growth, the animal populations need managing thru hunting to keep down large scale deaths due to overfeeding and a whole slew of viruses/bacteria/etc.

Environmental radicals are nothing more than terrorist wack jobs...their Allah is Mother Earth and they can see nothing else.....even at the detriment and expense of their diety.

rwrjr
05-30-2012, 06:57
See the second quote in my signature block below. This accurately describes virtually all radical environmentalists and "climate changers".

cyrsequipment
05-30-2012, 07:30
PLEASE. :rofl:

Radical environmentalists like ELF have been responsible for Arson, Murder, Extortion, B&E...millions of dollars in property damages and lost jobs/production all across the country.

I know men that worked as loggers who can't walk like you and I can because they cut into a tree that was spiked by one of these nuts. Their only crime was trying to feed their families.

ELF protests wind farms in my state by driving their gas guzzling SUV's up here from New York and Conn, then shackled themselves to the construction equipment, preventing good people from working and creating clean energy, all in the name of "not obstructing the views and wildlife" of Maine.

They form coalitions to buy up forest and "preserve" it by shutting down all access for trapping and hunting, not realizing that in today's world with human pop growth, the animal populations need managing thru hunting to keep down large scale deaths due to overfeeding and a whole slew of viruses/bacteria/etc.

Environmental radicals are nothing more than terrorist wack jobs...their Allah is Mother Earth and they can see nothing else.....even at the detriment and expense of their diety.

While you are right about their ignorance in regards to their tactics and small-mindness. I think the issue pointed out by the OP was the similarities of philosophy.

Quimby (whom I think you were referring to), is a complete elitist moron who does not have a clue what she is doing and feels that because of her beliefs, she is better than al of the rest of this state... she is the prime example of the ignorance of their tactics that overshadows the underlying belief.

garyjandfamily
05-30-2012, 08:01
I was reading about environmental movements, in particular the ones often considered more extreme.

One of the main tenets of one of the major "deep ecology" movements is the belief that industrial civilization will inevitably collapse.

The Deep Green movement holds that current environmental and land use policies are totally unsustainable, one of the main reasons being that we extract far more energy than the land can sustainably provide, and also that we PRODUCE far more waste than the system can abosrb.

Ergo, total social collapse is inevitable, as our ecological bank account is vastly overdrawn.

What do you think?


The more important question is:

If " total social collapse is inevitable", do vegetarians and vegans taste better? 'Kinda like grass-fed, free range beef? This could be important information to know...

RWBlue
05-30-2012, 08:20
The more important question is:

If " total social collapse is inevitable", do vegetarians and vegans taste better? 'Kinda like grass-fed, free range beef? This could be important information to know...

We usually let the threads go to page three before we start talking about cannibalism.




BTW, Personally I think clowns taste funny.:supergrin:

DrSticky
05-30-2012, 09:06
For me the key difference has to do with Freedom. For example, while we both agree that we should reduce oil usage, they want to force me to stop and I want to stop on my terms at a time of my choosing.

kirgi08
05-30-2012, 09:09
:faint:

Bilbo Bagins
05-30-2012, 09:12
Not to get into a political debate, but I hate when people get into a Left vs Right debate.

"I totally agree with that statement, wait....it came from a left wing wacko, then I disagree strongly."

I think we live in on a planet with a finite amount of resources. Eventually we will run out of something that cannot be easily replaced. While I'm not a peak oil fanatic, I do believe we reached a point where easily accessible light sweet crude will be harder to come by and may disappear. Granted I think oil will still be around for a while, its just it will not be as easy to find, and what we find will not be as pure and easy to refine.

With a growing amount of people using a finite resources eventaully you will hit shortfalls and depletions. It could be water, farmable lands, oil, fishing, minerals, etc. It gets harder to find, and any replacement or substitute gets less and less cost effective.

I think the next step will be space explotation and colonization. We need to start mining other planets and asteriod for minerals, water and chemicals. We also need to establish colonies on other planets for future populations.

Syclone538
05-30-2012, 09:12
I thought sheep and cattle and human flatulence were endangering the ozone layer? That is methane being released at a tremendous rate. There is a contention that "oil" may be produced abiotically. Coal is carbon. It is one of the most abundant elements on earth. Short of fusion and fission, and meteorites we have the same amount of carbon that we had one million trash ago.
...

I would add "that we can use", unless you plan on going to Jupiter to get methane, or know how to collect it from cows.

So, I'm pretty sure we are using oil, natural gas, and coal (that we can use) faster then it's being created. That can not go on forever.

Do you disagree with that? If so, which part, or both?

If you are saying we can make it, then that by definition would not be using it faster then it's being created going on forever.

...
How do you explain methane on Jupiter and its moons if HCs are not abiotic?



I don't.


Unless you read something in my post that isn't there, I don't understand what in those two sentences anyone could disagree with, unless I'm wrong about oil, natural gas, and coal, that we can use, being used faster then it's being created .

sebecman
05-30-2012, 09:37
I don't.


Unless you read something in my post that isn't there, I don't understand what in those two sentences anyone could disagree with, unless I'm wrong about oil, natural gas, and coal, that we can use, being used faster then it's being created .

If I may...

I think what he was saying is that

A. carbon, like water, is one of life's building blocks and as such is rampant on our planet.

B. carbon, like water and every other element on earth is not leaving earth. That means although we are burning coal and fossil fuels, there is the same amount of carbon (if not more) on earth today as there was at any other time in history.

I love when people talk in terms of water shortages and wasting water...there is no water leaving earth, we recycle it...

the water that falls as rain today and fills your drinking glass is the same water that has passed thru countless organic bodies from dinosaurs on up...

Carbon is the same although you would need to assume some additional deposits on earth thru meteors and cosmic infusions (for lack of a better term).

Syclone538
05-30-2012, 09:58
I'm pretty sure I understand what you are saying. But, we are turning carbon that we can use into carbon that we can not use, faster then it is being turned back into carbon that we can use, correct? Does that make any sense?

To disagree with my two sentence post #6, it has to be sentence #1, because if you don't disagree with it, then sentence #2 is just an obvious mathematical truth.

If you find a way around sentence #1 by saying that we can make more, that is not a disagreement and I would just say, "I hope you are right, that would be great."

edit

If sentence #1 is correct, one of two things will happen at some point. Either we will use less, or figure out how to make more.

sebecman
05-30-2012, 11:26
I'm pretty sure I understand what you are saying. But, we are turning carbon that we can use into carbon that we can not use, faster then it is being turned back into carbon that we can use, correct? Does that make any sense?

To disagree with my two sentence post #6, it has to be sentence #1, because if you don't disagree with it, then sentence #2 is just an obvious mathematical truth.

If you find a way around sentence #1 by saying that we can make more, that is not a disagreement and I would just say, "I hope you are right, that would be great."

edit

If sentence #1 is correct, one of two things will happen at some point. Either we will use less, or figure out how to make more.

Personally I think we have known for decades how to make a plethora of alternative energies, including synthesized oil and coal/carbon based products etc...but forward movement in this area is stymied by the companies and countries that make too much damn money pulling that stuff out of the ground.

What is happening is we are discovering oil deposits and developing the technology to recover previously untouchable deposits at a much faster rate than before.

Do some googling on "Peak Oil Facts" "Peak Oil Myth" etc...there is still decades if not centuries of oil left to burn....

Until that oil is used up or otherwise restricted by price or regulation I see no chance of viable alternatives coming to fruition.

sebecman
05-30-2012, 11:30
Quimby.

yep.

That is the head but there is a whole body of movement behind her.

Syclone538
05-30-2012, 11:32
Personally I think we have known for decades how to make a plethora of alternative energies, including synthesized oil and coal/carbon based products etc...but forward movement in this area is stymied by the companies and countries that make too much damn money pulling that stuff out of the ground.

What is happening is we are discovering oil deposits and developing the technology to recover previously untouchable deposits at a much faster rate than before.

Do some googling on "Peak Oil Facts" "Peak Oil Myth" etc...there is still decades if not centuries of oil left to burn....

Until that oil is used up or otherwise restricted by price or regulation I see no chance of viable alternatives coming to fruition.

This is beside the point. No matter how much money you have in the bank (the ground), if you spend more each day (burn) then you take in (is created, by whatever means), even by the smallest amount, you will eventually run out. I specifically chose not to put any time frame on it. I said it can not continue forever.

sebecman
05-30-2012, 11:48
I said it can not continue forever.


The question is are we using it quicker than it can be made? I think probably, but who knows for sure?

But that doesn't change the fact that the processes that create petroleum crude have been in motion for millions of years and continue to remain in motion. So yes the earth is making more, we just don't really know how much.

My point is that since we have SOOOO much left and more is being made...little can be done to stop us using it.

cyrsequipment
05-30-2012, 12:03
yep.

That is the head but there is a whole body of movement behind her.

and what an ugly head she has... :puking:

She doesn't really respect anyone, even the people that are supporting her, and she is losing just about all of her support everywhere. My guess is that she will lose interest in the next few years and either divest or open her land back up...

sebecman
05-30-2012, 12:08
and what an ugly head she has... :puking:

She doesn't really respect anyone, even the people that are supporting her, and she is losing just about all of her support everywhere. My guess is that she will lose interest in the next few years and either divest or open her land back up...

IMHO She will do much damage before she opens anything back up...:steamed:

There is talk of the parcel east of Greenville being "gifted" to the Dept. of the Interior by the year 2016. Not sure what that would mean for sportsmen but she is trying to work it so "her" land stays protected well beyond her death.

cyrsequipment
05-30-2012, 12:30
IMHO She will do much damage before she opens anything back up...:steamed:

There is talk of the parcel east of Greenville being "gifted" to the Dept. of the Interior by the year 2016. Not sure what that would mean for sportsmen but she is trying to work it so "her" land stays protected well beyond her death.

They have already said they won't accept it, she is pretty much done.

sebecman
05-30-2012, 12:42
They have already said they won't accept it, she is pretty much done.

PM Sent

racerford
05-30-2012, 14:10
This is beside the point. No matter how much money you have in the bank (the ground), if you spend more each day (burn) then you take in (is created, by whatever means), even by the smallest amount, you will eventually run out. I specifically chose not to put any time frame on it. I said it can not continue forever.

Sebecman is on point. You make an assumption that we won't move to alternative sources and that our rate of use will exceed our rate of production. When we get to point that it is cheaper to make HCs (hydrocarbons) than it is to pull them out of readily accessible reserves, that is what we will do. We will also recycle them. The technology exists. When the cost is high enough we will find alternatives to HCs as fuels or as raw materials to make products. We are very clever like that. If not we will die off and there will be many HCs left behind us. We will not run out.

Syclone538
05-30-2012, 21:00
Sebecman is on point. You make an assumption that we won't move to alternative sources and that our rate of use will exceed our rate of production. When we get to point that it is cheaper to make HCs (hydrocarbons) than it is to pull them out of readily accessible reserves, that is what we will do. We will also recycle them. The technology exists. When the cost is high enough we will find alternatives to HCs as fuels or as raw materials to make products. We are very clever like that. If not we will die off and there will be many HCs left behind us. We will not run out.

No I don't, you guys just read a lot more then what I actually wrote.

I don't understand the misunderstanding here.

I actually make the assumption that we will move to alternate sources... because, we can not continue to use oil, natural gas, and coal faster then it's being created.


edit

I do make the assumption that our rate of use currently exceeds rate of production.

Can you clearly and specifically tell me what in post #6 you disagree with?

G29Reload
05-30-2012, 21:17
So, most of us here have NOTHING in common with idiot radical environmental socialists other than we're on the same planet together.

Cause of thread death: Failed premise, stupid idea, errant conclusion, not related to S&P.

cyrsequipment
05-31-2012, 05:28
So, most of us here have NOTHING in common with idiot radical environmental socialists other than we're on the same planet together.

Cause of thread death: Failed premise, stupid idea, errant conclusion, not related to S&P.

Sorry, you're wrong on that one. The OP is correct, like it or not.

We don't agree on the why, but we do agree on some of the what.

Bolster
05-31-2012, 09:41
So, most of us here have NOTHING in common with idiot radical environmental socialists other than we're on the same planet together.

Reload's on the correct path here; I can find illusory similarities between any two groups you care to mention. I pointed that out earlier, but must have been too subtle.

- Enviros and preppers have a lot in common because they think society isn't sustainable.
- Christians and Muslims have a lot in common because they believe in one god.
- Feminists and Chauvenists have a lot in common because they promote the interest of their gender over the other.
- Buddhists and Communists have a lot in common because they both wear underwear.
- Blacks and whites have a lot in common because they get the same diseases.
- Liberals and Conservatives have a lot in common because they both believe in freedom.
- Men and women have a lot in common because both have a sex determination chromosome that starts with X.
- I have a lot in common with Obama because we are both horribly unqualified to be president, and both of us have zero relevant preparation for the job of president of the USA.

The original conceit is fallacious, because it confers similarity on the basis of a single element of belief. Take the whole range of beliefs of both groups, and they haven't much in common.

I think some of you guys need to take a course in critical thinking.

I don't know if this thread is dead or not, but it should be.

cyrsequipment
05-31-2012, 09:50
Reload's on the correct path here; I can find illusory similarities between any two groups you care to mention. I pointed that out earlier, but must have been too subtle.

Christians and Muslims have a lot in common because they believe in one god. Feminists and Chauvenists have a lot in common because they promote the interest of their gender over the other. Buddhists and Communists have a lot in common because they both wear underwear. Blacks and whites have a lot in common because they get the same diseases. Liberals and Conservatives have a lot in common because they both believe in freedom.

The original conceit is fallacious, because it confers similarity on the basis of a single element of belief. Take the whole range of beliefs of both groups, and they haven't much in common.

I think some of you guys need to take a course in critical thinking.

I don't know if this thread is dead or not, but it should be.

Not sure why you are acting that way, but there are many similarities that have been pointed out by multiple posters that have just as much validity as your arguments (actually more because they are thinking beyond the obvious).

You might want to go back and critically read some of the other posts.

racerford
05-31-2012, 11:16
No I don't, you guys just read a lot more then what I actually wrote.

I don't understand the misunderstanding here.

I actually make the assumption that we will move to alternate sources... because, we can not continue to use oil, natural gas, and coal faster then it's being created.


edit

I do make the assumption that our rate of use currently exceeds rate of production.

Can you clearly and specifically tell me what in post #6 you disagree with?

I don't agree that we know it is being used faster than it is being created.

Production is an interesting word as it can be used in different ways. Oil is cuurrently being produced faster than it is being used. Production and production capacity exceed demand. inventories are increasing, in ground and above.

Bolster
05-31-2012, 11:29
Not sure why you are acting that way, but there are many similarities that have been pointed out by multiple posters that have just as much validity as your arguments (actually more because they are thinking beyond the obvious). You might want to go back and critically read some of the other posts.

This is argument by assertion, ie, an argument is valid because you say it is.

Thinking about a fuzzy purple-striped monster is "thinking beyond the obvious," but doesn't make the concept "more valid," nor does it make purple-striped monsters more likely to exist.

Making the case for similarity based on one or a few points that are shared by many groups, isn't valid argumentation or compelling evidence of similarity. That the EOTWAWKI is near, has to be one of the most common and pedestrian thoughts in human history. Virtually every ideology believes this.

Neither do this thread's discursions into human flatulence, Jupiter's methane, firemaking, pollution, or cannibalism make the arguments of similarity, any more valid.

The argument presented in the OP is best described as a "conceit," a fanciful expression composed of tenuous relationships.

rwrjr
05-31-2012, 12:03
That's what I love about the S&P forum. We can turn just about any post into a pissing contest. :tongueout:

G29Reload
05-31-2012, 12:46
This is argument by assertion, ie, an argument is valid because you say it is.

Thinking about a fuzzy purple-striped monster is "thinking beyond the obvious," but doesn't make the concept "more valid," nor does it make purple-striped monsters more likely to exist.

Making the case for similarity based on one or a few points that are shared by many groups, isn't valid argumentation or compelling evidence of similarity. That the EOTWAWKI is near, has to be one of the most common and pedestrian thoughts in human history. Virtually every ideology believes this.

Neither do this thread's discursions into human flatulence, Jupiter's methane, firemaking, pollution, or cannibalism make the arguments of similarity, any more valid.

The argument presented in the OP is best described as a "conceit," a fanciful expression composed of tenuous relationships.


Way to gut and filet a stupid argument Professor Bolster! Talk about "paid attention in class"!

Bravissimo!:wow::cool::wavey:

:faint:

cyrsequipment
05-31-2012, 14:25
This is argument by assertion, ie, an argument is valid because you say it is. .

Kinda like most of your argument in this thread??


Thinking about a fuzzy purple-striped monster is "thinking beyond the obvious," but doesn't make the concept "more valid," nor does it make purple-striped monsters more likely to exist.

Making the case for similarity based on one or a few points that are shared by many groups, isn't valid argumentation or compelling evidence of similarity. That the EOTWAWKI is near, has to be one of the most common and pedestrian thoughts in human history. Virtually every ideology believes this.

Neither do this thread's discursions into human flatulence, Jupiter's methane, firemaking, pollution, or cannibalism make the arguments of similarity, any more valid.

The argument presented in the OP is best described as a "conceit," a fanciful expression composed of tenuous relationships.

Um, that was the entire point of the OP's statement. You throwing out a couple big words that don't really fit into your sentence doesn't make your argument "better", it just proves that you need a thesaurus.

As for your end of the world comment, what the heck does that have to do with philosophical similarities between two disparate groups?

The original statement was that there are similarities (another word you may wish to look-up because you have expanded the definition far beyond what anyone else uses for that word), not that two groups are identical which what you seem hell-bent on arguing against. Your arguments border on the absurd when you make comparisons between religion and wearing pants when the OP was simply stating that there are some similarities.

You don't have to agree with the statement, but don't be childish by hiding behind pseudo-intellectualism and try to change the subject to something that you want to argue against and expect to make sense...

Bolster
05-31-2012, 15:02
The original question was borderline, the subsequent commentary meanderingly random, and your peevish defensiveness, dull. So I'm gone from this thread. You win on account of I'm too bored to continue. We'll cross swords in another thread, hopefully a more interesting one.

Syclone538
05-31-2012, 21:17
I don't agree that we know it is being used faster than it is being created.

Production is an interesting word as it can be used in different ways. Oil is cuurrently being produced faster than it is being used. Production and production capacity exceed demand. inventories are increasing, in ground and above.

You know, I completely agree that we don't know if the earth is creating oil, natural gas, and coal faster then we are burning it, but I'd be very surprised if it was.

I made the assumption that everyone agreed that we were burning it faster then it is being created.

Looking back, I can also see where my first post in the thread might look like I was completely agreeing with the op (total social collapse), when I was only agreeing that our usage vs production/creation will have to change drastically at some point in the future.

cyrsequipment
06-01-2012, 05:25
The original question was borderline,

Maybe, but your reaction to it shows that apparently it hit a nerve for you. If you don't like being compared to a member of the Sierra Club or ELF, just say so, don't attack the mere asking of a question. This forum is meant to evoke discussion, if a discussion hits a nerve for you, then say so or don't participate in that particular thread. You have a lot to offer this forum when you do offer advice or objective opinion.

the subsequent commentary meanderingly random.

Yes, but this is a thread on the Glocktalk S&P forum, where there is a thread going about the S&P usefulness of a hotdog cart. Did you expect different?

and your peevish defensiveness, dull.

I was not defensive, your comments attacking the premise of even daring to ask such a question appeared nothing but defensive. If you were not defensive, my apologies, but even you must admit that a reading of your posts would give that indication. If that is not what you meant, then fine.

So I'm gone from this thread. You win on account of I'm too bored to continue.

My goal was not to win, but to question why you were attacking the thread itself, when no one was fording you to participate. There were a many disagreements on this thread, all with valid points yet you chose to dismiss the entire discussion because it offended something within you.

We'll cross swords in another thread, hopefully a more interesting one.

I look forward to it, you aren't dumb in any way, just a bit closed-minded which makes for interesting discussions.

Stevekozak
06-01-2012, 06:25
Maybe, but your reaction to it shows that apparently it hit a nerve for you. If you don't like being compared to a member of the Sierra Club or ELF, just say so, don't attack the mere asking of a question. This forum is meant to evoke discussion, if a discussion hits a nerve for you, then say so or don't participate in that particular thread. You have a lot to offer this forum when you do offer advice or objective opinion.



Yes, but this is a thread on the Glocktalk S&P forum, where there is a thread going about the S&P usefulness of a hotdog cart. Did you expect different?



I was not defensive, your comments attacking the premise of even daring to ask such a question appeared nothing but defensive. If you were not defensive, my apologies, but even you must admit that a reading of your posts would give that indication. If that is not what you meant, then fine.



My goal was not to win, but to question why you were attacking the thread itself, when no one was fording you to participate. There were a many disagreements on this thread, all with valid points yet you chose to dismiss the entire discussion because it offended something within you.



I look forward to it, you aren't dumb in any way, just a bit closed-minded which makes for interesting discussions.
Another really good post in this thread, and I wholeheartedly agree! It is so fascinating to watch ppl's reactions to to certain things in these threads. A person that usually seems full of good information and is open to discussion can sometimes deteriorate into sullen unreasonablness. It is interesting, and worth watching for patterns of motivation.

pugman
06-01-2012, 06:25
My question is when do we find ourselves some Imulsion because I really want me a machine gun with a chainsaw attachment.

G29Reload
06-01-2012, 10:40
As a dedicated S&P person, I can't think of anything more absurd than being grouped with a bunch of radical environmentalists whom I loathe and despise. Its another front for socialism and the only thing I have in common with them is breathing air and being on the same planet.

I'm with bolster and out of here to let this thread die the death it deserves.

cyrsequipment
06-01-2012, 11:28
As a dedicated S&P person, I can't think of anything more absurd than being grouped with a bunch of radical environmentalists whom I loathe and despise. Its another front for socialism and the only thing I have in common with them is breathing air and being on the same planet.

I'm with bolster and out of here to let this thread die the death it deserves.

Although I REALLY don't understand why this bothers you and Bolster, I don't think anyone is accusing you of liking them, just having similarities.

Don't worry, this thread has just about played itself out I think. It will be out of your sight soon enough.

sebecman
06-02-2012, 15:47
like most threads in this forum, it's dying........let's move on. :yawn: