Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[DBTrek]

The unstated truth here is that the people who oppose printing a carbon footprint on the labels of products only oppose it because they oppose the globalist/leftist climate change agenda.

Unstated, but not a truth. You obviously can't overcome the "numbers are not accurate" problem, so of course you flee to the "unstated truth". Everyone who can't face the actual truth, like highly inaccurate numbers being unsuitable for informing consumers, is bound to wind up in "unstated truth" land eventually.

Actual truth is you seek comfort in government provided numbers you know are false. That's fine, just don't try to legislate that nonsense on the rest of us.

[SuburbanFarmer]

The unstated truth here is that the people who oppose printing a carbon footprint on the labels of products only oppose it because they oppose the globalist/leftist climate change agenda.

Unstated, but not a truth. You obviously can't overcome the "numbers are not accurate" problem, so of course you flee to the "unstated truth". Everyone who can't face the actual truth, like highly inaccurate numbers being unsuitable for informing consumers, is bound to wind up in "unstated truth" land eventually.

Actual truth is you seek comfort in government provided numbers you know are false. That's fine, just don't try to legislate that nonsense on the rest of us.

Same argument I use against organized religion.

[Speaker to Animals]

No-Argument-Having DB (NAH-DB) still flaming away. Somebody send him a handbook of fallacies for Christmas.

[DBTrek]

I appreciate the warm holiday sentiments.

[Montegriffo]

The unstated truth here is that the people who oppose printing a carbon footprint on the labels of products only oppose it because they oppose the globalist/leftist climate change agenda.

Unstated, but not a truth. You obviously can't overcome the "numbers are not accurate" problem, so of course you flee to the "unstated truth". Everyone who can't face the actual truth, like highly inaccurate numbers being unsuitable for informing consumers, is bound to wind up in "unstated truth" land eventually.

Actual truth is you seek comfort in government provided numbers you know are false. That's fine, just don't try to legislate that nonsense on the rest of us.

Once you can prove the numbers won't be a useful guide, or even how they will be worked out, your argument will cease to be highly inaccurate.

ps - happy holiday.

[Speaker to Animals]

You're welcome. You could also just look this shit up on Google or watch a YouTube video on critical thought too.

[Speaker to Animals]

Talk about shitting in your own drinking water.

I don't want the democrats to have any ammunition for their climate change agenda so I oppose providing consumers with information on the carbon emissions resulting from their consumption patterns.

Truly genius.

Great way to show everybody that you are on the winning side of the climate change debate too. LMFAO

[Fife]

If only the "information" would be benign fiction, i.e., "harmless." In reality, the "information" and its "regulation" will be much worse than harmless.

But, I've already laid this out in this thread, and it has, predictably, gone unchallenged.

It is sad, though, to see the hardcore bluepillers just rolling over and arching their backs for Bezos, the Walton family, and the Bernie/Cortez/Cotton cabals.

[DBTrek]

Monte was asking when the last time anyone threshed straw to make thatching in another thread. I don't know the answer to that, but I can certainly answer the last time Monte and StA went balls-to-the-wall overdrive on creating straw men. This thread right here.

How you can tell their argument is dead:
1. "Our request doesn't directly harm people"
2. Attacking opponents instead of arguments.
3. No time spent trying to defend their own position, all time spent attacking the opposition

Those are just a few quick-glance heuristics you can run on this thread to quickly assess who is standing on firm ground, and who is still flailing away at the windmills.

[Speaker to Animals]

If only the "information" would be benign fiction, i.e., "harmless." In reality, the "information" and its "regulation" will be much worse than harmless.

But, I've already laid this out in this thread, and it has, predictably, gone unchallenged.

It is sad, though, to see the hardcore bluepillers just rolling over and arching their backs for Bezos, the Walton family, and the Bernie/Cortez/Cotton cabals.

Greens might use the information against us, so we can't have people knowing anything about their consumption. LOL


Are you truly so blind that you cannot see how fucking stupid this sounds??