2020 election

[Fife]

OK, I see your conclusion. ("ravages (hyperbole? maybe not) of climate change, soil erosion, deforestation etc will override the benefits of more CO2") Shit, I see it every damn day.

Is there an argument that leads to that conclusion?

There are many scientific reports and predictions to support that conclusion. Will they suffice or do we need to get down to the nitty-gritty and repeat old arguments until we both lose the will to live and fall out with mindless name-calling. Asking for a friend...

Whoa, broheim, it's your argument. Who am I to tell you how to run your affairs? You decide for yourself what amounts to a convincing "argument."

[The Conservative]

Again, please try to be more specific about ''my solutions'' or all that's left is for me to call you a wanker.

I have been specific. How will banning plastic straws stop climate change? Even if all plastic straws and vanished from the earth, and were never made ever again, it wouldn't put a dent in the problem, and neither will any of your other bullshit solutions.

It all adds up to fuck all, it just makes you think you are doing something by supporting counter-productive solutions, yeah you are hurting the cause you claim to champion.

Plastic straws are not about halting climate change. The aim of eliminating them and other single-use plastics is to prevent the pollution of our oceans and the damage caused to marine animals.
I'm guessing this is why you resort to wide-ranging statements and infantile insults. Your arguments just don't stand up to scrutiny.
Some less forgiving posters might just resort to labelling you as spam and get into page after page of pointless name-calling.
I shall try to rise above that, dickhead.

[Montegriffo]

Well, unless you ban straws in Asia and Africa, you are doing jack shit about ocean pollution.

So do we do that by leading by example, physical force, punitive sanctions, international treaties or all of the above?

Will mere scapegoating help assuage our guilt or is action necessary?

It's not scapegoating. White people are not the problem. Asia and Africa are the places fucking up the oceans. No nanny statist banning and virtue signaling in the west is going to stop it.

Oh I see, your scapegoating is an attempt to derail the conversation into another one of your racial superiority theories. We could go over old arguments about poverty and the need to concentrate on day to day survival being more of a priority to those who live in underdeveloped nations but I'm guessing you haven't changed your mind about their low IQs and the superiority of Anglo-Saxons so it's just another shit-filled rabbit hole as far as I can see.

[Montegriffo]

OK, I see your conclusion. ("ravages (hyperbole? maybe not) of climate change, soil erosion, deforestation etc will override the benefits of more CO2") Shit, I see it every damn day.

Is there an argument that leads to that conclusion?

There are many scientific reports and predictions to support that conclusion. Will they suffice or do we need to get down to the nitty-gritty and repeat old arguments until we both lose the will to live and fall out with mindless name-calling. Asking for a friend...

Whoa, broheim, it's your argument. Who am I to tell you how to run your affairs? You decide for yourself what amounts to a convincing "argument."

I might have to set a few ground rules about accepting the conclusions of experts and not just dismissing appeals to authority if it is to be worthwhile. I suspect you are no fan of preconditions though so maybe you could present your arguments first and see if that leads to a meaningful discussion.

[Fife]

I already told you my CO2 argument. Carbon is not a pollutant.

What's this wise-ass shit about not accepting preconditions, BTW?

[Montegriffo]

I already told you my CO2 argument. Carbon is not a pollutant.

What's this wise-ass shit about not accepting preconditions, BTW?

That's a statement, not an argument AFAIC.
One could call it a motte and bailey argument I suppose and describe my rebuttal as a trebuchet of dismantlement if one really wanted to appear witty.

The wise-ass shit about not accepting preconditions was an attempt to avoid the usual fertilizer about who's experts were more qualified, BTW.

[Fife]

I already told you my CO2 argument. Carbon is not a pollutant.

What's this wise-ass shit about not accepting preconditions, BTW?

That's a statement, not an argument AFAIC.
One could call it a motte and bailey argument I suppose and describe my rebuttal as a trebuchet of dismantlement if one really wanted to appear witty.

You quoted the syllogism all of 40 minutes ago. viewtopic.php?p=281361#p281361 Are you feeling OK?

Do you understand the motte and bailey fallacy, and that you are not the only one who does it all the time? You shouldn't see everything as being solely about you, that's a different diagnosis though.

[Montegriffo]

I already told you my CO2 argument. Carbon is not a pollutant.

What's this wise-ass shit about not accepting preconditions, BTW?

That's a statement, not an argument AFAIC.
One could call it a motte and bailey argument I suppose and describe my rebuttal as a trebuchet of dismantlement if one really wanted to appear witty.

You quoted the syllogism all of 40 minutes ago. viewtopic.php?p=281361#p281361 Are you feeling OK?

Do you understand the motte and bailey fallacy, and that you are not the only one who does it all the time? You shouldn't see everything as being solely about you, that's a different diagnosis though.

Do you really want me to go through all the reasons that increased CO2 is more of a negative than a positive when it comes to plant growth?
I've already given many examples in discussions with other posters in the last few pages, you know, more intense storms, abnormal rainfall, floods, droughts, record temperatures, water shortages etc.
Climate change is not all about nicer weather for fishing trips and bumper tomatoes in the greenhouse at the safe and secure hideaway. (I forget your exact name for the cabin in the woods).

[Fife]

Skip it.

[PartyOf5]

Oh I see, your scapegoating is an attempt to derail the conversation into another one of your racial superiority theories. We could go over old arguments about poverty and the need to concentrate on day to day survival being more of a priority to those who live in underdeveloped nations but I'm guessing you haven't changed your mind about their low IQs and the superiority of Anglo-Saxons so it's just another shit-filled rabbit hole as far as I can see.

Are you saying that the countries that are polluting the oceans the most should not be held accountable because they are poor and have more important things to worry about? Seriously, is that your argument for why countries the US should be at defcon 1 about it yet the ones doing all the polluting don't have to do shit?
Seriously?