Jump to content

Trolling (split from Quick Forum Questions)


Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Nothing close to an existential threat, which was consistently suggested by many politicians on the left, and often touted as "the greatest threat to mankind", with the most extreme on the left teaching children that the world might end in 12 years.

Compare with the real existential threat, nuclear war, and all the people that have already been killed and displaced in wars since that report came out.

Just because it’s not imminent doesn’t mean it won’t be existential.

My kids are super grateful to you that you don’t care what their lives will be like, how hard it will be to grow crops to feed 9 Billion people, or find fresh drinking water during droughts, or survive the tornadoes and hurricanes and hard freeze blizzards each season, or the nasty illnesses evolving and transmitted during mass human migrations when you and I are both long dead and gone. 

Super grateful, we all are, that you acknowledge something should be done about this but you recognize how “putting libs in their place” is the more important topic to discuss here. 

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

Just because it’s not imminent doesn’t mean it won’t be existential.

My kids are super grateful to you that you don’t care what their lives will be like, how hard it will be to grow crops to feed 9 Billion people, or find fresh drinking water during droughts, or survive the tornadoes and hurricanes and hard freeze blizzards each season, or the basket illnesses evolving and transmitted during mass human migrations when you and I are both long dead and gone. 

Super grateful, we all are, for you seeing “putting libs in their place” as the more important topic to discuss. 

 

50 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

There was no "nuance" of any accuracy from the loudest from either side (there rarely is), but the claims of the political left were most bizarre. Politically they were left unchecked, often with the usual beat down of anyone attempting to be accurate. They had excuses for doing so, ranging from being fed a misleading interpretation of the report to believing they were morally justified for their lack of intellectual integrity.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

If I told you that was the extreme right meant in the context of global warming, maybe that might increase your understanding.

If you told me the meaning of that sentence, my understanding would be increased. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

If you told me the meaning of that sentence, my understanding would be increased. 

Sorry. Sloppy grammar and I was a little lazy in the punctuation:

Where I referred  to "the extreme right", I meant in the context of global warming.

Moreover, those considered to be on the extreme right on climate change, climate change deniers, does not automatically make them on the extreme right with regard to guns.

3 hours ago, iNow said:

You seem to be suggesting my claims were bizarre and inaccurate. Am I reading you correctly? 

Global warming is not an existential threat to mankind. There are existential threats to mankind, and though it could exacerbate them, it's not one.

4 hours ago, iNow said:

Just because it’s not imminent doesn’t mean it won’t be existential.

There is no realistic expectation that it will be, expansion to a red giant in 7 billion years aside. 

Burning off all known sources of fossil fuels might have many negative effects, but the threat of nuclear war is much, much more of a concern for mankind.

4 hours ago, iNow said:

... you don’t care what their lives will be like, how hard it will be to grow crops to feed 9 Billion people, or find fresh drinking water during droughts, or survive the tornadoes and hurricanes and hard freeze blizzards each season, or the nasty illnesses evolving and transmitted during mass human migrations when you and I are both long dead and gone.  

What makes you think I don't care? The fact that I'm unwilling to support lies or exaggerations  coming from either side?

Am I supposed to reply here that you don't care about nuclear war? How might that help solve anything?

How does misrepresenting the problem, and attacking someone to encourage them to believe the misrepresentation, help lead to solutions?

4 hours ago, iNow said:

 

Super grateful, we all are, that you acknowledge something should be done about this but you recognize how “putting libs in their place” is the more important topic to discuss here. 

If we're going to accomplish what we need to accomplish, we're going to need help and accurate thinking from liberals.

How and why they get sidetracked is also on topic.

Edited by J.C.MacSwell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Peterkin said:

OK.. So, does that mean 'the moderates' have failed to solve a problem that has been known globally for at least half a century, during which moderates had more power than they have now,  and that 'making some progress' amounts to SFA insofar as the fate of the planet is concerned, and is it therefore possible that the disgruntled greens have some basis to believe that moderates will not solve it through moderate means in time to prevent disaster?

It means exactly what I said it means, without any of your flagellation of your agenda. There are good points in both left and right political positions, just as there are bad. I obviously lean one way....You obviously need to learn much more about climate change and do away with your blinkers and personal prejudices, as well as the other things I have mentioned.

like....

https://theconversation.com/the-world-has-made-more-progress-on-climate-change-than-you-might-think-or-might-have-predicted-a-decade-ago-171787

The world has made more progress on climate change than you might think – or might have predicted a decade ago

and....to repeat myself......

What normal things are you on about? Some sure...adequate universal health care, achaic gun laws is another. The political election systems seem way over complicated but maybe that's just me. We have mandatory vaccinations in Australia in certain industries including health, that many see as extreme. And sure it's subjective, I thought I did say that.But more to the point, what may be considered as just and normal like adequate gun laws, which the right and the NRA view as sacrilege, when any move is made to contain those same guns, see such, as extreme....The examples of extreme left views and other rights considered normal possibly also have pursasive extreme elements and views held by individuals in certain orginisations. And of course as I have also mentioned political correctness, going from the sublime to the ridiculous is probably another. 

What you seem to be suggesting is that while the extremes of rights exist, the extremes of left do not. That probably contributes to my hypothesis. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Far-left_politics_in_the_United_States

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rainerzitelmann/2020/02/16/anti-capitalism-on-us-university-campuses-the-culture-war-is-fought-dirty/?sh=115af0b5c4b7

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

 

Of course there are just as many extreme right wing orginisations also, the trick is recognising the extremes of both sides of politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Global warming is not an existential threat to mankind.

What else does your crystal ball tell you? Do you also know next weeks lotto numbers?

Imminent? No. Existential? Depends on your time frame… a time frame which we’re very clearly accelerating on current trajectory. 

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Burning off all known sources of fossil fuels might have many negative effects, but the threat of nuclear war is much, much more of a concern for mankind.

False choice. Both are concerning. 

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

How does misrepresenting the problem, and attacking someone to encourage them to believe the misrepresentation, help lead to solutions?

So you seem to be suggesting my claim that the survival and existence of many millions of future people is being put at increased risk due directly to climate change is “misrepresenting the problem.” Am I reading you correctly here, because honestly I’m beginning to feel like the misrepresented one in this exchange. 

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

If we're going to accomplish what we need to accomplish, we're going to need help and accurate thinking from liberals.

Phew. That was a close call. Thank god you returned us back to the actually important focus in all this… attacking “liberals.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, beecee said:

What normal things are you on about? Some sure...adequate universal health care, achaic gun laws is another. The political election systems seem way over complicated but maybe that's just me. We have mandatory vaccinations in Australia in certain industries including health, that many see as extreme. And sure it's subjective, I thought I did say that.But more to the point, what may be considered as just and normal like adequate gun laws, which the right and the NRA view as sacrilege, when any move is made to contain those same guns, see such, as extreme....The examples of extreme left views and other rights considered normal possibly also have pursasive extreme elements and views held by individuals in certain orginisations

 

anarchy.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Where I referred  to "the extreme right", I meant in the context of global warming.

Moreover, those considered to be on the extreme right on climate change, climate change deniers, does not automatically make them on the extreme right with regard to guns.

I still do not see the relevance of attitude to climate change as regards the radicalization of extreme political factions. 

Bu that's okay; I'm obtuse.

4 hours ago, beecee said:

It means exactly what I said it means, without any of your flagellation of your agenda. There are good points in both left and right political positions, just as there are bad.

I was asking what those good points, bad points and common agendas are.

4 hours ago, beecee said:

You obviously need to learn much more about climate change and do away with your blinkers and personal prejudices, as well as the other things I have mentioned.

Do I? Perhaps. Morocco and The Gambia https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/only-2-countries-are-meeting-their-climate-pledges-heres-how-the-10-worst-could-improve 

4 hours ago, beecee said:

The world has made more progress on climate change than you might think – or might have predicted a decade ago

That's admirable. So, the ice caps are no longer melting? California, Washington, Oregon, BC, Siberia, Spain and Australia will not be burning this year? Relieved to hear it! Plastics are no longer choking sea creatures? Butterflies are back? Good! The moderates are taking care of it.

To all environmental extremists: stand back and stand by.  

Anyway, as mentioned earlier, I do not consider this a left-right political issue -  the government agencies that compile lists of potential terrorist elements do. They classify all groups driven by ecological and ethical concerns on the left end of the spectrum. Maybe it's a subconscious association.  

To me, political issues center on power structure, form and method of governance, economic principles, jurisdiction, responsibilities and limits of government, taxation, regulation, legislation, the prerogatives and obligations of citizenship. 

4 hours ago, beecee said:

What you seem to be suggesting is that while the extremes of rights exist, the extremes of left do not. That probably contributes to my hypothesis. 

Again, I suggested no such thing. One may exist and shoot up a church, another may exist and draw pictures on a wall. The existence is equal; the action is not. The effect is not. The extremism is not.  But if one end of the spectrum grows more violent, it does stand to reason that the other end will make some attempt to defend itself.  In that sense, you're absolutely right: violence does beget violence. The alternative: lying down and allowing oneself to be killed has appealed to some people, but it seems not universally popular. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without getting too far into the assertions made here or elsewhere about AGW,  I will say that precise definitions matter greatly if we don't want threads that decay into trollery.  The phrase existential threat is a shining example of imprecision.  If a conservative uses it to caricature a moderate/liberal position, they may use it to mean complete extinction event, no humans left.  This, most climatologists and ecologists agree, is not likely to happen, so the conservative feels they score a point.  However, if their interlocutor said existential threat and meant something more like vast social disruption, widespread crop failure and famine especially in the tropics, many deaths from wet bulb temps over 35 C in tropical regions where AC is not widely available, massive wildfires, massive coastal flooding in areas of high population density  then they are speaking of threats quite real and not too distant.   And quite existential for those most vulnerable by virtue of geography and lack of resources.  So any discussion must determine first what such terms mean, and find common definitions.  And that can only happen when politics, and wearing team jerseys, is put aside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Bu that's okay; I'm obtuse.

You need to answer the questions more directly...and with more honestly in asking them. 

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I was asking what those good points, bad points and common agendas are.

And I have answered that honestly along with links. 

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

None of that changes the fact, that our attitudes in general have improved and advances have been made. Certainly no where near enough with plenty of work and targets to be achieved. When you finally can openly admit that, is the question at hand.

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

That's admirable. So, the ice caps are no longer melting? California, Washington, Oregon, BC, Siberia, Spain and Australia will not be burning this year? Relieved to hear it! Plastics are no longer choking sea creatures? Butterflies are back? Good! The moderates are taking care of it.

Again you seem to be more inclined with supporting an ego and an agenda, rather then being honest. When have I ever denied any of the extreme events you raise? And while you are improving your answers and their applicability and honesty, you maybe interested in the scientific article I posted yesterday....

We still have much to learn it seems.

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

But if one end of the spectrum grows more violent, it does stand to reason that the other end will make some attempt to defend itself.  In that sense, you're absolutely right: violence does beget violence. The alternative: lying down and allowing oneself to be killed has appealed to some people, but it seems not universally popular. 

Thank you for some honesty anyway. As one who believes in standing up to bullies, rather then the "softly softly" approach, perhaps you need to address that to another more passive member. 😉

11 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

By some logic, that follows from the preceding quote.  

The same logic why we will always need police, courts, justice, punishment and rehabilitation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, beecee said:

You need to answer the questions more directly

I would not need to answer questions, even if any had been put to me. If you would like to me to answer questions, give them in the form of a question and I will answer the ones I consider relevant.

 

Quote

Thank you for some honesty anyway. As one who believes in standing up to bullies, rather then the "softly softly" approach,

Sure, just thought I should reiterate it, in case you missed it in on Pg. 3

Quote

If the state is unable or unwilling to protect citizens from violence by the far right, or to ensure their liberty, those citizens have very few options but to defend themselves.)

 

4 hours ago, beecee said:

And the nature of man means that bosses will always be needed

Out of curiosity, why you need a boss? I've managed without one for over 40 years and feel no worse for the loss.

Edited by Peterkin
left out words
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I would not need to answer questions, even if any had been put to me. If you would like to me to answer questions, give them in the form of a question and I will answer the ones I consider relevant.

There you go again. 🥱 My full statement was "You need to answer the questions more directly...and with more honestly in asking them." You know, stop asking questions you already have the answers to, or have already been given to you. 

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Sure, just thought I should reiterate it, in case you missed it in on Pg. 3

You need to answer the questions more directly...and with more honestly in asking them. Page 3, just some of your usual, mostly as I see it, like "show me".

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Out of curiosity, why you need a boss? I've managed without one for over 40 years and feel no worse for the loss.

Have you? Good for you! Most though when debating sensibly, and fairly, know that we all have bosses or higher authorities that make laws that are needed to control what we do. Even you if the truth be known. 😉

 

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, beecee said:

Have you? Good for you! Most though when debating sensibly, and fairly, know that we all have bosses or higher authorities that make laws that are needed to control what we do. Even you if the truth be known

 

28 minutes ago, beecee said:

"You need to answer the questions more directly...and with more honestly in asking them."

 

 

Why do you need a boss?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Why do you need a boss?

Why do you personaly, (despite what you claim) have  Bosses?  Most though when debating sensibly, and fairly, know that we all have bosses or higher authorities that make laws that are needed to control what we do. Even you if the truth be known

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Why do you personaly, (despite what you claim) have  Bosses? 

This is not something i need to lie about. I used to have bosses (and it never once occurred to me that they should be capitalized)  I was lucky to work in health care: most of them were doctors and pretty okay. But they had bosses who were administrators and less okay, but still nowhere as crazy-making as corporate executive bosses, of whom I heard much from friends and lovers, mostly in their cups. Then I became my own boss, which was much better.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

 Most though when debating sensibly, and fairly, know that we all have bosses or higher authorities that make laws that are needed to control what we do.

And you speak for 'most', by virtue of....?

'bosses or higher authorities' are not interchangeable concepts, nor are their positions established in the same way, by the same means, or with the same limitations on their power.

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Even you if the truth be known

And now, you also speak for me? 

8 hours ago, beecee said:

You need to answer the questions more directly...and with more honestly in asking them. 

Why do you need a boss?

Edited by Peterkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

This is not something i need to lie about. I used to have bosses (and it never once occurred to me that they should be capitalized)  I was lucky to work in health care: most of them were doctors and pretty okay. But they had bosses who were administrators and less okay, but still nowhere as crazy-making as corporate executive bosses, of whom I heard much from friends and lovers, mostly in their cups. Then I became my own boss, which was much better.

You may not be lying per se, but you are being highly selective.We all have Bosses in any westernised or any society in general, despite that offending your obvious (now) philosophical position.

But like everything else, you, me and the members here, scientists, teachers, doctors lawyers, Indian chiefs, we have the good and the bad in all. Including Bosses. 

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

And you speak for 'most', by virtue of....?

By virtue of being a part of that society where we all have Bosses to some degree all the time.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

'bosses or higher authorities' are not interchangeable concepts, nor are their positions established in the same way, by the same means, or with the same limitations on their power.

We are all told how we should behave according to that society, every day of our lives, despite that obviously offending your philsophical position.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

And now, you also speak for me? 

You are a part of society?

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Why do you need a boss?

Never said I need one, as I have reasonable moral values that I chose to follow without authority, but yes, I have them in many theartres of everyday living, as do you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

civilised.jpg

😅Gee dimreeper, I know you can do so much better! I mean that besides being irrelevant, is so wrong, even I can dismantle it sentence by sentence. Let's just start with the "impression"that there were no bad Indians? Like I said, sentence by sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, beecee said:

😅Gee dimreeper, I know you can do so much better! I mean that besides being irrelevant, is so wrong, even I can dismantle it sentence by sentence. Let's just start with the "impression"that there were no bad Indians? Like I said, sentence by sentence.

"God of our fathers, known of old,
  Lord of our far-flung battle line,
Beneath whose awful hand we hold
  Dominion over palm and pine —
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!

The tumult and the shouting dies;
  The Captains and the Kings depart:
Still stands Thine ancient sacrifice,
  An humble and a contrite heart.
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!

Far-called, our navies melt away;
  On dune and headland sinks the fire:
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
  Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!
Judge of the Nations, spare us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!

If, drunk with sight of power, we loose
  Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe,
Such boastings as the Gentiles use,
  Or lesser breeds without the Law—
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!

For heathen heart that puts her trust
  In reeking tube and iron shard,
All valiant dust that builds on dust,
  And, guarding, calls not Thee to guard;
For frantic boast and foolish word—
Thy Mercy on Thy People, Lord!"

- Rudyard Kipling

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Let's just start with the "impression"that there were no bad Indians?

Where does it say that?

In your own country, a bad aboriginal would've been banished from the tribe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, beecee said:

Never said I need one, as I have reasonable moral values that I chose to follow without authority, but yes, I have them in many theartres of everyday living, as do you.

You are unclear on the concept, yet presume to speak for everyone; your 'reasonable' values authorize you to be the sole spokesman for the social norms of the entire 'westernized world. 

(Which has cast up some real doozies in bossmanship lately.)

 

3 hours ago, beecee said:

Let's just start with the "impression"that there were no bad Indians?

You interpret 'criminal' as 'bad' and run with your own misconception.  Sentence by sentence, you can twist another person's words --- and if the other person disagrees, they are the ones being dishonest.

Edited by Peterkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, beecee said:

😅Gee dimreeper, I know you can do so much better! I mean that besides being irrelevant, is so wrong, even I can dismantle it sentence by sentence. Let's just start with the "impression"that there were no bad Indians? Like I said, sentence by sentence.

The point of that piece is that the Indians, by sharing, removed a problem, which was poverty.  It doesn't solve all forms of crime but it sorts a big one. The other point was that materialism wasn't held to such a high regard, like other cultures do.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.