3 ms·
> And I never said that I 'don't believe climate change exists' The only way you'd be consistent was if you had imo. YMMV. Now, all you've established is my o
by fweespeech 10y ago
> And I never said that I 'don't believe climate change exists'
The only way you'd be consistent was if you had imo. YMMV.
Now, all you've established is my original belief was correct.
> You've changed this post at least two times since I first tried to respond to it; I can't write a coherent response if you keep on deleting your post and re-writing it.
You rewrote your post after I posted the first one.
Pot meet kettle.
- nickff 10y agoIt is perfectly consistent to believe that damage is being caused, and that a tax is a bad reaction. It would also be consistent to believe that there is no damage being caused, and that a tax would be bad.
- fweespeech 10y ago> It is perfectly consistent to believe that damage is being caused, and that a tax is a bad reaction. It would also be consistent to believe that there is no damage being caused, and that a tax would be bad. You advocate for lawsuits by everyone against everyone else which could be simplified and applied consistently by a tax. The fact you don't understand that is, effectively, a very inefficient tax is confusing.
- nickff 10y agoI didn't "advocate for lawsuits by everyone against everyone else". I said that one might be subject to a tort or trespass lawsuit "if [one] reduce[s] the value of your land by rendering it a desert over a period of years..."