3 ms·
"There is no need to be excessive." Now you're the one who gets to decide what is an obvious solution and what is an excessive one? You see where I'm going wit
by insickness 9y ago
"There is no need to be excessive."
Now you're the one who gets to decide what is an obvious solution and what is an excessive one? You see where I'm going with this.
In your analogy about the broken water pipe, you actually don't pay 'what you need' to fix the leak. You don't take out a loan greater than the house is worth to fix the leak. You don't open the phone book and randomly choose a sketchy person to fix the leak. You don't dive into the water with scotch tape and try to fix the leak. In other words, you still make an intelligent decision regardless of the severity. By making it impossible for reasonable people to present rational discussion, you make yourself sound irrational rather than have the intended affect of bringing in many people who would otherwise work alongside you to combat the problem.
- throwaway2018a 9y agoWe have a very clear picture of what the minimum we need to do is. There is a minimum we need to decrease greenhouse gas emissions. My issue is we can't even decide to meet the minimum. It is a minimum for a reason. At some point we need to stop talking and do something. After 20+ years of trying to convince skeptics we are running out of time to be diplomatic. You don't sound like a denier. Or if you are you are reasonable enough to not state absolutes. I was OK being politically correct when the "debate" was just stalling progress. Now that the debate is not just stalling progress but actually reversing it, it is downright frightening. Your counter analogy doesn't hold. We only have one earth. And I think your argument is a straw man. No one is calling people who want to debate the solution deniers. I have only seen people called deniers who say that we don't even need a solution at all. Or worse, that warming is good.