4 ms·

> If you think that's a good trade, there's no convincing you of any moral duty to make sacrifices for future generations. Goodness. So not only is my judgeme

> If you think that's a good trade, there's no convincing you of any moral duty to make sacrifices for future generations. Goodness. So not only is my judgement incorrect-- I'm also irretrievably immoral? What could I do differently to redeem myself in your eyes?

scoofy 3y ago
Again, I honestly don't give a shit about your personal choices, I just think that, collectively, we should disincentivize general behaviors that are exceptionally bad for the climate. The fact that you care that I care is exactly the type of anti-partisanship hostility that makes organizing on this subject so difficult. Any theory of moral sentiments must be universal (this is my background in academic philosophy talking), so an moral sentiments I have must apply to you as well, otherwise they wouldn't actually be moral sentiments. That doesn't mean that I think anyone making different choices than I do is a "bad person" or anything (my other comment in this thread specifically discusses how difficult the tradeoffs for urbanism have become in this country), I only mean that I think that you should generally care about other people, even people that aren't born yet, at least collectively (gasp: how pearl-clutching of me). Again, I'm a fatalist at this point, simply because the level of push back to any non-symbolic change has been much more than I thought it would be for all collective changes needed. We have a few tricks up our sleeves in the form of geoengineering, and the eventual dominance of effectively free electricity in the future, but as it stands, I think it's going to get much worse before it starts getting better, and caring about whether someone lives in the suburbs isn't worth the energy.
- nate_meurer 3y ago
  You clearly do care very much about other people's personal choices, and you're not shy about calling them immoral if they come to different conclusions about, say, finding a life balance between between time, money, and minimizing externalities. In your mind, my willingness to use an extra pint of gas each month in order to have more time for my family indicates that I don't "generally care about other people". That makes me sad. I'm curious: how do you feel my monthly pint of gas compares to your pet dog's consumption of food resources, including the environmental destruction of factory-farmed meat, packaging waste, and transportation costs?
  - scoofy 3y ago
    I'm not going to participate in this nonsense nerd sniping. I don't have a dog. I think other forms of environmental destruction can be relevant in general, but generally irrelevant to any discussion of climate change. I think it's perfectly sensible to be concerned about climate impact on a macro scale and for people to make reasonable trade offs. I don't think "car=bad", only that in many areas (including where I live in CA) it's the highest single-source of greenhouse gas emissions, so it should be paid the appropriate amount of attention to.
    - nate_meurer 3y ago
      > I don't have a dog. Ok, that's funny! Sorry, your girlfriend's dog, with whom you live, and on whose behalf you seek to move nearer to a dog park. > generally irrelevant to any discussion of climate change. You think the factory-farmed meat that your girlfriend's dog consumes is irrelevant to climate change? If not, then I'll reiterate my question: how do you feel my monthly pint of gas compares to your girlfriend's dog's consumption of resources?
      - scoofy 3y ago
        The concept that you think that I can't have an opinion about things without having zero emissions is obviously ridiculous. I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion about the systematic sources of GHGs, and then am just getting whataboutism deflection in every response. I do think GHG heavy meat-consumption that is associated with climate change should be disincentivized just as much as I think GHG heavy fuel-consumption should be. If you want to keep asking me to make arbitrary GHG comparisons (that only a PHD researcher would be able to accurately calculate), then I'm not going to respond. Whataboutism is only an effective rhetorical device if your intentions are in bad-faith.
        nate_meurer 3y ago
        > you think that I can't have an opinion about things without having zero emissions I neither said nor implied that, and in fact I'm saying the opposite. You absolutely have a right to your moralizing regardless of your GHG emissions. > I do think GHG heavy meat-consumption that is associated with climate change should be disincentivized just as much as I think GHG heavy fuel-consumption should be. Well thank God, I thought it was just me. FWIW I also have family members who are dogs, and I spent countless hours developing a vegetarian dog food recipe, and I spend countless more making the shit. I learned the AAFCO guidelines (which are woefully inadequate IMO), and made a spreadsheet to make sure my dogs get what they need from calcium to taurine. I, my wife, and my kids are all vegetarians, and my kids were horrifed to learn how many animals have to die to feed our pets. > Whataboutism is only an effective rhetorical device if your intentions are in bad-faith. If I were pointing out hypocrisy only to justify my own life choices, then that would qualify as whataboutism. But I assure you that's not the case. I personally find factory animal farming to be the nearly the most repugnant, immoral thing that humans do. But I also understand that not everyone wants to spend a chunk of their life making vegetarian dog food, so I'm not about to accuse you and your girlfriend of immorality if you make different choices.

scoofy 3y ago

Again, I honestly don't give a shit about your personal choices, I just think that, collectively, we should disincentivize general behaviors that are exceptionally bad for the climate. The fact that you care that I care is exactly the type of anti-partisanship hostility that makes organizing on this subject so difficult. Any theory of moral sentiments must be universal (this is my background in academic philosophy talking), so an moral sentiments I have must apply to you as well, otherwise they wouldn't actually be moral sentiments. That doesn't mean that I think anyone making different choices than I do is a "bad person" or anything (my other comment in this thread specifically discusses how difficult the tradeoffs for urbanism have become in this country), I only mean that I think that you should generally care about other people, even people that aren't born yet, at least collectively (gasp: how pearl-clutching of me). Again, I'm a fatalist at this point, simply because the level of push back to any non-symbolic change has been much more than I thought it would be for all collective changes needed. We have a few tricks up our sleeves in the form of geoengineering, and the eventual dominance of effectively free electricity in the future, but as it stands, I think it's going to get much worse before it starts getting better, and caring about whether someone lives in the suburbs isn't worth the energy.

nate_meurer 3y ago
You clearly do care very much about other people's personal choices, and you're not shy about calling them immoral if they come to different conclusions about, say, finding a life balance between between time, money, and minimizing externalities. In your mind, my willingness to use an extra pint of gas each month in order to have more time for my family indicates that I don't "generally care about other people". That makes me sad. I'm curious: how do you feel my monthly pint of gas compares to your pet dog's consumption of food resources, including the environmental destruction of factory-farmed meat, packaging waste, and transportation costs?
- scoofy 3y ago
  I'm not going to participate in this nonsense nerd sniping. I don't have a dog. I think other forms of environmental destruction can be relevant in general, but generally irrelevant to any discussion of climate change. I think it's perfectly sensible to be concerned about climate impact on a macro scale and for people to make reasonable trade offs. I don't think "car=bad", only that in many areas (including where I live in CA) it's the highest single-source of greenhouse gas emissions, so it should be paid the appropriate amount of attention to.
  - nate_meurer 3y ago
    > I don't have a dog. Ok, that's funny! Sorry, your girlfriend's dog, with whom you live, and on whose behalf you seek to move nearer to a dog park. > generally irrelevant to any discussion of climate change. You think the factory-farmed meat that your girlfriend's dog consumes is irrelevant to climate change? If not, then I'll reiterate my question: how do you feel my monthly pint of gas compares to your girlfriend's dog's consumption of resources?
    - scoofy 3y ago
      The concept that you think that I can't have an opinion about things without having zero emissions is obviously ridiculous. I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion about the systematic sources of GHGs, and then am just getting whataboutism deflection in every response. I do think GHG heavy meat-consumption that is associated with climate change should be disincentivized just as much as I think GHG heavy fuel-consumption should be. If you want to keep asking me to make arbitrary GHG comparisons (that only a PHD researcher would be able to accurately calculate), then I'm not going to respond. Whataboutism is only an effective rhetorical device if your intentions are in bad-faith.
      - nate_meurer 3y ago
        > you think that I can't have an opinion about things without having zero emissions I neither said nor implied that, and in fact I'm saying the opposite. You absolutely have a right to your moralizing regardless of your GHG emissions. > I do think GHG heavy meat-consumption that is associated with climate change should be disincentivized just as much as I think GHG heavy fuel-consumption should be. Well thank God, I thought it was just me. FWIW I also have family members who are dogs, and I spent countless hours developing a vegetarian dog food recipe, and I spend countless more making the shit. I learned the AAFCO guidelines (which are woefully inadequate IMO), and made a spreadsheet to make sure my dogs get what they need from calcium to taurine. I, my wife, and my kids are all vegetarians, and my kids were horrifed to learn how many animals have to die to feed our pets. > Whataboutism is only an effective rhetorical device if your intentions are in bad-faith. If I were pointing out hypocrisy only to justify my own life choices, then that would qualify as whataboutism. But I assure you that's not the case. I personally find factory animal farming to be the nearly the most repugnant, immoral thing that humans do. But I also understand that not everyone wants to spend a chunk of their life making vegetarian dog food, so I'm not about to accuse you and your girlfriend of immorality if you make different choices.