3 ms·

It's only a religious topic to climate change denialists.

by tovej 4mo ago

t0bia_s 4mo ago
By your rethoric, do you consider yourself as climate alarmist? Maybe try to be honest to yourslef first and then you'll understand, why it is really just about opinions that vary. No need to labeling opposition.
- tovej 4mo ago
  So you're labelling me a climate alarmist before I have made a single statements about the climate crisis? I have also not used any rhetoric that wasn't first introduced by the parent, so you also have no evidence of my rhetoric. Do you see how that is a dogmatic (some might call it religious) response? To the point: the evidence is overwhelming, and there is nothing alarmist about reacting rationally to it. Anyone denying human-caused climate change is also doing so in the face of this overwhelming evidence, so the label is rather accurate. I would happily label climate deniers with any negatively charged label you can think of: simpletons, propagandists, accelerationists, fundamentalists, reactionaries, fascists, useful idiots. Depends a little on what their role is which label sits best, but they all apply.
  - t0bia_s 4mo ago
    Climate change denialist or alarmist is labeling. You belive in something and other don't. Your arrogance to opposite opinion does not bring anything new to dialogue.
    - tovej 4mo ago
      Yes, it's labeling. One of those labels is very accurate, the other is part of a rhetoric that the oil companies are using to drag out the climate response so that they can keep raking in profits. I'm not here to convince you of climate change. If you're actually dumb enough to deny it, then it's most likely a lost cause. The more likely scenario is that you're a bad faith troll, and then this dialogue shows others a positive example: it's ok to be a dick to climate change deniers.
      - t0bia_s 4mo ago
        I asked a simple question. Your conclusions just proove how religious topic it could be for some. You completely ignorong a point and talk about your dogmatic opinion. Insulting others that not even agree/disagree with your pushed opinion does not makes you right.
        tovej 4mo ago
        Being right makes me right. You don't even have a point? Besides a strawman argument about non-existent religious climate alarmists. There's nothing to ignore. I have no reason to give you the benefit of the doubt. You're either a bad faith troll or you're an idiot.
fuzzfactor 4mo ago
Not only that but with somewhat less fervor those having fairly strong faith in superstition really add up after a while too. Combine both and it can be the most bizarre trend in non-cognizance that many have ever seen. Very often displayed by those who wouldn't recognize the difference between a CO2 spectrum and the brain scan of an accurately diagnosed mentally deficient patient. Some conditions you just can't fix. Regardless it makes you wonder what kind of medication some people are on, and if they took too much even if it was to no avail.

It's only a religious topic to climate change denialists.

by tovej 4mo ago

It's only a religious topic to climate change denialists.

By your rethoric, do you consider yourself as climate alarmist? Maybe try to be honest to yourslef first and then you'll understand, why it is really just about opinions that vary. No need to labeling opposition.

tovej 4mo ago
So you're labelling me a climate alarmist before I have made a single statements about the climate crisis? I have also not used any rhetoric that wasn't first introduced by the parent, so you also have no evidence of my rhetoric. Do you see how that is a dogmatic (some might call it religious) response? To the point: the evidence is overwhelming, and there is nothing alarmist about reacting rationally to it. Anyone denying human-caused climate change is also doing so in the face of this overwhelming evidence, so the label is rather accurate. I would happily label climate deniers with any negatively charged label you can think of: simpletons, propagandists, accelerationists, fundamentalists, reactionaries, fascists, useful idiots. Depends a little on what their role is which label sits best, but they all apply.
- t0bia_s 4mo ago
  Climate change denialist or alarmist is labeling. You belive in something and other don't. Your arrogance to opposite opinion does not bring anything new to dialogue.
  - tovej 4mo ago
    Yes, it's labeling. One of those labels is very accurate, the other is part of a rhetoric that the oil companies are using to drag out the climate response so that they can keep raking in profits. I'm not here to convince you of climate change. If you're actually dumb enough to deny it, then it's most likely a lost cause. The more likely scenario is that you're a bad faith troll, and then this dialogue shows others a positive example: it's ok to be a dick to climate change deniers.
    - t0bia_s 4mo ago
      I asked a simple question. Your conclusions just proove how religious topic it could be for some. You completely ignorong a point and talk about your dogmatic opinion. Insulting others that not even agree/disagree with your pushed opinion does not makes you right.
      - tovej 4mo ago
        Being right makes me right. You don't even have a point? Besides a strawman argument about non-existent religious climate alarmists. There's nothing to ignore. I have no reason to give you the benefit of the doubt. You're either a bad faith troll or you're an idiot.

fuzzfactor 4mo ago

Not only that but with somewhat less fervor those having fairly strong faith in superstition really add up after a while too. Combine both and it can be the most bizarre trend in non-cognizance that many have ever seen. Very often displayed by those who wouldn't recognize the difference between a CO2 spectrum and the brain scan of an accurately diagnosed mentally deficient patient. Some conditions you just can't fix. Regardless it makes you wonder what kind of medication some people are on, and if they took too much even if it was to no avail.