4 ms·

I'm not a Republican, but I work with mostly Republicans in some of the charities I'm associated with, and at least anecdotally, that statement seems completely

by bmelton 13y ago

I'm not a Republican, but I work with mostly Republicans in some of the charities I'm associated with, and at least anecdotally, that statement seems completely unsubstantiated, and carries about as much weight as "all Republicans are racists" or "all Democrats hate the rich".

Cowicide 13y ago
Except I didn't say "all republicans" anything.
- bmelton 13y ago
  Nor did I say that you did.
  - Cowicide 13y ago
    Please stop being obtuse. You obviously implied it with your post. >carries about as much weight as "all Republicans are racists"
    - bmelton 13y ago
      What I implied was that a lie about "most" Republicans is just as asinine as a lie about all Republicans. Undeserved stereotypes don't have any place here, and as pragmatists, we should all be above them.
      - Cowicide 13y ago
        >Undeserved stereotypes don't have any place here The FACT that most Republicans still consider climate impact and/or manmade global warming an overblown hoax isn't a "undeserved stereotype" unless one is to devolve into fantasy. As a self-proclaimed pragmatist, you should be above this fantasy. http://www.people-press.org/2013/11/01/gop-deeply-divided-over-climate-change/10-31-13-3/ http://www.people-press.org/2013/11/01/gop-deeply-divided-ov... http://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-republicans-reject-climate-change-science/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-republicans-reject-climate... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-mooney/the-science-of-truthiness_b_1379472.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-mooney/the-science-of-tr...
        bmelton 13y ago
        The complaint I had was with the false equivalence. From your link: About half of Democrats (48%) say global warming is a very serious problem Should we conclude from that they're putting "the almighty dollar ahead of the environment", or can we agree that whatever they may or may not believe, 1) climate change isn't the sum totality of the environment, and 2) whether one chooses to believe or disbelieve in either its presence or its seriousness, that does not necessarily bely an ulterior profit motive? Many Democrats are against the private ownership of 'semi-automatic firearms', but that doesn't mean that they're trying to disarm the populace so that they can crush us like Hitler. Many Republicans are against expanding social welfare programs, but that doesn't mean that they're trying to crush the poor and kill off minorities through starvation. Many Libertarians are against the idea of income taxation, but that doesn't mean that they want people whose jobs are paid for with tax dollars to be evicted from their homes and be subjected to the elements. Whether or not Republicans agree on climate change, that does not mean they hate the environment, and even if it does mean that, it does not mean they're hating the environment because it's unprofitable to do otherwise. In short, you've took an almost fact, overvalued its importance, devalued the importance of all other possible environmental concerns, and then drawn incorrect conclusions from that, for the purpose of unnecessarily vilifying roughly half the voting population of America.
        Cowicide 13y ago
        >The complaint I had was with the false equivalence. No, it wasn't. You inferred that I was stating that ALL republicans put money ahead of the environment by saying: "carries about as much weight as "all Republicans are racists" or "all Democrats hate the rich"." I clearly said MOST and corrected you. You also presented your own useless, anecdotal experience that's in direct odds with the empirical evidence I later presented to you. >The complaint I had was with the false equivalence. You then go on to present your own false equivalence with Democrats, how quaint. >About half of Democrats (48%) say global warming is a very serious problem Nice false equivalency cherry-picking. You're ignoring the rest of the research that clearly shows that most Republicans are notorious for being deniers of everything from warming itself, to it being caused by human activity, along with impact denial. You're actually very much using the tactics of global warming deniers as well. Ignore the vast amount of evidence against your argument, while cherry-picking small sections of data in a desperate attempt to fudge the overall point. >Whether or not Republicans agree on climate change, that does not mean they hate the environment Once AGAIN, I didn't say ALL republicans. But, the fact that MOST put a corporatist, profiteering point of view ahead of a vast majority of climate scientists doesn't actually show a sincere concern for the environment, either. Unless, once again, you want to jump into another foray of fantasy.

by bmelton 13y ago

Cowicide 13y ago

Except I didn't say "all republicans" anything.

bmelton 13y ago
Nor did I say that you did.
- Cowicide 13y ago
  Please stop being obtuse. You obviously implied it with your post. >carries about as much weight as "all Republicans are racists"
  - bmelton 13y ago
    What I implied was that a lie about "most" Republicans is just as asinine as a lie about all Republicans. Undeserved stereotypes don't have any place here, and as pragmatists, we should all be above them.
    - Cowicide 13y ago
      >Undeserved stereotypes don't have any place here The FACT that most Republicans still consider climate impact and/or manmade global warming an overblown hoax isn't a "undeserved stereotype" unless one is to devolve into fantasy. As a self-proclaimed pragmatist, you should be above this fantasy. http://www.people-press.org/2013/11/01/gop-deeply-divided-over-climate-change/10-31-13-3/ http://www.people-press.org/2013/11/01/gop-deeply-divided-ov... http://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-republicans-reject-climate-change-science/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-republicans-reject-climate... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-mooney/the-science-of-truthiness_b_1379472.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-mooney/the-science-of-tr...
      - bmelton 13y ago
        The complaint I had was with the false equivalence. From your link: About half of Democrats (48%) say global warming is a very serious problem Should we conclude from that they're putting "the almighty dollar ahead of the environment", or can we agree that whatever they may or may not believe, 1) climate change isn't the sum totality of the environment, and 2) whether one chooses to believe or disbelieve in either its presence or its seriousness, that does not necessarily bely an ulterior profit motive? Many Democrats are against the private ownership of 'semi-automatic firearms', but that doesn't mean that they're trying to disarm the populace so that they can crush us like Hitler. Many Republicans are against expanding social welfare programs, but that doesn't mean that they're trying to crush the poor and kill off minorities through starvation. Many Libertarians are against the idea of income taxation, but that doesn't mean that they want people whose jobs are paid for with tax dollars to be evicted from their homes and be subjected to the elements. Whether or not Republicans agree on climate change, that does not mean they hate the environment, and even if it does mean that, it does not mean they're hating the environment because it's unprofitable to do otherwise. In short, you've took an almost fact, overvalued its importance, devalued the importance of all other possible environmental concerns, and then drawn incorrect conclusions from that, for the purpose of unnecessarily vilifying roughly half the voting population of America.
        Cowicide 13y ago
        >The complaint I had was with the false equivalence. No, it wasn't. You inferred that I was stating that ALL republicans put money ahead of the environment by saying: "carries about as much weight as "all Republicans are racists" or "all Democrats hate the rich"." I clearly said MOST and corrected you. You also presented your own useless, anecdotal experience that's in direct odds with the empirical evidence I later presented to you. >The complaint I had was with the false equivalence. You then go on to present your own false equivalence with Democrats, how quaint. >About half of Democrats (48%) say global warming is a very serious problem Nice false equivalency cherry-picking. You're ignoring the rest of the research that clearly shows that most Republicans are notorious for being deniers of everything from warming itself, to it being caused by human activity, along with impact denial. You're actually very much using the tactics of global warming deniers as well. Ignore the vast amount of evidence against your argument, while cherry-picking small sections of data in a desperate attempt to fudge the overall point. >Whether or not Republicans agree on climate change, that does not mean they hate the environment Once AGAIN, I didn't say ALL republicans. But, the fact that MOST put a corporatist, profiteering point of view ahead of a vast majority of climate scientists doesn't actually show a sincere concern for the environment, either. Unless, once again, you want to jump into another foray of fantasy.