Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Hurst who wrote (34467)	7/4/2011 4:44:18 AM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

Don, I read lots of things I disagree with. It's important to know what people are thinking and how they think. Considering only people with whom you agree is common and keeps harmony, but I prefer rationality to harmony, and being first to escape when I see blunders being made. You have too many "presumably"s. Your presumptions are unfounded and mere stereotyping. Because a Negro wants equal rights, doesn't mean they also want crack, rap, cap, hos, and other stereotypical things. Because I want freedom and property rights doesn't mean I want the list from your grab bag of stereotypes even if Beck and those other people do [most of whom I haven't heard of]. It was only a few years ago that I realized belief in CO2ism had become a matter of left wing right wing litmus test [depending on your definitions of left and right but that's a passable description]. That is hilarious and shows the paucity of thinking involved. Whether gravitational laws are true or not is not a matter of left wing or right wing, but the so-called "The Science" in CO2ism is a left wing right wing matter. If you ask CO2sters their political thoughts, they seem to be universally left wingers. How can it be that belief in CO2ism is so heavily weighted to left-wingsters? Keep in mind that I do not mean what should be done about CO2 if it is a problem, which of course is logically a left-wing right-wing debate. I mean the simple truth of whether there is an effect and how much that effect will be. Will sea level rise 20 centimetres or 20 metres? Left wingers believe a lot, right wingers think not so much - 'not so much' has been the result for 100 years so another 100 years seems likely to result in more of the same. Presumably you smoke dope, collect crystals, believe in recycling, CO2, Gaia, Malthusianism, get really angry about supermarket plastic bags, have herpes, bludge on taxpayers, don't have much, or any money, have a union job or other government protected cushy number and the rest of the stereotypical lefty litany. Mqurice PS: I have never understood the antipathy to supermarket plastic bags which seem to me highly useful to carry groceries and also for multiple subsequent purposes, with very low cost, low weight, low space taken up, and then when chucked in the rubbish, they are totally non-toxic and just sit in the ground in the midden. If they stay there for 100,000 years, that's no more a problem than a coal seam staying in the ground for 100 million years. Do you know why people get so worked up about supermarket bags which must be about the least of problem it's possible to get? Tyre wear is a much bigger problem - bits of rubberized oily gunk fouling the air and coating surroundings.