Study: Everyone hates environmentalists and feminists

[Spendulus]

...Here's a hint on what you were trying to address, but failed as you decided to take a stab at avoidance: Please feel free to attack as best you can environmental controls, regulations, laws, designated wildernesses, and so on.

Once you've done that, we can move forward, rather than engage in this ridiculous conversation where you continually reinforce that you are decidedly not capable of doing what you think you can.

Ad hominum is prima facie losing the argument.

And yes, you are re asserting your desire to shift the goalposts.  They WERE

your ideas....and your beliefs

and now you'd like them to be...

...some group of government policies or regulations which you'd like someone on the internet to "attack".

As previously mentioned I reject the shifting of goalposts.  If you don't like or want the subject of conversation to be you or your beliefs, fine.  

Please feel free to attack as best you can environmental controls, regulations, laws, designated wildernesses, and so on. If you can't do that, then I'll assume that you can't back up your claims about control. Your avoidance is telling. You're a blowhard, a parrot with no substance.

Ad hominem yet again.  Losing the argument?  The argument that you wanted to shift the discussion to?  Which would imply that you have the sole-designated discretion as to the subject of discussion?  That you are the Controller, and the Authority.

Why don't you just admit you don't have the requisite domain knowledge to feel comfortable entering into that argument?

Because that's a ridiculous assertion.  You've demanded someone  pick a subject to discuss from a multitude of technical, regulatory and legal areas, as a way of getting out of the prior discussion, then asserted that if he does not do as you say, he/she has no "requisite domain knowledge", whatever that might mean.

But I'm already stated twice why you can't just make demands on people and then insult them if they don't do what you want.  In fact, that was the nature of the discussion you wished to get away from, wasn't it?  That you are not the proper agent to tell others how to act.

And here you are doing it again?

[FirstAscent]

...Here's a hint on what you were trying to address, but failed as you decided to take a stab at avoidance: Please feel free to attack as best you can environmental controls, regulations, laws, designated wildernesses, and so on.

Once you've done that, we can move forward, rather than engage in this ridiculous conversation where you continually reinforce that you are decidedly not capable of doing what you think you can.

Ad hominum is prima facie losing the argument.

And yes, you are re asserting your desire to shift the goalposts.  They WERE

your ideas....and your beliefs

and now you'd like them to be...

...some group of government policies or regulations which you'd like someone on the internet to "attack".

As previously mentioned I reject the shifting of goalposts.  If you don't like or want the subject of conversation to be you or your beliefs, fine.  

Please feel free to attack as best you can environmental controls, regulations, laws, designated wildernesses, and so on. If you can't do that, then I'll assume that you can't back up your claims about control. Your avoidance is telling. You're a blowhard, a parrot with no substance.

Ad hominem yet again.  Losing the argument?  The argument that you wanted to shift the discussion to?  Which would imply that you have the sole-designated discretion as to the subject of discussion?  That you are the Controller, and the Authority.

Why don't you just admit you don't have the requisite domain knowledge to feel comfortable entering into that argument?

Because that's a ridiculous assertion.  You've demanded someone  pick a subject to discuss from a multitude of technical, regulatory and legal areas, as a way of getting out of the prior discussion, then asserted that if he does not do as you say, he/she has no "requisite domain knowledge", whatever that might mean.

But I'm already stated twice why you can't just make demands on people and then insult them if they don't do what you want.  In fact, that was the nature of the discussion you wished to get away from, wasn't it?  That you are not the proper agent to tell others how to act.

And here you are doing it again?

Why my request is reasonable:

When I hear a hot gasbag constantly complain about control (as in environmental controls), I want to see him actually address the controls and state why they are bad or not needed.

Conclusion:

You are indeed a hot gasbag who just parrots memes and has no in depth knowledge on the subject.

Final words:

I'll take your refusal to not follow this line of conversation as the end of this conversation, and I don't want to hear more hot wind from you about how you could, but won't.

[NewLiberty]

Please feel free to attack as best you can environmental controls, regulations, laws, designated wildernesses, and so on. If you can't do that, then I'll assume that you can't back up your claims about control. Your avoidance is telling. You're a blowhard, a parrot with no substance.

Oh, heck... I'll dip a toe in this morass....  I'm no expert, but...

MTBE is an interesting case study of how the democratic process of using mob rule pushed around by some environmentalists really messed up our environment with the "best of intentions".

Private industry, those evil oil companies like Haliburton and the rest, do research on how to keep their customers from dieing and how to improve their products.  Their research came across this Methyl tert-butyl ether stuff, which it turns out, reduces air pollution and can reduce engine knocking.  
When they discovered it, all the environmentalists went nuts about it and started a big campaign to make laws to force refining companies put it in their gasoline mixtures.  They claimed that the oil companies wouldn't do it with out being forced, and so they needed to be forced, and laws were needed to do that.

The oil companies position was "more research is needed" and there needed to be "exposure assessments", they wanted to study the benefits and costs and all that, but the environmentalists saw through this as just a way for those evil oil companies to drag their feet and to save money and had their laws pushed through, at least in California.  These companies were obviously just hiding behind science as a way of stalling necessary regulation.

As it turns out, more research was needed...  Yes, it reduces air pollution, because the exhaust is heavier, so instead of being in the air where environmental forces break it up more swiftly, it goes into the ground water. (sun and water and such imbue air with a higher carrying capacity for particulate conversion to lower toxicity than in solution).

So now pretty much the whole state has this toxic stuff in their groundwater to some extent, thanks to the environmentalists and their government influence.  Enter the superfund and tax-payer supported cleanup...  and add some regressive sales taxes to make sure the poorest get hit by the cost.  Thanks to the environmentalists working through government...the government just gets bigger and more expensive, but the environment gets worse.

Then there are the environmentalists working through NGOs like Nature.org.  These folks maintain PRIVATE land trusts with inviolate covenants that run with the land preserving and maintaining wilderness corridors DONATED to them by INDIVIDUALS, forever.

Contrast that with the government taking of lands through the EPA which are then leased out to natural resource exploitation based on political contribution.  Or the Coastal Commission who will let you build whatever you want and bypass all the environmental restrictions if you donate some land to them that they might be able to use to do some resource extraction through one of their land leases.  Political power is an unwieldy weapon for the small and a jackhammer for the well connected or rich.  It is a force multiplier that few can afford.

Which group do a better job of protecting our environment?

[crumbs]

Please feel free to attack as best you can environmental controls, regulations, laws, designated wildernesses, and so on. If you can't do that, then I'll assume that you can't back up your claims about control. Your avoidance is telling. You're a blowhard, a parrot with no substance.

Oh, heck... I'll dip a toe in this morass....  I'm no expert, but...
[examples of regulatory screwups]
Which group do a better job of protecting our environment?

You know that listing a few examples where doctors cause harm to their patients doesn't imply that the medical profession a a bastion of homicidal mania, right?

Nor does it imply that we'd live longer or better without doctors.
I'm not sure if more expertise on your part would have changed matters much, but your humility is a nice start
Oh, and, of course, thanks for the amusing anecdotes.  Go figure, even environmentalists & regulators screw up -- whoda thunked!

Edit:  As far as "which group's better at protecting the environment"?  Neither.  It's explodin' nuclear reactors.  After the whole Chernobyl thing, you know what the wildlife around there is like now?  Frickin' awesome.  I say we forget environmentalism & drain the cooling cores in all the nukes, fill the suckers up with heavy crude, and see what happens

[Rassah]

Apparently you didn't comprehend it. Not by a long shot. For starters, I fully explained how your subset of scientific knowledge is not adequate, and why. Additionally, you obviously don't understand ecosystem services. All that's fine, except you come on here and make a fool of yourself. The world isn't as simple as your little mind thinks it is.

And I completely and fully explained how those ecosystem services can be bypassed, and why, and why your centrally controlled ecosystem management is inadequate and flawed.

Ummm, no you didn't.

Yes I did. In this and many other discussions. You're either too lazy to go back and read them, were too stupid to understand them, or too hardheaded and brainwashed to consider them.

When I hear a hot gasbag constantly complain about control (as in environmental controls), I want to see him actually address the controls and state why they are bad or not needed.

As I keep pointing out, explaining, and repeating, the problem is not that they are bad or not needed. We're all perfectly happy to concede that enviromnental controlls are good, and are badly needed (Yay! You win!!!). The problem is the controller. Who they are, how they control, and what their incentives are. And ALL those things are totally fucked up. The ONLY way to get the level of environmental control that you want it for the entire planet to have a dictator with absolute control. Otherwise you'll have the oil loby in coontrol of drilling regulations, mining lobby in control of forests and rivers, chemical and coal lobby in control or air polution regulations, and so on. You know, how we have things now.

Final words:

Although we wish that were so, we all know it's not.

[Rassah]

Which part of "i won't repeat this again" don't you get?  And if you can't stop it with them ugly furball sounds, please do it at the litter box, or go outside.  I respect your furry needs, but if this unpleasantness doesn't stop i'm bringing you to the pound

I won't stop until your shit-brown ignore button turns to blood--red 

[Spendulus]

Please feel free to attack as best you can environmental controls, regulations, laws, designated wildernesses, and so on. If you can't do that, then I'll assume that you can't back up your claims about control. Your avoidance is telling. You're a blowhard, a parrot with no substance.

Oh, heck... I'll dip a toe in this morass....  I'm no expert, but...

MTBE is an interesting case study of how the democratic process of using mob rule pushed around by some environmentalists really messed up our environment with the "best of intentions".

Private industry, those evil oil companies like Haliburton and the rest, do research on how to keep their customers from dieing and how to improve their products.  Their research came across this Methyl tert-butyl ether stuff, which it turns out, reduces air pollution and can reduce engine knocking.  
When they discovered it, all the environmentalists went nuts about it and started a big campaign to make laws to force refining companies put it in their gasoline mixtures.  They claimed that the oil companies wouldn't do it with out being forced, and so they needed to be forced, and laws were needed to do that.

The oil companies position was "more research is needed" ...

Haven't you heard?  It will take "Urgent Action Now" to save the planet.  We don't have time for those studies studies and ridiculous research and you can bet that if Evil Exxon says don't do it, we gotta do it.  Just because we're a bunch of knuckle dragging lowbrow greenies doesn't mean we're not on a babbling brook to somewhere.

[darkmule]

To be fair, we don't currently know how to survive in space.

Humans can survive in space.

But not for very long.

[Spendulus]

When I hear a hot gasbag constantly complain about control (as in environmental controls), I want to see him actually address the controls and state why they are bad or not needed.

As I keep pointing out, explaining, and repeating, the problem is not that they are bad or not needed. We're all perfectly happy to concede that enviromnental controls are good, and are badly needed (Yay! You win!!!).

No, do not take the approach that a useful idiot may be allowed to win.  You have fallen for a logical error here - the sweeping generalization, the over generalization.  Used as or part of premise to an argument, the results are nonsensical.

Thus, we cannot logically conclude that "environmental controls are good" or that they are "badly needed".

You can concede those points emotionally, but not logically.

In fact, this is evident in the prior comment about MBTE.  Were your sweeping generalization capable of being "true", then it would follow that MBTE was "good".  It was neither "good" nor "badly needed".  In fact it was the popular misconception of such being "badly needed" that enabled bad implementation of mandates for MBTE.

The problem is the controller. Who they are, how they control, and what their incentives are. And ALL those things are totally fucked up. The ONLY way to get the level of environmental control that you want it for the entire planet to have a dictator with absolute control. Otherwise you'll have the oil loby in coontrol of drilling regulations, mining lobby in control of forests and rivers, chemical and coal lobby in control or air polution regulations, and so on. You know, how we have things now.

This is correct, but for some reason FirstAscent will not admit it.  Needs to just admit that the world needs an Overlord of the Environment, and he wants the job.

[Spendulus]

To be fair, we don't currently know how to survive in space.

Humans can survive in space.

But not for very long.

O'Neill colonies would be a decent experiment for the human race, but that'd take material from the Moon, and it would be lacking in essential elements like nitrogen and hydrogen.  There's some H at the pole in the ice deposits by Hermite, and some of the other areas of eternal cold deep in those polar craters, areas never touched by sunlight, but I have not heard anyone talking about N.

However as a thought experiment the O'Neill colony at the L4 or L5 point does have merit as a plausible method to go off planet.

[Rassah]

Haven't you heard?  It will take "Urgent Action Now" to save the planet.  We don't have time for those studies studies and ridiculous research and you can bet that if Evil Exxon says don't do it, we gotta do it.  Just because we're a bunch of knuckle dragging lowbrow greenies doesn't mean we're not on a babbling brook to somewhere.

You forgot to say "ecosystem services" and "tropic cascades." It's not environmentalism unless you say it.

[FirstAscent]

Please feel free to attack as best you can environmental controls, regulations, laws, designated wildernesses, and so on. If you can't do that, then I'll assume that you can't back up your claims about control. Your avoidance is telling. You're a blowhard, a parrot with no substance.

Oh, heck... I'll dip a toe in this morass....  I'm no expert, but...
[examples of regulatory screwups]
Which group do a better job of protecting our environment?

You know that listing a few examples where doctors cause harm to their patients doesn't imply that the medical profession a a bastion of homicidal mania, right?

Nor does it imply that we'd live longer or better without doctors.
I'm not sure if more expertise on your part would have changed matters much, but your humility is a nice start
Oh, and, of course, thanks for the amusing anecdotes.  Go figure, even environmentalists & regulators screw up -- whoda thunked!

Edit:  As far as "which group's better at protecting the environment"?  Neither.  It's explodin' nuclear reactors.  After the whole Chernobyl thing, you know what the wildlife around there is like now?  Frickin' awesome.  I say we forget environmentalism & drain the cooling cores in all the nukes, fill the suckers up with heavy crude, and see what happens

Look at them go! Getting their ire up, crying about regulations, screaming about the men in blue suits, about the Man, and how he has the audacity to put them down! Look at them proclaiming how they know more than the thousands out their in the field and the lab, how they've got it all figured out! Look at them go! How defiant they are!

[Spendulus]

Haven't you heard?  It will take "Urgent Action Now" to save the planet.  We don't have time for those studies studies and ridiculous research and you can bet that if Evil Exxon says don't do it, we gotta do it.  Just because we're a bunch of knuckle dragging lowbrow greenies doesn't mean we're not on a babbling brook to somewhere.

You forgot to say "ecosystem services" and "tropic cascades." It's not environmentalism unless you say it.

OKAY, OKAY..."ecosystem services and tropic cascades"...

Bet i can one up you on that, though.

• "cathrate guns"....try that one on...
• "morains from hell"
• "whipsawing the planet into snowball earth"

Why do I have this feeling the party is just starting?

lol...

Tell you what, if everyone promises not to drown me in a bucket of molasses and popcorn, here is what I'll do...

I'll play act actual, live radical environmentalist.  Proper slang, lingo, suggestions, etc.  Which these two antagonists are not hip to.  They are like lukewarm wannabe save-the-planet Goreheads.

[FirstAscent]

I see you moronic blowhards are now parroting terms, albeit with spelling errors.

[NewLiberty]

Edit:  As far as "which group's better at protecting the environment"?  Neither.  It's explodin' nuclear reactors.  After the whole Chernobyl thing, you know what the wildlife around there is like now?  Frickin' awesome.  I say we forget environmentalism & drain the cooling cores in all the nukes, fill the suckers up with heavy crude, and see what happens

OK, we'll use your example instead.  Nuclear reactors.  What do the environmentalist folks say about that?

"No nuclear reactor has ever been built anywhere in the world without substantial government subsidy, and no reactor ever will be built without substantial government funding in future."
http://www.thinkglobalgreen.org/NUCLEAR.html

I'm not qualified to say whether the reactors are "good" or "bad", just that it is likely that but for government taxation+subsidy, they wouldn't be either. 

[crumbs]

Edit:  As far as "which group's better at protecting the environment"?  Neither.  It's explodin' nuclear reactors.  After the whole Chernobyl thing, you know what the wildlife around there is like now?  Frickin' awesome.  I say we forget environmentalism & drain the cooling cores in all the nukes, fill the suckers up with heavy crude, and see what happens

OK, we'll use your example instead.  Nuclear reactors.  What do the environmentalist folks say about that?

"No nuclear reactor has ever been built anywhere in the world without substantial government subsidy, and no reactor ever will be built without substantial government funding in future."
http://www.thinkglobalgreen.org/NUCLEAR.html

I'm not qualified to say whether the reactors are "good" or "bad", just that but for government taxation+subsidy, they wouldn't be either.

Lol, nuclear power is best power!  Safe, clean, sustainable.  Don't believe the hype.

Atomic energy has been hounded by the oil industry and its liberal stooges in politics & the media since day one.  Promising projects such as the revolutionary Ford Nucleon -- stylish car powered by a portable fission reactor -- mysteriously lingered in dusty design studios.  The project was hounded by the press and inexplicably abandoned, its key personnel meeting with eyebrow-raising career impasses.  Resigned to the trash heap of history, this pinnacle of auto engineering was recently unearthed by an intrepid reporter.
Faqu, Liberals, you can't hide the Truth!

Ford Nucleon.  Identity of the whistleblower, seen here partially
obscured by the prototype, remains unknown

_________________________________________________

Nothing lay outside of Liberal-leaning Oil Industry's greedy grasp -- not even our once-mighty military. This daring NB-36H Atomic Bomber project was scuttled in its nascent stages, along with its Soviet counterpart.  

Eco-Friendly NB-36H
Note lack of chemtrails.

[PrintMule]

I'm up for nuclear power, but nuclear cars? You've got to be crazy.

Atomic planes are a no-no because appropriate shielding for personnel would weigh too much, same goes to the cars, AND with the rate of annual car accidents - imaging tearing that shielding off and giving nearby people a tan . Medical personnel or police approaching the vehicle should be protected too and so on.

There was a fuss about radioactive batteries for consumer electronics, but it ended nowhere, as we are to far from that technology.

EDIT: yeah, and problem of availability to general public, imagine lots of accidental poisonings, and some grease bombs.

[gadman2]

I say we end women's suffrage and ban dihydrogen monoxide from being put into our water supplies. Bad stuff I say.

[crumbs]

I'm up for nuclear power, but nuclear cars? You've got to be crazy.

Atomic planes are a no-no because appropriate shielding for personnel would weigh too much, same goes to the cars, AND with the rate of annual car accidents - imaging tearing that shielding off and giving nearby people a tan . Medical personnel or police approaching the vehicle should be protected too and so on.

There was a fuss about radioactive batteries for consumer electronics, but it ended nowhere, as we are to far from that technology.

EDIT: yeah, and problem of availability to general public, imagine lots of accidental poisonings, and some grease bombs.

Yeh, i was joking on there, though only kind-a.  Seriously, though, i think nuclear power is the most promising energy source, and even without further development, the accident rate is acceptable.  The reasons you listed were pretty much the reasons those projects were scrapped (both projects were real -- no joke).  On the other hand, i'm sure small-scale reactors could be developed which are safe *enough*.

[Kluge]

....
What I may know about water, aerosol particle formation, deep ocean heat, oxygen isotopes, upper stratosphere heat exchange, Naviar Stokes modeling of turbulence, mathematics of chaotic behavior, etc, isn't relevant one bit to the discussion.
....
Is pretty laughable, given that I've just spent about two years on a major effort, one sizable part of which has been studying radical environmentalism, it's leaders, methods, tactics, strategies, and it's successes and mistakes.  It's not the most interesting subject, one could pick better. 

"What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fu..."

yeah.

-The fuck is gorilla warfare?