|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
canuckistan
Mod Team
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:27 am Post subject: Re: Why do Right-wingers like dirty air? |
 |
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| What part of breathing dirty polluted air is so attractive to right-wingers? Why do they oppose clean air regulations so vehemently? |
Because they think money is more important than breathing clean air. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:10 pm Post subject: Re: Why do Right-wingers like dirty air? |
|
|
| canuckistan wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| What part of breathing dirty polluted air is so attractive to right-wingers? Why do they oppose clean air regulations so vehemently? |
Because they think money is more important than breathing clean air. |
Because soon they will be able to sell it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| As this board is able to show, right-wingers are stupid. They don't believe in science or social studies. They're just ignorant and greedy, which is the worst combination to have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Clean air is a trade off. Right-wingers, which is of course a straw man, don't like pollution.
But many people, myself included, are willing to make a trade-off between economic growth and clean air. This doesn't mean that you allow all pollution, but that we agree to a certain amount of pollution being acceptable in that to totally do away with it would end the economy.
Besides, it is possible to reject the global warming story and still be against polluting the air without any concern for human/animal/enviromental health. We don't need to tell ourselves a great lie just to slow pollution.
Another great thread from yata. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 1:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Global warming is not a lie. Check out Al Gore's "An Uncomfortable Truth" to become more informed ...
Right wingers don't like environmental issues because they are short term thinkers and can only place imortance on something that can be given a dollar value ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 1:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gore's film is great propaganda but so flawed as to scientifically untenable.
The problem as I see it is that there is no conclusive proof of the anthropomorphic causes of global warming. There have been warmings and coolings in the past without man's influence. For example the Norse we farming in Greenland 1000 years ago. Then came the "little ice age that lasted from about 1200 to 1850.
Secondly is the total unfairness of the Kyoto accords. China and India get free passes with the most incredible polution levels and Canada gets no consideration for that fact that it is a cold climate with thin population and the need for heat and transportation at a higher level than most.
The chicken little - the sky is falling - syndrome tends to make me wonders It is simply as massive weatlth redistribution, enterprise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 2:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Clearly you didnt watch the film. It's not flawed at all, and if it was, you can bet your sweet behind that conservatives would have pointed that out by now ...
The film shows graphs tracking global temperatures and CO2 emissions, and recently both the graphs are jacking quite disturbingly and at almost identical rates ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sportsguy35
Joined: 27 Apr 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Satori wrote: |
Clearly you didnt watch the film. It's not flawed at all, and if it was, you can bet your sweet behind that conservatives would have pointed that out by now ...
The film shows graphs tracking global temperatures and CO2 emissions, and recently both the graphs are jacking quite disturbingly and at almost identical rates ... |
We have pointed it out. The #1 and #2 talk radio shows in America have pointed it out along with scientists. Gore made the movie when he knew Bush wouldnt agree %100 and thats why he made it. The liberal lefts need something stand on together besides being wrong about Iraq. This gave them something. They always accuse Bush of fear-mongering, but what the hell is an inconvient truth??? If you want an inconvient truth, try to understand the radical muslims and how much they want our demise. But then you would have to somewhat agree with Bush... and that just couldnt happen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sportsguy35 wrote: |
| They always accuse [W.] Bush of fear-mongering, but what the hell is [An Inconvenient Truth]...? |
What is it, according to its advertisement/inducement/message, as we move from W. Bush's "mushrooom clouds" to another type of dangerous, evil cloud altogether...?
| Quote: |
| By far the most terrifying film you will ever see. |
And why are capitalism and industry in the center of this image...?
Here is why: because, real environmental crises notwithstanding, leftist environmentalism is more against than it is for anything. And, indeed, are posters here speaking on environmentalism per se or just taking advantage of another opportunity to attack "the right-wing...?"
So, then. You do not like conservatives? Fine. You are well within your rights to voice this. But is this all you have to say?
Like some who cannot discuss world affairs without attacking America, others cannot discuss the environment and environmental history without bashing the radical left's usual rage-focused targets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| And by the way, who, again, passed the Clean Air Act and created the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States, Ya-ta? |
Just to clarify: President Richard M. Nixon did. The most evil right-winger of them all...
And let us not neglect to mention President Theodore Roosevelt, the prototype American imperialist, either.
| Wikipedia wrote: |
| Roosevelt was the first American president to consider the long-term needs for efficient conservation of national resources, winning the support of fellow hunters and fishermen to bolster his political base. Roosevelt was the last trained observer to ever see a passenger pigeon, and on March 14, 1903, Roosevelt created the first National Bird Preserve, (the beginning of the Wildlife Refuge system), on Pelican Island, Florida. Assuming the conservationist role was a natural step for him, and he decided that it was overdue to put the issue high on the national agenda. He worked with all the major figures of the movement, especially his chief advisor on the matter Gifford Pinchot. Roosevelt urged congress to establish the United States Forest Service (1905), to manage government forest lands, and he appointed Gifford Pinchot to head the service. Roosevelt set aside more land for national parks and nature preserves than all of his predecessors combined, 194 million acres. In all, by 1909, the Roosevelt administration had created an unprecedented 42 million acres of national forests, 53 national wildlife refuges and 18 areas of "special interest," including the Grand Canyon. This environmental record was unequaled until President Bill Clinton's term, 90 years later. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sportsguy35 wrote: |
| Satori wrote: |
Clearly you didnt watch the film. It's not flawed at all, and if it was, you can bet your sweet behind that conservatives would have pointed that out by now ...
The film shows graphs tracking global temperatures and CO2 emissions, and recently both the graphs are jacking quite disturbingly and at almost identical rates ... |
We have pointed it out. |
But not sucessfully. Why don't you go ahead and state your actual scientific objections to the theory of global warming right here and now, then we can talk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| sportsguy35 wrote: |
| They always accuse [W.] Bush of fear-mongering, but what the hell is [An Inconvenient Truth]...? |
What is it, according to its advertisement/inducement/message, as we move from W. Bush's "mushrooom clouds" to another type of dangerous, evil cloud altogether...?
| Quote: |
| By far the most terrifying film you will ever see. |
And why are capitalism and industry in the center of this image...?
Here is why: because, real environmental crises notwithstanding, leftist environmentalism is more against than it is for anything. And, indeed, are posters here speaking on environmentalism per se or just taking advantage of another opportunity to attack "the right-wing...?"
So, then. You do not like conservatives? Fine. You are well within your rights to voice this. But is this all you have to say?
Like some who cannot discuss world affairs without attacking America, others cannot discuss the environment and environmental history without bashing the radical left's usual rage-focused targets. |
Who's talking specifically about "leftist" environmentalism? This is one of the classic distortions of conservatives, painting thier opposition as "leftists". It's a very clever distortion, because it gathers up a whole lot of left over fears about communism and anit-business agendas. It's completely false. Your opposition is called the Democratic Party, and it's policies are centrist. I'm a moderate liberal centrist. I could call myself a democrat but I'm not american. To further clarify, I could call my politics Clintonian. That's far from being anti business.
As for environmentalists not standing FOR something, what a joke. I stand for a way to do business that is environmentally sustainable, not for the destruction of big business. We simply have to factor envirnmental costs into the free market model. If a business cannot be profitable while acting in an environmentally sustainable way then it's profits are artificial, and, true to the free market model, we can say that business is not sustainable and has to go. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
And why are capitalism and industry in the center of this image...?
|
I assume the "industry" imagery is used because most of the relevant emissions are coming from industrial output. I'm not sure how else you would portray the source of the fumes.
But is it neccessarily anti-capitalist? Do we even know if the smokestack is owned by the private sector? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Satori wrote: |
| Who's talking specifically about "leftist" environmentalism? This is one of the classic distortions of conservatives, painting thier opposition as "leftists". It's a very clever distortion... |
On this thread? Who created the binary?
I agree with you on environmentalism, Sartori. There is a crisis and we do need to deal with it. And "Clintonianism" certainly sounds like something I could agree with as well. So far, then, we are three for three...
| Satori wrote: |
| As for environmentalists not standing FOR something, what a joke... |
I mostly agree with this paragraph as well. However, again, this thread presents a "(implicitly leftist) environmentalists = good guys" vs. explicitly-stated "right-wingers (but implicitly anti-environmentalists) = bad guys" dichotomy.
Do you have anything to say about that?
And what are your thoughts on Jared Diamond's suggestion in Collapse...?
| Jared Diamond wrote: |
| My view is that if environmentalists aren't willing to engage with big businesses, which are among the most powerful forces in the modern world, it won't be possible to solve the world's environmental problems. |
If you agree, then do you not also agree with me that painting business interests in simplistic, mocking, indeed "black-hat" tones is counterproductive? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| But is it neccessarily anti-capitalist? Do we even know if the smokestack is owned by the private sector? |
I think this is drawing distinctions without differences -- that is, from the left's perspective. I think it is clear that the left conflates private business interests and governments all the way back to Marx and Lenin.
Governments are but mere puppet committees for the bourgeoisie, the true rulers, remember?
Also, it is not merely "peace" or "antiwar" that the left rages for today. Their major rallying cry seems to be the reductionist "It's all about oil!" charge...So they see little or no difference between private business interests and governments.
And both are clearly their declared enemies (and not governments so much as "the state"). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
