1
272
273

Liberal Logic (imgur.com)

submitted by NoThingsConsidered

all 96 comments
sorted by:
best
best
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順

[–]underpaidshill 28 ポイント29 ポイント

They don't care about climate. What they want is money and power.

[–]DaveThe_blank_Libertarian Conservative 17 ポイント18 ポイント

and to hurt the evil rich, don't forget that!

[–]wake6n9bake 10 ポイント11 ポイント

Which, ironically, is what they generally are. Evilly rich.

[–]timmurphysblackwife 1 ポイント2 ポイント

They're all part of the green movement. Dollars are green. Therefore, only the rich are environmentalists.

[–]Rodigan 5 ポイント6 ポイント

That's the worst rhetoric I've seen in a while.

[–]TearsForPeersConstitutionalist 3 ポイント4 ポイント

The correct term is 'Watermelons': Green on the outside, red on the inside. Their sole priority is government control of everything, comrade.

[–]Watermel0ney 3 ポイント4 ポイント

People forget that oil companies are largely Republican supporters and a lot of oil comes from Conservative states. A lot of it is an attack on Republican business.

[–]deuterium64Progressive 4 ポイント5 ポイント

Can I put my progressive 2¢ in and say that I care about the climate?

Money and power are nice, but not much use without a stable climate.

[–]underpaidshill 3 ポイント4 ポイント

You don't get to choose your climate. If we did a full stop on all carbon the world would still get hotter. We have to adapt.

[–]deuterium64Progressive 2 ポイント3 ポイント

I agree with you that the world would continue to warm even if we stopped all carbon emissions.

I think that we both agree that immediately stopping all carbon emissions is ridiculous and unrealistic.

But wouldn't decreasing the current rate of emissions decrease the future rate of warming?

[–]Stink-Finger 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Continue to warm? We are not warming at all.

[–]deuterium64Progressive -1 ポイント0 ポイント

What makes you say that?

[–]underpaidshill 1 ポイント2 ポイント

The current rate of sea level growth is about a foot every hundred years. From 1900 to 2000 it was also about a foot. If you were to ask people the biggest problems were during the last century, I doubt anyone would say sea level change. If we wanted to do something about our carbon output we should focus on our population growth through limiting immigration not giving more money to the federal government.

[–]deuterium64Progressive 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Why would limiting national immigration affect global greenhouse gas emissions?

[–]JibrishNeoconservative 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Less people in the highest carbon per capita country = less people with the highest carbon footprint on average = less carbon.

[–]deuterium64Progressive -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

An immigrant's emissions rate depends on their standard of living and the efficiency of that lifestyle.

Do you mean to say that an immigrant living at the Mexican average standard of living will immediately start living at the American average standard of living as soon as he or she crosses the border?

[–]underpaidshill 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Fewer people need less resources. Hell, even the same amount of people would need less resources as technology gets more efficient. The problem is we have added nearly thirty million people in the last twenty-five years and surprise they drive cars, heat their homes, and eat meat. I would like to see what our carbon emissions would be had we not increased immigration in the late eighties and early nineties.

[–]Sleestaks 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Uh... How is immigration any of those issues? You don't understand that it is global industrialization that is causing the rise in green house gases. Do you not think that, for example, people in Mexico drive cars?

[–]underpaidshill 0 ポイント1 ポイント

We make America's laws. More people means more resources. I think we should fix our own problems first.

[–]deuterium64Progressive 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Are you saying that immigrants only start driving cars, heating their homes, and eating meat once they cross into the United States? As far as I can tell, these potential immigrants would still be increasing global emissions regardless of which side of the border they're on.

[–]underpaidshill 1 ポイント2 ポイント

As an American, I worry about America. I try to mind my own business. If other countries want to live in squalor that's their problem.

[–]deuterium64Progressive 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Do foreign carbon emissions not affect American climate?

[–]StickmanPirate -1 ポイント0 ポイント

That's a really terrible argument. If you asked people from the last century what the biggest problem was, a lot would say "the negro problem". Using what they thought as a basis for modern thinking is pretty silly. Sea level growth may not have been a problem in the last century, it may be in this one.

[–]mcthreadskiBacon Lover 3 ポイント4 ポイント

I think a lot more people would say the biggest problem from the last century was the spread of communist dictatorships. Using scare tactics like global climate change to go back down the same road seems pretty foolhardy.

[–]Sleestaks 2 ポイント3 ポイント

"The spread of communist dictatioships"

That example still is sound with the person's argument that you were replying to.

[–]StickmanPirate -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

When there's such a massive scientific consensus that climate change is real, is it really "scare tactics"?

[–]mcthreadskiBacon Lover 1 ポイント2 ポイント

I am not disputing the data, I am disputing the potential "solutions".

Scientists aren't policy makers and they aren't in control of our government. Huge divide there.

[–]underpaidshill 3 ポイント4 ポイント

WWI, WWII, Cold War, the rise and disastrous results of communism, even Jim Crow laws, none of those things had anything to do with climate. If our biggest problem in the new century is climate change you should feel blessed.

[–]StickmanPirate -1 ポイント0 ポイント

I do feel blessed, I don't think that because this century is better than the last that we should just sit around patting ourselves on the back about how great the world is doing.

[–]underpaidshill 2 ポイント3 ポイント

People work everyday to make this world better. Someday we'll all have electric cars in our driveway and solar cells on our roofs, but they won't be made by the federal government.

[–]Hunt-fish-eatFederalist 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Dumb. Very, very dumb. Stable climate=death. No seasons, no periodic flooding to fertilize soil and clear river beds. No periodic droughts to spur fires which revitalize the forest. In short stagnation and ultimately death.

Why are you so convinced the climate, as you understand it to be, prior to 1900 to be "proper"? Last I checked we don't have mastodons or tyrannosaurs running around. Which is actually a shame, I think mastodons look like they might have been good eating. This is likely (I'm not a progressive and therefore not convinced of my supremacy in every issue) because the climate has changed. Perhaps the tyrannosaurs drove their cars too much and the mastodons liked coal power too much, but I sorta doubt it.

[–]UmbrellaResearchCorp 4 ポイント5 ポイント

I wish more people would get this. We're witnessing the biggest power grab in human history.

Literally: "Give up all your money and national sovereignty to the UN, or we will all die from global warming" --- The UN.

[–]Hsolo123 4 ポイント5 ポイント

All politicians want these things. It doesn't matter what side of the aisle you're on.

[–]diamondeyes18Libertarian Conservative 2 ポイント3 ポイント

This post is bull shit. Liberal politics has no logic.

[–]_glenn_ 6 ポイント7 ポイント

I their defense, they have no interest in protecting the border.

[–]rr_econpol 3 ポイント4 ポイント

They wouldn't need to protect it from much if they didn't keep providing incentives for people to sneak over it.

[–]NoeticIntelligence 7 ポイント8 ポイント

What is the logic behind the lack of border control? Is this aimed at the current president?

Are there any numbers that show an increase in illegal immigration during democratic administrations?

Statistics show that Florida, liberal California and conservative Texas have the largest population of illegal immigrants.

[–]NoThingsConsidered[S] 6 ポイント7 ポイント

I don't blame any one administration for lack of border control. It is one of the many examples of how the federal government fails at one of it's most basic domestic responsibilities. The idea that the federal government can control global climate is the biggest pipe dream of all pipe dreams. It's just another idea that makes liberals feel good. They can pat themselves on the back for being good stewards of the climate. Like driving an electric car that is powered by coal.

[–]StickmanPirate -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

Out of interest, what would your solution be to the lack of border control? Assuming we just take Mexican immigrants because afaik they're the most prevalent, how would you suggest the government fixed the problem?

[–]NoThingsConsidered[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント

I don't have any idea. If it was up to me, I would probably study European nations like Germany. Any land locked nation with very high minimum wage or similar incentives to illegally cross the border.

[–]StickmanPirate -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Here in the UK we have a problem with immigration coming in from France, people hiding in lorries or whatever. Immigration is an incredibly difficult problem to deal with short of making your country so bad that it's not seen as desirable. Germany and France also have problems with illegal immigration which is made more difficult by the free movement within the EU.

In my opinion, immigration is an issue that may not be fixable, as long as your country is seen as desirable, desperate people will do whatever they can to get there. Border control is obviously helpful, but short of building a huge wall around the country, and going through every plane, boat or lorry that comes in with a fine tooth comb, may not really be fixable.

[–]NoThingsConsidered[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント

I don't know if you heard but the US has thousands of children crossing the border every day because of how we are treating family reunification. They are converting military hangars into holding areas. The news says we aren't able to provide 80% with basic services. A wall might be what we need. I think a few people coming across on boats and cars is acceptable compared to the way it is now.

[–]homrqt 3 ポイント4 ポイント

Another Democrat logic: Can't protect it's citizens from acts of violence, wants to disarm those who obey laws and choose to protect themselves.

[–]zwind 2 ポイント3 ポイント

In the end, I do believe humans have an impact on the environment. But I don't believe the solution given by scientists and government.

[–]Vaked 6 ポイント7 ポイント

So what is the solution?

[–]unalienable1776 3 ポイント4 ポイント

Well since we are currently experiencing a 17 year period of no warming, I say we let it play itself out. We are talking about the global climate here, which has always been in a state of change. The hypothesis that humans are causing a change is unfounded at best. At worst it is a lie to create a crises in order to achieve some sort of political gain. The world is still here despite the various predictions from NASA and Al Gore, and others that there would be no ice left by 2013 (2013 experience a 50% increase in arctic ice), or the extinction of polar bears, or storms would be more frequent and severe (No increase at all).

So, maybe the solution shouldn't come from me but it sure as hell should't come from the people who have made many bold predictions and have been wrong about almost all of them. And they are the ones asking you to put up the money to prevent things that may never occur. Keep that in mind.

[–]TearsofMen 0 ポイント1 ポイント

What do you mean "not warmed for more than a decade"? It's been a pretty consistent rise for the last decade.

The problem seems to be that people confuse "noise" with signal. 1998 was certainly a high peak and there were years since then lower than that (and some higher), but these fluctuations still act around a clearly increasing trend, and January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record.

[–]unalienable1776 3 ポイント4 ポイント

I don't know why you are putting quotes around something I didn't say but yea 17 is more than a decade. Closer to 2 actually. The data set you linked me to is using surface temperature which is horrible way to measure climate temperature over time. The data set I referred to is using tropospheric temperature to measure. The reason being that by measuring temperature at the airport, for example, for decades, the airports grow, more planes, buildings, lights, etc creating the heat island effect. This change in temperature in one very specific area, is not reflective of the climate as a whole. It just says that the airport is now hotter than it was in 1950 because it grew, not because the climate is getting warmer.

[–]jjlew080 -1 ポイント0 ポイント

17 year period of no warming

Says a British software developer

[–]zwind 1 ポイント2 ポイント

I feel it is up to people's choice. If they want to reduce carbon emissions, go for it. I cannot force you to change if you don't want too.

[–]megglespeggles 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Currently the two major methods of battling global climate change are through carbon dioxide reduction (CDR) and solar radiation management (SRM). CDR generally involves the anthropogenic manipulation of of natural CO2 reduction such as forestation and phytoplankton farming. The main focus of SRM currently is through aerosols that would deflect the amount of solar radiation reaching the atmosphere. So, at least there are contingency plans...

[–]JonnyRichterLibertarian 1 ポイント2 ポイント

But I don't believe the solution given by scientists

So... You don't believe people who study certain problems will have the best solutions for fixing those problems?

[–]UmbrellaResearchCorp 3 ポイント4 ポイント

All the downvotes in this thread are proof of the silent liberal infestation in these threads.

The disinformation/deflection/marginalization campaign on social media websites (of which reddit is a part of) is one of their top tactics.

[–]in_anger_clad 1 ポイント2 ポイント

I'm picturing a self righteous lib sitting at a computer, downvoting anything conservative, thinking that they are stamping out evil ideas and doing their part to save humanity. That's what the religion of environmental flag waving has created. It's such a good fit to their ideology. I think the narcissism that runs rampant today puts us in the hole, so to speak.

[–]guyincognitoo 2 ポイント3 ポイント

I agree, everyone knows the only way to change anything is by posting pictures with degrading titles that insult your opponent.

[–]DoublespeakAbounds 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Of course, by the logic exercised by this meme, the government should never do anything.

You could easily replace the last line "can control global climate with taxes" with "can control the administration of abortion" and title the meme "Conservative Logic."

TLDR; It's a stupid point.

[–]legalizehazing -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

I see your point... But you ARE an complete idiot for comparing abortion to the world climate.

[–]DoublespeakAbounds 4 ポイント5 ポイント

I have no problem with you disagreeing with me, but there's no need to be a dick. A fellow conservative calling me an "idiot" only makes me lose respect for conservatives.

Liberals don't pretend to control world climate, either, which is another reason why the meme is stupid. If you have a good point, you shouldn't need to exaggerate (or cast insults for that matter).

[–]gotbock 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Liberals absolutely make the claim that humans can control climate. They claim we're making the world warmer, and that with the proper administration we can stop that from happening. What else would you call that?

And there's literally a world of difference between the claim that one can manipulate climate and one can regulate the medical options of individuals that may or may not result in murder (depending on your point of view).

[–]DoublespeakAbounds 5 ポイント6 ポイント

Liberals absolutely make the claim that humans can control climate. They claim we're making the world warmer, and that with the proper administration we can stop that from happening. What else would you call that?

Maybe it's a matter of semantics, but I think when you say "control" you're implying that climate change is intentional and precise. The vast majority of liberals don't view climate change as intentional or precise, so attributing the term "control" to them is misleading if not downright false.

The assertion by liberals (which I agree with, FTR) is that humans impact the climate, not control it.