Finally.

[original PM]

Thing is the only viable long term solution is to invest in space.

The human population will keep growing and that alone means that there will be an increasing impact on the planet regardless of what we do.

If we had decided this back in the 80's instead of focusing on trying to 'fix' earth we would be a lot closer to achieving that goal.

[SpontaneousOrder]

BS. The term is used by those on the libertarian right to misrepresent the motives of environmentalists

So... you mean it's not an insult then? It's a shorthanded misrepresentation of motives?

[DodgyAgent]

More like a convenient solution to treating excrement.

You should try it sometime. it may do wonders for you.

[DodgyAgent]

Thing is the only viable long term solution is to invest in space.

The human population will keep growing and that alone means that there will be an increasing impact on the planet regardless of what we do.

If we had decided this back in the 80's instead of focusing on trying to 'fix' earth we would be a lot closer to achieving that goal.

Which is the route that the Human race will eventually follow despite the left's attempts to return us all to mud huts.

[pjclarke]

So... you mean it's not an insult then? It's a shorthanded misrepresentation of motives?

Well, I'm just a dopey moron but it seems to me that the 'red inside' bit is asserting that the 'watermelon' in question is accused of using environmentalism to conceal an anti-capitalist agenda.

Dishonest is not something that people are 'happy to be'.

I know my IQ is negligible by comparison to yours so it cannot possibly the case that you know all this perfectly well, and are indulging in disingenuousness and sterile semantics. It must be the Socratic Method. Or something.

The jibe may have had a grain of truth once, however Governments of all colours signed up to the Paris treaty, and many of the organisations supporting action are true blue capitalists, seeing the risk to their future profits.


Climate change & climate protection | Munich Re

[DodgyAgent]

Well, I'm just a dopey moron but it seems to me that the 'red inside' bit is asserting that the 'watermelon' in question is accused of using environmentalism to conceal an anti-capitalist agenda.

Dishonest is not something that people are 'happy to be'.

I know my IQ is negligible by comparison to yours so it cannot possibly the case that you know all this perfectly well, and are indulging in disingenuousness and sterile semantics. It must be the Socratic Method. Or something.

The jibe may have had a grain of truth once, however Governments of all colours signed up to the Paris treaty, and many of the organisations supporting action are true blue capitalists, seeing the risk to their future profits.


Climate change & climate protection | Munich Re

One thing is for sure climate change is not something you are actually worried about.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Well, I'm just a dopey moron but it seems to me that the 'red inside' bit is asserting that the 'watermelon' in question is accused of using environmentalism to conceal an anti-capitalist agenda.

Dishonest is not something that people are 'happy to be'.

I really don't understand how so many people can't tell the difference between causation & correlation.

1) Desire to cause offence -> call someone something insulting -> offence probably taken.
2) Desire to accuse -> accuse someone accurately -> no offence taken.
3) Desire to accuse -> accuse someone inaccurately -> potential for offence to be taken.

The fact that points 1 and 3 both involve the potential to cause offence does not make accusations & insults synonymous.

You should be able to see the paradox in telling a lie to insult someone by accusing them of being a liar ?
So, as I said, not a very good insult. Much better for making an accusation.

[DodgyAgent]

I really don't understand how so many people can't tell the difference between causation & correlation.

1) Desire to cause offence -> call someone something insulting -> offence probably taken.
2) Desire to accuse -> accuse someone accurately -> no offence taken.
3) Desire to accuse -> accuse someone inaccurately -> potential for offence to be taken.

The fact that points 1 and 3 both involve the potential to cause offence does not make accusations & insults synonymous.

You should be able to see the paradox in telling a lie to insult someone by accusing them of being a liar ?
So, as I said, not a very good insult. Much better for making an accusation.

Just call him a "twat"

[DodgyAgent]

Just call him a "twat"

In the spirit of christmas I withdraw that

[pjclarke]

Just call him a "twat"

That's a bit harsh, Spontaneous may be a plodding, pedantic, pettifogging, tedious, self-regarding, point-missing,disingenous,nitpicking,needlesly offensive, boorish, vapid, juvenile sophist.

But I wouldn't call him a twat.