@phil-a-dork said" A house heated by a tank of oil in your back yard". Guess I'd rather have that, I have 11 children to keep warm. I would be guaranteed, thank God. You see, liberals don't want containers for oil anywhere in the universe. If one child on the planet dies, that is too many. They gamble with their children?? Brrrrrrr. A nice point, Phil, a good example depicting what makes Libs wet their beds and chew on their pillows. 😳
What would you rather have?
An electric car that can't be charged because the power is out or a gasoline car that will get you where you need to go?
Or a house heated by Green tech that can fail or a tank of oil in your backyard heating your house?
I know what I have.
@zahlanzi saidThanks, I have always preached logic. Your argument fails on one simple factor. Each of your two examples have human activity as a factor.... Murder, or put on seat belt. This topic is about inanimate stuff that does not 'think'.
I'm not saying laws against murder are wrong.
I'm saying they won't prevent murders because most murderers still murder.
I am not saying seatbelt laws are wrong.
I am saying they won't prevent all car deaths because some hit their cars against objects really hard.
Let's have more fun with your logic. What other things aren't wrong to do but won't fix 100% of a problem.
Whew. And MGHM told me on another thread yesterday that I don't make sense. MG, does this make sense?
@averagejoe1 saidi am not in the mood to mock you for how stupid you are now, please go away.
Thanks, I have always preached logic. Your argument fails on one simple factor. Each of your two factors have human activity as a factor.... Murder, or put on seat belt. This topic is about inanimate stuff that does not 'think'.
Whew. And MGHM told me on another thread yesterday that I don't make sense. MG, does this make sense?
I will insult you some other time
@phil-a-dork saidProblem is, their responses make we want to respond back with just emojis. A vacuum of comments on the threads. And just wait till Sonhouse chimes in. Wonder who HE will write about.
Ya you got him there. 😉
@zahlanzi saidSee? I do not even know how to interpret those words. And he SURE doesn't know how to interpret mine. C'mon, Zahlanzi, tell us how stupid people eschewing seat belts is at all connected to relying on heating systems that are liable to freeze your family. You people could not admit to a point if you had a gun to your head. Automatic contrarian, ,maybe?
i am not in the mood to mock you for how stupid you are now, please go away.
I will insult you some other time
@phil-a-dork saidEliminating a polluting power source is absolutely correct but no one is saying turn off the oil or gas taps tomorrow. They are saying invest heavily in green technology because it will be abundant, cheap and clean as long as the sun is in the sky and we have weather patterns. Fossil fuels are deadly, dirty and short term.
I'm saying eliminating a power source is wrong.
Use all of them when you need them.
Eliminating the oil industry just leaves you vulnerable.
Use green tech as much as you can but don't rely on it. Keep your options open.
There is no intellectual argument for not phasing fossil fuels out and green energy in there is only corporate propaganda and the short term mindless greed of the market place coupled with the geopolitical needs of certain states.
Shell and the other big energy companies are diverging into green energy whilst climate change deniers keep splashing about in crude comparisons regarding the macho fossil fuels and the effete renewable energies. They look more snd more ridiculous by the day.
- Joined
- 13 Feb 21
- Moves
- 659
Well according to the "climate clock" we don't have enough time. It will take a decade to change our energy uses but the climate clock says we have 6 years left.
And that's if the whole world stopped using pollutants, which they won't so grab a beer and enjoy the time we have 😉
1 edit
@averagejoe1 said"I do not even know how to interpret those words."
See? I do not even know how to interpret those words. And he SURE doesn't know how to interpret mine. C'mon, Zahlanzi, tell us how stupid people eschewing seat belts is at all connected to relying on heating systems that are liable to freeze your family. You people could not admit to a point if you had a gun to your head. Automatic contrarian, ,maybe?
It's not really hard. I don't respect you, I think you're dumb (and what's worse, dumb while being an ashole), and i have no interest in engaging you.
"And he SURE doesn't know how to interpret mine."
I did. It was another dumb post you made. This time however i don't care to tell you in what ways it's dumb.
"C'mon, Zahlanzi, tell us how stupid people eschewing seat belts is at all connected to relying on heating systems that are liable to freeze your family. "
No thanks. Somebody here already told you. You ignored them so why should i bother. Those analogies were pointed at the new guy (another one) on the off chance it's not another dummy account of yours or earls or patzering's (or whatever the fuk his name was)
EDIT: sorry i take it back. It's 98% you. Joined 13th of February and one of the first things he does is go on the forums and congratulate you on what a brilliant debater you are. Right.
"You people could not admit to a point if you had a gun to your head. "
We could and would. With people capable of actual debate. You don't qualify.
@zahlanzi saidInteresting. You write a post with NO substance. Nothing to respond to. Emptiness, name calling, full of confusion.Ad Hominem. I have prevailed on an issue where you compare human seat belts to the climate issue (yes, confusing to me as well as our readers).
"I do not even know how to interpret those words."
It's not really hard. I don't respect you, I think you're dumb (and what's worse, dumb while being an ashole), and i have no interest in engaging you.
"And he SURE doesn't know how to interpret mine."
I did. It was another dumb post you made. This time however i don't care to tell you in what ways it's dumb.
"C'mon, ...[text shortened]... a gun to your head. "
We could and would. With people capable of actual debate. You don't qualify.
You do not explain your comment, when I ask you ask you simply to clear that up. Aren't you the one that said this could be fun? Why get upset personally with a person you do not even know . I'd already explained long ago my law partner also joined the forum(gone now) we think and write briefs exactly alike, you thought it was me, sorry about that.
Anyway, you get personal with someone you do not even know, because that is natural liberal characteristic. You know it, I know it,, everybody knows it. It seethes.
Now, be fun Zahlanzi. I aint mad at you. For all I know you are student at State and late for your civics class. Tell us about how we are going to have oil to save the day when the turbines need some backup.
@averagejoe1 saidYou are clearly deranged joe and that’s not an ad hominem it’s my genuine and sympathetic opinion.
Interesting. You write a post with NO substance. Nothing to respond to. Emptiness, name calling, full of confusion.Ad Hominem. I have prevailed on an issue where you compare human seat belts to the climate issue (yes, confusing to me as well as our readers).
You do not explain your comment, when I ask you ask you simply to clear that up. Aren't you the one that s ...[text shortened]... lass. Tell us about how we are going to have oil to save the day when the turbines need some backup.