RE: If not now, when?
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Because the institutions that abdicated their role in preventing this situation are now asking us to do something.
0
0
0.000
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Because the institutions that abdicated their role in preventing this situation are now asking us to do something.
How did they abdicate their role? I don't think they ever had enough power to change it on their own. You need the people to make a difference.
In the US, they have this document called The Constitution. The courts are supposed to uphold it. One of the things that The Constitution, and thus the courts, should protect is "private property." It is my contention that when the courts failed to protect "private property rights," it lead to this situation we're now in.
It would be my preference to return to protecting private property as a means to protect "the environment." Either by going back to the doctrine that The Constitution has laid out, or by switching to a more effective system.
In the meantime, any system that fails to protect private property in order to save the environment is immoral, or at best, the means justifying the ends.
These are treated as the same thing nowadays, therefore any system will fail to protect one from the other, unfortunately making your comment pointless.
Immoral > no enviroment.
Nowadays they can't because it gets in the way of some industries' profits. The top groups who command multiple industries are also the ones who basically command the world.
No they aren't? If they were, they would do something. They aren't, that's why people are angry and bringing attention to it. You have no clue what you're talking about, and that's the core issue here.
Has it really become necessary to insult already?
When you support the deaths of millions of people, don't expect civility.
Also, I didn't even insult you there, snowflake.
Well, you claimed I am clueless and now genocidal for no reason. I don't see how this is in any way productive. Your argument is purely ad hominem.
But it's not. You just won't read the scientific information related to the subject and are instead following mass hysteria generated by your pals.
You attack "biological gender" (whatever that means) as a scapegoat to form an argument in defense of climate denial.
What does that mean, by the way? You have no real thesis at all.
How did you come to that conclusion? I read tons of scientific information. I'm also a big fan of thunderf00t, veritasium, and answerswithjoe, all of whom do videos in support of climate change evidence. None of them make the "The Science is Settled" argument.
I listen to them in order to understand the case being made from a scientific perspective. I trust many of their conclusions. When they talk about climate change, I listen to their position and form my own conclusion.
My conclusion is that protection of private property rights is the way to solve the problem morally.
As for the "biological gender" argument, that was an observation, not an attack; I was observing that science is being cherry picked.