Quote:
Originally Posted by Cube Inmate
To tack on one more thought... the climate-change activist method of making this a "moral" issue further widens the gap I mentioned above. Their attempts to make me feel ashamed about my lifestyle (especially when it's hypocrites like Suzuki) also provokes an over-reaction. Consider two approaches:
"Pacific atoll is at risk of drowning...would you be willing to pay an extra $0.10/litre to help prevent this from happening?"
"Well, maybe. But I want to see that money carefully accounted for, and invested in Canada to work on technological development, not sent to some banana-republic slush fund."
vs.
"Pacific atoll is at risk of drowning because of your lavish lifestyle. Since you have no conscience, we're going to tax your gas, ban your air conditioner, and pay $100B to Tonga so they can cope with what we've done to them."
"Eff you and eff them. Let them drown..."
If these people would start treating this as a practical problem, rather than some quasi-religious moral imperative, there could be less extremism both ways.
|
False dichotomy. A had been proposrd for a while and roundly crushed by O&G lobbyists, greedy politicians, and derp voters.
(A) was always on the table. It became (B) after common sense and moderation got crushed by power and stupidity.
Your post leads me to believe you'd pick (A) now? You can contact me on ways to get involved. Course, if you don't, you are by your own logic agreeing we can go (B) on you and lifestyle shame you.