Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
I don't get this 'other side' classification of Bingo. Seems to me he is right in the middle...right where I am, right were most here seem to be.
Is the other side always ignorant, selfish and greedy? That is an ignorant opinion within itself.
|
Azure, you've never been centerist on anything.
I also don't see much center ground on the topic either. The topic is like the great pyramid. The vast majority of it has you on one side or the other, and the center ground is so miniscule that if you shift either way you are on one side or the other. In this debate, you either believe the science, or you dispute the science. You either believe the puck went in the net, or you believe its no goal. There are extremes to how far on each side of the discussion you are on, but you're on one side or the other. Bingo is definitely on the side where does not believe the science is conclusive of anything. He is a lot closer to the peak of the pyramid than most, but he is still on the other side.
I see this debate very much like a patient (the earth in this example) who thinks he is sick and showing symptoms. The patient has been examined by some of the best and brightest doctors around. There is a concensus that something is wrong, and something needs to be done. The majority of the doctors think it is either emphysema, lung cancer, or advanced heart disease. A minority of others feel that it could be other things. One thinks its athletes foot. One thinks its migrane headaches. One thinks its just a nagging wife and all symptoms will go away the minute she shuts up. Each of these dissenting voices have a different theory, don't agree with the other dissenters, but together they are sure it has nothing to do with the heart and lungs of the patient. Further tests are definitely required. All doctors agree with that.
So what should the patient do? Continue along with his 4 pack a day habit of smoking cigarettes? Continue drinking the 3 bottles of Jack Daniels he presently does? Continue eating at McDonalds four times a day? What is the patient to do? That is where this debate really splits. Those that believe the science also believe that something drastic needs to be done. The patient needs to immediately stop smoking, stop drinking, and start eating healthier. The patient needs to start living healthier if he has any hope of seeing a reversal, let alone survival. The other side sees it differently. They believe the patient can maintain his lifestyle while the doctors continue to run tests and argue amongst themselves about what is making him sick. There is no need to do anything different, as he's still alive and the symptoms aren't really all that bad. Everything is okay until the patient is either cured, or is dead on a slab. Those are the two sides of the Global Warming debate. Of course there are extremes on both sides (one side thinking the patient should start running marathons, and the other thinking the patient should party harder), but I think the analogy is pretty accurate.