To put it another way, "something more than the economy is at stake" does not yield "considering the economy is important" as a weak defense - the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.
So he has used a really unfortunate analogy to no good end here, and a comparison to slavery... I am not one for censoring offensive speech by any stretch but without saying he can't say that, I find his comments to be in poor taste.
You're wilfully trying to change the argument here and and make the situation suit your view. He didn't make a false dilemma nor compare the two problems.
He compared the "economy" defense (not his false dilemma, he did not make it), and did not suggest the problems are equivocal. At all. You see what you want to I guess, but flat out making things up now. Who made the false dilemma here?
Location: Close enough to make a beer run during a TV timeout
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Igottago
Secondly, why does everyone who bashes Suzuki bring up his home in Pt. Grey or properties, or the fact that he travels by plane?
Are environmentalists supposed to live in teepees and travel by horseback to be taken seriously?
If he had one "modest" 4000 square foot home, I could take him a little more seriously. And I don't think it's the mode of transport (air travel), it's that he doesn't use commercial air travel.
He preaches for the rest of us to shut everything off, while he has a bigger carbon footprint in a year than I will have in the rest of my life. A classic example of "shut everything off" is the following commercial:
I get not using a big fridge for 4 bottles of beer. However buying a beer fridge instead would not only pay for itself in a year, it would continue to use less electricity year after year. (230 KW/h instad of the 1240 in the commercial.)
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ken0042 For This Useful Post:
You're wilfully trying to change the argument here and and make the situation suit your view. He didn't make a false dilemma nor compare the two problems.
He compared the "economy" defense (not his false dilemma, he did not make it), and did not suggest the problems are equivocal. At all. You see what you want to I guess, but flat out making things up now. Who made the false dilemma here?
You did!
Then you suggested that was his premise!
Then you asked if I disagreed with it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist
Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist View Post
Do you disagree with the premise? That something more important than economy is at stake so the defense is weak
WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM ME STREET PHARMACIST I WAS JUST TRYING TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION
In seriousness I guess I mischaracterized it as a false dilemma on its face. It's just a bad argument whose conclusion doesn't follow... But it seems to me that Brad Wall just said, look, whatever we're doing, we need to take into account the economic impact and try to avoid further job losses:
Quote:
Brad Wall: “Whatever it is we agree to going into Paris, whatever we agree to as a country, we need to make sure we understand what impact that’s going to have on jobs. What additional impact will that have on the energy sector, which is already suffering massive layoffs in our country?”
Suzuki then effectively says that focusing on the economy sounds like a slaver's mentality, which to me, sure does sound like a false dilemma, as if we can't take steps forward on environmental issues while considering economic impacts. It's not one or the other, it can't be.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 11-26-2015 at 08:03 AM.
Like Al Gore, if he influenced thousands of people to reduce their carbon footprint, hasn't he had a huge net positive effect (despite his mansions)? Does he have to live like Ed Begley Jr.?
I used to see him walking around UBC. That is all.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
My personal feelings about David Suzuki aside, suggesting that the economy is as important as, let alone more important than the environment is totally insane.
He preaches for the rest of us to shut everything off, while he has a bigger carbon footprint in a year than I will have in the rest of my life. A classic example of "shut everything off" is the following commercial:
thanks to those ads I've had to arm myself when I go to the basement -I'm scared of finding Suzuki hiding behind a shelf.
__________________
"If Javex is your muse…then dive in buddy"
I notice that personal success and achievement is only something to be ashamed of for the right winger nutters around the world if it so happens to be a lefty who has made a lot of coin. Class warfare suddenly isn't a talking point, but, a strategy to attack people who campaign for better environmental stewardship. Pretty remarkable.
My personal feelings about David Suzuki aside, suggesting that the economy is as important as, let alone more important than the environment is totally insane.
You're totally right, screw the economy! We should live off the land with our wildlife brethren! Who needs things like food, water and shelter? Mother Nature will provide these for us! We shouldnt be second-guessing her by trying to acquire them for ourselves.
I'm in the process of destroying my house right now and erecting a crude lean-to using nothing but rope made of shrubs, some branches from my neighbor's tree and hope.
The economy and the environment cannot coexist!
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
Last edited by Locke; 11-26-2015 at 09:34 AM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
My personal feelings about David Suzuki aside, suggesting that the economy is as important as, let alone more important than the environment is totally insane.
There's the rub. Are we talking about climate change or pollution?
One is made up to make $$$ the other is a valid concern. Take a guess which one is made up (hint it involves our complete inability to control the sun)
Our climate has fluctuated in temperature for millions of years on earth. Ice ages to tropical climates. Man thinking he has ANY control over the climate is absolutely hilarious. Man trying to make money in "carbon credits" is hysterical!
I do agree pollution needs to be reduced and controlled, however reducing CO2 emissions (trees and plants need CO2) and mining rare earth minerals and building new electric cars hardly takes care of our pollution issue, actually it does just the opposite.
There's the rub. Are we talking about climate change or pollution?
One is made up to make $$$ the other is a valid concern. Take a guess which one is made up (hint it involves our complete inability to control the sun)
Our climate has fluctuated in temperature for millions of years on earth. Ice ages to tropical climates. Man thinking he has ANY control over the climate is absolutely hilarious. Man trying to make money in "carbon credits" is hysterical!
I do agree pollution needs to be reduced and controlled, however reducing CO2 emissions (trees and plants need CO2) and mining rare earth minerals and building new electric cars hardly takes care of our pollution issue, actually it does just the opposite.
Just to be clear.
You believe climate change is a made up concern?
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Like Al Gore, if he influenced thousands of people to reduce their carbon footprint, hasn't he had a huge net positive effect (despite his mansions)? Does he have to live like Ed Begley Jr.?
I used to see him walking around UBC. That is all.
Yeah, I agree that his net influence has been positive.
I never thought his message was that we should all be living like quakers or monks, or that we shouldn't be living a first world lifestyle. It was always that we should do what we can improve things.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
I notice that personal success and achievement is only something to be ashamed of for the right winger nutters around the world if it so happens to be a lefty who has made a lot of coin. Class warfare suddenly isn't a talking point, but, a strategy to attack people who campaign for better environmental stewardship. Pretty remarkable.
I admire his success, especially considering his beginnings in an internment camp. I personally wouldn't care if he had ten houses and a David Suzuki Party Jet that flew from Vancouver to Las Vegas every weekend. It's the fact that he declares Carbon is a huge threat and berates those trying to add value to the economy by producing something that everyone relies upon to raise their standard of living.
Oh sure, he cares about carbon staying in the ground as long as it's the carbon that you and I would use. I think it's pretty clear he gives zero ####s about his carbon staying in the ground. It's like last year when DiCaprio was spouting off about the Oil Sands and chirping our PM. Right after he sailed his mega yacht from the USA to Brazil to watch the World Cup. It's the ultimate hypocrisy, I don't see why true Climate Warriors aren't more angry at these guys.
Last edited by DiracSpike; 11-26-2015 at 09:46 AM.
Like Al Gore, if he influenced thousands of people to reduce their carbon footprint, hasn't he had a huge net positive effect (despite his mansions)? Does he have to live like Ed Begley Jr.?
I used to see him walking around UBC. That is all.
He doesn't have to move into a sod house or anything, but at least try to walk the talk.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to habernac For This Useful Post:
I notice that personal success and achievement is only something to be ashamed of for the right winger nutters around the world if it so happens to be a lefty who has made a lot of coin. Class warfare suddenly isn't a talking point, but, a strategy to attack people who campaign for better environmental stewardship. Pretty remarkable.
It's the "do as I say not as I do" part that rubs people the wrong way. A good portion of society is intelligent enough to see through those like Suzuki who through their own actions prove that they do not truly follow their public ideologies. People like Suzuki have clearly crossed the line between activism and narcissism so while he shouldn't be ashamed of his personal success he should strive to live by the ideologies he preaches.
The man can make as many outlandish headlines as he wants but he can't hide from the truth.
Last edited by Erick Estrada; 11-26-2015 at 09:58 AM.
There's the rub. Are we talking about climate change or pollution?
One is made up to make $$$ the other is a valid concern. Take a guess which one is made up (hint it involves our complete inability to control the sun)
Our climate has fluctuated in temperature for millions of years on earth. Ice ages to tropical climates. Man thinking he has ANY control over the climate is absolutely hilarious. Man trying to make money in "carbon credits" is hysterical!
I do agree pollution needs to be reduced and controlled, however reducing CO2 emissions (trees and plants need CO2) and mining rare earth minerals and building new electric cars hardly takes care of our pollution issue, actually it does just the opposite.
The Following User Says Thank You to polak For This Useful Post:
David Suzuki was kinda useful back when he was just a scientist who could communicate better than most. Since he became a celebrity advocate, I doubt he's changed anyone's minds about the issues he champions. He's just another partisan preaching to the true believers.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
I find it rich not that he has many homes, or burns tons of oil while crusading against the oil sands, but that he has turned the conversion to net human benefit. So let's play his game.
By shutting down Oil Sands there is a net loss of ethically developed oil. That oil will need to be replaced (refineries gotta refine 24/7). So you will need to replace those barrels from somewhere. Iraq? Saudi Arabia? Lybia? Iran? Congo?
Those countries unlike Canada have human rights issues. They have a lively black market slave trade. So by eliminating the oil sands you are increasing human rights injustices.
Therefore David Suzuki is a lot like a slave trader himself using his logic. His arguments for a reduction of oil sands oil will factually empower human rights abusers. So it's basically the same thing right?
David Suzuki needs to realize that discourse like this does nothing productive. It in facts hurts his cause and his credibility. It radicalizes the conversation in both directions. I think go forward we need balance, and David isn't it.
Canada needs the oil sands. They need to be developed responsibly. I too don't see why we can't remove the zealots on both sides and have a dialog like grown ups.
The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to OldDutch For This Useful Post:
