HOME | DD
timsplosion — Denial
#burningcar #car #comic #denial #environment #climatechange #fire #climatechangedenial #ratifyparis #parisclimateaccords #parisaccords
Published: 2016-09-17 01:02:19 +0000 UTC; Views: 1387; Favourites: 50; Downloads: 1
Redirect to original
Description
So yeh, I saw that XKCD comic recently, and got reminded of times where I’ve argued with climate change deniers.
For people who want to help put pressure on governments to ratify the Paris accords from last year, here’s some petitions:
If you’re in any other country, check on the Wikipedia page to see if your country has ratified the agreement or not . If it hasn’t, start your own petition, or seek out your nearest environmental pressure groups on Facebook and the like and see if they already have something started for this.
The sooner 55 countries representing 55% of global emissions ratify this thing, the better.
Related content
Comments: 54
Raven: ......... We're gonna throw you in the car right now. If you die, it's burning. If you don't die, it's not burning.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah, yes. The ol' witch test!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Raven: I take offence to that, 'cause that happened to me once, despite how freakishly masculine I look.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
...you know...you could apply the message of this comic to a whole mess of things ongoing in the world besides just climate change...there are so many other obvious things going on in the world that people are somehow in denial about.
Still, excellent portrayal of the point.
And like that XKCD comic too, I hadn't seen that yet. It sums up the situation pretty nicely.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I don't think this global warming thing is real, or at least not caused by cars.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I don't think this global warming thing is real
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
*gives DrX-Raven a high five*
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Caused by cars" is a gross oversimplification, but you've made clear before that you're not able to be convinced, so there's no point retreading that debate.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And you can thank my friend in Ontario for that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not sure thank is the word I'd use.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Oh god lol, People like that are so unbelievably stupid it's scary
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
the conspiracy is true.
we're f*cked.
but honestly, global warming is no joke, and i was noticing the effects the other day. it was supposed to be the hottest day in September for 100 years..? Dont quote me on that. but imma show my ignorance, and ask what this "ratify Paris" stuff is..? im sorry if i should know already. i've been very slow recently.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I could believe that stat about the September temperature - the numbers for August aren't fully in yet, but up to July we'd had 15 consecutive months of record high global temperatures. Of the 15 hottest years on record, 14 have been since 2000 - and that's probably just because the numbers from 2016 are still incomplete.
But yeh, the "Ratify Paris" thing is to try and call on governments of the world to finalise their agreement to the Paris climate change accords - once at least 55 countries representing at least 55% of global emissions ratify the treaty, it goes into effect and is binding on all 200+ participant countries. Feel free to use and share the hashtag around. The urgency is partly around all those temperature records that keep getting broken, and partly around the fact that if Trump becomes president, the whole thing could get thrown out the damn window, so really we want this thing in force before November.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
oh okay, so this is a treaty to fight global warming "properly" then?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Basically. Or at least try to. It even has a "aspirational limit" of trying to keep warming to below 1.5 degrees, but we'll probably blow past that by 2030, so that's probably just a useful ideal.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
eeh. well, lets face it, unless loads of people contribute, we're doomed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, that's the point of this type of agreement, isn't it? Besides, China and the US are signed up, so that's the two big polluters and economies who are up for it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
well thats great so far. but i've just done it. so done and done!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Awesome! 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
oh yeah... i'll go do that!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
xkcd.com/1732/
22,000 year Time line [20,000 BC to 2000 AD]
versus
2.5 to 3 billion years of Evolution
on a 4 Billion year old Planet
22,000 / 2,500,000,000 = 0.0000088
Using 0.00088 % of Evolutionary History to decide what the weather is supposed to look like.
It would be very nice if you wouldn't spread climate change misinformation.
Carbon dioxide is a trace gas and is not responsible for warming the planet or acid oceans.
Cold water holds more carbon dioxide than warm water.
meaning a warmer climate isn't caused by more carbon dioxide
but that a warm climate causes warmer oceans
warmer oceans then release more carbon dioxide into the air.
-
meaning Carbon dioxide levels follow natural climate change
carbon dioxide doesn't cause climate change
-
Carbon dioxide in the current atmosphere is 0.04% a trace chemical
The Ocean PH levels are between 7.5 at the bottom to 8.1 at the surface
meaning the oceans are alkaline no where close to acidic.
Carbon dioxide current 0.039% average, 0.036 - 0.041%
Plants grow best around 3.5 to 5 times current levels 0.126 - 0.2%
1% people feel drowsy and give the lungs a stuffy feeling
you would literally need carbon levels 25 times higher than current levels
to actually get anybody sick,
7% to 10% will cause suffocation, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour
you would literally need carbon levels at least 180 times higher than current levels
to actually kill someone.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
"Using 0.00088 % of Evolutionary History to decide what the weather is supposed to look like."
Fair point, but find me a point in geological history where 3 degrees of warming has happened in the space of a century, as current models predict? Without the intervention of a meteorite, supervolcano, or other cataclysm? That level of warming over that kind of period of time needs some kind of trigger. And the overwhelming consensus of scientific research into global climate change is that human intervention, with an emphasis on emissions (primarily but not solely carbon dioxide), is the primary trigger.
The different atmospheric conditions you list below are the products of a geological timescale. The climate does naturally change, but the warming being measured does not fit what the evidence would say natural climate change would look like.
"It would be very nice if you wouldn't spread climate change misinformation."
I'll accept it's misinformation when it's no longer the consensus opinion among people who dedicate their lives to researching this kind of thing.
"meaning Carbon dioxide levels follow natural climate change
carbon dioxide doesn't cause climate change"
Even if that is the case in natural climate change, which it may well be, 97% of scientific studies into our current bout of warming say that emissions of CO2 are having an impact.
"1% people feel drowsy and give the lungs a stuffy feeling..."
This whole bit's completely irrelevant. The issue is the impact on global weather patterns and ecosystems, not on whether we're going to choke ourselves to death.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A single Volcano, Forest fire, or dust storm both natural
put out more pollution and dust
than even china can claim to produce in a week to a month
the last major eruption shut down all air traffic in Iceland
and North western Europe. and forest fires can produce enough smoke
to make the sun and moon look red hundreds of kilometres away
Last I checked planes weren't cancelled and the sun isn't darkened
by smog levels that hang over western cities.
even in Shanghai and Beijing the planes almost always fly.
And you completely missed the point,
the Climate is in an extinction state already
the climate of the last 22,000 years
caused by the previous ice ages has already had an
"impact on global weather patterns and ecosystems".
such that the current climate can't support life to even half
the standard and diversity of previous Eons such as the
Carboniferous Era when both plant and animal life flourished
in size, diversity, and population, both in the oceans and on land.
even after the Ocean extinction of the Permian era
the Land based Climate during the Jurassic and Cretaceous
was better and more stable than what we are currently experiencing.
to be honest if the Ice ages hadn't happened Mammals
never would have gained such an evolutionary foothold
but that doesn't change the fact the climate has never recovered
from the effects of the ice age, and even if global warming was caused by humans
warmer weather and higher oxygen, carbon dioxide, and ocean levels
is the only way the planet will be healthy again.
the alternative is what happened to Mars happening to earth
The crust cooling, starting at the poles
the mantle cooling, mantle convection currents halting
causing faster cooling of the mantle, resulting in the core cooling
convection and spinning of the core halting
the magnetic field collapsing, the solar wind stripping away the atmosphere
the oceans boiling away, and earth being left as a lifeless desert.
that is the result that environmentalism will have
the extinction of all life on earth.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ok, let's just get back to the main thing here. Yes, there are natural variations in the temperature of the climate - however these take thousands of years to move even just a couple degrees. We're currently projected to see as much as a 3 degree increase in the space of a century. This is outside the bounds of what happens naturally. If it is outside the bounds of what occurs naturally, something has to be causing it, and the evidence right now is strongly in favour of it being carbon emissions as a result of human activity.
Which statement(s) is(are) incorrect? And what is your source? Because this is my understanding of the evidence available, and nothing you've said has addressed any of them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
the earth has various ecosystems
the weather in a single city varies from
-30 °C in the winter to
30 °C in the summer
a temperature difference of 60 degrees
that takes a mere 6 months to accomplish
all caused by the angle at which sunlight hits the surface of the earth
as it's filtered through an atmosphere filled with reflective clouds of water vapour
The Top of Mount Everest can reach
lows of -36 °C, -70 °C with windchill, with a high of -19 °C
and has an atmospheric Pressure of 4.89 psi
At the Bottom of the Mariana Trench the deepest part of the ocean
the pressure is 15,750 psi and is always between 1 to 4 °C
The hottest temperature recorded is 56.7 °C
and the lowest recorded is −89.2 °C
wind gusts can reach speeds of 372 km/h
408 km/h gusts for a class 4 cyclone
486 km/h for a rare tornado
At the same time it is perfect weather in my city
there may be a Hurricane in Florida
a typhoon in asia, and an earth quake in Japan
and you think the historical temperature derived
from various Paleoclimatology sources
which only offer snap shots of short periods of time spread across history
to be an accurate average of historical global weather?
when it can be -15 °C one day and the next day 15 °C
a 30 degree difference in 24 hours just in the area I live alone.
the ring of a tree or a growth line in a shell only tell you how healthy
the average growth of the organism was over a single year
it doesn't tell you how cold or how hot it may have gotten for short periods
and it doesn't tell you the day to day fluctuation of temperatures
and other factors that impact health and survival.
Global Warming, climate change, it doesn't matter what you call it
it's a scam designed to sell carbon credits to control and collapse
the global and local economy
and to market votes for environmental politicians
to the left wing environmental sheep that vote for them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Global average. Global average temperature. When you're asking "is the whole world heating up", the difference between winter and summer is irrelevant - it's whether a) extreme weather events are increasing in frequency and strength, and b) whether the temperatures of each season are increasing year-on-year. Compare summers 2006-2016 to summers 1976-1986, plot the average temperature for a given month over a period of time, say every July for 2 centuries, and see what the trend is. If you're not looking at this sort of thing then you're not looking "bigger picture" enough.
And if the historical information I'm referencing is inaccurate, then what even was the point of you bringing up the averages for previous historical eras (Cretaceous, Jurassic, etc)? That data would be similarly flawed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm not saying it isn't flawed both ways
But it's always better to look at the full history
you wouldn't read the last page of a book
and claim to have read the whole thing
so why do it with climate history?
and then claim it's all the fault of a single trace chemical?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
OK, but of the people who have read the whole book, almost all of them agree that this bout of warming is not natural.
I trust the opinion of a doctor on the issue of medicine, I'll trust the overwhelming opinion of climatologists on climate issues.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
so despite being able to point out all the flaws
you still want to follow the herd.
lead a horse to water, but can't make it drink.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You've admitted flaws in your reasoning too.
Besides, a non-scientist accepting scientific consensus isn't herd mentality, it's how science works. We get our governments and educational institutions to get scientists to do research, then work out how to respond to the results. The overwhelming number of scientists say global warming is real and man made, and I'm going to respond to that as I see fit - by pushing for international action to try and avoid the worst results of the warming.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Then consider yourself warned
those actions will kill the planet faster
True Science is open to debate,
after all Science has been proven wrong before.
those that claim Global Warming,
have never been open to debate.
and that is the largest red flag of political corruption.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Firstly, would you mind clarifying something for me: do you believe climate change is real and man made or not? If you don't believe it's real, us taking action on carbon emissions won't change anything. If you believe it's real but not man made, taking action on carbon emissions won't change anything. In either case, reducing humanity's carbon emissions is won't cool the planet to the point of killing it. I can't tell what you believe, you seem to switch between "it's real but natural" and "it's all a hoax" as is convenient.
And secondly, yes, science is open to debate, but that debate is based on the weight of evidence. The weight of evidence is in favour of climate change being real and man made. Until better evidence comes to light that is replicatable, and that better explains the evidence that's already been collected, we have to work with what we have.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Climate change is real
but it's not man made
caused by the axis of the earth shifting as a result of large scale earthquakes
or slowly rotating over thousands of years, which results in the angle of sunlight
hitting the surface of the planet differently, causing the seasons to shift.
also affected by cloud cover, volcanic eruptions, forest fires,
no volcanic dust or forest fire smoke means no rain, no clouds.
as rain needs a nucleus to condense around.
ocean currents changing slightly over time as tectonic plates shift
and volcanic islands form, Sun's activity changing over time.
amount of carbon available in carbon cycle, affecting plant and animal life
as well as oxygen levels. rain requires dust in the air to form clouds
tectonic drift also affects the height of mountains, which affects weather patterns.
Pollution emission or carbon credit programs are designed
to allow monopolization of the global economy by first world countries
and global corporations.
the media selling "Global warming is man-made" is the hoax.
does that clarify where I am coming from?
there are so many factors involved in the weather
and weather shifts so quickly day to day
there is no way it's man made. especially when you compare
volcanic eruptions to the pollution created by china alone
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ok, we can agree on the natural process by which climate change happens. Where I feel we initially disagree is timescales. Natural climate change takes multiple centuries to shift the global temperature by a few degrees either way (accounting for temporary effects of things like volcanoes and forest fires). A climb of 3 degrees globally in the space of a single century (as is currently predicted) is not indicative of naturally occurring climate change. If I accept that human emissions are not the trigger, then what event would account for the start of the warming?
Also, I have one other point of confusion in understanding your perspective: You factor carbon levels into your description of climate change, but say that they are a minor factor and not a major causal factor in changing the climate. Earlier, however, you asserted that reducing the human production of carbon would "kill the planet". If carbon is such a minor part, and current climate change is natural and not being effected by human emissions, how does reducing our output kill the planet? Surely reducing our output would allow the planet to return to it's naturally occurring climate change paths as we would no longer be changing one of the factors?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
here is an example of how using data with too large of an error footprint
and then averaging that data and changing the scale
makes the resulting data worthless comparable to the original data.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Is the average one that top one?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yes the top one is the average after the blurring.
and a change of vertical scale to match XKCD's graph
I'm also working on an actual graph
that will compare the weather data for my city for the year of 2011
going to be showing daily weekly and monthly when it's finished
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The main issue I have with your reasoning at this point - as you do bring up some very good points in your longer post that have given me some food for thought over the last couple days (and I admit I don't have the detailed climatology knowledge to know what (if any) flaws exist in your reasoning in that particular post) - is that when you start bringing it back to daily weather in one location for one year, you go back to missing the overall point about climate change. You've got a very convincing argument, but when you try to discredit global decades-long trends with data from localised short-to-mid term examples it completely ruins it. The differences between a day in winter and a day in summer in a single location within the space of any given unit of 12 months is not relevant to global trends that take place over multiple decades and centuries.
It's this one line of thinking that you keep coming back to every couple of posts and is bugging me as it is so clearly faulty reasoning.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
but the short term affects the weekly monthly and yearly average
even if it's only to a small degree.
a heat wave or a cold snap may not change an average all that much
especially not a global average.
and it won't affect the general weather, especially long term
but it can cause lasting damage to the local ecosystems.
same with storms, especially storms that are out of season
a blizzard during late spring or the summer can snap limbs and kill trees
a hail storm can kill plants and animals that can't find shelter
and a large enough storm can cause flooding and land slides
all of which won't leave much fossil evidence and won't affect the global averages
but will affect the local area and the ecosystems that reside there.
for the short term , and if the damage is great enough the long term.
and it's the local ecosystems that should be worried about
the Global system will always find an equilibrium.
but it's on the local scale that extinctions take place.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I see your point, but on the whole, species tend to survive one-off events like that. If extreme weather is becoming more common within a localised area, you still end up needing to look bigger picture because you can't fully get to grips with the weather in one place without understanding where each flow of air comes from and what patterns already exist, as well as looking at how those patterns are changing over multiple seasonal cycles. And there's no doubting that human activity also has a significant impacts - deforestation already threatens a ton of species even without dramatic weather changes, and then you've got things like neonicotinoids that are devastating to bee populations, etc.
I still feel like we're heading out on a tangent here, since localised weather patterns tend not to be relevant to the question of whether climate change is both real and man made, but still.
And I have to say, you are the most coherent person I've ever talked to from the other side of the debate. The carbon cycle argument in your longer post is one I haven't heard before. I have a feeling geologists might have something to say about it, but I don't have the information to hand to properly evaluate it's credibility. It certainly sounds plausible, and is the most interesting case of "carbon emissions might be good" that I've ever come across. Most people I've talked to who hold a denial position usually use such flawed reasoning or blatantly flawed sources that I can't understand how they manage to hold their opinions without the contradictions giving them a headache. So yeh, kudos for the solid reasoning you've got.
I still wonder why, if carbon dioxide is not the root of global warming, and if there's so much more money to be made keeping things as they are, why the research goes so heavily the other way. Oil companies and related interests are far more wealthy and powerful than the people-powered environmentalist movements tend to be, so the accusation that it's all a money-making scheme lacks credibility to me, especially given that the poorer countries who would be more easily exploited are some of the loudest voices pushing for it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Only recently, last few decades, have we had the technology,
to watch most of the world by satellite, weather station and by geologic means.
Also most of our weather stations are in cities
specifically airports, and a few other urban stations.
rural weather stations are fewer in number than Urban stations.
Tangent - Urban stations would give a higher level of Carbon dioxide, because of cars and factories.
meaning the data is skewed in favour of urban locations for pollution data.
I wouldn't really say the last Century everything has been getting worse,
it's just that the last century we've gotten far more data than we have from the rest of history,
the Historical data looks smooth on XKCD's graph, but that's an average based on
smaller averages based on pieces of a jigsaw. pieces that scientists try to fit together
using isotope dating, which has a factor of error
Wiki says Carbon dating is tested for 250 minutes, with a resulting error of ± 80 years, with 68% confidence
68% confidence that something was alive at some time within a period of 160 years
that's more than a century of error which isn't very accurate
second that Radioactive decay can be affected by electron charge within a material
third science still doesn't know what actually triggers isotope decay
and whether or not that trigger is stable as clockwork over the course of centuries and millennia.
by comparison the data we have from the last century is far more accurate
and shows a much more focused photograph of historical weather.
and as a result it looks like it's changing rapidly when compared to the blurry out of focus data.
also within the last 15 years we have had 6 earthquakes magnitude 8.5 or higher
that have had the power to affect the angle of the earth's axis,
which shifts the seasons slightly one way or another.
Since the 800's there have been 39 such recorded earthquakes.
---------------
As I already stated Carbon dioxide is required for plant life to grow
the more carbon dioxide the more plants. more plants results in more oxygen in the atmosphere
Nature through natural forest fires, and volcanic eruptions releases carbon dioxide, carbon soot,
and dust into the air, the Dust is necessary for Rain, and clouds to form,
otherwise evaporated water vapour saturates the atmosphere, but no clouds form
but over time carbon becomes trapped in rock layers either as Minerals, or as Coal, Oil and Gas.
the problem is carbon trapped underground is removed from the carbon cycle
the less carbon in the cycle means less life can survive on the planet.
on a regular planet that would mean over time, eventually enough carbon,
would become trapped under ground that the small amount of carbon on the surface
would not be enough to support life.
but our planet has humans, an intelligent species that can mine for Coal, Oil, and Gas
and burn those fossil fuels, returning that carbon to the cycle,
and extending the lifetime of our planet.
While I argue mankind may not have an effect on the climate and weather
as a result of carbon dioxide and pollution.
We still have a good amount of influence over the living ecosystem.
as seen with man caused extinctions, acid rain,
and our minor terra-forming projects, such as mining, drilling, and construction.
about the best way to try to affect the weather would be to cut down a few mountains
to try and get rid of a few deserts, but that would be large scale terra-forming.
and irreversible if we made a mistake.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Now an atmospheric history lesson
-
Cambrian
Oxygen 12.5% - Carbon Dioxide 0.45% - Average Temp. 21 °C - sea level 30 - 90 meters
-
Ordovician
Oxygen 13.5% - Carbon Dioxide 0.42% - Average Temp. 16 °C - sea level 180 - 220 - 140 meters
-
Silurian
Oxygen 14% - Carbon Dioxide 0.45% - Average Temp. 17 °C - sea level 180 meters
-
Devonian
Oxygen 15% - Carbon Dioxide 0.22% - Average Temp. 20 °C - sea level 189 - 120 meters
-
Carboniferous
Oxygen 32.5% - Carbon Dioxide 0.08% - Average Temp. 14 °C - sea level 120 - 0 - 80 meters
-
Permian
Oxygen 23% - Carbon Dioxide 0.09% - Average Temp. 16 °C - sea level 60 - 0 - -20 meters
-
Triassic
Oxygen 16% - Carbon Dioxide 0.1750% - Average Temp. 17 °C - sea level 0 meters
-
Jurassic
Oxygen 26% - Carbon Dioxide 0.1950% - Average Temp. 16.5 °C
-
Cretaceous
Oxygen 30% - Carbon Dioxide 0.17% - Average Temp. 18 °C
-
Paleogene
Oxygen 26% - Carbon Dioxide 0.05% - Average Temp. 18 °C
-
Neogene
Oxygen 21.5% - Carbon Dioxide 0.028% - Average Temp. 14 °C
-
Current
Oxygen 20.9% - Carbon Dioxide 0.039% - Average Temp. 15 °C
As you can see an atmosphere when healthy should have
Oxygen 25 - 32%
Carbon dioxide 0.1 - 0.15%
Average Temperature 14 - 18 °C
Sea level 60 - 180 meters
and there should be no polar ice caps
our sea level is at extinction levels
our carbon dioxide is almost too low for plants to survive
and our oxygen level is almost suffocatingly low
Less Carbon Dioxide means less Plants
Less plants means less Oxygen
Less Oxygen means less Life
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You forgot the part where you cite your sources.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I pulled everything off wikipedia
enjoy your 22,000 year old foil hat
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, excuse me for not taking things people say at face value. It's what separates thinkers like me from the sheep.
BTW tell me, what would any pro-green hope to gain by lying about that kind of thing? I already know what the big business herding conservative sheep like you seem to be would hope to gain.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Carbon credits are designed to be corrupt
the point of carbon credits is to run smaller businesses out of business
and to keep third world countries in the third world
because they can't afford to pay the fines for carbon and pollution emissions
and they can't afford to adopt the expensive technologies that prevent or lessen emissions
small countries are then forced to sell mining rights
to corrupt foreign companies, and corrupt bureaucrats of rival first world nations
who come in and take everything the smaller country could have used
in an industrial revolution or cultural renaissance,
and once all the resources are used up, they leave the country
in a worse state of affairs than when they came in.
leaving large global Companies and first world Countries with a monopoly on the global markets.
Frankly Global warming is the biggest scam you could fall for.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well carbon trading is only one possible solution and I'm not sure how it's relevant, it's not mentioned once in the article linked in the description and it certainly isn't the Kyoto Protocol and it mentions the UNFCCC but not the IPCC.
Really, global warming or not, people are going to try to take advantage of anything. It's merely human nature. Who exactly was it that came up with the idea of carbon trading anyway? I bet it wasn't a pro-green group. My research leads me to believe it's some sort of world government organization that gets knowledge second-hand.
Anyone can claim to advocate anything, just like how Autism Speaks doesn't actually support autistic people and PETA kills animals spesfically bred to be human companions simply because they can't survive in the wild, because THAT'S how you support animal rights, right? /sarcasm.
Besides, IPCC could easily be getting bribed by oil companies and such.
Really you make the issue of regulating carbon emissions sound much simpler than it really is. I'm pretty sure that's called a "strawman fallacy".
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Pfff. Please. Replace the skeptic with one of us Libertarians.
"There definitely has to be a market solution here. Fireproof cars. Why wasn't your car fireproof? The risk of fire is statistically significant. It should be fireproof. Or have a fire suppression system. Why didn't you take precautions? This was your decision, and you blew it. You're not going to try to burden ME for your mistake, are you? That's Marxist. You don't want to be a Marxist, do you? You know what Marxists do? THEY MURDER PEOPLE. MURDERER."
You'll end up locking yourself in the burning car.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"I love the unrestricted free market! Especially that part where governments use subsidies and tax breaks to encourage businesses even though we're already profitable! Haha, what's irony?"
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>