On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 1:35:49 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 8/5/2015 11:59 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 12:33:17 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:

I agree with you. Every time I see someone going nuts over the weather
being caused by humans I want to put them in a spaceship and send them
to outer space so they can see just how little we are in relation to the
Earth. The planet might get a little bit dirty because of us, but it
has it's own way of cleaning up after the dirt and trash that makes us
look so insignificant.



Maggie, it's so obvious by now that it's really you who's in outer space.
Like I said, you could be a caricature for how commies and socialists
like to portray capitalists. A big fat buffoon, smoking a cigar, polluting
the air and water with waste from your factories, $100 bills bulging from
your greedy pockets, all the while proclaiming:

The earth can clean itself!

Why isn't the earth decimated from former volcano eruptions? Those
volcano's did a lot of damage, yet, the Earth recovered.

That volcanic damage included wiping out half the species on earth, including
severely reducing the population of our ancestors. And you think
this is a good thing to use as a comparison?

It's just a fact that volcano's make a big mess, yet, the Earth manages
to go on and clean itself up.


Sigh, half the species gone is quite a big mess.


I don't think
man has done nearly the damage combined that some of those volcano's
have done.

So far, no man hasn't. Does that mean that we should just ignore
pollution, that the earth will recover, that we're not having a
major negative impact on endangered species, that "if a species is
meant to survive, it will", that's it's OK to be shooting endangered
species? Of course not.

I never said we should ignore pollution, or that we have no effect on
the Earth or endangered species. I just stated what I believe to be
facts concerning the Earth and how species go extinct.


You said it in the context of an endangered species where a
hunter just lured a well known lion off a preserve and shot it so he
can put it's head on a wall. What do you think not only
making every BS excuse possible for Palmer, but then saying
"if a species is meant to survive it will", means? And what
do you think, when confronted with the numbers that show
lions have gone from 400,000 to 16,000 in just fifty years,
lying and trying to say that I used it to show that man is
responsible for the decline means?

And note that while I never used those numbers to show that
man is responsible, everyone else, including I think everyone
in this thread, knows that man is indeed responsible for almost
all the species that are endangered. Simple question, do you
deny that? Yes or no?




Being a realist just allows me to accept things that happen that I have
no control over,

But we do have control over it and the expression of outrage that
has occurred over the scum Palmer, who you defend, is one way
that we can change it. It's already lead to a halt in similar
hunts in Zimbabwe. Yet, here you are, ****ing all over the outrage
and defending Palmer.



When I'm being objective about the whole endangered species thing, then
yeah, I'm going to say "if a species is meant to survive, it will
survive - if it doesn't survive then that's how it's meant to be".
If
someone kills an endangered animal, I'm going to have a similar response
because there's nothing I can do about it and having outrage over it
seems like a waste of time compared to if I hear someone is aborting
babies and selling the body parts for profit. The latter is more worth
my time to be outraged over.

Again with the fatalistic nonsense. If we all just said, the bald eagle
is going extinct, nothing I can do about it, if it's meant to survive
it will, where do you think the eagle would be today? And you're not
being objective. If you were, you'd have accepted the 400,000 to 16,000
numbers, not segue into some irrelevant BS and then lie about it.




We tend to look at the Earth (clean or dirty) based on a
human lifespan, but when the Earth responds to cleaning itself, it does
so over thousands of years, not a human lifespan.


You would think that the earth getting dirty in just the last
century, seeing how rapidly man has impacted it and like you say,
it takes a very long time to recover, would be the argument against
your positions.

What am I going to do about it except try to recycle when I can or go
organic when I can?

You can support sound policies that protect the environment.
Elect candidates that will protect the environment. Express outrage
when something bad happens. Or you can just stick your head in
the sand, your choice. But at least don't come in here defending
Palmer.


The news is full of issues I could get all torqued
up about how other people are doing things that I think are wrong or
even evil. I'm not so worried about the Earth as I am individuals or
circumstances that I can actually have some influence with. Seeing that
I'm only one person I think it's wiser to invest my energy into those
things and not get all riled up about a lion being killed in Africa.


Not getting riled up is fine. But that isn't what you did.
You're still actively defending Palmer. Multiple people have
pointed out how what he did wasn't sport hunting, it was like
shooting your neighbors dog or paying to shoot a lion at the
Bronx Zoo. Yet you made up every excuse
for him. And when I and Ed too presented you with the shocking
decline in lion numbers, you lied about what I said and went
on to defend killing lions some more.





Man's impact is insignificant!

What do you consider to be a significant impact, then?


The loss of huge amounts of rainforest, the species hunted to
extinction, the loss of huge amounts of space where wildlife
once flourished, the pollution of vast amounts of water, the
decline of so many species to the point that they are endangered
today, and as I and Ed have cited for you before, the reduction
in lions from 400,000 just fifty years ago, to 16,000 today.
What does that tell you? What is wrong with you that you even
have to ask this question?

Nothing is wrong with me at all. I only have a different perspective and
respond differently to the same things you listed.

What can you do personally about any of those things you listed?

See the previous response. And at least I don't have to ask for
the list, as if to imply that there isn't a real and huge list.
What was the point to asking for the list?

Or do
you think that if you berate people who don't march in lockstep with
everything you say that will do anything to make a difference in your
"significant" list?


I only berate people who have truly proven that they are liars and
total idiots. Again, look at what you just did. You asked for some
examples. I gave them to you. Your reaction? Basically, I don't
care, doesn't matter, nothing I can personally do about it. What could
you personally do about civil rights? About jews getting shoved into
ovens? About commies killing millions of people? About almost all
the issues of any time?



How would you change things if you could and had the influence to do so?
I'm against doing bad things to the Earth and people, but I've no
influence to change anything, and just because I can't it doesn't mean
I'm going to try to make an example of one man and try to destroy him
because he made the mistake of killing one lion.

He's been killing lots of stuff. He's done illegal hunts and
admitted to it before. That hasn't stopped him, so I think losing
all his customers and facing jail time is a good thing.
Again, here you are, defending, minimizing for him.


He can learn to do
better,

Really? Provide us with a cite where he's said he's sorry or anything
else that shows he's learned anything at all. Being in prison
in Africa might teach him, it's a good start.


but if people try to destroy him all that's going to do is turn
him into a rebellious hater.

He's already a hater of magnificent endangered species. Actually,
he'd probably make the convoluted BS argument that he's killing
them to protect them, that he "loves animals".

And once again, people didn't destroy him, he destroyed himself.
If I were one of his patients, I'd be right out the door, because
I don't want to help fund his next African hunt. Capiche?


And maybe you can add climate change caused by burning fossil
fuels to that list too. I'm not totally convinced yet, but unlike
you and some others here, I don't just immediately reject what
most scientists are saying, the data, etc. Just the fact that
CO2 has gone up exponentially in just a hundred years to the
point that it's higher now than it's been in hundreds of thousands
of years is just one data point that shows man is having an impact
on the planet. But I'm sure you'll deny that direct evidence too.

If CO2 increases, we should plant more trees, and bushes, and other CO2
consuming plants.


Another fine example of total ignorance of science and the actual
real situation.