Nicker on 30/5/2024 at 05:50
Quote:
If someone else develops the technology, more power to them. Until then, we need to use what works.
Who need shiny metal? Sharp rock work good!
lowenz on 30/5/2024 at 11:27
Quote Posted by RippedPhreak
just to please the Greta Thunberg types.
Do you really believe this? It's a bit stupid to think politicians want to please a minority for the sake of "democracy". A more rational thinking is that minority is directed by other interests (other than the declared ones, but they can still be true, there's no mutual exclusion) and so the politicians act in agreement with MORE parts.
heywood on 30/5/2024 at 12:59
Quote Posted by RippedPhreak
"Green" technology is simply not there yet. Dumb lib politicians are trying to kill oil and gas prematurely before a working replacement technology is ready, just to please the Greta Thunberg types.
If someone else develops the technology, more power to them. Until then, we need to use what works.
It's already developed, already deployed, and already accounts for 30% of global electricity generation.
(
https://ourworldindata.org/renewable-energy) https://ourworldindata.org/renewable-energy
(
https://yearbook.enerdata.net/renewables/renewable-in-electricity-production-share.html) https://yearbook.enerdata.net/renewables/renewable-in-electricity-production-share.html
Over 4 million US homes have solar installations. There's about 10 million electric vehicles in the US, including hybrids.
DuatDweller on 30/5/2024 at 13:03
What happened is Spain about it, is rater ridiculous, they told people to go solar powered to have cheap electricity, and when most (almost everyone) had solar powered houses and buildings, those ass wipes from the electrical company rose the electric bill to the highest levels. Go figure it out.
That because you could sell the exceeding power to the electric company (two way system).
Nicker on 30/5/2024 at 13:13
Quote:
...just to please the Greta Thunberg types.
I.E. The young people and their children who will actually have to live in the mess created by greedy old oil-sucking fucks and their ignorant shills, who will be long dead when their petrochemical shit hits the environmental fan.
How selfish and disrespectful of these kids, to demand accountability and meaningful action to rescue their future. Oh the shame!
/s
RippedPhreak on 30/5/2024 at 13:19
Quote:
I.E. The young people and their children who will actually have to live in the mess created by greedy old oil-sucking fucks and their ignorant shills, who will be long dead when their petrochemical shit hits the environmental fan.
How selfish and disrespectful of these kids, to demand accountability and meaningful action to rescue their future. Oh the shame!
Ridiculous take. This framing could be used to justify taking away the vote from anyone older than a certain age. What's the cutoff for you, 50? Secondly kids are stupid and easily manipulated especially by college professors (see: pro-Hamas rallies), so saying something is obviously correct "because the kids are for it" is utterly laughable.
Thirdly, the way I know that the "green" technology isn't good enough is: If the government has to outlaw its competition (oil and coal), then it isn't good enough to survive on its own.
lowenz on 30/5/2024 at 18:42
Quote Posted by RippedPhreak
Secondly kids are stupid and easily manipulated especially by college professors
We're no more in '60s and "kids" are not kids anymore if you talk about naivety (but it's still valid if we talk about ideology in the original meaning of the word, "pseudoanalytical excuse" and not "idealistic theory" as the noun meaning evolved - never understood how the meaning got this skew).
But what about the "freedom to manipulate the stupid"? And no, it's not a trivial provocation because we're talking about libertarians and their views about "freedom". It's an honest question to you: a libertarian would advocate for himself this kind of freedom too (with the trick that anyone can too and that's their "universality" ).
Nicker on 30/5/2024 at 20:33
If you are looking for intellectual or moral consistency is R.P.'s rants, lowenz, I think you will be disappointed.
Quote:
This framing could be used to justify taking away the vote from anyone older than a certain age.
Don't be absurd. Save some straw for the livestock. Try an actual rebuttal.
Quote:
What's the cutoff for you, 50?
Well let's see. How old are you? Can we make it a movable bracket?
SD on 30/5/2024 at 21:20
Lock him up! Lock him up!
demagogue on 30/5/2024 at 23:09
Welp, not a surprising conviction.
The documentary evidence really didn't leave the jury any wiggle room out of it.
They're saying it's unclear what it'll mean for the election.
People that already supported him are even more galvanized to vote for him, but that only helps him if the turnout is greater, since it's not flipping any votes.
Then there's an appreciable number of independents that polled they wouldn't support him just because of this, maybe 10%~15%.
So the impact is going to be subtracting the latter from the former, and who can predict that... But it might matter, even if it's not that many, because the margins are so thin for some states.
It's of course stupid that the GOP is going to nominate a convicted felon as their candidate.
Talk about a low bar.
