Do you always make up stuff to suit what you want to know? I mean, what does that even mean?
Nope... Just referencing your contributions and the implied double standard(s) that are rife throughout
I haven't stifled anyone. On the contrary I have asked you, as above, to explain yourself. It appears that your stifling rises from your inability to do so.
I have explained my position and the typical and expected response are these flaky, uber-high level idealistic statements that you can't even define, let alone articulate.
Remember? Your rights as a 'world citizen' - but not recognizing the 'rights' of those that have another perspective? How about the 'intergenerational equality' based on your static view of the world today with the impossible task of leaving a net increase in resources (which is a physical impossibility I might add)
I don't think I was b*tching about anything. I was explaining how, given our current situation, we have to consider our kids and grandkids future prospects. The fact that we and our parents have been amongst the luckiest people ever to walk on the face of the planet doesn't mean that we can continue to waste resources that are very valuable. Intergenerational equity doesn't start now, or at any given point in time. It is more an expression of the ratio of the planets inhabitants to value. The last couple of generations have been abusive of that ratio.
Yeah, sure... More high level talk without any regard for the demands of the present. Lemme guess, you'll be front and center demanding free healthcare, 'food security', infrastructure, schools and feeding the hungry of the world (as rights as world citizens of course) and although the goals are noble, you have no clue as to the resources that need to be expended (on a net loss basis) to achieve the goals.
You live in a fantasy land beaker
Can you give an example of this exclusive punishment?
Carbon tax and emissions taxes that target ONLY the producer of the energy and does not recognize that it is the end user that creates the demand AND the vast majority of the evil emissions.
So what is stoppng your ilk? This is a recurring argument conservation minded people run into. Its the same argument as floated during the Vietnam war protests from the American right. "Love It or Leave It!" For these people there can be no middle ground because that would threaten their world view, and that isn't a good thing. It aalso puts all the onus on people who are already trying to rationalize our societies bad habits, and removes any need for them to see beyond their entitlements. I designed my house to be solar assisted thirty-four years ago. I drive only when I need to, and I definitely keep as much plastic out of my life as possible. It might be possible to go completely without using the fossil fuels right now but it would probably mean leaving society completely, and that isn't what I need to do right now.
You still don't get it, do you?
I'm not the one that is screaming that the sky is falling.
As I mentioned earlier, and you skimmed over, It isn't the use of our resources tha bothers me. It is the abuse.
Great, define abuse
I think you should read some more business editorials, check into the lobbying efforts and even applications for business grants and low interest loans. You will find repeated references to the need, to be able to compete, to access markets, to overcome rising costs, etc. This is a big industry in itself, getting the subsidies that "private industry "needs" to survive in these tough financial times.
So what?
Those programs are designed to increase productivity which (in theory) will lead to more people working and more $$ being contributed into the tax base.... Compare that to the actual welfare system.
Note: I have no issue with the welfare system, but if you want to compare welfare with 'corporate welfare', then do the math and see which one is more beneficial to the individuals and to society at large.
Why is it that leftards always equate tax credits with giving money away? It is the equivalent of saying "I only worked 9 hours yesterday instead of 10 so I gave an hour of pay away."
Easy, 'cause they don't have a friggin clue about how the world works.
They hear a term like tax write-off and believe that the gvt puts an envelope of cash into the mail
I expect that an army sargeant going over my current military value would probably say that my beak was the best part of me. And that shouldn't be sold short. Hopefully before we get to a military context we will have the opportunity to talk. But help me with this, why is a respect for human free speach, or an understanding of the need for sustainable development an attack on freedom?
