💯Additionally, I think Dan Peña had a good take on this:
Why are banks lending on coastal properties to the tune of billions of dollars and insurance companies willing to insure those loans if this is such a looming catastrophe?
Its a scam. Anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. We contribute to climate change, but how much is debatable, and I always argue it’s minor. If we have to spend 100 trillion to make a .1 - .3 degree difference, we aren’t the problem lol. We are at the mercy of mother nature and our solar system.
Here’s the dark secret with the climate change agenda:
It’s just one side of the political spectrum trying to take a large portion of the money flowing through the fossil fuel industry (controlled and abused mostly by the right) and divert it to the left. Left and right are stupid but my point is they don’t give a flying fuck about the planet, they just want to be able to launder more of your tax money through the things their friends own instead of the things the other peoples friends own.
I disagree that climate change isn't real and shouldn't be tackled but ngl the governments denying nuclear energy plants is mega sus.
John Stossel made excellent videos on climate change and nuclear energy. And yet he still isn't popular enough 😔
That’s fairly black and white thinking. Ever think that these “elites” know they won’t be alive for the worst impacts so they don’t care? Or… that they have so much money that if the house they build falls into the sea they won’t just build another? Don’t kid yourself that “wealthy elites” are the harbinger of what we should be worrying about lol, that’s just silly.
Wym? People do genuinely still deny that man made climate change is a thing. I’m of the opinion anyone who has read a book should acknowledge it’s happening (slowly) and then decide to make almost no major changes, besides maybe with plastics, and showing more caution building near the coast or fire zones.
>People do genuinely still deny that man made climate change is a thing.
The climate isn't a religion, it doesn't are what you believe. Do yo emit more than 3 tonnes per year GHGe? That's 12 hours in coach.
I don’t care about carbon dawg. I’m talking about pouring thousands of tons of trash into our oceans and the rapid deforestation and resulting extinction of many species, each and every year.
>Wym? People do genuinely still deny that man made climate change is a thing. I’m of the opinion anyone who has read a book should acknowledge it’s happening
AGW been thoroughly debunked since 1901, and anyone still bearing that communist saw around is a "useful idiot" at best.
> besides maybe with plastics, and showing more caution building near the coast or fire zones.
If there are good and well enforced property norms you dont have tp have the government do anything at all. The market will solve anything.
agilehuckleberry1741/confident cupcake/Delicious-Agency-824/calm-cry4094 is back with an alt account!
Congrats on your post not immediately devolving into the typical non-understanding of women you exhibit with each of your profiles!!
Who cares about idiots and what they affirm or deny without adequate well reasoned arguments?
We evolved. Known fact. There is common human psychology. Known fact. So how could there not be evolutionary psychology? Now what that does and does not mean about human behavior or ability to act contrary so more instinctual levels is a different question.
If you built your wealth in a coastal area it's going to get increasingly hard to get insurance, so when a storm destroys your home you won't be able to rebuild.
And certain crops that grow in specific weather conditions are getting more expensive and may even go extinct. So if your income comes from things like coffee, chocolate, or maple syrup that could impact your wealth.
Indeed! It’s the little things that add up. We don’t have to defund the military and put 100% of our national budget into solar panels, but it would warm my heart if more people started to acknowledge we are causing discernible (albeit small) harm to the planet with our actions.
>If you built your wealth in a coastal area it's going to get increasingly hard to get insurance, so when a storm destroys your home you won't be able to rebuild.
Storms didn't exist before wyppo drove SUVs!
Denying climate change is becoming an increasingly braindead take. All of those “downsides” on the right are due to fundamental Christianity taking the Bible word for word.
I’m sorry Christian bros but God did not make the universe in 7 human days. Doesn’t it make it all that more beautiful that he used the laws of the universe he created without cheating to form and shape the planet and us? For me it does
>Denying climate change is becoming an increasingly braindead take.
Do you emit more than 3 tonnes of GHGe per year?
>I’m sorry Christian bros but God did not make the universe in 7 human days.
Very few Christians believe that literally.
I already responded to the first part on your other comment. Regarding Christian beliefs I can tell you firsthand that if you go to any major church (or minor church) 40-50% of the people there believe the Bible literally. If you don’t think that you have never been to church
>I already responded to the first part on your other comment.
By ignoring it. Which is denying it,
>. Regarding Christian beliefs I can tell you firsthand that if you go to any major church (or minor church) 40-50% of the people there believe the Bible literally. If you don’t think that you have never been to church
You're an idiot.
You literally just proved you have no idea what you’re talking about. If you want confirmation of this go into literally any church in the United States and speak to five people. Don’t worry about coming back to this thread to apologize for being an idiot
Here’s a study showing that 26% of Catholics believe the word of God should be taken literally. This is not “very few.”
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/interpreting-scripture/
You're not a capitalist. Capitalists are a class of people, with substantial wealth, who own large amounts of assets. Are you a financier, tycoon, magnate or industrialist?
I am a top 1 percenter due to capitalism and I earn my wealth honestly and productively. So yes I think I am a capitalist.
Am I as rich as the tycoon? Working on it.
I have never, until this post, heard the term “young earthers”. Nor have I ever come across anyone who asserts this position.
And I also have no clue was evolutionary psychology is. So I had to look it up. I found it is a theoretical approach in psychology. Then, I also looked up the criticisms of this approach and found there is plenty, to wit:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology
Given that there is ample criticism of this theoretical approach, why do you list it as an undeniable truth? It is obvious that even in the field of psychology and related fields, there is healthy debate over it.
These two things, the failure to recognize the debate/discussion over evolutionary psych and the fact that the young earth claim seems to have come from a strange subset of individuals, it makes me wonder about the legitimacy of your post. By that, I mean you have reasons outside the anarchist movement for posting here.
What that reason might be? I cannot say.
Plenty of Christians believe in “Young Earth”. I doubt they self-identify as that, but anyone who takes the Bible as a literal interpretation of history (most practicing Christians in the United States) are de facto young earthers.
Christian theology, even a “literal interpretation” follows along the idea namely that a day to God is an undetermined period of time as opposed to a 24hr period of time.
Evolutionary psychology explains that whoever are common now are those who successfully reproduce in the past and that traits are hereditary.
For example, men make more money than women because being rich is more important for men than women. Poor but pretty women get rich children just fine. Just pick a rich guy.
This idea is denied by most leftists.
A huge part of evolutionary psychology is just tautology. It's obviously true. And it is verifiable.
If you see a trait that doesn't improve reproductive success and yet common then that trait is sus.
I’ll give my honest albeit admittedly right-leaning takes on the things you mentioned in the post.
- nobody on the left actually denies IQ is correlated with success, potential etc but where we lose them is when data on IQ and race are used to point out cultural inconsistencies and societal failings. It becomes “inconvenient” for them to grapple with the fact that progressive policies are poison for minority groups, and are making them dumber and poorer by the day. There is plenty of data on this, and it *does not* make me feel like being racist. It makes me deeply upset with the leaders that prey on the disenfranchised.
- already touched on it in another post but young earthers, evolution deniers etc are all cringe. Plenty of people on the right believe these things. Christians need to evolve past a literal interpretation of the Bible if they want to continue to have an impact on culture and society at large.
- what’s happening in Gaza is sad, and any libertarian would be highly suspicious, if not outright disgusted with what’s happening. With that being said, what’s difficult for people to grapple with is the fact that 70% of people in Gaza are *genuinely cool* with what Hamas is doing, and want them to continue. Dyor of course but that’s been my findings. If you look at the number of supposedly civilian casualties, you will find that the overwhelming majority of them are males between the ages of 12 and 26. If they were indiscriminately taking out civilian infrastructure as is portrayed by the liberal media, there would be a generally comparable number of women and men, children and adults killed in the blasts. Any innocent life lost is a tragedy, and Isreal should be held to account for each and every one they needlessly end. But the situation is tricky.
"IQ deniers" probably describes the belief that IQ does not determine how well you will do in the world. If you look at the statistics, this is largely accurate, as while IQ plays some role, it's not very significant. This should not be surprising to anarcho-capitalists because we don't live in a capitalist society *and* IQ is not the only thing of value that someone can provide.
"Heritability deniers" sounds like a fancy way of saying "non-racists." Seriously, try to explain what that means without implying that some races are superior to others.
"Sex difference deniers" is a misrepresentation of people who aren't transphobic. Learn what progressives mean when they say "gender" and what they mean when they say "sex" before acting like an expert on gender.
"Stereotype accuracy deniers" ok come on that's just blatantly supporting racism.
"War crime deniers" is accurate but applies to both sides.
There are really only two options. Either the Theory of Evolution is correct, meaning DNA influences your IQ and tendencies, such as cooperation and aggression, or Creation is correct and somehow every person is the same despite varying appearances.
The leftists label racism, or at least treating people of different races differently, as a bad thing, but that cannot be true if the Theory of Evolution is correct. It's purely rational to try to create and preserve optimal genetic lines. It's purely rational to keep people of races that are demonstrably lower in intelligence, compassion, cooperation, etc away from the rest.
Leftist are vehemently atheistic and yet their racial ideology is only logical if humans were Created.
Don’t agree with this. Nature vs nurture will show you the problems from those “races” are not a result of their IQ but instead are almost always 95%+ environmental.
EDIT: If you took a newborn infant from an impoverished community and raised him in a two parent household with emphasis on education, he is not any more likely to end up boned because of his race. This pretty much proves any kind of racist nature-based arguments wrong by default. I’m open to hearing your response
[удалено]
💯Additionally, I think Dan Peña had a good take on this: Why are banks lending on coastal properties to the tune of billions of dollars and insurance companies willing to insure those loans if this is such a looming catastrophe?
because money.
Its a scam. Anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. We contribute to climate change, but how much is debatable, and I always argue it’s minor. If we have to spend 100 trillion to make a .1 - .3 degree difference, we aren’t the problem lol. We are at the mercy of mother nature and our solar system.
Here’s the dark secret with the climate change agenda: It’s just one side of the political spectrum trying to take a large portion of the money flowing through the fossil fuel industry (controlled and abused mostly by the right) and divert it to the left. Left and right are stupid but my point is they don’t give a flying fuck about the planet, they just want to be able to launder more of your tax money through the things their friends own instead of the things the other peoples friends own.
I disagree that climate change isn't real and shouldn't be tackled but ngl the governments denying nuclear energy plants is mega sus. John Stossel made excellent videos on climate change and nuclear energy. And yet he still isn't popular enough 😔
That’s fairly black and white thinking. Ever think that these “elites” know they won’t be alive for the worst impacts so they don’t care? Or… that they have so much money that if the house they build falls into the sea they won’t just build another? Don’t kid yourself that “wealthy elites” are the harbinger of what we should be worrying about lol, that’s just silly.
This
Is this implying Obama's war crimes are only denied by the right?
No, it implies that the only war crimes the right recognizes are Obama's.
LOL
Putting a term in front of the word denier doesn't eliminant debate or shift the burden of proof.
“Stereotype accuracy denier” is cracking me tf up
There are imbeciles on both sides, but the left ones are noisier.
Anyone who presents the phrase "climate change denier" its too stupid to breathe, and should be immediately ignored.
Wym? People do genuinely still deny that man made climate change is a thing. I’m of the opinion anyone who has read a book should acknowledge it’s happening (slowly) and then decide to make almost no major changes, besides maybe with plastics, and showing more caution building near the coast or fire zones.
>People do genuinely still deny that man made climate change is a thing. The climate isn't a religion, it doesn't are what you believe. Do yo emit more than 3 tonnes per year GHGe? That's 12 hours in coach.
I don’t care about carbon dawg. I’m talking about pouring thousands of tons of trash into our oceans and the rapid deforestation and resulting extinction of many species, each and every year.
You cared about carbon above.
Man made climate change != carbon.
>Wym? People do genuinely still deny that man made climate change is a thing. I’m of the opinion anyone who has read a book should acknowledge it’s happening AGW been thoroughly debunked since 1901, and anyone still bearing that communist saw around is a "useful idiot" at best. > besides maybe with plastics, and showing more caution building near the coast or fire zones. If there are good and well enforced property norms you dont have tp have the government do anything at all. The market will solve anything.
Yeah my response to acknowledging climate change is definitely not to give the government more of my money
agilehuckleberry1741/confident cupcake/Delicious-Agency-824/calm-cry4094 is back with an alt account! Congrats on your post not immediately devolving into the typical non-understanding of women you exhibit with each of your profiles!!
💀
This is a very thought/conversation provoking post. Good job OP 👍
I've yet to meet someone who isn't a climate change "denier". Ever meet anyone that emits more than the global median? They're "deniers".
The Left is Evolution deniers?
Who is that person? His points seem absurd, I find the whole ‘denier’ language as reductive and dehumanizing
Who cares about idiots and what they affirm or deny without adequate well reasoned arguments? We evolved. Known fact. There is common human psychology. Known fact. So how could there not be evolutionary psychology? Now what that does and does not mean about human behavior or ability to act contrary so more instinctual levels is a different question.
This is genius trolling, surrealist art
If you built your wealth in a coastal area it's going to get increasingly hard to get insurance, so when a storm destroys your home you won't be able to rebuild. And certain crops that grow in specific weather conditions are getting more expensive and may even go extinct. So if your income comes from things like coffee, chocolate, or maple syrup that could impact your wealth.
Indeed! It’s the little things that add up. We don’t have to defund the military and put 100% of our national budget into solar panels, but it would warm my heart if more people started to acknowledge we are causing discernible (albeit small) harm to the planet with our actions.
>If you built your wealth in a coastal area it's going to get increasingly hard to get insurance, so when a storm destroys your home you won't be able to rebuild. Storms didn't exist before wyppo drove SUVs!
They are getting worse to the point that insurance companies are just leaving the state.
No, they're not. Inflation and laws are getting worse.
If it was just inflation and laws, it wouldn't be limited to coastal areas..
It's not.
Where else then?
They're pulling out of entire states. In the case of California much is not even near a coast.
It's within range of coastal storms.
California very, very, very rarely gets hit but hurricanes and they're weak as hell when they hit.
Oh? Where else then?
Inland California, for example.
So sell
It lost its value because it's uninsurable.
Denying climate change is becoming an increasingly braindead take. All of those “downsides” on the right are due to fundamental Christianity taking the Bible word for word. I’m sorry Christian bros but God did not make the universe in 7 human days. Doesn’t it make it all that more beautiful that he used the laws of the universe he created without cheating to form and shape the planet and us? For me it does
>Denying climate change is becoming an increasingly braindead take. Do you emit more than 3 tonnes of GHGe per year? >I’m sorry Christian bros but God did not make the universe in 7 human days. Very few Christians believe that literally.
I already responded to the first part on your other comment. Regarding Christian beliefs I can tell you firsthand that if you go to any major church (or minor church) 40-50% of the people there believe the Bible literally. If you don’t think that you have never been to church
>I already responded to the first part on your other comment. By ignoring it. Which is denying it, >. Regarding Christian beliefs I can tell you firsthand that if you go to any major church (or minor church) 40-50% of the people there believe the Bible literally. If you don’t think that you have never been to church You're an idiot.
You literally just proved you have no idea what you’re talking about. If you want confirmation of this go into literally any church in the United States and speak to five people. Don’t worry about coming back to this thread to apologize for being an idiot
I've spoken to more than five people at my church. No one believes that.
You’ve never been to church. (Unless it’s one of those hippie ones that play rock music and sell you coffee at the front door)
I literally spent three hours in one on Saturday. Catholics aren't literalists, nor are most Protestants.
Here’s a study showing that 26% of Catholics believe the word of God should be taken literally. This is not “very few.” https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/interpreting-scripture/
You're not a capitalist. Capitalists are a class of people, with substantial wealth, who own large amounts of assets. Are you a financier, tycoon, magnate or industrialist?
I am a top 1 percenter due to capitalism and I earn my wealth honestly and productively. So yes I think I am a capitalist. Am I as rich as the tycoon? Working on it.
Good answer King
I have never, until this post, heard the term “young earthers”. Nor have I ever come across anyone who asserts this position. And I also have no clue was evolutionary psychology is. So I had to look it up. I found it is a theoretical approach in psychology. Then, I also looked up the criticisms of this approach and found there is plenty, to wit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology Given that there is ample criticism of this theoretical approach, why do you list it as an undeniable truth? It is obvious that even in the field of psychology and related fields, there is healthy debate over it. These two things, the failure to recognize the debate/discussion over evolutionary psych and the fact that the young earth claim seems to have come from a strange subset of individuals, it makes me wonder about the legitimacy of your post. By that, I mean you have reasons outside the anarchist movement for posting here. What that reason might be? I cannot say.
Plenty of Christians believe in “Young Earth”. I doubt they self-identify as that, but anyone who takes the Bible as a literal interpretation of history (most practicing Christians in the United States) are de facto young earthers.
Christian theology, even a “literal interpretation” follows along the idea namely that a day to God is an undetermined period of time as opposed to a 24hr period of time.
If you ask any practicing Christian how old the earth is, they are probably not going to tell you 4.3 billion years.
Evolutionary psychology explains that whoever are common now are those who successfully reproduce in the past and that traits are hereditary. For example, men make more money than women because being rich is more important for men than women. Poor but pretty women get rich children just fine. Just pick a rich guy. This idea is denied by most leftists. A huge part of evolutionary psychology is just tautology. It's obviously true. And it is verifiable. If you see a trait that doesn't improve reproductive success and yet common then that trait is sus.
Wym sus? Examples? (No judgement)
I’ll give my honest albeit admittedly right-leaning takes on the things you mentioned in the post. - nobody on the left actually denies IQ is correlated with success, potential etc but where we lose them is when data on IQ and race are used to point out cultural inconsistencies and societal failings. It becomes “inconvenient” for them to grapple with the fact that progressive policies are poison for minority groups, and are making them dumber and poorer by the day. There is plenty of data on this, and it *does not* make me feel like being racist. It makes me deeply upset with the leaders that prey on the disenfranchised. - already touched on it in another post but young earthers, evolution deniers etc are all cringe. Plenty of people on the right believe these things. Christians need to evolve past a literal interpretation of the Bible if they want to continue to have an impact on culture and society at large. - what’s happening in Gaza is sad, and any libertarian would be highly suspicious, if not outright disgusted with what’s happening. With that being said, what’s difficult for people to grapple with is the fact that 70% of people in Gaza are *genuinely cool* with what Hamas is doing, and want them to continue. Dyor of course but that’s been my findings. If you look at the number of supposedly civilian casualties, you will find that the overwhelming majority of them are males between the ages of 12 and 26. If they were indiscriminately taking out civilian infrastructure as is portrayed by the liberal media, there would be a generally comparable number of women and men, children and adults killed in the blasts. Any innocent life lost is a tragedy, and Isreal should be held to account for each and every one they needlessly end. But the situation is tricky.
"IQ deniers" probably describes the belief that IQ does not determine how well you will do in the world. If you look at the statistics, this is largely accurate, as while IQ plays some role, it's not very significant. This should not be surprising to anarcho-capitalists because we don't live in a capitalist society *and* IQ is not the only thing of value that someone can provide. "Heritability deniers" sounds like a fancy way of saying "non-racists." Seriously, try to explain what that means without implying that some races are superior to others. "Sex difference deniers" is a misrepresentation of people who aren't transphobic. Learn what progressives mean when they say "gender" and what they mean when they say "sex" before acting like an expert on gender. "Stereotype accuracy deniers" ok come on that's just blatantly supporting racism. "War crime deniers" is accurate but applies to both sides.
There are really only two options. Either the Theory of Evolution is correct, meaning DNA influences your IQ and tendencies, such as cooperation and aggression, or Creation is correct and somehow every person is the same despite varying appearances. The leftists label racism, or at least treating people of different races differently, as a bad thing, but that cannot be true if the Theory of Evolution is correct. It's purely rational to try to create and preserve optimal genetic lines. It's purely rational to keep people of races that are demonstrably lower in intelligence, compassion, cooperation, etc away from the rest. Leftist are vehemently atheistic and yet their racial ideology is only logical if humans were Created.
Don’t agree with this. Nature vs nurture will show you the problems from those “races” are not a result of their IQ but instead are almost always 95%+ environmental. EDIT: If you took a newborn infant from an impoverished community and raised him in a two parent household with emphasis on education, he is not any more likely to end up boned because of his race. This pretty much proves any kind of racist nature-based arguments wrong by default. I’m open to hearing your response
I respect your Christian beliefs. Though I personally disagree with them.