[Tejas1836]

jmg
What is your thesis?

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Tejas1836

jmg
What is your thesis?

I'm more interested in understanding and providing different perspectives on the formation of ideas than trying to convince others to accept my actual beliefs.

[Tejas1836]

Originally Posted by jmg

I'm more interested in understanding and providing different perspectives on the formation of ideas than trying to convince others to accept my actual beliefs.

OK, but what is your thesis? In order to understand, one must have a thesis, otherwise it is just trolling.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

It was a sarcastic joke..I had greta in mind all along!.
Of course teens aren't missing school in hordes but a good proportion of them post greta probably think we are imminently doomed.

The irony is that if that doom were real, but our efforts to avert from it are successful, then those who were against those efforts will use the absence of that doom as an argument that there wasn't any doom to begin with.

Case in point, the Civil Rights Movement was successful from certain perspectives, but unsuccessful from other's perspectives, most notably from those who feel like their quality of life or position has diminished since then regardless of the moral implications of such a conclusion. The question remains, was it a valid movement even though there were negative consequences, ie teens missing school, fear, civil unrest, violence etc.?

[KRS_SN]

Originally Posted by jmg

The irony is that if that doom were real, but our efforts to avert from it are successful, then those who were against those efforts will use the absence of that doom as an argument that there wasn't any doom to begin with.

Case in point, the Civil Rights Movement was successful from certain perspectives, but unsuccessful from other's perspectives, most notably from those who feel like their quality of life or position has diminished since then regardless of the moral implications of such a conclusion. The question remains, was it a valid movement even though there were negative consequences, ie teens missing school, fear, civil unrest, violence etc.?

I'd say like aspirin or statin never know if they worked when you don't get a atroke or a heart attack. The civil rights movement probably isn't a great allegory here.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Tejas1836

OK, but what is your thesis? In order to understand, one must have a thesis, otherwise it is just trolling.

The primary objective of trolling is to provoke chaos and aggressive responses. My goal is to stimulate discussion and introspection.

If someone feels the urge to be aggressive, that's their decision, or perhaps a limitation brought on by a over-reliance on an echo chamber for civil discourse.

Originally Posted by Tejas1836

In order to understand, one must have a thesis, otherwise it is just trolling.

You're not completely wrong, but while it can help in understanding, if we are too attached to our thesis aka our beliefs, then we become susceptible to confirmation bias as we reject ideas that conflict with them.

Additionally, understanding also comes from empathy and perspective, two things that can be hindered by a predetermined thesis.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

The civil rights movement probably isn't a great allegory here.

We've lost track of the original allegory:

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

climate change...climate crisis....climate emergency....climate catastrophe...the poor teens are scared out of their wits with the hysteria and some aren't attending school too I hear.

Originally Posted by jmg

Are the validity of ideas judged simply by how scary they are?

Interesting.

Source?

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

Sorry (Greta Thunberg)

Originally Posted by jmg

She’s more the exception than the rule. Most of the kids at my kids school don’t even care about climate change. It’s mentioned in science class but it’s much more pragmatic than one might think and not so dogmatic. Ie the language is more like “some studies suggest” and not “the end is neigh”.

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

Pretty significant exception though. Around here the schools are the opposite. Tbh it's dependent on the teachers and a proportion of the young ones in my daughters primary school are climate activists. There's nothing against them preaching their belief in school.

Originally Posted by jmg

She is one child in billions, so while she gets a lot of notoriety, she's statistically insignificant, even if culturally significant, for better or worse.

Suggesting that a meaningful amount of teens are ditching school seems like the same fear mongering tactic climate crisis activists allegedly use.

It's important to recognize fear mongering as an obstacle to productive dialog, regardless of which side is using it.

Regardless, for argument's sake lets say there are teens missing school taking up this cause. Should the legitimacy of a cause be determined by who takes on that cause and how it might negatively affect them? If that was a legitimate determining factor, should we not hold the Civil Rights movement to the same standards and hold it up to the same scrutiny?

The Civil Rights movement, after all, was also a cause taken upon by a large group of young adults at the time. Of those who argued against the Civil Rights movement because of how it made teens miss school, what side of history did they think they would end up being on?

[KRS_SN]

That's the point of dialogue..now let me ask why?

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by jmg

If the ultimate goal was to always come to the same conclusion, then minimizing the other side as unintelligent and dismissing discourse as futile is an effective strategy.

Whether or not it is beneficial or constructive to anyone, is another question.

So the point of your... points is what jmg.

[gonzo]

I remember you from P&R. You've still got it!

[jmg]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

So the point of your... points is what jmg.

My point was that you're strategy is effective.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

That's the point of dialogue..now let me ask why?

What's your question? "Why" what?

[jmg]

Originally Posted by gonzo

I remember you from P&R. You've still got it!

I'll take that as a compliment whether or not it actually is one!

I'm strategically choosing my words, with varying degrees of success, to express my thoughts as best I can.

It's understandably off-putting to those who disagree with what I have to say because an atypical statement requires a atypical response, which aren't already in the chamber.

[infinitekidM2C]

I have an IX. I want to get a plate that says "COALPWR"

[KRS_SN]

Originally Posted by jmg

What's your question? "Why" what?

Why do you ask what is the original allegory..
The EV mandate is not in line with democratic values and will of the people. The clue is in the name...mandate.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

Why do you ask what is the original allegory..

I didn't ask what the original allegory was, I made the original allegory here:

Originally Posted by jmg

The Civil Rights movement, after all, was also a cause taken upon by a large group of young adults at the time. Of those who argued against the Civil Rights movement because of how it made teens miss school, what side of history did they think they would end up being on?

You don't have to answer, because while my ear will always be open for an answer, the hesitation to answer is also just as revealing.

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

The EV mandate is not in line with democratic values and will of the people. The clue is in the name...mandate.

A "mandate" refers to the granted authority of an government or elected official. It's democratic significance is that the mandates enacts the will of the people expressed through the democratic process of votes and elections. It's actually the opposite of what you said. Without the "mandate", the will of the people is rendered unenforceable, and Democracy would be ineffectual.

Examples:

• Desegregation - segregated schools were mandated to accept people of color as students
• Voting Rights - mandates that help eliminate Jim Crow laws at the polls, expanding democracy to people of color.
• Freedom of Speech - mandates that protect the expression of opinions, the 1A.
• The 2A - mandates that protect the right to bear arms

I could go on, but the entire US Constitution is upheld by government mandates to protect the rights of Americans.

If you want to argue that the EV doesn't reflect the will of the people, then by all means. (Your welcome)

However, you couldn't be more wrong about the word "mandate" itself... it is essential to Democracy.

[G35POPPEDMYCHERRY]

this thread is fucking hilarious. top level comedy.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by jmg

I didn't ask what the original allegory was, I made the original allegory here:

You don't have to answer, because while my ear will always be open for an answer, the hesitation to answer is also just as revealing.

A "mandate" refers to the granted authority of an government or elected official. It's democratic significance is that the mandates enacts the will of the people expressed through the democratic process of votes and elections. It's actually the opposite of what you said. Without the "mandate", the will of the people is rendered unenforceable, and Democracy would be ineffectual.

Examples:

• Desegregation - segregated schools were mandated to accept people of color as students
• Voting Rights - mandates that help eliminate Jim Crow laws at the polls, expanding democracy to people of color.
• Freedom of Speech - mandates that protect the expression of opinions, the 1A.
• The 2A - mandates that protect the right to bear arms

I could go on, but the entire US Constitution is upheld by government mandates to protect the rights of Americans.

If you want to argue that the EV doesn't reflect the will of the people, then by all means. (Your welcome)

However, you couldn't be more wrong about the word "mandate" itself... it is essential to Democracy.

Lol. The shit people get taught in school these days.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Lol. The shit people get taught in school these days.

Sidestepping the discussion by attacking the person seems to be your go-to strategy when you have no other meaningful input. At least you’re consistent.

It’s a shame you deleted your other reply to me earlier today. Your consistency could have been on full display on one page.

[M5Rick]

Back to basics and I'd like to concentrate more on the risk to Firemen tackling EV fires which are explained in this vid with cobalt poisoning added to the list which can be career ending, the huge amounts of water used to douse EV fires are then contaminated running into drains and how do you tackle such an emergency in a multi storey car park?
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=la...vI1daNils,st:0

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by jmg

Sidestepping the discussion by attacking the person seems to be your go-to strategy when you have no other meaningful input. At least you’re consistent.

It’s a shame you deleted your other reply to me earlier today. Your consistency could have been on full display on one page.

"A 'mandate' refers to the granted authority of an (a) government or (an) elected official." - Relative to the US Government, this statement is incorrect.

"However, you couldn't be more wrong about the word 'mandate' itself... it is essential to Democracy." - Again, no; diversity of thought is essential to Democracy.


Regarding climate change. You keep using the term "climate change skeptic". Any discussion on climate change must be segregated into natural climate change and anthropogenic climate change. Your discussion on climate lacks sophistication. Mandated adoption of EV does not address the impact of natural climate change. Natural climate change is far more impactful on the planet than anthropogenic climate change. Most of us here who understand climate science are of that position, that adoption of EV is not going to impact natural climate change. You mistakenly call it an echo chamber. You call it an echo chamber because you don't separate climate change into natural and anthropogenic causes. That's where the need for sophistication of the discussion comes into play.

[KRS_SN]

Originally Posted by jmg

A "mandate" refers to the granted authority of an government or elected official. It's democratic significance is that the mandates enacts the will of the people expressed through the democratic process of votes and elections. It's actually the opposite of what you said. Without the "mandate", the will of the people is rendered unenforceable, and Democracy would be ineffectual.

Examples:


Desegregation - segregated schools were mandated to accept people of color as students
Voting Rights - mandates that help eliminate Jim Crow laws at the polls, expanding democracy to people of color.
Freedom of Speech - mandates that protect the expression of opinions, the 1A.
The 2A - mandates that protect the right to bear arms



I could go on, but the entire US Constitution is upheld by government mandates to protect the rights of Americans.

If you want to argue that the EV doesn't reflect the will of the people, then by all means. (Your welcome)

However, you couldn't be more wrong about the word "mandate" itself... it is essential to Democracy.

You're bringing together the ev mandate with the civil rights movement. These two are probably as related as the effect that going EV will have on global CO2 levels.