Random Politics & Religion #24

Here we go Shapori'ing the argument. See, this is a textbook "strawman". You are trying to make my argument more complicated and then you deconstruct it using that means. When again, the argument is simple. You either support it or you don't. The Paris Agreement, if you read it, is simply a way to hold countries accountable in their efforts to reduce our emissions. There is nothing "ridiculous" about it. You have to turn the agreement into something you don't agree with just to disagree with it. The only nuances in this matter are the ones you create and even then you have yet to list a single nuance. I have yet to see a good argument about WHY we should withdraw from this accord outside of "Har har, climate change isn't real" or "it doesn't have enough evidence".

They don't want the U.S. to be the world's police, but they definitely want the U.S. to be the world's bank account.

Just as I post I stand correct:


Thank you KN for posting an actual legitimate argument.

And that somehow cost $3 trillion?

All the "Climate Change" was a bunch of fluff around what is a giant wealth distribution scheme. The US would pay most of the money into a giant pool that Europe would then use to give money to European State sponsored companies or companies in developing nations that European Aristocrats had financial interests in.

Then pay better attention.

Ravael never said either of those things. He said that the methods of so-called climate emission reduction is very flawed. Hell, it's dripping with Cronyism. Remember Solyndra?

You are making this whole issue a black/white argument. Just because we question the effectiveness and observe the overall detriment towards society that these type of initiatives portray doesn't mean we deny that global warming exists. Which, frankly, is the only argument the left has ever given. It's either "believe us, or you are a climate denier."

Now to actually refute that point:

First he is a facto-check done on what Trump said about withdrawing:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/02/fact-checking-trump-speech-paris-climate-agreement/102399674/

You can read that.

Second here is the US's actual Pledge:

http://www4.unfccc.int/ndcregistry/PublishedDocuments/United%20States%20of%20America%20First/U.S.A.%20First%20NDC%20Submission.pdf

Third the "100 Billion" is not a mandatory part of the agreement, but rather voluntarily.

I believe the US has only pledged to send 3 Billion and currently has only sent one billion. AS you can read in the first article those funds are actually going to assist other countries.

The black and white argument is do you Support the Climate agreement or do you not. You are making the argument more than that. The Climate Agreement is simply a means to bring everyone together to agree one what needs to be done to change the climate. It absolutely is Black and White, why do you have to over complicate an argument to win?

Since you want to complicate it let's make it black and White:

Do you think the US needs to make efforts to reduce its impact on Climate change?

Putting your hilarious "expertise" in logical fallacies aside, and putting your hilarious interpretation of the Paris agreement aside, what you appear to be saying is that every cause "for the greater good" that other countries come up with that they want to enforce on the whole world are things that we have a solemn obligation to sign and accept.

I'm going to cherry-pick a few other posters in here to draft an accord related to treatment of animals. Among other things, it will include metrics about things like the estimated number of ants you have stepped on throughout each day, the amount of birdseed you buy for your group-regulated feeders, the number of animal shelters you visit per week, etc. You must fill it out and report it to us on a monthly basis, along with an accounting of your financial contributions to the cause. If you don't do this, you're just hiding your mistreatment of animals because you refuse to acknowledge the moral authority of a group of do-gooders, and by extension you are automatically guilty.

You aren't even arguing the point anymore Ravael.

I am. But if analogies are too much....



Two different things. You're equating them.

Not at all. The agreement is literally a pledge and you can read the USA's pledge above. Outside of pledging 3 Billion, which you could have a problem with, the majority of the agreement that the US agreed to is outlined in that pledge.


"Wrong" your analogy had nothing to with the argument at hand. Everytime I explain how ridiculous you guys are at arguing you just post a meme and high five each other, so I won't bother going into details.

We have no obligation whatsoever to agree with whatever pledge that other countries want to peer-pressure us into. They are not the ultimate authority on what is best for our nation. There is often more than one way to handle a problem, and just because we don't like their way, that doesn't mean we don't care about the problem they are trying to address.


When the quality of your own arguments are even half as good as you think they are, then you can lecture the rest of us.

Why nonsense, such outdated and antiquated ideas as *countries*. We are all world citizens and should do as our self-appointed World Government tells us to do, because it's for the good of everybody.

Some animals are more equal then others.

This isn't important what is important is this:

Skip to 42 minute mark

The fact that she is holding a press conference is funnier than any of her material. So I will give credit will credit is due. She was funny but not intentionally funny !

In other news, Kathy Griffin did a news conference earlier....


And her lawyer had something to say as well....


Yup. Kathy is the first person to ever criticize the president, and it's for that reason that she's being silenced. It had nothing to do with a picture of a her holding a sitting president's severed head. Nope. It's just old white guys silencing criticism from crap comedians.

Support Kathy. She's the victim here.

And Fone beat me to it. Dang it.

Beat me by several minutes apparently. I said I'd refresh pages more often....

And guess who promised to pick up the shortfall if the other countries don't make these "voluntarily" contributions?

Right, the US. Promised by Obama, who was expecting Clinton to be his third term.

Basically, it boils down to this:

So the main argument for pulling out of the agreement is because you guys don't want to have to report our emissions numbers to other countries? Like there isn't even some authority figure that is going to spank us if our emissions aren't lower, we are simply pledging to make it lower.

That has to be the most childish argument I've ever heard about this subject. It is like a kid that won't listen to another adult when they tell them not to run at the pool "You aren't my father, I won't listen to you".

But remember according to the lost on the left we're all World Citizens who need to stop clinging to national identifies. They actually argue that all citizens of the world should be allowed to vote in the US elections, because it effects them too.

Good thing you aren't arguing against a person that believes that.

No. Pay better attention.

You are the only person here who is implying that our argument is reporting. We are arguing that the methods being used are not optimal, efficient, and effective. I can't dumb it down any further for you.

Pot, meet kettle.

What does that have to do with pulling out of the Paris agreement though?

What does anything have to do with anything Donny ?

Because it makes promises that are not optimal, efficient, effective, and costs the US taxpayer billions per year.

What is your solution? Let only certain foreign people with agendas decide US policies?

So do nothing unless it's perfect?