After Referendum Venezuela’s Maduro issues permits and claims to 2/3rds of Guyana territory; UN warns caution; is War possible?

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

You think that is the best critique of growth? You're fukking clueless. That was the main paragraph that showed how ignorant he was.

First off, how the fukk are you going to "green the economy" if you don't want to reduce oil, which was the entire original topic of our conversation?

You

Are

A

Degrowther.

Case in point.

Imagine bragging that Europe claims carbon-neutral by 2050 (no one believes this), but also ignoring the rest of the world's carbon including USA and saying you don't want to seriously reduce our reliance on oil.

No one said this. But emissions are down and de-grow conspiracists like you don’t acknowledge trends and constantly move the goalposts

Second, the issues with environmental destruction can't be reduced to "carbon" and don't disappear from some magic unspecified "greening the economy". We've seen over and over that "green tech" + "consumerism" simply leads to overexploitation of whatever resources the "green" tech requires, not to mention all the consumer goods that capitalist producers and consumers refuse to green. Reducing carbon (which we've shown zero likelihood of doing on a global scale) will do absolutely nothing to stop agricultural soil depletion, deforestation, air pollution, water pollution, water shortages, resource depletion, mining devastation, biodiversity loss, ocean overexploitation, and a dozen other critical environmental issues that threaten ecological collapse as well as millions of human lives.

This is why I call you a de-growther. This is a de-growth argument. Pure and simple.

Anyone who thinks we can go carbon neutral without ending our reliance on an oil-based economy is an idiot. Anyone who thinks that we can solve our environmental exploitation solely by addressing carbon is an idiot.

You're an idiot.

Is anyone confused why I call this guy a de-growther?

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Holy shyt, I just realized that he embarrassed the fukk out of himself again.

When this conversation started, all Napoleon could say was "stop focusing on oil". Now that he's moved the goalpoasts to degrowth, he's posting articles saying, "Don't worry about degrowth, all we need to do is stop relying on oil."

Just from Friday to today he's pulled a full 180 on his position.

Dems need to ease up on attacking oil tho…it’s a bit shortsighted.

Being anti-oil is silly, frankly, especially considering freight and last-mile concerns and the limits of the grid.

You literally keep focusing on F150s…not…everything else. This what my entire point. I’m not talking about crude oil and oil spills and environmental impacts. I’m literally talking about this focus on oil singularly as a panacea that once it’s removed all the world’s ills are fixed. This is how you argue and continue to argue.

I’m literally saying more nuance is needed in the discussion, ESPECIALLY given the rough year EVs have had. Theres real world challenges moving to a post oil world that go beyond “black sticky stuff bad”.

This “we need NO oil” rhetoric you keep doing is equally dishonest because you’re intentionally essentially lying about the oil industry and its complexity.

Liar. You're the one who brought up oil, not me, and on these boards I have repeatedly said that consumption overall is the problem regardless of what kinds of vehicles we drive.

If I’m lying, then what is this?

That was Friday, he was all. "Stop focusing on oil! Stop focusing on oil! Stop focusing on oil!" And when I said that we needed to shift away from a fossil fuel based economy, he claimed that was proof I'm stupid.

Now just three days later, he's attacking "degrowth" by claiming that all we need to do is....shift away from a fossil fuel based economy.

you keep ignoring the critiques of your own stance on green transitions:

http://[URL]https://www.economist.c...efty-europeans-who-want-to-shrink-the-economy

[/URL]

How'd you go from "Stop attacking oil, that's not some magic solution" to "Stop talking about growth, we just need to end dependence on oil."

 

[Professor Emeritus]

You

Are

A

Degrowther.

Case in point.

No one said this. But emissions are down and de-grow conspiracists like you don’t acknowledge trends and constantly move the goalposts

This is why I call you a de-growther. This is a de-growth argument. Pure and simple.

Is anyone confused why I call this guy a de-growther?

None of this is an argument for anything. It's just name-calling without substance. (p.s. - emissions aren't down, dumbass, they're increasing rapidly. They're just down in a rare few countries that have experienced demographic decline and/or have shifted their production and emissions growth to other countries.)

"Degrowther" is a meaningless term unless you have an actual argument against the actual positions I hold. And you've failed do to that throughout this discussion. Every time I ask you to bring up an argument of substance against things I've actually said, you just scream "DEGROWTH!" five more times.

I've never used the term "degrowth" for myself, and your OWN article pointed out that there are "50 different shades" of what people he calls degrowth believe, with some of their concerns being fair. So why are you so hyperobsessed with the term that you've used it nearly 100 times since this weekend, but can't actually argue any substance against a single one of my positions?

Remember, this entire argument started with the bald-faced lie that I am zero-oil and that I think shifting away from oil alone is the sole answer to everything. Now you are arguing the EXACT OPPOSITE of where you started out, yet you haven't even admitted once yet that your original accusation was a lie.

 

[Gains]

Nap , I agree no parts of your home country should be annexed by another

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Holy shyt, I just realized that he embarrassed the fukk out of himself again.

When this conversation started, all Napoleon could say was "stop focusing on oil". Now that he's moved the goalpoasts to degrowth, he's posting articles saying, "Don't worry about degrowth, all we need to do is stop relying on oil."

Just from Friday to today he's pulled a full 180 on his positio

My articles don’t say that. That’s your position.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Nap , I agree no parts of your home country should be annexed by another

I’m a black man whose parents are black Jamaicans. I’m not Guyanese.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Now just three days later, he's attacking "degrowth" by claiming that all we need to do is....shift away from a fossil fuel based economy.

Oil will still be central to the future of green movements.

Emissions should be your goal, not extractive industries. This Luddite utopian porn sounds like Bernie 2016 dream weaving.

 

[GreenGhxst]

They want that oil paper

Guyana got them thangs tho

They might have to go back to being lowest on the cac totem pole.

Nobody even wants to visit there, not even for the hoes

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

None of this is an argument for anything. It's just name-calling without substance. (p.s. - emissions aren't down, dumbass, they're increasing rapidly. They're just down in a rare few countries that have experienced demographic decline and/or have shifted their production and emissions growth to other countries.)

"Degrowther" is a meaningless term unless you have an actual argument against the actual positions I hold. And you've failed do to that throughout this discussion. Every time I ask you to bring up an argument of substance against things I've actually said, you just scream "DEGROWTH!" five more times.

The things you say are challenged but you’re triggered by a seemingly benign term. You’re a degrowth leftist.

I've never used the term "degrowth" for myself, and your OWN article pointed out that there are "50 different shades" of what people he calls degrowth believe, with some of their concerns being fair. So why are you so hyperobsessed with the term that you've used it nearly 100 times since this weekend, but can't actually argue any substance against a single one of my positions?

That’s not how this works. You make degrowth arguments. That makes you one. Do you think Paul called himself a Christian ?

Remember, this entire argument started with the bald-faced lie that I am zero-oil and that I think shifting away from oil alone is the sole answer to everything.

This is literally what you just said. Scroll up.

Now you are arguing the EXACT OPPOSITE of where you started out, yet you haven't even admitted once yet that your original accusation was a lie.

My argument never changed. Your shadow boxing with a hologram of where you think I am. This is
getting disturbing.

Oil consumption and its by products will still be key to green transitions that focus on and incorporate nonrenewables.

 

[TheJet]

https://pipanews.com/venezuelan-migrants-could-soon-generate-new-yorks-first-little-caracas/

 

[Lord Beasley]

Y'all niccas have way too much time to be typing up dissertations on other folks posts. WTF do you brehs do for a living

 

[Professor Emeritus]

My articles don’t say that. That’s your position.

Liar. Its exact words "Where the growth-sceptics are right is that the environment has suffered as GDP has soared. But they too readily dismiss the obvious solution.....the old economic model centred on fossil fuels is simply obsolete".

It explicitly says that the solution to the problems of growth is to move away from fossil fuels. You started out the entire argument by [falsely] claiming that Democrats are wrong to focus on fossil fuels, and you repeatedly lied and claimed that's all I focus on rather than having a broad agenda.

Funny how you have completely abandoned your first argument that claimed I'm completely focused on fossil fuels and now pivoted to "degrowth", which is as broad as it gets, but still haven't admitted that either lie of yours was wrong even though they contradict each other.

Oil will still be central to the future of green movements.

Funny how not only your article, but the EXACT QUOTE you pulled from the article claiming that it was the main argument against my position, explicitly said, "The old economic model centred on fossil fuels is simply obsolete".

Emissions should be your goal, not extractive industries.

Remember where I started the discussion listed 6 different reasons that reliance on oil is a problem? Emissions is only one of those. You continue to ignore the other five.

But let's also point out that reducing emissions is fukking impossible unless we stop relying on oil, a statement you attacked me for earlier but which your own article cosigns.

This Luddite utopian porn sounds like Bernie 2016 dream weaving.

Oh, look, more ambiguous name-calling with zero relation to anything I've said. Where have we seen that before?

The things you say are challenged but you’re triggered by a seemingly benign term. You’re a degrowth leftist.

No, I'm pointing out that you're fukking obsessed with an ambiguous term rather than being able to make a single argument of substance. I have never used it because, as your own article states, there are 50 different shades of people associated with the term and some are perfectly legitimate.

So try to argue my actual beliefs, not an ambiguous term. Because EVERY time you're tried to claim I held a particularly disagreeable belief, you've lied.

Oil consumption and its by products will still be key to green transitions that focus on and incorporate nonrenewables.

If you think the green transition doesn't involve reductions in oil usage, you're an idiot.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

My argument never changed. Your shadow boxing with a hologram of where you think I am.

So you didn't go from explicitly saying "The only thing you ever talk about is oil and you think that will solve everything" to "You're a degrowth leftist!" You do realize those are opposite arguments, right? If the only thing I care about is oil, then how can I be degrowth?


And you didn't go from explicitly criticizing me for saying, "We need to move away from a fossil fuel based economy" to criticizing me for disagreeing with the article and saying, "You're ignoring its main critique, which is that we don't need degrowth because we're already moving away from a fossil fuel based economy!" Once again, polar opposite arguments.


And you didn't choose on your own to pivot to a four-year-old thread about Guyana to say, "Look at this a$$hole who thinks Guyana's oil causes problems!", when literally no one had been talking about Guyana or the resource curse, and then just two days later claimed, "And when you couldn't defend your oil argument yesterday, you pivoted to Guyana's resource curse!" So who brought up Guyana and the resource curse first, me or you? This is a very, very easy question to answer.


You keep lying, over and over, and you keep getting caught. Plus there's some mental illness via which you absolutely can't ever admit you were wrong no matter how explicitly it is pointed out.

 

[null]

Y'all niccas have way too much time to be typing up dissertations on other folks posts. WTF do you brehs do for a living

Most messages

www.thecoli.com

 

[NoirDynosaur]

We could've had a intellectual discourse on this topic. It's a pity this has resulted to ad-hominem attacks. Do better brehs