The point was to let the deniers of climate change suffer the consequences of climate change; to help the innocent first.
It's sortof like refusing to bailout the big financial institutions for poor lending decisions (and outright fraud) that caused the collapse of the financial system. I'd sooner "bailout" homeowners than fraudulent (and already superrich) lenders.
But as I said earlier, I think burning down houses is a bad idea. Even--or especially--if the houses are inhabited by people you don't like.
No, it's sort of like advocating we let banker's homes burn to the ground. Your generally superior (to mine) critical skills have let you down. Or, have you just "tossed one my way" to make me feel good?! Drat you, anon1152!!!
"No, it's sort of like advocating we let banker's homes burn to the ground."
Well. Yes. It is. But that's not the same as "call[ing] for burning down deniers homes". Which is one reason why the headline was misleading. I realize it wasn't quite your headline.
Also: fire was a metaphor in the context of the original blog post that started this--dare I say it?--firestorm.
As for my critical skills: it wouldn't be the first time they let me down. They fail me frequently.
8 comments:
ilde54It starts when you're always alone, watch out, what's that sound, everybody look at what's going down.
The mantra of the World's Coming to an End crowd.
Ah-Ha. I wondered what the greenie-weenies were going to propose as a replacement for fossil fuels. Now I know.
Anon -- it's win-win!
Well. I think burning down houses is a bad idea.
But... that's not what the "climate activist" called for. Even according to the selective quote on the website you link to.
The bare truth has been, ahem, adapted and stretched for satirical purposes. The sentiment was certainly one of wishing burning houses upon deniers.
The point was to let the deniers of climate change suffer the consequences of climate change; to help the innocent first.
It's sortof like refusing to bailout the big financial institutions for poor lending decisions (and outright fraud) that caused the collapse of the financial system. I'd sooner "bailout" homeowners than fraudulent (and already superrich) lenders.
But as I said earlier, I think burning down houses is a bad idea. Even--or especially--if the houses are inhabited by people you don't like.
No, it's sort of like advocating we let banker's homes burn to the ground. Your generally superior (to mine) critical skills have let you down. Or, have you just "tossed one my way" to make me feel good?! Drat you, anon1152!!!
"No, it's sort of like advocating we let banker's homes burn to the ground."
Well. Yes. It is. But that's not the same as "call[ing] for burning down deniers homes". Which is one reason why the headline was misleading. I realize it wasn't quite your headline.
Also: fire was a metaphor in the context of the original blog post that started this--dare I say it?--firestorm.
As for my critical skills: it wouldn't be the first time they let me down. They fail me frequently.
Post a Comment