"Susan Schwartz already drives a Prius and has solar panels on her home. But the 69-year-old Berkeley woman still doesn't think she's doing enough to stop global warming."
I found this quote at the Wall Street Journal. Of course she is not doing enough to stop global warming. In fact, she is advancing global warming by using an electric car and by breathing on earth. To truly do something to slow global warming, she should cause herself to no longer exist. Or, she could end other lives before taking her own.
So why aren't mass murderers hailed, in part, as an environmental leaders and visionaries?
Granted, it is a sick question, flowing quite logically from a sick philosophy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Thank you Denis for acknowledging the reality of global warming.
Thank you for once again demonstrating the penchant of concrete brained conservatives to take a logical line of thinking to it's illogical extreme, caked in absolute nonsense. Whadda reach!
I'm almost as flabbergasted at your thought process as I am at the thought that someone could actually shoot a room full of first graders one at a time. Hey but at least we've got a few less "Union Thugs", right?
And thank you for dutifully opening the door to another revealing wave of the Cult of Con Global War on Reality as professed through Nemo's crackpot conspiracy theories. This should be entertaining indeed. Enter Nemo, extreme stage right!
I wouldn't mind a Prius, but I try to buy from American companies when I can.
Besides, that is a rich man's car. I don't have the money to purchase or maintain that thing.
I know this is going off topic, but this is somewhat related to one of my pet peeves with Obama supporters. They will complain about people like me that own older paid off cars. I kind of like not having a car payment. I find it to be financially responsible. I do not enjoy giving banks interest.
All while they are pissing and moaning about my vehicles, you have some of them driving around big SUVs and Classics with 20 inch rims. I wonder how much those Obama backers are doing to help with global warming?
Sean, logical lines of thinking don't have illogical extremes. I took an illogical philosophy to its logical extreme. A big difference. But please do enlighten me regarding the illogic of my conclusion. Just calling it illogical is insufficient. Prove it.
No Sean. Illogical extreme is posting a gun free zone sign at a school (next to solar panels) and deluding yourself into thinking you've accomplished anything.
Denis the proof you ask for is in the pudding. NOBODY thinks the gunman is an environmental leader or visionary. The concept is absurd on its face.
I thought the logic of your last post was lame, but this one takes the cake. It's not only likely the worst post you've ever dredged up from the bowels of your Conishness, it's disgusting!
People of goodwill who want to stop global warming, like the woman in your example, want to do it BECAUSE of their concern for our planet and the wellbeing of all the people who call it home. Murder does not fit into that equation.
Furthermore, you failed to explain what you think you're refering to with your "philosophy of Death / sick philosophy". I'm sure it has nothing to do with Ms. Schwartz and her Prius.
You say logical lines of thinking don't have illogical extremes? BS, the hell they don't. Drinking one beer is good, drinking two beers is even better. Therefore, drinking 20 beers is ten times better than drinking two beers!
Low taxes are good. Therefore, no taxes at all are best!
Having handguns available for self defense that shoot 6 or 10 rounds before requiring reloading is a good thing! Therefore, having guns with exchangeable high capacity magazines that allowed the Virginia Tech Gunman to fire 170 rounds in less than 5 minutes without reloading at all is even better, WAY BETTER!
Your post is not only offnsive and extreme, it's extremely illogical and that is self evident. It's time to put up a new post, push this embarrasing example down the page and pass it along into the forgotten annals of Denishness.
Denis actually makes a cogent point, while Sean's spittle is rapid firing his keyboard faster than any AR.
Environmentalists don't like humankind, because we are told humans are the destroyers of the good mother earth. We should be restricted, by law and international fiat from consuming energy (extracted forcibly from mother earth, of course).
So is it that much of a leap to suggest there are too many of us around, and many of us should perish so a few of us may survive? Naturally, the enviroMENTAL whackos should draw that definition of who survives. After all, the good mother earth is depending on it. Certain they would start with me, who drives an SUV.
If you put limits on the amount of beers one can drink at one time, wouldn't that eliminate alcoholism?
Of course not. You could crawl to another bar, get a friend to buy it for you, or stockpile booze. Sean will miss the comparison, of course, but his gun control argument has just been shot down.
Ever notice that ever since we banned the unlimited sales of sudefed, that meth-heads can still obtain all the meth they want? Usage has exploded.
I'd love to ban all poverty programs. The more we spend on them, the more poor people we have. Why is that?
I'd like to ban liberals from being able to vote in important elections. Our republic is too important to allow idiots to vote and screw things up. Mind you, they could vote, but not in important elections. This restriction of their constitutional rights is for the good of the country. My right to defend myself from tyranny is just as important as dopey liberals rights to screw up the nation, isn't it?
I wonder if Preventing Global warming was Eric Holder's reason for his sponsoring of gun running.
Post a Comment