Remember me
▼ Content

Priorities


Priorities10-03-2020 18:36
keepit
★★★★☆
(1523)
Clearly people are willing to forego spending money on cruises, airlines, entertainment, etc in order to avoid getting sick but they aren't willing to forego expenditures in order to avoid causing CO2 emissions.
I gave a series of lectures at a community college about solving climate change by drastically reducing expenditures and was politely received but no one was willing to implement it, especially women. The women like their spending!
When i made similar suggestions here i was greeted with name calling (hater of humanity, denier of science, and Marxist). I didn't even know what a marxist was.
The thing is, people are definitely not desperate enough to limit expenditures at this time (with their current level of knowledge) but they are willing to limit expenditures to avoid getting sick. It's a matter of priorities.
Edited on 10-03-2020 18:38
10-03-2020 19:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12785)
keepit wrote:
Clearly people are willing to forego spending money on cruises, airlines, entertainment, etc in order to avoid getting sick but they aren't willing to forego expenditures in order to avoid causing CO2 emissions.

People are going on cruises, flying on airlines, and going to casinos and movie theaters. Maybe you haven't noticed.
keepit wrote:
I gave a series of lectures at a community college

Big deal.
keepit wrote:
about solving climate change by drastically reducing expenditures

So you have turned your lectures into religious preaching.
keepit wrote:
and was politely received but no one was willing to implement it, especially women. The women like their spending!

Guess you couldn't find enough faithful willing to sacrifice.
keepit wrote:
When i made similar suggestions here i was greeted with name calling (hater of humanity, denier of science, and Marxist).

That is not name calling. You are denying science, specifically the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan Boltzmann law, you are denying mathematics, specifically probability and statistical mathematics, and you are denying history, specifically the history of Marxism, socialism, and capitalism.

You are preaching Marxism when you preach 'global warming'. The Church of Global Warming stems from the Church of Karl Marx.

keepit wrote:
I didn't even know what a marxist was.

Marx is a proper noun. It is capitalized. Apparently you never learned English either.
keepit wrote:
The thing is, people are definitely not desperate enough to limit expenditures at this time

Having trouble finding loyal followers?
keepit wrote:
(with their current level of knowledge)

Having trouble finding loyal followers?
keepit wrote:
but they are willing to limit expenditures to avoid getting sick.

Why limit expenditures to avoid getting sick??
keepit wrote:
It's a matter of priorities.

It's a matter of your religion.


The Parrot Killer
10-03-2020 20:51
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(924)
keepit wrote:
Clearly people are willing to forego spending money on cruises, airlines, entertainment, etc in order to avoid getting sick

Actually, plenty of people are still doing these things. I personally don't spend money on that sort of stuff to begin with, but plenty of other people do and still are.

keepit wrote:
but they aren't willing to forego expenditures in order to avoid causing CO2 emissions.

Are YOU willing to do this? That would amount to you giving up pretty much all of your modern day conveniences...

Why are CO2 emissions "bad"?

keepit wrote:
I gave a series of lectures at a community college about solving climate change by drastically reducing expenditures

In other words, you used a lot of words to say absolutely nothing?? Define "climate change".

keepit wrote:
and was politely received

Be glad I wasn't there.

keepit wrote:
but no one was willing to implement it,

Well, DUH! That's just for "everybody else" to do, amiright?


keepit wrote:
especially women.

YOU SEXIST PIG!!!


keepit wrote:
The women like their spending!

BIGOT!

keepit wrote:
When i made similar suggestions here i was greeted with name calling (hater of humanity, denier of science, and Marxist).

Not name calling, but it sounds about right.

keepit wrote:
I didn't even know what a marxist was.

That's because you've completely replaced philosophy with Wikipedia and TV.

keepit wrote:
The thing is, people are definitely not desperate enough to limit expenditures at this time (with their current level of knowledge)

Are YOU willing to give up pretty much all modern day conveniences?

keepit wrote:
but they are willing to limit expenditures to avoid getting sick.

They haven't, though.

Also, whether I spend $0 or I spend $5,000, how does that have any effect on my immune system or my exposure to sick people?

keepit wrote:
It's a matter of priorities.

No, it's just a matter of your religious beliefs.
11-03-2020 02:44
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2062)
Spending less, just leaves more money sitting around for others to steal, like the government. If I work hard 40 hrs/week, shouldn't I get some enjoyment out of my labor? What's the point in getting out of bed, early every morning, just to punch a time clock?

My spending less, means somebody else is earning less. The economy, is money moving around. People buying, selling, building, producing, working. Sitting on money, spending less, stalls the economy, kills jobs and businesses. Spending less, isn't an option, if you have little to nothing to spend, because you lost your job, or business. 'Free Stuff', from your socialist government, can only be spread so thin. Somebody still has to be paying for all that 'free stuff', you enjoy, from spending less. It's not really, spend less, if someone else is expected to pay for you. It's like inviting your friends to diner at a nice restaurant, then handing the bill to one of those friends.

What's the point of working all your life, spending less, just to sit on a mound of cash. You die, the government takes a good portion, even though you already paid taxes on it, as you earned. Vast majority of people who inherit a good deal of cash, don't just sit on it, and spend less. Quite of few of them would have been better off, had they never gotten that money. Spending less, is just being selfish and mean.
11-03-2020 02:53
keepit
★★★★☆
(1523)
So many misconceptions Harvey.
11-03-2020 10:12
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2062)
keepit wrote:
So many misconceptions Harvey.


Think I summed it up pretty good. It's a misconception, that people spending less, will solve any problems at all, except one's credit issues. You have never once differentiated between people living within their income, and those running up debt on a credit card.
11-03-2020 16:45
keepit
★★★★☆
(1523)
Harvey,
I made a mistake. Sorry. It was a different recent post where i disagreed with you a lot. That doesn't mean you're wrong. What you are totally wrong about though is what you said about "my socialist govt". That's just wacko. If you put out too much nonsense, noone will believe your common sense, and you do have common sense, just not enough accurate info.
Edited on 11-03-2020 16:56
11-03-2020 19:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12785)
keepit wrote:
So many misconceptions Harvey.


Argument of the stone fallacy. Mantra 23.


The Parrot Killer
11-03-2020 20:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12785)
keepit wrote:
Harvey,
I made a mistake. Sorry. It was a different recent post where i disagreed with you a lot. That doesn't mean you're wrong. What you are totally wrong about though is what you said about "my socialist govt". That's just wacko. If you put out too much nonsense, noone will believe your common sense, and you do have common sense, just not enough accurate info.


You don't get to speak for everyone.. You only get to speak for you.

There are parts of government in the United States that are socialist in nature. They also do not conform to the Constitution of the United States. Examples are the EPA, the CPSC, the Federal Reserve, etc. They are essentially oligarchies that tell you what light bulb you can buy, what toilet you can install, what car you can drive, what fuel you can use, how much it costs to borrow money, what paint you can use, etc.

This form of socialism is called 'fascism'.

States too, have socialist departments that don't conform to their State constitutions as well. California has gotten so bad that I no longer consider it a State of the Union anymore. I call it the SOTC now (The Socialist Oligarchy of the Territory of California). Why do you think a lot of people sometimes spell 'California' as 'Kalifornia'?

And the Democrats want more of it.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 11-03-2020 20:03
11-03-2020 20:03
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2062)
keepit wrote:
Harvey,
I made a mistake. Sorry. It was a different recent post where i disagreed with you a lot. That doesn't mean you're wrong. What you are totally wrong about though is what you said about "my socialist govt". That's just wacko. If you put out too much nonsense, noone will believe your common sense, and you do have common sense, just not enough accurate info.


My creativity runs wild at times...

But, I am serious about people buying stuff, provides jobs, so there people can earn money, to buy stuff. Businesses that don't sell as much stuff, because people are spending less, don't need as many employees. Those that lose their jobs, don't have enough to spend on things like food, water, shelter. Obviously, that's a survival problem, either they get what they need, free from the government, or the get it free, by stealing it. Either way, working people get ripped off, either through taxes, to pay for free stuff, or robbed less legally.
11-03-2020 20:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12785)
HarveyH55 wrote:
keepit wrote:
Harvey,
I made a mistake. Sorry. It was a different recent post where i disagreed with you a lot. That doesn't mean you're wrong. What you are totally wrong about though is what you said about "my socialist govt". That's just wacko. If you put out too much nonsense, noone will believe your common sense, and you do have common sense, just not enough accurate info.


My creativity runs wild at times...

But, I am serious about people buying stuff, provides jobs, so there people can earn money, to buy stuff. Businesses that don't sell as much stuff, because people are spending less, don't need as many employees. Those that lose their jobs, don't have enough to spend on things like food, water, shelter. Obviously, that's a survival problem, either they get what they need, free from the government, or the get it free, by stealing it. Either way, working people get ripped off, either through taxes, to pay for free stuff, or robbed less legally.


What you are describing, Harvey, is called 'money velocity'. It is indeed a good indicator of economic activity, for it directly describes buy and selling activity. That's what an economy is.


The Parrot Killer
13-03-2020 14:40
duncan61
★★☆☆☆
(367)
I am sure Keepit is acting dumb on purpose.You lectured to poor people at a community college how to not spend money they dont have.Interesting were you paid in lentils?
13-03-2020 19:15
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7059)
duncan61 wrote:I am sure Keepit is acting dumb on purpose.You lectured to poor people at a community college how to not spend money they dont have.Interesting were you paid in lentils?

I don't think it was on purpose.

.
Edited on 13-03-2020 19:17
14-03-2020 07:26
Amanbir GrewalProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(123)
i am going to forego all my money.



No.




Join the debate Priorities:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact