Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland
You're dishonest because of your history as a troll going down the standard tree of conservative talking points, misframing of your opposition, attempts to lay a groundwork of falsehoods to drive the conversation, etc etc.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland
"Hey Mom, I didn't like something Anteater said on a thread back in uh...2018!"
"What thread was it?"
"Uh...I dunno, but I didn't like it!!"
"So what are you going to do?"
"I'm going to go to MusicBanter and say it was all just conservative talking points! Nobody ever reads these discussions anyway, and I'm always right!"
"That's nice dear. Now eat your carrots."
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland
It's the functional outcome of what you're calling for. Tell him, jwb.
|
Hey now, leave him out of this. He has a cocaine empire to build.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland
This is a global issue so no, I wouldn't. It's probably better if you base this conversation on things I have said instead of imagined arguments you've dishonestly constructed for me in order to frame a cheap gotcha argument.
|
I read what you said, and there's nothing to imagine here. I went back into those articles and found that your particular assertions about America and China's production relationship doesn't seem to account for most of the cited emission numbers. Rather, their coal production for domestic products and cement production are the largest contributing factors. There's no "gotcha" here - I just found your generalizations to be inaccurate.
See though, I don't think you and I really disagree on these issues. You just don't have a strong grasp on my actual positions on most topics, so you tend to approach arguments with me ineffectually.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland
I'm well aware of the media campaign intended to manufacture western consent of war with china and never even rejected their level of emissions. I'm mainly pointing out that it's entwined with american consumption, so america effectively (as opposed to performatively as we've been seeing) going net or even negative emissions would include their relationship with china.
You introduced the nation-based goalpost btw.
|
I never introduced this as some goalpost-oriented topic. I made a point that if you want to deal with emissions, you need to change China because by extension it would be more effective in a macro-sense since every other country (U.S., the EU, Russia, etc.) buy from them. The U.S. has been lowering carbon emission rates consistently for years now and under Biden will likely accelerate that trend - the CCP is a different story, hence the data and why pushing for change over there might be beneficial in regards to solving the climate change problem at a larger level.