Princeton professor is wrong; Trump is right on climate

[jc456]

Where is the quote from Trump that shows his position on Global Warming?

Where is it?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Okay...I have now read Dr. Singer's essay. I wish I'd read it before I posted my comments above. What's apparent to me after having read the essay is that Singer's thesis and your depiction of it are not the same.

Singer's thesis is that gauging by the bioethical standards of "equal shares, need, and historical responsibility, the US should make drastic cuts to its greenhouse-gas emissions," cuts on the order of "one-third of what they are today" or more, depending on which bioethical standard one prefers. That is a very different thesis from the you alleged he made.

Professor Singer's argument that since the US and the rest of the Old Industrial world has been stuffing the planet to the gills with filthy carbon emissions since 1817, we actually owe Zimbabwe a shitload (China's probably building carbon emitting factories there now) and not only do we have to give up air conditioning so that Zimbabwe can pollute the planet as much as we have, but we also have to pay another shitload to clean up the problems we will be continuing to fund.

what isn't logical however, is why, if we have made technology advances, aren't these countries using new technology instead of using carbon based plants? You can't cure cancer if you continue to add cancer to the body. That makes absolutely no sense.

The thesis is failed. It is a wealth distribution program to punish those who move the technology forward. shame on him and I spit on him.

What???

Out of all you wrote, only the follow question and the final sentence are coherent and, at least, somewhat clear and certain.

• The thought in the final sentence is what it is, and I have nothing to say about it, for it's merely your stating your opinion.
• Except for the below quoted sentence, I nothing to say about the rest for it's not clear to me what you're trying to say by having written it.

You can't cure cancer if you continue to add cancer to the body.

AFAIK, cancer grows/emerges/evolves within the corpus rather than being added to it by an external actor. Be that as it may, developing a cure for cancer is a process that has nothing to do with whether cancerous cells are forming within a body, or even one deliberately "adds" it to a body. Indeed, though I don't know specifically how cancer cure testing occurs, but it's not beyond conception that scientists may introduce cancerous cells to otherwise healthy specimens and then apply treatments they think will cure the cancer. Accordingly, it may well be that adding cancer to a body is part of the process of testing potential curative medicines and treatments. Thus, "adding" cancer to a body(s) may very well be how one goes about curing cancer.

Why did I say that? Because the analogy you presented doesn't make sense; however, the sentence is one of the two in your post that itself is coherent, even if the idea it contains is irrational.

So you can't understand the question of why the third world countries aren't using new technology to build new power plants? Really, that is difficult for you to understand eh? Hmm you then sir are fking stupid

So you can't understand the question of why the third world countries aren't using new technology to build new power plants?

What I didn't understand is what I stated I didn't understand. If you are willing to clarify your remarks so I can, fine and TY for doing so. If you are unwilling, that's fine too. I'm not that driven to engage with you on this topic in the first place, but if you bother to clarify your earlier comments, I will read your clarifying remarks and respond accordingly. Right now, I have nothing to say about the comments as you wrote them because it struck me as incoherent, not stupid, not absurd, not unfounded, not sensible or nonsensical, but incoherent. I have no "effing" idea of what you were trying to communicate. That's why I asked you to clarify.

 

[jc456]

Okay...I have now read Dr. Singer's essay. I wish I'd read it before I posted my comments above. What's apparent to me after having read the essay is that Singer's thesis and your depiction of it are not the same.

Singer's thesis is that gauging by the bioethical standards of "equal shares, need, and historical responsibility, the US should make drastic cuts to its greenhouse-gas emissions," cuts on the order of "one-third of what they are today" or more, depending on which bioethical standard one prefers. That is a very different thesis from the you alleg

Professor Singer's argument that since the US and the rest of the Old Industrial world has been stuffing the planet to the gills with filthy carbon emissions since 1817, we actually owe Zimbabwe a shitload (China's probably building carbon emitting factories there now) and not only do we have to give up air conditioning so that Zimbabwe can pollute the planet as much as we have, but we also have to pay another shitload to clean up the problems we will be continuing to fund.

what isn't logical however, is why, if we have made technology advances, aren't these countries using new technology instead of using carbon based plants? You can't cure cancer if you continue to add cancer to the body. That makes absolutely no sense.

The thesis is failed. It is a wealth distribution program to punish those who move the technology forward. shame on him and I spit on him.

What???

Out of all you wrote, only the follow question and the final sentence are coherent and, at least, somewhat clear and certain.

• The thought in the final sentence is what it is, and I have nothing to say about it, for it's merely your stating your opinion.
• Except for the below quoted sentence, I nothing to say about the rest for it's not clear to me what you're trying to say by having written it.

You can't cure cancer if you continue to add cancer to the body.

AFAIK, cancer grows/emerges/evolves within the corpus rather than being added to it by an external actor. Be that as it may, developing a cure for cancer is a process that has nothing to do with whether cancerous cells are forming within a body, or even one deliberately "adds" it to a body. Indeed, though I don't know specifically how cancer cure testing occurs, but it's not beyond conception that scientists may introduce cancerous cells to otherwise healthy specimens and then apply treatments they think will cure the cancer. Accordingly, it may well be that adding cancer to a body is part of the process of testing potential curative medicines and treatments. Thus, "adding" cancer to a body(s) may very well be how one goes about curing cancer.

Why did I say that? Because the analogy you presented doesn't make sense; however, the sentence is one of the two in your post that itself is coherent, even if the idea it contains is irrational.

So you can't understand the question of why the third world countries aren't using new technology to build new power plants? Really, that is difficult for you to understand eh? Hmm you then sir are fking stupid

So you can't understand the question of why the third world countries aren't using new technology to build new power plants?

What I didn't understand is what I stated I didn't understand. If you are willing to clarify your remarks so I can, fine and TY for doing so. If you are unwilling, that's fine too. I'm not that driven to engage with you on this topic in the first place, but if you bother to clarify your earlier comments, I will read your clarifying remarks and respond accordingly. Right now, I have nothing to say about the comments as you wrote them because it struck me as incoherent, not stupid, not absurd, not unfounded, not sensible or nonsensical, but incoherent. I have no "effing" idea of what you were trying to communicate. That's why I asked you to clarify.

Friend all you had to do was answer the first question

 

[usmbguest5318]

Okay...I have now read Dr. Singer's essay. I wish I'd read it before I posted my comments above. What's apparent to me after having read the essay is that Singer's thesis and your depiction of it are not the same.

Singer's thesis is that gauging by the bioethical standards of "equal shares, need, and historical responsibility, the US should make drastic cuts to its greenhouse-gas emissions," cuts on the order of "one-third of what they are today" or more, depending on which bioethical standard one prefers. That is a very different thesis from the you alleg

​

what isn't logical however, is why, if we have made technology advances, aren't these countries using new technology instead of using carbon based plants? You can't cure cancer if you continue to add cancer to the body. That makes absolutely no sense.

The thesis is failed. It is a wealth distribution program to punish those who move the technology forward. shame on him and I spit on him.

What???

Out of all you wrote, only the follow question and the final sentence are coherent and, at least, somewhat clear and certain.

• The thought in the final sentence is what it is, and I have nothing to say about it, for it's merely your stating your opinion.
• Except for the below quoted sentence, I nothing to say about the rest for it's not clear to me what you're trying to say by having written it.

You can't cure cancer if you continue to add cancer to the body.

AFAIK, cancer grows/emerges/evolves within the corpus rather than being added to it by an external actor. Be that as it may, developing a cure for cancer is a process that has nothing to do with whether cancerous cells are forming within a body, or even one deliberately "adds" it to a body. Indeed, though I don't know specifically how cancer cure testing occurs, but it's not beyond conception that scientists may introduce cancerous cells to otherwise healthy specimens and then apply treatments they think will cure the cancer. Accordingly, it may well be that adding cancer to a body is part of the process of testing potential curative medicines and treatments. Thus, "adding" cancer to a body(s) may very well be how one goes about curing cancer.

Why did I say that? Because the analogy you presented doesn't make sense; however, the sentence is one of the two in your post that itself is coherent, even if the idea it contains is irrational.

So you can't understand the question of why the third world countries aren't using new technology to build new power plants? Really, that is difficult for you to understand eh? Hmm you then sir are fking stupid

So you can't understand the question of why the third world countries aren't using new technology to build new power plants?

What I didn't understand is what I stated I didn't understand. If you are willing to clarify your remarks so I can, fine and TY for doing so. If you are unwilling, that's fine too. I'm not that driven to engage with you on this topic in the first place, but if you bother to clarify your earlier comments, I will read your clarifying remarks and respond accordingly. Right now, I have nothing to say about the comments as you wrote them because it struck me as incoherent, not stupid, not absurd, not unfounded, not sensible or nonsensical, but incoherent. I have no "effing" idea of what you were trying to communicate. That's why I asked you to clarify.

Friend all you had to do was answer the first question

I did answer it. I did so by telling you what I don't understand. I answered it that way because what's implicit in your question is not what I don't understand. Moreover, insofar as your response to my question was a question rather than a clarifying statement; thus were I to answer it directly by saying yes or no, our discussion on the thread topic would not be advanced. If you don't care to continue our discussion along the lines you "mentioned" in the post I asked you to clarify, fine, just say so. Right now, however, I await your clarification of the remarks in that post.

 

[jc456]

what isn't logical however, is why, if we have made technology advances, aren't these countries using new technology instead of using carbon based plants? You can't cure cancer if you continue to add cancer to the body. That makes absolutely no sense.

The thesis is failed. It is a wealth distribution program to punish those who move the technology forward. shame on him and I spit on him.

What???

Out of all you wrote, only the follow question and the final sentence are coherent and, at least, somewhat clear and certain.

• The thought in the final sentence is what it is, and I have nothing to say about it, for it's merely your stating your opinion.
• Except for the below quoted sentence, I nothing to say about the rest for it's not clear to me what you're trying to say by having written it.

You can't cure cancer if you continue to add cancer to the body.

AFAIK, cancer grows/emerges/evolves within the corpus rather than being added to it by an external actor. Be that as it may, developing a cure for cancer is a process that has nothing to do with whether cancerous cells are forming within a body, or even one deliberately "adds" it to a body. Indeed, though I don't know specifically how cancer cure testing occurs, but it's not beyond conception that scientists may introduce cancerous cells to otherwise healthy specimens and then apply treatments they think will cure the cancer. Accordingly, it may well be that adding cancer to a body is part of the process of testing potential curative medicines and treatments. Thus, "adding" cancer to a body(s) may very well be how one goes about curing cancer.

Why did I say that? Because the analogy you presented doesn't make sense; however, the sentence is one of the two in your post that itself is coherent, even if the idea it contains is irrational.

So you can't understand the question of why the third world countries aren't using new technology to build new power plants? Really, that is difficult for you to understand eh? Hmm you then sir are fking stupid

So you can't understand the question of why the third world countries aren't using new technology to build new power plants?

What I didn't understand is what I stated I didn't understand. If you are willing to clarify your remarks so I can, fine and TY for doing so. If you are unwilling, that's fine too. I'm not that driven to engage with you on this topic in the first place, but if you bother to clarify your earlier comments, I will read your clarifying remarks and respond accordingly. Right now, I have nothing to say about the comments as you wrote them because it struck me as incoherent, not stupid, not absurd, not unfounded, not sensible or nonsensical, but incoherent. I have no "effing" idea of what you were trying to communicate. That's why I asked you to clarify.

Friend all you had to do was answer the first question

I did answer it. I did so by telling you what I don't understand. I answered it that way because what's implicit in your question is not what I don't understand. Moreover, insofar as your response to my question was a question rather than a clarifying statement; thus were I to answer it directly by saying yes or no, our discussion on the thread topic would not be advanced. If you don't care to continue our discussion along the lines you "mentioned" in the post I asked you to clarify, fine, just say so. Right now, however, I await your clarification of the remarks in that post.

See you don't understand new technology eh?

 

[usmbguest5318]

What???

Out of all you wrote, only the follow question and the final sentence are coherent and, at least, somewhat clear and certain.

• The thought in the final sentence is what it is, and I have nothing to say about it, for it's merely your stating your opinion.
• Except for the below quoted sentence, I nothing to say about the rest for it's not clear to me what you're trying to say by having written it.

AFAIK, cancer grows/emerges/evolves within the corpus rather than being added to it by an external actor. Be that as it may, developing a cure for cancer is a process that has nothing to do with whether cancerous cells are forming within a body, or even one deliberately "adds" it to a body. Indeed, though I don't know specifically how cancer cure testing occurs, but it's not beyond conception that scientists may introduce cancerous cells to otherwise healthy specimens and then apply treatments they think will cure the cancer. Accordingly, it may well be that adding cancer to a body is part of the process of testing potential curative medicines and treatments. Thus, "adding" cancer to a body(s) may very well be how one goes about curing cancer.

Why did I say that? Because the analogy you presented doesn't make sense; however, the sentence is one of the two in your post that itself is coherent, even if the idea it contains is irrational.

So you can't understand the question of why the third world countries aren't using new technology to build new power plants? Really, that is difficult for you to understand eh? Hmm you then sir are fking stupid

So you can't understand the question of why the third world countries aren't using new technology to build new power plants?

What I didn't understand is what I stated I didn't understand. If you are willing to clarify your remarks so I can, fine and TY for doing so. If you are unwilling, that's fine too. I'm not that driven to engage with you on this topic in the first place, but if you bother to clarify your earlier comments, I will read your clarifying remarks and respond accordingly. Right now, I have nothing to say about the comments as you wrote them because it struck me as incoherent, not stupid, not absurd, not unfounded, not sensible or nonsensical, but incoherent. I have no "effing" idea of what you were trying to communicate. That's why I asked you to clarify.

Friend all you had to do was answer the first question

I did answer it. I did so by telling you what I don't understand. I answered it that way because what's implicit in your question is not what I don't understand. Moreover, insofar as your response to my question was a question rather than a clarifying statement; thus were I to answer it directly by saying yes or no, our discussion on the thread topic would not be advanced. If you don't care to continue our discussion along the lines you "mentioned" in the post I asked you to clarify, fine, just say so. Right now, however, I await your clarification of the remarks in that post.

See you don't understand new technology eh?

Conversation done. I'm going to keep answering questions from you when you aren't willing to be decent enough to clarify your own remarks. (BTW, I mean "done" permanently.)

 

[jc456]

So you can't understand the question of why the third world countries aren't using new technology to build new power plants? Really, that is difficult for you to understand eh? Hmm you then sir are fking stupid

So you can't understand the question of why the third world countries aren't using new technology to build new power plants?

What I didn't understand is what I stated I didn't understand. If you are willing to clarify your remarks so I can, fine and TY for doing so. If you are unwilling, that's fine too. I'm not that driven to engage with you on this topic in the first place, but if you bother to clarify your earlier comments, I will read your clarifying remarks and respond accordingly. Right now, I have nothing to say about the comments as you wrote them because it struck me as incoherent, not stupid, not absurd, not unfounded, not sensible or nonsensical, but incoherent. I have no "effing" idea of what you were trying to communicate. That's why I asked you to clarify.

Friend all you had to do was answer the first question

I did answer it. I did so by telling you what I don't understand. I answered it that way because what's implicit in your question is not what I don't understand. Moreover, insofar as your response to my question was a question rather than a clarifying statement; thus were I to answer it directly by saying yes or no, our discussion on the thread topic would not be advanced. If you don't care to continue our discussion along the lines you "mentioned" in the post I asked you to clarify, fine, just say so. Right now, however, I await your clarification of the remarks in that post.

See you don't understand new technology eh?

Conversation done. I'm going to keep answering questions from you when you aren't willing to be decent enough to clarify your own remarks. (BTW, I mean "done" permanently.)

Damn