FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Global Warming Suicide Pact





jmi256
It looks like the frenzy stirred up by global warming alarmists has 'caused' these people to take the lives of their son and themselves. Luckily the infant girl survived, but I’m sure she’ll have deep wounds, both physically and mentally, after this ordeal. To be clear, I use the term "caused" loosely since I believe we're responsible for our own actions. This is just the horrible actions of some sick people who latched onto the fear generated by the global warming crowd. But it will interesting to see if those who denounced Tea Party protestors and conservative commentators when the census worked committed suicide* (it was initially reported as a “lynching”) will be as quick to do the same to the left wing. Like I said I believe in individual accountability, and am not blaming any one person/group (other than the parents) for this tragedy, but am more interested in finding out if the treatment will be consistent or not. I have a feeling I can guess which way this will go, but we’ll see.

*For reference:
Census Worker Lynched In Kentucky
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-110491.html#918874



Quote:
Baby survives parents' global warming suicide pact
A seven-month-old girl survived for three days alone with a bullet in her chest after being shot by her parents as part of a suicide pact over their fears about global warming.


Francisco Lotero, 56, and Miriam Coletti, 23, shot their daughter and her toddler brother before killing themselves.

Their son Francisco, two, died instantly after being hit in the back.

However, their unnamed daughter cheated death after the bullet from her father's handgun missed her vital organs.

Police were alerted by worried neighbours who discovered the massacre three days after the shooting and the girl was taken to hospital.

The youngster is recovering in hospital in the town of Goya in the northern Argentine province of Corrientes, where doctors say she is out of danger.

Her parents said they feared the effects of global warming in a suicide note discovered by police.

Source = http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/argentina/7344329/Baby-survives-parents-global-warming-suicide-pact.html
Bikerman
You are obsessed.
a) What has AGW got to do with 'left wing'?
b) Why should anyone denounce the 'left wing' because an idiot/disturbed person commits an atrocity?
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
You are obsessed.

With what?

Bikerman wrote:
a) What has AGW got to do with 'left wing'?

Attributing the theory of Global Warming to manmade activities and insisting that massive taxes/fees on production in response to this has been seen coming from the left. They even denounce those who question anything as "deniers."

Bikerman wrote:
b) Why should anyone denounce the 'left wing' because an idiot/disturbed person commits an atrocity?

For the same anyone denounces the 'right wing' because an idiot/disturbed person commits an atrocity I guess. But that's my point. Like I said I believe in personal accountability, and am more interested in how consistent some will be in the treatment.
Bikerman
jmi256 wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
a) What has AGW got to do with 'left wing'?

Attributing the theory of Global Warming to manmade activities and insisting that massive taxes/fees on production in response to this has been seen coming from the left. They even denounce those who question anything as "deniers."
This is yet more nonsense. The science of AGW is not party based. Neither is the politics of AGW (unless you want to classify all non-US countries as 'left wing').
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
a) What has AGW got to do with 'left wing'?

Attributing the theory of Global Warming to manmade activities and insisting that massive taxes/fees on production in response to this has been seen coming from the left. They even denounce those who question anything as "deniers."
This is yet more nonsense. The science of AGW is not party based. Neither is the politics of AGW (unless you want to classify all non-US countries as 'left wing').

Are you implying "left wing" is a party? That would seem to counter what you have already claimed in other threads.
Bikerman
Don't be obtuse.
AGW is not a party-political issue AND it is not a 'political spectrum' issue. You don't have to be left or right wing to believe that AGW is a reality. The fact that Bush resisted it for so long doesn't signify that non-acceptance of AGW makes you right wing, any more than acceptance makes you left wing. It is a rather silly idea.
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
Don't be obtuse.
AGW is not a party-political issue AND it is not a 'political spectrum' issue. You don't have to be left or right wing to believe that AGW is a reality. The fact that Bush resisted it for so long doesn't signify that non-acceptance of AGW makes you right wing, any more than acceptance makes you left wing. It is a rather silly idea.


I wasn't being obtuse but responding to your comment. The point of this thread wasn't to get into yet another debate about the politics of Manmade Global Warming, but I think it can be pretty much agreed that the left here in the US has been pushing Manmade Global Warming to further their agenda of more government control, higher taxes/fees, etc. The Democratic Party here in the US has even introduced bills, such as the Cap & Tax legislation, that reflect this. Given this, I think it's interesting, however, that there hasn't been (or at least I haven't seen) any similar outcry toward commentators or the movement/party that echoed the hysterics leading to this tragedy, similar to the outcry from ‘lefties’ when actions from individuals were supposedly ‘instigated’ from the right. Like I said, I disagree with both positions: that ‘the Left’ or ‘the Right’ is responsible for an individual’s actions. But some may call the silence/defense from left-leaning critics of basically the same thing hypocritical. I would also argue that anyone identified as ‘right’ who makes the same argument without then assuming the validation of the same argument/premise from the left are also hypocritical. If you prefer another word, please let me know.
Bikerman
No it cannot be so agreed. The notion that ANY government would wish to push AGW is bizarre since it inherently leads to politically unpopular decisions. No politician would choose to be tied to a theory that means they have to push through increases in fuel costs - it is a silly notion.

You seem determined to assign just about any Obama policy to the 'left wing' category which is equally silly since Obama is nothing like 'left wing'.
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
No it cannot be so agreed. The notion that ANY government would wish to push AGW is bizarre since it inherently leads to politically unpopular decisions. No politician would choose to be tied to a theory that means they have to push through increases in fuel costs - it is a silly notion.

You seem determined to assign just about any Obama policy to the 'left wing' category which is equally silly since Obama is nothing like 'left wing'.


Maybe I’m not being as clear as I could. Does this edit make more sense so that we can move on from this point?

Quote:
I think it can be pretty much agreed that the left here in the US has been capitalizing upon/exploiting Manmade Global Warming to further their agenda of more government control, higher taxes/fees, etc.
Bikerman
Nope. It assumes that there is some political advantage to Obama in raising taxes to pay for AGW measures. What possible advantage could there be?
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
Nope. It assumes that there is some political advantage to Obama in raising taxes to pay for AGW measures. What possible advantage could there be?


I didn't say only Obama, and I think that has been covered extensively elsewhere.
Bikerman
jmi256 wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Nope. It assumes that there is some political advantage to Obama in raising taxes to pay for AGW measures. What possible advantage could there be?


I didn't say only Obama, and I think that has been covered extensively elsewhere.

Well, it certainly isn't a left-wing policy, so the whole basis of this thread appears to me to be missing.
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Nope. It assumes that there is some political advantage to Obama in raising taxes to pay for AGW measures. What possible advantage could there be?


I didn't say only Obama, and I think that has been covered extensively elsewhere.

Well, it certainly isn't a left-wing policy, so the whole basis of this thread appears to me to be missing.


You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but the left here in the US (i.e. the Democratic Party) would argue otherwise, as noted in their party platform (portion cut for brevity).

Quote:
Barack Obama will focus this strategy on seven goals: (i) ..(sic)... (vii) protecting our planet by achieving energy security and combating climate change.

Source = http://www.workinglife.org/storage/users/4/4/images/111/2008%20democratic%20platform%20080808.pdf (page 28)
Bikerman
That still misses the point.
The conservative party here are pledged to support the NHS. Does that make state healthcare provision a right wing policy?
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
That still misses the point.
The conservative party here are pledged to support the NHS. Does that make state healthcare provision a right wing policy?


That seems a bit off topic, but I have to admit that I'm not as familiar with your "conservative party" or what it stands for (some parties/movements use Orwellian names to describe themselves), nor what they pledged, nor what they were supporting, nor the intricacies of the NHS to provide a coherent opinion.
Bikerman
It isn't off-topic because there IS no topic.
You may as well start a topic saying that because 2 = 1 you wonder if mathematicians would like to renounce algebra - it makes about as much sense.

The Conservative (Tory) party are our right-wing party so, using your logic, any policy they have MUST be right wing.
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
It isn't off-topic because there IS no topic.

I have to disagree, and say there is a topic. Here it is:

Quote:
It looks like the frenzy stirred up by global warming alarmists has 'caused' these people to take the lives of their son and themselves. Luckily the infant girl survived, but I’m sure she’ll have deep wounds, both physically and mentally, after this ordeal. To be clear, I use the term "caused" loosely since I believe we're responsible for our own actions. This is just the horrible actions of some sick people who latched onto the fear generated by the global warming crowd. But it will interesting to see if those who denounced Tea Party protestors and conservative commentators when the census worked committed suicide* (it was initially reported as a “lynching”) will be as quick to do the same to the left wing. Like I said I believe in individual accountability, and am not blaming any one person/group (other than the parents) for this tragedy, but am more interested in finding out if the treatment will be consistent or not. I have a feeling I can guess which way this will go, but we’ll see.




Bikerman wrote:
You may as well start a topic saying that because 2 = 1 you wonder if mathematicians would like to renounce algebra - it makes about as much sense.

You’re right, arguments like 2 = 1 or 57% > 57% really don’t make much sense. I’m sure you would immediately interject when arguments of those types are served, but that’s not my argument at all.



Bikerman wrote:
The Conservative (Tory) party are our right-wing party so, using your logic, any policy they have MUST be right wing.

Funny, I don’t recall ever making that claim.
Bikerman
The same fallacy repeated doesn't make it logical.
The whole basis of your 'topic' is that because AGW is a left-wing 'thing', commentators should condemn 'lefties' because of an atrocity apparently blamed on AGW. The rationale is that this is somehow equivalent to 'lefties' condemning the apparent killing of a census worker by right-wing folk in Kentucky.
It is completely bizarre and, as I said, a non-topic. It doesn't matter a hoot whether the killing of the census worker was suicide or not (it probably was, from my understanding). The two are completely different things, and to try and draw this comparison, aside from the fact that AGW is not a 'left-right' issue, seems to me to indicate an obsession with bashing the left wing.
handfleisch
Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Nope. It assumes that there is some political advantage to Obama in raising taxes to pay for AGW measures. What possible advantage could there be?


I didn't say only Obama, and I think that has been covered extensively elsewhere.

Well, it certainly isn't a left-wing policy, so the whole basis of this thread appears to me to be missing.


You can see here the twisted thinking that is all to common on the American right wing as it thrashes in convulsions.

First of all, I have asked this poster during his climate-denial threads to answer this question, to no response:
The basic facts of global warming have been supported by thousands of studies, endorsed by dozens of scientific societies and the national academy of science in every first world nation.
How many can you cite on the other side?


Second, he claims that this post is about "hypocrisy", but to do so equates how supposedly "the left here in the US has been capitalizing upon/exploiting Manmade Global Warming to further their agenda", with the Tea Party's charges and complaints, such things as outrageous taxation (Obama lowered taxes for 90+% of Americans, and taxes are historically quite low now), Obama will take away people's guns (not happening), Obama is a totalitarian Socialist/Communist (no comment), Health Care Reform will create so-called death panels (no comment), etc. etc.

The problem with this equation, and his claim that he is just in this to expose "hypocrisy", is that AGW is real while Death Panels etc are wild delusions, so there is no equation. And of course he never comes out and says AGW is real, so is this thread really only about hypocrisy? If he believes it real, how can the serious crisis of AGW be "left wing" or "exploited"? A real disaster and emergency is not "left wing" and measures to stop it are urgent, not political. If he doesn't believe it's real, then this thread is about something very different -- the idea that all the scientific authorities mentioned above are working together to support a fraud. We get into conspiracy territory.

(The right wing/Tea Partiers have treated health care reform the same twisted way as AGW, that it is "left wing" and unnecessary and somehow dangerous, when in fact it based on a crisis of large proportions, both in terms of human lives lost and ruined and economic costs to the USA. And Tea Partiers on Medicare don't even realize they are on government-supported health insurance! In the end I think it comes down to money & power of oil, insurance and pharmaceutical companies.)
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
aside from the fact that AGW is not a 'left-right' issue, seems to me to indicate an obsession with bashing the left wing.

Afraid I must disagree about that. In the US, at least, you can predict a person's views about global warming pretty accurately if you know their political affiliation.
Indeed, I do sense a left-bashing obsession here.

Personally, I'd very much like to read that suicide note. How did they get convinced that surviving global warming would be worse than death?
Bikerman
ocalhoun wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
aside from the fact that AGW is not a 'left-right' issue, seems to me to indicate an obsession with bashing the left wing.

Afraid I must disagree about that. In the US, at least, you can predict a person's views about global warming pretty accurately if you know their political affiliation.
Indeed, I do sense a left-bashing obsession here.
But once again I must point out that the US is NOT the arbiter in matters of definitions. You may PERCEIVE it as a left-right issue, and the majority of Americans might agree. You would all be wrong, unless you can provide some coherent definition of left/right wing to support the notion - and I know you cannot (other than using the tautology that Obama=left wing). There is no way that an issue like AGW can be considered left or right wing. It may well be that the fact that historical US administrations have 'chosen sides' makes it appear to be such an issue in the US, but I'm afraid that is your problem, and quite a serious one if what you say is true.
handfleisch
This is pertinent:
http://blogs.forbes.com/sciencebiz/2010/03/south-dakota-legislature-declares-that-astrology-can-explain-global-warming/
Quote:
South Dakota legislature declares that astrology can explain global warming
March 1, 2010 - 10:25 am

Here in the U.S. we have a never-ending competition among the states to see which one can enact the dumbest laws. This past week, the South Dakota House of Representatives passed a law that tells schoolteachers how to present the evidence for global warming. The lawmakers who wrote the bill clearly don’t believe that global warming is a reality, so they simply created a law to promote their version of reality. Interestingly, they used the same strategy used by creationists in their efforts to ban the teaching of evolution: the “teach the controversy” approach, where you claim you simply want children to hear both sides of the issue. But the part that really got my attention was the law’s claim that “astrological dynamics” are one of the driving forces behind global climate change.

The South Dakota bill, which was passed 36-30 (not all the legislators are idiots; here’s the roll call vote), includes a number of delightful errors, which are worth examining one by one. Let’s start with the most entertaining claim:

That there are a variety of climatological, meteorological, astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics that can effect (sic) world weather phenomena and that the significance and interrelativity of these factors is largely speculative.

Wow! The South Dakota legislature has declared, by majority vote, that the ancient pseudoscience of astrology “can effect world weather”! Astrology, of course, is a superstitious belief that the movements of stars and planets can affect our daily lives here on Earth, a belief that has no basis in science. Some people – including, apparently, the South Dakota legislature – still take it seriously, although most view astrological forecasts as light entertainment.

(Perhaps South Dakota was jealous of all the attention that creationists are getting by attempting to legislate the teaching of creationism in other states. Bradford Plumer over at The New Republic thinks this is their attempt to win the “dumbest state in the nation” prize.)
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
The same fallacy repeated doesn't make it logical.
The whole basis of your 'topic' is that because AGW is a left-wing 'thing', commentators should condemn 'lefties' because of an atrocity apparently blamed on AGW. The rationale is that this is somehow equivalent to 'lefties' condemning the apparent killing of a census worker by right-wing folk in Kentucky.

Close, but I was actually trying to show how that premise is faulty. I’ve said many times that I believe in personal accountability. I was also pointing out that arguing it one way when it helps your ‘side’ while attacking it when it goes against your side is hypocritical. The point of this topic was to determine if those who were so quick to condemn the “lynching” of a census worker as something “whipped up by the rightwingnuts spewing garbage about the census being a plot for the government to control everyone's lives” and pointed to “Bachmann and Beck & the scary scary census” as some type of proof that the “right wing” was to blame would now refuse to even entertain the fact that when someone has been ‘whipped up’ by global warming alarmists, which seem to mainly come from the left, and commit such a heinous crime. Also, those who are now so vocal in their objection to the use of “left wing” had no problem letting the use of “right wing” go unchecked in the lynching thread. Like I have said multiple times, I don’t agree with the premise, but I find the hypocrisy shocking and disappointing.


Bikerman wrote:
It is completely bizarre and, as I said, a non-topic. It doesn't matter a hoot whether the killing of the census worker was suicide or not (it probably was, from my understanding). The two are completely different things, and to try and draw this comparison, aside from the fact that AGW is not a 'left-right' issue, seems to me to indicate an obsession with bashing the left wing.

I actually was providing an out on this if those who were so quick to condemn the faked lynching as “whipped up by rightwingnuts” were able to at least be consistent, but obviously they weren’t. And your persistent attack of the use of “left wing” while remaining idle of the use of “right wing” speaks volumes.
deanhills
How do we really know that the suicide pact had anything to do with the global warming anyway. Probably because global warming is being broadcasted as a doomsday message everywhere, people who are depressed, may just grab at that. The reason for the family suicide must have more to do with the emotional state of the people who did it, than global warming. They probably don't even know what the word means other than the end of the world is near. If there had not been global warming they may have found another reason such as asteroids on their way to hit earth or not wanting their children to face 2012.
Bikerman
jmi256 wrote:
Close, but I was actually trying to show how that premise is faulty. I’ve said many times that I believe in personal accountability. I was also pointing out that arguing it one way when it helps your ‘side’ while attacking it when it goes against your side is hypocritical. The point of this topic was to determine if those who were so quick to condemn the “lynching” of a census worker as something “whipped up by the rightwingnuts spewing garbage about the census being a plot for the government to control everyone's lives” and pointed to “Bachmann and Beck & the scary scary census” as some type of proof that the “right wing” was to blame would now refuse to even entertain the fact that when someone has been ‘whipped up’ by global warming alarmists, which seem to mainly come from the left, and commit such a heinous crime. Also, those who are now so vocal in their objection to the use of “left wing” had no problem letting the use of “right wing” go unchecked in the lynching thread. Like I have said multiple times, I don’t agree with the premise, but I find the hypocrisy shocking and disappointing.
This makes no sense at all. You continue to use 'left wing' without any justification. You assume that AGW isn't a major problem and that therefore 'the left' are whipping up false scares. Assumptions...
Who, exactly, do you think should be condemned? Scientists? Obama? What exactly do you want condemned? The fact that they think AGW is a real issue?
If someone commits suicide because a geologist predicts an earthquake, should you condemn geologists? it seems to me that you are desperately trying to make an equivalence between two cases which have no such equivalence.
Quote:
I was also pointing out that arguing it one way when it helps your ‘side’ while attacking it when it goes against your side is hypocritical.
LOL - and do you seriously think that 'left wingers' are more likely to be hypocritical than right-wingers (even if we assume, wrongly, that this IS a left-right issue)? I think not. Those who are convinced that their side is correct are hardly likely to condemn their own side, are they?
Quote:
I actually was providing an out on this if those who were so quick to condemn the faked lynching as “whipped up by rightwingnuts” were able to at least be consistent, but obviously they weren’t. And your persistent attack of the use of “left wing” while remaining idle of the use of “right wing” speaks volumes.
LOL...it was YOU that introduced the term - wrongly - in the OP. I merely pointed out your mistake. I haven't condemned anyone for anything in this thread so I haven't really got a clue what you are on about. If you want to attack specific people for being hypocritical then name them and make the case, otherwise this is all just verbiage.

This whole debate is a mess. You start with a faulty premise and a confused idea about what is left wing and, predictably, what follows becomes unintelligable.
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
It may well be that the fact that historical US administrations have 'chosen sides' makes it appear to be such an issue in the US, but I'm afraid that is your problem, and quite a serious one if what you say is true.

Aye, and current administrations, too.

Very true. It's a symptom of the overly-partisan recent government that they make anything a left vs. right issue if at all possible.
Related topics
"global warming" questions... please share your an
Cow-Made Global Warming
Global Warming Source..
Global Warming
US media finally aknowledge Global Warming
Global Warming
Al Gore = :OWNED: (again)
What did Jesus do to cause global warming??
Global warming... Is it a problem?
Global Warming
Global Warming
Apocalypse Now? Global Warming Hotspots
Global Warming
GLOBAL WARMING
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.