I Will Never Understand Wind

"W P Dixon" wrote in message
...
Even in those primitive circumstances you would in fact be consuming. Just
not to the extent of how modern folks do it. You would have to hunt for
food, cut trees to build your cabin, heat and cook.

Burning wood for energy is one of the worst forms of pollution, by the way.
But in any case, even if the lifestyle you suggest were the best way to
conserve, your claim is apparently that no one can claim to be a
conservationist unless they live that lifestyle. That's bull.

It's not bull, but the refusal to see the outright stupidity of someone
complaining about "global warming" while not doing anything to correct it
, especially by flying airplanes around, is in deed bull.

Who says they are not doing anything to correct it?

By your own admission, one can "conserve" without halting all consumption at
all. One can even use resources recreationally, without using them
wastefully. To characterize environmentalists as being different from
wasteful consumers only in their speech, and not in their actions, is to be
completely ignorant of the ways one can conserve while still engaging in an
active, fruitful, and entertained life.

Just like most problems some must be on the far right or the far left
of an issue, when the answer is usually in the middle somewhere.

That's true. So why do you assert that one has to take their lifestyle to
the extreme primitive in order to be a conservationist? Why do you assert
that it's hypocritical to do anything other than engage in the extreme
primitive lifestyle and at the same time talk of conservation?

That was the point of the post.

Really? You wrote:

" To say "the sky is falling" while you still drive your
car , plane , even use toilet paper to wipe your butt with ( think how many
trees are cut down for that every year! WOW! And that's just for my
bathroom! ) is not really sincere in your beliefs."

That is, you claim that someone arguing for conservation is insincere if
they use toilet paper. Again, that's just bull. And it's not at all the
point you claim to have been trying to make.

[...]
Living is one thing, our hobbies that pollute is another , wouldn't you
agree? So to preach "global warming" while driving to the airport, to get
in a plane and fly for a few hours, to go home and sit and say somebody
needs to do something about our planet....it's like DUHHHHHHH!

So far, it's been your writing on the topic that's "like DUHHHHHHH!" We
could shut down ALL recreational flying and not make a noticeable dent in
our consumption of fossil fuels. To claim that a recreational pilot is
hypocritical for arguing for conservation, even though they fly
recreationally, that's bull.

Pete

Whatever you wish to believe you knock yourself out


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"W P Dixon" wrote in message
...
Even in those primitive circumstances you would in fact be consuming.
Just not to the extent of how modern folks do it. You would have to hunt
for food, cut trees to build your cabin, heat and cook.

Burning wood for energy is one of the worst forms of pollution, by the
way. But in any case, even if the lifestyle you suggest were the best way
to conserve, your claim is apparently that no one can claim to be a
conservationist unless they live that lifestyle. That's bull.

It's not bull, but the refusal to see the outright stupidity of
someone complaining about "global warming" while not doing anything to
correct it , especially by flying airplanes around, is in deed bull.

Who says they are not doing anything to correct it?

By your own admission, one can "conserve" without halting all consumption
at all. One can even use resources recreationally, without using them
wastefully. To characterize environmentalists as being different from
wasteful consumers only in their speech, and not in their actions, is to
be completely ignorant of the ways one can conserve while still engaging
in an active, fruitful, and entertained life.

Just like most problems some must be on the far right or the far left
of an issue, when the answer is usually in the middle somewhere.

That's true. So why do you assert that one has to take their lifestyle to
the extreme primitive in order to be a conservationist? Why do you assert
that it's hypocritical to do anything other than engage in the extreme
primitive lifestyle and at the same time talk of conservation?

That was the point of the post.

Really? You wrote:

" To say "the sky is falling" while you still drive your
car , plane , even use toilet paper to wipe your butt with ( think how
many
trees are cut down for that every year! WOW! And that's just for my
bathroom! ) is not really sincere in your beliefs."

That is, you claim that someone arguing for conservation is insincere if
they use toilet paper. Again, that's just bull. And it's not at all the
point you claim to have been trying to make.

[...]
Living is one thing, our hobbies that pollute is another , wouldn't
you agree? So to preach "global warming" while driving to the airport, to
get in a plane and fly for a few hours, to go home and sit and say
somebody needs to do something about our planet....it's like DUHHHHHHH!

So far, it's been your writing on the topic that's "like DUHHHHHHH!" We
could shut down ALL recreational flying and not make a noticeable dent in
our consumption of fossil fuels. To claim that a recreational pilot is
hypocritical for arguing for conservation, even though they fly
recreationally, that's bull.

Pete

"W P Dixon" wrote in message
news
Whatever you wish to believe you knock yourself out

lol...

You've been shown to be incorrect, and even self-contradictory, and that's
all you can come up with? Okay then...