The complaint I had was with the false equivalence.
From your link:
About half of Democrats (48%) say global warming is a
very serious problem
Should we conclude from that they're putting "the almighty dollar ahead of the environment", or can we agree that whatever they may or may not believe,
1) climate change isn't the sum totality of the environment, and
2) whether one chooses to believe or disbelieve in either its presence or its seriousness, that does not necessarily bely an ulterior profit motive?
Many Democrats are against the private ownership of 'semi-automatic firearms', but that doesn't mean that they're trying to disarm the populace so that they can crush us like Hitler.
Many Republicans are against expanding social welfare programs, but that doesn't mean that they're trying to crush the poor and kill off minorities through starvation.
Many Libertarians are against the idea of income taxation, but that doesn't mean that they want people whose jobs are paid for with tax dollars to be evicted from their homes and be subjected to the elements.
Whether or not Republicans agree on climate change, that does not mean they hate the environment, and even if it does mean that, it does not mean they're hating the environment because it's unprofitable to do otherwise.
In short, you've took an almost fact, overvalued its importance, devalued the importance of all other possible environmental concerns, and then drawn incorrect conclusions from that, for the purpose of unnecessarily vilifying roughly half the voting population of America.
>The complaint I had was with the false equivalence.
No, it wasn't. You inferred that I was stating that ALL republicans put money ahead of the environment by saying:
"carries about as much weight as "all Republicans are racists" or "all Democrats hate the rich"."
I clearly said MOST and corrected you.
You also presented your own useless, anecdotal experience that's in direct odds with the empirical evidence I later presented to you.
>The complaint I had was with the false equivalence.
You then go on to present your own false equivalence with Democrats, how quaint.
>About half of Democrats (48%) say global warming is a very serious problem
Nice false equivalency cherry-picking. You're ignoring the rest of the research that clearly shows that most Republicans are notorious for being deniers of everything from warming itself, to it being caused by human activity, along with impact denial.
You're actually very much using the tactics of global warming deniers as well. Ignore the vast amount of evidence against your argument, while cherry-picking small sections of data in a desperate attempt to fudge the overall point.
>Whether or not Republicans agree on climate change, that does not mean they hate the environment
Once AGAIN, I didn't say ALL republicans. But, the fact that MOST put a corporatist, profiteering point of view ahead of a vast majority of climate scientists doesn't actually show a sincere concern for the environment, either.
Unless, once again, you want to jump into another foray of fantasy.
> You're ignoring the rest of the research that clearly shows that most Republicans are notorious for being deniers of everything from warming itself, to it being caused by human activity, along with impact denial.
Which doesn't equate to hating the environment, nor does it associate that {non}hatred into profiteering.
> You're actually very much using the tactics of global warming deniers as well. Ignore the vast amount of evidence against your argument, while cherry-picking small sections of data in a desperate attempt to fudge the overall point.
No, I'm pointing out that your initial statement is meritless, while you attempt to dilute the issue completely.
> Once AGAIN, I didn't say ALL republicans.
Okay, fine. Even if MOST Republican agree on climate change, that doesn't mean they hate the environment. Even if it does mean that, it doesn't mean that they're hating the environment because it's unprofitable to do otherwise.
"In fact, in areas where curbside recycling is available, an overwhelming 70 percent of Democrats and 69 percent of Republicans say they “always” participate."
That doesn't seem very hateful to me, even though it clearly isn't profitable to either party.
In short, your initial statement was baseless, and shame on you for trying to dilute the issue into plausibility. That isn't how facts work.
This still holds true.
> In short, you took an almost fact, overvalued its importance, devalued the importance of all other possible environmental concerns, and then drawn incorrect conclusions from that, for the purpose of unnecessarily vilifying roughly half the voting population of America.
Edit: Typo which, ironically, was quoted from an original typo I'd made, but which I now can't edit. :-)
I didn't say they simply "hated the environment" in the first place. You steered away from my points and into a silly territory. You're resorting to goalpost moving instead of just admitting you're wrong.
> Even if MOST Republican agree on climate change, that doesn't mean they hate the environment.
Once again, you steered it to this inane direction away from my initial point.
Almost no one "hates the environment" in itself and I never made such a ridiculous claim. But, many Republicans are clearly more willing to put aside uncomfortable facts, destructive externalities and live in denial and willful ignorance if it helps them make a buck.
Sad, but true on many levels beyond the environment. That's NOT to say that others are guilty of such things, but Republicans are far worse than others on the left and plenty of evidence backs this up.
It's ridiculous to claim otherwise.
> your initial statement was baseless
Only if one is to continue to delve into fantasy (as you obviously do) when it comes to the modern Republican party and its supporters in regards to protecting the environment (and lower income class humans for that matter).
From your link:
Should we conclude from that they're putting "the almighty dollar ahead of the environment", or can we agree that whatever they may or may not believe,1) climate change isn't the sum totality of the environment, and
2) whether one chooses to believe or disbelieve in either its presence or its seriousness, that does not necessarily bely an ulterior profit motive?
Many Democrats are against the private ownership of 'semi-automatic firearms', but that doesn't mean that they're trying to disarm the populace so that they can crush us like Hitler.
Many Republicans are against expanding social welfare programs, but that doesn't mean that they're trying to crush the poor and kill off minorities through starvation.
Many Libertarians are against the idea of income taxation, but that doesn't mean that they want people whose jobs are paid for with tax dollars to be evicted from their homes and be subjected to the elements.
Whether or not Republicans agree on climate change, that does not mean they hate the environment, and even if it does mean that, it does not mean they're hating the environment because it's unprofitable to do otherwise.
In short, you've took an almost fact, overvalued its importance, devalued the importance of all other possible environmental concerns, and then drawn incorrect conclusions from that, for the purpose of unnecessarily vilifying roughly half the voting population of America.