I think you've jumped from morals to actions and back — AmadeusD

Morality is based on action. It's actions that matter, it's actions that can be judged. Whatever a person may believe is relevant, but in this case only to the extent that it leads to action or inaction.

I have no issue with action being taken to combat climate change anyway — AmadeusD

i have no intuition that we need to, or should, do much about it. — AmadeusD

So you have no "intuition" that we should do anything about it (we should), or need to (we do), but yet have no problem if we do. You're fine either way. Cool. Pointless, but cool.

In this case, there is.
— Mikie

There, unequivocally, is not. — AmadeusD

There is, and I've done so. Correctly. That you're struggling with it doesn't change that.

You not understanding my moral/emotional reaction is absolutely no matter for this conflict of moral position. You don't understand my mental state here, and can't conceive of it without inferring psychopathy. — AmadeusD

There's nothing to understand. Either you care about the well being of others, or you don't. If you don't, you're a psychopath -- although there are other terms for it too (I mentioned nihilism). But that's not you, I don't think -- you're clearly just ignorant. In the case of climate change, a lot of people are apathetic because of the time scales involved -- they don't know much about it, it seems distant, it seems abstract, etc. I consider all of that a kind of ignorance. Which is probably excusing them, given how dire the situation has become.

That's factually inaccurate, as I am neither a psychopath nor do I have a strong stance in caring about climate change. Sorry. The facts are stacked against you conclusively on this. — AmadeusD

Which is why I've said repeatedly that you're ignorant. That's not accusing you of psychopathy. You want to insist that it's psychopathy, and then try to weasel out of it through undergraduate moral philosophy, in an attempt to avoid the work of learning about climate change and its consequences.

So let's talk about the consequences of climate change, shall we? Perhaps that's the best route. Let's look at the effects of ice caps melting or sea level rise or Amazon rainforest destruction or tipping points. All of it is easy to dismiss or ignore, so one can continue one's apathy, but once seen and understood it'll change your perspective I think. It changed mine -- as did learning about nuclear weapons. It's worth learning about, for no other reason then it's an existential threat.

Assuming the person does care about others, they wouldn’t truly want to do nothing while the planet burns.
— Mikie

Hmm, again, that's just your position. — AmadeusD

:lol:

This is why most people shouldn't "study" philosophy.

No, it's not my "position" that a person who cares about others wouldn't want to do nothing as others burn. That's logic.

No nihilism required. — AmadeusD

Antinatalism is nihilism, through and through. Well disguised, I grant you.

In any case, to use this as justification for doing nothing while others burn is pretty ridiculous.

The eg of a child drowning is not at all correlative of the climate crisis. — AmadeusD

Actually it's very much correlative. See my point earlier about people struggling with climate change because of its abstractness and apparent distance. But we're all culpable, especially those of us living in wealthy countries.

Again, it’s due to either ignorance or some kind of anti-social psychology.
— Mikie

It isn't, So there we are — AmadeusD

It is. Which is why you want to avoid the drowning child example. I suppose letting her drown instead of acting isn't psychopathy or ignorance but...what, antinatalism?

In the case of climate disaster, we either see what's happening and, if we care about people, both care about and act accordingly -- or we don't see what's happening, or at least don't fully understand the consequences of inaction. It's not more complicated than that. You may very well have some psychological disorder, but based on what you've said so far I think it's much more clear you're just ignorant.

Answer me this: What do you think will happen if we do nothing about rising emissions? If we allow emissions to rise unabated, burning as much coal, oil, and gas as we want? Do you think it'll have any impact at all? For better or worse? And why do you believe it?

Which is why I suggest learning a little more about it rather than going with your feels.
— Mikie

That is exactly what you are doing. — AmadeusD

No, it's what you want me to be doing because you don't know anything about the science. Hence you have to continually pull the discussion into feelings and intuitions, where you have a shot at bullshitting your way through. I'm not interested in that. The facts are pretty clear, and they're worth learning about:

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2865/a-degree-of-concern-why-global-temperatures-matter/

But Mikie, what of the thousands of German and Japanese children who died in WWII bombing campaigns? A horrible crime, right? — BitconnectCarlos

Yes indeed.

Clearly the allies should have never used air power. — BitconnectCarlos

By all means use air power. Just don't use air power to kill innocent women or children. German, Japanese, or otherwise.

Best to be pacifists and let the Germans have their way. I'm no child killer. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not a pacifist.

So Hamas had every right to deliberately kill innocent people on October 7th, since the innocents' government maintains concentration camps and conducts terrorist campaigns? Yeah, I don't accept that. Innocent people shouldn't be killed -- even if Hamas can give a better reason than Likud can.

“Poisoning the blood.”

Yeah, nothing racist here guys. Just more liberal media putting Hitler’s rhetoric into his mouth.

Oh wait…he actually said that.

the truth — Merkwurdichliebe

Lol. Please, keep them coming. This is great.

Morals just differ... — AmadeusD

True. Some people don’t care about others. Some want to murder and rape, etc. Clearly true.

There's no logical reason to infer a fault in a disagreement about value. — AmadeusD

In this case, there is. Again, assuming the person isn’t one who cares nothing about others. Assuming the person does care about others, they wouldn’t truly want to do nothing while the planet burns. They simply don’t know how serious the matter is— hence, ignorance.

I’m ignorant of plenty of things, and my ignorance has caused harm I’m sure. That’s on me. But had I known differently, I wouldn’t have said or done what I did. Why? Because I really do care about other people. My remarks online, for example, may be far more hurtful than I realize. But don’t really know, and when my temper gets the better of me, I’m not considering that possibility anyway. If I were to fully know just how harmful they could be, however, I almost certainly wouldn’t say them.

You get the idea.

Obviously, two people trying to share in differing values is (almost) always pointless! That's fair enough. It's the personalised attack thats irking. — AmadeusD

Calling someone a buffoon for their dangerous ignorance is more irksome to you than the ignorance itself? Ok! That’s not always true with me.

I am neither a psychopath, nor do i care much about hte results of patent anthropocentric climate change. Both of those thing are true. — AmadeusD

So you’re not interested in what happens to the human species? I really do find that abnormal, yes. Maybe not psychopathy— maybe just nihilism.

And further, you cannot infer different from my moral reaction. — AmadeusD

I absolutely can. If someone sits by while someone drowns, then says “I don’t care what happens, and there’s nothing you can infer from this because it’s all subjective, feeling-based moral intuitions that are completely outside the purview of fact or objectivity” — yeah, there’s a name for such a person.

Seems like you want to somehow absolve your own ignorance and apathy by removing it from any scrutiny— as if morals are simply “I like Mozart, you like Beethoven”. I’m not that interested in discussing moral relativism. We’re dealing with a real problem in the real world— not an academic debate on ethics. Global warming is a threat to humanity and if we don’t do something about it it will inflict real pain on real people, both present and future generations. Your simply “not caring” about that is your business. Again, it’s due to either ignorance or some kind of anti-social psychology. Which is why I suggest learning a little more about it rather than going with your feels.

What other value system has delivered such widespread prosperity and quality of life? — Merkwurdichliebe

:lol:

An oldie but goodie.

I am just concerned for any moral proclamations that assert one must have got something wrong. — AmadeusD

Well, isn’t that better than assuming they’re psychopaths? I don’t think that’s better really. So I assume it’s ignorance.

I'm unsure calling someone buffoon for not caring the way you do is anything other than that.. — AmadeusD

But again, if you look at that interaction, you’d see I’m not really doing that — I’m calling him a buffoon because he was aggressively ignorant and spread genuinely dangerous nonsense and refused to learn anything about the subject to boot. He didn’t simply say “I don’t really care about the topic of climate change or doing anything about it.”

It seems that for you, if I do not share your moral reaction, I necessarily must either have access to different information (i.e wrong/incomplete by your lights) or a defective understanding/interpretation. That is just simply void of any validity whatsoever, in any sense. — AmadeusD

True, you could have an accurate account, knowing full well what’s in store for humanity if we do nothing, and simply don’t care — in which case, you’re not ignorant, you’re just a psychopath. But I prefer my approach of assuming you aren’t, but rather haven’t fully grasped the consequences of 3 or 4 degrees of warming. That’s not at all invalid— in fact I think it’s a fair approach on my part.

I can look at nuclear weapons and go “eh, my intuitions tell me we don’t really need to do much about this,” but is that valuable in any way? Who cares about intuitions? We’re dealing with reality. What you appear to be saying is “I don’t think there will be many consequences to climate change— the facts are unsettled on that issue— and so I feel little moral impetus to do anything about it.” I’m saying you’re factually wrong, and that if you were better informed of the consequences you wouldn’t feel that way anymore— provided you’re relatively normal.

You've insulted someone for not sharing your moral intuitions. I don't think that's a helpful, or coherent position to take. — AmadeusD

First, I didn’t do that exactly. Second, why you’d dig up an interaction from two years ago in which you clearly have no context or connection is a little strange. But so be it— it’s true I’m not always nice.

One need not deny the facts to come to different conclusions — AmadeusD

You and him don’t deny the facts because you don’t know the facts, really. (Here I’m referring to what the consequences of warming are, which are well established — but even if they weren’t, I don’t see how anyone can justify not caring about the possibility. Ditto nuclear war.)

I suppose i'm trying to ascertain where your certitude that we should care comes from — AmadeusD

Well I do make the assumption that rational human beings care about themselves, their kids and grandkids, and generally the survival of the human species. I fully acknowledge there are some that don’t. But generally those people are labeled psychopaths and are relatively rare.

So it’s not that we “should” care — I assume it’s a given. I don’t say “you SHOULD care about your kids”, I assume it when talking to a parent. If someone were to ask, “Why are you so certain that I SHOULD care about my kids?” I wouldn’t really know how to respond pragmatically.

No trouble here. Thanks for the video! — AmadeusD

No problem- be well!

But i think jokes are fun. — AmadeusD

Sure — there is this guy on YouTube that’s very funny and tackles Climate change in an amusing way:

You are not addressing the point i've made in any way whatsoever. — AmadeusD

Okay— what was the point?

I simply don't care. — AmadeusD

Was this the point? In which case, why bother coming here and announcing it?

I’d like the human species to go on. You don’t care. Fine— but I can’t do much with that.

@AmadeusD

In explaining climate change, for people who are truly interested in learning about it, I always like to start with an easy experiment: you can take two glass containers -- one with room air and one with more CO2 added, and put it in the sun, seeing which one heats up the fastest. Easy, simple. In fact, Eunice Foote did exactly this experiment in 1856:



Then we can ask: How much CO2 is in our atmosphere? Since trees take in CO2 and most living organisms let off CO2, there's always fluctuations. So the next thing would be to look at the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, measured all over the Earth -- starting in the Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958 and expanding from there.

What do we see? Concentrations go up and down a little, naturally, every year, because there are more leaves on trees in summer in the Northern Hemisphere than in winter. Yet the average rises every year, leading to the famous Keeling Curve:



That's just from 1958 to the present. When you look at the concentrations over the last 800 thousand years, an even more interesting trend emerges:

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/

That's 412 parts per million currently, and the last highest level was about 350 thousand years ago at 300 ppm, before modern humans were even around.

So we know (1) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and (2) that there is a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in the last 800,000 years.

One would think the planet would be warming, giving these two facts. So now we'd have to look to see how temperatures have fluctuated over time, and if increases in temperature correlates in any way with increases in CO2. Is there a correlation?

Turns out there is.

Over 100 years:



And over 800 thousand years:



Then the question becomes: why is this happening? Where is all of this extra CO2 coming from -- and in such a relatively short period of time?

The answer to that question is because of human activity, especially since the industrial revolution. As world population increases, and more trees are cut down (for fuel, houses, and to make room for raising livestock), there is less of a carbon "sponge."

But on top of this, we're also burning things. Burning wood puts CO2 into the atmosphere. Cows and other livestock also release a lot of methane, another greenhouse gas.

But of course it's not only wood and not only livestock. The main culprit, it turns out -- and why the industrial revolution was mentioned -- is fossil fuel: coal, oil, and natural gas. These are carbon-dense objects, and when burned release a huge amount of CO2. Multiply this burning by an increasing population, year after year for over 150 years, and it becomes very clear where the excess CO2 is coming from.

So human activity is the driver of rapid global warming.

Lastly, so what? What's the big deal about increasing the global temperature by just a few degrees?

I think the answer to this is obvious once you realize how only a few fractions of a degrees has large effects over time, which we're already beginning to see. The melting of the ice caps, sea level rise, an increase in draughts and wildfires -- all happening before our eyes, as every year we break more heat records.

In my opinion, I think it's undeniable that this is the issue of our time and those of us who aren't in denial should at least put it in their top 3 political priorities and act accordingly.

I'm fully accepting of anthropocentric climate change (though, i certainly have quibbles around what exactly the implications are - and I don't think its reasonable to suggest that is settled) and yet do not feel any real moral reason to take massive, global action. — AmadeusD

Then you’re simply not paying attention. And I mean that respectfully— we can’t all pay attention to everything. So in my own case, I look into it by reading what experts have to say— experts that don’t have motivation to exaggerate or deny the evidence. I’ve been doing so very carefully now for over a decade.

There’s simply too much information to summarize, and because I’ve done so several times I have little interest in doing so again, especially to silly comments like the one you quoted (as probably just “poking the bear” — why anyone would want to joke around about it, I don’t know). So what I do is ask that you check out what these sources have you say about the warming planet and what it means for biodiversity and human life.

We’re seeing the damages already. Depending on how things go — meaning how hot it gets — we face either a very changed but perhaps manageable world to a catastrophe that could make life either a living hell or wipe out human life completely.

It’s not about intuitions, it’s about facts. Fortunately, the facts are not disputed— nor is that we should do something about it. True, you may not care— fine. That doesn’t change what’s happening, nor what will happen (e.g., biodiversity loss, icecap melt, agricultural disruption, massive coastal flooding, deadly heat waves, famine, droughts, etc.) if it continues without efforts to decrease and eventually negate emissions.

I’ll repost a prior article of mine that outlines some of the evidence, below.

Yeah, I’d say the one who justifies collective punishment and shrugs off the deliberate murdering of thousands of babies with “Hey, they should’ve known better.”

But yeah, better to leave your racist rantings there. Not that you could do much worse, but that we don’t have to feel so nauseated by being reminded that members of this forum hold such disgusting, callous views.

:rofl:

According to you, the axis powers. I disagree, though.

Superior Western intellects are truly on display here, demonstrating just how superior they really are as they find ways to justify the killing of thousands of babies. To wonder why the rest of the world might not agree with this value judgement…

Hamas and the Palestinians should have thought about that when they went down this road. — RogueAI

Yes, the thousands of babies should have known better. Take your racist, genocide-justifying comments to where they’ll be more accepted. Perhaps 4Chan.

Netanyahu's Israel, as bad as it is, is vastly superior to Hamas — RogueAI

Because they kill a thousand times more babies— but with good western values.

Choosing to be ruled by Hamas has led to some disastrous consequences for the Palestinians. — RogueAI

What a gross viewpoint.

So the thousands of innocent children murder by Israeli forces should have known better 17 years ago. Got it.

By that logic, the Israelis who died on October 7th were also learning some “hard” lessons for electing a terrorist government. Glad to know you’re cool with Hamas’ actions.

How about saying that you’re against Israel’s concentration camp?

I don't think bulldozing homes or all the articles you want to send my way amount to what Hamas did, so you can save the copy-pastes. We know the difference. — schopenhauer1

Yes, we know that killing THOUSANDS of children and killing DOZENS of children is indeed a difference.

one tribe says that it wants to stand down and recognize the other but the other has to give up some things, and the other refuses, what of it? Who is in the right there? Take out the names and it just looks like who is willing to compromise and who isn't. — schopenhauer1

If we buy into the nonsense that it’s been the Palestinians refusing peace all these years, would this justify supporting the apartheid state that establishes concentration camps?

I don’t think Israel citizens should be killed or punished for having an extreme right wing government— do you agree? If so, we should also agree that the Palestinian people should not be killed or punished for their government’s actions.

Anyways, that notion that Israel just all up and did this to the Palestinians and like it hasn't been a succession of events, is misleading and shortsighted. — schopenhauer1

Sure — saying the Nazis “up and did this” to the Jews is equally misleading and shortsighted, I suppose?

Give me a break. Gaza is — and here I’m echoing Finkelstein, as he’s absolutely correct — a concentration camp. Yes, there’s a long sequence of events that led to this monstrosity, which is true for literally everything. To then show up and declare how “shortsighted” it is to believe it’s unlike any other event in the world is…incredible.

Why not say what you mean? “Palestinians deserve this.”

Rapists like locusts from the sky first, Israeli tanks second. — Hanover

No: occupied territory turned concentration camp first by government/military of Israel (not innocent children), reaction on October 7th (which I also condemn) by Hamas (not innocent children), and now a barbaric slaughter of THOUSANDS (not dozens) of children and women by the extreme right-wing government of Israel, enacted by the IDF and their psychopathic leaders.

You joke about how ridiculous it sounds that Israel suddenly woke up and started bombing for no reason— yet apparently without a shred of awareness seem to believe Hamas woke up on October 7th and decided to kill and capture innocent people.

I'm protecting the walls of Israel, a democracy from an invasive force. — Hanover

Invasive force? So the concentration camp we call the Gaza strip — that’s the “invasive force”?

The children were killed because Hamas declared war on Israel and its values and put them in harm's way. — Hanover

So Iraq should have had a right to murder American children, since they’d be “defending” themselves too.

Hilarious that the occupying country, with 1000 times the military power of Hamas and backed by the most powerful military power in the world, has to murder innocent people because they’re scared.

“Defense” has been used for decades to justify atrocities. Sorry to see you’re taken in by such a flimsy excuse because it’s your own country supporting it.

I'd suspect there are none here who would choose to live in a Palestinian controlled country over an Israeli controlled one — Hanover

If a Palestinian-controlled country existed, this would be fair. But since it doesn’t, there’s nothing to compare it to. Would I want to live in Gaza? Of course not. But not because of Palestinians.

The point here is that equality is not a wedding vow, and it is worth admitting that we (meaning the West and its values) are superior to others, in terms of morality, technology, civility, and in every way possible. — Hanover

It’s hard to believe this is still admitted to so freely.

We’re superior in “every way possible” here in the West. Yeah, I guess if one really believes this, then it’s possible to justify killing thousands of children — in defense of those superior values, of course.

If the IDF is doing the killing, it is good killing. If Hamas is doing the killing, it is bad killing. — Baden

Yes— because the IDF kills babies with good intentions. That makes it a lesser evil. I think I’m getting it now.

Everything was good in fact until suddenly on Oct 7th the bad guys appeared for no reason and attacked the good guys for no reason so the good guys had to respond to defend themselves by killing the bad guys and destroying the city and killing as many people as they needed to there to get all the bad guys, who keep multiplying by the way, so this could take a while. — Baden

Israel basher!

Israel bashers — RogueAI

Bye.

Do you really want to go with this line to justify genocide? (Even de facto genocide?)

And to anticipate: yes, I think Dresden was a war crime and immoral.

The Sudanese.

:rofl:

Should be in prison. I hope this causes him a great deal of suffering. At least in proportion to how much he’s inflicted on others with his baseless lies.

So now several times the number of people killed in 10/7 have been murdered in Gaza. But it’s cool, because the intentions were good. Good guys never deliberately kill children. Or maybe they do, but it’s because they have no choice. Hamas is using them as human shields.

How depraved.

The former president enjoys some clear advantages. About a third of Republicans are fiercely loyal to him, meaning that he has the unwavering support of a small but potent segment of the broader electorate. Once he is presumably crowned the Republican nominee, which seems inevitable and will probably occur by Super Tuesday, the GOP’s electoral and fundraising machine will whir into motion on his behalf. In all likelihood, the leaders in his party will unite behind him. Large numbers of Americans will vote for anyone running as a Republican against a Democrat.

Trump’s media supporters, above all at Fox News, will offer support, propagating a set of myths about his record in office, particularly the supposedly great economy over which he presided. Trump will be able to run as both an incumbent, because he’s a former president, and an “outsider,” as in 2016, because he is out of office. That will make his attacks on the “deep state” and his own persecution narrative more convincing. Trump intends to use his various criminal and civil trials as proof that “they”—the Biden administration—are going after him because he represents “us”—his voters. A certain segment of the public will buy into these messages.

https://apple.news/AEOopt4aoSqOq-F3n-FsxMQ

At least the house members you cited are acting in good faith, unlike the last ones. — NOS4A2

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Asking universal human questions, which is philosophy (in my view), is mostly irrelevant unless you DO something with it. Otherwise it’s more hobbyism.

How frustrating it must be to the Trump cult when the media, or people, yawn at their homegrown delusions.

A sham impeachment inquiry opened, in obvious retaliation for the legitimate impeachments of the degenerate con man. :yawn:

Jesus, are there still people trying to square the circle regarding Trump? Apparently.

Hilarious.

They must be really worried, to commit to beginning to maybe think about actually doing something at some point, after only 28 summits. — unenlightened

And the media celebrates and flogs themselves over how mean they were to the fossil fuel executive who led the summit.

In a First, Nations at Climate Summit Agree to Move Away From Fossil Fuels

Meh.