As some of you might know, there is a bit of an argument going on under my environmental literacy post. This post is my reply to Bobs last comment, but I have to post it as a blog post because it's too big for a comment. So, here it is.
Bobs original comment –
“Seriously? You feel it a waste to teach people that they have an impact on their environment? The local and global environment is unimportant to you? You talk about doing “actual research” what has that research revealed to you? At seventeen you seem very closed minded, who has taught you that the ‘right wing’ is correct and the ‘left wing’ spreads propaganda? Both sides of that house are so corrupt it is difficult to tell which type of power hungry money grubber they are, and for the most part it matters little. My point is simple, I believe you do not think for yourself, I don’t think you know how. It is obvious you have done no serious research as you repeat sound bites and media nonsense. You appear to be prejudiced or simply parroting someone else’s political agenda.
My rant continues, but I will spare you, I feel it would fall on deaf ears at any rate. There is no need for you to think for yourself continue down the road with your blinders on, its save, really, your masters offer bread and circus at such a small price.”
My reply
@Bob –
Accusation #1
“You feel it a waste to teach people that they have an impact on their environment? The local and global environment is unimportant to you?”
I feel it’s a waste the way they will likely teach it. When they teach a class like that, but include facts such as, only a small amount of carbon dioxide is man made, the earth has been hotter than this before, parts of Antarctica are actually cooling, etc. etc. Then it would be a worthwhile class. But, according to all of there set patterns, they won’t teach by the facts, only the ideologies, as has been already proved by teaching evolution in schools. Taught like that, the class wouldn’t be worthwhile, and would be a complete waste of our tax money.
The way I believe they will teach it will push the global warming green movement. And an often unnoticed but real motive behind the green movements is government control. Nearly any crisis the greens blow out of proportion, or even just invent, (like global warming) is backed by needing more government control to “fix” the problem. Go ask a green what temperature they would make the earth if they could change it right now. Betcha they don’t have an answer; because it would be a “sin” to mess with the earths change, unless of course the change was caused by humans.
Accusation #2
“At seventeen you seem very closed minded, who has taught you that the ‘right wing’ is correct and the ‘left wing’ spreads propaganda?”
First, where did I say that the right wing is absolutely correct? Please show me the quote and I'll glady address it. I don't believe the orginal post said anything about republicans, good or bad.
Neither side is perfect, both are fraught with scandals, schemes, and other shortcomings. But, the left movement in general is pushing harder in the arena of green energy, fighting global warming, and in favor of more government control (Obamacare, cap and trade proposal, etc.). The mindset of the left opens itself up to much worse consequences than the right. When you start teaching and believing such ideas as, humans are causing the earth to warm, the humans are bringing about all ecological disasters, etc., you begin to lose the natural value of the human race. Look at the population control ideas, first they start with limiting people having children, then start eliminating everyone with diseases, deformations, etc., then you can move on to the races of the world that aren’t as good as others. All of that sound familiar? In general the left wants to move to more government control and more socialistic principles. Socialism doesn’t work, it hasn’t, and still won’t, and it aids much worse principles than just high taxes.
As an aside, and it’s a topic I’ll likely discuss in a later post, something many people today don’t realize today, is that early on in our country, the positions of the two sides were reversed. The democrats (nowadays more correctly referred to as liberals) were in favor of a small democratic government, run by the people and for the people. But the republicans were more in favor of an aristocratic style government, like they were used to in England, a style of government that is just too large, intrusive, and diminishes the rights of the people.
Accusation - #3
“I believe you do not think for yourself, I don’t think you know how. It is obvious you have done no serious research as you repeat sound bites and media nonsense. You appear to be prejudiced or simply parroting someone else’s political agenda.”
You read the first real post I’ve done on my blog, and because it contradicts with your line of thinking you decide that I’m close minded and parroting people’s agendas? You accuse me of doing no research, but you accuse me and form ideas and suspicions about me when I’ve done one single political minded post thus far. Include some research in a comment perhaps, aside from the rude accusations, and practice what you yourself preach.
Also, you accuse me of repeating sound bites? Look back at that post, and find me one place where I quoted something. Everything on that post I wrote myself, and it is my own opinion. As I said in the post, there was only ONE SINGLE article about this topic I could find, and I did spend nearly an hour searching through the internet looking for another one. All the ones I found were direct copies of the original one. You find me some other articles about THIS SPECIFIC topic, and I’ll be happy to read them. Who knows, it’s been over a week since I looked for articles about this, there could be new ones.
Bob, anyone reading through your comments will see that you don’t like my opinions about the greens and global warming, and so you retreat to calling me closeminded and a parrot, over and over, there is little content in your comments other than personal attacks that have no point to them.
Stephen.
No comments:
Post a Comment