Why Does the Political Right And Left Feel the Need to Demonize Each Other ?

[Darth Richard II]

Yeah I don't think you understand what the ignore function does.

[GAROVORKIN]

46 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Yeah I don't think you understand what the ignore function does.

Yes , I know exactly how the ignore feature works .  Lots of websites have them  , Ive never bothered to make use them. 

[Yukle]

11 hours ago, aceluby said:

The left has had the intellectual high-ground since the right started worshiping supply side economics in the 80s.  Doesn't matter when people actively vote against facts and science.

To take this idea further:

As a general rule, is it fair to say that the left-wing is concerned about fixing global warming while the right wing denies its existence, or at least, denies that it is a priority to be solved before economics?

I hate this attitude that global warming can wait. We humans make the rules of our markets, and we can make them what we like. The same does not apply to our ecosystems and planet.

[Rippounet]

15 hours ago, Yukle said:

As a general rule, is it fair to say that the left-wing is concerned about fixing global warming while the right wing denies its existence, or at least, denies that it is a priority to be solved before economics?

I hate this attitude that global warming can wait. We humans make the rules of our markets, and we can make them what we like. The same does not apply to our ecosystems and planet.

I wonder if at some not-so-distant point in the future some people (important politicians, business leaders, some scientists... ) will be sued for their role in climate change denial - if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they lied and knew the consequences these lies would have on millions, if not billions.
It would be a textbook case of individual freedom versus collective responsibility. With a fascinating question to answer: are individual freedoms still paramount when they jeopardize the survival of our entire species? What kind of global society do we really want to build?
The entire left-right paradigm hinges on that kind of question. And I know I tend to repeat myself, but I just can't see how humans can keep the level of individual freedoms we have today in the long-term. The consequences of economic liberty alone are reason enough to seriously reconsider what an individual's fundamental rights should be.

[GAROVORKIN]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

I wonder if at some not-so-distant point in the future some people (important politicians, business leaders, some scientists... ) will be sued for their role in climate change denial - if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they lied and knew the consequences these lies would have on millions, if not billions.
It would be a textbook case of individual freedom versus collective responsibility. With a fascinating question to answer: are individual freedoms still paramount when they jeopardize the survival of our entire species? What kind of global society do we really want to build?
The entire left-right paradigm hinges on that kind of question. And I know I tend to repeat myself, but I just can't see how humans can keep the level of individual freedoms we have today in the long-term. The consequences of economic liberty alone are reason enough to seriously reconsider what an individual's fundamental rights should be.

Where do you draw that line ? The big problem with  limiting or restricting  individual  freedoms and Liberties is that it becomes a  slippery slope that leads us all to Oceana .  

[Jo498]

Has ever been a politician successfully sued for anything like that? One does not have to go for difficult to prove non-local effects like climate change. There are far more obvious things like (in Germany) the failed Berlin Airport, the Stuttgart Train station, billions to save corrupt bankers (or even worse, bad financial speculations by the official responsible for the finance of cities or local districts) and I don't think anyone was ever held legally responsible. It was rarely tried and if then it usually was not successful.

[Rippounet]

6 hours ago, GAROVORKIN said:

Where do you draw that line ? The big problem with  limiting or restricting  individual  freedoms and Liberties is that it becomes a  slippery slope that leads us all to Oceana .  

The "slippery slope" argument is lazy and meaningless half the time.
The line isn't easy to draw but if your individual freedom affects thousands of other individuals in a negative way then it might be a good idea for society to have a debate about it.
Lastly, I didn't say I necessarily welcome the evolution that I foresee. My statement was matter of fact. I'm content to live in this day and age.

[OldGimletEye]

9 hours ago, Rippounet said:

I wonder if at some not-so-distant point in the future some people (important politicians, business leaders, some scientists... ) will be sued for their role in climate change denial - if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they lied and knew the consequences these lies would have on millions, if not billions.
It would be a textbook case of individual freedom versus collective responsibility.

If I'm still around when global warming gets real bad, I'm going to the Koch Brothers house, so I can sit in their air conditioning and drink up all their water. And I'm inviting everyone to come with me.

[GAROVORKIN]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

The "slippery slope" argument is lazy and meaningless half the time.
The line isn't easy to draw but if your individual freedom affects thousands of other individuals in a negative way then it might be a good idea for society to have a debate about it.
Lastly, I didn't say I necessarily welcome the evolution that I foresee. My statement was matter of fact. I'm content to live in this day and age.

So it's not lazy and has  meaningless  the other half of the time ? Hm, have to think about have one a bit. 

Yes , It is conceivable that in the distant  future, we may end up having less freedoms for reasons beyond our control  and that is not a pleasant possibility to contemplate .

[Zorral]

7 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

If I'm still around when global warming gets real bad, I'm going to the Koch Brothers house, so I can sit in their air conditioning and drink up all their water. And I'm inviting everyone to come with me.

We should be doing this RIGHT NOW.  And not only with those two.

[GAROVORKIN]

7 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

If I'm still around when global warming gets real bad, I'm going to the Koch Brothers house, so I can sit in their air conditioning and drink up all their water. And I'm inviting everyone to come with me.

How bad could it get? Ever hear of the Permian mass extinction even't ? It  Happened about 250 million years ago  It was far worse then then the one that took out the Dinosaurs .  In the Permian event 90 percent of everything  that lived on Earth died.  

[GAROVORKIN]

13 minutes ago, Zorral said:

We should be doing this RIGHT NOW.  And not only with those two.

That will do nothing to forestall global warming .

[Zorral]

56 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

That will do nothing to forestall global warming .

Well, that's the attitude of someone who thinks being sodomized, starved and denied water by his betters is great!

[felice]

10 hours ago, Rippounet said:

The line isn't easy to draw but if your individual freedom affects thousands of other individuals in a negative way then it might be a good idea for society to have a debate about it.

Freedom from is as important as freedom to, and freedom automatically ends for someone when two or more people's freedoms come into conflict. Eg my freedom to stab people in the face cannot coexist with other people's right to be free from being stabbed in the face by random lunatics. Managing these conflicts is what politics is for. "Moar freedom!" doesn't even address the issues.

[GAROVORKIN]

3 hours ago, Zorral said:

Well, that's the attitude of someone who thinks being sodomized, starved and denied water by his betters is great!

Zorral,  are you mad at the world ? 

[Yukle]

4 hours ago, GAROVORKIN said:

How bad could it get? Ever hear of the Permian mass extinction even't ? It  Happened about 250 million years ago  It was far worse then then the one that took out the Dinosaurs .  In the Permian event 90 percent of everything  that lived on Earth died.  

This is how bad it could get.

The biggest danger with global warming is that the Earth's warming reaches a point where more water vapour is being evaporated than is falling as condensation or precipitation. Once that happens, water will begin to collect in the atmosphere and never leave it. This will permanently accelerate warming until all of the oceans boil away. After that, the Earth will be hot enough to boil carbon dioxide trapped in the surface, such as in rocks.

As shown in the link above, this is possible. It's what happened to Venus, a planet extremely similar to Earth in size, orbit and composition. No one knows why Venus became so hot (hotter than Mercury, which is closer to the Sun), but one theory is that it used to have oceans which began to boil away. These made the planet so hot that it even began to boil carbon dioxide trapped in rocks, causing this to be released into the atmosphere.

All of this is, of course, assuming that the dismissive way that you suggest "90% of everything that lived on Earth died" is somehow a meaningless event. There's every chance that life may not have survived each mass extinction on Earth. The "Snowball Earth" theory suggests that Earth was once very close to losing all of its life and it took millions of years to escape the near-catastophe. This is our only planet, and don't for a moment dismiss the fragility of its ecosystems or its natural equilibrium. In fact, the failure of the political right-wing to accept how serious environmentalism is to the survival of literally everything on Earth is a key reason that the political left-wing, even when it is not at its most extreme, detests the political right-wing.

[GAROVORKIN]

37 minutes ago, Yukle said:

This is how bad it could get.

The biggest danger with global warming is that the Earth's warming reaches a point where more water vapour is being evaporated than is falling as condensation or precipitation. Once that happens, water will begin to collect in the atmosphere and never leave it. This will permanently accelerate warming until all of the oceans boil away. After that, the Earth will be hot enough to boil carbon dioxide trapped in the surface, such as in rocks.

As shown in the link above, this is possible. It's what happened to Venus, a planet extremely similar to Earth in size, orbit and composition. No one knows why Venus became so hot (hotter than Mercury, which is closer to the Sun), but one theory is that it used to have oceans which began to boil away. These made the planet so hot that it even began to boil carbon dioxide trapped in rocks, causing this to be released into the atmosphere.

All of this is, of course, assuming that the dismissive way that you suggest "90% of everything that lived on Earth died" is somehow a meaningless event. There's every chance that life may not have survived each mass extinction on Earth. The "Snowball Earth" theory suggests that Earth was once very close to losing all of its life and it took millions of years to escape the near-catastophe. This is our only planet, and don't for a moment dismiss the fragility of its ecosystems or its natural equilibrium. In fact, the failure of the political right-wing to accept how serious environmentalism is to the survival of literally everything on Earth is a key reason that the political left-wing, even when it is not at its most extreme, detests the political right-wing.

Because of the Water content of Earth, more heat will be trapped which will cause  the Earth to get even Warmer then Venus.  Even without Global Warming , this will  happen  as the sun Heats up.  

[Yukle]

4 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

Because of the Water content of Earth, more heat will be trapped causing the Earth to get even Warmer then Venus Even Global Warming were not a fact , this will  happen anyways as the Sun Heats up.  

This is meant to be gentle, rather than rude or dismissive, but can you please reword this? I don't understand your point as written.

[The guy from the Vale]

Sure, but I'd prefer that to happen in a few billion years rather than the next century, if I'm given the choice. Because I'm going to live during a good part of the next century but only a tiny fraction of the next billion years. Also, humans should still be around in 100 years, but very few species have survived billions of years unchanged.

[Rippounet]

2 hours ago, felice said:

Freedom from is as important as freedom to, and freedom automatically ends for someone when two or more people's freedoms come into conflict. Eg my freedom to stab people in the face cannot coexist with other people's right to be free from being stabbed in the face by random lunatics. Managing these conflicts is what politics is for. "Moar freedom!" doesn't even address the issues.

Absolutely. The problem being that our Western societies seem to be increasingly focused on the freedom to, to such a point that this is how most people understand freedom now. And freedom from want is not only being ignored, but ridiculed by the very same people who pretend to be all about freedom.