Originally Posted by couchgrouch


Mike, I mean no offense but your satire becomes tedious after two lines. Which means you're right, it's perfect for SNL. All it needs is a performer with an obvious history of racist tweets. Then, when he's fired, he'll be qualified to write about CLIMATE CHANGE!!! for the New York Times.


No offense taken, but I did finally come up with a "close" that I am satisfied with. I DO believe satire has more power to change minds than straight analytical thinking. Your initial piece made me at least understand the feeling amongst the majority of conservatives about the varying degrees of urgency between the two political philosophies. My piece was admittedly sophomoric, but I do think there are obvious parallels to be drawn between the changing thought around the shape of the earth in 600 BC and the changing thought around climate change circa now.


Originally Posted by couchgrouch


If the predictions were based solely on data, they'd come true. It's a religion. All apocalyptic cults site statistics to support their dooms.

You've given no one a lesson. The weakness of your posts are in themselves evidence of my position's correctness, not to mention your awful songs. Your movement needs better mascots.



Let's look closer at that:

If the predictions were based solely on data, they'd come true.

The problem with that is the sneaky little "they'd come true" at the end there, which looks an awful lot like circular reasoning. And you are saying something quite silly, when it is broken down, something like

all predication that are based on fact must IMMEDIATELY come true, or at least within my lifetime..

"They'd come true" ignores that SOME predictions are in the process of coming true, and the full extent will probably not be felt within our own lifetime!

Why am I suddenly thinking of an ostrich with its head buried in the sand?

And to equate that the arrival decade is not upon us with religious cults who say "here's the day the world ends" ..? seriously?

Then you say, "the weakness of your posts are in themselves evidence of my position's correctness" which seems like another way of you getting out of making any convincing statements of your own, while Gavin and other's are attempting to make their points, and from where I sit are doing a decent enough job of it.

Rob, theoretically speaking, when has ANYONE'S weak argument been a proof of anything other than a weak argument? A weak argument has never been proof that "the other side" is right..only that some folks have weak arguments..

And the cherry on top, for you, is always to impugn someone's songwriting. Bravo. You are the champ of doing that. Wow..Congrats.

And the thing is, I can empathize with those that think that there's TOO MUCH hubbub over the high level of urgency over climate change amongst liberals.. So yes, I did enjoy your initial piece. But in my humble opinion, your satire was far more powerful than any of your formal arguments.

I'm sorry that you think that just because you can't see climate change happening out your back door, that it can't be real.

Mike


Last edited by Michael Zaneski; 09/23/19 08:44 PM.
Fate doesn't hang on a wrong or right choice
Fortune depends on the tone of your voice

-The Divine Comedy (Neil Hannon)
from the song "Songs of Love"
from the album "Casanova" (1996)