Catholic Climate Movement

  • Thread starter Thread starter Beautiful
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hoosier_Daddy said:
I think Lynn’s ideas are absolutely off base. Theologically I think she is out there. Her faith does not resemble mine.
Logically and scientifically I think she is misled. But she can indeed back her position quite well. But I will say one thing. She is the real deal. A true believer. And she backs up her ideas with action and a way of living that reflects her beliefs. We could all learn from that.
I disagree with her but I also admire her.

You know, like how muslims pray to Mecca 5 times a day…😉
Click to expand...
Nice to see this post.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I don’t think that is true. It depends on the extent of the harm. Whenever you drive your car on a public road, you increase (very slightly) the probability that you will cause an accident and harm someone. Yet that does not keep you from the road, nor should it.
Click to expand...
Nice try at deflection - as usual.

Harming someone a little is not the same as the possibility of harming someone.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
I think Lynn’s ideas are absolutely off base. Theologically I think she is out there. Her faith does not resemble mine.
Logically and scientifically I think she is misled. But she can indeed back her position quite well. But I will say one thing. She is the real deal. A true believer. And she backs up her ideas with action and a way of living that reflects her beliefs. We could all learn from that.
I disagree with her but I also admire her.

You know, like how muslims pray to Mecca 5 times a day…😉
Click to expand...
I don’t think accusations of harming and killing people if they don’t believe in MMGW are backing up ones position. You can tell Lynn is passionate about this topic but I also think she turns a lot of people away with the over the top rhetoric.
 
MidwestGuy said:
Nice try at deflection - as usual.

Harming someone a little is not the same as the possibility of harming someone.
Click to expand...
Yes it is, in this case. You and Lynn were talking about the how emissions from vehicles might harm someone. But that too is only in probability. You don’t know for sure which person is going to be negatively impacted or how many. My analogy is exactly the same kind of thing. We do know this - if everyone drives a car, it is almost certain that some people will die who would not have died if only a few people drive a car. (I am speaking only of traffic accidents now - not environmental damage.) By your driving your car you alter the traffic “environment”, so that, together with many other who are also driving cars, you make it almost certain that some pedestrian will be killed. I stand by the analogy because it illustrated the fallacy of the absolute - saying that you would not drive your car if could cause the least bit of harm to anyone.
 
cyguy said:
Would you also march to end abortion? Taking care of our planet is important but so is taking care of the unborn.
Click to expand...
A lot of those concerned about climate change are also pro-life. They actually go together.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Yes it is, in this case. You and Lynn were talking about the how emissions from vehicles might harm someone. But that too is only in probability. You don’t know for sure which person is going to be negatively impacted or how many. My analogy is exactly the same kind of thing. We do know this - if everyone drives a car, it is almost certain that some people will die who would not have died if only a few people drive a car. (I am speaking only of traffic accidents now - not environmental damage.) By your driving your car you alter the traffic “environment”, so that, together with many other who are also driving cars, you make it almost certain that some pedestrian will be killed. I stand by the analogy because it illustrated the fallacy of the absolute - saying that you would not drive your car if could cause the least bit of harm to anyone.
Click to expand...
Nice try at deflection yet again. If I said I would never drive a car, how would I have the chance to hurt someone in a traffic accident?
 
MidwestGuy said:
Nice try at deflection yet again. If I said I would never drive a car, how would I have the chance to hurt someone in a traffic accident?
Click to expand...
You could step off the curb, causing someone to swerve into another car. You could be a passenger in a car and distract the driver, causing them to rear-end the car in front of them. You could be on a bicyle (motorized or not), see a cat sitting in the middle of the road, start to go around them by going into the lane next to you, not noticing the other car and ding them.

And I don’t even have that good of an imagination.
 
sallybutler said:
You could step off the curb, causing someone to swerve into another car. You could be a passenger in a car and distract the driver, causing them to rear-end the car in front of them. You could be on a bicyle (motorized or not), see a cat sitting in the middle of the road, start to go around them by going into the lane next to you, not noticing the other car and ding them.

And I don’t even have that good of an imagination.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Based on your post you have a pretty good imagination.

Not sure what your post has to do with Leaf stating “by you driving your car”? I don’t see where he said I was walking or riding a bike, etc?
 
Expatreprocedit said:
A lot of those concerned about climate change are also pro-life. They actually go together.
Click to expand...
There are a great number of ways to be concerned about the environment. There are a number of ways to do one’s part with regard to it. There are a number of ways to be concerned about climate change, and a number of ways to consider actions based on that concern. There are many views of climate change, its causes, harms and the percentage possibility of those harms being significant. There are differing views of the benefit versus harm ratio of the various proposals for mediation.

The problem in equating it with being prolife in other ways is that currently, and notwithstanding all the differences in opinion about the above, there is but one thing that ever seems to be discussed as a cause and only one cure proposed for it. That one thing is the one that has all the media and political force behind it. The simplistic concept is that there is climate change, that it bodes disaster, that it’s totally caused by fossil fuels, that curtailing the use of fossil fuels in the U.S. is the only remedy, and that secondary effect of that solution simply must be lived with regardless of what they mean in terms of human prosperity and suffering. All of that despite the differences of opinion concerning the various elements of the proposition.

Threat to human life is very uncertain when it comes to the various ideas about MMGW. Death is a certitude when it comes to abortion. Saying the two “go together” is really misplaced.
 
Ridgerunner said:
There are a great number of ways to be concerned about the environment. There are a number of ways to do one’s part with regard to it. There are a number of ways to be concerned about climate change, and a number of ways to consider actions based on that concern. There are many views of climate change, its causes, harms and the percentage possibility of those harms being significant. There are differing views of the benefit versus harm ratio of the various proposals for mediation.

The problem in equating it with being prolife in other ways is that currently, and notwithstanding all the differences in opinion about the above, there is but one thing that ever seems to be discussed as a cause and only one cure proposed for it. That one thing is the one that has all the media and political force behind it. The simplistic concept is that there is climate change, that it bodes disaster, that it’s totally caused by fossil fuels, that curtailing the use of fossil fuels in the U.S. is the only remedy, and that secondary effect of that solution simply must be lived with regardless of what they mean in terms of human prosperity and suffering. All of that despite the differences of opinion concerning the various elements of the proposition.

Threat to human life is very uncertain when it comes to the various ideas about MMGW. Death is a certitude when it comes to abortion. Saying the two “go together” is really misplaced.
Click to expand...
Saying that you will only be against death when caused by abortion, but not when it is caused by other man-generated factors or not until there are no abortions anywhere in the world seems illogical to me. It sometimes seems like people use the abortion issue to check out of finding solutions to any and all other injustices and problems.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
Mar-a-Lago Could Be Lost to the Sea

“As much as $557 million of property in Palm Beach County is vulnerable assuming a one foot increase in sea level.”

Of course by 2030 Mr Trump probably wont be around to change his tune.

bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-16/trump-rejects-climate-change-but-mar-a-lago-could-be-lost-to-the-sea
Click to expand...
A one foot increase over how long? Are we also assuming that the property owners in Palm Beach County are just going to sit around and do nothing to mitigate any potential for damage to their multi-million dollar properties?
 
Ridgerunner said:
There are a great number of ways to be concerned about the environment. There are a number of ways to do one’s part with regard to it. There are a number of ways to be concerned about climate change, and a number of ways to consider actions based on that concern. There are many views of climate change, its causes, harms and the percentage possibility of those harms being significant. There are differing views of the benefit versus harm ratio of the various proposals for mediation.

The problem in equating it with being prolife in other ways is that currently, and notwithstanding all the differences in opinion about the above, there is but one thing that ever seems to be discussed as a cause and only one cure proposed for it. That one thing is the one that has all the media and political force behind it. **The simplistic concept is that there is climate change, that it bodes disaster, that it’s totally caused by fossil fuels, that curtailing the use of fossil fuels in the U.S. is the only remedy, and that secondary effect of that solution simply must be lived with regardless of what they mean in terms of human prosperity and suffering. All of that despite the differences of opinion concerning the various elements of the proposition.

Threat to human life is very uncertain when it comes to the various ideas about MMGW. Death is a certitude when it comes to abortion. Saying the two “go together” is really misplaced**.
Click to expand...
This!
 
Expatreprocedit said:
A lot of those concerned about climate change are also pro-life. They actually go together.
Click to expand...
👍

It is actually my early concern for baby rabbits that led me to be anti-abortion (well before becoming a Catholic), or perhaps it was my anti-abortion stance that led to my concern for all life issues.

Actually those who claim they are anti-abortion, but care not for those dying from environmental harms, including those babies still born or miscarried from environmental harms seem to me to be disingenuous, to say the least.

I’ve been watching ABC News lately and they’re doing a marvelous job covering the severe famine and drought in Africa, but unfortunately they do not mention that the drought is likely enhanced by global warming.

Also, it seems to me easier to chide environmentalist who are pro-abortion with “It’s illogical to kill children in order to save the earth for the children.” I think I may have prevented an abortion or two with that.
 
sallybutler said:
Saying that you will only be against death when caused by abortion, but not when it is caused by other man-generated factors or not until there are no abortions anywhere in the world seems illogical to me. It sometimes seems like people use the abortion issue to check out of finding solutions to any and all other injustices and problems.
Click to expand...
It’s very easy to tell if someone dies in an abortion, it’s much more difficult to tell if someone died because of an extra 1ppm of arsenic in drinking water, or because of a 0.1C temperature change, or because of 3rd hand tobacco smoke.
 
ucfengr said:
It’s very easy to tell if someone dies in an abortion, it’s much more difficult to tell if someone died because of an extra 1ppm of arsenic in drinking water, or because of a 0.1C temperature change, or because of 3rd hand tobacco smoke.
Click to expand...
Therefore we don’t need to do anything about it???
 
ucfengr said:
A one foot increase over how long? Are we also assuming that the property owners in Palm Beach County are just going to sit around and do nothing to mitigate any potential for damage to their multi-million dollar properties?
Click to expand...
If you read the article you would know it is by 2030…13 Years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top