Monday, December 17, 2012

Greenies think that school massacres are sooo.. clever and funny!

Remember this? From the radical environmentalists' "10:10 No Pressure" global warming ad campaign last year:



Hilarious.

One can make a quite straighforward connection between the anti-human fanaticism of radical environmentalism and the pervasive degradation of innocent human life on display in such horrors as those in Newtown, Connecticut.

But it's easier if the greenies themselves make the connection for you.

HT: Real Science

13 comments:

  1. What is a direct connection? If you're talking about causation, then you're mistaken. Radical environmentalism isn't caused by school massacres. And school massacres aren't caused by radical environmentalism. Neither Ed Harris of Columbine, or the Virginia Tech shooter was influenced by radical environmentalist propaganda. Its hard to judge these murderers because of their insanity, Ed Harris was paranoid delusional, a psychopath with pathological narcissism, and showed severe signs of 'unconstrained aggression'. His moral culpability is below that of the radical environmentalists who of sound mind beat up scientists and kidnap their children, spike trees with metal and the like. We currently know nothing of the Lanza murderer to properly claim what influenced him.

    If your point is that in both cases a very low view of the dignity of human life is at play, then yes. However the origin of this view is different in either case. Radical environmentalist philosophy cannot be held on the same level as Ed Harris who because of his corruption developed horrible wrong ideas. And anyone who murders people on large scales show low appreciation for the dignity of human life, so you'd have to temper your sentence to mean simple that they stand together with all murderers who show no respect for human life.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thee is a huge difference between Ed Harris and radical environmentalists.

    Radical environmentalists have killed a million times more people than Ed Harris did.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a strange reply. Any particular pedophile has solicited fewer sexual encounters than the Catholic church has.

      If you're referring to the so called DDT ban, then I agree that this was a stupid move, but people supporting it weren't supporting killings unless you can demonstrate that they 'of sound mind' understood that this ban would lead to deaths. Secondly, the ban was something many people participated in, over a genuine but ill founded concern about toxicity, radical environmentalists were for it but they were far from the only ones. That kinda dilutes your massive claim. Lastly DDT is still used with some success, although it has been rendered less effective as mosquitoes have grown more resistant to it since farmers spray without proper wisdom. The WHO approves of its use in several places with a heavy malaria infection. There's no such thing as world wide ban on DDT.

      I'm not sure what you think you're referring to beyond that.

      Delete
    2. [That's a strange reply.]

      Truth is strange.

      [Any particular pedophile has solicited fewer sexual encounters than the Catholic church has.]

      Churches don't solicit children. Pedophiles do. A group of pedophiles are more culpable of pedophilia than one pedophile. It's just math.

      [If you're referring to the so called DDT ban, then I agree that this was a stupid move,]

      Killing 60 million people for your junk-science ideology is many things, but "stupid" doesn't seem to encompass it.

      [but people supporting it weren't supporting killings unless you can demonstrate that they 'of sound mind' understood that this ban would lead to deaths.]

      Of course they were of sound mind, and of course they knew it would lead to deaths. These were (are) highly intelligent engaged activists who knew a great deal about DDT/malaria. They debated passionately, and won. They should own the consequences of their victory.

      [Secondly, the ban was something many people participated in, over a genuine but ill founded concern about toxicity, radical environmentalists were for it but they were far from the only ones. That kinda dilutes your massive claim.]

      True. The War on DDT is an indictment of the West. One of the worst things our civilization has ever done. We had the means to cure a plague, used it to cure ourselves, and then fanatically denied it to impoverished people for decades. Many people share this guilt.

      Hell has many circles, you might say.

      [That kinda dilutes your massive claim. Lastly DDT is still used with some success, although it has been rendered less effective as mosquitoes have grown more resistant to it since farmers spray without proper wisdom.]

      Of course the War on DDT made DDT very hard to obtain and use for millions of people, which was the purpose of the environmentalists. And it has been a war on pesticides generally, with DDT simply the most egregious example.

      Insect resistance to DDT is irrelevant to its main benefit, which is as a spatial repellent in inside walls. It irritates mosquitoes and makes them leave people's houses. They are not killed by it when used in that manner, so resistance does not develop. It remains highly effective.

      Delete
    3. Insect resistance to DDT is irrelevant to its main benefit, which is as a spatial repellent in inside walls. It irritates mosquitoes and makes them leave people's houses.

      Good thing that form of use has not only never been banned, but has never even been discouraged. But don't let facts get in the way of your hysteria.

      Delete
    4. [Good thing that form of use has not only never been banned, but has never even been discouraged.]

      Scientific American:

      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ddt-use-to-combat-malaria

      "The scientists from the United States and South Africa said the insecticide [DDT], banned decades ago in most of the world, should only be used as a last resort in combating malaria."

      "never even been discouraged"? Except when it was banned, and is now only to be used "as a last resort", which means... only if swatting the mosquitoes by hand doesn't work.

      The War on DDT continues.

      You lying bastard.


      Delete
    5. Michael,

      You did read the article in Scientific American from 2009, didn't you?

      No sensible sane reasonable person with more than two neurons to rub together inside his cranium, and who isn't 'short of a few sheep in the top paddock' could possibly object to the article.

      Oh, I forgot... We're talking about YOU.

      Delete
    6. The article was an outrage.

      Delete
    7. Michael,

      Why was the article an 'outrage'? Detailed rational (oh, I forgot, it's YOU) analysis, please.

      Delete
  3. People have patiently explained to Egnor over and over again that all his "facts" about DDT are wrong. Anyone who is not a pathological liar can easily verify he is wrong by reading the relevant WHO documents posted previously on his blog.

    Facts have no effect on Egnor. He is fully committed to his "environmentalists caused 60 million death" big lie, and will just repeat it ad nauseam like the stupid parrot he is. That is why we laugh at him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The outrage:

      "Should DDT Be Used to Combat Malaria?"

      Is this an outrage:

      Should vaccines be used to combat diseases in poor brown people?
      Should antibiotics be used to combat infections in poor brown people?
      Should oxygen be used to combat hypoxia in poor brown people?
      Should blood transfusion be used to combat blood loss in poor brown people?
      Should appendectomy be used to combat appendicitis in poor brown people?

      Delete
    2. Michael,

      So your 'detailed' analysis involved no more than reading the title, and failing to read even the subtitle, let alone the complete text of the article?

      I take it that your reading of the appropriate medical journals involves at least reading the abstracts of the articles? Or, perhaps not.

      Delete
  4. Egnor doesn't care a fig for "poor brown people"; he only uses them as a cudgel to beat liberals and environmentalists with.

    ReplyDelete