Naomi hates you all

[turtlespeed 220]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

So in other words, you prefer extreme alarmism only when it supports your ideology.

I don't prefer either.

When do you prefer extreme alarmism?

[turtlespeed 220]

4 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Specially for people without an ability to think much further ahead than a couple of minutes.

You do realize that is the alarmist thinking I'm speaking of, right?

You must have absolutely zero faith in humanity, and its ability to overcome obstacles, not to mention progress and invention.

 

 

 

[SkyDekker 1,465]

15 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

You do realize that is the alarmist thinking I'm speaking of, right?

You must have absolutely zero faith in humanity, and its ability to overcome obstacles, not to mention progress and invention.

 

 

 

It is alarmist to think further ahead than a few minutes?

I do believe humanity can overcome obstacles. I also believe that avoiding obstacles is generally a smarter pursuit.

Finally, not worrying about creating future obstacles because other people will overcome them or will innovate is really quite insane.

Edited March 6, 2020 by SkyDekker

[billvon 2,991]

17 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

I don't prefer either.

Except when it pushes a cause you favor.  Then the alarmism has "a lot of truth" in it.

Quote

When do you prefer extreme alarmism?

When there is actually a reason to be alarmed.

I bet even you'd be in favor of extreme alarmism if you noticed your pilot was drunk, or someone's main pin had come out.

[turtlespeed 220]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Except when it pushes a cause you favor.  Then the alarmism has "a lot of truth" in it.

When there is actually a reason to be alarmed.

I bet even you'd be in favor of extreme alarmism if you noticed your pilot was drunk, or someone's main pin had come out.

Yours feels are getting in the way again.  It is causing you to misquote me.

I stated that one had "more truth" not "a lot of truth"

Neither one has a significant amount of truth.

 

Quote

 

   On 3/5/2020 at 7:26 AM, turtlespeed said:

I take "Extreme alarmism" as being highly exaggerated doom sayings, that are meant to stir up emotions rather than logical thought processes.

 

So - No.  I wouldn't want feels getting in the way of logical thinking.

If my pilot was drunk, I'd calmly let someone in charge know.  I wouldn't go up and down the aisles yelling, "We're all going to burn!!!" "We're going to DIE!!!"

The same goes for someone with a pin out.  I'd let them know, but in a reasonable manner.  I'd let the people around that skydiver know, but in a reasonable manner.  Startling them may have adverse effects much worse than being reasonable.  I also wouldn't yell out, "The pin that hasn't been put in right . . .and my child hood is RUINED!!!!"

Its just not reasonable.  Its preying on "feels".

I also think you know this.  

So, it leads me to believe that you are OK with this kind of behavior.

 

 

[billvon 2,991]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

Yours feels are getting in the way again.  It is causing you to misquote me.

Fair enough.  In return, could you tell me who you were quoting when you said "If we do nothing about climate change - the world will burn us all!"

Quote

If my pilot was drunk, I'd calmly let someone in charge know. 

If that didn't work - I don't think you'd be calm and submissive.

If you saw a guy pounding them back in the bar, then got on an airplane, then sat down - only to see that guy walk on, go into the cockpit and sit down, I don't think you'd be calm.  When you told the flight attendant, and she said "don't worry, sir, I am sure everything is fine" I think you'd make as much of a stink as you needed to to make sure it was dealt with.  You wouldn't sit back calmly thinking "well, I don't want to be an extreme alarmist; it will probably be fine.  I've done my duty and informed the appropriate person."  You might, in fact, be as loud and direct as you thought you needed to be to make sure someone was taking that threat seriously.  You might even get off the plane, even if the flight attendant told you to take your seat.

I've had to deal with a canopy over the tail while I was organizing, and I rapidly switched the exit for a bailout.  I yelled "BAILOUT!" a lot.  When two people stopped to ask me something I physically tossed then out the door.  I am sure you would consider that to be extreme alarmism, and you could even claim that was unwarranted - since the parachute cleared in about 15 seconds with only minor damage to the tail.  But it seemed appropriate.  I suspect you would have done something similar, and would have been as loud/pushy as you needed to be to deal with the crisis.

To move this back to climate change, scientists and activists have been calmly telling people about the risks for decades.  It hasn't worked.  And as a result, the earth is continuing to warm, and we are continuing to emit more and more CO2 every year.  This will lead to human suffering - loss of homes, increasing death tolls from wildfires, floods and storms and dwindling water supplies.  I can understand how activists are getting as loud as they need to be to deal with that.

[DJL 235]

38 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Yours feels are getting in the way again.  It is causing you to misquote me.

I stated that one had "more truth" not "a lot of truth"

Neither one has a significant amount of truth.

The issue with the entire problem and solution conversation is that there is so much political pressure against admitting there's a problem.  Since the problem only gets worse if a solution isn't implemented then the people with the "extreme alarmism" thing going on aren't proven wrong yet.  Sure you could theorize that we're going to come up with a solution but we have to actually implement something and show we're moving in the right direction quickly enough before the "extreme alarmists" are wrong.

[airdvr 210]

But...we already have the answers.  Why aren't we doing what Greta demands?

“In the days running up to the 50th anniversary of the World Economic Forum, I joined a group of climate activists who are demanding that you, the world’s most powerful and influential business and political leaders, begin to take the action needed.

“We demand that at this year’s World Economic Forum participants from all companies, banks, institutions and governments:

“Immediately halt all investments in fossil fuel exploration and extraction.

“Immediately end all fossil fuel subsidies.

“And immediately and completely divest from fossil fuels.

“We don’t want these things done by 2050, 2030 or even 2021, we want this done now.

[jakee 1,489]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

Yours feels are getting in the way again.  It is causing you to misquote me.

I stated that one had "more truth" not "a lot of truth"

Neither one has a significant amount of truth.

Why are you so pathologically dishonest even when it is so easy to see through? You didn't just say "more truth" you said "a lot more truth". You know that any reasonable person making an honest attempt to understand what you said will think you believe that the thing which has "a lot more truth" has "a significant amount of truth".

 

It's not a problem with anyone else's feels making them think that, it's a problem with what you said. Take some damn responsibility for once.

[billvon 2,991]

11 minutes ago, airdvr said:

But...we already have the answers.  Why aren't we doing what Greta demands?

 

Greed.  Those people make more money by denying climate change and ignoring her.

Fortunately not everyone is shortsighted.  Over 1100 fund managers have completely divested from fossil fuel stocks over the past 10 years.

[turtlespeed 220]

31 minutes ago, billvon said:

 

Quote

Fair enough.  In return, could you tell me who you were quoting when you said "If we do nothing about climate change - the world will burn us all!"

It was no one specific by name.  I have heard it and seen it.  Headlines mostly.

  I don't know how to type "Air Quotes" here.  Sometimes I type how I speak - so . . . 

 

 

 

Quote

If you saw a guy pounding them back in the bar, then got on an airplane, then sat down - only to see that guy walk on, go into the cockpit and sit down, I don't think you'd be calm.  When you told the flight attendant, and she said "don't worry, sir, I am sure everything is fine" I think you'd make as much of a stink as you needed to to make sure it was dealt with.  You wouldn't sit back calmly thinking "well, I don't want to be an extreme alarmist; it will probably be fine.  I've done my duty and informed the appropriate person."  You might, in fact, be as loud and direct as you thought you needed to be to make sure someone was taking that threat seriously.  You might even get off the plane, even if the flight attendant told you to take your seat.

I deal with a lot of over exaggerated tempers, and inflated egos on a daily basis.  I have learned that the over dramatic response is more often than not, more damaging to the goal in mind.

In your scenario, I would still be calm.  It doesn't pay off to be hysterical.

Now . . . that doesn't mean that I didn't used to be that way.  I have been, and I probably will be again.  The difference is that I don't condone it.  I reflect on the actions, and try to make amends for my behavior, when I recognize it, or it's brought to my attention.

Going back to your scenario - I would first and foremost, deplane.  From there, I would, as you say, inform someone at the lower end of the chain of command.  If that was unsuccessful, I would still be calm and escalate to the next level of management.

 

 

 

Quote

I've had to deal with a canopy over the tail while I was organizing, and I rapidly switched the exit for a bailout.  I yelled "BAILOUT!" a lot.  When two people stopped to ask me something I physically tossed then out the door.  I am sure you would consider that to be extreme alarmism, and you could even claim that was unwarranted - since the parachute cleared in about 15 seconds with only minor damage to the tail.  But it seemed appropriate.  I suspect you would have done something similar, and would have been as loud/pushy as you needed to be to deal with the crisis.

That is a reaction to an imminent life threatening emergency situation that you can immediately affect.  Yes, I would have done something similar.  Apples and Oranges, but you know that.

 

 

Quote

To move this back to climate change, scientists and activists have been calmly telling people about the risks for decades.  It hasn't worked. 

>>>It hasn't worked as fast and as thoroughly as you would like.

And as a result, the earth is continuing to warm, and we are continuing to emit more and more CO2 every year.  This will lead to human suffering - loss of homes, increasing death tolls from wildfires, floods and storms and dwindling water supplies.  I can understand how activists are getting as loud as they need to be to deal with that.

>>>>That doesn't mean you do away with reason, and thought.

 

 

 

[turtlespeed 220]

30 minutes ago, jakee said:

Why are you so pathologically dishonest even when it is so easy to see through? You didn't just say "more truth" you said "a lot more truth". You know that any reasonable person making an honest attempt to understand what you said will think you believe that the thing which has "a lot more truth" has "a significant amount of truth".

 

It's not a problem with anyone else's feels making them think that, it's a problem with what you said. Take some damn responsibility for once.

Helping you understand words is not my job.

Perhaps you should look at what I write without prejudging, or supposition?

[jakee 1,489]

56 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Helping you understand words is not my job.

That's lucky, since you're evidently unqualified for the role.

Quote

Perhaps you should look at what I write without prejudging, or supposition?

Perhaps you should pay a lot more attention to reading properly as well as writing properly. This is exactly the point I just made. Without prejudging or supposition, people are going to assume that 'a lot' means 'a lot'. But you probably know this, since you had to selectively quote yourself to make it seem like you didn't say 'a lot'.

[billvon 2,991]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

It was no one specific by name.  I have heard it and seen it.  Headlines mostly.

OK no worries.

If you are going to fabricate quotes that sounds sorta like something someone said, perhaps you shouldn't be such a stickler about other people misquoting you and being off by a word?  Just a thought.

Quote

Going back to your scenario - I would first and foremost, deplane.

And your action would be labeled a hysterical overreaction by the pilot's friends, and they would speculate whether or not you could be arrested for disobeying a flight attendant's safety instructions.  Because the pilot is FINE and you're a clueless alarmist (according to them.)

Quote

That is a reaction to an imminent life threatening emergency situation that you can immediately affect.  Yes, I would have done something similar. 

 Yes.  And as wildfires, floods, heatwaves and droughts kill more people, more and more people are seeing climate change as a life threatening emergency that cannot be dealt with any other way.

[kallend 2,027]

10 hours ago, jakee said:

That's lucky, since you're evidently unqualified for the role.

Perhaps you should pay a lot more attention to reading properly as well as writing properly. This is exactly the point I just made. Without prejudging or supposition, people are going to assume that 'a lot' means 'a lot'. But you probably know this, since you had to selectively quote yourself to make it seem like you didn't say 'a lot'.

I think I'm a reasonable person.  If someone said to me "Trump's press conference  contained "a lot" more truth than previous  one, I still would not conclude that it was mostly truthful.  If he said it was raining I'd still look outside to check.

Edited March 7, 2020 by kallend

[turtlespeed 220]

18 hours ago, billvon said:

OK no worries.

If you are going to fabricate quotes that sounds sorta like something someone said, perhaps you shouldn't be such a stickler about other people misquoting you and being off by a word?  Just a thought.

And your action would be labeled a hysterical overreaction by the pilot's friends, and they would speculate whether or not you could be arrested for disobeying a flight attendant's safety instructions.  Because the pilot is FINE and you're a clueless alarmist (according to them.)

 Yes.  And as wildfires, floods, heatwaves and droughts kill more people, more and more people are seeing climate change as a life threatening emergency that cannot be dealt with any other way.

Then why are you not treating each and every individual situation similarly if its such an emergency?  Where is your similar reaction to throwing people out of a flying aircraft? 

Why are you are defending this, when you know its way over the top?

[kallend 2,027]

21 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

 I have heard it and seen it.  

 

"People are saying" . . . . .  a very Trumpian way of lying by proxy.

[JerryBaumchen 1,363]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

"People are saying" . . . . .  a very Trumpian way of lying by proxy.

Hi John,

Roy Cohn taught him well.

Jerry Baumchen

[billvon 2,991]

5 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Then why are you not treating each and every individual situation similarly if its such an emergency? 

?? What "individual situations" are you talking about?

[turtlespeed 220]

4 hours ago, kallend said:

"People are saying" . . . . .  a very Trumpian way of lying by proxy.

I gave examples . . . 

[turtlespeed 220]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

?? What "individual situations" are you talking about?

Anything to do with the climate emergency we have now.

 

[billvon 2,991]

2 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Anything to do with the climate emergency we have now.

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about.  The problem with the slow rollout of solar or EV's?  The problem converting the grid over to renewables?  The problem matching generation to load?   Or are you thinking of more general issues?

[turtlespeed 220]

18 hours ago, billvon said:

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about.  The problem with the slow rollout of solar or EV's?  The problem converting the grid over to renewables?  The problem matching generation to load?   Or are you thinking of more general issues?

Its all the same emergency.

Why so lackadaisical about it?  Why aren't you doing the equivalent of throwing people out of a moving aircraft?  Why are you typing instead of speaking through a loudspeaker? 

Why is there more of an urgency about the Corona Virus? 

[gowlerk 2,192]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

Why is there more of an urgency about the Corona Virus? 

I don't usually bother with correcting spelling or grammar here. I understand and I don't really care. But I'm tired of the non stop talk about this thing. It (corona virus) is not a proper noun.

[billvon 2,991]

37 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Its all the same emergency.

No, it's not.  There will be an increase in sea level, for example.  That will cause more frequent flooding.  Flooding is different from a wildfire.  (Trust me on this; I've experienced both.)

To use the aircraft analogy again, having a drunk pilot is different than a canopy over the tail, and that's different from an engine out.  (And an engine out during rotation is very different than an engine out at 3000 feet.)  All different things that require different responses, even if to a non-pilot they are "all the same emergency" because they have to do with an airplane.

Quote

Why is there more of an urgency about the Corona Virus? 

I don't know why you think it's more urgent.  As diseases go, you are far more likely to die of something else.  But if you want to feel that it's super urgent, and want to talk about it 24/7, be my guest.  The media agrees with you so you'd be in good company.