Even if you believe in AGW, doesn't the phrase "they just don't want to change their lifestyles" scare you?

Question

When people start talking about how others will have to change their lifestyles, or how it's a government function to limit people's lifestyles, or how seeking to preserve one's chosen lifestyle is a bad or illegitimate motive....

...does that scare you in the least?

Does that sentiment, that language, that idea give you any pause whatsoever?

Do you recognize ANY resemblance to the far-right seeking to impose what they define as a "Christian" lifestyle upon everyone else?

Don't homosexuals opposing anti-sodomy laws or seeking the right to marry each other take these political positions because "they just don't want to change their lifestyles?"

Does anyone consider that to be a selfish or illegitimate motive?

They want to have s*x and engage in relationships a certain way; I want to go live and work where I want. We each want to preserve our lifestyle that we have worked hard to be able to afford.

Why is that selfish? In America, why is it your business?

Answer 1

No, it doesn't give me pause because I don't interpret the phrase the same way you do.

When I say "they deny AGW because they don't want to change their lifestyles", I mean deniers don't want to pay a carbon tax or drive a small fuel efficient car, for example.  I'm not talking about taking away your 'freedoms', I'm talking about making a minor lifestyle change to live in a more efficient and less environmentally damaging way.

The only role the government will play in this is to regulate CO2 emissions.  This will cause the price of gas to increase, for example.  This will cause people's lifestyles to change, but it's not like the government is going to go to your house and impound your SUV.

*edit* The people elect the government, so the people will decide what measures are appropriate.  Don't forget, we live in a democracy.

Answer 2

<<Please note, I do not intend this to be a rant - - - I REALLY WANT TO HEAR from AGW proponents>>

then you will, of course, give 'best answer' to the AGW proponent who best defends the position.  somehow, i just can't wait.  so:

<<When people start talking about how others will have to change their lifestyles, or how it's a government function to limit people's lifestyles, or how seeking to preserve one's chosen lifestyle is a bad or illegitimate motive does that scare you in the least?>>

scare is not the correct word.  is it a concern?  it can be.  suppose the government tells industry that they cannot dump dioxins in the river from which people down stream draw drinking water.  does that scare you?  or me?  not me.  other than, oh my, how long has this been going on, and how much longer would it have to go on to kill me?  (kind'a sounds similar doesn't it.)

or suppose you were a slave owner, and someone told you you had to change your life style, and all those slaves that you paid for were no longer your property.  would that concern you?  sure did quite a number of folks.  is it still a concern?

<<Do you recognize ANY resemblance to the far-right seeking to impose what they define as a "Christian" lifestyle upon everyone else?>>

you do recognize the difference, we hope.  sort'a like comparing evolution and creationism.  in the case at hand, global warming is on the evolution side of the issue.

<<Don't homosexuals opposing anti-sodomy laws or seeking the right to marry each other take these political positions because "they just don't want to change their lifestyles?">>

sure do.  are you going to argue that their practice is going to foul your food or air or water or lifestyle?  in what way please?  i mean, is the thought of it going to ruin your day?  maybe it's your thinking that's the problem.

<<They want to have s*x and engage in relationships a certain way; I want to go live and work where I want. We each want to preserve our lifestyle that we have worked hard to be able to afford.>>

you're most welcome to live and work where you want.  you're just not welcome to dump dioxin in my drinking water, or deprive me of the rain i need to grow my food.  which is what you're trying to do.  keep in mind, the American southwest has been in a drought for 10-20 years.  it's quite possible that that condition will spread in the not to distant future.

<<What's your standard for government intruding upon individual liberty?>>

YOUR RIGHT TO SWING YOUR FIST ENDS WHERE MY NOSE BEGINS.  your right to mess up the environment ends where other folks food grows.

<<Do you think it really needs to be certain that the activity causes a material harm before it's any of the government's business, but you're convinced that it's certain? ...Or do you think that it should be the rare exception, employed only when there's an emergency, which you believe AGW to be?>>

in fact, all of the honest science indicates there is a problem.

people that hadn't died were chased out of Love Canal.

Bob and Dana and Remo, and i and others have posted good evidence that there's a problem.  in response, we get things like, "i don't believe it -- make me believe it -- exxon says it's not true -- Richard Lindzen says it's not true."

get over it,  it's true.

we've come to the point where my nose starts.

your right to swing your fist, or add more CO2 to the atmosphere must stop.

EDIT:  <<Surely even if you believe in AGW you don't think it's as cut and dried as dumping poison into a river?>>

see the Darfur links.  for 300,000 people now, it surely is as cut and dried as dumping poison into the river.

<<Ah..... so by that logic, g*y marriage bans are Ok?  What about in the South in the 1960s when the law, established by popularly elected legislatures, forbade interracial marriage?  That was Ok because the majority agreed on that?>>

huh?  what did i say that you turned into that twisted logic?

<<linlyons that is crazy, - I have no power to deprive you of rain.  You are confusing me with Zeus.>>

no.  maybe i'm confusing you of being someone who claims that dumping all that CO2 into the atmosphere is not causing any harm at all to the climate.  (again, see the link.  and the rain reference therein.)

<<But lin the examples you gave involve no question of proof - and the slavery example doesn't apply - it's one in which someone is doing harm to another, and the government steps in to protect liberty.>>

you'll excuse me, read the link.  clearly your excessive CO2 generation has created a serious problem for those folks.  they've been herded into an area where they can be killed at will.  just as if they were slaves.  and your contention is spot on, it time that the  "the government steps in to protect liberty".  for everyone.

Answer 3

Boy, that Dana dude sure is one scary Marxist.

He thinks it's the government's job to tell us what car to drive, what food to eat, what our thermostats are set at and on and on.  Maybe when to take a c**p even.  I know he'd agree with Cheryl Crow that we should only use one square of toilet paper in order to "save the planet."

How did people grow up in this country with such Marxist ideals?  Are the high schools really teaching socialism instead of American history?  Is that how they get so brain-washed and indoctrinated?  Almost like robots with no ability for any free thoughts.

That's scary to me.

Answer 4

could you repeat the question?

Answer 5

there is no need to change