(03-28-2019 09:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 08:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 07:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 07:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 04:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'd like OO to explain why he chose New York and Miami as his two examples when there are countless other cities, towns, areas that will be affected by sea level rise.

I don't think OO thinks NYC and Miami will exclusively be affected, but I do think he grossly underestimates the number and types of people that will be affected. Sea level rise has the chance to effect significantly more people than just those that have beach front property. Heck, it has the chance to impact more than just those that have waterfront property or even live off water on barrier islands. So regardless of the exact cities he chose to reference, the remainder of his response, which only picks a fight with people who own beachfront property, indicates that he needs to do a bit more research on the issues of sea level rise due to climate change.

For example, sea level rise will exacerbate storm surge. Which means areas that shouldn't even have to think about the effects of sea level rise will now need to. The Houston Ship Channel is a prime example of an area that combines vital commercial assets with residential areas that will be made more vulnerable as sea levels rise. And those residential areas certainly aren't beach front properties that a bunch of rich people live in.

So the answer is that you dont like OO's position overall, know that OO doesnt mean two cities overall, yet choose to 'lecture' him over using two cities. And you choose to 'lecture' him over using two cities in the 'how dare you only mention two cities'-style of class and/or social distinction chastisement of 'this affects all walks of life' indignation. Do I have that straight?

Quote:And those residential areas certainly aren't beach front properties that a bunch of rich people live in.

I believe I do have that straight.

Good god, I do believe I have seen 'high water' (pun ) 'make everything is about class distinction' progressive reasoning and argument.

[Darth Vader mode on] The SJW is strong with this one [/Darth Vader mode].

If a SJW is someone who clearly states that climate change will have an adverse affect on both rich and poor - then call me a SJW all you want. I’ll definitely wear it with pride.

But I don’t understand - what about OO’s position don’t I like? Can you explain that to me?

The fact that you are combining your umbrage over climate change with an additional chance to spark umbrage over class distinction must make you 'extra special good' today.

Cmon man, I think that if you put your mind to it you could find a racial distinction avenue to add to it...... make it a trifecta.....

I would *pay* to see that turn come in this line..... lolz.

I am still chuckling that the moral preening of 'only two cities' (combined with the preaching of 'a bunch of rich people', to boot) found its way into your response.

My entire point was that OO was seemingly trying to make this an issue that only affected liberal elites. I wanted to make it clear that climate change will affect liberals, conservatives, rich, poor, black, white. It isn’t an issue that just two cities should care about.

I see you found another "only" I didn't say. You are blaming me for your misperception and lack of understanding.

Why did I choose those two? Came to mind first. I guess I could have chosen Kennebunkport, ME, and Cancun. Or Sydney and Anchorage. Or all of them. Then you would be upset and demanding to ask why I chose those six, and not others.

I was not saying poor people would be unaffected. I was saying that rich people with a lot at stake can get action from politicians where poor people cannot. when a six or seven figure donor calls, they listen. The people who own the facilities in ports are not poor.

You have to make a lot of assumptions to point the fingers at me that you are pointing. You have to assume that I do not know that sea levels will rise everywhere. How stupid you must consider me to think that. You have to assume I don't know that all sorts of people will be affected, from Aleuts in Alaska to people on StMaarten and in South Africa.. How ignorant you must think of me to assume i don't know that. You have to assume I don't know that affected people will range from the very poorest to the very richest. I think you are making these assumptions to create a straw man that you can argue against. I cannot believe you would think I don't know the behavior of water. So you have to invent somebody who doesn't understand the nature of water and doesn't know that not all people on the coast are rich. I guess you think I need custodial care. You just cannot keep from insulting me. Liberal use of the "only" vision you possess must help.