[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Zoupa]

I said nothing about green/leftist policies. I said the blame should fall on individual choices.

Indeed, which is why I said

I'm not sure why you decided to change the subject.

I said the blame should fall on individual choices.

Cool. Jacob has expanded on that subject in previous posts. You can discuss that with him if you'd like.

[Bauer]

There should be more holistic discussion on climate change and energy transition.  It's always been a long game in my opinion, and yeah I agree taking ideological positions only hurts matters.  Ie excessive protest against oil and gas.

I used to believe in the carbon tax but time has proven it to be quite ineffective.  I think it would be better and more reasonable to encourage adoption of better technologies over time.  For example I bought my house with a natural gas furnace.  If i bought my house a few years later it likely would have had a heat pump. When the furnace gets old I'll install a heat pump, maybe sooner actually for the cooling capacity... but the point being Should I be taxed for that?  That would be a bad policy , instead we can simply encourage or require heat pumps on new builds and replacements.... Over time adoption will occur.

[Admiral Yi]

I said nothing about green/leftist policies. I said the blame should fall on individual choices.

Indeed, which is why I said

I'm not sure why you decided to change the subject.

I said the blame should fall on individual choices.

I don't think I changed the subject.  The subject you raised was who should be blamed.  I disagreed with you.

[Razgovory]

I think this is a conflict between symbolic actions that might effect a change, vs small concrete actions.  Jake is correct that Americans drive big SUVs that don't help the environment, but symbolic actions such as going to protests, or posting on Reddit (or Languish) haven't had much affect in changing things in the US either.  And honestly, you may get people to turn out for protests against an ideological enemy, those same people may balk if asked to support a law that is personally detrimental to them.  I think this particularly true of fashionable causes where false preference may play a roll.

If you applied this thinking to other issues it might seem ludicrous.  Imagine if someone claimed to be an abolitionist but owned slaves or a person refusing to bail out a sinking ship because they would prefer more robust ship building regulations.

[Zoupa]

I said nothing about green/leftist policies. I said the blame should fall on individual choices.

Indeed, which is why I said

I'm not sure why you decided to change the subject.

I said the blame should fall on individual choices.

I don't think I changed the subject.  The subject you raised was who should be blamed.  I disagreed with you.

You disagreed with me on who should be blamed. But then again

What difference does it make who you blame it on?

[Admiral Yi]

You disagreed with me on who should be blamed. But then again

What difference does it make who you blame it on?

That's the same subject.  You blame group X, I'm asking what's the significance of blaming X.  For example, do the policies we pursue depend on whom we blame?  You and Jake both responded with telling the truth.  OK.

[Zoupa]

You're moving the goalposts.

[Admiral Yi]

Please tell me where I originally set the goalposts and where I moved them to.

[Zoupa]

See above.

[Admiral Yi]

See what?  I asked what difference it makes.  There's no goalposts.  I disagreed with whom you blame.  There's no goalposts.

[Zoupa]

Ok.

[garbon]

Even if all of us on Languish suddenly ceased to exist, it wouldn't make a measurable difference.