So you refuse to accept the indoctrination about global warming and to willingly live as a caveman while those preaching their new religion live in mansions with $20k/month electric bills, jet set around the world and dine on lobster and choice steak. Well then, here:
Climate Alarmist Calls For Burning Down Skeptics’ Homes
Writing for Forbes Magazine, climate change alarmist Steve Zwick calls for skeptics of man-made global warming to be tracked, hunted down and have their homes burned to the ground, yet another shocking illustration of how eco-fascism is rife within the environmentalist lobby.
But not to worry, this is only how it always starts. It goes down hill from here if you don’t stop them early (which in the case of this global warming thing was about 4+ years ago).
FFS. Would you care to quote what he ACTUALLY said:
“We know who the active denialists are – not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies. Let’s start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let’s make them pay. Let’s let their houses burn until the innocent are rescued. Let’s swap their safe land for submerged islands. Let’s force them to bear the cost of rising food prices.
They broke the climate. Why should the rest of us have to pay for it?”
A bit sensationalist I’ll admit. But basically a “put up or shut up”…are you willing to put your money where your mouth is statement.
“A bit sensationalist I’ll admit. But basically a “put up or shut up”…are you willing to put your money where your mouth is statement.”
So drugsandotherthings (btw … love the name. It’s inspiring),
How do you “put up or shut up”? Just curious.
I am looking forward to them coming down the road to burn my house. My AR-15 and 3,000 rounds of ammo says they will not be able to accomplish the task
.
Truth please.The caption is wrong. The guy may be goofy but he said nothing in his article about hunting down anyone or burning down anyone’s home.
Isn’t it though, just by another name:
If these words had come out of the mouth of a Republican/conservative about some issue they hold dear, the headlines would be even more sensational – and in a case like this – rightly so, because this is essentially what is being advocated.
Those who keep insisting that the words expressing an idea of sentiment must be a match for what is claimed – word for word – are committing a fallacy – and a fallacy they often tend to ignore when the shoe is on the other foot.
No, in this case – where fact has given way to what is now a religion – I accept the assertion that the global warming crowd would have the homes of those they deem deniers burned. It goes hand-in-hand with the mentality of those who seek to control others, as these people do.
The truth is never a fallacy. That’s a fact so obvious that I doubt any Founding Father would have thought it necessary to write it down.
And do take note that comment #2 above shows your falsehood has one person ready to shoot imagined arsonists coming down his road. Would you have a role in that if he happens to be nuts enough to do it?
If I say hey, it’s a REALLY sunny day outside and someone else later writes “B3A says sun very bright today,” it IS a fallacy for you to come along and claim I never said that the sun was bright.
The intent in this piece is painfully clear: there ARE those in the global warming community who DO believe people who do not agree with them should be harmed in effort to “force” compliance.
The actual lesson here is this: the logical extension of what you say IS a valid thing for others to attack, and the logical extension of the words quoted in this piece DO justify the title.
Your example of bright day vs sunny day is childishly immature.
That silly guy whose words you lied about gave a silly analogy of people not paying for mandatory fire insurance and then fire departments not responding when a home fire actually occurred, using the example of what did happen in TN. His whimsy was that if environmental disaster does occur, THEN, if properties flood, burn, or whatever from those natural causes, to remember those who facilitated that calamity and make them the last ones helped. That isn’t all that different from Ron Paul’s words about those who ignore health insurance needs and then get a major disease.
But you claimed that he called for tracking and hunting down climate skeptics and burning their homes. That is no “logical extension”, and I doubt you are so stupid as to believe so.
My kids easily understand that. But you’re a grown man. So something is badly wrong with your mental processes or your personal honesty. You really ought to speak with someone about your problem.
Given the REAL reaches the left is prone to make in trying to shove words in their opponents mouths, this is a short hop, and YES, he DOES say he want’s “deniers” to lose their homes and their land:
“We know who the active denialists are – not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies. Let’s start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let’s make them pay. Let’s let their houses burn. Let’s swap their safe land for submerged islands. Let’s force them to bear the cost of rising food prices,” writes Zwick, adding, “They broke the climate. Why should the rest of us have to pay for it?”
So you may not like it, but this IS what this wack-job was advocating. Hiding behind the notion that he wants to “let” this happen when the climate causes it is just camo – especially since the sun is not going to set anyone’s house on fire.