Quote:
Originally Posted by Lipripper92592
Alright, one more time! Maybe/surely I was naïve in expecting a conversation/debate on the NOAA proposal. I have no FB or twitter, or any other of those social media accounts, so I was unaware of that fact that you cannot debate on the old interweb. I assumed that a few people could participate in a debate on issues that the public might have varying opinions on.
My coworker, who I carpool with over an hour a day; have very different opinions than I. I have a rather conservative background, he a rather liberal background, but our conversations/debates are very fruitful. His points of views are generally ones I would never even think or very much consider. But his information is valuable, because it helps me understand the thought process and understanding the process, sometimes gives us a better picture of the outcome. Because a person has a different opinion on the volume of fish caught, does that make him any less of a person? Not in my book.
If he thinks the climate is warming up "1000" times faster than any time in the past. Well everyone is entitled to their opinion. I won't think less of you.
Won't I don't understand, and this is 100% honest, is why people would attempt to shut this conversation down by smearing an author, or comparing statements/facts being well supported or not to hyperbole.
I had always wondered why politician did not argue "facts"....now I know why. The general public wants entertainment not education.
|
Can't agree more bro. I've realized that some people you can have an intellectual debate based on facts, but most people just have their opinion and won't listen to facts either way. Most people voted for Obama because they're racist, and most will vote for Hillary because their feminist..........I mean sexist.
Debating with facts, to either liberals and even sometimes conservatives is almost pointless. People are motivated by emotions, and the media, politicians, lobbyists and many people in those type fields are great at playing to people's emotions.
In my opinion, global warming is BS, and I'm basing this opinion on facts stated by scientists across the globe that appeared on documentaries such as "The great global swindle". I believe politicians like AL Gore put out documentaries such as "Inconvenient Truth" to achieve political gain, through environmental type taxes. They've been pushing for this carbon tax for some time now.
As for the tuna limit, I'll be happy to get two fish, so I'm not too concerned on not getting 10. We still can get 10 yt and 10 yft right? I'm good with that!
I know a lot of people get mad about the commercial guys, and they're probably struggling to make a dollar. Who do I blame? The Federal Reserve! What, why would I blame a bank for our fishing regulations, that's absurd right? Well, think about it this way........
If they didn't devalue our dollar by 98% since the inception of the Fed, than commercial guys wouldn't be struggling, wouldn't over fish or push for nets, and wouldn't damage our fisheries.
You can't just look at the surface and say sardines crashed from 790,000 tons on 1936 to 100 tons in 1970. Those numbers might be misleading if half the commercial fishermen left the industry due to decreasing profit margins. Who knows? I'm sure there's many reasons, but the enviros will sure as shit try to ban all fishing just using little stats like that. Just like the hedonistic methods of the Bureau of Labor of Statistics, the CPI, measured inflation and others. They misrepresent numbers to achieve political goals.
I'd gladly debate with you sometime bro. I'm socially liberal, fiscally conservative, and love to fish! See you on the water!
