I recently had a short debate with a person about the Green movement with unsuspected results. I will explain in this blog.
It all started off discussing gas and electric cars. We were in a very rural area and the person volunteered that this would not be a very good place for electric cars. I thought that if they had doughs about electric cars that they might respond to my arguments in a short debate. I was wrong.
I picked up on the point of inconvenience and then went on to the fundamental objective, but they would not come off of their point that the electric car produced less carbon dioxide. I tried to stress that the real objective was to improve or maintain the "Quality of Life" for the average citizen. I thought that it would be easy to get them to go beyond just looking at carbon dioxide produced by the car, but I was wrong again.
I tried to show that poor people produce less carbon dioxide than richer people, but that did not work either. I next tried to show that as the :Quality of Life" increases, so does the generation of carbon dioxide. I went on to argue that just increasing world population is the main reason that we have more carbon dioxide in the air and that if we had fewer people, we would have less carbon dioxide.
No matter how I tried to advance the discussion to the "Quality of Life". I got no where with this person. I have concluded that liberals have a very limited view of things and can not see their actions in a larger context. It is just one more reason that they see a law against owning guns as a solution to murders. They do not see that laws against bank robbery have not eliminated bank robberies.
The next time you have a discussion with a liberal, see if they do not act this same way when you try to expand their views so that they can see the long term impact and that their short term view might just be the wrong thing to support.
