Messages

guacamole or no

I have, but only cold tea (unsweetened)

never have I ever been to popeye's

Discord Nickname: Wally
Have you ever been staff on a SFT server before? If yes, which and what rank?: Yep yep, Survival EventHost
Most uptime gathered on a single server: almost 2500 on Surv
Why you wish to be discord staff: I have some free time in summer, I'm usually a pretty playful person in-game or on discord but I won't be afraid to take action.

I think we should break up, idk if we can make it work with you being gone and all.

don't want cooties

kill me

This has, however, not gone without warning. Several mayors to several cities have formed a new group targeted for the goals of the Paris Accords. Look at this sexiness:
https://gyazo.com/074f884b7f308e5187926138c9959040
https://gyazo.com/fd7de6c05cd69ac42719157ba5a6cec1
https://gyazo.com/36dfb95bf4dc8f8d5473f44c76d8173b

This is what I was saying I was against, blindly following Trump just because he is the president. You should treat his title with respect, but you don't have to agree with or follow everything he says - that is foolish. You can support someone and disagree with them.

Climate change is not a hoax. Who has a bigger tendency to lie and act rashly, scientists or politicians?
There are SO many things that point that it is real
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Is NASA lying to you? There's a list of references at the bottom. This one has a list of reasons why it's real.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html#.WTXjLBPyv-Y
This one talks about how humans are the major cause of global warming. Notice what "UCSUSA" means when you click on it.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/global-warming-real/
From National Geographic, a widely respected source. This one breaks it down further

So are you going to trust people that put their lives towards this research, or are you going to trust politicians who are trusting their guts? Are you going to follow one of the people standing in the way of the betterment of our planet, or are you going to at least admit that there's something to be fixed?

I encourage you believe what you want and have faith in whatever religious values you exhibit, but if there are facts presented to you, it's ridiculous to ignore them. To call them a "hoax". What if Hillary was up there right now saying that she doesn't believe in climate change? How would Republicans react? I'm not trying to compare Trump and Hillary (please don't take this back to the election), but you are only saying this because this is what Trump says.

Care about what you want to care about - if you want your heart into stopping or learning about domestic terrorism, do it. This applies to anything political. My choice is in environmental changes. You don't have to put your heart into something like this, just be aware. If it can lead to destructive, terrible things, just be aware of what's going on. You don't have to do something about it, just don't be one of the people standing in the way. Don't live in the dark.

trump is great, climate change is not real, have a good day folks.

What's the point of this? If we're having a civilized discussion about the practicality of this, what's the purpose of coming in and saying "this is the truth, and that is that." This is exactly what we are debating...

 

How could you not care about climate change?

Simple: I am allowed to believe in what I believe in. Climate change is something that I don't believe is that large of an issue, sure I believe in the ice caps melting is a TERRIBLE thing, I just don't really see a reason to try and stop it, as at this point it has been researched -- TREES CAN NO LONGER SAVE EARTH FROM THE RISING C02 LEVELS --. So why even bother for making an invention that can do better than something God has made (trees).

I completely believe you are allowed to believe what you want, that's what America is/should be about. I don't know what to say other than it is a big deal, there is proof that it is a big deal. I won't get into the tie of religion into this, but shouldn't it seem like if god gave us the tools, the smarts, and the people to fix our problem (or at least try), we should follow that? Going "welp, we have trees, and they aren't enough, so we should see what happens, no point in doing something else" is incredibly flawed (in my opinion, of course). I don't get the logistics behind this.

That is the most powerful man in the world you are talking about.
Congress decided that he is the best fit for the job, and in that case at least better than Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. Donald Trump is NOT a flawed man. He, like everyone else have done bad things. We are all humans after all.

What? He's not flawed, but he is flawed? You say he isn't flawed, then one sentence later you say he has done bad things. I wasn't referencing him as a whole or his policies (I want to keep this about environment/the Paris Accords), but he IS human (like you said) and IS flawed. I personally think this decision is a flawed decision, and you do not. That is why we are debating.

Four years is a pretty large amount of time, a lot can change in that time span.

It is, but it is only a fifth of this crucial timespan. If he doesn't do anything, which he could easily not do (or do little), an entire fifth of the time for the U.S to step up would/could be lost. That's why it's a huge issue, like you said.

 

President Trump stated very clearly he would be open to other ways to save the earth, just not this specific plan.

Let's hope he does. I really really hope he does, but if he doesn't, we're going to have a lot of work to do.

Here is the clinch: they will be put under pressure later. Later is a big word.  And I did not elect Trump as a world leader. I elected him as President of the United States to do what is best for the United States. Being a world leader is second to that.

Trump did not say he was against bringing up measures to combat it. He said these terms that were in the Paris Climate Accords were unacceptable. That was my only point.


There are many ways to skin a cat, not all include skinning the U.S.

1: How likely is Trump to "bring up" ways to combat it? So far he has ignored scientific specialists pointing out the truth to him, he's been sort of against the whole truth of climate change from the start.

2. Later is a big word, but the prediction is 20 years is the margin that the climate will be irreversible. That's why it's urgent. So later HAS to be within that margin, which isn't a long time, really.

3. Yes, his first priority should be America, but America is one of those many countries that lives on the planet. Why not stay in the accord and not fulfill the things he sees as unfair? It's not a law, we won't be penalized, it's an agreement. It's literally a bunch of countries getting together, going "hey let's save the planet!" and agreeing.

I think you're in the right about a lot of things here, and I find myself agreeing with you on several points. But how likely is Trump or the Trump administration to try to combat this (unlike it's an issue that slaps him in the face)? Even then, will he combat it correctly? Will he finally listen to scientists, people who know what they're talking about, will he do it full heartedly? It's a lot of what-ifs based on Trump's competence, something that arguably hasn't been presenting itself that well.

I will do the TL:DR section first. Trump's point was not about climate change. I don't remember him even addressing it as its own topic. He said the Paris Climate Accord agreement is biased against the U.S. and he will not tolerate it. However, he is willing to open up negotiations that is fair for everyone to solve it. (Paraphrase)

I know he didn't address the climate - that's the problem. He is far too concerned about the potential (although not very logical) idea of job loss. He isn't assuming the leader of a world leader like he should. It is biased against the U.S - China and India don't have to do nearly as much as us in the early stages. There is absolutely no argument that can disprove this, it's in text. However, the argument of "How come *they* don't have to do it?" is very immature. Also, as the United States, people look to us in what we do and how we react (even though a lot of time these "reactions" are questionable), we get a lot of attention as a country. If we were to follow the accord with every other country included (except Nicaragua and Syria), other big-name polluters like China, India, and some European countries would follow or at least have some sort of template to revise. Just because we were first doesn't mean we were the only ones to be put under this pressure. There are meetings every 5 years, there would definitely be more pressure on these countries as time went on. We were simply the first to be put under this pressure, and we reacted awfully to it.

How could you not care about climate change? If we continue at our current rate, ice caps will melt. If the land ice caps melt, more water goes into the ocean, and guess what? That would be catastrophic. Even a 2 foot rise in the ocean level would easily lead to millions, if not billions, dollars of damage to coastal cities (This includes Trump's hometown of New York). Millions of people would have to relocate, which would cost even more money. Also, do you think destroying the 1st and 2nd largest cities (Tokyo first, New York Metro second) are going to be good for jobs? Occupation loss was one of the few formidable concepts that Trump used to defend his withdrawal. I only focused on land ice caps because those would be the most destructive to melt.

The Paris Accord, although it wouldn't have accomplished that much, was a huge leap forward. The idea of getting every single country around the world to contribute to the global issue of climate change was nothing that was ever done. However, the United States, lead by President Trump (who executively made the decision without much consent from those with proof of climate change)is now 1 of 3 countries to reject the accord. Again, the second largest polluter of the Earth by carbon emissions will not be contributing (At least not on a political/national standpoint. This issue has led to people, businesses, and small city or state governments reacting strongly) to a worldwide problem. This withdrawal is a terrible idea. I won't blame you for liking Trump, but I will call someone out for blindly following Trump without researching or thinking for themselves. He's a flawed man.

I find it utterly ridiculous, what President Trump and his backers did. I won't go off about how idiotic he is acting like others do, but I really do think it was an awful idea to pull out.

True! 4 now and I can't drive yet

the person below me has gone out of their country more than 3 times

yeah if it's a popularity contest, "player of the month" sounds like "hey you're the best player we could find this month, here's a reward". Well, you can be popular and not be a good player, right?

nevermind can I switch to @Paul_Weebird

XZ_Slaughter

[attach]Quote from: DarthAxonaxirah on May 24, 2017, 06:03 PM[/attach]

[attach]Quote from: TeraStorm on May 24, 2017, 05:15 PM[/attach]

[attach]Quote from: American_Walrus on May 24, 2017, 04:58 PM[/attach]

Is this any extra cost to me?

yes I believe so

[attach]Quote from: Towelie on May 24, 2017, 02:30 PM[/attach]

AT NO EXTRA COST TO YOU!.

[attach]@American_Walrus[/attach]

omg

Is this any extra cost to me?

yes I believe so

AT NO EXTRA COST TO YOU!.

@American_Walrus

yeah I read that part but idk if I have to pay more for this or not

Is this any extra cost to me?

Marvel always. The "American" in my name comes from Captain America, not being patriotic. My skin is a walrus in a cap america suit, even though my favorite is spiderman any day. Marvel were pretty much the first to get "behind the mask" and look beyond a superhero being a superhero. Peter Parker was a teenage kid trying to battle family struggles, school, hiding his identity, and fighting crime. Steve Rogers was a man who tries to readjust to the new world - not just a man in a costume. Also, they have bomb ass movies despite half of their main characters being owned by Fox or Disney. They pulled a Guardians of the Galaxy movie (2 now) out of their asses, and sold it like CRAZY. GotG was something very few people had heard of. All of their movies are leading to one giant plot: the infinity wars. Also, TV shows. Daredevil, Luke Cage, Jessica Jones, Iron Fist, all great shows leading to the Defenders.

The main arguments for DC are Batman and Superman. Superman is basically invincible (excluding kryptonite) and any attempt to make him seem more mortal than man looks forced because of his invincible background. Batman is very hit or miss - when you only focus on his personality where he's like "woe is me, my parents are dead", he sucks ass. But when you look at the portion of him where he's smug but caring, tutoring young people to become prodigies to himself, then he's pretty cool. Flash also, I really like Flash. But these things aren't nearly enough to go against Marvel for me, Marvel has a special place in my heart, and the "Well we have batman" argument isn't enough to win me over.

Marvel forever

Never, my family knows how to fix stuff.

Never have I ever been to somewhere out of north america

I just want to say, think before you do eventhost. 25 events a week seems easy, and it should be, but as soon as you start to slack, you are burdening everyone else. Other event hosts will have to pick up the events you don't do. Everyone else will experience a.) less events and b.) less diversity in events. Seriously, this isn't a 100% screw around rank, and not everyone is cut out for it. Don't be lazy.

holy shit people actually have 2000+hrs on a minecraft server    impressive

Products of non-vacationing summers

From the creator of cards against humanity ...

Yeah, but it's not like anything confidential or worth seeing wouldn't be covered up :/