DISQUS Doodlings - Enviro can't even define the words he uses - Granite Grok

DISQUS Doodlings – Enviro can’t even define the words he uses

He says the next fifty years will see the enshrinement of sustainable food production practices into law. Opting for climate-friendly foods will go from being optional to mandatory, as “a greater awareness of how our eating habits impact the planet will, eventually, influence policy.”

It’s like when Bush 2 was President and the Iraq War as in process, the anti-war Liberals would scream “HALLIBURTON!!!!” as if everyone else outside of their little drum circles would understand what that was (re: anti-Capitalism, Anti-business, Anti-corporation, anti-Profit – and really boiled down to “we hate you because you won’t agree with us and do what we want you to!”).  All I knew was that in college I had bought a metal Halliburton briefcase (when briefcases were still a “thing”) to carry around all of my card decks, paper spools, and printouts. Now it’s all about SUSTAINABILITY!!!!

Over at Tree House (what else is new?), the topic was “50 years from now, what will be for dinner?” and how what we’ll all be eating because of “sustainability” will change everything. After all, we will all have to “evolve” our palettes to be vegan because it is more “sustainable” for Mother GAIA (see above quote).  And of course, there are those there that are always putting the GAIA pedal to the metal, taking on all those that disagree with them, and then unbeknownst to their awoke mind, go looking for the nearest Rhetorical Logic Cliff – and take a running leap into the Stupid Chasm below.  Matt was no exception.

Vindaloo Bugaboo (great DISQUS handle and thinks rationally – gives them all the willies at Treehouse all the time)- starts off by taking a direct shot at a fundamental premise of the article. He, like me, hates the idea that enviros immediately want Govt to force others to live as the Treehuggers demand that they do:

Opting for climate-friendly foods will go from being optional to mandatory

Hardly reasonable for a conclusion. What we grow and eat cannot be legislated into oblivion, especially when viewed through the lens of how such decisions impacts a global phenomenon. As the world ages and populations naturally decline, with the advent of robotics and AI technology to replace people, there’s zero reason to believe that sustainable practices will be made mandatory. How would this be utilized for nations without the natural resources or growing seasons to produce their own food? Such a claim is a joke.

A reasonable take, from my standpoint. And this is where enviro-EVERYTHING Matt decides to match wits with Vind. Bad, terrible decision – Vind rarely loses but Matt decides to “school Vind”.

Do you understand the concept of sustainable? Either we act sustainably, or we use all resources and die

Like I said – bad terrible decision and we decided to make his logical lapses shine quite brightly.  Halliburton!  Sustainably! – no difference whatsoever. Different time, different place – same mindset: how DARE you argue with me!  Live as I want you to be or YOU will be the cause of all of us to DIE!  Why are you that stupid?

And Vind went for the throat (he tolerates fools not much at all):

Do you know the definition of sustainable?

As I used to say in Sunday School, welcome to your next Object Lesson.And this is the entire point of this post – ALWAYS make your opponent actually define their words.  Words have meanings – specific meanings. Well, at least they used to – I’ve been saying for years that the Left continuously is trying to redefine our common language out from underneath us. While there are some on the Left (those “in charge”) that know exactly why this is happening (change the language, change the ideas, change the debate, change the outcome – all to a predetermined and desired endpoint), most do not.

Matt is not one of those in charge.  In fact, he hasn’t a clue.  And it is clear he doesn’t know what he doesn’t know for his definition was no definition at all – yet expected everyone to just accept his circular definition as the last word:

If something is not sustainable then it is doomed

Spoken like a true believer!  And “true believer” is the actual term – this is another “tell” of someone who has gone from a topic of discussion to entering church.  Faith – the ability to believe without knowing completely.

And this is where I stepped in – trying to shame him (yes, shame him) into realizing that that he’s falling for the Law of Gravity (emphasis mine here):

You’re right – your argument is doomed because you haven’t defined what sustainable actually is. Is it the same for all people for all ages and for all things? Does it take effect only on what one person says it should be given their interpretation? Does it mean only what one person or one group believe what the Earth’s “carrying” load is (again, another word, carrying, without a complete definition and context is just me using it as a talking point), or is it many? Does it take into account politics which can do both accelerate and decelerate its rate? How about transportation policy – and govts that use it against their own people (and we’re back to politics again)?

Define or lose the argument. Of course, the defining of such a thing is a rousing rhetorical argument with a quality all of its own.

And since I dared to challenge him, note the Purgatory that Matt threw me into – as a non-believer simply on the fact that I wanted him to define his definition (you should try it sometime – it really is quite instructive to watch them do this in real-time…and amusing):

Whatever sustainable means, it’s not for you.

Ah, since I don’t know the secret handshake (that which he doesn’t seem to know himself), I’m an Irredeemable and Deplorable. So I decided to do yet another poke:

And you really can’t make that claim, that sustainable…it’s not for you. You have no idea how I live my life, do you? While I do drive an F-150, I also have a Saab that gets 33-34 mpg. I also live in a passive solar house. People here know that because I have posted that info.

You just through threw out “whatever sustainable means, it’s not for you” because you really don’t have an answer nor a logical return to my question of “what is the definition?”. Which should tell you that “I’m not ready for a serious debate because I don’t have my ducks in a row be they facts, arguments, or definitions”.

So for your lack, you went ad hominem. Which which makes me (and Vindaloo) the default winners this round. Go to your bathroom mirror and repeat after me: I will do better next time, I will do better next time….

I actually had a good time writing that last sentence.  It actually should be true for all of us – do your homework and if you fail, try again.  Well, Matt decided on the latter without thinking how he was doing the former. Hole, shovel, human potential and kinetic energy:

sus·tain·a·ble
/səˈstānəb(ə)l/
adjective
1.
able to be maintained at a certain rate or level.
“sustainable fusion reactions”

Vindaloo pounced (the MSM keeps using that word when Conservatives answer back quickly: “pounce”.  I think it’s apt as with a cat playing with a mouse and then finally going in for the kill” – which Vind did seeing yet the next flaw in Matt’s woeful inability to carry on a debate):

In other words, “certain” is open to interpretation. Which is my point.

Matt takes offense but finally realizes that he’s been hoisted on his own petard – again.  Again, not defining what words mean and being subjected to us on the other side demanding that they must be defined.  Remember that – otherwise they get to “define” the terms of the debate.

Who are you Bill Barr? You are trying to get down in the mud and argue semantics? Certain means specific. So you are forming an argument against sustainability?

Yes, “certain” can mean “specific” but that specificity depends, yet again, on context and its own set of definitions which he fails to provide as “certain” can also be construed to be “known”.  And in this case, the numbers and boundaries in defining that “certain” certitude were missing.  As you can see that he starts to get the idea that semantics matter – and you reading this MUST learn this from this Object Lesson.  Debate IS about semantics – definitions define the boundaries of any debate and when either they go undefined or assumed (or worst, redefined without your knowledge), you will lose.  And I will laugh for you haven’t paid attention and the debate attenders will know it as well. I responded back to Matt:

Words have meanings and they must have SPECIFIC meanings and definitions to be of use. Else they are just talking points. As Vind points out, “certain” needs to be defined as WHAT rate – quantitative, qualitative, acceleration, deceleration, et al. Using it in this context, in the way you tried, means nothing.

It’s like “bipartisanship” in politics – it means rather nothing.

Well, bipartisanship does have a “street” meaning – it usually means that Republicans want to be liked by the opposition who, mostly, can’t stand them ideologically.  However, for what ever stupid reason, the Rs haven’t learned that reaching across the aisle generally means getting your political arms and legs chopped off at sometime in the future (sooner rather than later) and more often, your Principles get chopped away as well – and for what?

At some point, the dim bulb begins to glow and another true believe, Harry, becomes Admiral Ackbar:

Matt, run! It’s a trap.

Silly Harry – it was Matt’s own trap into which he stepped. And Matt finally stopped talking – virtually waving the white flag. And this is how you win – a deliberate methodology to make them define their terms to which you can then correct them when they vary from established norms.  Like how “gay” went from meaning “happy” to meaning homosexual and how “access” in the contraceptive debate went from “I have access to buy it for myself” to “YOU will buy it for me so access now means ‘free for ME’!”.