Sometimes the hypocrisy is more than I can stomach.

the actual socio-economic parameters are very complicated.
and that is what I was implying.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which two completely opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not.

My OP wasn't a false equivalence fallacy. It was simply pointing out hypocrisy. So was the post with the filthy house. Surprised you couldn't see that . . .

There are no "socio-economic parameters" on hypocrisy. The irony is that people congregating in cities produce the most pollution yet they want to impose their grandiose and impractical views on the rest of us.

Non-economists shouldn't lecture economists on economics.
Non-CEOs shouldn't lecture CEOs on how to be a CEO.
Childless people shouldn't lecture those of us with children on raising a child.
Unmarried people shouldn't lecture married people on marriage.
Those with no experience, training, or education in [insert field] shouldn't lecture bonafide experts in [insert field] on [field].

Dunning Kruger ... a cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is.

Charles Darwin summed it up best: Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.

The problem today is that we have just enough information available via web searches to make almost anyone believe they're more informed, educated, or in-the-know than someone who has a Phd in a field, or has decades of experience solving problems in a certain field. These "google experts" swoop in, make a few snide comments that does little more than show off their keyboarding skills, then go on about their day making lattes, walking dogs, and arguing with their mom's about how much of a mess they've made in the basement.

I stand by my assertion: those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Person arguing makes a well thought out and researched argument. Person arguing replies with "whatever"

But I wasn't arguing.

No but I was pointing out something

https://www.bobvila.com/slideshow/these-are-the-places-with-the-worst-tap-water-in-america-52263#houston-texas

Some dumbass was bound to say it, and that dumbass is me.

LOL, define "modern"
I can assure you there are no buy-bulls and no Roman torture devices however ... ;)

Is the Pony Express still a thing there, because that is some choice pasture....

Oh no he dih-n't!

Perhaps of we could just focus on sustainability, rather than trying to screech everything to a halt at once, it'd be fine.

Maybe we wouldn’t be so aggressive if people listened in the 1st place when we weren’t so aggressive

True. We need to be assertive, rather than passive-aggressive. The more we can get done, the better off we'll be.

I can agree w/ that.

BobParker, I agree completely with you. Unfortunately, as the trolls here have so vehemently demonstrated, they will always pretend that big city living is superior and that urbanites are smarter than people who live in the countryside. But to be frank I'm just as happy they keep thinking that, and keep their egos in their ugly cities anyway.

See laonsite above for the perfect example of group think in the big city. He also claims that New Yorkers know more that anyone else. LOL.

Water pollution in corporate agribusiness is a major problem.

Of course, it doesn't show in your top photo. But that's the water I have to drink in the city. So. Yeah.

And someone who has lived in a concrete jungle their whole lives knows how to fix that.

Got it.

That’ll show ‘em

I find cattle a comforting smell..

Same, but not everyone does.

Yes... and marriage can be quite challenging for that very reason...

That which is presented without evidence, and can be dismissed without evidence.

It has nothing to do with my education, it has to do with the stupid Left’s hypocrisy. It’s your personal blind spot.

Lots of evidence. Just because you dont bother to look does not mean it does not exist.

Once again, you don't see the hypocrisy. It's obviously your personal blind spot.

There is nothing to miss, there is no hypocrisy, the folks in NY know more and care just as much if not more about pollution than folks polluting the land with chemicals they know nothing about. Hypocrisy is calling someone else out for something they support themselves, like trump calling someone a liar or a fraud.

You’re really bad at this. Usually trolls just come off as annoying but you come off as either brain dead or ignorant.

Hypocrisy is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another such as polluting your own city and then telling me not to drive my truck because it uses fossil fuels.

And the folks in NY aren’t blessed with secret special environmental knowledge even though you claim they are. That’s yet another blind spot of yours. But hey, group think in the big city is your forte.

Cute. You’ve read the book “How to Lie with Statistics.” Give me the stats on total pollutants, total environmental disasters, total trash generated, total air pollution generated, total carbon footprint, etc etc etc.
You think you’re a genius because you can divide by the total population even though the impact is what’s important. You really really need read more ... and not sites that match your preconceived bias. Your lack of education is showing.

True, the left is fairly hypocritical sometimes. I can most certainly admit to that. However, that doesn't mean that people who are hypocritical don't want things to change. I'm leftist. Always have been. I live in the suburbs, and don't always consider every detail about my environmental impact. Yet, I try, and the attempt is what matters. I've made an effort to recycle when possible, and try to make sure people know the gravity of what's going on. Whenever I smell burning gasoline, I wince, when I throw away a plastic item, I cringe. Every time I see a fossil fuel plant, I roll my eyes. I may be a hypocrite at times, but that doesn't mean that I want things to continue. As a matter of fact, there are plenty of ways to gradually reduce environmental impact, with little to no impact on the average person's comfort and life.

I can get behind your sentiment 90%. The right is more than fairly hypocritical most of the time (and I'm a conservative). An attempt isn't really what matters. Results are what matters. An attempt to replace the brakes on your car or an attempt to remove a brain tumor just doesn't cut it. What matters are tangible results resulting from a realistic approach that makes sense for everyone involved.

I think Patrick Moore said it best, "Imagine no fuel for cars, trucks, tractors, combines, harvesters, power-plants, ships, aircraft, etc. Transport of people & goods would grind to a halt."

We can't suddenly stop everything we're currently doing but we can begin to place emphasis on cleaning up our crap, attempting to make less of it to have to clean up in the future, and seeking out ways to generate energy without producing crap.

The issue will be China, India, Africa, and other emerging economies that want success without having to worry about environmental issues. We can't control that and when we have one billion Indians, 2 billion Chinese, and one billion Africans wanting to live like the US, the amount of pollution we created over our last 120 years will be just a drop in the bucket.

The solution isn't cold turkey like some freshmen in Congress think. It will be a long process. A very, very long process. More than that mythical 12 years.

I agree. The best we can do is try to create technologies that are approximately as convenient, but more environmentally friendly than the original. In the long run, it'll be incredibly beneficial, but that's going to take some time: a concept many people don't understand. It's a shame results aren't always instant or perceivable, but that's just life. It'll take at least 15, but very likely closer to a century, if you think about it.

It's like the whole Social Security debacle.
As I understand it, some Democrats have proposed a very modest increase over 15 years in the Social Security tax as well as taxing people earning over $400,000 per year. This proposal would cause the system to tread water for about 75 years, then (according to projections) would slowly increase the available funds for the next 100 or so. It's a viable solution so long as politicians CANNOT spend those funds (good luck).

Point is, we didn't get into either the Social Security mess or the environmental mess overnight and we can't solve the problem overnight either. We need people who are concerned about the next generation making laws and coming up with solutions. So far, we've had people only concerned about the next election.

Good discussion. Civil. Finding common ground is what it's all about.
(I need to do a better job of that)

I think she's the only one who actually believes her tripe.

We all be to be better to the environment regardless of where we live

No doubt, although some have a lot further to go than others.

And blaming people will get us nowhere