You do deny climate change. On my climate change thread. You said, climate change is not significant enough to be a threat.
Its not significant enough to be a threat. Thats what the real evidence shows. And i frankly dont have any dam commitment to a particular belief about it and yet im saying this.
Also, the climate changes, that dont make it a threat.
And you also said the consensus that says 97% of scientists that say climate change is REAL doesn’t matter.
Thats right, consensus does not matter, evidence matters. ANSWERING ALL MY QUESTIONS matters.
You deny climate alarmism, not climate change? The whole basis of climate alarmism is to deny climate change. So are u deny the alarmist that deny climate change?
Climate change > the climate....changes.
Climate alarmism > the planet is gonna burn up in 12 to 20 years.
You do deny gun violence. You’ve said time and time again on this forum that guns are not the problem. The problem is theres not enough guns in peoples hands. And what statistics show less guns equal more crime?
Why do you waste so much time telling me what i am saying? Why dont you spend that time telling us what your saying and answering questions, thus building your case.
Again...no....i do not, have not, am not, will not be denying a problem with gun violence. But, the gun is not violent by itself. It takes the evil man to shoot it. The problem goes deeper then just a gun.
And i and some others gave you the statistics already on your gun thread. Its not my problem you deny it. You deny that you are the denier. We agree on one thing, that denialism is a sickness. But, you are the one who has this sickness and ill expose you for the projector you are.
And last but not but least, in a free market economy "income inequality" will always be a fact of life. I already provided evidence to back that up on a different thread and yet you still remain in denial.
I never denied that in a free market economy there would not be income inequality. I said and argued that this is a good thing. It builds incentives to work harder and strategize better. And the market compitition decides the wages.
Also in that thread, YOU, and NOT me, did not answer my last question about inequality.
Here, ill ask you again to no avail. If you had to pick, which one would you pick? A society where you and everyone gets the same equal income from government without work, or a society where everyone works and gets more then this universal income government would provide? The more you work and strategize, the more you make as well.
Which one would you choose IF you had that choice? And please dont take forever and have me wait for the answer after 20 threads in and then still not have it answered.
