I ask you /fit/ 1.Do you hate fat people 2. Are you conservative

>1. no

>2. Yes

yes to both.

of course there's a correlation. libtards think problems should be solved by others, whereas conservatives will solve their problems themselves.

guess which way fat people lean?

>>41367587
1. Don't hate fat people per se, but I hate the fat acceptance 'muh genetix big is butiful' types. Also those that claim disability for not being able to stop shoving food down their stupid pig faces.

2. Somewhat conservative.

1. Yes

2. Libertarian

>>41367587
Only DYEL's truly hate fat people

>>41367587
1. yes
2. no

>>41367637
This. Fat people being in my vicinity is a violation of the NAP

>>41367587
No, Moreso these days

>>41367587
Yes
Yes

I'm a bong so my national insurance goes towards the surgeries, drugs and therapy that fatties abuse. Yet i still pay for prescriptions. Fuck you Scotland.

>>41367587
1. No
2. No, although I think the grouping of people into 'conservative' and 'liberal' is a bit silly to begin with

>>41367587
>no
>no

1- Yes
2- No, most of Americas obese people come from the south, who are used to eat McDonalds and fried shit. There are some worthless left leaning obese people and they are worse than obese conservatives but they are way fewer.

>>41367587
>1 - Yes
although i think i'm biased since i'm a doctor

>2 - No
again because i'm biased: the conservative party in UK are fucking up my pay and working environment (NHS). i don't really care about the policies or immigrant scum or whatever the fuck, the mongrel common folk fucking plebian citizens can deal with that, i'm just concerned about my salary really

>>41367587
This poll will only be applicable to /fit/

Your results are skewed by response selection bias asking this on 4chan, if youre attempting to make any meaningful correlation.

1) Yes

2) Im pretty hardline middle or probably leaning more to the left as more normies identify the same. I don't think the government should be telling us what decisions we should make but I also think they should keep big corp and big bank in check, possible provide some sort of work program along with welfare (isnt that what the army is anyways), UBI would be great in the future. Also think guberment should leave our guns alone and if your an illegal citizen you need to go back, and we should harshly punish businesses that use them, etc...

>>41367587

>No
>No

are we talking american or euro conservatism/liberalism, since they're both somehow totally different?

>>41367738
I only did it here cause there's at least one FPH thread at any moment of the day

>>41367587
>1.Do you hate fat people
Yes
>2. Are you conservative
Yes, Paleolibertarian masterrace

>>41367587
1. yes
2. no

>>41367723
every time I go see a doctor they seem so uninterested

how uninterested are you in your patients, do you really only care about the money?

>>41367758
Just whatever you label yourself as if anything at all, even things in between such as libertarian, but to actually answer your question American conservative/liberal since that's what i actually know about

Yes, sort of. Not personally but hate what they are
I'm not conservative because I hate the current society. But I'm very anti liberal

>>41367587
yes unless they fix it.
yes

yes
yes

though I have to say I don't hate fat people at the gym or if I see them out running. today I saw a ridiculously fat chick and within 3 minutes she pulled out not only a chocolate bar but also a bag of nuts because I guess they go together well. who the fuck carries around a chocolate bar anf a bag of roasted nuts? maybe at home watching a movie I could understand but at school? also se was about 20yo and maybe 160-180kg. i hated her

>>41367587

i dont hate fat people, but i hate people with weak willpower that can't control their eating. it reminds me of the worst part of myself, and my fatass family.

>>41367790
i personally am not that interested in patients, and most of my colleagues are probably the same. there are exceptions.

i remember being in medical school years ago and doctors saying to me "enjoy your university years, these'll be the last good years of your life haha" or something along those lines, and i just brushed it all off as shit banter

but lo and behold being a medic sucks, and good pay + lowering patient/doctor ratios are the only thing i really care about

>>41367772
Paleolib ftw niqqa

>>41367587
yes
on some issues

>>41367587

>in general? Yes

>Britbong so no at the moment, privitisation is going to ruin this already damned country (fuck you brexit).

Half my family is fat, like obese, and my feelings for them are of loathing and disgust yet I pretend I like them and continue to smile and socialise with them, infact I "get along" with them much better in their eyes because pretending and putting on a persona is always easier than the truth.

>>41367587
1: Yes
2: No

>correlation
idk, on the one hand the fat acceptance HAES nonsense is mostly coming from liberal SJWs. OTOH, the Obama administration cared more about tackling obesity than either Bush or Trump.
Also, have you ever talked to a fat southerner? Those hicks don't have HAES blogs on Tumblr because they don't use the internet, but they're just as bad as the SJWs.

>>41367587
I hate fat people a lot, I hate their horrible, degenerate lifestyle

No
I'm fairly liberal, I support education, science, free speech, unions, and government programs designed to help people who really, genuinely need the help.

>>41367587
1. no, I just feel sorry for them
2. no

>>41367587

1)yes
2)yes

>>41367975

> education, science, free speech

implying the right wing is against any of these things

>>41367924

at least you have the mirage of a normal family.

i hate going out to eat/see a movie/do anything with my fatass and socially inept family.

>>41367587
>Yes.
>Strasserist/Nazbol

>>41367587
1. Yes
2. NatSoc

>>41368007
They are quite literally against all of those things

>>41368018

you don't know nearly as much about politics as you think you do

>>41368018
>t. rationalwiki

File: global warming elephant snowing.jpg (52KB, 422x293px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 422x293px

>>41368007
>implying they aren't
at least in America, conservatives hate science and education.

>>41367587
wish all fats would die in their sleep, srs
yes

>>41368029
>neoliberals


Neoliberals aren't right wing, dude. They're socialists that like Israel and muh patriotisms

>>41367587
>Short answer yes, but I don't hate them just because they're fat. It just tends to be that fat people have incredibly poor thought processes and decision making and are generally fucking idiots
>Classical liberal/libertarian. More right leaning than not by today's standards.

>>41368029

climate change alarmism has been a meme since the 90s, and the 'overwhelming scientific consensus' the left wing likes to hit as a political talking point still hasn't been able to put forth an accurate, general predictive model

also

> reduced federal spending means that the right wing 'hates things' rather than not wanting to run up the deficit even further

File: hillzsupporter.jpg (196KB, 600x401px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 600x401px

>>41367587
Yes to both

File: Trump global warming china.jpg (94KB, 499x270px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 499x270px

>>41368055
wtf are you talking about?
>Mike Pence and Ted Cruz are totally far-left socialists you guys, they aren't conservative at all!
no

>>41368133

mike pence and ted cruz aren't neoliberals, my man

the clintons are neoliberals

>>41368145
Okay. But the Clintons believe in science, and Pence and Cruz think science is a hoax.
So back to the original point: Conservatives don't believe in science

>>41367587
1. Kind of.
2. NatSoc.

>>41367637
>libertarian

ur a living meme

>>41368165

science isn't something you 'believe in'

it's a process by which hypothesis about how the world works are put to the test and then used as the basis for models with predictive value

climate change models have failed time and again to make accurate predictions

that the right wing is consequently skeptical of the results of climate science does not mean that they 'don't believe' in the scientific method

like holy shit man have you even taken a STEM course

>>41368165
>believe in science

>>41367587

1. I don't hate individual fat people, but being fat is obscene. It's emblematic of the attitude which, given a modicum of prosperity and security, settles down into animal hedonism.

2. Radical right

1. No, although I do think that obesity and cardiovascular issues in the US are a huge problem
2. No

>>41368131
honestly jelly of her thicc wrists

>>41368229
>predict that an increase in greenhouse gases will lead to an increase in greenhouse effect
>exactly that happens
oh wow yeah anon those scientists sure are wrong!

Have you ever even read literally anything at all about climate change that didn't come from /pol/ or The Blaze you scientifically illiterate fucktard?
>durrrr I'm too dumb to understand science I guess I'll just insult libruls!

>>41368234
yes. As in, do you believe that we should accept scientific explanations for things, or do you believe that a magical fairy in the sky is responsible for everything? Conservatives believe the latter

>>41368229
>>41368133
>>41368116
>it's 2017 and there are people on the internet who literally believe that the greenhouse effect is fake
like holy shit how are you people this fucking dumb? Are you anti-vaxxers too?

1. No
2. Yes

My boss is a great guy but a huge fat fuck cause he's got dat anxiety.

>>41368276
>As in, do you believe that we should accept scientific explanations for things, or do you believe that a magical fairy in the sky is responsible for everything? Conservatives believe the latter
muh strawman

>>41367587
1.No, but I do think that every person should strive to be in good physical condition. I do despise people that are ignorant and proud, like the people in fph threads that claim they are healthy. Although I also understand that not all fat people are like that, and that much of the hate comes from fat people so they can motivate themselves

2.Classic liberal

>>41368276
>>41368300

> failing to understand the difference between the left wing's climate change alarmism and the basic observation that the greenhouse effect exists

ha

haha

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

>>41367587
1. Yes
2. No

>>41367587
Yes (used to be obese myself)
Yes

>>41368320
How is it a strawman? People who reject scientific explanations virtually all substitute it with a religious explanation.

1. I don't have the emotional energy to really hate anything, so no (>inb4 edge)
2. No

>>41368335
>I believe that GHGs affect temperature, I just don't believe that changing the concentration of GHGs will affect the temperature
ha

>>41367587
Yes because I am one and currently working on fixing it. Fatties like him just like to play victim and never take responsibility for their actions. Fuck them and fuck fat acceptance.

Yes

1) Yes, but I won't ever berate them for it unless they try to push that's it healthy. I'm actually a big fan of boogie, and have been for a while. He's never pushed HAES, he admits it's his personal problems keeping him from losing weight.

2) Depends

Fiscally yes
Immigration wise yes (I'm against illegal immigration and open borders, I'm the child of first generation legal immigrants)
Socially no, fuck religion, stop wasting time with abortion and gay shit.

File: boogie.png (12KB, 396x191px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 396x191px

hi boogie!

>>41368399

explain exactly when the earth will become unlivable due to temperature increases and exactly what needs to be done to prevent that

> inb4 'no really the global warming rapture will happen in the next 10 years this time believe me'
> inb4 'the US needs to stop using fossil fuels because exxon touched me in the bad place once'

protip

you can't

>>41368029
this line of reasoning is so weird to me
>object to state control over education
>WHY DO YOU HATE EDUCATION YOU MEANIE :(((

but in the current year, the left could propose that the state should take over all food production, and if the right wing objects to it, and the media would spin it as
>REPUBLICAN NAZIS HATE FOOD!
>RIGHT WING BIGOTS WANT EVERYBODY TO STARVE!

File: 1494050356957.png (349KB, 757x632px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 757x632px

>>41367587
>1.Do you hate fat people
Yes.
>2. Are you conservative
Yes.

You mad?

>>41368485
>>REPUBLICAN NAZIS HATE FOOD!
I'm empathetic to both of those groups and I also hate food

>>41367587
yes and yes

>>41368453
>EXPLAIN EXACTLY THIS EXACTLY
you don't understand how science works. Like at all. And I really can't explain to you the fundamental basics of science right now. Suffice to say: You are completely fucking retarded when it comes to science if you think science can get as specific as "in 73.2746 years, the earth will become unliveable due to a 3.42658293484 degree C increase in temperatures caused by a 264.633778% increase in CO2 and a 489.3245 increase in CH4"

>>41368453
>>41368335
>>41368229
>tldr: I don't believe in science
glad that's settled

File: 669f00f1be4f8b069df2d57c2fbb6a33[1].jpg (31KB, 437x599px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 437x599px

>>41367587
>1.Do you hate fat people
not outright hate
but generally dislike them and the idea that public health care pays for the consequences of their gluttony
>2. Are you conservative
more reactionary than conservative i'd say

>>41368320
Give a scientific explanation for the current rise in temperatures. One that hasn't already been disproven.
Pro-tip: You can't, because if you could you'd be collecting a Nobel Prize

>>41368485

> reasoning

you're overestimating our friends on the left

>>41368508

there are plenty of models that achieve that degree of predictive accuracy

> it's not that i'm not as correct as i think i am it's that you're too stupid to understand me

yeah sure man whatever salvages your ego

>>41367587
Yes and Yes

1. Yes.
2. No.

>>41367587
1. yes
2. yes

1. don't hate fat people, i hate the concept of fat normalization
2. no

File: IMG_1495.jpg (76KB, 629x577px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 629x577px

1. No. I'm a chubby chaser that plows BBWs unrepentantly. SJW rainbow hairs can fuck right off tho. Pic related
2. I've consistently been center-left leaning my entire life but in 201x the overton window has been shifted far enough that I would be regularly pigeon-holed as "alt-right" even though I have never identified as such. I'm sticking to my guns.

>>41368508
actual science does get that specific. see: comp sci algorithm runtime analysis, or reaction rate and energy throughput, or EE integrated circuit design, etc.

i think the point he is trying to make is that climate models are very wonky and have proven highly inaccurate time and time again - to rely on the dubious prediction of these models and take them as the be-all and end-all for policy decision making (like the left regularly demands) is fucking dumb.

>>41368605

yes, thank you.

t. also trained in CS

>>41368018
a tip for you good sir

I guess the middle ground would be, ameriburger conservatives support proven science(36 genders is 34 reasons the west deserves to play fallout 5), effective education without literal state sanctioned bias(im workiong on my third stem degree, spare me the kneejerk "you just cant handle college" meme), and free speech including the freedom to call you a moron

>>41368642
>(36 genders is 34 reasons the west deserves to play fallout 5)
I like your words

>>41367587
1. Yes
2. Nationalist

>>41368663
>Nationalist
that's not much of a political ideology it's more of a singular aspect of one

File: acb.jpg (39KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 640x640px

>>41367658
>>41368208

>>41367587
Yes to both

1. yes
2. nationalist

>>41367587

1) Yes
2) No

1.Yes
2.National socialist

>>41368795
Meine kameraden

>>41367637
>ah yes, the vegan of conservatives

>>41367587
>1.Do you hate fat people
Yes. For the record, I also hate furries, indians, mudslimes, Canadians, most Europeans, most South Americans, Mexicans, Koreans and Africans.
>2. Are you conservative
More than most, I guess

>>41367587
Yes. No.

>>41368795
Hell yeah my dude

>>41368820

what do you mean by this

>>41368847
I believe he means Libertines can't stop bringing up the fact that they're Libertarians and not just conservative

>>41368808
Let us fight this degenerate world together

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PlwtAJZ6jc&t=117s&ab_channel=MarioTutti

>>41368859
>Libertines
libertarian

>>41368859

Libertarianism isn't strictly a right wing thing, but yeah.

>>41367587

>Yes
>No

>1
Yes
>2
No, I'm whatever lets me jack off to yaoi, play vidya, watch anime, and work out.

>>41368880
with the current political climate it practically is

>>41368897

Yeah, you're not wrong about that.

File: xfnw9y.jpg (52KB, 1024x597px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1024x597px

>>41367587
1. yes
2. yes

>>41368795
>>41368808
>>41368863

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1YsN71Yvt8

What was the fake tweet the 40k a year to Medicare one?

1. Yes/No. I hate lazy pieces of shit, but I also feel sorry for fat people and want them to get fit. I DESPERATELY hate the HAES faggots glorifying obesity.
2. No, socialist.

>>41367587
1) No, there's no point in hating them if they keep to themselves
2) I'm more conservative than liberal

1. Yes
2. No, and libertarians should be gassed

>>41368453
>>41368605
Who the fuck cares exactly when the earth is going to be irreversibly fucked? The fact that it's heading that way is bad enough and reason to work on fixing it.
Too bad conservatives are too busy filling their pockets with money from coal and fossil fuel money to care and most people are stupid enough to go along with it because "not muh problem"

>>41368029
Yeah because it's conservatives shutting down college campuses with safe space nonsense and pushing memes like: antinuclear, antiGMO, antivax and pro gender bending nonsense

File: IMG_0248.jpg (43KB, 539x552px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 539x552px

>>41368055
>>41368133
Neoliberal is an economic theory, not a political one you uneducated dipshits.

>>41367587
yes
yes

>>41368165
>believe in science

Science is a method for observing phenomena; it isn't a belief system like redditors seem to think.

>>41368978
>THE WORLD IS GOING TO END
see, that's the part i'm disputing. a temperature increase of a few degrees C isn't the kind of global extinction doomsday event that some politically motivated ideologists make it out to be.

>>41368545
>there are plenty of models that achieve that degree of predictive accuracy
models for systems as large and complex as the world's climate? Models for something with as many variables?

>>41368605
Climate models have NOT proven highly inaccurate. They show that a long-term warming trend will happen, and it has. It's not exact year-to-year because it was never meant to be, it has however been largely correct long-term. The degree which it has been incorrect can be explained by things like larger amount of particulates than anticipated, or a sharper reduction in methane, etc.

>>41368997
It's conservatives who flat-out deny established science, yes
>antinuclear
where are we going to store the nuclear waste? It's anti-science to pretend that radioactive waste just disappears
>antiGMO
there are many legitimate issues with GMOs, such as the fact that they have lead to a massive increase in herbicide use
>antivax
yeah because Trump definitely wasn't the one pandering to antivaxxers this election

File: STOP DOING.png (570KB, 762x868px) Image search: [Google]

570KB, 762x868px

>>41367587
1. Yes
2. No I'm Fascist. I despise American "conservatives"

Yes.
Yes.

Liberals love victimization, it's their power source. And so rather than tell people that it's their fault for being fat (which require work to remedy), they tell them that they're victims, that their state is not their fault, and that people should accept them for how they are.

It's a common cliché among girls too, this "I don't have to change myself for anyone. People should love me for who I am." Compare this to the archetypal masculine mindset of constant improvement and (positive) change. (Incidentally this logic bleeds over into relationships between the sexes. Ex. If a man complains that his girlfriend isn't going down on him enough, he's told that he's a pig and her should respect her wishes, whereas if a girl complains that her man doesn't go down on here, she's told that he needs to make a change for her or she should dump him.)

I've heard it characterized that the main difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals believe that people are naturally good and conservatives feel that people are not naturally good. The result of this is that in the former system people don't do or choose bad things, rather bad things happen to them and they become 'bad' as a response to outside stimuli. (Under this system it is assumed that the government should shelter or assist these people, because they are not really autonomous and are not responsible for their actions.) Under the conservative mindset, people are responsible for their own actions because being 'good' is not a human's default setting. Under this system discipline needs to be cultivated. People who suck at life are that way as a result of personal choices primarily, not because they are "victims."

>>41369036
>I don't understand words but I'll try to sound smart
people who do not believe that the "method for observing phenomena" is valid are people who don't believe in science.
>redditors
oh look, yet another newfriend compensating too hard.

>>41369021
Actually it's both a theory and an ideology of political economy: it encompasses both economic policy and the necessary political acts to enact it.

>>41368055
Actually that's a pretty new use of the word "socialist". Traditionally socialists fucking HATE neoliberalism.

>>41369045

> Climate models have NOT proven highly inaccurate. They show that a long-term warming trend will happen, and it has. It's not exact year-to-year because it was never meant to be, it has however been largely correct long-term. The degree which it has been incorrect can be explained by things like larger amount of particulates than anticipated, or a sharper reduction in methane, etc.

perhaps you can explain to me how this justifies the left's politically-motivated climate change alarmism

File: 1472079829191.jpg (31KB, 439x412px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 439x412px

>>41367587
Yes
I am an acolyte of Hoppe

File: CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013[1].png (861KB, 1920x1728px) Image search: [Google]

861KB, 1920x1728px

>>41369045
>Climate models have NOT proven highly inaccurate.
i would accept this if the claim was just about predicting some degree of warming.
but the claim is about predicting some apocalyptic end-of-the-world style disaster, which people then base actual political decisions on. but the data and knowledge simply isn't accurate enough to justify the drastic measures certain politicians are itching to implement.

>>41369045
Nuclear power is safer, cleaner, and more efficient than any other large scale

GMOs are the only way to feed a rapidly growing global population. Producing bigger yields for less resources also fights climate change

If you disagree with any of these facts you are anti science.

>>41369038
No, the planet and life on it would survive. But a shitload of humans would die and it would cause massive infrastructure damage, and also greatly damage our food production. And of course give rise to a huge wave of envionmental migration as people flee inhospitable areas. You think immigration is bad now? Wait until you have like a billion refugees globally.

No-one except the industries directly causing global warming is against doing something about it, except cucked ameritards who think that going against "leftists" makes them smart. Yes leftists make a big deal about it, sure, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. If you immediatley believe the opposite of what a leftie says just because, you become pretty easy to manipulate my man....

>>41369084
I don't understand what you're trying to say. Man-made emissions are causing rising temperatures. These rising temperatures will have huge impacts down the road. We literally just had to relocate an entire fucking village in Alaska because melting permafrost eroded a riverbank so much that the village got swallowed up by the river.
The way I "explain" the fact that liberals think this is a bad thing is by pointing out that liberals aren't complete fucking retards

>>41369062
You're dancing around that fact that you're treating science as if it were soon capital letter (Science) belief rather than a tool

>>41369046
rollando

>>41369120
The fact that some people are being retards about it doesn't mean it isn't happening and it doesn't mean it isn't serious. That liberals over-react doesn't mean there's nothing to worry about at all.

>>41369120
>but the data and knowledge simply isn't accurate enough to justify the drastic measures certain politicians are itching to implement.
yes it absolutely is

>>41369122
>nuclear
you ignored the whole "we have heaps of radioactive waste and nowhere to put them"
Yucca Mountain is dead and nobody has a replacement
>GMOs are the only way to feed a rapidly growing global population
yes, because when obesity is a public health crisis that clearly means we need MORE high-fructose corn-syrup and MORE fried processed foods.
Virtually all GMOs in the US are corn and soy used in processed junk food. We'll be just fine without them. Liberals want to subsidize GMOs that are actually helpful, but of course MUH FREE MARKET conservatives only want soda and potato chips
Hey look, our long political rant is back to the original OP: It looks like conservatives are the ones wanting to pump huge amounts of processed junk food into our society

>>41369147
>tool
and what if somebody denied that a screwdriver exists? What if they claimed a magic sky wizard was the reason that screws work? That's a person who doesn't believe in screwdrivers

>>41369122
>we need to feed Africa
most 1st world countries have falling birth rates

>>41367587
1. extremely
2. extremely

>>41369130
>a shitload of humans would die
not a problem. third world needs a culling anyway.
>would cause massive infrastructure damage
easily dealt with. a lot easier than what it would take to avert the warming.
>envionmental migration
trivially dealt with by enforcing closed borders.

i think you dont realize just how massive (and de facto impossible) the effort to actually stop or even reverse global warming would be, and just how disastrous the economic implications would be.

>>41367587
>do you hate fat people
Depends on the type of fat person, are they striving to make a change? Or do they make excuses and blame others for their fatness?

If they're trying and losing weight, then no. If they are like boogie and make excuses and make no progress, then yes.

>are you conservative
fuck no

>>41369163
>That liberals over-react doesn't mean there's nothing to worry about at all.

i absolutely agree. i just disagree whole-heartedly with the left's proposed "solution" (which essentially boils down to "fuck industry and fuck first world countries")

>>41369132

what i'm trying to say is that the left takes relatively modest observations about climate change, presents them as an impending doomsday scenario, and then starts shrieking about carbon taxes, axing the use of fossil fuels at an economically untenable rate, and generally attempts to ram more big government policies down everyone's throats under the guise that they're 'saving the planet'

it's not that difficult to grasp if you pay any attention to politics

>>41367587
No

Yes

1. No

1. No

I'm pretty apolitical

>>41367637
Same

1. not necessarily
2. yes

>>41368018
How fucking ignorant can you be?

>>41367713
Half of the blacks in America are obese and half of the blacks live in the south. Not saying that there aren't obese white southerners but the south is fat meme is because of blacks.

Also to answer op
1. I hate fats who are denial about it, like the health at every size or want to shame people into liking fat people. If you're fat and admit it and that your lazy I'm less likely to hate you

2. Mostly yes.

yes
yes

>>41369174
>nowhere to put them
oh you mean like the
thousands
and thousands
and thousands
of acres
of empty land
that nobody is using
you are dumb
so i limited
this comment
to a maximum
of three words
per line

>>41368007
you must not live in the United States

>>41369206
1. Not just 3rd world. Lots of Western nations too.
2. You fail to understand HOW massive the damage would be and how devastating for the economy. Aversion measures are way cheaper and can actually be beneficial, given the right investments, for the economy as a whole. The only people negatively impacted by such measures are the coal and oil companies, and even they only in the short term. Why you suck their dicks so much in beyond me.
Also you don't address the even bigger problem: food production.
3. Are you legit retarded? "Strict border policies"? What do you think is gonna happen when a billion people come knocking and you try to turn them away? They leave and go back "home" which is now under the sea? Massive migration on a never before seen scale in a world already tired of migration; entire nations displaced - you're gonna have a war. Stop being retarded and contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.

>>41369253
Come up with a better solution then. I would love for there to be a proper right-wing environmentalism. As of now, lefties are the only one addressing it while the right-wing is pretending like it isn't a problem at all. And that position is demonstrably wrong, which is driving people leftwards...

>>41369261
You’re right about the big gov bs, but you don't understand climate science. Shit is about to get progressively worse; that’s how it starts, small at first but then a positive feedback loop kicks in and at that point it gets harder to stop. Example: the oceans contain a lot of CO2 and their capacity to hold on to it diminishes as they get warmer. Warmer oceans → more atmospheric CO2 → warmer climate → even warmer oceans → even more atmospheric CO2 → even warmer → and so on.

Rather than denying the problem, find a better solution for it. Maybe the free market can offer one, or maybe a policy that encourages entrepreneurs in the renewables business?

>>41368018
>education, science
I disagree with you, but I think I can at least begin to understand how you come to that idea but...

>against free speech
How in the world could you possibly think that conservatives are the ones against free speech? Maybe if you're living in Russia or the middle east, but first amendment rights and the desire to protect them seems to pretty squarely fall on the right side of the spectrum. Campus speech codes aren't getting created by conservatives, nor are safe spaces.

>>41367587
Yes
No

>>41369382
Perfect free verse. A true work of art

File: Shiba-Inus-silly-face.jpg (19KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 600x450px

>>41369174
New generations of reactors hardly produce any waste for one and secondly, it is safer to contain solid waste in one location, than to let it spill everywhere in the form of air pollution or destroy entire ecosystems damming up rivers.

>yes, because when obesity is a public health crisis that clearly means we need MORE high-fructose corn-syrup and MORE fried processed foods

Easily dismissable line of reasoning brainlet.

Any crop can be modified for higher yields; cotton, fruits, vegetables - anything can be genetically modified for a more efficient yield.

The fact that you think it is only corn shows just how uneducated you, and the average liberal are on the issue.

You can literally cut down on emissions across the board by breeding better crops, but you antscientific leftists with your half baked studies stand in the way of progress.

> Liberals want to subsidize GMOs that are actually helpful

No they don't. Provide evidence of your claim; keep in mind you used the word "only" here. I'll be waiting.

>but of course MUH FREE MARKET conservatives only want soda and potato chips

No they don't.

Provide evidence for your claim.

>Hey look, our long political rant is back to the original OP: It looks like conservatives are the ones wanting to pump huge amounts of processed junk food into our society

Not at all, you've been backed into a corner and got egg on your face, so now you're making things up as if you're in one of your echochambers back on the website that shall not be named. But you're not. You're over here, and I'm holding your hand explaining why you're wrong step by step in front of everyone. Your entire argument hinges on the fact that conservatives and liberals support two different types of GMO development - and this simply isn't true. People are either proGMO (people with brains and who understand science) and people who are antiGMO (liberal brainlets and hippies).

>>41369046
Pls b social media

>>41369394
>Aversion measures are way cheaper and can actually be beneficial, given the right investments, for the economy as a whole.
this is just not true.
do you have a feasible and realistic idea on how to convine china to not only stop building new coal and gas based power plants, but also scuttle most of the existing ones? while simultanously cutting down on road and industrial vehicles?

to actually achieve a stop in warming, you would effectively have to shut down large chunks of the global economy. unless your plan is to invade china and india and literally shut down their entire industry by force, i don't see it happening.

>What do you think is gonna happen when a billion people come knocking and you try to turn them away?
they get shot and die like the hostile invaders they are.

>Come up with a better solution then.
doing literally nothing is still better than what the left is proposing (which is actively harming the western economy, without actually having any significant impact on the warming)
the obvious approach is simply preparing for the effects of the warming (whatever they may be) as soon as they become certain.
sea levels rising? build dam systems like the netherlands use for critical areas, evacuate/relocate others, etc

>>41369382

>max three words
>per line
>five words
>in first line
>fuck
>you

>>41367587
1. Yes
2. No (socially liberal, economically pragmatist)

1) yes
2) no

>>41367587 if you mean obese

1. I don't hate them, but I do avoid them as they disgust me.

2. Barely left of center Libertarian.

I voted for 45.

>>41367587
1. no
2. somewhat

>>41367587
Yes to both.

File: IMG_0003.jpg (162KB, 1300x1466px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1300x1466px

>>41367587
1: Yes.
2: Fascist.

>>41367587

1. yes

2. no, bleeding heart libtard here, just not for fat people.

1: Yes.
2: Yes, If you consider National Socialism "Conservative".

>>41367885
why did you get into the medical field then

you could have earned more being an engineer

>>41367587

1 - I'm indifferent to fat people like I'm indifferent to gay people. It's your life and not mine.

2 - I was leftist in 2004 when I could first vote. I have changed no positions since then. I am now apparently far right.

wtf happened

File: mpvshot0019.jpg (272KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 1920x1080px

>>41367587
1. Not really. I do browse fat threads and thinspo threads to stay thin, though.

2. No, Communist

>>41369400
At least in the states, any protest involving African Americans or women, no matter how peaceful, is labeled by the conservatives as bitching whining riots complaining violent etc.

Not so much if any white people have protests or if white men are complaining about something then it's a serious issue that needs to be addressed and we should rape more women (and get no jail time) and kill more young black boys.

>>41369046
Fuck why is this image always posted

>>41370400

>Criticizing something is being against free speech

uh.. no

that's free speech as well

sure you can do and behave how you want but that still bears on you and is still open to criticism

trashing your own cities and neighborhoods because someone died in a police altercation isn't typically regarded as valid by anyone with a brain or adult discipline

neither is marching around with a vagina on your head because someone you don't like just became President

>>41370400

>double ought bait

File: IMG_2373.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

1. No
2. No

I'm a social democrat and while I don't have fat people I feel like we need to treat the obesity epidemic as the social health crisis it is. Things like the fat acceptance movement are ridiculous and do actual harm to people. Fat people have a problem, or more likely several different psychological problems that contribute to their condition. We should treat obesity the same way we should treat drugs: with therapy and treatment. They shouldn't be demonized, but we as a society should not accept this crisis as something normal or the way a person should be.

Hope that makes sense <3

>>41370611

thank you for your input, mentally ill person. noted

>>41370611
do u take estrogen?

>>41370611
fag

sh0w b00bees

>>41370611

Can we have passionate sex?

1. I don't really hate fats but I do find them humerus.

2. I think for myself m8 it's lame to put yourself in a box

File: IMG_2361.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>41370623
Hating fat people accomplishes basically nothing, besides making the world a shittier place to live in. If we ever want to affect true change we'll need to carefully examine the problem and work tirelessly to address the root causes of the problem.

Honestly our energy would be better spent hating the food and pharmaceutacal companies that profit off of making and keeping us fat.

File: tmp_6275-1494097516833380194998.jpg (35KB, 460x652px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 460x652px

>>41367587
1. Yes
2. No, communist.

>"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

Fats take well more than they need because they're greedy and have the impulse control of a child; and they contribute nothing because they are lazy and unfit to do anything but hold down furniture and cause grease fires at funeral homes.

>>41370283
National Socialism couldn't be farther from conservatism senpai

File: 1493267185938.jpg (614KB, 450x720px) Image search: [Google]

614KB, 450x720px

>>41370733
As a fascist, I find myself agreeing with legit communists more than I'm comfortable with.

>>41371582
Where can I find the rest of these neato noisy pics, do you have any more?

>>41370663
This. Focusing on individuals while ignoring institutions and how power is distributed in society is an inherently conservative worldview.

File: obesity005_0[1].png (65KB, 860x460px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 860x460px

>>41367623

it's understandable, iq correlates similarly geographically

Why does this fat faggot spend so much time on a fitness board?

>>41371582
Horse-shoe theory. Two extremes of one spectrum have more in common than the middle ground of said spectrum.

Don't kid yourself into thinking commies have a soul.

>>41367587
1) I`m more Nat-Soc
2) I hate fate people who don`t want to change and/or blame everyone and everything besides themselves for not being able to lose weight.

>>41367587
Yes and yes

File: American IQ part 2.png (1MB, 2468x1563px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2468x1563px

>>41367587
1. Yes
2. Yes


>>41371842
Raelly makes me think

File: America IQ part 1.jpg (132KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1280x720px

>>41371907

1. No. They already hate themselves, why bother
2. Yes.

>>41367587
yes
yes

>>41371916
Looks like the darker state are just the ones with the least niggers

File: IMG_0303.jpg (138KB, 1242x857px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1242x857px

>>41371842
>>41371907
>>41371916
Really makes you think…

File: 1493009407528.png (22KB, 324x505px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 324x505px

>>41367587

Yes, I hate fat people like Boogie.

Right wing, not conservative ~Flirting with NatSoc after 2 months on /pol/~

File: 1466965344714.png (48KB, 217x190px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 217x190px

>>41367587
>1.Do you hate fat people
No, but I hate people who go "muh genetics" or "I'm on a diet! <then proceeds to eat a bunch of shit without looking at servings or calorie intake>. I use to be 300ish pounds and now around 170-180, if I can do it at a sedentary job so can you

>2. Are you conservative
Yeah, doesn't have anything to do with being fat

>>41367587
yes
yes

>>41367587
>Yes, a lot.

>No, progressive, ecowarrior meat-eater. Not SJW because fuck those purple-haired, transfat, gendertrender obeast cunts.

I hate fats because they run their bodies like a totalitarian, corporate dystopia. They're only interested in short term profit/satisfaction, they can already see it's not sustainable and it won't last, but they ignore the signs, they ignore their own mortality, and want everyone else to sacrifice everything for them. Each of them is a wannabe Kim Jong Un, a fat, impotent dictator with gout in a country where others starve by the side of the dirt road or buried under failing infrastructure.

File: 1493356021098.png (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

>>41371624
I don't really have too big of a collection. Here's one i really like though. Also because this is a /fit/ness board, I started SS a while back, but I just feel like my gym sessions are too short and I'm not really getting a good workout. Is this common? How do I fix it?

Yes

Neo-liberalism

>>41368029

>Conservatives "hate science" because they're skeptical of certain institutions, like one ones handing out government grant money.

Lel

>>41372321
>ecowarrior meat eater
Kys you know nothing about the enviormental impacts of meat condumption

I don't hate fat people at all.

I'm a Libertarian.

File: 1338570982554.jpg (62KB, 550x412px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 550x412px

>>41367587
1. Yes, but by fat I mean people who are unable to run at all or preform basic physical functions/skills.
2. More Right Wing than conservative.

The most I ever weighted was 215lbs(162 atm), that was in High School when I played an insane amount of Vanilla WoW and ate nothing but fast food, energy drinks and yes, hot pockets.

My physical exercise was limited to 2.5 periods of P.E. a week in school and walking half a mile home after class. I just can't fathom how people get so fucking fat they have to waddle and use scooters to move around. Do they fucking drink a 12 pack of soda and a jar of mayo daily? If I wanted to surpass 215lbs I would have to put in a conscious effort to force myself to eat more.

Yes.
They are the only group of people I actively dislike, other than retarded liberal degenerates but that tends to go hand in hand with fat acceptance.

Yes.
Socially conservative corporatist.

>>41367623
Liberal havens such as California and new York are some of the fittest places on earth statistically, stop talking out of your ass

>>41367587
1. Only when they feel entitled to attraction from the other gender, healthcare, are seriously obese and are in plain site, etc.
2. Radical Centrist

>>41367587

Maybe Boogie should ask himself why people think that sounds like him.

>>41367587
1. No
2. No

As if lifting 3 times a week makes you immune to needing healthcare.

Fuck me I don't get americans

>>41372385
I'll eat fatties if I have to.

File: Right wing people more hormones.png (791KB, 1654x1660px) Image search: [Google]

791KB, 1654x1660px

>>41372534
this issue is breaking it down on an individual level m8, same with how Republicans win all the poor shithole states but on average do better with high income/more successful people

Armed forces are overwhelmingly right wing, with Marines being the most conservative

>>41368029
political views are non-falsifiable

File: 1493022309596.jpg (56KB, 808x399px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 808x399px

Man made climate change is a hoax. Humans only contribute to about 2% of worldwide CO2. There is global warming but our influence is marginal.

>>41367587
No- hate is a strong word.
I am not conservative socially.

>>41367587

>1. Yes


>2.Yes but more libertarian

>>41367587
1) yes
2) no

>>41373783

That's an old picture since we just broke 410ppmv. Which is quite a bit higher than ever before.

>>41367587
>no
>yes

File: 1493692697712.gif (2MB, 202x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 202x360px

1) Yes
2) No

>>41369046
roll i'll ignore if i get something bad.

>>41374084
Then why bother?

>>41367587
>Yes
>No

I don't discriminate etc. against fat people, but I do hate the fact that they are fat. One of my best friends is fat and it infuriates me, especially when most of his problems could be solved by...not being fat.

If you managed to man up and get fit, you have atleast some shred of self-responsibility and thus unlikely to be a liberal.

>>41368165
>But the Clintons believe in science
The Clintons believe in anything that will get them more power.

>1.Do you hate fat people
No, but I do hate people that promote fat acceptance. Fat acceptance is supported by the globalist too make the 1st world weak.
>2. Are you conservative
I support soical welfare, universal healthcare, etc but also European white ethno states.

1. It's more a feeling of disdain
2. Yes

File: 1470546730497.jpg (47KB, 479x436px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 479x436px

>>41367587
1. Nah
2. Eh

1. Yes.
2. Marxist.

1) i wouldnt say i hate them all but they disgust me and usually have terrible personalities
2) no

>>41367587
1. I don't hate fat people as long as they are aware that their condition is their own fault and they don't demand others pander to them in any way. No extra healthcare, no bigger seats or clothes, no "fat acceptance". A fat person who wants to lose weight is okay in my book, even if they're lazy and keep failing. As long as you TRY to do the right thing I can respect you.

2. Conservative in the literal sense, I want to keep good things good, keep law and order intact etc. Not in the sellout liar sense, see all so-called conservative political parties, be it Republicucks in the US or Mutti Merkel's welfare immigration party (CDU) here in Germany.

>>41371842
Obesity and low IQ correlate with nigger population.

>>41369045
>yeah because Trump definitely wasn't the one pandering to antivaxxers this election
this is an interesting deflection that libtards make on vaccines. The fact of the matter is progressives are the biggest anti-vaxxers there are.

t. Vermont resident

>>41367587
>hate
Not exactly hate. I understand there's fat people just because they're lazy and don't care, and then there's a handful (lol) who act like it's everyone else's problem. I hate the latter.

>Conservative
Mostly, yes. Conservative AnCap.

yes to both

>>41367587
>yes
>no

A N C A P

>>41369046
rollercoaster

>>41367587

1. No, I don't hate fat people, because that's an insanely asinine reason to hate someone. That being said I don't support many parts of the "Fat acceptance" movement, and think that everyone should be reasonably health-conscious and avoid being obese. People should never argue that it's "Okay" to be fat, because I don't think it is, it's not good for anybody. Wastes food, causes too many health problems to count, etc. Just not something that should ever be promoted. That doesn't mean you go around claiming all fat people are deplorable wastes of space, because that's insane, but that seems to be what a lot of this board thinks is appropriate.

2. No, I'm pretty much as liberal as they come.

>>41369120
it's not about a major apocalyptic event, retard.
a few degrees hotter are enough to upset some ecological systems and cause unforseen consequences.
my country is already feeling it and has had 4 or so consecutive years of relative drought which has cost millions of dollars in lost revenue (destroyed crops)

who the fuck cares about the earth, m7, stopping global warming is about mitigating losses to agriculutural industries and the like

File: tmp_6275-14929893531281844871796.jpg (95KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 600x450px

>>41371582
We may disagree on certain points, but we can always hate liberals together.

I don't hate fat people but I hate the cheeky smug fucks that are trying to drag humanity down to their level

yes

>>41371870

>>41367587
By fat people if you mean the smug, victim playing, thin shaming, muh genetics, date me bigot, gibsmedats, lazy sacks of human garbage. Then yes I do, very much so.

Mormonbro. Very conservative.

I hate fat people, though it's born out of my own self-hatred from when i was my maximum weight. It's generally not outwardly directed unless someone reflects who i used to be.

According to an online test, I lean very slightly towards Conservative, (53% Conservative versus 47% Liberal), though that might not be the best way to determine.

>>41369394
>I would love for there to be a proper right-wing environmentalism. As of now, lefties are the only one addressing it while the right-wing is pretending like it isn't a problem at all. And that position is demonstrably wrong, which is driving people leftwards.
I don't think conservatives understand the scale of how hard they are cucking themselves with this. They don't even have to do anything about it but at least proposing some kind of "plan" to address it would cause a lot more millennials to vote republican, because of this shit something like 80% of this age group votes blue

>>41369356
That's wrong

you are severely overestimating the black population. They are only 13% of the population. Even if EVERY black person was obese you wouldn't see this big of a trend

Please visit the south literally everyone is at least overweight

>>41367587
1) Only fat people who accept being fat

2) Conservative? Conservatism is a dead ideology. All of these Alt-"Right" fags completely destroyed it. I'm a Nationalist Anti-Capitalist&Socialist (NoPartyAffiliations).

>>41367587
>No

>No

Being a Conservative is an edgy tumblr meme. You'll grow out of it soon enough.

>>41367587
1. I don't have time to hate others, but I find it hard to respect them many times.

2.More left than right, in any case.

>>41367587
No to both

>>41374827
It really is like 80-90% of southerners are at least overweight

File: C.S. LOLis.jpg (268KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 2000x1333px

>>41367587
No. I hate the actions of fat people, and I pity that they suffer as a result of their actions, but I don’t hate the people themselves.
Hate the sin, love the sinner. Gluttony isn’t some special exception.

Yes, extremely.

>>41374668
>Mormonbro
Utah?

File: WFB.jpg (54KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 850x400px

>>41368018
>>41368029
Kek. Y’all are hilariously ignorant.

They want science and education to be divorced from government and politics. Like everything else; food, healthcare, electronics, etc.
Cutting public funding to scientific institutions and destroying the department of Education isn’t an act of hatred against science or education. It’s restoring them to the rightful place; free of political influence.

>Yes
>No

And to the other topic going on in this thread, if you honestly think we shouldn't invest money in clean and renewable energy sources (regardless if climate change is a hoax or not) with all of the benefits that has for us, you're dumb as hell.

>>41369046
roll 9 or 1 pls

>>41368508
You're in luck! I am literally an environmental scientist, and I'll be very clear about global warming and we can debate it.

1. Greenhouse gasses hold in heat, much like a car with its windows closed heats up. This is proven, and not debateable.

2. The amount of carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere has near quadrupled. This is proven, and isn't up for debate.

3. The earth has been getting warmer on average. This is proven, and is not debateable.

So, if a cause is needed to be found for the earth warming, and that seems to be the best explation. If global warming by caused by greenhouse gases, the best idea would be to reduce those (cow farts make up a serious amount of greenhouse gases, for real.)

If you do disagree with what the cause is, and you have a better idea, please share it.

File: Goodfellas_6.jpg (1MB, 2060x1236px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2060x1236px

1. I really don't give a shit, if you want to destroy your body that's your choice
The people who actually advocate fatness as HEALTHY are fucked up, though

2. I'm a post-modernist individualist
I don't believe in group-think or applying labels to everything
My basic gist is that if you don't hurt others, you should be able to do and say pretty much what you want.
If you want to identify as a pansexual agekin, fine by me, I see individuals, not groups

>>41375159
>science and education
>free of political influence
They've never been free of that. Anyone who believes that they ever were is a tard tier lolberg

File: dead_inside.png (96KB, 372x336px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 372x336px

>>41369046

Do people actually follow this shit?

File: ai.jpg (69KB, 638x746px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 638x746px

>>41375191
>claims to be a scientist
>attacks skepticism and says certain points are “not up for debate”
>gives no proof of statistics, just demands your faith in his statements

You are aware that most scientific advancements are made by people who refuse to accept the conventional knowledge of their time, right?

Seriously, you’re like those religious nuts in Game of Thrones who just say “It is Known” whenever someone asks them questions.

File: wMbTLiU.png (123KB, 186x320px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 186x320px

>>41375274
>They've never been free of that.

My historical perspective extends about 100 years back: the post.

Even if you were right, that's no reason to stop trying to free them from political oversight. It's like saying people have always starved, so we shouldn't try to feed them.

File: Feels_empty_man.png (70KB, 391x400px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 391x400px

1. Yes

2. Strasserite

>>41375297

What is not debateable that I've stated, did you disagree with how greenhouse gases work? That points to a lack of scientific education, or retardation.

For the other points, if you don't trust government scientists, there is nothing I can do. If you think the data is falsified, the only thing you can do is run tests yourself, or find a new theory.

File: 0001.jpg (17KB, 491x315px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 491x315px

>>41367587
Yes.

I hold political opinions that aren't far left so I guess that makes me a fascist by today's standards.

>>41375297
On a side note, I welcome skepticism. All the skepticism I hear is Chinese conspiracy bullshit, with no other explaination for why the earth is warming. If you have a real doubt, question the point and don't just insult me. Or insult me and debate the point. Just stick to the facts here.

>>41375185
Clean energy is a meme and relies on government subsidies to even be able to compete. Not to mention the amount of pollution it causes to mine the materials needed to make solar panels and shit. Nuclear is the only viable alternative.

File: Lindydelet.jpg (76KB, 1065x859px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1065x859px

>>41375358
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZHnjDJpkVc

File: Bren1.jpg (34KB, 640x465px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 640x465px

>>41375405

Not him but

>Lindbeige

File: Not an Argument.jpg (69KB, 598x792px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 598x792px

>>41375414

>>41375421

>Posting Bald cult leader jew

>Posting the autistic ramblings of a dumb anglo who thinks no one used horses in warfare.

Climate Change is already happening around the world, and though I'm not expert theirs a reason the only scientists who disagree with it get research grants from the oil industry.

File: nye.jpg (67KB, 864x552px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 864x552px

>>41375478
>anthropogenic global warming is real
>better save all these third world shitskins
>better pay your carbon taxes

>>41375405
I'm going to assume that you believe everything in that video.

So, the things he says are true are CO2 is increasing, and the global temperature is increasing.

So, as humans we don't want the global temperature to increase, so we need a way to stop it. There is no direct way to link CO2 levels and global temperature, but greenhouse gas knowledge points that they are most likely related.

So there is no smoking gun proving CO2 causing climate change, but there is theory and overwhelming evidence of it. If you can come up with a better reason why the earth is heating please tell someone and if the argument holds water it will be accepted.

>>41375536
Chinese conspiracy. The japs want to cripple America.

>>41367587
Yes
No

>>41375536
Totally forgot about the original post
Hate fat people, very liberal.

as conservative as i am, i wish the government would nut up and take over some national services.

no more power companies, let the government run that shit. build some huge solar/wind plants, run the country off that, press for more electric cars and shit.

because fuck relying on foreign oil (sorry canada) and fuck companies making profit on basic human needs.

also, fuck foreign aid, the jews can fend for themselves, and africa is shit no matter what we do (short of glassing the fucking place). invest in our goddamn infrastructure already instead of being cucks to the rest of the world.

also, fat acceptance must be destroyed.

>>41367587
1. No
2. Yes (but a closeted one, I work in a liberal environment)

>>41369356
You know? I went to Orlando a few weeks ago, nad most of the overweight people were indeed, black, but the morbidly obese were almost always white. Except for one latino guy who was indeed the fattest man I've ever seen IRL.

File: rainbow kanna.gif (2MB, 389x413px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 389x413px

>>41375191
>>41375358
First of all, the burden of proof is on you, not me.

>The amount of carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere has near quadrupled.
Cite your sources. Quadrupled from when, to when? Can you prove these sources were entirely or mainly from humanity?

>The earth has been getting warmer on average.
Cite your sources.
Warmer since when? How do you know it hasn't been this warm 500 years ago? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000? 1 Million? Did you have temperature data for back then? What is your control?
It tickles me when I watch a nature documentary and I watch David Attenborough make some plea to the camera
>this lake is about to be thawed for the first time in human recorded history
>last time it was completely liquid, there were wooly mammoths and dinosaurs
>global warming is real
So, whose minivans thawed it millions of years ago?
You’re taking a hilariously small section of data (couple hundred years) in the life of a planet and claiming that the entire trend is that way.
Like looking at a small curve of a sinusoidal wave, and saying that it’s a linear function; destined to go on in that direction indefinitely.


>So, if a cause is needed to be found for the earth warming, and that seems to be the best explation
I shouldn't have to explain "correlation does not equal causation".

I could just as easily say:
>computers generate heat. This is non-debatable
>the amount of computers has increased exponentially since the invention of the transistor within the last century. This is non-debatable
>the earth has been getting warmer on average. This is non-debatable
>computers are the source of global warming

See why this is silly? Even if you accept the correlation, it doesn’t follow that it is the necessary cause.

>>41375405 puts it well

>>41367587
>>41367587
>YES
>NO

File: 093.jpg (45KB, 358x429px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 358x429px

>>41375478
>who thinks no one used horses in warfare.
>confirmed for never watching the video. He says nothing of the sort.

And still not an argument in sight.

>>41367587
are you actually going to count and run the stats to see if there's a legit significant correlation? or just saying that
>YES
>NO

>>41368055
Lol, are you actually stupid? Neoliberalism is no control over the market, literally the opposite of socialism.

>>41375503

>Climate change won't affect the West as well

A shekel for a good oil shill! Fight oil wars for Israel!

File: smug_orange_death.png (186KB, 347x406px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 347x406px

>>41375813

None of you faggots have presented an argument for why climate change isn't happening, theres nothing to argue about.

>>41369206
Lol, you are really a fucking imbecile. I mean, seriously retarded. Flat-earth levels of idiocy. Most of the food in the world is created by third world. Do you think countries will say "yeah, first world nations, take all our food, I mean, we barely have any, but go ahead". And that right there WILL starve your children to death. Or, you know, keep being a retard. You're great at it.

>>41367587
1. Yes
2. Yes

I wholeheartedly believe that the morbidly obese should be shot.

>>41375791
Maybe it is computers creating the heat, all I'm asking for is a reason other than the current accepted theory that our planet is getting warmer at a much faster pace than it ever has.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Can you give me some proof it isn't greenhouse gases?

>>41371842
and even race

File: [liberty ringing in the distance].jpg (97KB, 1245x658px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1245x658px

>>41369046
>1.Do you hate fat people

no, but fat acceptance kills people while fat shaming saves people, so while i won't complain about a little "tough love", i don't get at all perturbed by the mere existence of a fat person

2. Are you conservative

nope, pic related is pretty close though.

>>41367587
1. Yes
2. Actually communist

>>41375939
Oh shit! I forgot to respond to

>how u no it hot 1000 years ago, you weren't their.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_01/

>>41367587
1. Just the haes-ers
2. No

File: chaika.jpg (156KB, 948x776px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 948x776px

>>41375939
I don’t have one personally, no. There are an infinite number of things I don’t have explanations for. But I’m not the one claiming I know the source, or that it’s an existential problem. So, again, the burden of proof is on you, which you continue to not provide.
I note that you have yet to verify any of your claims or answer any of the questions in >>41375791.
You just want your theory to stand by default. A “most likely” scenario. Dreadfully unscientific of you.

>>41367587
no
yes

1. No
2. Yes

Gluttony is a sin but let those who haven't sinned cast the first stone

File: 1000 hours in Google Searching.png (70KB, 677x985px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 677x985px

>>41375968
>asks that his opponents don't insult him in >>41375394
>reduces a perfectly coherent and grammatically correct sentence to caveman speech

Oh, you're just a gem of integrity, aren't you?

That webpage is a start. Good to know you can Google. Now how about all the other proof?

>>41375903
>Most of the food in the world is created by third world.
and consumed by said third world, too.
protip: pretty much every first world country is self-sufficient in terms of food production, the obvious exception being city states such as singapore. food trade takes place primarily for reasons of variety (nobody grows rice in europe, or cherries in egypt, or apples in arabia) and cost, not due to necessity.

>>41376006

>most likely.
>not science
I'm working with "until proven otherwise"

And I've sited everything for my point

What I've shown you is the earth is getting warmer quicker than it has ever before and your only response is "Lol you aren't completely sure"


I am sure the earth is getting warmer, and I'll believe any peer reviews study that cabn possibly explain why. There are no good arguments against climate change, if there are, I will consider them

Also, thanks for talking with me so long, I really enjoy that you're taking me seriously.
Also, CO levels https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/

>>41376054
I mentioned he can insult me as long as he also provides an argument. Do you want m to write a thesis for you? This is all generally accepted. I'm the only one here proving my facts.

File: Tex-kun.png (13KB, 433x500px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 433x500px

>>41376094
>And I've sited everything for my point
>sited
No you haven't. I'm still waiting on the other parts I asked for in >>41375791

>I'm working with "until proven otherwise"
Hey, good for you. It’s a free country; if “until proven otherwise” is good enough for you, fine.

Just keep that out of politics. that isn't nearly good enough for legislation that ruins businesses and raises taxes on everyone.

>Only cites government websites for all his proof
Because they're completely impartial and trustworthy on this issue, right?

File: 8ecafe3383084117b0844639add784bd.jpg (58KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 640x360px

1. I hate fat people who have no shame i.e fat acceptance/activist
2. No, I'm very liberal

>>41369449
B T F O
T
F
O

>>41370394
>anime posting board tourist
>communist

yup, kys

File: IMG_2871.jpg (141KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1920x1080px

>>41367587
PAY

>>41370400
BLM thugs regularly burn down cities and victimize innocent store owners.

I want you to understand that it's not only white people who hate you, ALL races hate your bullshit.

t. Indian

>>41372491
We should hang out

>>41367587
>Yes if they say it isnt their fault or dont attempt to rectify it
>Alt-right

>>41376281
Being a fag must be gay

>>41376146

One last argument. I'll even provide the NASA sources. If you don't trust NASAs data, then I have nothing to argue.

1 The global temperature is getting warmer at an increasing rate.
One again, there is no certainty as to why, as there are no methods to test this, proof for increasing temp here.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Past temps https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_01/

2 Carbon dioxide is increasing, see below

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/

3 greenhouse gases (CO2) hold in heat and let light through. More CO2, more insulation. Like making the glass thicker on a greenhouse.

https://climatekids.nasa.gov/greenhouse-effect/

All of this has been proven. What hasn't been proven is why there is a correlation.

There are no methods to directly test climate change theory, however we know the earth is getting warmer and need to find a solution. 9/10 experts agree that this is the most likely cause.

Just tell me what you think is causing a global temperature rise, and I'll entertain the idea.

File: fedora_doge_meme_funny_reddit_9gag_reaction_image_rfunny.jpg (260KB, 900x948px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 900x948px

>>41374860

>>41376206

See

>41376415

>>41376281
>childish illogical hatred
>im very liberal

Why'd you post the same thing twice?

>>41376206
Oh shit! I didn't see the only cites government sources thing.

If I knew I was debating with someone who thinks there's a global conspiracy, and won't trust solid data, I wouldn't have started. Facts are really all I have for my arguments.

File: tmp_12846-1489629047218696531140.jpg (81KB, 401x373px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 401x373px

Yes, No.

>>41376415
Thanks for the links, I'll look at them.

>>41376491
I don't believe in conspiracies.

The U.S. government is INCREDIBLY invested in green technologies (they gave Solyndra over half a billion dollars back in 2009, for instance), and they gain incredible revenue from taxation derived from the belief in Global Warming/Climate Change.
It is perfectly in their interest to supply and skew data so that supports their narrative. Who is going to stop them? The government?
They are about as impartial on the subject as Exxon-Mobil is on oil and gas.
Would you trust a study conducted by Macdonald’s that eating Big Macs reduced the risk of heart disease? Even if the data was sound, you cannot trust them in the first place. They are invested.

Academic integrity is paramount. If you’re personally/financially/emotionally invested in something, your credibility on the subject is sketchy at best.

This is yet another reason to divorce science from politics. I’d consider an independent study by an impartial third party. But not one done by the guys who benefit most from it.

>>41369046
Lol hopefully something I don't do. Rol

File: tmp_12846-14900930587581890183871.gif (2MB, 200x150px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 200x150px

>>41376725

I'm not sure what to tell you. I can not find reputable sources, no .edu or .gov or .coms or .orgs that think the earth is not getting warmer. Even if you don't believe in man made climate change, know that climate change is happening, faster than before.

>>41376725
The thing about that though, its not just the US. All governments sciences point to temperature increase too. The global temperature is found by taking second readings of thermometers around the world

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3.html

Maybe it is a huge government conspiracy, and no leaks have come out from the govt saying "Hey, fudge the data, we need more money" but I would bet every life on this planet that it is not.

File: IMG_20170429_231727.jpg (84KB, 700x966px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 700x966px

>>41370611
>>41370663
Same

>>41370733
Perhaps obesity is only an epidemic because of capitalism (marketing, high production but exhaustion and no free time to cook because artificially inflated work hours, greasy and swert foods being sold cheap to low income working families, etc.)
Being useless isn't the worst thing, either. The whole bourgeois concept of work till you drop is kind of responsibile for the obesity epidemic in the first place.

>>41376339
>board tourist
I'm just your average squats and oats self conscious anorexic femanon