Canada’s Conservative Party Rejects Saying Climate Change is Real

[Economy 53,158]

3 minutes ago, Supersonic said:

I see where you're getting at, it's semantics.

But just continue your train of though to the end of the line. Throwing something down the rug and pretending it's not a problem is effectively the same a formally denying something is a problem in the same place. It has the same effects and consequences.

There's an ideological reason why this specifically was scratched from the agenda. The majority of the party doesn't believe it is real. This is how politics works if you subscribe to a policy of respectability. Instead of actively camaigning what you're against, you're passively not supporting what you believe in and try to ignore/quitely deplatform it. Because if you attack, people will read you as aggressive and you're prone to more criticism than when you're holding a passive stance. AND being in a passive stance from the get go allows you to play the victim better once somebody criticizes your policies. 

 

I get what ur saying. But theres 2 groups of ppl when it comes to this... those that outright dont believe its real and those that just dont want to prioritize it over economic interests

 

I do agree the outcome is the same and if we were taking in the context of what the party is doing about climate change then whether their motive was driven by disbelief in climate change or by wanting to prioritize economy over climate, either way their actions are the same. If that was the discussion then it doesnt matter

 

But in this case the title was specifically criticizing denial. So if that was the main point, it was kind of misleading to imply they said something they didnt

 

It also matters to making the distinction if ur trying to push for the party to change. Someome who believes climate change is real but wants to prioritize other stuff over it doesnt need to be convinced. They need to be convinced to make it a bigger priority. If someone doesnt believe its real all together u cant convince them to make it a bigger priority if they dont acknowledge it period. So this distinction matters depending on what were getting at

 

The rest of the ideology stuff is a whole other discussion and i dont think i disagree with anything ur getting at but the title on the specific accusation just simply isnt true thats all

[Economy 53,158]

29 minutes ago, CautiousLurker said:

If you say 'they deny climate change' and they say 'that's false, we don't deny it, we merely don't want to do anything about it', that doesn't sound in the least bit better than the initial accusation, so I still don't see why it's so important to make that distinction, especially when conservatives never bother to adhere to the same standards anyway - they will straight up lie without even bothering to root their lie in any kind of truth, so... I still say making that distinction doesn't matter - 'they deny climate change' is good enough 

I think "declaring its not real" vs not wanting to make it as big a priority as it should is still not the same thing

 

Cuz then u also get comments in these types of threads about them being uneducated or stupid for denying evidence etc

 

In the mean time the issue is values (what they want to prioritize) not their ability to acknowledge it for being stupid.

 

U cant pressure a party to change properly if u dont want to understand the root cause of their stance. Disbelieving in something vs having a different priority over environment is a totally different root cause for lack of support and wouldnt be dealt the same way

 

Lets put it this way. If a Right winger accuses a left party of saying they do not care about business or the economy or say it isnt important and jumped to that conclusion because they chose a policy that prioritizes the environment even tho that policy has economic costs... is that true????? No! Prioritizing environemnt doesnt mean they said economy isnt important or that they dont acknowledge their importance in peoples lives

 

Thats the same kind of thing. When u put words on the opposing party side because u disagree with their stance. Accuracy becomes meaningless at that point when u can draw any conclusion u feel like on the grounds that u feel its the same thing. Thats basically what ur doing here

[StarstruckIllusion 53,747]

lemme hide my face in shame chile Trudeau really needs to address this... Canada needs to be a leader in green energy... we’re too rich and sensible for this oml. Canada really is in it’s flop era w this, the slow vaccinations and vaccine hoarding accusations

[Economy 53,158]

2 hours ago, StarstruckIllusion said:

lemme hide my face in shame chile Trudeau really needs to address this... Canada needs to be a leader in green energy... we’re too rich and sensible for this oml. Canada really is in it’s flop era w this, the slow vaccinations and vaccine hoarding accusations

Thats not the governments fault tho

[Just A Holy Fool 2,660]

13 hours ago, Economy said:

Thats not the governments fault tho

Whose is it then? 

[Economy 53,158]

55 minutes ago, Just A Holy Fool said:

Whose is it then? 

No ones. Sometimes stuff is out of their control. We cant do anything about delays from companies overseas. We have contracts for more doses per capita than any other Nation and a diversified portfolio too of many different companies

 

We got screwed over with the delays. The Government doenst have a magic wand to prevent this. Ppl should be reasonable and understand the government isnt going to have full control of every situation all the time

 

The only blame on Canada is that we allowed domestoc capacity for vaccine manufacturing die which now puts us at the mercy of imports from other Nations so if they delay theres nothing we can do. But thats the fault of past governments many years ago. You cant blame Trudeau or the current Government for that

 

And im not saying this from a biased perspective cuz im not even a big fan of Trudeau. But im not gonna blame him for something thats beyond his immediate control