Whenever the Pachyderm Club bashers don't like where the discussion is going, out come the "thread purity" orange barrels. It's really comical at times.

 

Really, your the one helping run it off the cliff...start a Global Warming Thread and have at it!!!

Really, your the one helping run it off the cliff...start a Global Warming Thread and have at it!!!

In reviewing the evidence, post 13 shifted the direction of the discussion and elicited a response by me. What then resulted was a lively debate. Now an objection is filed in post 42? Little late, don't you think?

Whenever the Pachyderm Club bashers don't like where the discussion is going, out come the "thread purity" orange barrels. It's really comical at times.

 

Y'know when you do a Google search on "Pachyderm Club" (because I had to, was unfamiliar), this thread comes up as the 3rd choice?

So if someone has another opinion, they aren't a Thinker?

 

No doubt I used "Thinkers" as a suggestion that some people aren't.

 

In general, NO, an opposing opinion on whatever topic would not suggest lack of thinking.

 

Regarding environmentalists:

 

As a bit of writer's license while describing the traditional typical type of environmentalist, I used the word in my preface line as an obvious dig when comparing that throughout the Industrial Revolution timeline, the difference between the pacifist nature concerned environmentalist type, versus the majority of the average citizens that can often fall prey to the status quo, and let the powers that be do the thinking for them, rarely giving much thought to whether or not they're being lead off track, or in a good direction.

 

These types have historically supported the powers that be in knee-jerk fashion long before they give any credence to what an environmentalist might suggest.

 

Often too what the environmentalist might suggest has with it a call for change, and the average citizen is not so keen on disciplining themselves to new things or change, and it's easier to fire back in ways to suggest that the environmentalist types are whack jobs to avoid responsibility.

 

Today we still have many many people who could give two craps about recycling and find it to be an annoyance and a bother, while the benefits of doing so were first addressed by environmentalist long long ago.

 

Society has and always will have that facet of "sheep" if you will who believe everything the media tells them, and thinks that if it's readily available for purchase in a store, then it must be safe for us.

 

So in ending, my use of "Thinkers" was related mostly to that which I just described, and not just on any random topic.

 

History has shown time and again that fascinating new discoveries and pushes forward in our society has not been a result by the general society at large, but by individuals who went against the grain while taking much ridicule for it, only to be found out in hindsight to have been accurate and brilliant for thinking outside of the box.

 

Society at large sometime can be a bit too close to the forest to see the trees.

In reviewing the evidence, post 13 shifted the direction of the discussion and elicited a response by me. What then resulted was a lively debate. Now an objection is filed in post 42? Little late, don't you think?

 

Well I've not been sitting on this thread all day waiting for the scintillating discussion...sorry if it wasn't timely enough for you!

Since you have cited the Almighty, I should point out that your anti-science views on climate change are at odds with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Still time to take the St. Francis Pledge.

I don't agree with them on birth control either. So now what?

Whenever the Pachyderm Club bashers don't like where the discussion is going, out come the "thread purity" orange barrels. It's really comical at times.

What's more comical is your lemming like love for those that care nothing about you, they just want your money.