Re: Harvard Crimson: Requiem for Environmentalism and Earth Day

On 4/25/06, Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> @@ The subject is "*destroying the planet*" ---- but you insist on
> changing it to *"harming the environment", *and various other
> non-sequiturs.
>

Here's Rush conclusion:

> The is no way to destroy the planet. ... Feel free in driving your SUVs
> ... don't worry about your air conditioners. .. You are not destroying the
> planet and you can't -- we can't -- the vanity of humanity thinking we can
> destroy the planet by advancing the technology aspects of our lifestyle is
> just pure rotgut.
>
Rush not I changed the subject by equivocating. If I said SUVs destroy the
planet does anybody really think I mean that they will literally blow the
earth up into pieces? What if it caused flooding, instead? But floods do
not qualify as destruction by definition. Which brings us to this:

> So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the
> earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy
> both them and the earth.
>
If this was a local flood, would that qualify as destroying the earth
according to Rush? No, it does not. A global flood? Nope.

Feel free in your violence. Don't worry about your debauchery. You are not
destroying the earth you can't -- God can't -- the vanity of God thinking He
can destroy the earth as a punishment for our lifestyle is just pure rotgut.
Received on Tue Apr 25 17:08:25 2006