In observing wide range of opinions that people have expressed on the Internet, I have come to notice that one particular rule can be formulated from the chaos:
As long as one is able to imagine the most hilarious/ridiculous/nonsensical position a person can possibly take on a certain issue, chances are that someone else on the Internet absolutely believes it.
I just had the random curiosity to search "pollution is good," and, a couple hyperlinks later, I found
old NPR story about a think tank called the "Competitive Enterprise Institute" that says...wait for it...not only is global warming not real, raising atmospheric CO
2 levels is actually a
good thing.
What a catchy tagline for their
ads: "They call it pollution. We call it life."
Since a little girl blowing on a dandelion is technically producing CO
2, and little girls are (mostly) harmless, it must logically follow that CO
2 is harmless.
It reminds me of a Youtube comment (where else?) I once read, arguing we should pump more greenhouse gases into the air because the Northwest is way too darn
cold.
Interestingly, but not surprisingly, they have disallowed ratings on their Youtube videos.
Comments (2)
Ugh, I remember learning about the Competitive Enterprise Institute while working on my social issues paper. Nice rule, heh... Then again, there are probably plenty of examples on the liberal side too (voluntary human extinction, wut).
That reminds me of the more vulgar Rule 34.