They want to have a level of confidence you'll pay your bill. Evil bastards! Why don't they just trust people? We all trust them to give them our Social Security Number, right? No?
- Does this Linux distribution take the summer off? - Does it complain about the pay? - Does it blame parents for poor computer performance? - Does it have TV commercials promoting itself? - Does it claim to be a "professional" distribution even though "home" distributions have better performance? - Is it certified? - Is the government paying for it? - Does it work on 30 documents but tell you that you'd be better off paying more and only doing 25 documents?
But what on earth makes it so much worse than all the other things that kill so many more people every year?
It's a deliberate attack by identifiable people. Those people are attacking in order to gain power over many more people.
We have options in response:
1. Fight them and attempt to deny them success in their attacks and their goal of gaining power. 2. Don't fight them. Allow them to succeed or fail without our intervention. Wash our hands of their future and the future of their victims. Don't lead. Don't help. Don't prevent terrorist bombings. (The victims will understand. "Car accidents are bad too", we'll say.)
---
The difference is that car accidents are accidents. Terrorist bombings are an attack.
---
Still don't get the difference? Let's compare these two statements:
1. My next door neighbor got into a car accident with me. I was badly injured, but I'll be OK. 2. My next door neighbor attacked and badly injured me, but I'll be OK.
That was a lot of text that doesn't point out who lost their freedom, nor does it say what freedom was lost.
Investigating people where no crime has been committed? That is wrong.
Preventing crimes from being committed is always "wrong" then.
Also, "the benefit of doubt" is for when there are multiple reasonable explanations for things. It doesn't apply to paranoia or delusions of grandeur or kooky conspiracy theories.
Once again, these are not relevant points. You can congratulate yourself for spotting something inconsistent all you want.
When someone says "The FBI is coming in their uniforms to get us all!", it's not really useful to point out that the FBI generally doesn't wear uniforms -- they tend to wear suits. But the point, again, is that they're not coming to get us all.
The article says that the FBI is asking people to watch out for certain behaviors. Who is less free because of that? What are they less free to do? What freedom has been taken away?
What the FBI might really be on about here is the chance that aggressive academics might be able to make a case for toppling this government by legal means. I think the Feds are circling wagons and playing defense.
I suggest building a concrete bunker. Maybe you still have one from Y2K. And tinfoil hats -- always.
Also, a complete strawman. So we should believe misinformation on Slashdot because someone once didn't believe genuine information?
I'm still not sure I understand your point. How is the misinformation is useful again?
---
So I have to ask, how do you know you're free, and what would the evidence look like that maybe you aren't so much anymore?
Is "believing misinformation" the right answer? Is outrage at the ordinary supposed to be my guide?
I could look at all the people who the US killed at the death camps in Guantanamo Bay (zero at last count). I could look at all the US citizens who have been falsely imprisoned for terrorism -- but no one can ever come up with a list of names. So it's hard.
I could look at my tax bill and see how free I am, I guess.
And you think that the FBI gets off on following up on completely useless tips? Or maybe you think they can't tell the difference between suspicious and ordinary, even though you seem to have no trouble?
It creates a surveilance society.
You mentioned the "surveillance society" buzzword. I profess the appropriate, socially-acceptable emotions about the "surveillance society" and agree with everyone who is on our side. Let's all feel good about ourselves and celebrate our grasp of current events.
Don't actually pay attention to the point I made. Get distracted by irrelevant stuff.
So your opinion of what's suspicious and your cartoon-version interpretation of the FBI's opinion differ. Good for you. How does that make this article correct? What freedom is taken away by the FBI asking people to watch out for certain behaviors?
Yeah, the FBI wants people to report suspicious activity. Wow!! I'm outraged.
The problem with the mock-outrage and crocodile tears for things like this is that it desensitizes people. When freedoms are actually, genuinely under assault, it'll get posted on Slashdot and everyone will ask "What is Slashdot whining about this time? Should I read the article to find out how it's misinformation again, or should I just save time and assume it's misinformation, like it usually is?"
Freedom is important. It's far too important for this. It's important to be vigilant to protect it. Pretending there's an assault on freedom when there isn't don't count as vigilance -- rather it provides cover so the real anti-freedom measures get lost in the noise.
I agree with this. I rarely print, but when I want to print, I want it to work.
When I had an inkjet, it never worked because it got dusty and the printhead smeared the ink. I bought a laser printer. They are more-or-less impervious to dust. And they are getting cheap now.
And I have heard that cell driving is similar in impairment to drink driving...
The reason for this is that the new standards for "drunk" actually mean "mostly sober, but not completely sober". The standards for drunk driving are catching people who are a minimal danger.
While the police have someone stopped who is incompletely sober or who is talking on his cell phone, 2 super-drunk multiple-DUI-offenders will mow down some pedestrians 2 blocks over.
But putting guilty people in jail costs money, and handing out tickets to innocent people raises money.
I agree. In fact, I am internally equipped with various defenses to fight and defeat those evil bacteria. The bacteria on my keyboard was probably originally attached to me anyway.
After I use someone else's keyboard, I wash my hands. Maybe I should write an Ask Slashdot topic:
"I recently discovered it was possible to wash my hands. After looking up various hygiene-related articles (link to Wikipedia) I found out that hand-washing has been associated with greatly-lessened likelihoods of getting sick. And disease outbreaks have been shown to be limited among populations of folks who wash their hands. Finally, after I heard that Al Gore washes his hands (link to Al Gore), I started doing it myself. Has anyone else tried this? Where do you wash them? Do you live near a fast-moving river where you can wash them? I wash mine in the toilet, but I'm starting to think that's not helping as much as the online articles suggest. There are other fixtures in my bathroom, but I don't know what they do. Has anyone ever tried using these other fixtures?"
Re:In other words, taxes exist to harm rich people
on
Internet Tax Imminent?
·
· Score: 1
Taxes got cut once. No one starved.
i really dont give a fuck
I think that more-or-less completely summarizes your position.
Take without end, without need, without sympathy, without compassion, without regard to right and wrong, without thinking of the consequences, without the intrusion of reality, without dealing with what works and what doesn't, and even without humanity. Because you want to and because you can.
Just like Apple doesn't care about people who only listen to Ogg Vobris music.
Both of these companies have decided they don't need the tiny segment of the market that cares about these things, no matter how loud they are in online forums.
Re:In other words, taxes exist to harm rich people
on
Internet Tax Imminent?
·
· Score: 1
Why do you feel so strongly that the greater good isnt worth coughing up a bit more money for?
Because they have more than enough already. Much, much more than enough. And "the greater good" doesn't generally do good. Generally, "the greater good" takes from one person and gives to another in return for the votes of the recipient.
And my feelings aren't the point. It's wrong to take things from people against their will. Feelings don't change that.
Why aren't taxes just voluntary? Pay them if you think you're getting a good deal. Don't if you don't. They aren't voluntary because giving people a good deal isn't the goal. Taking from people is the goal. As much as they can get away with taking. So it can be spent by people who didn't earn it on things that the takers value that the earners don't. If that weren't the case, taxes would be voluntary.
Wait, are you honestly saying that receiving welfare or social security is tantamount/analogous to a person of lessened means hiring someone to rob you?
It's clearly analogous. Especially if the receiver votes the money for himself. Does the recipient ever say "thank you"? No. The recipients say "More!!!!". The recipients say the payers are greedy for wanting to keep their own money.
At least thieves who show up with guns to rob people aren't trying to convince their victims that the robbers are the good guys. And by robbing them, the robbers are doing the victims a favor.
Its more like all of your neighbors coming over and saying, hey, we've decided we're giving X% of our income away to others, and you are too.
Except they're giving 20% and "you" are giving 50%. And they are going to decide who gets the money -- it's going to be their friends. And some of them are keeping part of the money as a handling fee. And they want more next year. And they hate "you" for not being poor. And "you" should thank them, because they certainly aren't going to be thanking "you".
Taxes are taken with the implicit approval of the people.
Yes. 51% of the people vote to pay *a little* themselves and take *a lot* from the other 49%. And the 51% are going to spend the money on things they like, take part of it as a handling fee, and divide up the rest.
If I could pay $100 in order to be able to spend $100,000 on things I value, why wouldn't I? Because it's wrong to take money from people against their will.
In theory I'm sorry that you feel wronged by your government, but in practice, i'm having trouble mustering much sympathy.
Sympathy is pointless. I would like people to think twice before they steal any more. Not because of sympathy, but because stealing is wrong. The hate campaigns against certain groups are wrong. The appeals to envy are wrong. We can't have a just government or live in peace when hatred and envy are the driving forces.
But you dont seem to concerned about the harms being healed with your tax money, and you dont seem concerned about what would happen to those programs in its absence.
So I should be concerned about other people even though they don't give a damn about me? Well guess what? I do.
Most of the programs funded by government are harmful in the overall picture. They hurt the people paying for them and they don't help the people who are supposed to benefit.
Welfare is a good example. It was reformed in the US 10 years ago. Before the reform, women were given checks every month. They were told they didn't have to do anything to keep getting the checks as long as they have children. If the father of their children lives in the house with the children, then the checks will stop. If the mother gets a job, then the checks will stop. If the mother doesn't vote for the right person, then the checks might stop. So millions of children grow up without their fathers and without a mother who can take care of herself. They also never get to have anything more valuable than the meager
Re:In other words, taxes exist to harm rich people
on
Internet Tax Imminent?
·
· Score: 1
If you don't want to fund government, thats fine, but I'm not entirely sure how else its supposed to happen.
It needs to happen in much smaller amounts. That's the point. MUCH, MUCH smaller amounts. Because the current system victimizes tax payers.
If you don't understand how paying taxes is harmful, you are welcome to pay my taxes for me. Or I can find some other people, and you can pay their taxes for them. No one is keeping you from paying as much extra as you want.
I'm neither a richer nor a welfare cow, and I feel strongly about "society" and the "coming together of individuals" because i think that we should be motivated by more than self-interest.
Right. You value the government handouts and giveaways, even if you don't receive the cash yourself. You've decided your tax money is worth paying. You are a "satisfied customer" of the security or society or whatever you seem to think you are getting or might get from the deal. That's what I was saying. You think you are getting your money's worth.
People like me, on the other hand, are getting ripped off. People like me are getting harmed. We are not satisfied customers. If this was a business, we would take our business elsewhere. But this is the government, and they have guys with guns who will come and get me if I take my tax money elsewhere. And they will kill me if I resist effectively.
If you don't understand the problem with that, then I give up. I can't state it any more clearly.
It's not OK for someone to come to my house and force me at gunpoint to give them money, but it's just fine for them to hire government workers to do effectively the same thing. Maybe it's OK for them to rob me in the first place because it would be selfish and narrow minded not to want to be robbed.
Or involving the government in something is an automatic "Get Away with Evil Free" card.
I guess I should seek to become part of the government then. Or find a way to get a subsidy. Or something. Because it's better to be a winner than a victim. And government involvement means never having to say you're sorry.
Re:In other words, taxes exist to harm rich people
on
Internet Tax Imminent?
·
· Score: 1
I personally think that tax burden should be shifte up the economic ladder to someone who can afford to chip more into the kitty.
It's not about being able to afford it. It's about one group of people taking money from another group of people to enrich themselves. It's about taking money from people by force instead of earning it yourself.
Social Security is the prime example. The poorest segment of the population is young wage-earners. The elderly are the richest segment of the population. Yet the elderly routinely vote to continue having the government take more from their children and grandchildren to give to them. This is morally wrong.
There are numerous examples. And there's absolutely no sympathy for people who are the victims of this.
The harm part comes from taxing someone who barely has enough to survive in the first place, not from the taxes by themselves.
By the same token, it's OK to beat up healthy people because they'll be able to recover.
This ignores why we have taxes in the first place, and emphasizes divisions and the individual rather than society and and the coming together of individuals.
Indeed it does. But government taxes are taken from an individual. Government checks are written to an individual. The harm is individual. The gains are often individual.
Government spending that doesn't result in individual gain tends to be a lot more legitimate. Roads and sewers and the military are among these areas. Subsidized housing, food stamps, welfare, social security, and other personal benefits are just stealing from others for individual personal gain.
It's interesting how "society" and the "coming together of individuals" are celebrated by someone when the personal benefits he receives outweigh the personal costs he has to pay.
Slashdot Mirror
The Tunguska explosion happened because George Bush doesn't care about Black Oil.
Requiring a deposit -- what a way to show trust.
They want to have a level of confidence you'll pay your bill. Evil bastards! Why don't they just trust people? We all trust them to give them our Social Security Number, right? No?
- Does this Linux distribution take the summer off?
- Does it complain about the pay?
- Does it blame parents for poor computer performance?
- Does it have TV commercials promoting itself?
- Does it claim to be a "professional" distribution even though "home" distributions have better performance?
- Is it certified?
- Is the government paying for it?
- Does it work on 30 documents but tell you that you'd be better off paying more and only doing 25 documents?
But what on earth makes it so much worse than all the other things that kill so many more people every year?
It's a deliberate attack by identifiable people. Those people are attacking in order to gain power over many more people.
We have options in response:
1. Fight them and attempt to deny them success in their attacks and their goal of gaining power.
2. Don't fight them. Allow them to succeed or fail without our intervention. Wash our hands of their future and the future of their victims. Don't lead. Don't help. Don't prevent terrorist bombings. (The victims will understand. "Car accidents are bad too", we'll say.)
---
The difference is that car accidents are accidents. Terrorist bombings are an attack.
---
Still don't get the difference? Let's compare these two statements:
1. My next door neighbor got into a car accident with me. I was badly injured, but I'll be OK.
2. My next door neighbor attacked and badly injured me, but I'll be OK.
Which one is a bigger problem? Why?
Not to mention that there are bombings by the hundreds in Thailand and Bangladesh. And others in the Philippines, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Spain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Russia, Argentina, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, etc. Oh, and Iraq and Afghanistan. Similarly, there are failed bombing plots in Canada, Germany, Britain, New Jersey, Chicago, New York, and numerous other places.
To some people, these incidents are all imaginary, I guess. Or they're George Bush's fault, so they'll all magically go away on Jan 20, 2009.
That was a lot of text that doesn't point out who lost their freedom, nor does it say what freedom was lost.
Investigating people where no crime has been committed? That is wrong.
Preventing crimes from being committed is always "wrong" then.
Also, "the benefit of doubt" is for when there are multiple reasonable explanations for things. It doesn't apply to paranoia or delusions of grandeur or kooky conspiracy theories.
Once again, these are not relevant points. You can congratulate yourself for spotting something inconsistent all you want.
When someone says "The FBI is coming in their uniforms to get us all!", it's not really useful to point out that the FBI generally doesn't wear uniforms -- they tend to wear suits. But the point, again, is that they're not coming to get us all.
The article says that the FBI is asking people to watch out for certain behaviors. Who is less free because of that? What are they less free to do? What freedom has been taken away?
What the FBI might really be on about here is the chance that aggressive academics might be able to make a case for toppling this government by legal means. I think the Feds are circling wagons and playing defense.
I suggest building a concrete bunker. Maybe you still have one from Y2K. And tinfoil hats -- always.
Godwin's law.
Also, a complete strawman. So we should believe misinformation on Slashdot because someone once didn't believe genuine information?
I'm still not sure I understand your point. How is the misinformation is useful again?
---
So I have to ask, how do you know you're free, and what would the evidence look like that maybe you aren't so much anymore?
Is "believing misinformation" the right answer? Is outrage at the ordinary supposed to be my guide?
I could look at all the people who the US killed at the death camps in Guantanamo Bay (zero at last count). I could look at all the US citizens who have been falsely imprisoned for terrorism -- but no one can ever come up with a list of names. So it's hard.
I could look at my tax bill and see how free I am, I guess.
And you think that the FBI gets off on following up on completely useless tips? Or maybe you think they can't tell the difference between suspicious and ordinary, even though you seem to have no trouble?
It creates a surveilance society.
You mentioned the "surveillance society" buzzword. I profess the appropriate, socially-acceptable emotions about the "surveillance society" and agree with everyone who is on our side. Let's all feel good about ourselves and celebrate our grasp of current events.
Don't actually pay attention to the point I made. Get distracted by irrelevant stuff.
So your opinion of what's suspicious and your cartoon-version interpretation of the FBI's opinion differ. Good for you. How does that make this article correct? What freedom is taken away by the FBI asking people to watch out for certain behaviors?
Yeah, the FBI wants people to report suspicious activity. Wow!! I'm outraged.
The problem with the mock-outrage and crocodile tears for things like this is that it desensitizes people. When freedoms are actually, genuinely under assault, it'll get posted on Slashdot and everyone will ask "What is Slashdot whining about this time? Should I read the article to find out how it's misinformation again, or should I just save time and assume it's misinformation, like it usually is?"
Freedom is important. It's far too important for this. It's important to be vigilant to protect it. Pretending there's an assault on freedom when there isn't don't count as vigilance -- rather it provides cover so the real anti-freedom measures get lost in the noise.
I agree with this. I rarely print, but when I want to print, I want it to work.
When I had an inkjet, it never worked because it got dusty and the printhead smeared the ink. I bought a laser printer. They are more-or-less impervious to dust. And they are getting cheap now.
All the land in Kansas is being used to grow corn for ethanol.
And I have heard that cell driving is similar in impairment to drink driving...
The reason for this is that the new standards for "drunk" actually mean "mostly sober, but not completely sober". The standards for drunk driving are catching people who are a minimal danger.
While the police have someone stopped who is incompletely sober or who is talking on his cell phone, 2 super-drunk multiple-DUI-offenders will mow down some pedestrians 2 blocks over.
But putting guilty people in jail costs money, and handing out tickets to innocent people raises money.
We've all seen it. It's on Google Street View.
I agree. In fact, I am internally equipped with various defenses to fight and defeat those evil bacteria. The bacteria on my keyboard was probably originally attached to me anyway.
After I use someone else's keyboard, I wash my hands. Maybe I should write an Ask Slashdot topic:
"I recently discovered it was possible to wash my hands. After looking up various hygiene-related articles (link to Wikipedia) I found out that hand-washing has been associated with greatly-lessened likelihoods of getting sick. And disease outbreaks have been shown to be limited among populations of folks who wash their hands. Finally, after I heard that Al Gore washes his hands (link to Al Gore), I started doing it myself. Has anyone else tried this? Where do you wash them? Do you live near a fast-moving river where you can wash them? I wash mine in the toilet, but I'm starting to think that's not helping as much as the online articles suggest. There are other fixtures in my bathroom, but I don't know what they do. Has anyone ever tried using these other fixtures?"
We have puddles of water right here.
Taxes got cut once. No one starved.
i really dont give a fuck
I think that more-or-less completely summarizes your position.
Take without end, without need, without sympathy, without compassion, without regard to right and wrong, without thinking of the consequences, without the intrusion of reality, without dealing with what works and what doesn't, and even without humanity. Because you want to and because you can.
Sony probably doesn't really want you to get one.
Just like Apple doesn't care about people who only listen to Ogg Vobris music.
Both of these companies have decided they don't need the tiny segment of the market that cares about these things, no matter how loud they are in online forums.
I never enjoyed any PS2 games...
Some other people did.
Why do you feel so strongly that the greater good isnt worth coughing up a bit more money for?
Because they have more than enough already. Much, much more than enough. And "the greater good" doesn't generally do good. Generally, "the greater good" takes from one person and gives to another in return for the votes of the recipient.
And my feelings aren't the point. It's wrong to take things from people against their will. Feelings don't change that.
Why aren't taxes just voluntary? Pay them if you think you're getting a good deal. Don't if you don't. They aren't voluntary because giving people a good deal isn't the goal. Taking from people is the goal. As much as they can get away with taking. So it can be spent by people who didn't earn it on things that the takers value that the earners don't. If that weren't the case, taxes would be voluntary.
Wait, are you honestly saying that receiving welfare or social security is tantamount/analogous to a person of lessened means hiring someone to rob you?
It's clearly analogous. Especially if the receiver votes the money for himself. Does the recipient ever say "thank you"? No. The recipients say "More!!!!". The recipients say the payers are greedy for wanting to keep their own money.
At least thieves who show up with guns to rob people aren't trying to convince their victims that the robbers are the good guys. And by robbing them, the robbers are doing the victims a favor.
Its more like all of your neighbors coming over and saying, hey, we've decided we're giving X% of our income away to others, and you are too.
Except they're giving 20% and "you" are giving 50%. And they are going to decide who gets the money -- it's going to be their friends. And some of them are keeping part of the money as a handling fee. And they want more next year. And they hate "you" for not being poor. And "you" should thank them, because they certainly aren't going to be thanking "you".
Taxes are taken with the implicit approval of the people.
Yes. 51% of the people vote to pay *a little* themselves and take *a lot* from the other 49%. And the 51% are going to spend the money on things they like, take part of it as a handling fee, and divide up the rest.
If I could pay $100 in order to be able to spend $100,000 on things I value, why wouldn't I? Because it's wrong to take money from people against their will.
In theory I'm sorry that you feel wronged by your government, but in practice, i'm having trouble mustering much sympathy.
Sympathy is pointless. I would like people to think twice before they steal any more. Not because of sympathy, but because stealing is wrong. The hate campaigns against certain groups are wrong. The appeals to envy are wrong. We can't have a just government or live in peace when hatred and envy are the driving forces.
But you dont seem to concerned about the harms being healed with your tax money, and you dont seem concerned about what would happen to those programs in its absence.
So I should be concerned about other people even though they don't give a damn about me? Well guess what? I do.
Most of the programs funded by government are harmful in the overall picture. They hurt the people paying for them and they don't help the people who are supposed to benefit.
Welfare is a good example. It was reformed in the US 10 years ago. Before the reform, women were given checks every month. They were told they didn't have to do anything to keep getting the checks as long as they have children. If the father of their children lives in the house with the children, then the checks will stop. If the mother gets a job, then the checks will stop. If the mother doesn't vote for the right person, then the checks might stop. So millions of children grow up without their fathers and without a mother who can take care of herself. They also never get to have anything more valuable than the meager
If you don't want to fund government, thats fine, but I'm not entirely sure how else its supposed to happen.
It needs to happen in much smaller amounts. That's the point. MUCH, MUCH smaller amounts. Because the current system victimizes tax payers.
If you don't understand how paying taxes is harmful, you are welcome to pay my taxes for me. Or I can find some other people, and you can pay their taxes for them. No one is keeping you from paying as much extra as you want.
I'm neither a richer nor a welfare cow, and I feel strongly about "society" and the "coming together of individuals" because i think that we should be motivated by more than self-interest.
Right. You value the government handouts and giveaways, even if you don't receive the cash yourself. You've decided your tax money is worth paying. You are a "satisfied customer" of the security or society or whatever you seem to think you are getting or might get from the deal. That's what I was saying. You think you are getting your money's worth.
People like me, on the other hand, are getting ripped off. People like me are getting harmed. We are not satisfied customers. If this was a business, we would take our business elsewhere. But this is the government, and they have guys with guns who will come and get me if I take my tax money elsewhere. And they will kill me if I resist effectively.
If you don't understand the problem with that, then I give up. I can't state it any more clearly.
It's not OK for someone to come to my house and force me at gunpoint to give them money, but it's just fine for them to hire government workers to do effectively the same thing. Maybe it's OK for them to rob me in the first place because it would be selfish and narrow minded not to want to be robbed.
Or involving the government in something is an automatic "Get Away with Evil Free" card.
I guess I should seek to become part of the government then. Or find a way to get a subsidy. Or something. Because it's better to be a winner than a victim. And government involvement means never having to say you're sorry.
I personally think that tax burden should be shifte up the economic ladder to someone who can afford to chip more into the kitty.
It's not about being able to afford it. It's about one group of people taking money from another group of people to enrich themselves. It's about taking money from people by force instead of earning it yourself.
Social Security is the prime example. The poorest segment of the population is young wage-earners. The elderly are the richest segment of the population. Yet the elderly routinely vote to continue having the government take more from their children and grandchildren to give to them. This is morally wrong.
There are numerous examples. And there's absolutely no sympathy for people who are the victims of this.
The harm part comes from taxing someone who barely has enough to survive in the first place, not from the taxes by themselves.
By the same token, it's OK to beat up healthy people because they'll be able to recover.
This ignores why we have taxes in the first place, and emphasizes divisions and the individual rather than society and and the coming together of individuals.
Indeed it does. But government taxes are taken from an individual. Government checks are written to an individual. The harm is individual. The gains are often individual.
Government spending that doesn't result in individual gain tends to be a lot more legitimate. Roads and sewers and the military are among these areas. Subsidized housing, food stamps, welfare, social security, and other personal benefits are just stealing from others for individual personal gain.
It's interesting how "society" and the "coming together of individuals" are celebrated by someone when the personal benefits he receives outweigh the personal costs he has to pay.
So it's really about hurting the USA. The Earth can wait, I guess.
Global warming caused by China and India are fine. Global warming caused by the USA is bad.
That's why the USA isn't going along with these schemes. They're not about anything besides hurting the USA and stealing from us.