[Thelomen Toblerone]

Morgoth, on 27 September 2009 - 03:19 PM, said:

@TT - been reading Singer have we?

I did a philosophy degree at a hippy university, the bastard was practically rammed down my throat in first year. But the argument I was using is a variant of the violinist argument (not one of his, by some woman whose name escapes me atm - McDonald, was it? Something uninspiring anyway, you need a ridiculous germanic name to get remembered it seems)

[Grand Goombah Graeld]

HoosierDaddy, on 27 September 2009 - 05:08 PM, said:

Grand Goombah Graeld, on 26 September 2009 - 01:47 AM, said:

Right and Libertarian leaning. I really don't pigeon hole very well.

Religion - No place in schools or politics. It can stay on the money, the Pledge of Allegiance, in whatever seals it's on and in/around public buildings.
Gay marriage - Hell, why not? Doesn't hurt anyone.
Polygamous marriage - See gay marriage.
Drugs - Legalize them.
Prostitution - Legalize it.
Abortion - Murder. Criminalize it AGAIN, kill murderers.
Murder - See abortion.
Rape and child molestation - Kill them.
Assault and child abuse - Don't kill them, but don't fall short of that.
Education - Great public education should absolutely be present through high school. Anything else, work for it. Everybody else did.
Health care - Not a right to recieve it, just for the OPPORTUNITY to recieve it. Divorce it from the workplace. Don't let the gov't. screw it up too.
Bailouts - Are you friggin' kidding me? If they need a bailout, they failed. Let them fail.
Global warming - Shut up. You're full of it.
Trade - If the country in question employs child labor, unfair wages, whatever they do to make for an unfair advantage, create tariffs that leevl the playing field until they lose the unfair advantage they have. We have the biggest consumer economy in the world, so let's just vote with our wallets.

Since you didn't specify which views you consider controversial, I'll just wing it. Let me know if I miss anything.

Religion staying on money, etc.? The majority of the country believes the crap, it doesn't hurt me any. My kids are actually being raised Catholic, because my wife is. I don't hide my beliefs (or lack thereof). I tell them my views & let them make up their own minds. I kind of see religion as a crutch - most people seem to need some sort of "higher power" to believe in. I see it as an internal strength issue.

Legalization of drugs and prostitution?
Drugs - When someone does drugs, they're only hurting themselves. They have that right. If they hurt someone else while on drugs, prosecute them for the offense they committed against whoever; they were likely to commit the offense w/o the drugs also. If we legalised drugs, we'd cut the legs out from under organised crime, from street gangs to mafia, etc. Those guys would have a MUCH smaller criminal pie to take part of, just like when prohibition was lifted. Many would go legitimate, others would turn to other types of crime and probably get caught/killed quicker. This by itself would COMPLETELY alleviate overcrowding in prisons. If you turn all the LE resources towards other types of crime, imagine the inroads we could make.
Protitution - Once again, not hurting anyone but themselves, and that only allegedly. Make the prostitutes safer, the johns visiting them safer. More of the legs of organized crim cut out from under it. LE resources turned to actually trying to protect us from harm.

Abortion? I firmly believe that life begins at conception and ends at death. Everyone has the same right to live that I've had. When the choice to abort is made, you've just hurt someone else, which you'll see is a common thread through my thought. Basically, everyone has a right to do whatever they want to themselves, and no right to do anything to anyone else. When someone does something that hurts someone else, they give up their own right, and the state/government/society has a responsibility at that point to ensure that person never hurts anyone again.

Murder, rape and child molestation? See what I said about hurting others in the above statement.

Assault and child abuse? I believe the harsher the sentence, the less likely they'll do it in the first place and the less likely they'll reoffend. People have claimed stats against this, but I have yet to see them. I'll keep an open mind, allthough in all honesty you can make stats say what you want if you know how to spin them.

Global warming? Or climate change, now that we're cooling, right? C'mon. I believe this is a hoax and bad science. Science just like everything else we do, is imperfect. I think a lot of people, while trying to get their minds around something that may be too big, got it wrong, and others jumped on to it as a way to push their own agendas and beliefs.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

You seem reasonable in many ways, but your stance that there is no global climate change is as mindblowing to me as if you declared being a flat-earther. I could understand (but disagree) if you claimed that there was climate change but humans weren't to blame, but to flat refuse that climate change is happening is not even ignoring science, it's ignoring your own senses.

[Aptorian]

Regarding Climate Change.

It depends what kinds of theories you are subscribing to. We have one of the worlds most outspoken critics on the climate scare here in Denmark, Bjørn Lomborg, and he continues to raise a lot of problems with the current discussion on the subject.

There are indications that the changes could be natural, cyckles in the weather patterns and solar radiation, and that they will change again whether or not we let out so and so many tones of carbon and greenhouse gasses. The problem is we can't tell before it gets worse or gets better, and untill then the question is whether you want to be cautious (greedy) or you want do something to perhaps make a crucial difference in the long run.

Personally I think the steps being taken currently aren't nearly enough. There's plenty of proposed energy conservation projects and reliable green energy ressources that we could begin to use if the governments were just willing to take the necessary steps.

[Grand Goombah Graeld]

Ah, the earth IS flat.

Seriously, it's a given that the climate goes through changes, hence my statement that we're cooling now. I'm sure that man has some small part in it, also. But to say that man is causing it all and that if we don't adopt all these crazy policies, if we don't do SOMETHING now, we'll have a catastrophe in the next 10-15 years is ludicrous.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Ok, that's more reasonable. I still disagree with you, but I can respect your position as that of a rational person. I misunderstood your original position to be "Nope, no change here."

[Grand Goombah Graeld]

ALL science has shown us that the earth has gone through periods where it gets cooler and periods where it's gotten warmer. There's no debate about this, everyone's in agreement. My whole thing, like other "opponents" of global warming or climate change, is that it would take a LOT more than something as small as us, collectively, to induce change on that kind of scale. The whole hoax of it, to me, looks very arrogant and presumptuous. The worst parts of it, for me, are that so many people on the side of global warming and climate change have taken the position that the debate is over, there is no debate, etc.; and that there are so many who push this agenda and make ridiculous profits as a result.
Climate exchanges? Really? No one's getting rich off those, right? It wouldn't be in their interests to propagate the hoax, would it?
How about new car companies? Unions? If they can propagate the myth that older vehicles are such GROSS polluters, that doesn't help them sell more cars, does it? Keep in mind, also, that many of the "green" cars on the market are cheaper to produce than the "gross polluters", typically don't last as long, are more limited in capability and have a lower resale value. Also keep in mind that it would take, what, like 10-15 years for the difference between how much a "green" car emits and what a "gross polluter" emits to equal the amount of emmissions the factories produced to make that "green" car. Cash for clunkers, indeed. Destroy a hobby to promote an agenda is more like it. This happens to be a particularly sore point for me, if you can't tell.

[Aptorian]

So you're saying there's a secret organisation working to trick us into buying environmentally friendly cars and stop using energy sources that pollute too much? Why that's the most fiendish thing I have ever heard of! Next they'll be trying to force us to eat healthy and learn things!!!

Just because we're small doesn't mean we aren't able to have large scale effect upon the environment of the earth. There are after all some six - seven billion of us running around. The amount of carbon dioxide and similar "bad for the environment" gasses we're pumping out are significant and it can be measured. The big problem lies in interpreting the numbers. Some say what we're doing is only a little bad and others say its very bad. Nobody, except crazies and saudi arabian oil princes doubt that our consumption of fossil fuels is a bad thing in the long run.

[Morgoth]

And the whole discussion is rather irrelevant to begin with.

Do we a) believe that we're affecting global warming and take steps to prevent further harm,
or b ) do we believe that we're not affecting global warming and continue on as we have so far.. ?

One of these choices have a potential for catastrophic consequences to our way of life while the other does not.

[Gothos]

at the very least, following the greener way of thinking regarding fossil fuels is beneficient in the long run whether a climate change is occuring or not, since it may work to free the western world from dependancy on arab and russian oil and gas

[Adjutant Stormy~]

Here's the deal:

We've taken measurements, and the Earth is getting warmer. I fundamentally refuse to point fingers.
We can either wait to see what the climate gives us, or we can push back.

Being the ambitious control-freak of a race that humans are, I'm leaning towards some global engineering and greenhouse emission cutbacks. Besides, it's like making steam engines. The first steam engines were terrible, but they worked. The trial and error process eventually yielded a scientific process for engineering energy systems. If we try to modify the environment, like we may have to, we'll at the very least know a phenomenally greater amount about the world we live on. And hell, we might prevent the sea level from rising, or be able to mitigate drought-cycles, or nothing at all, but you will never know until you try.

(Sorry, I'm a scientist to the core).

[Shinrei]

Morgoth, on 29 September 2009 - 07:32 PM, said:

And the whole discussion is rather irrelevant to begin with.

Do we a) believe that we're affecting global warming and take steps to prevent further harm,
or b ) do we believe that we're not affecting global warming and continue on as we have so far.. ?

One of these choices have a potential for catastrophic consequences to our way of life while the other does not.

Or you COULD put it this way:

Do we a) deliberately stifle economic growth in developing countries as well as adversely affect the economies of developed countries just in case we can actually do something about Climate Change
or b ) keep on with business as usual and encourage people to consume less and develop supplemental green energy sources.

One of these could greatly affect the quality of millions of lives on the off chance we are as smart as we smarmily think we are.

From where I stand these days:

Yes, Climate Change exists.
Yes, scientists have observed mounting evidence.
Yes, developing alternative energy sources is important for a variety of reasons.
Yes, "green" is a new religion that the government will use to push pet projects and spending swindles.
No, we can't predict the future and are proven terribly wrong again and again no matter how sophisticated we think our models to be.

I tend to be the skeptical sort...

[Happy Cat]

Quote

Destroy a hobby to promte an agenda is more like it. This happens to be particulary sore point for me, if you can't tell.

If you are saying what I think you are saying, I have to agree. They will have to take my '67 GTO from my cold dead hand.

There is no doubt that the population increasing at a geometric rate and this increase will have an effect on resource use. These people will demand the same things that we have. The factories will not stop running. Food production with all of its waste by productes has to incease. That is not to say that what you say is all wrong. Some is true; there is an agenda. It does utlize more energy to produce a Green auto, etc. I think in the long run it would be better to learn how power our factories, heat our homes, etc. with some kind of a renewable source rather then a finite one. Oil, as you probably know is used for more than just power, it is used in the manufacturing of materials, lubrication of machinery of course, and the manufacturing medicine. Extreme I know but I would hate to see it come down to a chose between transportation or medicine.

I of course am no great scholar, and I could be way off base here, but as I understand it Saharan Africa used to be lush, green, and forested. Thousands of years ago. The population of that time, which by no means is as large as todays, deforested the area for building materials and fuel resulting in the desert of today which is slowly creeping south. Another more recent example would be Iceland; it use to be forested but not any more. Early settlers cut down all the trees for fuel, housing, and to clear the land for farms. At some point I cannot see how the increase in population can not effect the weather on a global scale.

[quote]Do we a) deliberately stifle economic growth in developing countries as well as adversely affect the econmies of developed countries just in case we can actually do something about climate change.[/qoute]

Would it not a be better for developing countries to learn from our past mistakes and not repeat them? The 150 years of industrailation has seen alot of captial, energy, and resourses going to correcting those mistakes. Why make others suffer that all over again if it is possible to develope better industrail technologies and processes this time around. It would be cheeper in captial and human suffering in the long term to do a better job than we did.

There is always economic disruption whenever a new technology or industary surplants older ones. Are you saying we should protect a practice that is harmful to us just so some-one will not lose money, even if we can find a practice that do us less harm, or no harm?


EDIT: If there are any errors in the above quotes that is my fault. HC

This post has been edited by Cougar: 03 October 2009 - 08:29 PM

[Grand Goombah Graeld]

I am saying that, and you should have a goat for an avatar, sir.

We should absolutely develop renewable enrgy sources. We should NOT artificially make the ones we currently use more expensive to encourage use of the others. If left alone, the market WILL make those technologies more affordable. You see, those in the market who are working towards developing those technologies can get market share one of 2 ways. They can struggle, have successes and failures over a period of time as they make it cheaper and cheaper to the end user; or they can convince the government(s) that to "help". Not for nothing, that's what happened to the railroad industry. Did you realize that the demise of the railroad industry was due mostly to government intervention? It's true. I didn't know till I heard something on that liar Glenn Beck's show about Amtrak being owned by the government. I went, "NAAAHHH, no way they took control of that", but I then dutifully went and researched it. Guess what? Amtrak has ALWAYS been owned by the federal government, since it's inception in the early 70s. It's lost money EVERY YEAR it's been in operation. Why did the government start Amtrak? Glad you asked. The government's ridiculous regulations, taxes and fees against the (at that time) EVIL railroads, since about the 19teens, along with the tremendous support of the automobile industry by the government (to include the interstate system), added to our growing preference for driving ourselves, put most of the passenger rail services out of business by the end of the sixties. Look it up, then tell me the government doesn't try to (successfully) steer us where they want us.
As soon as they finished bankrupting the railroad industry, they started in on the cars. The emissions requirements imposed on detroit guaranteed the inclusion of the Japanese cars in our markets in the 70s. Detroit had a choice - meet the requirements and completely lose the performance, or pay strict fines and maintain the performance. They chose to meet the requirements, needlessly, I might add, and it took till the early 90s for the perfromance levels to reach late 60s/early 70s levels. When they chose to meet the requirements, it meant they couldn't meet the market demand - they were playing a bad game of catch up to the Japanese from an economy standpoint, and if Americans had to get something fuel-efficient, they understandably went to the (then) better Japanese cars. When loooked at logically, it makes NO sense for our government to have hamstrung the auto industry then, like that. You could see it coming. So why did they? I don't have a good answer for that.

Please excuse any typos here. I'm kinda tired. I'll have to edit later for responses to the rest of your post...

[Adjutant Stormy~]

I have a good reason why the Feds "hamstrung" the auto industry. Because they were damned lazy engineers.

There were a lot of problems with American cars. They were gas-guzzlers. They positively gouted exhaust. And while they had the chance, the Feds imposed restrictions on emissions, and on fuel economy (neither of which, were very strict from an engineering point of view). The technology existed 30 years ago to run a car with 200hp at 20 mpg. But they were hitting, what 12mpg? It would have taken some work, and some engineering cajones to sell the suits on it. But it was possible, even feasible.

Happy Cat, on 01 October 2009 - 05:08 AM, said:

Quote

Destroy a hobby to promte an agenda is more like it. This happens to be particulary sore point for me, if you can't tell.

If you are saying what I think you are saying, I have to agree. They will have to take my '67 GTO from my cold dead hand.

There is no doubt that the population increasing at a geometric rate and this increase will have an effect on resource use. These people will demand the same things that we have. The factories will not stop running.

The population cannot persist growing at such a rate. Either high-birthrate developing societies will change social habits, or they will starve and die in desperate poverty. Your move developing world.

Happy Cat said:

Quote

Do we a) deliberately stifle economic growth in developing countries as well as adversely affect the econmies of developed countries just in case we can actually do something about climate change.

Would it not a be better for developing countries to learn from our past mistakes and not repeat them? The 150 years of industrailation has seen alot of captial, energy, and resourses going to correcting those mistakes. Why make others suffer that all over again if it is possible to develope better industrail technologies and processes this time around. It would be cheeper in captial and human suffering in the long term to do a better job than we did.

I don't believe there are any shortcuts in societal change. For the same reason that I don't it's a good idea to build a house without first building a foundation. You certainly can build a big Western Industrial House in sub-Saharan Africa, but the social foundation structures that make it successful in the West don't exist, or are only nascent. There's none of the hundred things you need to keep up such an establishment without constant outside help. This is obviously a very hand-wavey version of a 20page argument I'd like to write to this effect.

This post has been edited by Adjutant Stormy: 02 October 2009 - 07:46 AM

[Aleksandrov]

Skipping all the discussion and answer the question 11 pages earlier.

My political goals are currently aligned with the Marxist-Leninist end of the spectrum. Although I've been reading a lot of Bakunin and Kropotkin so that might have influenced and toned my authoritarianism down a couple of notches.

[Adjutant Stormy~]

We need an Emperor.

[Grand Goombah Graeld]

Emperor Graeld? Fine, I accept.