You aren't mooting shit. I doubt you live in my state. Last time I checked, we had this thing called an electoral college. Unless you live in my state, your vote has no effect on my vote, we are voting for different electors. I find it hard to believe anyone as dense as you would have voted anything but Repuglican anyway.
Are you saying it all evens out? That the folks who have ended up with the short end of the stick in modern times deserve it because they were provably blood thirsty bastards previously?
Taking this line of reasoning to its conclusion, you must think it is okay to steal from thieves or their descendants, and everyone is a thief or descended from one, therefore, theft should not be a crime.
Where do you get the idea that Native Americans had no concept of land ownership? You do know they fought amongst themselves over territory before we ever got here, right? If they had no concept of land ownership, why did they kill each other and take each other's land? They may not have completely understood the European concept of land ownership, but you can be damn sure that they, as well as every other indigenous population throughout history, has understood the concept that 'This is our land, to use as we see fit, and we can exclude you from it if we feel like it.'
Rules and consequences that everyone agrees to are not authoritarian. People break those rules should suffer the consequences. You are not being authoritarian, though some in the business you are working with might not agree. They agreed to certain conditions when accepting a job there, they can leave if they don't like it, and most of all, if they could look at the situation dispassionately I'm sure they would agree with your actions.
Moral relativity does not say that stealing is okay unless you are caught. It says things like, if you are starving and someone has more food than they can eat, that might be okay. Moral absolutism say it is always wrong to steal. Moral relativity says it is okay to kill in self defense. Moral absolutism says it is always wrong to kill.
Moral relativism simply says that either there is no absolute moral scale, or there is no possible way for humans to know it. It says that all moral statements must be evaluated in terms of the system they come from. Some things may be moral for one person or culture and not for others. As an example, standing naked in front of their friends kids would be immoral for most people, but not if everyone involved is a nudist.
You know what? I've been shown to be off base about oil company profits, I retract my statements that they are unfair. I'll even put it in the headline so everyone can see it.
And how, exactly, is congress doing more work going to fix anything? Seriously, a few more weeks of 'work' from those clowns is gonna fix the energy crisis? Do you have even half a clue as to how?
Remember, when dealing with me, the angrier you get, the happier I am.
Ahahaha, thank you. Thank you so much. That kind of frothing rage is a sure sign I'm doing something right. We were talking about what tapping our oil reserves can do for us now, you idiot, not what it might be able to do for us in the future. You fail, hard, and your misplaced anger just warms my lil' liberal heart.
Whoa, so there's a little over a year's worth of readily accessible oil in Bakken, not the 174 hundred billion barrels you originally claimed. Please try to do basic sanity checks on what you quote, to see if it actually supports your premise.
I'm not trying to make conservatives see reason. That is impossible. I'm trying to show how stupid they are so undecided folks don't make the mistake of believing them.
I guess you didn't know the Bakken formation is shale oil, which won't be economical to process until oil is even more expensive than it is now. So no one is talking about tapping Bakken, because it would be a net loss at current prices.
I happen to think it's an unfair profit. If you believe otherwise, just go ahead and state that you believe the profits are fair. Tell everyone you think the oil companies deserve that money.
That is oil shale. Look it up, specifically how expensive it is to process. It won't even be economical to touch that until oil prices are even more expensive than they are now. No one is talking about tapping oil shale right now, so mentioning it is irrelevant.
What laws did they put in effect that are causing you to go broke? I'm not going broke driving to work, maybe your budget problems aren't actually congress' fault, you ever think of that?
You do know that shale oil is incredibly difficult and expensive to process, right? So, the actual amounts that are economically extractable are minuscule compared to demand.
And, you know, private businesses exist to make money, not ensure the safety of anyone. If it looks cheaper to do something dangerous, they will do it. Remember the Pinto recall?
A fair profit fairly earned is one thing. This is something else. Please, tell us all how you think the oil companies are blameless in this and their record profits are nothing more than what they have fairly earned. I'll even bookmark it so I can refer back to it whenever you feel like posting more idiotic garbage and I want to show people what a damn fool you are.
Tapping our reserves now will do nothing to lower the price of oil, and anyone who has looked at the facts can't help but agree. The US reserves are minuscule compared to how much we use. Even if we tapped all our reserves, they would last all of three years.
More incredible is the fact that you think the answer is to pass more laws. Really?
What a dumb thing to say, and absolutely opposite of your stated political opinion. Please, state for the record that you wish congress to enact more laws. I really wish I could see your face right now, because I know you are gritting your teeth and frothing at the mouth due to cognitive dissonance.
You really think that passing more laws is going to fix this? REALLY? You think congress should cancel their regularly scheduled vacation so they can pass more laws? I do not for a second believe that you really mean that.
You can spout whatever ill informed opinions you like, but look at the facts. We have a total of 21 billion barrels of oil in reserve. We used 20 million barrels a day in 2004 according to the CIA world fact-book. That amounts to a little over three years of reserves at 2004 usage levels. That simply won't lower the price of gas, all it will do is put more money in the oil companies' pockets when they are already making record profits.
Speculators aren't idiots and know exactly how little oil is in the US reserves. Which still doesn't explain the sneaky and underhanded antics of the conservatives. Having the lights turned out on them is exactly what they deserve, they shouldn't try to sneak in and enact legislation while everyone is on vacation.
That raspberry smiley should have clued you in I was, well, razzing you. You may be annoying and hold some beliefs contrary to mine, but oddly enough I've come to respect you.
I've had the same experience with cops as you. I'm guessing you are polite with them and don't talk back just for the sake of proving you can stand up to authority. Most of the time, cops don't want to mess with you unless you give them a reason.
I'm curious though, what opinion of mine do you take issue with? The mental virus thing? I'm paraphrasing the Toltec tradition, specifically Don Miguel Ruiz'sFour Agreements. It's a short little book and I recommend you at least take a glance at it before dismissing the ideas, as I have really only scratched the surface of the philosophy here. It may be associated with the 'New Age' movement, but it is a completely agnostic philosophy similar to Buddhism in many ways, being a practice aimed at liberating the human mind.
Slashdot Mirror
You aren't mooting shit. I doubt you live in my state. Last time I checked, we had this thing called an electoral college. Unless you live in my state, your vote has no effect on my vote, we are voting for different electors. I find it hard to believe anyone as dense as you would have voted anything but Repuglican anyway.
Are you saying it all evens out? That the folks who have ended up with the short end of the stick in modern times deserve it because they were provably blood thirsty bastards previously?
Taking this line of reasoning to its conclusion, you must think it is okay to steal from thieves or their descendants, and everyone is a thief or descended from one, therefore, theft should not be a crime.
Where do you get the idea that Native Americans had no concept of land ownership? You do know they fought amongst themselves over territory before we ever got here, right? If they had no concept of land ownership, why did they kill each other and take each other's land? They may not have completely understood the European concept of land ownership, but you can be damn sure that they, as well as every other indigenous population throughout history, has understood the concept that 'This is our land, to use as we see fit, and we can exclude you from it if we feel like it.'
Actually, I'm a troll and an asshole, but thanks. ;)
Rules and consequences that everyone agrees to are not authoritarian. People break those rules should suffer the consequences. You are not being authoritarian, though some in the business you are working with might not agree. They agreed to certain conditions when accepting a job there, they can leave if they don't like it, and most of all, if they could look at the situation dispassionately I'm sure they would agree with your actions.
Moral relativity does not say that stealing is okay unless you are caught. It says things like, if you are starving and someone has more food than they can eat, that might be okay. Moral absolutism say it is always wrong to steal. Moral relativity says it is okay to kill in self defense. Moral absolutism says it is always wrong to kill.
Moral relativism simply says that either there is no absolute moral scale, or there is no possible way for humans to know it. It says that all moral statements must be evaluated in terms of the system they come from. Some things may be moral for one person or culture and not for others. As an example, standing naked in front of their friends kids would be immoral for most people, but not if everyone involved is a nudist.
You know what? I've been shown to be off base about oil company profits, I retract my statements that they are unfair. I'll even put it in the headline so everyone can see it.
OH SNAP! Can you say 'two faced hypocrites,' children? I knew you could!
And how, exactly, is congress doing more work going to fix anything? Seriously, a few more weeks of 'work' from those clowns is gonna fix the energy crisis? Do you have even half a clue as to how?
Remember, when dealing with me, the angrier you get, the happier I am.
Ahahaha, thank you. Thank you so much. That kind of frothing rage is a sure sign I'm doing something right. We were talking about what tapping our oil reserves can do for us now, you idiot, not what it might be able to do for us in the future. You fail, hard, and your misplaced anger just warms my lil' liberal heart.
'Oil reserves' refers to oil in the ground, not oil stored in tanks.
Whoa, so there's a little over a year's worth of readily accessible oil in Bakken, not the 174 hundred billion barrels you originally claimed. Please try to do basic sanity checks on what you quote, to see if it actually supports your premise.
I'm not trying to make conservatives see reason. That is impossible. I'm trying to show how stupid they are so undecided folks don't make the mistake of believing them.
I guess you didn't know the Bakken formation is shale oil, which won't be economical to process until oil is even more expensive than it is now. So no one is talking about tapping Bakken, because it would be a net loss at current prices.
Oops.
I happen to think it's an unfair profit. If you believe otherwise, just go ahead and state that you believe the profits are fair. Tell everyone you think the oil companies deserve that money.
That is oil shale. Look it up, specifically how expensive it is to process. It won't even be economical to touch that until oil prices are even more expensive than they are now. No one is talking about tapping oil shale right now, so mentioning it is irrelevant.
What laws did they put in effect that are causing you to go broke? I'm not going broke driving to work, maybe your budget problems aren't actually congress' fault, you ever think of that?
You do know that shale oil is incredibly difficult and expensive to process, right? So, the actual amounts that are economically extractable are minuscule compared to demand.
And, you know, private businesses exist to make money, not ensure the safety of anyone. If it looks cheaper to do something dangerous, they will do it. Remember the Pinto recall?
A fair profit fairly earned is one thing. This is something else. Please, tell us all how you think the oil companies are blameless in this and their record profits are nothing more than what they have fairly earned. I'll even bookmark it so I can refer back to it whenever you feel like posting more idiotic garbage and I want to show people what a damn fool you are.
Tapping our reserves now will do nothing to lower the price of oil, and anyone who has looked at the facts can't help but agree. The US reserves are minuscule compared to how much we use. Even if we tapped all our reserves, they would last all of three years.
More incredible is the fact that you think the answer is to pass more laws. Really?
What a dumb thing to say, and absolutely opposite of your stated political opinion. Please, state for the record that you wish congress to enact more laws. I really wish I could see your face right now, because I know you are gritting your teeth and frothing at the mouth due to cognitive dissonance.
You really think that passing more laws is going to fix this? REALLY? You think congress should cancel their regularly scheduled vacation so they can pass more laws? I do not for a second believe that you really mean that.
You can spout whatever ill informed opinions you like, but look at the facts. We have a total of 21 billion barrels of oil in reserve. We used 20 million barrels a day in 2004 according to the CIA world fact-book. That amounts to a little over three years of reserves at 2004 usage levels. That simply won't lower the price of gas, all it will do is put more money in the oil companies' pockets when they are already making record profits.
Speculators aren't idiots and know exactly how little oil is in the US reserves. Which still doesn't explain the sneaky and underhanded antics of the conservatives. Having the lights turned out on them is exactly what they deserve, they shouldn't try to sneak in and enact legislation while everyone is on vacation.
This isn't the least bit suspicious.
That raspberry smiley should have clued you in I was, well, razzing you. You may be annoying and hold some beliefs contrary to mine, but oddly enough I've come to respect you.
I've had the same experience with cops as you. I'm guessing you are polite with them and don't talk back just for the sake of proving you can stand up to authority. Most of the time, cops don't want to mess with you unless you give them a reason.
I'm curious though, what opinion of mine do you take issue with? The mental virus thing? I'm paraphrasing the Toltec tradition, specifically Don Miguel Ruiz's Four Agreements. It's a short little book and I recommend you at least take a glance at it before dismissing the ideas, as I have really only scratched the surface of the philosophy here. It may be associated with the 'New Age' movement, but it is a completely agnostic philosophy similar to Buddhism in many ways, being a practice aimed at liberating the human mind.
I was expecting a more spirited defense of authoritarianism from you, sumdumass. :P