Man, if this is your sig, then I'm really sorry for saying this, but you're an idiot.
Actually, my.sig is about the "AIDS==HIV" hypothesis being the largest medical fraud in human history. And thanks for the ad hominem; it's evidential of the sucky quality of your argument.
It looks like you're saying cars don't harm the environment.
You are assuming a point in dispute which this claim.
Cars do harm the environment, and they do pollute.
The first claim is not applicable, the second claim is true.
In big cities like Los Angeles, you're lucky if you can see the hills 1/4 mile away from you. The smog is so thick on some days everything is grey, almost like an overcast day. I don't live in LA, but the few times I've visited, it sure made me glad that I live in Washington.
How much of the smog is caused by cars, and how much is caused by other things? You assume that it's all due to cars, and I don't agree.
Now, call me queer
I'm a gay man, and I don't throw around that word lightly.
I'm pretty sure that oil is bad in the water supply.
Your glittering generalities do not impress me. In any case, I agree that drinking oil would be bad. How much of that oil that you mentioned is in "the water supply"?
I would pretty much say, yeah, that cars do indeed pollute.
I agree.
And since all leftists are just Star Trek watching, socialist, college students, I wouldn't worry about what they have to say.
I agree. Unfortunately, some of them happen to be in the highest offices of the most powerful nation on earth.
Because it seems that the majority of people right now
So leftist of you. "Only the majority is important. Screw the minority!"
people who once were in college, and aren't going to give up thier selfish, wanna-have-invididualism
This is where Leftists and Christians say exactly the same thing. The Christian version of what you've said is this: "People won't give up their selfish ways and turn to God". To Leftists, God is Government (or Gaea). To Christians, God is the 3-in-1. The sin for both groups is selfishness.
even though its going to destroy the planet for everyone
I know you love Gaea very much, but we're not going to destroy the planet. Even if we pollute the hell out of it, it will be "The Earth + Pollution". The Earth will not be destroyed. Yes, I lifted that from George Carlin.
You define yourself and your individualism by the car you drive? Or is it just the act of owning one that does it? Personally, my image of myself & my place on the world is pretty unrelated to the vehicles I drive.
The reason why you had to make this personal is because your argument sucks. The answer to both of your questions is "no". I maintain that cars enable greater individualism, and that's why Leftists hate cars.
The vehicles I own are not very fuel efficient, but each one serves a purpose for me, so I keep them. Does that mean that I shouldn't have the option to ride mass transit to work?
No.
Am I a leftist because I'd rather ride the bus & read than drive my own vehicle and pay for parking?
No.
At least thats what I'd do if the bus ran on a schedule more convenient for me. I didn't realize that my distaste for traffic jams meant that I was such a socialist.
Did something I write make you think that I like traffic jams?
And if you think internal combustion engines are not harmful to the environment, would you be willing to start one up in a small garage & sit in there with it? My guess is that you would not
That which is "harmful to my health" is different and separate from that which is "harmful to the environment". The former is a health concern while the latter is a religious belief.
Why be redundant? College students are most always hyper leftist. It makes sense: while living in their isolated world of "higher thought" where they don't have to work for a living, socialist theories seem like a perfect fit. Perhaps you've heard the phrase, "If you're not liberal when you're young, you're heartless. If you're not conservative when you're old, you're brainless."?
environmentalists, and religious people
Again, why be redundant? Environmentalism is a religion, and religion is superstition.
As to your charge that "all most post does is insult," I disagree. I stated that Leftists hate individualism (do you agree or disagree?). I stated that cars promote individualism (do you agree or disagree?). There's several points there that are worth contesting, don't you think? My guess is that you dislike my conclusion but can't disagree with my premises or logic, so you just want to label the whole thing as "insulting".
while adding nothing to the discussion
What a nice opinion.
I wanted to reply to the above post and refute the points in it, but I couldn't find any
Perhaps you just failed to find one that you disagreed with. I've already mentioned two of my points that you could contest. Whether or not environmentalism is a religion is also debateable, don't you think?
aside from the author's apparent belief that there's no reason whatsoever to worry about pollution, which I don't think I need to respond to.
It's "apparent"? Well, what exactly did I type that made this lie "apparent" to you?
And which should concern me more: the snide, childish blather that you type, or the things that Leftists do?
"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." (Hillary Clinton, 1993)
No, leftists hate individualism, and individualists hate communism, therefore leftists hate communists. Logic!
Your attempt to show the flaw in my logic fails. Leftists hate cars becuase they enable greater individualism.
Oh, it's that old saw. No, we hate cars because cars hate individuals.
No, you hate cars becuase you hate individualism. Like most Leftists (and Christians, for that matter), the finer points of communication evade you. You mock and insult. My guess is that my words struck a raw nerve in you.
Power to the Collective!
"A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth from its mouth: 'I, the state, am the people.'. It is a lie!"
Perhaps you've read that one? My guess is that you haven't.
Your attempts to intimidate me will fail. You're actually going to have to engage your brain and debate with me if you expect to have any chance of swaying me to your government gravy-train, "I know what's best for everyone" arrogance.
Cars represent individualism. I can hop in my car and drive pretty much wherever I want, whenever I want. It offers me great individual mobility. Much moreso than the ever-so-overhyped Segway(tm).
Leftists hate individualism. They think people should be represented by their group, not by their own selves. They think people should be dependent on the government, not dependent on themselves. Individualism stands in the way of their big truth that all humans must embrace (or go to the gulag, as it always turns out in practice).
Hence, Leftists hate cars.
Not that I like cars, myself. I would actually prefer to see American cities (particularly my own hometown of Atlanta where it is impossible to live sans auto and thus suffers from the worst, most redneck-engineered traffic jams in the country) become more pedestrian friendly. But I'm not so blind as to understand why so many Star-Trek-worshipping pan-socialist latch-onto-the-government-teat know-it-all college-student crybabies would like to ban the automobile.
Oh, and the "it harms the environment" argument. To you, I say your God is Gaea, and I think your religion, like all religions, is superstitious garbage.
social programs which are what make California great
I never thought I'd actually hear a Leftist say it, but here it is. It's not California's people, or its companies, or its produce, or its entertainment, or its beaches, or its mountains which make California great. None of those things.
It's the Government which makes California great.
Why, then, wouldn't it hold that it's the Federal Government which makes the USA great over any other aspect?
Re:I have a problem with this...
on
Prince of Pop-ups
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
all they have to do is move.
In many situations, this is non-trivial. If I am an apartment-dwelling college student, then, sure, moving is no big deal. If I just bought my new $2.5M mansion built off my spam profits, then, for me, moving isn't quite so easy. Same goes for businesses with lots of employees.
As I read the error in the source, I immediately thought, "Someone is going to make a really nerdy comment about the error." As it turns out, I was rewarded with not a nerdy comment, but a nerdy back-and-forth!
I really do love Slashdot for this very reason.:)
Re:This is scary, or is it just over-reaction?
on
Brain Privacy
·
· Score: 1
They're the ones paying you money.
And you provide them work for their money. It's a value-for-value exchange. Yet they get the right to drug test for this? It makes no sense to me.
Deal with it.
This is the snide and sophomoric grunt from the "That's the rules!" argument. We already know what the rules are.
They won't be depriving you of life, liberty or property, just depriving you of employment.
In a society as specialized as ours, depriving one of employment can be seriously damaging to one's property. I'm not arguing that employers owe employment to their employees. I'm saying that an employer who demands a drug screen of their employees is doing an immoral thing. Firing the employee for refusing the drug screen is an act of even less morality.
Then again, in a society as litigious as ours, perhaps it all makes sense. Yes, I'm talking about USian society.
roamng home directories, unified LDAP logons across multiple platforms
How did you set these up? I am interested in doing this on my home network (for fun, if for anything) but finding a decent HOWTO on the subject has been difficult.
This moring I sent a letter to the middle of nowhere over 1000 miles away for under 40 cents.
No, it does not count. Here is what Atlanta-based consumer advocate Clark Howard has to say about the United States Postal Service:
"The president of the United States has appointed a nine-member board to figure out what to do about the U.S. Postal Service. The USPS is $11 billion in debt right now. That's a lot of debt! The postal service has been raising rates for the past few years, and the picture moving into the future is not good. It's because people are starting to pay bills electronically more often and people even send greeting cards electronically. So the post office faces enormous difficulties because the amount of mail isn't going to be there. Do you know how many post offices there are across the U.S.? About 30,000. How many of those make money? Only half make money. So, really there would be almost no hardship if we closed half of the post offices. But politically, Congress chooses to waste our money by opening more post offices so they can get re-elected. Clark would love to see the postal service spin off into a private company that is completely free from government interference. If you go to FedEx or UPS, what you pay to ship a package is based on how far it's going. But with the post office, it's the same price no matter where you send your mail. The postal service used to have a very different role in our lives. If you go back even as recently as 1980, a long distance call would be $3.55. Today, it's about 2.5 cents. The cost of sending a letter in 1980 was six cents or eight cents. Now look at the price. We need to make the post office a real business and make it work for once."
Trojans: insurance for those who enjoy child porn?
on
The Virus Did It
·
· Score: 1
Consider this. Suppose I am some piece of trash who enjoys looking a child porn. All I have to do is obtain this trojan and make it look like "the trojan did it". That way, if I get busted, the trojan takes the fall for me. It's like a get-out-of-jail free card.
If you're concerned about it getting there, send it UPS or FedEx. Both offer guaranteed service. There is no service offered by the USPS which carries the same guarantee on all of UPS's services (both air and ground) and all of FedEx's air services.
And how exactly would this cabal of scientists get a majority of say climatologists and meteorologists to believe them?
Humans are ingenious. They have convinced most people that there is a sexually transmitted disease ("epidemic" even!) called "AIDS" that is caused by a virus called "HIV." What you're arguing is "That is not possible!" You know what? You can't prove a negative.
me personally? no, i havent measured the other factors. But they are: Global warming gasses, sulfates and aerosols, and solar variability
You still haven't answered my questions. I'm guessing that your answers are still "no", "no", and "no". Why won't you just admit it?
Youre thinking too short term.
The short term may be good enough for jealous nations to try and unseat the USA from their position of prominence. Do you think that France, Russia, or China (or anyone) would take the opportunity to be the most powerful and influential nation on the planet? The Kyoto agreement was designed to weaken the US economy. It's no small wonder that other nations gladly signed it and then tried to punish the US for not signing it.
And incidentally, president Bush supports this proposal too.
I'm supposing you added this because you think I must support Commandante Bush since I don't support "environmentalism."
Well if you dont buy the global warming argument, think of fossil fuels as civilization fuels.
More collectivist thinking. Future generations should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.
Secondly, there will be fewer conflicts over foriegn energy supplies.
Until we discover fusion I don't think there's ever going to not be fighting over world energy supplies.
Thirdly, the united states will be more energy self sufficient, which will increase our security and stop our economy from being subjet to energy cartels price fixing whims.
I don't think the US is as subject to price fixing whims as you think they are. We have lots of things we can trade (or threaten) for oil. Not that I approve of this, but since the embargos I think the State department has only been incresingly flexing its muscles to ensure that the US economy keeps its status quo.
Im insulted, because I am none of those things, yet I support the reduction of CO2 emissions to reduce the effects of global warming.
Please reserve your outrage. I did not say, "You are a communist and America hater." I argue that the environmentalist movement contains communists and America haters. Just look at the Green Party platform and you'll see what I mean.
Second, your argument boils down to " Theres a left wing america-hating commie conspiracy to promote global warming as a way to destroy america" Sounds logical to me.
First, I've made many arguments, and you can't "boil them down" to that. Second, I didn't argue that there was a conspiracy. I argue that the environmentalist movement contains communists and America haters, and those people use the environmentalist movement to promote their agenda.
Id continue this debate further, if i felt i could convince you , but you seem to have already made up your mind.
You accuse me of closed-mindedness. That's fine. I suppose I could accuse you of the same thing, but where would that get me?
Another explanation for your behavior is that I didn't fold as quickly as you think I should have, and accusing me of closed-mindedness is your way out.
So i leave you with this article [nasa.gov] a debate between two who are more knowledgeable than we are.
"Just go read this." You need to be able to generate your arguments on your own. Certainly you have reasons for believing the way you do. Why not tell me what those are and we can discuss their merits?
For more science behind the atmosphere and the greenhouse effect, see here [grida.no]
Thank you for actually posting some evidence. I will have to read and cogitate on it before I can respond.
Isnt that how science works? Whatever theory most scientists have evidence to back up holds until some other scientist can conclusively prove to the contrary?
If this were true, then you admit that science itself is ripe for abuse. All a disingenuous group of scientists who had something to gain (money, power, or ego) from a particular scientific belief would have to do would be to get a "majority" of scientists to support it.
And then we can talk about HIV and AID$.:)
Thats like saying, well I have some fixed bills in my budget (rent, food, etc), and furthermore, I dont know what future bills ill have in the future
Snip. Okay, my questions were, "How much do all of the factors (including the Holy CO2 factor) contribute to global temperature?", "Have you measured?", and "Do you even know how to measure them?" I am guessing that your answers to these questions are, "no", "no", and "no". Am I correct?
How so? Now whos the one not showing evidence? If you said "weaken currently powerful companies" Ill give you a maybe.
If you weaken powerful companies in America, will America's economy be a) strengthened, b) unaffected, or c) weakened? How many people to powerful companies employe? How many goods and services to powerful companies purchase from other companies? I think you're being naive.
But where there is money, capitalism will find a way.
I agree. So why do we have to hasten the process? When there is a demand for "ecologically friendly" materials, it will happen. Your argument comes down to, "But we HAVE to do SOMETHING!'
Insults are also solace for those who have a poor argument.
Except that I didn't insult anyone, nor is my argument poor. I stated correctly that environmentalism was a religion, and I stated correctly that communists and America haters have included themselves in its ranks. My argument was that 1) I have not yet seen any evidence (you addressed this and I may find satisfaction), 2) that you don't know to what degree CO2 affects global warming compared to other factors (you ignored this), 3) you don't know what all the factors are that relate to global warming (you ignored this), 4) you don't know how to measure all the factors that relate to global warming (you ignored this), 5) the whole "global warming" argument is very suspicious because A) the "solution" involves weakening America's economy and free market and B) environmentalists include America haters and communists (you have not disputed this). Have you seen the Green Party's political platform? It is communist!
You come off as sounding all superior. But talking big and making a good argument are two different things. You must drop your condescending attitude; if anything, it's just going to your opponent resistant to accepting your point of view. That goes for me and for anyone that you may debate.
I would spend time here explaining the difference between 'contributing to' something and 'causing' something, except that you are clearly intelligent enough to know it... you're just ignoring it so you can make your opponent look foolish.
What you are saying here is that "causing" implies "being the one and only contributing factor." It seems we have a semantic problem. And I didn't have to make my opponent look foolish: she/he did a fine job all by their lonesome. I notice that you ignore the fact that the previous poster admitted that the charges may have been fabricated as well as the fact that they admitted that the reasons behind global warming didn't matter anyway.
It's clearly untrue that there is no evidence that global warming is caused by human action.
You have made an error by choosing to use the word "clearly." If it was really so clear, then you wouldn't need to label it as such: its clarity would be self-evident.
There is plenty of evidence, albiet indirect and uncertain.
I don't depend on indirect and uncertain evidence to make my judgements.
What you're saying is, 'Any evidence produced by environmentalists can be immediately discounted completely. Once this is done, there is no evidence that any current trends in global warming are caused by human action.'
These are your words, not mine. My argument is this: I have seen no evidence that human activity causes global warming.
Oh, I forgot one thing. 'Anyone who produces evidence that the current trends in global warming are caused by human action is, ipso facto, an environmentalist.'
Again, these are your words, not mine. Stop putting words in my mouth. Furthermore, how could these be my words? They imply that I have seen someone produce some evidence that human activity causes global warming.
You are a very strange man, but an interestingly consistant one. You are constantly accusing others of your own failings.
Not only do you accuse me of ad hominem (which I didn't), but you commit one yourself.
I could, for example, say that Libertarianism is a religion, and money and 'unfettered capitalism' are its gods.
Perhaps you could. Do you care to whip it into an argument?
And, like the stereotypical raving religious fanatic, you use every rhetorical tactic at your disposal to mock those who say things you don't like, but can make few actual substantive arguments because you're too busy with vitreol and spleen.
It's telling that you didn't find the time to respond to my arguments but did find the time to include this invective. Aren't you committing the sin that you accuse me of?
One person makes the argument that we are dumping a bunch of garbage into the atmosphere, and that we have very little idea what the consequences might be.
Actually, that was not his/her argument. They argued that it didn't matter what the causes were.
You *could* argue in return that since we don't know the consequences, we should pretend that it is impossible that there could be any, and act accordingly. It's an amazingly stupid argument, but at least a self-consistant one.
If only it were my argument or even relevent to the discussion we were having. CO2 is not "garbage." You are actually bringing up a separate discussion. Did you want to "go there," too?
Instead you call him a pinko commie rat-bastard who is out to destroy the free market (and, of course, America) with his ideas. Not a lot of substance there, and what there is sounds like it was dreamed up by McCarthy.
These studies do not contradict the fact that human induced warming is occuring.
Excuse you, but what "fact"? I have never seen any evidence that humans are causing global warming. I have seen Leftists and environmentalists finding a new excuse to hate American industry and hate the fact that Americans drive cars when and where they want to.
Potentially, human induced warming can be much much greater than what weve seen so far
Show me the evidence. Don't just say, "Well the majority of the scientific community believes it!" I won't accept your ad verecundiam and ad numeram arguments. I, too, can list a bunch of scientists who say that your claims are excrement.
The studies show that warmer temperatures lead to more extreme weather.
So what? You're still stuck on #1 and #2. Start with a flawed premise, and you will reach a flawed conclusion.
if warmer temperatures in the past have led to more extreme weather, warmer temperatures caused by humans can do the same.
Flawed premise, flawed conclusion.
even if there are OTHER factors (solar variability etc) leading to warmer temperatures, CO2 is a well known greenhouse gas, without it, the earth would have an average temperature below freezing, solar variability or not.
So you are admitting that there are other factors. It begs the question: How much do all of the factors (including the Holy CO2 factor) contribute to global temperature? Have you measured? Do you even know how to measure them? Do you even know what all the factors are?
Other natural factors leading to warming would suggest that we do even more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and increase sequestration of gasses, to counteract the very changes in weather that these studies suggest warmer temperatures bring.
"Heads, I win. Tails, you lose." It seems that you believe that reducing greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced at all costs. How convenient that doing so just so happens to involve weakening American industry and capitalism. It also just so happened that so many communists and America-haters have found good company in the Church of Gaea.
Environmentalism is a religion. It has as much to do with science as does Christianity.
yup, those environmentalists sure got slammed by that study.
Yes, sarcasm. It's solace for those who have a poor argument.
Sigh, okay time for Science 101. Science is not based on dogma or unchanging beliefs. Rather it's based on research
You are not totally correct. I'll trump your "Science 101" with "Sociology 101":
Science is controlled by humans, not by infallible angels. Since it is controlled by humans, its practice, while allegedly being about "pure research," will be tainted by ego, money, and power. Once ego, money, and power get involved (and they always do), then there will be parts of science that are based on protecting some individuals' or groups' ego, money, or power. This happens in any and all human endeavors.
Science is an iterative process.
Science is an iterative, human process. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone is perfect.
The study shows that higher global temperatures existed in the past. It doesn't say anything about what is causing the current warming trend.
Then it shares someting in common with the claims of the environmentalists: it has no evidence showing that human action causes global warming.
Those who are opposed to emissions restrictions like to argue that the current warming trend may not be caused by humans.
The way you crafted this sentence shows your dishonestly. I and others who are opposed to emission restrictions argue that there is no evidence that the current warming trend is caused by humans.
They may be right, but that's not the point.
Okay, you are condeding that those opposed to emissions restrictions may be right about the fact that there is no evidence that human behavior is causing global warming. In other words, you are admitting that your claims may be fabricated.
It does not matter if warming is human-caused or not.
If this is true, then you are refuting what the environmentalists have been claiming about global warming. They argue that global warming is, in fact, human caused. Hence, we need to curb certain human behaviors (such as emissions).
What matters is "is this a good trend for us?" (and it does not look good)
This is "The sky is falling!"
and "can we do anything about it?" (probably).
I can't help but notice that the causes of "global warming" always come down to Americans and their capitalistic ways. Is it no small wonder that so many communists found safe haven in the environmentalist movement?
Human activity is certainly contributing to global warming, and we can do something about that activity.
This is illustrative of the poor critical thinking skills exhibited by many environmentalists. You write that human activity is "certainly" (if it was so certain, then why did you need to label it as such?) causing global warming, but you have previously mentioned that your charges may be fabricated and that whether or not human activity causes global warming doesn't matter anyway.
So the question is then: "should we?"
At this point, is your agument really worth considering? You have no evidence, an admission that your charges may be fabricated, and poor reasoning.
Given that warming seems to lead to more extreme weather,
Ahh, it "seems" to. Like much of the environmentalists' data, it is not compelling.
and given that any climate change is going have drastic and expensive consequences for argriculture,
Wait a minute, "any" climate change is going to have expensive consequences for agriculture? I admit that your wording is vague, but I infer that you believe that "any" climate change is going to have extreme and negative economic impact on agriculture. Well, what if the climate changed so that an agricultural area got more rain when it previously wasn't getting enough? Wouldn't that be a positive effect from a climate change?
That's the problem you face when you use universal qualifiers like "any" (meaning "all") -- I need but generate one exception to disqualify it.
and given that it seems easier to induce global warming than global cooling
Once again, it "seems." What "seems"? Where are you getting this?
It is highly unlikely that everyone has got it all wrong and that there is no global warming at all.
Which is not the argument, of course. The argument is this: There is no evidence that any current trends in global warming are caused by human action.
And again, it's better to err on the side of caution.
In other words, let's just assume it's caused by humans.
If we convince ourselves that there is no problem and we turn out to be wrong the cost of that mistake will be extreme high.
I think the problem is very clear: the environmentalist religion
If you look back to what was exchanged, you'll see that the original poster mentioned the evil corporation first. I then brought up the actions not only of bloodthirsy dictators, but also present actions of my government, namely the War on Some Drugs, which kills many more people than Firestone could ever dream of killing. Even if the directors of governments are deceased, certainly the orignal poster must agree that governments are capable of killing many more people than corporations are, and perhaps he can channel some of that outrage into preventing government abuse instead of punishing "greedy" corporations (which seems to be the burning desire of Leftists nowadays).
This is not a sound argument for the conclusion that we are not doing enough to prevent the crimes of governments.
This is not my argument.
The original poster asked if Firestone should be held accountable for the dozens of people it was responsible for killing. I asked about Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot to show that the poster was reserving his outrage for corporations rather than for governments.
No, I believe government to be bad *and* corporations to be bad.
Not all governments are bad, nor are all corporations. I am the CFO of a corporation. (It's a corporation of two people, but it's still a legitimate corporation.) I don't think mine is bad. I do think that governments have a much worse track record than corporations could ever dream of competing with. The blood of the millions upon millions who died at the hands of their own government attest to it.
And while you never argued that corporations weren't capable of causing major harm, asking "where does this government good, corporations bad nonsense come from" sure implies it.
Or perhaps your bias leads you to infer it. My statement does not imply that corporations are good; only that it is nonsense to believe that government is, by default, good AND that corporations are, by default, bad. This is at the core of Leftist dogma nowadays.
It's just that I don't see anything that can counter corporate excess other than government, especially when the media is owned by large corporations.
And how much is to be judged "in excess"? This is a completely subjective notion. Ask 100 people and you'll get 100 different answers.
I notice that you don't seem to come up with a solution for managing government excess. Perhaps this is because you don't believe there is such a thing.
Legalize, regulate, and heavily tax pot and other recreational drugs.
This is a bad idea. If you heavily tax drugs then you will drive their users into crime. The one and only thing which can counter drug use and abuse is education. What people seem fain to admit is that there are people who actually like living like a junkie.
And some people at companies like Firestone do need to go to jail.
I see you continue to focus your outrage on those evil corporations who manage to kill dozens every year instead of our government which kills and imprisons thousands. "Government good, corporations bad."
As far as Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, etc., all I'm seeing these days is people around the world being perfectly content with leaving monsters alone to brutalize their own people.
I had mentioned those horrible people to illustrate how evil governments can become. The point seems lost, for Firestone gets the bulk of your wrath.
And as far as the govt being able to "haul out the guns and take it" whenever they need money, I can recall one recent president that didn't get re-elected precisely because he did that.
I suppose you included this because you think I'm a conservative and that this kind of comment would get my goat. I vote Libertarian and your statement is unprovable anyway.
As I see it, in the last 200 years, America has dragged large parts of the world towards democracy and freedom
Democracy hinders, not helps, freedom. Democracy is mob rule.
while at the same time we've been dragged away from democracy and freedom by the world
The US government does not need the world's help in its inevitable slide toward huge, oppressive government. It's the nature of government to get bigger and bigger.
We're still the freeest country in the world, which isn't saying much, and about the only way to reverse the downward spiral is if some country is created/has a revolution and gets something going that's better.
It would be great to reign in the government in a big way, but to be quite honest, corporations are capable of causing major harm (cigarette companies, Exxon Valdez, Bhopal).
First, you're playing the "Yes, but" game.
Second, I never argued that corporations weren't capable of causing major harm, so you're beating up a strawman.
Third, I notice that you fail to mention any of the points that I raised.
Don't you think somebody should have at least gone to *jail* for covering up the problems with Firestone tires to delay a recall by a year, causing dozens of preventable deaths?
Yes.
Only dozens of preventable deaths? What about Pol Pot, who managed to kill half the population of Cambodia. Was he ever punished for his ideas and actions? No. What about Stalin, who killed more people than Hitler did. Was he held accountable? No. What about the thousands that our own government (assuming you're a USAian, or a citizen of a country with a "cooperative" government) kills and imprisons every year fighting the irrational, futile War on Some Drugs? Are they going to see justice?
The fact that you focus on an corporation and the dozens of deaths that it was responsible for while ignoring governments and the millons that they've killed shows your unfortunate bias. You believe that government is good while corporations are bad. Am I correct?
An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth.
And just how much is "excessive"? Ask 100 people and you'll get 100 different answers. The "excessive" part of the definition is that which makes it subjective.
Greed is a very good thing, unless you're a communist.
I think the only bad thing in this regard is to believe that there is such a thing as "greed." It does not exist. I believe that making money using force or fraud is immoral and should be illegal.
Nice to see how the neo-conservatives are eroding the rights of individuals by refusing to legislate any controls over corporaions, and all in the name of freedom.
Let me get this straight: the government is to blame for not putting any controls on corporations that keep them from... doing business with the government? This makes no sense.
The knee-jerk Leftist response is, "Greedy corporations want to take over all our rights." The unsaid response is, "Don't pay any attention to that Federal Government behind the curtain." Do people not see that it is, in fact, the government that wants to complile data on everyone and intrude on everyone's rights? Do people not see that a government with an insatiable hunger for power will stop at nothing to get what they want, and that includes paying corporations (who exist to make money, and here comes a paying customer with a guaranteed* paycheck) to bypass all of those pesky laws that limit the government?
Where does this "government good, corporations bad" nonsense come from? It is the government which imprisons thousands upon thousands every year for the mere act of smoking marijuana. It is the government which forcibly takes money from citizens to blast its propaganda on the Super Bowl. It is the government which forces people to pay money into a bankrupt, guaranteed-to-lose-money income redistrubution and vote-buying scheme (yes, it's Social Security). It is governments which killed millions in Germany, Russia, China, and Cambodia.
Corporations and governments can both be evil because of the fact that they are made up of fallible humans, not infallible angels. Governments have one power that corporations don't: the legal right to use deadly force to acheive their goals. It is for this reason that the power of government should be limited, not expanded.
*Guaranteed because if the government ever wants more money, all they have to do is haul out the guns and take it. They don't have to worry about working hard for money.
Slashdot Mirror
Man, if this is your sig, then I'm really sorry for saying this, but you're an idiot.
.sig is about the "AIDS==HIV" hypothesis being the largest medical fraud in human history. And thanks for the ad hominem; it's evidential of the sucky quality of your argument.
Actually, my
It looks like you're saying cars don't harm the environment.
You are assuming a point in dispute which this claim.
Cars do harm the environment, and they do pollute.
The first claim is not applicable, the second claim is true.
In big cities like Los Angeles, you're lucky if you can see the hills 1/4 mile away from you. The smog is so thick on some days everything is grey, almost like an overcast day. I don't live in LA, but the few times I've visited, it sure made me glad that I live in Washington.
How much of the smog is caused by cars, and how much is caused by other things? You assume that it's all due to cars, and I don't agree.
Now, call me queer
I'm a gay man, and I don't throw around that word lightly.
I'm pretty sure that oil is bad in the water supply.
Your glittering generalities do not impress me. In any case, I agree that drinking oil would be bad. How much of that oil that you mentioned is in "the water supply"?
I would pretty much say, yeah, that cars do indeed pollute.
I agree.
And since all leftists are just Star Trek watching, socialist, college students, I wouldn't worry about what they have to say.
I agree. Unfortunately, some of them happen to be in the highest offices of the most powerful nation on earth.
Because it seems that the majority of people right now
So leftist of you. "Only the majority is important. Screw the minority!"
people who once were in college, and aren't going to give up thier selfish, wanna-have-invididualism
This is where Leftists and Christians say exactly the same thing. The Christian version of what you've said is this: "People won't give up their selfish ways and turn to God". To Leftists, God is Government (or Gaea). To Christians, God is the 3-in-1. The sin for both groups is selfishness.
even though its going to destroy the planet for everyone
I know you love Gaea very much, but we're not going to destroy the planet. Even if we pollute the hell out of it, it will be "The Earth + Pollution". The Earth will not be destroyed. Yes, I lifted that from George Carlin.
You define yourself and your individualism by the car you drive? Or is it just the act of owning one that does it? Personally, my image of myself & my place on the world is pretty unrelated to the vehicles I drive.
The reason why you had to make this personal is because your argument sucks. The answer to both of your questions is "no". I maintain that cars enable greater individualism, and that's why Leftists hate cars.
The vehicles I own are not very fuel efficient, but each one serves a purpose for me, so I keep them. Does that mean that I shouldn't have the option to ride mass transit to work?
No.
Am I a leftist because I'd rather ride the bus & read than drive my own vehicle and pay for parking?
No.
At least thats what I'd do if the bus ran on a schedule more convenient for me. I didn't realize that my distaste for traffic jams meant that I was such a socialist.
Did something I write make you think that I like traffic jams?
And if you think internal combustion engines are not harmful to the environment, would you be willing to start one up in a small garage & sit in there with it? My guess is that you would not
That which is "harmful to my health" is different and separate from that which is "harmful to the environment". The former is a health concern while the latter is a religious belief.
liberals, college students
Why be redundant? College students are most always hyper leftist. It makes sense: while living in their isolated world of "higher thought" where they don't have to work for a living, socialist theories seem like a perfect fit. Perhaps you've heard the phrase, "If you're not liberal when you're young, you're heartless. If you're not conservative when you're old, you're brainless."?
environmentalists, and religious people
Again, why be redundant? Environmentalism is a religion, and religion is superstition.
As to your charge that "all most post does is insult," I disagree. I stated that Leftists hate individualism (do you agree or disagree?). I stated that cars promote individualism (do you agree or disagree?). There's several points there that are worth contesting, don't you think? My guess is that you dislike my conclusion but can't disagree with my premises or logic, so you just want to label the whole thing as "insulting".
while adding nothing to the discussion
What a nice opinion.
I wanted to reply to the above post and refute the points in it, but I couldn't find any
Perhaps you just failed to find one that you disagreed with. I've already mentioned two of my points that you could contest. Whether or not environmentalism is a religion is also debateable, don't you think?
aside from the author's apparent belief that there's no reason whatsoever to worry about pollution, which I don't think I need to respond to.
It's "apparent"? Well, what exactly did I type that made this lie "apparent" to you?
Yes. We hate you all. Join the collective. Murp!
And which should concern me more: the snide, childish blather that you type, or the things that Leftists do?
"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." (Hillary Clinton, 1993)
No, leftists hate individualism, and individualists hate communism, therefore leftists hate communists. Logic!
Your attempt to show the flaw in my logic fails. Leftists hate cars becuase they enable greater individualism.
Oh, it's that old saw. No, we hate cars because cars hate individuals.
No, you hate cars becuase you hate individualism. Like most Leftists (and Christians, for that matter), the finer points of communication evade you. You mock and insult. My guess is that my words struck a raw nerve in you.
Power to the Collective!
"A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this
lie creepeth from its mouth: 'I, the state, am the people.'. It is a lie!"
Perhaps you've read that one? My guess is that you haven't.
Your attempts to intimidate me will fail. You're actually going to have to engage your brain and debate with me if you expect to have any chance of swaying me to your government gravy-train, "I know what's best for everyone" arrogance.
Cars represent individualism. I can hop in my car and drive pretty much wherever I want, whenever I want. It offers me great individual mobility. Much moreso than the ever-so-overhyped Segway(tm).
Leftists hate individualism. They think people should be represented by their group, not by their own selves. They think people should be dependent on the government, not dependent on themselves. Individualism stands in the way of their big truth that all humans must embrace (or go to the gulag, as it always turns out in practice).
Hence, Leftists hate cars.
Not that I like cars, myself. I would actually prefer to see American cities (particularly my own hometown of Atlanta where it is impossible to live sans auto and thus suffers from the worst, most redneck-engineered traffic jams in the country) become more pedestrian friendly. But I'm not so blind as to understand why so many Star-Trek-worshipping pan-socialist latch-onto-the-government-teat know-it-all college-student crybabies would like to ban the automobile.
Oh, and the "it harms the environment" argument. To you, I say your God is Gaea, and I think your religion, like all religions, is superstitious garbage.
social programs which are what make California great
I never thought I'd actually hear a Leftist say it, but here it is. It's not California's people, or its companies, or its produce, or its entertainment, or its beaches, or its mountains which make California great. None of those things.
It's the Government which makes California great.
Why, then, wouldn't it hold that it's the Federal Government which makes the USA great over any other aspect?
all they have to do is move.
In many situations, this is non-trivial. If I am an apartment-dwelling college student, then, sure, moving is no big deal. If I just bought my new $2.5M mansion built off my spam profits, then, for me, moving isn't quite so easy. Same goes for businesses with lots of employees.
As I read the error in the source, I immediately thought, "Someone is going to make a really nerdy comment about the error." As it turns out, I was rewarded with not a nerdy comment, but a nerdy back-and-forth!
:)
I really do love Slashdot for this very reason.
They're the ones paying you money.
And you provide them work for their money. It's a value-for-value exchange. Yet they get the right to drug test for this? It makes no sense to me.
Deal with it.
This is the snide and sophomoric grunt from the "That's the rules!" argument. We already know what the rules are.
They won't be depriving you of life, liberty or property, just depriving you of employment.
In a society as specialized as ours, depriving one of employment can be seriously damaging to one's property. I'm not arguing that employers owe employment to their employees. I'm saying that an employer who demands a drug screen of their employees is doing an immoral thing. Firing the employee for refusing the drug screen is an act of even less morality.
Then again, in a society as litigious as ours, perhaps it all makes sense. Yes, I'm talking about USian society.
Yes, I have a question:
roamng home directories, unified LDAP logons across multiple platforms
How did you set these up? I am interested in doing this on my home network (for fun, if for anything) but finding a decent HOWTO on the subject has been difficult.
This moring I sent a letter to the middle of nowhere over 1000 miles away for under 40 cents.
No, it does not count. Here is what Atlanta-based consumer advocate Clark Howard has to say about the United States Postal Service:
"The president of the United States has appointed a nine-member board to figure out what to do about the U.S. Postal Service. The USPS is $11 billion in debt right now. That's a lot of debt! The postal service has been raising rates for the past few years, and the picture moving into the future is not good. It's because people are starting to pay bills electronically more often and people even send greeting cards electronically. So the post office faces enormous difficulties because the amount of mail isn't going to be there. Do you know how many post offices there are across the U.S.? About 30,000. How many of those make money? Only half make money. So, really there would be almost no hardship if we closed half of the post offices. But politically, Congress chooses to waste our money by opening more post offices so they can get re-elected. Clark would love to see the postal service spin off into a private company that is completely free from government interference. If you go to FedEx or UPS, what you pay to ship a package is based on how far it's going. But with the post office, it's the same price no matter where you send your mail. The postal service used to have a very different role in our lives. If you go back even as recently as 1980, a long distance call would be $3.55. Today, it's about 2.5 cents. The cost of sending a letter in 1980 was six cents or eight cents. Now look at the price. We need to make the post office a real business and make it work for once."
Link: http://clarkhoward.com/shownotes/2002/12/12.html
Consider this. Suppose I am some piece of trash who enjoys looking a child porn. All I have to do is obtain this trojan and make it look like "the trojan did it". That way, if I get busted, the trojan takes the fall for me. It's like a get-out-of-jail free card.
If you're concerned about it getting there, send it UPS or FedEx. Both offer guaranteed service. There is no service offered by the USPS which carries the same guarantee on all of UPS's services (both air and ground) and all of FedEx's air services.
And how exactly would this cabal of scientists get a majority of say climatologists and meteorologists to believe them?
Humans are ingenious. They have convinced most people that there is a sexually transmitted disease ("epidemic" even!) called "AIDS" that is caused by a virus called "HIV." What you're arguing is "That is not possible!" You know what? You can't prove a negative.
me personally? no, i havent measured the other factors. But they are: Global warming gasses, sulfates and aerosols, and solar variability
You still haven't answered my questions. I'm guessing that your answers are still "no", "no", and "no". Why won't you just admit it?
Youre thinking too short term.
The short term may be good enough for jealous nations to try and unseat the USA from their position of prominence. Do you think that France, Russia, or China (or anyone) would take the opportunity to be the most powerful and influential nation on the planet? The Kyoto agreement was designed to weaken the US economy. It's no small wonder that other nations gladly signed it and then tried to punish the US for not signing it.
And incidentally, president Bush supports this proposal too.
I'm supposing you added this because you think I must support Commandante Bush since I don't support "environmentalism."
Well if you dont buy the global warming argument, think of fossil fuels as civilization fuels.
More collectivist thinking. Future generations should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.
Secondly, there will be fewer conflicts over foriegn energy supplies.
Until we discover fusion I don't think there's ever going to not be fighting over world energy supplies.
Thirdly, the united states will be more energy self sufficient, which will increase our security and stop our economy from being subjet to energy cartels price fixing whims.
I don't think the US is as subject to price fixing whims as you think they are. We have lots of things we can trade (or threaten) for oil. Not that I approve of this, but since the embargos I think the State department has only been incresingly flexing its muscles to ensure that the US economy keeps its status quo.
Im insulted, because I am none of those things, yet I support the reduction of CO2 emissions to reduce the effects of global warming.
Please reserve your outrage. I did not say, "You are a communist and America hater." I argue that the environmentalist movement contains communists and America haters. Just look at the Green Party platform and you'll see what I mean.
Second, your argument boils down to " Theres a left wing america-hating commie conspiracy to promote global warming as a way to destroy america" Sounds logical to me.
First, I've made many arguments, and you can't "boil them down" to that. Second, I didn't argue that there was a conspiracy. I argue that the environmentalist movement contains communists and America haters, and those people use the environmentalist movement to promote their agenda.
Id continue this debate further, if i felt i could convince you , but you seem to have already made up your mind.
You accuse me of closed-mindedness. That's fine. I suppose I could accuse you of the same thing, but where would that get me?
Another explanation for your behavior is that I didn't fold as quickly as you think I should have, and accusing me of closed-mindedness is your way out.
So i leave you with this article [nasa.gov] a debate between two who are more knowledgeable than we are.
"Just go read this." You need to be able to generate your arguments on your own. Certainly you have reasons for believing the way you do. Why not tell me what those are and we can discuss their merits?
For more science behind the atmosphere and the greenhouse effect, see here [grida.no]
:)
Thank you for actually posting some evidence. I will have to read and cogitate on it before I can respond.
Isnt that how science works? Whatever theory most scientists have evidence to back up holds until some other scientist can conclusively prove to the contrary?
If this were true, then you admit that science itself is ripe for abuse. All a disingenuous group of scientists who had something to gain (money, power, or ego) from a particular scientific belief would have to do would be to get a "majority" of scientists to support it.
And then we can talk about HIV and AID$.
Thats like saying, well I have some fixed bills in my budget (rent, food, etc), and furthermore, I dont know what future bills ill have in the future
Snip. Okay, my questions were, "How much do all of the factors (including the Holy CO2 factor) contribute to global temperature?", "Have you measured?", and "Do you even know how to measure them?" I am guessing that your answers to these questions are, "no", "no", and "no". Am I correct?
How so? Now whos the one not showing evidence? If you said "weaken currently powerful companies" Ill give you a maybe.
If you weaken powerful companies in America, will America's economy be a) strengthened, b) unaffected, or c) weakened? How many people to powerful companies employe? How many goods and services to powerful companies purchase from other companies? I think you're being naive.
But where there is money, capitalism will find a way.
I agree. So why do we have to hasten the process? When there is a demand for "ecologically friendly" materials, it will happen. Your argument comes down to, "But we HAVE to do SOMETHING!'
Insults are also solace for those who have a poor argument.
Except that I didn't insult anyone, nor is my argument poor. I stated correctly that environmentalism was a religion, and I stated correctly that communists and America haters have included themselves in its ranks. My argument was that 1) I have not yet seen any evidence (you addressed this and I may find satisfaction), 2) that you don't know to what degree CO2 affects global warming compared to other factors (you ignored this), 3) you don't know what all the factors are that relate to global warming (you ignored this), 4) you don't know how to measure all the factors that relate to global warming (you ignored this), 5) the whole "global warming" argument is very suspicious because A) the "solution" involves weakening America's economy and free market and B) environmentalists include America haters and communists (you have not disputed this). Have you seen the Green Party's political platform? It is communist!
You come off as sounding all superior. But talking big and making a good argument are two different things. You must drop your condescending attitude; if anything, it's just going to your opponent resistant to accepting your point of view. That goes for me and for anyone that you may debate.
I would spend time here explaining the difference between 'contributing to' something and 'causing' something, except that you are clearly intelligent enough to know it... you're just ignoring it so you can make your opponent look foolish.
What you are saying here is that "causing" implies "being the one and only contributing factor." It seems we have a semantic problem. And I didn't have to make my opponent look foolish: she/he did a fine job all by their lonesome. I notice that you ignore the fact that the previous poster admitted that the charges may have been fabricated as well as the fact that they admitted that the reasons behind global warming didn't matter anyway.
It's clearly untrue that there is no evidence that global warming is caused by human action.
You have made an error by choosing to use the word "clearly." If it was really so clear, then you wouldn't need to label it as such: its clarity would be self-evident.
There is plenty of evidence, albiet indirect and uncertain.
I don't depend on indirect and uncertain evidence to make my judgements.
What you're saying is, 'Any evidence produced by environmentalists can be immediately discounted completely. Once this is done, there is no evidence that any current trends in global warming are caused by human action.'
These are your words, not mine. My argument is this: I have seen no evidence that human activity causes global warming.
Oh, I forgot one thing. 'Anyone who produces evidence that the current trends in global warming are caused by human action is, ipso facto, an environmentalist.'
Again, these are your words, not mine. Stop putting words in my mouth. Furthermore, how could these be my words? They imply that I have seen someone produce some evidence that human activity causes global warming.
You are a very strange man, but an interestingly consistant one. You are constantly accusing others of your own failings.
Not only do you accuse me of ad hominem (which I didn't), but you commit one yourself.
I could, for example, say that Libertarianism is a religion, and money and 'unfettered capitalism' are its gods.
Perhaps you could. Do you care to whip it into an argument?
And, like the stereotypical raving religious fanatic, you use every rhetorical tactic at your disposal to mock those who say things you don't like, but can make few actual substantive arguments because you're too busy with vitreol and spleen.
It's telling that you didn't find the time to respond to my arguments but did find the time to include this invective. Aren't you committing the sin that you accuse me of?
One person makes the argument that we are dumping a bunch of garbage into the atmosphere, and that we have very little idea what the consequences might be.
Actually, that was not his/her argument. They argued that it didn't matter what the causes were.
You *could* argue in return that since we don't know the consequences, we should pretend that it is impossible that there could be any, and act accordingly. It's an amazingly stupid argument, but at least a self-consistant one.
If only it were my argument or even relevent to the discussion we were having. CO2 is not "garbage." You are actually bringing up a separate discussion. Did you want to "go there," too?
Instead you call him a pinko commie rat-bastard who is out to destroy the free market (and, of course, America) with his ideas. Not a lot of substance there, and what there is sounds like it was dreamed up by McCarthy.
Except that I didn't cal
These studies do not contradict the fact that human induced warming is occuring.
Excuse you, but what "fact"? I have never seen any evidence that humans are causing global warming. I have seen Leftists and environmentalists finding a new excuse to hate American industry and hate the fact that Americans drive cars when and where they want to.
Potentially, human induced warming can be much much greater than what weve seen so far
Show me the evidence. Don't just say, "Well the majority of the scientific community believes it!" I won't accept your ad verecundiam and ad numeram arguments. I, too, can list a bunch of scientists who say that your claims are excrement.
The studies show that warmer temperatures lead to more extreme weather.
So what? You're still stuck on #1 and #2. Start with a flawed premise, and you will reach a flawed conclusion.
if warmer temperatures in the past have led to more extreme weather, warmer temperatures caused by humans can do the same.
Flawed premise, flawed conclusion.
even if there are OTHER factors (solar variability etc) leading to warmer temperatures, CO2 is a well known greenhouse gas, without it, the earth would have an average temperature below freezing, solar variability or not.
So you are admitting that there are other factors. It begs the question: How much do all of the factors (including the Holy CO2 factor) contribute to global temperature? Have you measured? Do you even know how to measure them? Do you even know what all the factors are?
Other natural factors leading to warming would suggest that we do even more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and increase sequestration of gasses, to counteract the very changes in weather that these studies suggest warmer temperatures bring.
"Heads, I win. Tails, you lose." It seems that you believe that reducing greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced at all costs. How convenient that doing so just so happens to involve weakening American industry and capitalism. It also just so happened that so many communists and America-haters have found good company in the Church of Gaea.
Environmentalism is a religion. It has as much to do with science as does Christianity.
yup, those environmentalists sure got slammed by that study.
Yes, sarcasm. It's solace for those who have a poor argument.
Sigh, okay time for Science 101. Science is not based on dogma or unchanging beliefs. Rather it's based on research
You are not totally correct. I'll trump your "Science 101" with "Sociology 101":
Science is controlled by humans, not by infallible angels. Since it is controlled by humans, its practice, while allegedly being about "pure research," will be tainted by ego, money, and power. Once ego, money, and power get involved (and they always do), then there will be parts of science that are based on protecting some individuals' or groups' ego, money, or power. This happens in any and all human endeavors.
Science is an iterative process.
Science is an iterative, human process. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone is perfect.
The study shows that higher global temperatures existed in the past. It doesn't say anything about what is causing the current warming trend.
Then it shares someting in common with the claims of the environmentalists: it has no evidence showing that human action causes global warming.
Those who are opposed to emissions restrictions like to argue that the current warming trend may not be caused by humans.
The way you crafted this sentence shows your dishonestly. I and others who are opposed to emission restrictions argue that there is no evidence that the current warming trend is caused by humans.
They may be right, but that's not the point.
Okay, you are condeding that those opposed to emissions restrictions may be right about the fact that there is no evidence that human behavior is causing global warming. In other words, you are admitting that your claims may be fabricated.
It does not matter if warming is human-caused or not.
If this is true, then you are refuting what the environmentalists have been claiming about global warming. They argue that global warming is, in fact, human caused. Hence, we need to curb certain human behaviors (such as emissions).
What matters is "is this a good trend for us?" (and it does not look good)
This is "The sky is falling!"
and "can we do anything about it?" (probably).
I can't help but notice that the causes of "global warming" always come down to Americans and their capitalistic ways. Is it no small wonder that so many communists found safe haven in the environmentalist movement?
Human activity is certainly contributing to global warming, and we can do something about that activity.
This is illustrative of the poor critical thinking skills exhibited by many environmentalists. You write that human activity is "certainly" (if it was so certain, then why did you need to label it as such?) causing global warming, but you have previously mentioned that your charges may be fabricated and that whether or not human activity causes global warming doesn't matter anyway.
So the question is then: "should we?"
At this point, is your agument really worth considering? You have no evidence, an admission that your charges may be fabricated, and poor reasoning.
Given that warming seems to lead to more extreme weather,
Ahh, it "seems" to. Like much of the environmentalists' data, it is not compelling.
and given that any climate change is going have drastic and expensive consequences for argriculture,
Wait a minute, "any" climate change is going to have expensive consequences for agriculture? I admit that your wording is vague, but I infer that you believe that "any" climate change is going to have extreme and negative economic impact on agriculture. Well, what if the climate changed so that an agricultural area got more rain when it previously wasn't getting enough? Wouldn't that be a positive effect from a climate change?
That's the problem you face when you use universal qualifiers like "any" (meaning "all") -- I need but generate one exception to disqualify it.
and given that it seems easier to induce global warming than global cooling
Once again, it "seems." What "seems"? Where are you getting this?
It is highly unlikely that everyone has got it all wrong and that there is no global warming at all.
Which is not the argument, of course. The argument is this: There is no evidence that any current trends in global warming are caused by human action.
And again, it's better to err on the side of caution.
In other words, let's just assume it's caused by humans.
If we convince ourselves that there is no problem and we turn out to be wrong the cost of that mistake will be extreme high.
I think the problem is very clear: the environmentalist religion
If you look back to what was exchanged, you'll see that the original poster mentioned the evil corporation first. I then brought up the actions not only of bloodthirsy dictators, but also present actions of my government, namely the War on Some Drugs, which kills many more people than Firestone could ever dream of killing. Even if the directors of governments are deceased, certainly the orignal poster must agree that governments are capable of killing many more people than corporations are, and perhaps he can channel some of that outrage into preventing government abuse instead of punishing "greedy" corporations (which seems to be the burning desire of Leftists nowadays).
This is not a sound argument for the conclusion that we are not doing enough to prevent the crimes of governments.
This is not my argument.
The original poster asked if Firestone should be held accountable for the dozens of people it was responsible for killing. I asked about Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot to show that the poster was reserving his outrage for corporations rather than for governments.
No, I believe government to be bad *and* corporations to be bad.
:)
Not all governments are bad, nor are all corporations. I am the CFO of a corporation. (It's a corporation of two people, but it's still a legitimate corporation.) I don't think mine is bad. I do think that governments have a much worse track record than corporations could ever dream of competing with. The blood of the millions upon millions who died at the hands of their own government attest to it.
And while you never argued that corporations weren't capable of causing major harm, asking "where does this government good, corporations bad nonsense come from" sure implies it.
Or perhaps your bias leads you to infer it. My statement does not imply that corporations are good; only that it is nonsense to believe that government is, by default, good AND that corporations are, by default, bad. This is at the core of Leftist dogma nowadays.
It's just that I don't see anything that can counter corporate excess other than government, especially when the media is owned by large corporations.
And how much is to be judged "in excess"? This is a completely subjective notion. Ask 100 people and you'll get 100 different answers.
I notice that you don't seem to come up with a solution for managing government excess. Perhaps this is because you don't believe there is such a thing.
Legalize, regulate, and heavily tax pot and other recreational drugs.
This is a bad idea. If you heavily tax drugs then you will drive their users into crime. The one and only thing which can counter drug use and abuse is education. What people seem fain to admit is that there are people who actually like living like a junkie.
And some people at companies like Firestone do need to go to jail.
I see you continue to focus your outrage on those evil corporations who manage to kill dozens every year instead of our government which kills and imprisons thousands. "Government good, corporations bad."
As far as Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, etc., all I'm seeing these days is people around the world being perfectly content with leaving monsters alone to brutalize their own people.
I had mentioned those horrible people to illustrate how evil governments can become. The point seems lost, for Firestone gets the bulk of your wrath.
And as far as the govt being able to "haul out the guns and take it" whenever they need money, I can recall one recent president that didn't get re-elected precisely because he did that.
I suppose you included this because you think I'm a conservative and that this kind of comment would get my goat. I vote Libertarian and your statement is unprovable anyway.
As I see it, in the last 200 years, America has dragged large parts of the world towards democracy and freedom
Democracy hinders, not helps, freedom. Democracy is mob rule.
while at the same time we've been dragged away from democracy and freedom by the world
The US government does not need the world's help in its inevitable slide toward huge, oppressive government. It's the nature of government to get bigger and bigger.
We're still the freeest country in the world, which isn't saying much, and about the only way to reverse the downward spiral is if some country is created/has a revolution and gets something going that's better.
At least we see eye-to-eye on some things.
It would be great to reign in the government in a big way, but to be quite honest, corporations are capable of causing major harm (cigarette companies, Exxon Valdez, Bhopal).
First, you're playing the "Yes, but" game.
Second, I never argued that corporations weren't capable of causing major harm, so you're beating up a strawman.
Third, I notice that you fail to mention any of the points that I raised.
Don't you think somebody should have at least gone to *jail* for covering up the problems with Firestone tires to delay a recall by a year, causing dozens of preventable deaths?
Yes.
Only dozens of preventable deaths? What about Pol Pot, who managed to kill half the population of Cambodia. Was he ever punished for his ideas and actions? No. What about Stalin, who killed more people than Hitler did. Was he held accountable? No. What about the thousands that our own government (assuming you're a USAian, or a citizen of a country with a "cooperative" government) kills and imprisons every year fighting the irrational, futile War on Some Drugs? Are they going to see justice?
The fact that you focus on an corporation and the dozens of deaths that it was responsible for while ignoring governments and the millons that they've killed shows your unfortunate bias. You believe that government is good while corporations are bad. Am I correct?
An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth.
And just how much is "excessive"? Ask 100 people and you'll get 100 different answers. The "excessive" part of the definition is that which makes it subjective.
Greed is a very good thing, unless you're a communist.
I think the only bad thing in this regard is to believe that there is such a thing as "greed." It does not exist. I believe that making money using force or fraud is immoral and should be illegal.
Nice to see how the neo-conservatives are eroding the rights of individuals by refusing to legislate any controls over corporaions, and all in the name of freedom.
... doing business with the government? This makes no sense.
Let me get this straight: the government is to blame for not putting any controls on corporations that keep them from
The knee-jerk Leftist response is, "Greedy corporations want to take over all our rights." The unsaid response is, "Don't pay any attention to that Federal Government behind the curtain." Do people not see that it is, in fact, the government that wants to complile data on everyone and intrude on everyone's rights? Do people not see that a government with an insatiable hunger for power will stop at nothing to get what they want, and that includes paying corporations (who exist to make money, and here comes a paying customer with a guaranteed* paycheck) to bypass all of those pesky laws that limit the government?
Where does this "government good, corporations bad" nonsense come from? It is the government which imprisons thousands upon thousands every year for the mere act of smoking marijuana. It is the government which forcibly takes money from citizens to blast its propaganda on the Super Bowl. It is the government which forces people to pay money into a bankrupt, guaranteed-to-lose-money income redistrubution and vote-buying scheme (yes, it's Social Security). It is governments which killed millions in Germany, Russia, China, and Cambodia.
Corporations and governments can both be evil because of the fact that they are made up of fallible humans, not infallible angels. Governments have one power that corporations don't: the legal right to use deadly force to acheive their goals. It is for this reason that the power of government should be limited, not expanded.
*Guaranteed because if the government ever wants more money, all they have to do is haul out the guns and take it. They don't have to worry about working hard for money.