TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- European Politics Thread: Netherlands, France, Germany, Great Britain, and Narnia 2017
Pages (13): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 »

quote:

Originally posted by Lews Why do you have to [know?] anything about his wealth to know if that is a noble act or not? Consequentially speaking, a whole lot of good is going to come from such a donation. Why do you need to know more?

quote:

Originally posted by Lews So how exactly is that more noble than, say, Michael Bloomberg giving away $600m last year?

quote:

Considering that you were literally reading up on emissions in the middle of this thread, just a few days ago, it seems rather obvious that your views on combating climate change are not well reasoned.

I don't see how. What does my understanding of proportionality and separation of responsibility of the main culprits of co2 emissions have to do with the fact of whether or not I think it's a problem?

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Well then you'd be actually discussing the topic at hand for the very first time. What's your beef with offshore wind, then?

None?

quote:

I didn't say it would necessarily be bad. I said it's stupid, tedious idealism to assume it would be good just because it isn't profit-driven. And more to the point, it doesn't address any of the practical considerations to ensure it is good, but instead focuses entirely on redundantly idealising a particular starting point.

You're characterizing it that way, just because it's 'extreme'. I'm not particularly concerned with any considerations, I think it's a given regardless of anything that you might bring up. Solutions are worked around.

You guys are fucking retarded, seriously. Nerd central. TA Nerd squad. Advocating political correctness extensive substantiation of ideology since 2009.

quote:

Originally posted by wotyzoid I don't see how. What does my understanding of proportionality and separation of responsibility of the main culprits of co2 emissions have to do with the fact of whether or not I think it's a problem?

Well, a strategy being 'well-reasoned' normally entails some significant amount of time considering an issue and the various pros and cons of dealing with it in different ways. Considering that you clearly do not even understand the issue, as you have no idea what causes the problem, makes it rather clear you haven't considered the issue - let alone the pros and cons of various strategies.

quote:

Originally posted by wotyzoid I'm not particularly concerned with any considerations, I think it's a given regardless of anything that you might bring up. Solutions are worked around.

What does this mean?

How is this for a strategy? Call your fucking representative and pass the fucking legislation. Period.

Publicly owned grid. Taxation. Invest in Green. Publicly owned green, with government money, instead of missiles. Done.

Uh, pass what legislation?

For the government to buy out the fucking corps and own the grid for us.

quote:

Originally posted by wotyzoid You guys are fucking retarded, seriously. Nerd central. TA Nerd squad. Advocating political correctness extensive substantiation of ideology since 2009.

This is the bit where you make your last face-saving gestures of defiance and then exit stage left.

Okay, but why is a publicly owned grid going to be better for the environment than a privately owned grid?

Taxation. Yes, what taxation? On whom? You may recall this discussion started because Trance M and you didn't want us to tax private cars, while Jack and I thought it was a good idea to tax them.

What is the 'green' the government owns?

Why should the government own the 'green,' not private individuals?

Where does the government get this money to buy green?

Do you think we shouldn't own any missiles?

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J This is the bit where you make your last face-saving gestures of defiance and then exit stage left.

I think I roasted you pretty good, actually, I'm having fun now.

FFFFFUUUUUUUU

quote:

Originally posted by Lews Okay, but why is a publicly owned grid going to be better for the environment than a privately owned grid?

Because the public would own it so its interest would be the interest of the public, as opposed to the interest of an individual we have no control over.

quote:

Taxation. Yes, what taxation? On whom? You may recall this discussion started because Trance M and you didn't want us to tax private cars, while Jack and I thought it was a good idea to tax them.

Tax non renewable energy consumption. If it's mostly used by industry, tax industry heavily, if it's owned by us we tax ourselves.

quote:

What is the 'green' the government owns?

Green energy.

quote:

Why should the government own the 'green,' not private individuals?

Because no private individual should own an energy source or the means of extracting energy from it solus. In my view it is public domain.

quote:

Where does the government get this money to buy green?

How does the government get money to do anything?

quote:

Do you think we shouldn't own any missiles?

You should be asking me what percentage of our spending should go to defense.

Being interviewed by the nerds is fun. It's almost like you guys are trying to catch me in a contradiction. LOL

We're verging on SRUSSELL territory here.

Now you're just really reaching and it's pathetic.

I'm not so sure. You've just double-posted, double-posted, double-posted and then quadruple-posted. Pretending to laugh at your own posts as well. We're only about five consecutive laughing smilies away from full-on meltdown.

Yawn

quote:

Originally posted by wotyzoid Because the public would own it so its interest would be the interest of the public, as opposed to the interest of an individual we have no control over.

The public's interest? As in, the public who voted for the UK to leave the EU and for Donald Trump to be President of the US?

quote:

Originally posted by wotyzoid Tax non renewable energy consumption. If it's mostly used by industry, tax industry heavily, if it's owned by us we tax ourselves.

So why can't we do that and let the sources be privately owned?

quote:

Originally posted by wotyzoid Because no private individual should own an energy source or the means of extracting energy from it solus. In my view it is public domain.

Why?

quote:

Originally posted by wotyzoid How does the government get money to do anything?

It borrows it from people with money (thereby reducing the amount of funds available for private investment and consumption).

quote:

Originally posted by wotyzoid You should be asking me what percentage of our spending should go to defense.

I'm going to guess you think it should be a rather small percentage.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I'm not so sure. You've just double-posted, double-posted, double-posted and then quadruple-posted. Pretending to laugh at your own posts as well. We're only about five consecutive laughing smilies away from full-on meltdown.

I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU GUYS THINK LOL IM JUST TROLLIN !!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Lews The public's interest? As in, the public who voted for the UK to leave the EU and for Donald Trump to be President of the US?

Yes.

quote:

So why can't we do that and let the sources be privately owned?

For the 50th time, I think they should be publicly owned.

quote:

Why?

Because I believe in the abolition of private property.

quote:

It borrows it from people with money (thereby reducing the amount of funds available for private investment and consumption).

Keep doing that until...

quote:

I'm going to guess you think it should be a rather small percentage.

You guessed it!

1. Everything should be publicly owned!

2. Okay, why?

1. Because everything should be publicly owned!

2. ... [/drinks]

Come on, old sport, surely you have a reason for desiring private property to be abolished?

Not to be rude, but have you finished undergraduate education? How about high school?

You seem to have a considerable difficulty understanding what an argument is, let alone following one or making one.

You don't own anything, you only use it, society only encourages you to think that you own it. You don't really own shit. You're just lucky to be in the circumstances you are in, you did nothing alone.

You don't own a fucking single blade of grass on your lawn. It is only a construct. Built.

Well, that completely depends on your meaning of the word 'own.' 'Own' is traditionally viewed as a legal construct, meaning that one has legal title to something. 'Legal title', in turn, meaning that one has legal grounds to possess something. Legality, in its own turn, is of course just a construct. It's how we made civilization. We made shit up. We told people that they possessed certain things, and we would protect that possession. And look how we've grown.

Yes, look! Please!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.