|
Yet another American beheaded. This is the sickest thing ive ever seen. (pg. 20)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Rodrico
Most of the argument lies in the ethics of how this war was treated as, in my eyes, he should get the can for being a liar, straight up. As for Regan, your giving him too much credit, he was even too dumb for his own policies. :wtf: |
Well I can certainly see your point, it's just subjective whether he lied deliberately or accidentally.
Besides... we're talking about the USA here, aren't they used to their government lying? :p I think that if Bush was lying, the problem is that he STOPPED lying! I mean christ, walk to the nearest Kinko's and tell the guy to come up with a picture of 10 nuclear missiles strapped onto 10 donkeys. Look guys, we found the WMDs! |
|
|
| Rodrico |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Well I can certainly see your point, it's just subjective whether he lied deliberately or accidentally.
Besides... we're talking about the USA here, aren't they used to their government lying? :p I think that if Bush was lying, the problem is that he STOPPED lying! I mean christ, walk to the nearest Kinko's and tell the guy to come up with a picture of 10 nuclear missiles strapped onto 10 donkeys. Look guys, we found the WMDs! |
haha :p
Dont you hate it when you get to that stand point, and its always ethics that seperate the debate. Debating ethics is pointless unless its with a fundie, then your just out to have fun. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by dEsidEL
the spice must flow..
|
brilliant :toocool: |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Rodrico
haha :p
Dont you hate it when you get to that stand point, and its always ethics that seperate the debate. Debating ethics is pointless unless its with a fundie, then your just out to have fun. |
I don't really hate it - it's up to the individual to interpret the facts however he/she wants, and when it comes to a question of right or wrong there isn't really anything to debate about. I spent enough time in religious studies debating ethics (go figure that I came out an atheist). My only gripe is with the people who form those interpretations from personal feelings or popular opinion and ignore the facts. Or worse, the people who form their own version of the facts based on those things.
I'm happy to see that you don't appear to be one of them, but there certainly are a lot of them and they are the ones I tend to flip off and have little patience for - they start with " Bush" and " corporations" and work from there, picking which side they're on before even hearing both sides and effectively shutting out any evidence which might not directly support their preconceived notions. I call it the Ostrich Argument, because it's very much like burying one's head in the ground and pretending that the outside world doesn't exist. I guess the human equivalent would be sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes and going "LA LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING!!"
So if we can come to some semblance of an agreement on the facts and be left with a question of ethics, I'm more than satisfied. At least you're not quoting buzz phrases from Michael Moore as if he's a bubbling wealth of nonpartisan information. It's not a black-and-white issue - and maybe that sounds like a no-brainer, but it's a concept that a lot of people I debate with seem to have no end of trouble with. |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
brilliant :toocool: |
the spice controls the empire .. he who controls the empire controls the spice :eek:
|
|
|
| Kytracid |
| quote: | Originally posted by dEsidEL
the spice controls the empire .. he who controls the empire controls the spice :eek:
|
fear is the mindkiller... |
|
|
| Rodrico |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
I don't really hate it - it's up to the individual to interpret the facts however he/she wants, and when it comes to a question of right or wrong there isn't really anything to debate about. I spent enough time in religious studies debating ethics (go figure that I came out an atheist). My only gripe is with the people who form those interpretations from personal feelings or popular opinion and ignore the facts. Or worse, the people who form their own version of the facts based on those things.
I'm happy to see that you don't appear to be one of them, but there certainly are a lot of them and they are the ones I tend to flip off and have little patience for - they start with " Bush" and " corporations" and work from there, picking which side they're on before even hearing both sides and effectively shutting out any evidence which might not directly support their preconceived notions. I call it the Ostrich Argument, because it's very much like burying one's head in the ground and pretending that the outside world doesn't exist. I guess the human equivalent would be sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes and going "LA LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING!!"
So if we can come to some semblance of an agreement on the facts and be left with a question of ethics, I'm more than satisfied. At least you're not quoting buzz phrases from Michael Moore as if he's a bubbling wealth of nonpartisan information. It's not a black-and-white issue - and maybe that sounds like a no-brainer, but it's a concept that a lot of people I debate with seem to have no end of trouble with. |
It's always a pleasure to debate with someone who uses reason instead of passionate opinion. Most of my friends or buddies dont have the time or day to give thoughtful answers, or when they try to, its the same ole run-around answers that never really address anything in specific, or are broad generalizations that have little meaning to them. I guess that is why I am constantly drawn to the forums time in and out. Either to check for something to talk about, or straight up insult people for a lack of common sense. One or the other make my day a whole lot brighter. I was wondering, do you ever post in the political forums? |
|
|
| The Highroller |
I see you still haven't responded to this Aaron.
This was the kind of info I was looking for to rebut what your argument that simple supply and demand economics will solve the problem of oil. Read these sites and see if your opinion stays the same. |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
| quote: | Originally posted by Rodrico
I was wondering, do you ever post in the political forums? |
:nervous: |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Rodrico
I was wondering, do you ever post in the political forums? |
I used to, but around the time I was really getting comfortable in there, it started to get innundated with the same petty "emotion politics" that you just mentioned. A lot of arrogance, personal insults, and equivocation (you really can't debate an issue when people start defining words to mean something completely different - in a formal debate that's called "squirreling" and calls for instant disqualification). I see it happening in this forum too, especially the insults, but fortunately it's limited to just a few people.
I also find that the forum in general is very left-leaning, and obviously Leftists are just as entitled to their beliefs as conservatives and political capitalists, but it's exhausting to try and make a point when you've got 50 people foaming at the mouth trying to shut you up. As Left as it is though, the fundies on that forum don't help either - I remember trying to make some points about gay marriage, but once the fundies found out I was "on their side", they started getting involved in my debates and twisted everything around, so I was left trying to fight BOTH sides of the issue (both the gay rights activists and the incessantly moralizing religious nuts).
There are a lot of intelligent people in the politics forum that I enjoy debating with, but unfortunately they seem to always be drowned out by people who just want to look smart or who use the forum to vent emotions. Perhaps I was guilty of that at one point too, I don't know, but if so then it's easy to see why I would have even less patience for those that are still in that stage.
| quote: | Originally posted by The Highroller
I see you still haven't responded to this Aaron.
This was the kind of info I was looking for to rebut what your argument that simple supply and demand economics will solve the problem of oil. Read these sites and see if your opinion stays the same. |
I'd kind of forgotten about it. I don't have a lot of time right now to read all of it, but I think I understand the points that are being made and I'll try to summarize my position on this:
Several people have mistakenly inferred from my comments that I'm suggesting we're never going to run out of oil. If at any point I actually explicitly said that, then it was incorrect and I probably said it out of frustration. Of course we're running out of oil and will continue to do so - what I don't agree with is the Nostradamus predictions of a worldwide catastrophe and millions of people dying.
Supply and demand won't stop oil from being used up - after all, it's a non-renewable resource and oil IS the supply in question. No matter how much oil is left in the world, we will eventually HAVE to use it all up. My point is only that the economics of the situation will take care of any "life-threatening disaster" that might be associated with the oil crisis.
Eventually oil is going to be gone, it will have to be phased out and the road will have to be paved for renewable or at least alternative energy sources. But it's going to be a very gradual process. The only thing that turn it into a catastrophe is if it is not a gradual process but happens very suddenly, and this would have to be caused by instability in the middle east, which goes back to what I was originally saying about the USA's strategic plan, however moral or immoral people may see it as.
Remember that the reason we use so much oil is that despite the rising prices, it's still just ridiculously cheap. When supply starts to go down, it will stop being so cheap. People are going to go broke trying to fuel their SUVs and will have to sell them and buy a Hybrid. Profit margins in industries like paper and plastics will start to flatline and they'll either have to declare bankruptcy or come up with new ideas (and I believe Dupont already has several ideas, they just haven't started using them yet because they aren't cost effective).
None of this means that the supply of oil is going to magically become infinite and we'll have as much as we need for the rest of our lives. It just means that by the time it runs out, it won't be very important anymore.
Another thing to think about is that it is partially the oil companies themselves that are responsible for the slow emergence of alternative products. Just like the drug companies are always trying to stave off herbal medicine, the oil companies don't want to see Hydrogen fuel cell cars on the market. They buy the patents or coerce the companies who could use them. But once the oil companies don't have much stock left, they are guaranteed to stop doing that, because oil will no longer be a sustainable source of income but alternative energy WILL be. If oil companies own half the patents to alternative energy sources right now, you can rest assured that they're going to start putting them to use when their oil profits decrease.
So to summarize - oil will run out, but it's just not something we need to seriously worry about. It's critical to society now but it can be replaced - if we were running out of water or oxygen, then we'd have a problem on our hands. |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
I used to, but around the time I was really getting comfortable in there, it started to get innundated with the same petty "emotion politics" that you just mentioned. A lot of arrogance, personal insults, and equivocation (you really can't debate an issue when people start defining words to mean something completely different - in a formal debate that's called "squirreling" and calls for instant disqualification). I see it happening in this forum too, especially the insults, but fortunately it's limited to just a few people.
I also find that the forum in general is very left-leaning, and obviously Leftists are just as entitled to their beliefs as conservatives and political capitalists, but it's exhausting to try and make a point when you've got 50 people foaming at the mouth trying to shut you up. As Left as it is though, the fundies on that forum don't help either - I remember trying to make some points about gay marriage, but once the fundies found out I was "on their side", they started getting involved in my debates and twisted everything around, so I was left trying to fight BOTH sides of the issue (both the gay rights activists and the incessantly moralizing religious nuts).
There are a lot of intelligent people in the politics forum that I enjoy debating with, but unfortunately they seem to always be drowned out by people who just want to look smart or who use the forum to vent emotions. Perhaps I was guilty of that at one point too, I don't know, but if so then it's easy to see why I would have even less patience for those that are still in that stage.
I'd kind of forgotten about it. I don't have a lot of time right now to read all of it, but I think I understand the points that are being made and I'll try to summarize my position on this:
Several people have mistakenly inferred from my comments that I'm suggesting we're never going to run out of oil. If at any point I actually explicitly said that, then it was incorrect and I probably said it out of frustration. Of course we're running out of oil and will continue to do so - what I don't agree with is the Nostradamus predictions of a worldwide catastrophe and millions of people dying.
Supply and demand won't stop oil from being used up - after all, it's a non-renewable resource and oil IS the supply in question. No matter how much oil is left in the world, we will eventually HAVE to use it all up. My point is only that the economics of the situation will take care of any "life-threatening disaster" that might be associated with the oil crisis.
Eventually oil is going to be gone, it will have to be phased out and the road will have to be paved for renewable or at least alternative energy sources. But it's going to be a very gradual process. The only thing that turn it into a catastrophe is if it is not a gradual process but happens very suddenly, and this would have to be caused by instability in the middle east, which goes back to what I was originally saying about the USA's strategic plan, however moral or immoral people may see it as.
Remember that the reason we use so much oil is that despite the rising prices, it's still just ridiculously cheap. When supply starts to go down, it will stop being so cheap. People are going to go broke trying to fuel their SUVs and will have to sell them and buy a Hybrid. Profit margins in industries like paper and plastics will start to flatline and they'll either have to declare bankruptcy or come up with new ideas (and I believe Dupont already has several ideas, they just haven't started using them yet because they aren't cost effective).
None of this means that the supply of oil is going to magically become infinite and we'll have as much as we need for the rest of our lives. It just means that by the time it runs out, it won't be very important anymore.
Another thing to think about is that it is partially the oil companies themselves that are responsible for the slow emergence of alternative products. Just like the drug companies are always trying to stave off herbal medicine, the oil companies don't want to see Hydrogen fuel cell cars on the market. They buy the patents or coerce the companies who could use them. But once the oil companies don't have much stock left, they are guaranteed to stop doing that, because oil will no longer be a sustainable source of income but alternative energy WILL be. If oil companies own half the patents to alternative energy sources right now, you can rest assured that they're going to start putting them to use when their oil profits decrease.
So to summarize - oil will run out, but it's just not something we need to seriously worry about. It's critical to society now but it can be replaced - if we were running out of water or oxygen, then we'd have a problem on our hands. |
Dear god how long did that take you to do?:conf:
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
p.s. political forum is much more fun now since we dont have to read your essays about everything.:gsmile: |
|
|
| Kytracid |
^^^^
What is it about nimrods, who try try try and finally come up with a brillant retort like "OMG how long did it take to type that Essay ? Zzzzz ". Well done ! You've offically been inducted into the moron hall of fame.
It's better to keep your mouth shut and give the impression that you're stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.
-Rami Belson
|
|
|
|
|
