|
|
Post by Peter on Nov 15, 2014 12:13:52 GMT 10
- the basics of idealistic free-trade is that both buyer and seller see value in an economic exchange... ... yet the government seems to think they must always be involved in such exchanges. |
|
krull68
VIP Member
Posts: 535 
Likes: 875
|
Post by krull68 on Nov 15, 2014 12:55:46 GMT 10
Watching the exchange here, I see two side of this argument.
1/ we need more govt: communism
2/ we need govt to be involved only as much as is absolutely necessary: Democracy.
I for one am on the side of democracy.
Laws are not made for honest people, laws are made to stop criminals.
So the question stands, do you believe people are mostly honest and trustworthy (democracy), or do you think they are all criminals (communism)?
(this is for everyone by the way)
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Nov 15, 2014 13:13:23 GMT 10
I believe the third option: people are not trustworthy, but politicians are worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by You Must Enter A Name on Nov 15, 2014 17:16:32 GMT 10
Methinks this whole debate is giving me a headache.
|
|
krull68
VIP Member
Posts: 535
Likes: 875
|
Post by krull68 on Nov 16, 2014 17:31:22 GMT 10
Methinks this whole debate is giving me a headache. Take two asprine and sing the following:
Oh it's all so nice in the nut house All alone in me little padded cell Oh it's all so nice in the nut house sit and rock and drool all day.
|
|
|
|
Post by You Must Enter A Name on Nov 16, 2014 18:05:36 GMT 10
Methinks this whole debate is giving me a headache. Take two asprine and sing the following:
Oh it's all so nice in the nut house All alone in me little padded cell Oh it's all so nice in the nut house sit and rock and drool all day.
You better believe it buddy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2014 11:11:30 GMT 10
- the basics of idealistic free-trade is that both buyer and seller see value in an economic exchange... ... yet the government seems to think they must always be involved in such exchanges. That raises the question of what government is! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2014 11:17:39 GMT 10
Watching the exchange here, I see two side of this argument. 1/ we need more govt: communism 2/ we need govt to be involved only as much as is absolutely necessary: Democracy. I for one am on the side of democracy. Laws are not made for honest people, laws are made to stop criminals. So the question stands, do you believe people are mostly honest and trustworthy (democracy), or do you think they are all criminals (communism)? (this is for everyone by the way) What was the definition of a strawman again? |
|
krull68
VIP Member
Posts: 535
Likes: 875
|
Post by krull68 on Nov 17, 2014 12:29:16 GMT 10
Watching the exchange here, I see two side of this argument. 1/ we need more govt: communism 2/ we need govt to be involved only as much as is absolutely necessary: Democracy. I for one am on the side of democracy. Laws are not made for honest people, laws are made to stop criminals. So the question stands, do you believe people are mostly honest and trustworthy (democracy), or do you think they are all criminals (communism)? (this is for everyone by the way) What was the definition of a strawman again? A straw man argument is when a person introduces a subject that the other person did not introduce, then argue a point as though they did in fact bring up a certain point. Or introducing a subject that has nothing to do with the current argument and then proceed to tear that argument down, as though that makes your point.
Straw man argument you introduced was increasing Govt regulation, which I oppose. There is no disagreement that a certain level of Govt regulation is necessary, due to the fact that some people will do whatever they want and damn the rest of us to hell.
But that was not was under discussion in this thread, the discussion is about the merits of the argument that the scientific recordings on the ground are not matching the models. The models are proving to be incorrect.
Temp recordings are currently showing no increase in over all temperature world wide. thus the models are incorrect. There are not currently 50 million climate refugees and we are now way past the 2010 mark, thus the prediction is incorrect. If the planet is 4.5 billion years old, as evolutionists claim, then the time scale the climate alarmist scientists are using is too short to get a feel for trends.
But on another note, which I think is more important to talk about, just at this moment, is the amount of other chemicals going into the atmosphere, rather than co2. The west has apparently decided they will gut the west, whilst china and Russia are going to increase pollution outputs until 2030. This is more of a problem that a bit of co2 in my opinion.
Now another point I was trying to make earlier is, we do not know what our contribution to the worlds green house gas immissions is, I have heard anything from 3% up to 35% of world output, natural and man made, depending on who you listen to or read. The only solution that is being put on the table is, tax everyone broke, put up wind turbines which kills birds faster than any oil platform can ever hope to achieve, and put up solar panels or solar farms, which have been documented to actually incinerate birds as they fly over head of the big mirror instillations. Oh and my favourite, jail, re-educate the heretics or execute them (claims put forward by climate alarmists), oh and do a population reduction by forcing abortions and one child policies on the world.
I for one will leave the debaters to argue all the different things of this, but as for myself, I prefer to ask, what can we do in practise to make our world a bit better.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2014 13:34:48 GMT 10
What was the definition of a strawman again? A straw man argument is when a person introduces a subject that the other person did not introduce, then argue a point as though they did in fact bring up a certain point. Or introducing a subject that has nothing to do with the current argument and then proceed to tear that argument down, as though that makes your point.
Straw man argument you introduced was increasing Govt regulation, which I oppose. There is no disagreement that a certain level of Govt regulation is necessary, due to the fact that some people will do whatever they want and damn the rest of us to hell.
But that was not was under discussion in this thread, the discussion is about the merits of the argument that the scientific recordings on the ground are not matching the models. The models are proving to be incorrect.
Temp recordings are currently showing no increase in over all temperature world wide. thus the models are incorrect. There are not currently 50 million climate refugees and we are now way past the 2010 mark, thus the prediction is incorrect. If the planet is 4.5 billion years old, as evolutionists claim, then the time scale the climate alarmist scientists are using is too short to get a feel for trends.
But on another note, which I think is more important to talk about, just at this moment, is the amount of other chemicals going into the atmosphere, rather than co2. The west has apparently decided they will gut the west, whilst china and Russia are going to increase pollution outputs until 2030. This is more of a problem that a bit of co2 in my opinion.
Now another point I was trying to make earlier is, we do not know what our contribution to the worlds green house gas immissions is, I have heard anything from 3% up to 35% of world output, natural and man made, depending on who you listen to or read. The only solution that is being put on the table is, tax everyone broke, put up wind turbines which kills birds faster than any oil platform can ever hope to achieve, and put up solar panels or solar farms, which have been documented to actually incinerate birds as they fly over head of the big mirror instillations. Oh and my favourite, jail, re-educate the heretics or execute them (claims put forward by climate alarmists), oh and do a population reduction by forcing abortions and one child policies on the world.
I for one will leave the debaters to argue all the different things of this, but as for myself, I prefer to ask, what can we do in practise to make our world a bit better.
How about : '..stop digging!' |
|
krull68
VIP Member
Posts: 535
Likes: 875
|
Post by krull68 on Nov 17, 2014 14:57:51 GMT 10
To be replaced with? Don't just say, lets kill this, stop that. What alternative do you bring to the table.
Unless you bring alternatives, you will not be listened to. Really simple, people will only move position for two reasons, run from something, or reward for changing.
What is your replacement for digging up iron, copper, aluminium, and other materials that we need to move the country forward?
You say, stop digging, for what, coal. Ok bring forward your alternative fuel sources that can replace coal for equal costs.
You probably mean stop drilling for oil as well. Ok bring forward your alternative that can replace fossil fuel.
Bring forth your alternatives.
|
|
AKM.
Senior Member
Posts: 146
Likes: 295
|
Post by AKM. on Nov 23, 2014 16:09:42 GMT 10
I have pretty much given up on the whole Climate Change thing. Both sides have polarised, and there is little middle ground. If you disagree even slightly with either end, you get labeled as the opposition. I reckon, all that I can do is act like it is real, it is coming, and act to mitigate the potential effects on me and mine. Been reading a lot of Holmgren's work recently, and agree we will soon be in what he decsribes as the brown-tech future, but hopefully, I will be sitting in a lifeboat area, and helping to try and set the seeds of a greentech revival. lol And of course, if I am rich enough one day- like Al Gore, I will buy a beachfront property. I'll get the use of it for a couple of years at least, and can always sell it to a climate change denier.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2014 14:10:27 GMT 10
To be replaced with? Don't just say, lets kill this, stop that. What alternative do you bring to the table. Unless you bring alternatives, you will not be listened to. Really simple, people will only move position for two reasons, run from something, or reward for changing. What is your replacement for digging up iron, copper, aluminium, and other materials that we need to move the country forward? You say, stop digging, for what, coal. Ok bring forward your alternative fuel sources that can replace coal for equal costs. You probably mean stop drilling for oil as well. Ok bring forward your alternative that can replace fossil fuel. Bring forth your alternatives. It's an expresion ...what's the first thing you do when you find yourself in a hole? |
|
krull68
VIP Member
Posts: 535
Likes: 875
|
Post by krull68 on Dec 5, 2014 21:27:33 GMT 10
Very well, I agree whole heartedly with you.
So in the vein of an experiment, do the following, seeing as it is you who suggests immediately getting off any and everything that is gotten by either fossil fuels or mining, it should be you that demonstrates your point.
Remove from your life, any and everything gotten to you by either mining or fossil fuels.
Your computer is needed to be removed first here as it has both fossil fuels and mining.
All tin cans need to be removed as well.
All synthetics need to go.
All natural fibres need to go, if any fossil fuels or mining has been involved at any stage of its growth.
All foods need to go, if any fossil fuels or mining has been involved at any stage in its production.
Once you have done this, without using any method that involves either mining or fossil fuels, get back to us and let us know what you have left in your life.
Hint: the internet uses both mining and fossil fuels.
Good luck with that my friend, looking forward to reading how it goes.
|
|
