You see, that whole post depends on whether or not the anti-corporate viewpoint is a minority, and I'm not so sure that it is.
You see, that whole post depends on whether or not the anti-corporate viewpoint is a minority, and I'm not so sure that it is.
invincible - "Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one and everyone thinks that theirs is the only one that doesn't stink."
Elihu Burritt - "Forming characters! Whose? Our own or others? Both. And in that momentous fact lies the peril and responsibility of our existence."
2008 Record (final): 84-78: NL West Champs
Two points:
My beliefs and the beliefs of the global warming True Believers have different effects on society. I have not tried to change laws or human behaviour because of what I believe. Al Gore and his friends want to change laws and human behaviour because of what they believe. See the difference?
I do not necessarily believe that Al Gore and his friends are involved in a grand conspiracy to take away our rights. On the contrary, I am sure they think they are doing some good. As Jonah Goldberg illustrates, however, it is the desire to do good, the desire to make a difference that erodes liberty when government is the tool used to make that difference.
C.S. Lewis once wrote: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
Many on this board would agree that no terrorist threat is worth losing any amount of liberty and freedom over. Why then should we give any freedoms away because some people think that we may otherwise harm the earth? Sorry Al, the debate is not over.
"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord..."
"In the name of the best within you, do not sacrifice this world to those who are its worst."
Starkist, you keep shrieking about Al Gore and his True Believers, but why? I think pretty much everyone here can agree that global warming isn't a certainty. So what are you in such a huff about? It's like you're looking for a fight when there's none to be had. We all pretty much agree that the extremists are complete whack jobs. Granted, you seem to fail to recognize that you're falling into one of the extremist camps yourself, but still, you get the basic idea that global warming is used for exploitive political purposes and that's wrong. Just remember that both sides of the debate do it.
But for the record, I would like to note that personally, I happen to believe that dumping harmful shit into our air and into our water is not a right. Just seems to me that it fits under that whole "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," umbrella.
The artist formally known as macweirdo42, formally known as weirdguy (it's a long, uninteresting story).
so everybody is allowed to share their opinions, however absurd and rediculous, except for Starkist? many have of you have no idea how to participate in discussions. why I wonder do you come to DISCUSSION FORUMS if you're so socially inept. Starkist is sharing his views on the topic and contributing to the thread. He's not attacking any of your ideas, so why can't any of you show him the same courtesy? It's one thing to disagree, but another to act like a jackass and bash him for even posting.
He's clearly allowed to express them. We are allowed to point out his blatant hypocrisyOriginally Posted by Breaker
This, from Breaker? hah!
So you support a woman's right to choose? You support legalized prostitution? Because those are human behaviors that you and your fellow True Believers never cease trying to make illegal.
I totally agree! So let's make it illegal to pass fundamentalist christian legislation and end this insane practice of restricting people's behavior in order to please an invisible magic carpenter from anceint Rome.
At least they aren't asking us to give up freedoms because some people think that we may otherwise offend an invisible magic carpenter from ancient Rome who has magical powers and watches us 24 hours a day from his inter-dimensional super-paradise where all the souls of the dead worship him non-stop.
My point is you have no right to criticize global warming advocates because they are far less crazy and dangerous than people with your delusional beliefs.
how do you manage to change every topic into one about religion?
Because when a person is religious, it infects every aspect of their thought; so in an environment where debate occurs, they can't help but be "religious" in their thinking. In this case, there is an ironic hypocrisy in Starkist accusing people of taking something on faith.
It's not that complicated.
So... this quest to show us how bad religion is infects every aspect of your thought; in an environment where debate occurs, you can't help but point out how "religious" thinking is wrong. In this case, the ironic hypocrisy is Beldaran stating religious people turn every argument to religion while turning an otherwise non-religious argument into one.
It's not that complicated; Starkist trolled you hard.
Strawmen. When have you observed me personally pushing for certain laws?
Anyway, I found a weblog post from one of my local (non-conservative) talk radio hosts that illustrates the "tyranny for your own good" argument. Basically, he is outing local government for a quiet study they did to determine the feasibility of tolls that would be paid by every car driver, using GPS to measure how many miles people drive.
Source: http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=76&sid=49261The plan, of course, is to make it so expensive for people to drive, they'll be forced to give up their cars. The problem is that many people simply cannot give up their cars.
The environmentalists and Democrats driving this plan always pay lip service to how much they care for the little guy. But there are lots of hard-working, blue-collar middle class people who will be crushed by such a plan. They are contractors and salespeople and craftsmen. Maybe they use a toolbox they can't take on a bus. Or they have sales calls that require a vehicle. Would their families really be able to pay $5000-$10000 a year in tolls?
Any people thought it absurd when I predicted that soon, we would be forced to curtail our travel plans in order to "save the environment". A tax, or toll, is the first step.
Anyway, I don't support wholesale destruction of the environment. I like to save energy and gasoline, if only for the financial benefits. I like the earth. If you knew me personally you would know that I much prefer nature to the city. However, what I do not support is using unproven data, flimsy hypotheses, and the like in order to enact draconian government regulations and restrictions on personal freedom. Global warming is the Trojan Horse for more government control and as a libertarian that worries me.
"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord..."
"In the name of the best within you, do not sacrifice this world to those who are its worst."
Beldaran did not, in fact, state that religious people turn every argument to religion. The problem here is not religion itself, but what religion represents - blind belief in something. In this case, religion is highly relevant because Starkist's primary argument here revolved around the foolishness of having blind faith. Now, the fact that Starkist himself has blind faith in something does not affect his argument that blind faith is wrong - that would be an ad hominem argument. However, it is still hypocritical to rail against blind faith in one area while simultaneously holding blind faith in another.
The artist formally known as macweirdo42, formally known as weirdguy (it's a long, uninteresting story).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
