Originally posted by WajomaThe direction on which every one of us exerts our political power has an effect on what happens. So far, you've shown only appathy. That's what we'll get from the politicians then.
No there was nothing there specifically about how [b]MY actions (besides being a productive taxpayer) have impacted YOUR life.
specifics![/b]
Originally posted by scottishinnzI am an active member of a political party, and have spent some thousands of dollars and many hours collecting signatures, delivering pamphlets, attending counter protests and other activism.
The direction on which every one of us exerts our political power has an effect on what happens. So far, you've shown only appathy. That's what we'll get from the politicians then.
The difference is; I'm saying "Here, it's your life, take it."
Originally posted by WajomaI can bet which one too. Pitty you don't get on the wavelength of "it's my life too". As John Donne said, "no man is an island".
I am an active member of a political party, and have spent some thousands of dollars and many hours collecting signatures, delivering pamphlets, attending counter protests and other activism.
The difference is; I'm saying "Here, it's your life, take it."
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzIt is off subject but can you expand on the wavelength it's not that clear what you mean.
I can bet which one too. Pitty you don't get on the wavelength of "it's my life too". As John Donne said, "no man is an island".
As for the cliche' "no man is an island." agreed, that is correct. No sensible person thinks a self made man is a hermit or that he has sprung up on a desert island. Dealing with other people is for the most part one of lifes pleasures, especially when it comes to the voluntary exchange of value for value, and we're not just talking about dollars here, it might be a conversation...even a debate haha.
I can see all the way through you, you see yourself as one who thinks he knows better how others should live their lives, one who would like to impose his ideas on others. Along comes the self made individual, he's an obstacle to your programme.
I belong to an organisation that has reasonably strict codes of conduct and dress, would I like to impose those same codes on others? Of course not. People choose to belong to the organisation, oops, there goes that word you have so much trouble with..."choose".
Originally posted by WajomaOkay,
It is off subject but can you expand on the wavelength it's not that clear what you mean.
As for the cliche' "no man is an island." agreed, that is correct. No sensible person thinks a self made man is a hermit or that he has sprung up on a desert island. Dealing with other people is for the most part one of lifes pleasures, especially when it comes to th ...[text shortened]... o the organisation, oops, there goes that word you have so much trouble with..."choose".
Let's for a second imagine that all those climate scientists, thousands and thousands of them, actually know what they are talking about. Humans are influncing global climate. We live in a democracy, right, where everyone has a vote. Now, for a second imagine a government gets into power, as has happenned in the US, who don't want to do anything about global warming. They've been elected by their people, but the effects of their actions will not only affect the people of that nation - they will affect all people in all countries. So, the will of 4 million or 300 million or however many is trumphing the right of nearly 7 billion people to live in a world which hasn't all gone to crap. Comprende, amigo?
You are free to belong to whatever association you like, however, I believe that the people of the world (as a whole) have the right to moderate those societies. For example, where your society the "pollute the world" society, or the "nuclear proliferation" society, I believe that those societies are not in the best interests of the world - and neither do most other people worldwide (although *locally* a majority might). You are fighting for the rights of the individual. One individual. I am fighting for the rights of 7 billion individuals. Maybe a little less transparent than you think, my friend.
3 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzIndividualism is the new catch cry of the powerful who would ensure that the little people get duped into giving up their assocoations and unions and any collective barganing that gives the corporations a headache. Its the rationale that says being the recipient of affirmative action is racism. Its the argument that says that the poor only have themselves to blame and can make it just like anyone else if only they stopped victimising themselves.
You are fighting for the rights of the individual. One individual. I am fighting for the rights of 7 billion individuals. Maybe a little less transparent than you think, my friend.
Structural change or structural inequity is something they'ed rather not think about, acknowledge or discuss. They agree that there needs to be rules and government only as long as it protects the strongest in society.
And if you were worth a lot, you probably would'nt want it any other way either.
Originally posted by whiteroseYes. I agree that reducing pollution is a good idea as a precautionary measure (as long as it doesn't mess up people's lives too much.) I have always been opposed to pollution, it always seemed like a bad idea. It's just horrible....simple as that.
If you don't drive or fly a car then you're probably doing better than most people in the western world already. The problem with your arguement is that if polution is the cause of global warming, people need to change their lifestyles NOW. If we wait aroun to prove absolutely that it is, which we can never do anyway because it is a scientific theory, it w ...[text shortened]... e great harm in changing our lifestyles to minimise polution it seems the logical thing to do.
I doubt that poorer countries that rely on tourism will be too happy though.
And i just hope that research into the other possible causes continues.
Originally posted by scottishinnzHave to jump in here. Thus far, you have no right to regulate anything that happens in the US on behalf of anyone because there is no democratically-based world government.
Okay,
Let's for a second imagine that all those climate scientists, thousands and thousands of them, actually know what they are talking about. Humans are influncing global climate. We live in a democracy, right, where everyone has a vote. Now, for a second imagine a government gets into power, as has happenned in the US, who don't want to do any ...[text shortened]... ts of 7 billion individuals. Maybe a little less transparent than you think, my friend.
When the current United Nations of appointed bureaucrats and ambassadors is thrown out and a new democratic body is elected that writes a constitution that participating countries ratify, THEN you may talk about a right to intervene in US actions.
Until then, we pollute (or do not pollute) solely at our own whim and you have absolutely no right to intervene.
You can talk all you want, of course. What you say does make a lot of sense w.r.t. global warming.
But rights are another story.
Originally posted by spruce112358They are another story because the US led free trade hegemony, light it up if you've got some mantra has chosen for the rest of the world, who are not independent enough to reject the offer that they can't refuse. Australia wont back Kyoto and throws in a lot of obfuscating rhetoric as to why being a part of kyoto wouldnt make a bag of beans difference, yet at the same time it proposes that we should be doing more than Kyoto and that means that unless the US signs on its a lot of wasted effort, so why bother.
But rights are another story.
Great logic. My oil warning like keeps coming on in my car when I drive-hate the warning light- smash the bulb with a screw driver-no more light no more problem.
Its the charity begins when I'm a millionaire philosophy. Man begging on street. My 50 cents wont solve the problem, so hey gues what I wont give anything, but you know what I feel sorry for that bloke. If ever I win powerball you know what he gets 50 large. Sweet!
Originally posted by spruce112358Absolutely, I agree. It is a problem for environmentalists - because there is no-one to enforce the commitments that individual countries make.
Have to jump in here. Thus far, you have no right to regulate anything that happens in the US on behalf of anyone because there is no democratically-based world government.
When the current United Nations of appointed bureaucrats and ambassadors is thrown out and a new democratic body is elected that writes a constitution that participating co ...[text shortened]... e. What you say does make a lot of sense w.r.t. global warming.
But rights are another story.
However, you can also see my point that it only takes one nation to be selfish to screw it up for everyone else - who also have a right to live on a habitable planet.
The way I see it w.r.t. global warming is that every second we spend pulling in different directions is one second closer to the extinction of our species.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterWrong. Compared to global warming, all those things are trivial.
There are far more important concerns than something as unpredictable as the weather: terrorism, Islamization of Europe, AIDs, shrinking demographics in wealthy countries, taxes, Paris Hilton, etc.
Originally posted by kmax87The correct analogy is that your car has no warning light,
Great logic. My oil warning like keeps coming on in my car when I drive-hate the warning light- smash the bulb with a screw driver-no more light no more problem.
and scientist are telling you according to their computer
models - it's on.