The Kyoto Protocol on the greenhouse effect

Manwë was known for many things, but wisdom and power are two that lead the rest of his attributes. Join the Councils and discuss the more weighty matters of Tolkien Fandom.

Postby Fatty_Bolger » Fri May 11, 2001 6:07 pm

Well, I asked this before and will ask it again:<BR>Beleg, Kel, please enlighten me. I'm being repressed by our government which implemented stupid laws that forbid me of using me individual freedom, my innate rights to do anything I want.<BR>Since you're advocating the right of everyone to pollute or make anything stupid to some extent, may I ask you the crucial question:<BR>WHY CAN'T I SHOOT MY NEIGHBORS, THEY'RE SO STUPID?!?<BR>It's a scandalous limitation to my own individual rights, I'm gonna go to Supreme Court to complain about that. THat's unfair.<BR>People can lie and remain president, people can drill in areas where human activities are forbidden, people can negociate treaties go home and then tell the other guys to buzz off because it's not because we signed anything that we're gonna ratify it, and it's not because we're legally obliged to respect any treaty that we're gonna respect it either. And I'm stuck here with idiot neighbours and I cannot shoot them, but they're a major pain for everyone <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif"border=0><BR>Not fair!<BR><BR>Hum, whoever said US should withdraw from UN is absolutely right imho, btw. That is, if UN doesn't try to expel US first<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif"border=0><BR><BR>And now, Nira may well know what i'm gonna say because I said it before:<BR>"What is the secret of the Grail?" "One land, one king" (Excalibur)<BR>One planet, one mankind. No need to have more than one state on it. If individual rights are so extremely put that they lead to total destruction of most of Earth, nature, lifeforms, then my position is clear, down with these individual rights. Mankind's survival tops them by far.<BR>It's time now to set up the real and definitive mankind's rules, the same way Asimov set up the robotic rules. Beginning with the 0 rule.<BR>0) No human may willingly do any action that would threaten life's survival on Earth. (I mean actions leading to total destruction of any lifeform)<BR>1) No human may willingly do any action that would threaten mankind's survival. Except if that opposes the 0th rule.<BR>2) No human human may willingly do any action that would threaten another human's life. Except if that opposes the 1st rule.<BR>3) Since we're not robots, the rule about robots obeying humans won't be copied here <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0><BR>Individual rights aren't the highest thing here around, it's life. I thought conservatives were pro-life, so if letting individualism run amok and threaten our mere survival, what would you do? Ooops, i forgot most of conservatives are born-again Christian so they should think that the sooner it goes ugly here the best it is since that would fasten Armageddon and 2nd coming <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif"border=0><BR>You may also notice that I purposefully put the survival of life on Earth before survival of mankind. Which means than if mankind is definitely going to absolutely ruin the planet and all ecosystems, mankind's annihilation is preferable to its survival for the few decades necessary to fulfill the destruction of Earth.<BR>I however hope that it's not necessary, and for the moment I'd say it's not <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0><BR><BR>Is it just me or is this becoming a major flame war <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-blush.gif"border=0><BR>Oh well, and I didn't even insult Europeans or Americans...<BR>Should I?<BR><img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0><img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif"border=0><img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0><img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0><img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0><img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif"border=0><img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0>
User avatar
Fatty_Bolger
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1543
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2000 3:15 pm
Top

Postby ElfStar » Fri May 11, 2001 7:42 pm

You have a remarkable amount of confidence in the notion that we can dstroy the earth. Funny, If the earth is as fragile as some people make it sound, I'm surprised the world hasn't been destroyed already.
User avatar
ElfStar
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 3186
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2001 8:25 pm
Top

Postby peregin2k » Fri May 11, 2001 8:15 pm

No comment! <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-rolleyes.gif"border=0><BR>
User avatar
peregin2k
Mariner

 
Posts: 7147
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 2:53 pm
Top

Postby ILvEowyn » Fri May 11, 2001 8:48 pm

I'm surprised too, considering how badly some people seem to want to destroy it.
User avatar
ILvEowyn
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12836
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 11:39 am
Location: lovely Western NY
Top

Postby ElfStar » Fri May 11, 2001 8:50 pm

You know, it's funny. Drilling in an incredibly small area in Alaska will destroy the enviroment, but testing nuclear bombs hasn't?
User avatar
ElfStar
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 3186
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2001 8:25 pm
Top

Postby ILvEowyn » Fri May 11, 2001 8:58 pm

personally i think the very best possible alternative energy source would be nuclear fusion. it's not possible to create fusion and contain the enrgy right now, but it will be someday. it releases thousands and thousands of times more energy than the nuclear energy we use today(fission). the ingredients are simple and easily obtainable: two helium atoms. most importantly, there is absolutely no radioactive or waste material of any type left over after it's done. the big problem is the energy: no-container has been built that wouldn't melt on the spot<BR><BR>i think that is where the majority of our alternative energy research should be going to. does anyone else agree?
User avatar
ILvEowyn
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12836
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 11:39 am
Location: lovely Western NY
Top

Postby ElfStar » Sat May 12, 2001 8:52 am

People are researching alternative energy. The time will come when alternative energy is affordable and in great supply. But for now we must use what we can easily get in an effective manner.
User avatar
ElfStar
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 3186
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2001 8:25 pm
Top

Postby dillene » Sat May 12, 2001 9:20 am

I myself lived in Michigan for many years, and can recall getting our first snow of the year as early as Columbus day, and our last snow of the year as late as April 20. For many people living in the same circumstances, a frequently-asked question is: "Where is all this global warming they're talking about, and how soon can we get it?" I understand that Baffin Island is lovely, and I look forward to having a nice beachfront hideaway there in my retiring years.<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif"border=0>
User avatar
dillene
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 483
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 7:34 am
Top

Postby ILvEowyn » Sat May 12, 2001 4:54 pm

This sure is an interesting debate, almost 100 posts.
User avatar
ILvEowyn
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12836
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 11:39 am
Location: lovely Western NY
Top

Postby Kelannar » Sun May 13, 2001 3:12 am

I get very defensive when someone from another land tells me what Americans can or cannot do. It's like my neighbor down the block telling me that I can't grill steaks in my outdoor barbecue because he's a vegetarian and doesn't like the smell of hamburgers. I need not state that my initial reaction to that is very unpleasant.<BR><BR>peregin2k, you specifically said: "Energy crisis? Is there really one? Or this is just a ploy of the OPEC to keep their oil prices high." That kind of rhetoric from someone who doesn't understand the problem is particularly insulting, especially because someone who is from afar is proposing solutions that impact other people. It also instigates my anger towards those who, like that annoying neighbor who would tell me that I can't grill hamburgers, say I can't drive around in my car because the US has to lower its energy output by some percentage that a bureaucrat chose.<BR><BR>If I am to take the case of foreigners seriously, then you MUST respect the right of nations to do what is in their interests. Also, insulting the intelligence of our president simply because he has interests different from yours does not endear you to my generosity. In fact, by doing that you fire the first shot in an exchange that will inevitibly degrade into namecalling. Do not do that again.<BR><BR>Regarding this issue: Ultimately, the United States WILL do what is in its interest, and no one should be surprised of that. If it is in our interests to build more nuclear power plants, to make us rely on them like FRANCE or JAPAN, then we will do that. If the President and Congress decides that drilling in Alaska will help, we will do that. This is our problem, and we will find the solution. If a foreigner has concerns, they should be presented with the understanding that they MAY be rejected - because this IS our problem, not yours.<BR><BR>peregin2k - your concern about reducing outputs in the international economy is an antitrust issue. Every Western country has antitrust laws that extend to such extraterritorial actions (both America and Europe especially). Thus, if a group of producers in another country reduced outputs, they could be liable for antitrust violations (and could be barred from the market altogether). There are laws which deal with your concerns. The problem is, OPEC is a cartel that cares not for these laws, and in some cases have been exempted from them, because they hold all the power. But if America had a large source of oil as an alternative to OPEC, then things would change.<BR><BR>Fatty - your rant was so confusing and I have no idea what you're talking about. When you become a little more coherent, I'll try to address your concerns. <BR>
User avatar
Kelannar
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2549
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2000 9:30 pm
Top

Postby Fatty_Bolger » Sun May 13, 2001 5:49 am

Kel: basically I doubt USA will ever have any major source of oil so that they won't depend on OPEC oil. They don't have and never won't. Alaska oil isn't sufficient enough, by far. One of the main reasons why having a more efficient industry that doesn't need as much energy as nowadays, and developing alternative energies IS important, if only for national security purpose. I think that as long as you stick with oil as primary enerfy source, and don't try to develop another energy source, one that can be produces in USA, you're putting the whole country under a major threat.<BR>About foreigners saying USA what they should do. Sorry, but isn't one of the main activity of US Secretary of State exactly that? Saying to half the planet how they should behave? And why do the US government think it can do that, if not because US is superior, notably because it's a democracy? Well, there are plenty of democracies here around. Or is it because America is protected by God and God will make sure USA will rule the world forever, and the New Jerusalem will come onto the Capitol once all the leftists have been taken care of <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif"border=0> Not to say that European Union doesn't say other peoples what they should do; they do it as well as USA. But should we really assume that democracies shouldn't comment what their fellow democracies do?<BR>Last about my rant: if people are raving about their individual rights, well why do I not have my own individual right to kill my annoying neighbours; looks like you now what I mean <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif"border=0> (ps, barbecue are fine)? Come on. You cannot have full freedom as soon as there's another being than you in the universe, for it means you have to share it, you don't own it all and cannot make everything you want with. There are limits to freedom for everyone, basically. That's a fact, you cannot avoid it. The real question is what limits do you put and how you make sure that the limits are the same for everyone and you don't limit some people more than others. The basic idea behind some regulations is bascially that individuals are more prone to see their own direct profit and not the long-term, so some State regulations comes to make sure that long-term issues are dealt with. Whether it's well done or very badly done is another one imho. And of course comes the question of how much you regulate, and which domains you regulate and which don't need it. But I have the real impression that there are some people here around that despise all regulations, all limitations to their "freedom"; once you begin to criticise any form of regulation because it violates your innate god-given individual rights, well, where do you stop? I can as well claim that I have right to kill whenever I want to; after all, people have right to defend themselves and to shoot me if they see I'm gonna kill them, so where's the problem?<BR>
User avatar
Fatty_Bolger
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1543
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2000 3:15 pm
Top

Postby Beleg » Sun May 13, 2001 6:38 am

Fatty: my argument with leftists is not that they want to do what they want (I can never quite get to that part of the argument), but that they are perfectly willing to let some people have special rights, sort of like trade rights between nations being Preferred Nations Trading Rights. Of course, that's not my only argument. Leftists are also quite prepared, it appears, to put any other species, or the planet itself, before humans. That comes across as self-loathing and the symptom is extreme misanthropy, which I can see on parade in any number of threads right here right now.<BR><BR>And, as to Kelennar not understanding your little rant? I do recall him proposing exactly what you suggest, on exactly the basis you suggest it, as part of his proof that the rule of law isn't maintained simply by human endeavor, but that it descends from the authority of God. No lesser source could have the wherwithal, perspective, nay even right. My take is that he didn't respond because you clearly either don't remember him making this argument or, the impression I had, which was that even this argument made no dent in the invincible ignorance of the atheist with whom he was debating. So, why try again?
User avatar
Beleg
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 3905
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 1999 8:28 am
Top

Postby peregin2k » Sun May 13, 2001 1:38 pm

Antitrust for dummies:<BR>You're gouging on your prices if you charge more than the rest.<BR>But its unfair competition if you think you can charge less.<BR>A second point that we would make to help avoid confusion:<BR>Don't try to charge the same amount--that would be collusion. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0><BR><BR><i>I get very defensive when someone from another land tells me what Americans can or cannot do. It's like my neighbor down the block telling me that I can't grill steaks in my outdoor barbecue because he's a vegetarian and doesn't like the smell of hamburgers. I need not state that my initial reaction to that is very unpleasant.</i><BR><BR>Well then don't tell us what we can or can't do, too. (Anti-missle defense treaty, logging industry treaty etc...ring a bell!) I wouldn't mind if my neighbor starts grilling steaks and I'm a vegetarian just as long as he invites me for drinks (I'll bring the salad) and we'll have a lively discussion of why he should lessen his meat intake. If he doesn't heed my advice, he dies alone. But my problem is when my neighbor starts smoking and the fumes blows my way and we both die, him of cancer, me of second hand smoking. Alaska is my neighbor so I'm definitely concerned cause it will affect the ecosystem in the Yukon, too. <BR><BR><i>The problem is, OPEC is a cartel that cares not for these laws, and in some cases have been exempted from them, because they hold all the power. But if America had a large source of oil as an alternative to OPEC, then things would change.</i><BR><BR>Things will change, I don't think so. The only way to stop the cartel is finding other energy sources (aside from oil) to stop our dependence on OPEC. As you've said, you get exempted when you hold the power, there is no reason why a new competitor wouldn't use that power again. Oil could be easily turned on and off unlike other consumer goods which go stale or outdated. <BR><BR>I have no problems with power plants just as long as it's safe, but unfortunately it's not.
User avatar
peregin2k
Mariner

 
Posts: 7147
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 2:53 pm
Top

Postby peregin2k » Sun May 13, 2001 1:59 pm

<i>Leftists are also quite prepared, it appears, to put any other species, or the planet itself, before humans. That comes across as self-loathing and the symptom is extreme misanthropy, which I can see on parade in any number of threads right here right now.</i><BR><BR>It's not that we are putting the planet itself before humans. Don't tell me that protecting the enviroment is not prioritizing humans. This is our home, we have to protect it. Isn't having clean air, water, natural resources for the use of future generations etc... putting humans first? The bible says we are the guardians of the earth and that we should love all living things big and small. Reap only what you need from the land and if it is more than you need share it with your neighbors. <BR><BR>
User avatar
peregin2k
Mariner

 
Posts: 7147
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 2:53 pm
Top

Postby ElfStar » Sun May 13, 2001 8:20 pm

Our missle defense is telling you what to do? That's odd reasoning.
User avatar
ElfStar
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 3186
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2001 8:25 pm
Top

Postby peregin2k » Sun May 13, 2001 8:56 pm

<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-rolleyes.gif"border=0><BR>Oh boy, here we go again. <BR>Elfstar, if telling my country "We will not shoot down any missles headed for Canada if you don't sign this treaty" by some head of your military is not telling us what to do, then I don't know what it is then. Enlighten me please. I would not discuss this further cause this not the approriate thread for this.
User avatar
peregin2k
Mariner

 
Posts: 7147
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 2:53 pm
Top

Postby ElfStar » Mon May 14, 2001 8:42 pm

So we ought to just help you out of the goodness of our hearts? <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0>
User avatar
ElfStar
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 3186
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2001 8:25 pm
Top

Previous

Return to Philosophy: Councils of Manwë

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron