Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Crime of the Century  (Read 15121 times)
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #40 on: August 16, 2010, 04:53:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Explosion in the gulf: accident. Airliners flown into the World Trade Center: murder. Equivalence: 11 guys dead in an accident ≈ roughly 3000 dead in a mass murder.


Again, you show an inability to correctly label (and quantify) what happened. Therefore, allow me to assist you in a more correct perspective:

Explosion in the Gulf: Criminal negligence that resulted in MONTHS of ongoing environmental damage ... causing hundreds of millions of deaths to all manner of sea-living creatures, as well as the tragic loss of 11 human lives, as well as the desecration of an entire (and once-rich) biological ecosystem ... not to mention the unbalancing of thousands of other human livelihoods, etc.

World Trade Center: Criminal intent that resulted in thousands of tragic human deaths, ruined one building, damaged some surrounding buildings, but didn't have too much of an impact on our planet or our environment.

Hope this helps,

Jack





.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 06:34:51 AM by John Koerner » Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #41 on: August 16, 2010, 06:54:44 AM »
ReplyReply

I guess that in the long run, the best thing we can do is to keep lobbying to make sure that fair regulations are put in place, expanded and applied so that:
1. Corporations are only and truly allowed to operate in ways that carry limited risk to the environment,
2. Civil servants compromising with ethics in dealing with these companies are subject to the highest level of penal liability including possible criminal charges,
3. A sufficient penalty is imposed on companies not following the regulations in place, at a scale proportional to the benefits made or expected as a result of the violation of the rules.
As a society and as individuals, it is our own responsibility to adopt ways of living that are as sustainable as possible. It seems likely as of now that fossil fuel being consumed will indirectly cause the death of some people in the years to come.
Cheers,
Bernard


This is a level-headed perspective Bernard.

In regards to 3, I would say that penalties up to and including loss of the ability to do business any longer, and a governmental seizure and dispersal of all funds to rectify the damage, as well as criminal charges against responsible parties, would be the kinds of safeguards that would make otherwise unscrupulous enterprises think more than twice about their actions ...

Jack




.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 06:56:30 AM by John Koerner » Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #42 on: August 16, 2010, 07:17:59 AM »
ReplyReply

There is so much confusion of concept here that it's hard to know where to start the correction process.
An accident is the unintended consequence of an intentional act. The drilling was intentional: the explosion was an accident. To suggest that it was other than an accident implies that it was not unintended: in other words, that it was deliberate. Not even the most hysterical of critics has made such an absurd suggestion.

The only absurd suggestion is that criminal negligence and an "accident" can't be one and the same in certain circumstances.

An "innocent" accident is one where all available precautions are taken, but an unfortunate result obtains. A criminally-negligent accident is one where the catastrophic possibilities are known, but yet "best practice" to prevent these results from happening is deliberately NOT taken, either out of laziness or indifference. The resulting catastrophic damage to others that occurs, though not deliberately sought, were deliberately not safeguarded against.

And, yes, this is a crime.



Accidents may be the result of negligent acts. A "negligent act" in this context means an act whose performance fell below the standard reasonably expected of one competent to undertake it, and whose substandard performance resulted in damage. There is no doubt that the explosion resulted in damage (which here encompasses both injury and physical damage). Whether it was the consequence of a breach of the duty owed to undertake the act competently is another matter entirely, and one on which nobody here is qualified to comment, despite being able to read the lengthy quotation which started this thread.

This is correct.

The basic premise of negligence and criminal negligence has to do with the "duty of care" owed as well as the "extent of damage possible" by one's actions. Given the magnitude of what could have happened (in fact, did happen) to so many different life forms as well as to our very planet, the potential damage was astronomical ... and so the "duty of care" was at the absolute highest it could possibly be. If ANY measures were taken that were not considered by all available experts to be "best known practice," there is negligence. Plain and simple. If measures were taken that were known to be substandard, even risky and dangerous, but were taken to "cut costs" rather than ensure safety, when so much was at stake, then what happened was more than mere negligence; it was criminal negligence. While I do not have the entire case file, and while I am not the one investigating this matter, I have investigated enough cases of products liability and construction defects ... and I have read enough of the facts about this matter via the media ... to form a sincere opinion that the Gulf incident was a matter of criminal negligence.




Jack's opinions, as expressed in his last paragraph, are no doubt genuinely held. That doesn't make them right, any more than the genuineness of Russ's views makes them right: but for someone relying heavily and overtly on his own experience to leap to conclusions based on an inevitably superficial knowledge of the facts is a matter of some concern.
Jeremy

I understand your perspective and can sympathize with it. However, I am more concerned by people who think only "inanimate objects" were affected by this catastrophe and who think that the deliberate use of substandard practices by ANY company are acceptable, when so much total damage (to humans, to other creatures, and to our very planet) is potentially at stake.

Thanks for your views,

Jack




.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 07:22:59 AM by John Koerner » Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6516



WWW
« Reply #43 on: August 16, 2010, 09:20:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
In the end, however, killing-off people is not an ethical solution to our problem...

but,

Quote
People who cannot care for themselves need to stop reproducing. If they will not stop based on their own commitment to be responsible, then they need to be sterilized.

Any inconsistency between these two ideas?

Quote
This world simply does not need any more people; it needs less people.

As long as I AM AMONG THOSE LESS PEOPLE.

Quote
The collective human ability to destroy this world began with the advent of the industrial age...

Ah, yes. That damned industrial revolution. If it weren't for that sort of thing we (the few indorsed by our betters as not being among the lowest and most helpless) would live idyllic lives hunting and gathering and in the evening dancing happily around our campfires.

Sorry. I should have resisted, but this is such a target-rich environment that it's difficult to pass it up and fly on home.
Logged

JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #44 on: August 16, 2010, 09:57:55 AM »
ReplyReply

but, Any inconsistency between these two ideas?

None at all.

Intelligent people know the difference between killing an existing life and preventing any more from happening. Unless you're prepared to say wearing a condom to prevent pregancy is the same thing as taking an existing human life, or that spaying a dog so it doesn't have anymore pups is the same thing as killing a living animal, even you should be able to see the difference.




As long as I AM AMONG THOSE LESS PEOPLE.

No need to cry-out in all-capital letters. Again, genius, preventing reproduction to diminish the future human population is not harming any individual in the existing human population. I hope I didn't say that too fast.




Ah, yes. That damned industrial revolution. If it weren't for that sort of thing we (the few indorsed by our betters as not being among the lowest and most helpless) would live idyllic lives hunting and gathering and in the evening dancing happily around our campfires.

There is no doubt that the industrial revolution has made our lives easier in many respects, but there is likewise no doubt that it has made it more complicated in others. I think people were generally happier in simpler "Little House on the Prairie" times, when families were a true working unit together, tending only to essential needs ... as opposed to (now) each member going off into his own world, disjointed from the family, with virtually no common goals together.

The attempt to roll one's eyes at this subject only goes to show your own juvenile mentality. Yes, there are many great advantages we as people have today, thanks to "progress" ... but there are also many disadvantages (as well as looming catastrophes) that are likewise the direct result of said progress. I am not sure why you are trying to be such a smartass, especially when you're not all that smart, when being sincere would make this a better discussion for all.

To deny the advantages we all have thanks to our current technology would be dishonest on my part. Yet denying the tremendous damage we've done to the world, and the very real fact there are severe problems that need to be dealt with, is every bit as dishonest on your part. Denial isn't rebuttal; it's only denial. Making jokes isn't rebuttal; it's only juvenile.

I think people can go on enjoying the technology we do have, and yet responsibly take measures to deal with the problems we also have ... gradually trying to reduce said problems ... rather than continuing on as we are to compound them.




Sorry. I should have resisted, but this is such a target-rich environment that it's difficult to pass it up and fly on home.

I agree and thank you for acting as the target. I think the funniest part of all is how your pistol keeps backfiring in your face. Have you ever considered thinking before you write and trying to take a serious subject seriously?

Jack





.

« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 10:01:14 AM by John Koerner » Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6516



WWW
« Reply #45 on: August 16, 2010, 11:23:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Intelligent people know the difference between killing an existing life and preventing any more from happening.

Yes, and they also know the difference between contraception and forced sterilization carried out by the state.

Incidentally, one tool an individual can use to do his part in reducing the world's population is suicide.

Quote
I think people were generally happier in simpler "Little House on the Prairie" times, when families were a true working unit together, tending only to essential needs ...

Wow!!! Jack, have you ever actually read "Little House on the Prairie?" You might want to try it. The only person who could believe what you said is someone who's never lived that way. I remember Santa Fe in the sixties when kids were drifting into the area to "go back to the land." It didn't take them long to find out why their predecessors who'd lived on the land as subsistence farmers had done everything in their power to get off the land. Parts of Laura's life were idyllic, but not many parts, and many of her contemporaries were able to have idyllic lives without having to fight grass fires and locust invasions. To get more of the picture I'd suggest you read the whole "Little House" series.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #46 on: August 16, 2010, 12:07:59 PM »
ReplyReply

See this.

Jeremy


Indeed! Singing from the same sheet.

Rob C
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #47 on: August 16, 2010, 12:22:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Am I alone in noting the manner in which some perfectly sound ideas can be sabotaged by a totally unpleasant way of articulating them?

Rob C
Logged

kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4088



« Reply #48 on: August 16, 2010, 01:38:10 PM »
ReplyReply

If ANY measures were taken that were not considered by all available experts to be "best known practice," there is negligence. Plain and simple.
It's plain and simple but it's plain and simple drivel. It presupposes a consensus which obviously doesn't and could never exist: "all available experts" is a nonsensical concept since it's incapable of definition.

The legal concept of negligence is based on taking those steps which are reasonable, not those steps which only the hysterical could consider necessary. That isn't a point for debate: it's a simple statement of fact.

While I do not have the entire case file, and while I am not the one investigating this matter, I have investigated enough cases of products liability and construction defects ... and I have read enough of the facts about this matter via the media ... to form a sincere opinion that the Gulf incident was a matter of criminal negligence.
Or, to put it another way, "I am ignorant of the facts save for speculation in newspaper articles written by those well-known experts, journalists, but because I have some knowledge of something which is at least superficially vaguely similar, I'm going to form an opinion based on my ignorance in any event and pretend that it has some validity". Hmm. I'd love to have you on a jury.

Incidentally, do we include journalists in the set of "all available experts"? One only has to ask the question to reveal the pointlessness of an answer.

Jeremy
Logged
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4088



« Reply #49 on: August 16, 2010, 01:49:37 PM »
ReplyReply

A more interesting question would be .... if I could eradicate the entire human race, to save the planet and all of its other inhabitants, would I do it? And the answer is, given the overall destructive nature of our human presence, I would have to give that thought some serious consideration.
The planet is in no danger at all. Whatever we do, however much damage we inflict, the planet will continue to exist. It will exist after all humans have died and, later, after all life has died. It will continue to exist until, in billions of years, it becomes consumed by the sun.

To imagine otherwise is hubris.

No couple should be able to have more than one child any longer.
Spot on. After all, we know how successful that policy has proved to have been in China.

And NO couple, who does not have the wherewithal to support themselves financially, should be able to have ANY children at all. And any such violation of these edicts should result in mandatory sterilization. Putting  a cap on reproduction and moving away from environmentally-dangerous fuels is wherein the answers lie.

As it is, generally the lowest and most helpless of people are producing the most offspring ... none of whom can care for themselves ... and the only reason such helpless and dependent people can do this is because of "programs" that continue to feed all of these needy mouths ... which creates a downward spiral of dependancy and the continual overpopulation of more-and-more people who are unable to care for themselves. This is an abomination of Natural Selection, and it needs to stop. Rather than growing exponentially in population, we humans need to shrink exponentially in population. People who cannot care for themselves need to stop reproducing. If they will not stop based on their own commitment to be responsible, then they need to be sterilized. Yes, this would be an encroachment on their "rights," but at this point I think human "rights" need to be replaced by human responsibility, and only when people have first made sure their responsibilities are in order may they then be entitled to their rights. Meanwhile, the people who can take care of themselves, and their children, should only have one child and no more. This world simply does not need any more people; it needs less people. IMO, if these two principles were followed, then in just a couple of generations our overpopulation would be diminished by 3/4ths. If this happened, and with a shift from the dependancy on oils and fossil fuels, to my mind this would be the most sensible, non-violent way to handle the existing problem. Killing existing human lives would be an evil solution to our problems. Allowing everyone to live, but limiting the amount of future human births, would seem to be the fairest way to deal with the dire issue of human overpopulation and the ever-decreasing natural world.
This is a quite astonishing rant. It has no shred of moral justification. Shall we stop the Jews (of which I am one, not that that matters particularly) from reproducing? The Moslems? The Scientologists? (actually, that last example rather spoils my point but we'll let it pass). Or only the poor? The transiently poor? The poor who have been poor for five years? Those without qualifications?

The invocation of Darwin to support such a policy is bizarre. Social policy leading to genetic modification? To quote John McEnroe, you cannot be serious!

I shan't contribute further to this thread (unless provoked beyond endurance) because I have already come dangerously close to invoking Goodwin's law and the degree of detachment from reality showed by your post is little short of alarming. Sit down, take a stress pill and think things over, Jack.

Jeremy
Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #50 on: August 16, 2010, 01:55:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Wow, reading this thread is like reading Hunter S. Thompson filtered through Brett Easton Ellis in his American Psycho days, with a dash of Jared Diamond. Keep it coming!
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6516



WWW
« Reply #51 on: August 16, 2010, 02:26:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Harri, I'm not sure we should keep it going. I, for one, would feel pretty badly if an hysterical participant injured himself.
Logged

feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #52 on: August 16, 2010, 06:04:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Harri, I'm not sure we should keep it going. I, for one, would feel pretty badly if an hysterical participant injured himself.

It's not funny until someone gets hurt Tongue
Logged

JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #53 on: August 17, 2010, 07:16:46 AM »
ReplyReply

The planet is in no danger at all. Whatever we do, however much damage we inflict, the planet will continue to exist. It will exist after all humans have died and, later, after all life has died. It will continue to exist until, in billions of years, it becomes consumed by the sun.

Speaking of a pointless rant, that was deep Jeremy. My meaning was clearly the planet's natural beauty as well as its ability to sustain life. It amazes me the tangents people go on to avoid the issue.




To imagine otherwise is hubris.

To argue as you do is inane. Building strawmen to knock down is sophomoric.




Spot on. After all, we know how successful that policy has proved to have been in China.

And we know how much better our world is getting with everyone reproducing, without any checks whatsoever.




This is a quite astonishing rant. It has no shred of moral justification. Shall we stop the Jews (of which I am one, not that that matters particularly) from reproducing? The Moslems? The Scientologists? (actually, that last example rather spoils my point but we'll let it pass). Or only the poor? The transiently poor? The poor who have been poor for five years? Those without qualifications

You raise some interesting points and problems Jeremy, but unfortunately you do it in an affonting way. However, you also blithely miss some key points and concepts. Why do you bring up religion and why do you miss the whole point of what I said? I never said people of certain religions should be prevented from reproducing; I said people who cannot care for themselves, by their own means, should be prevented from reproducing. In other words, people who need governement money to survive should not be able to produce. This means, regardless of race or religion, if you don't have the wherewithal to feed and shelter yourself, you aren't fit to have children. It's pretty much that simple. As it stands, such people (since they don't do anything and have so much time on their hands) typically pump-put the most children ... all of whom are sustained by still more government money. Do you think increasing the amount of people unable to sustain themselves by their own means is preferable to preventing more such people from reproducing? I don't see where you pulled "religion" out of in this discussion (well, I have an idea, but let's keep it clean).




The invocation of Darwin to support such a policy is bizarre. Social policy leading to genetic modification? To quote John McEnroe, you cannot be serious!

What I said only seems bizarre to you because of your own cerebral shortcomings. I will explain what I meant, in the simplest terms, so that you might see the point. Now see if you can follow this thought: The law of Natural Selection = survival of the FITTEST. Meaning, in nature, those animals most equipped to survive do so and thus reproduce the best genes for future populations. I hope you're still with me. Unfortunately, in our society, by keeping people alive who can't even feed themselves (and by letting them reproduce unchecked), our government is encouraging survival of the UNfittest, which is (as I said) an abomination of nature. Nature favors reproduction of those MOST capable of survival; our government policy offers monetary favors to those LEAST capable of survival. We are, in essence, preserving dead weight in our society and encouraging them to make more dead weight.

My own suggestion would be the opposite: those people unable to sustain themselves should NOT be able to reproduce. In nature, they would die off, but we not only keep them alive ... we assist them in making more of their kind. As things stand, such people get more and more money the more and more kids they have. Rather then getting "extra" money when such people reproduce, it is my view they should have penalties for such irresponsibility. I am not sure what you think is "wrong" with this belief system. I find banning irresponsible reproduction far more tenable than the current system which encourages it.

To my way of thinking, having a child is the greatest and most complex personal responsibility that there is. And it is simply irresponsible for any person to have children when they can't even take care of their own needs, and it is even more irresponsible of our government to encourage this with its current model.




I shan't contribute further to this thread (unless provoked beyond endurance) because I have already come dangerously close to invoking Goodwin's law and the degree of detachment from reality showed by your post is little short of alarming. Sit down, take a stress pill and think things over, Jack.
Jeremy

Well, Jeremy, it seems you are the one who needs to take a chill pill. You are speaking of being "provoked" when I originally didn't even address you. You are now refusing to contribute further to this thread, which itself is an admission that you are the one emotionally-affected by it.

Perhaps if you would stop arguing nonsense, and perhaps if you slowed down so that you understood what was being said, we might actually find ourselves more in agreement than not.

Take care,

Jack




.
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #54 on: August 17, 2010, 07:50:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes, and they also know the difference between contraception and forced sterilization carried out by the state.

Exactly. People unable to feed and care for themselves ought to be required to use contraception and thus not burden other people (taxpayers) any more than their own inability to feed themselves already places on others. And, if they irresponsibly have children anyway, in flagrant defiance of this, then yes, I believe they should be sterilized.

IMO, no person, who cannot properly care for themselves, has any business having children. They need to spend every bit of their time trying to get themselves into a position where they CAN take care of themselves and their own needs. Once this is done, then they can think about adding to their own responsibilities.

I am not sure what any honest, sensible person could possibly find wrong with this way of thinking.




Incidentally, one tool an individual can use to do his part in reducing the world's population is suicide.

If you find this a tenable solution, then I encourage you to act on your belief system.




Wow!!! Jack, have you ever actually read "Little House on the Prairie?" You might want to try it. The only person who could believe what you said is someone who's never lived that way. I remember Santa Fe in the sixties when kids were drifting into the area to "go back to the land." It didn't take them long to find out why their predecessors who'd lived on the land as subsistence farmers had done everything in their power to get off the land. Parts of Laura's life were idyllic, but not many parts, and many of her contemporaries were able to have idyllic lives without having to fight grass fires and locust invasions. To get more of the picture I'd suggest you read the whole "Little House" series.

Oh brother. Let us not get caught-up on an analogy that was perhaps not the best I could give, shall we?

My point is simply this: (1) Let us stop using the most damaging of fuels and re-direct our need for fuels to better and cleaner options; and (2) Let us stop reproducing exponentially like a pestilience across the earth. Instead of doubling- and tripling our billions, let us be more aware and create policies intent on reducing those numbers dramatically.

For all our differences of belief, there should be some basic premises upon which we can all agree. I would think that, among those premises, this would include a sincere desire to keep our world as pristine and clean as possible (rather than as dirty and polluted as possible), as well as a desire NOT to so overpopulate the world with big cities filled with hungry mouths that there is no more natural beauty left in the world.

There are simply enough people in this world, and all of us (to one degree or another) pollute our world. Let us therefore choose the cleanest means possible, rather than the dirties means. Let us also try to limit the volume. To help facilitate this, let only those people capable of sustaining themselves have future children, and let those people unable to feed and care for themselves live out their lives but reproduce no further. And, regarding the fuels needed for those living in today's societies, let us move away from the most damaging fuels to the least damaging alternatives.

Or are you suggesting that, in all honesty, there aren't enough people yet in the world, there is no problem of overpopulation ... and that there really is no problem with repeated catastrophic pollotions in the efforts to secure the current fuel model, and so no efforts should be made at making a shift in fuel choices, so that "accidents" like these don't happen anymore?

Jack



.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2010, 07:56:50 AM by John Koerner » Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6516



WWW
« Reply #55 on: August 17, 2010, 10:41:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Exactly. People unable to feed and care for themselves ought to be required to use contraception and thus not burden other people (taxpayers) any more than their own inability to feed themselves already places on others. And, if they irresponsibly have children anyway, in flagrant defiance of this, then yes, I believe they should be sterilized.

Jack, You'd have been a happy camper in Germany during the late thirties. As it is, you probably ought to move to China. The authorities there agree with you 100 percent, though they're starting to have second thoughts now that the results of that policy are becoming clearer.

Quote
Quote
Quote from: RSL on August 16, 2010, 11:23:33 AM
Incidentally, one tool an individual can use to do his part in reducing the world's population is suicide.


If you find this a tenable solution, then I encourage you to act on your belief system.

Jack, It's not my belief system. You're the one who's been pushing the idea that the world is overcrowded. I was thinking you might want to act on your belief system -- to set an example -- and that you'd overlooked that solution as a way to demonstrate your dedication.

Quote
Oh brother. Let us not get caught-up on an analogy that was perhaps not the best I could give, shall we?

In other words, as I suspected, you haven't actually read Little House on the Prairie. Jack, it doesn't pay to use examples you're not actually familiar with. It'll catch you up almost every time.

Logged

JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #56 on: August 17, 2010, 02:02:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Jack, You'd have been a happy camper in Germany during the late thirties. As it is, you probably ought to move to China. The authorities there agree with you 100 percent, though they're starting to have second thoughts now that the results of that policy are becoming clearer.

No, I don't agree with the policies of Germany in the late 30s. I don't agree with genocide, nor do I agree with the idea of condemning any individual or group based on race or religion. Rather, I believe in equal freedom for all and in equal opportunity, with the caveat that if one proves incompetent to "get off the ground" based on their own merits they have proven unfit to reproduce because they are unfit to survive under their own power.

I am sorry if you do not have the wattage upstairs to differentiate between hurting innocent people for false reasons versus the fair policy to let all people prove themselves capable (or incapable) of success based on their own merits. You are the only one here suggesting violence, by indicating suicide as a solution to the problem of overpopulation (and I see you haven't yet tried your own idea).

I have not suggested any violence toward any person. I have suggested that there is a tremendous amount of damage being done to our world because of (1) an addiction to fossil fuels and (2) said fuels are needed in such great quantity because of human overpopulation. I have suggested a shift away from fossil fuels and a cap placed on human reproduction. Why are you having such trouble with such basic concepts?

Do you think it is smart policy long-term (or even fair) for people who can't care for themselves to continue to reproduce more of their own kind, expecting "others" to carry the tremndous and ever-increasing financial burden? Do you think the long-term use of environmental-destroying fossil fuels should continue as it is, unabated? I sure don't. And neither does any environmental expert. Only the oil companies and people making money off the trade think we should continue our fuel consumption as-is.




Jack, It's not my belief system. You're the one who's been pushing the idea that the world is overcrowded. I was thinking you might want to act on your belief system -- to set an example -- and that you'd overlooked that solution as a way to demonstrate your dedication.

You really do have trouble with basic concepts, don't you? You must be an astronaut; either that or you just took-up space in school.

I never pushed the idea that existing persons should be killed, either by government nor by their own hand. I suggested that existing persons should be limited in their ability to reproduce, with self-sustaining viable individuals being limited to one child per household, while those who can't even feed themselves without help ought not to have children at all. That you extrapolate all of this other nonsense from what was actually said indicates a severely-limited ability to follow basic ideas, same as your other digressions into the absurd.




In other words, as I suspected, you haven't actually read Little House on the Prairie. Jack, it doesn't pay to use examples you're not actually familiar with. It'll catch you up almost every time.

Once again, you digress into the trivial. I was actually referring to the TV series, not the book. Nothing has "caught up" to me, certainly not you. In fact, I don't think you have actually understood a single concept that has been discussed.

Jack




.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2010, 02:03:57 PM by John Koerner » Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6516



WWW
« Reply #57 on: August 17, 2010, 02:37:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, Jack, Now that you've thoroughly exposed yourself in public I'm out of here. I'm sure the people reading this thread will be able to make their own judgments about the relative merits of the various posts. I suspect most of them already have. Bye bye...
Logged

JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #58 on: August 17, 2010, 03:20:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, Jack, Now that you've thoroughly exposed yourself in public I'm out of here. I'm sure the people reading this thread will be able to make their own judgments about the relative merits of the various posts. I suspect most of them already have. Bye bye...


Most of the intelligent people will have noticed a pattern to your behavior: missing the point, setting up strawmen arguments to knock down in the place of dealing with what was actually said, failing to answer any direct questions with direct and honest responses, and essentially the attempt to avoid voicing your own opinions.

You debate like a politician or a pettifogger, using snide comments in the place of stating your own honest opinions. Would it be your own honest opinion that there is "no" problem with human overpopulation in this world and that there is "no" massive danger to our environment through the ever-increasing demands for fossil fuels? Or are you just too cowardly to voice your true opinions in public and do you just like to take the easy way out instead?

I guess your very mature "bye bye" says it all ...

Like I said, these are tough issues. And I realize that some of the potential solutions to the discussed problems are going to be unpopular with the non-thinking herd-types (that are content with the status-quo) and who don't want to think about any type of proactive solution to the existing problems. I also realize that most people are more concerned with their "rights" than they are with their responsibilities. In fact, this pandemic fact about most people is why these problems have come to exist in the first place ...

Jack




.
Logged
tgamron
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #59 on: August 17, 2010, 03:36:11 PM »
ReplyReply


Most of the intelligent people will have noticed a pattern to your behavior: missing the point, setting up strawmen arguments to knock down in the place of dealing with what was actually said, failing to answer any direct questions with direct and honest responses, and essentially the attempt to avoid voicing your own opinions.

You debate like a politician or a pettifogger, using snide comments in the place of stating your own honest opinions. Would it be your own honest opinion that there is "no" problem with human overpopulation in this world and that there is "no" massive danger to our environment through the ever-increasing demands for fossil fuels? Or are you just too cowardly to voice your true opinions in public and do you just like to take the easy way out instead?

I guess your very mature "bye bye" says it all ...

Like I said, these are tough issues. And I realize that some of the potential solutions to the discussed problems are going to be unpopular with the non-thinking herd-types (that are content with the status-quo) and who don't want to think about any type of proactive solution to the existing problems. I also realize that most people are more concerned with their "rights" than they are with their responsibilities. In fact, this pandemic fact about most people is why these problems have come to exist in the first place ...

Jack




.


Most of the intelligent people will have noticed a pattern to your behavior: the ad hominem attack.

Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad