Subject:
|
Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:46:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1051 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> The funny part is had the counted the way "Team Bush" originally wanted he
> would have won by a smaller percentage, if the counted the way "Team Gore"
> wanted Bush would have won by a larger percentage.
> They found this a few months afterward when the media counted everything
> themselves.
Right, but that's just a recount of the accepted votes, and it doesn't
factor in the irregularities in ballot format, the use of obsolete machines
in democrat-friendly districts, the unlawful removal of legal voters from
the voting registries, etc, etc, etc.
Why is it that you're content to say "Bush's victory was within the margin
of error, so we accept his victory" but you also say "Gore's
popular-vote-victory was within the margin of error, so his victory must be
disallowed"?
> No, then I put a bullet through his head. See, holding people accountable for
> their actions solves everything. I am sick of moral relativism, any mental
> competent person know the differnce between right and wrong. Shooting someone
> who intentionally and knowingly harmed you for their own gain is not wrong.
I'm concerned about your willingness to shoot anyone you judge to have
wronged you, even when your life is not in danger. Is that your perception
of Our Grandparents' Good Ol' Days? In this post you want to shoot a
broker, in a previous post you applauded the shooting of politicians, and in
an earlier post you expressed support for a woman who decided that the best
way to handle things was to shoot men whom she perceived as a threat.
So when I get the better of you in this debate, are you going to open fire?
> > > > > the military draft was in full effect,
> I think you misunderstood me. I said it was better not perfect.
Perhaps you misunderstand my objection. You must explain *why* it was
better, rather than simply asserting that it was better because you say so.
And "better" by what criteria?
> > Right, but [alcohol] was made illegal by the politicians of the era that
> > you recall so fondly.
> Again better does not mean perfect.
Of course not, but you haven't demonstrated that it was indeed better, or
what "better" means. In fact, you're saying: "Prohibition, as put forth by
my brand of policians, is better than non-prohibition as put forth by the
politicians I decry."
> Every house should be shingled with solar panels and have backup generators.
> There should not be a power grid.
Why not a light saber and a transporter, while we're at it. If you want
to outfit your house with a solar panel, do it! What's stopping you, a lack
of technology? That's hardly the fault of the government. And once you've
put your solar panel on your roof, you can go off the grid and actually sell
your surplus electricity to the utility company.
For that matter, what will power your backup generators, by the way?
Gasoline produced in your own private refinery from your own private oil well?
And while we're at it, you must demonstrate that the installation of
millions (billions?) of solar cells and home-generators will be cheaper and
more efficient IN THE AGGREGATE than the current system. You can't simply
assert that it will be "better" and expect us to believe you (that's like
claiming, with no evidence, that an enemy has weapons of mass destruction).
And I don't care about anecdotal cases like John Q. Environmentalist who put
a generator in his garage and is now living the high life. I want a case
study of large-scale (like multi-city) implementation of your grand design.
> > Well, that's nice as a pipe dream, but it has never had the chance to work
> > in reality (not on Earth, anyway, and pre-industrial-revolution-era villages
> > don't count as models). But what on Earth makes you think that corporations
> > would be any more readily accountable than the Government that you so revile?
> So long as people are willing to tolerate incorrect behaviour, then it will >not work.
It has been endlessly demonstrated that people are very willing to
tolerate their own incorrect behavior, even while condemning that same
behavior in others.
While I'm at it, how do you propose to handle behavior that you don't
"tolerate?"
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
164 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
