Subject:
|
Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:36:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1135 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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?
In each case I advocated shooting someone they either would have or did cause
physical harm or were violating basic freedoms. Disagreeing with someone
>
> > > > > > 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?
Politicians only went to washington when there was actually something that
needed doing instead of the current system of trying to micromanage everything.
That of and in itself is what made it better.
>
> > > 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."
Prohibition is stupid regardless of who supported it and who didn't, much like
the war on drugs. How does this relate to the current operation of the
government versus before?
>
> > 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.
Except that the solar panels that are efficient enough to power a house even in
cloudy conditions are illeagal for ordinary citizens to purchase in the US.
> 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?
Propane would be much more efficient and cleaner to boot. 99% of the time you
would not need the backup generator anyway. You just need the battery packs
that charge with the excess power durring the day. The only hitch is one would
have to shovel snow off the roof when neccessary.
> 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.
The initial cost would be the major hurdel. But the savings over the long run
would more than make up the cost. 40% of domestic oil consumtion is from power
generation. Factor in the major reduction in pollution and it is hard to
imagine why we are not allowed to do this even on a voluntary basis. Oh thats
right it would screw up the oil industry. Maybe Hop-Frog is right, everything
is all about the oil.
> 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?"
Here in the US we are allowed to do whatever we want provided we are not
affecting other people unwillingly. Anyone who is mentally competent (and
speaks english reasonably well) knows exactly what I mean. We don't need to
define "is."
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
