When you join a collective you yield the responsibility to think for yourself and accept responsibility for your actions.

Really? I am a citizen of the US. We are a collective who has joined together under certain laws and rules to better serve our needs as individuals (OK...give me some leeway on that). How exactly have I yielded the responsibility to think for myself, or managed to subvert the casue and effect reality of accetpign responsibility for my actions?

I think we should listen to climatologists, and not just the ones carefully selected by Gore, if we want to understand climatology, a science that has to account for millions of years not just the past century.

What makes you think we're not? You must be speaking for yourself. How about if we listen to them all (like many of us have) and then come up with the same conclusion...is it OK then? When is the conclusion acceptable to you?

jlamour wrote:Big C, I'm absolutely against the notion of 'shared' property. That should answer a lot of questions concerning my position.

Be for it or aganist it, but we're sharing natural resources like air, water and land, every fucking day...so your position isn't really grounded in reality.

bigc wrote:What makes you think we're not? You must be speaking for yourself. How about if we listen to them all (like many of us have) and then come up with the same conclusion...is it OK then? When is the conclusion acceptable to you?

Absolutely not. The truth is not derived from a consensus. That is a Kantian epistimological fallacy.

There is a rift that exists in the field of climatology on whether or not global warming is even occuring. I'm just saying slow down with the restrictive policies. Try telling heart valve, made from a polymer, recipients that we're restricting the use of fossil fuels.

Politicians are leeches that will suck up power from an ignorant public.

bigc wrote:

jlamour wrote:Big C, I'm absolutely against the notion of 'shared' property. That should answer a lot of questions concerning my position.

Be for it or aganist it, but we're sharing natural resources like air, water and land, every fucking day...so your position isn't really grounded in reality.

Water and land violations are easy to enforce. The air thing is, well, up in the air. It's going to take alot of empirical evidence to prove there's a violation that occurs. Smokestack skylines aren't enough.

jlamour wrote:

bigc wrote:What makes you think we're not? You must be speaking for yourself. How about if we listen to them all (like many of us have) and then come up with the same conclusion...is it OK then? When is the conclusion acceptable to you?

Absolutely not. The truth is not derived from a consensus. That is a Kantian epistimological fallacy.

There is a rift that exists in the field of climatology on whether or not global warming is even occuring. I'm just saying slow down with the restrictive policies. Try telling heart valve, made from a polymer, recipients that we're restricting the use of fossil fuels.

Politicians are leeches that will suck up power from an ignorant public.

You're asking for deductive proof, which does not exist in the world of science.

Evidence points us to act. Not doing so in the name of gluttony is immoral, and should be illegal.

jlamour wrote:

bigc wrote:

jlamour wrote:Big C, I'm absolutely against the notion of 'shared' property. That should answer a lot of questions concerning my position.

Be for it or aganist it, but we're sharing natural resources like air, water and land, every fucking day...so your position isn't really grounded in reality.

Water and land violations are easy to enforce. The air thing is, well, up in the air. It's going to take alot of empirical evidence to prove there's a violation that occurs. Smokestack skylines aren't enough.

I think we can manage.

Sweet Fucking Christ

In the name of philosophy can we all agree to stop saying stuff is "Kantian"

or insert philosophers name here-ian for that mater.

Sorry, I just heard those statements everyday of my undergraduate career.

The only thing that would have been better is if you found a way to tie the Matrix into it somehow.

I think its all poon-washian personally

jlamour wrote:Living to 40, being nomadic, valuing superstition and religion over science and reason is hardly thriving.

With the exception of the nomadic clause do you realize how many Civilizations you just wrote off? Those crazy Egyptians what a worthless culture if only they had Iphones and didn't worship Ra they would have truly thrived like Americans are. Did you ever think maybe people shouldn't live to be 90? make some space for someone else there are too many people on this fucking planet.
You're making completely subjective arguments about the worth of people's culture based on your own prejudices'. I'm no fan of religion and I don't believe in god, but for many people that is their culture and civilization or at least the foundation. You can get the same shitty results from science and reason that you can from Superstition and religion. Germ warfare, Atomic Bombs, MTV, Eugenics.

One other thing and this format might not be the best place to try and posit this. I don't think the concept of the individual exists without the collective as a backdrop, and. Human beings are group animals, we need to be around each other. We define ourselves as individuals only as an opposition to others and the group, without the culture, language, etc.. created and taught to me by the group or collective that I need to define myself as an individual how could I?

Guys, can't we have a nice friendly debate without getting all emotional?

jlamour wrote:Guys, can't we have a nice friendly debate without getting all emotional?

Who's emotional?