Page 9 of 20
Cate Blanchett has stopped washing her hair
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:27 pm
by DrAwkward_Archive
jlamour wrote:DrAwkward wrote:jlamour wrote:I'm saying human life itself depends on property rights.
What?!
This statement causes me to use interrobangs.
Explain how it doesn't.
The society in which we currently live and operate is obsessed with the concept of "property." This is true. But many civilizations have thrived for millennia in the earth's history without utilizing that concept.
I'm not saying one method is superior to another, just that human history has proven that "human life itself depends on property rights" isn't necessarily true. But, whatever. Modern society depends on the concept of property so i'll go with that.
Cate Blanchett has stopped washing her hair
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:27 pm
by big_dave_Archive
jlamour wrote:We have to protect the individual from the whim of a mob.
Explain how the mob, which is made up individuals with biologically seperate brains manages to have "will" and "whim" which can overwhelm and destroy an individuals desire to think for themselves?
What is it, starsigns? Telepathy?
Give me an example of a mob or gang that doesn't act on emotion.
Oh, emotion! How terrible!
Cate Blanchett has stopped washing her hair
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:31 pm
by jlamour_Archive
Living to 40, being nomadic, valuing superstition and religion over science and reason is hardly thriving.
Cate Blanchett has stopped washing her hair
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:32 pm
by DrAwkward_Archive
jlamour wrote:Living to 40, being nomadic, valuing superstition and religion over science and reason is hardly thriving.
For the time period, they did pretty damn well. 'Sall i'm sayin'.
Cate Blanchett has stopped washing her hair
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:40 pm
by bigc_Archive
jlamour wrote:bigc wrote:Now you're just not making any sense at all. You're saying that the efforts to keep the planet livable for human beings are anti-human, and that the decimation of our natural resources provides us with things we can use...after the human race is no longer able to occupy the planet?
Scientists have yet to prove that global warming is caused by humans. Even if they, do restricting the scope of business activity is not the answer. If you'd read my posts instead of hand-picking statements at whim, you'd know that I'm not for polluting the environment. I'm against a blanket government policy that strangles the economy.
bigc wrote:Saving natural beauty, resources and the planet, as well as curbing pollution, is quite rational. Sacrificing those things at the feet of profit is what's irrational.
These are moral issues the government has no business interfering with. If you pollute someone else's property, you should be punished.
So you're against a government policy against pollution that supposedly strangles the economy, but polluting shared property is immoral? Essentially, you're aganist legislating against violating someone's pro[rty rights when it negatively affects the economy?
Regulating pollution would not strangle the economy. Please check out nearly every other nation on Earth that has signed on for environmental standard regulation. This is another red herring.
Cate Blanchett has stopped washing her hair
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:41 pm
by jlamour_Archive
big_dave wrote:Explain how the mob, which is made up individuals with biologically seperate brains manages to have "will" and "whim" which can overwhelm and destroy an individuals desire to think for themselves?
What is it, starsigns? Telepathy?
When you join a collective you yield the responsibility to think for yourself and accept responsibility for your actions.
big_dave wrote:Oh, emotion! How terrible!
I just think we should be using thought in how we deal with one another economically.
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.
Cate Blanchett has stopped washing her hair
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:42 pm
by bigc_Archive
jlamour wrote:big_dave wrote:Socialism doesn't acknowledge that a collective exists. Socialism is concerned with the interplay of lots of smaller social groups. You're thinking of collectivism. Which you'll notice is called Collectivism because it believes that there is a collective value, not Socialism which is called Socialism because it concerns itself with the affects of social groups.
Groups, collective, either are pitted against the will of the individual.
Fascism is about the states power. Not the collective's, not the army's, not the corporations. Specifically the state.
Let me repeat: Groups, collective, either are pitted against the will of the individual.
What if all of the individuals in that group share the same needs? If 20 people together need food, and as individuals they need food, then how is the will of the group subverting the will of the individual?
Substitute 'non-cancer causing water' for food in the above example.
Cate Blanchett has stopped washing her hair
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:42 pm
by jlamour_Archive
Big C, I'm absolutely against the notion of 'shared' property. That should answer a lot of questions concerning my position.
Cate Blanchett has stopped washing her hair
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:44 pm
by bigc_Archive
jlamour wrote:We have to protect the individual from the whim of a mob. Give me an example of a mob or gang that doesn't act on emotion.
So first we must protect the individual from somehting that doesn't exist (the collective)...and then you completely change the subject of your premise from 'collective will', to 'mob whim'?
Pretty fucked up logic.
Cate Blanchett has stopped washing her hair
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:45 pm
by big_dave_Archive
jlamour wrote:When you join a collective you yield the responsibility to think for yourself and accept responsibility for your actions.
You yield it to what, though? And what responsibility did you have in the first place?
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.
You've been to
www.rense.com too!