Guest Michael Gray Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 On 25 May 2007 14:16:11 -0700, Elijahovah <rschiller@wi.rr.com> wrote: - Refer: <1180127771.630540.90170@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> >On May 6, 5:54 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote: >> On 6 May 2007 02:59:44 -0700, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> >> wrote: >> - Refer: <1178445584.494705.53...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> >> >> >On May 6, 12:56 am, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >> : >> >> >> > Haskell Esque >> >> >I'll be delighted to examine any alternative you may have to the >> >Theory of Evolution right here in these world-wide public fora. What >> >positive scientific evidence do you have favoring an alternative to >> >the Theory of Evolution? >> >> >Failing that, what scientific evidence do you have which overturns >> >the Theory of Evolution? >> >> >Failing that, why are you making claims which you cannot support? >> >> Because he is a clueless, uneducated, ignorant moron. >> (As is the cretin that he is supporting, in a theistic knee jerk >> reaction.) >> I am still waiting for Haskell to upgrade my understanding of quantum >> physics. >> I think that I shall be waiting for at least two eternities. >> The bozo has no idea of reality whatsoever. >> >> Good luck in your futile quest to try and extract some reason from >> this annoying imbecile. > >You dont overturn a lie by futily examining the lie. >The truth overthrows it. >If you have two cans of paint, yellow and blue, and a ball that is >green. >And you know the man who painted it. >And you argue with your friend that he used the two cans >to paint it green. So you take the yello and you mix it with the blue >and you say see it is green. >Your friend says its not the same green, so you mix this ratio >and that ratio and you get close enough. and he still doesnt >wish to see that its the way it was painted. >The man who painted the ball comes along and says whats >the issue and you say your friend cannot see the fact that >you mixed both paints here to get the green on the ball. >The man says no i didnt, i been away for a while >carrying this can of green paint so i could paint other things. >Why should i mix the two cans i left here. >Duh. And you were ready to kill your brother your friend >because he said he knew the two cans were not used. >You expected him to prove to you that you wont get green >from the two cans yellow and blue. >You expected him to refute your theory, overthrow the math >and measure of mixing two colors to prove that isnt the >way the master painted it green. His trying to prove it >to you by mixing paints with you would be a waste of time >because Master came along and said he had his can of green >paint with him. Hmmmmm >AND YOU WILL STILL ARGUE THIS ANAOLOGY WONT YOU It is not an analogy. Your incoherent irrelevant infantile ravings deserve nothing but pity. -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 On Fri, 25 May 2007 17:13:09 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: - Refer: <lqne53hq645oldjm2qs0agmhnv49fo3g0j@4ax.com> >On Fri, 25 May 2007 15:10:01 -0700, in alt.atheism >Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in ><Jason-2505071510020001@66-52-22-14.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>In article <qfee5319c791fusl855bb56d0alnrhfp7j@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:19:27 -0700, in alt.atheism >>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>> <Jason-2505071319270001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>> >In article <7dce53lg6nfjjuss633jvi9ttehil1v39e@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >... > >>> >> No more than it's possible that the hand grenade would have been a dud. >>> > >>> >If the grenade was a dud--the person that jumped on it would live. If you >>> >cast the elderly man overboard, he would have died. The scenarios are >>> >different. >>> > >>> You keep ignoring that one of the options was for _you_ to leave the >>> lifeboat and take your chances in the open water. Why are you unwilling >>> to take that option to save the others in the lifeboat? >> >>Because it is NOT certain that it would prevent the others from dying. In >>relation to the grenade, it would be certain that people would die if the >>grenade exploded. > >You are very dishonest in recasting what the problem was. What? A Xtian apologist actually employing dishonesty to peddle their toxic product? Tell me it ain't so! -- Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 Jim07D7 wrote: > Elijahovah <rschiller@wi.rr.com> said: > >> there is yet >> another earth >> to come after Armageddon next year. Hope you can survive that one too. > > Finally, somebody makes a falsifiable claim. Hehe... True. So we wait till next year. Personally, I am not worried in the slightest. And won't be on the 31. of december when it will still be "next year".... Tokay -- Oh don't the days seem lank and long When all goes right and none goes wrong, And isn't your life extremely flat With nothing whatever to grumble at! Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 On 25 May 2007 14:23:57 -0700, Elijahovah <rschiller@wi.rr.com> wrote: - Refer: <1180128237.024389.262160@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> > >> If your theories were true, that means that life should have evolved on >> the moon and on Mars. Perhaps our well equipped astranauts could live on >> the Moon or on Mars but it would be impossible for mass numbers of people >> to live on the moon or on mars. Many Christians believe that God was >> responsible for making sure the Earth was the perfect distance from the >> sun and that the orbit would not cause any great harm to the people or >> life forms on earth. > > >Dont call the earth perfect, if perfect to God means he can change it >by global >Flood. Those who wish to saythe earth is as God created it will insist >that >the Sahara was here, and the polar caps were here, etc.Those are all >changes from the water canopy collapsing, and dont argue the depth of >that canopy >because i alreay know it had to be below 3 atmospheres (under 72 >pounds). >And further people have argued that Venus and Mars were exatly in the >same >stage processes as earth was. Sort of like three planets in a litter >to make sure >one of them suvives or makes it to live. God does now as he has done >back then, >and back then as he does now. >Further, man has altered the caps and the Sahara, perhaps worse, but >it was >God's Flood thatcreated them. So dont speak of perfect earth if we are >comparing >the earth before the Flood to the earth after the Flood, there is yet >another earth >to come after Armageddon next year. Hope you can survive that one too. Next year, eh? Will you legally sign over all of your property to me, effective at the start of 2009? If not, why not? Not sop confident now, eh? -- Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 On Sat, 26 May 2007 08:50:01 +0930, in alt.atheism Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in <onre53dn68u4c6nkc28l9mcduajg89vke9@4ax.com>: >On Fri, 25 May 2007 17:13:09 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> >wrote: > - Refer: <lqne53hq645oldjm2qs0agmhnv49fo3g0j@4ax.com> >>On Fri, 25 May 2007 15:10:01 -0700, in alt.atheism >>Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >><Jason-2505071510020001@66-52-22-14.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>In article <qfee5319c791fusl855bb56d0alnrhfp7j@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:19:27 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>> <Jason-2505071319270001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>> >In article <7dce53lg6nfjjuss633jvi9ttehil1v39e@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>>> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >>... >> >>>> >> No more than it's possible that the hand grenade would have been a dud. >>>> > >>>> >If the grenade was a dud--the person that jumped on it would live. If you >>>> >cast the elderly man overboard, he would have died. The scenarios are >>>> >different. >>>> > >>>> You keep ignoring that one of the options was for _you_ to leave the >>>> lifeboat and take your chances in the open water. Why are you unwilling >>>> to take that option to save the others in the lifeboat? >>> >>>Because it is NOT certain that it would prevent the others from dying. In >>>relation to the grenade, it would be certain that people would die if the >>>grenade exploded. >> >>You are very dishonest in recasting what the problem was. > >What? >A Xtian apologist actually employing dishonesty to peddle their toxic >product? >Tell me it ain't so! Shocking, isn't it? Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 On Sat, 26 May 2007 01:23:02 +0200, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: - Refer: <f37rff$dh5$00$1@news.t-online.com> >Jim07D7 wrote: >> Elijahovah <rschiller@wi.rr.com> said: >> >>> there is yet >>> another earth >>> to come after Armageddon next year. Hope you can survive that one too. >> >> Finally, somebody makes a falsifiable claim. > >Hehe... True. > >So we wait till next year. > >Personally, I am not worried in the slightest. > >And won't be on the 31. of december when it will still be "next year".... > >Tokay Watch them back-pedal furiously! -- Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 [snips] On Fri, 25 May 2007 10:49:44 -0700, Jason wrote: > Do you believe that women and children would want to join our cause if > they saw pro-life protesters on a news show harrassing and shouting at > women as they were walking into an abortion clinic? yes or no i take it you've not read anything posted by Boedicia? If you had, you'd realize how silly the question was. There are plenty of people whose "morals" so overwhelm their reason that they'd merrily join a lynching, as long as it was of someone they thought deserved it. > Do you believe that women and children would want to join our cause if > they saw pro-life protesters on a news show standing peacefully (and > hYou're simply demonstrating the initial steps of a typical brainwisolding signs) on the public street outside an abortion clinic? yes or > no Sure. So what? Ever seen a cult member? Most don't join because they see ranting, frothing loonies; they join because they see bunnies and light. It's after they join that they become indoctrinated - brainwashed. It is, of course, not being asserted that every single protest is, in fact, a pack of frothing fundies hurling rocks; rather, that there have been enough such cases to make it known that this is an ever-present danger from you nutjobs and even when you aren't actually out frothing and raving, you're still promoting an environment of emotional tyranny. Or, if you prefer it in simpler terms, yes, we are all aware that evil sometimes wears a pleasant face. That does not mean it is no longer evil. -- Black widow spiders do it, then eat the male. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 [snips] On Fri, 25 May 2007 10:54:03 -0700, Jason wrote: > I understand your point. Peaceful protests will make it more likely that > people would want to join our cause than protests that involve violence, > harrassment of women and trespassing. Dear Mr. Congressman: Every day, on the corner of my street, I see young children being killed. Being a good upstanding citizen, I sit idly by and watch, while this continues, despite the fact that if I got involved, I might be able to stop it. Mr. Congressman, I write posts to newsgroups, and occasionally wave signs around saying how bad this unending killing is. I and others like me have banded together until we amount to the majority. Yes, Mr. Congressman, a whole 54% of the population is willing to sit idly by doing nothing while the killing goes on, just to show how deep our convictions run. Please, Mr. Congressman, help us in our quest to do nothing but sit idly by and wave signs. Maybe you could pass a law making it illegal, so that it will still continue but not right out in sight. As long as we don't have to see it, we can feel we won a victory. Mr. Congressman, I hope you have heard our plea, and will expend just as much effort as we do to stop this senseless killing - that is, none at all. Thank you for your time. Yes, yes, a thousand, ten thousand, ten million people sitting on their asses doing nothing is just such a compelling thing to see. Feel free to sign up everyone; it's not like that means anything. Hell, sign me up; I'm at least as "pro-life" as you are, as demonstrated by the fact I do just as much to stop the situation as you do - i.e. not a fucking thing. -- Fundamentalist motto: "A mind is a terrible thing to use." Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 [snips] On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:06:37 -0700, Jason wrote: > It was actully a mis-statement. It was not an intentional lie. However, if > it makes you feel better about yourself, you can continue to believe that > I intentionally lied. The truth is that I paid the exact amount that the > ministry requested. They had room for about 12 unwed mothers in that "home > for unwed mothers". It shows that you are either incredibly dishonest or incredibly stupid, as it is nigh-on impossible to exist with even just the basics for that period of time with that little money, and you - unless you've been homeless and devoid of any actual monetary demands such as buying food, paying rent, etc - would be fully aware of this. That you could even conceive of that little money covering _all_ her expenses for the time involved would require a truly staggering inability to apply the simplest of thought on the matter. So, are you in fact so mind-bendingly stupid you simply didn't clue in that this could not, possibly, have been "all her expenses", or were you in fact lying about it? -- If God kills, lies, cheats, discriminates, and otherwise behaves in a manner that puts the Mafia to shame, that's okay, he's God. He can do whatever he wants. Anyone who adheres to this philosophy has had his sense of morality, decency, justice and humaneness warped beyond recognition by the very book that is supposedly preaching the opposite. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 On May 25, 12:49 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180062824.128380.135...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On 5=A4=EB25=A4=E9, =A4W=A4=C88=AE=C945=A4=C0, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrot= > > e: > > > In article <1180048496.345636.295...@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 23, 6:07 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > > > > > Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote > > > > innews:1179557065.234911.197640@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > > > > > > > On May 19, 3:49 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > >> That is true. In the real world, people can answer questions with a > > > > > >> question. Even schools have changed. I found out that they are now > > > > > >> showing Al Gore's movie in grade schools. One of those students ca= > > me > > > > > >> home from school and was crying. She said that the planet would be > > > > > >> destroyed by the time she was an adult and was worried that she wo= > > uld > > > > > >> not be able to have a normal life. This real world is a crazy worl= > > d=2E > > > > > >> We were worried about Russia firing nuclear missiles at America wh= > > en > > > > > >> I was a child. > > > > > > > I was in grade school thirty years ago and we were taught back then= > > to > > > > > > care about the environment. Obviously your generation wasn't. > > > > > > I was in high school thirty years ago, and I was taught about the > > > > > scientific method. Obviously your generation wasn't. > > > > > The Earth is getting warmer. It's been slowly getting warmer since > > > > the end of the last ice age. It's an alarming trend and the question > > > > is whether or not there is anything we can do to slow it down. > > > > If it's a natural cycle, there is nothing that we can do to slow it down. > > > Scientists had predicted that the warming would peak but they now say > > that the warming is accelerating. They point to the burning of fossil > > fuels and the subsequent increase in greenhouse gases as being the > > cause. > > Not all scientists. There are some scientists that believe it is a natural > cycle. But based on the theory that the warming was simply a natural process, scientists were expecting the Earth to start getting cooler again. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 In article <b3oe53hg3bqgr88miutbn89tmkmjrptgbe@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Fri, 25 May 2007 15:22:02 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2505071522020001@66-52-22-14.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <5iee53p601b4aaik43kujnddjol2ngdf7t@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:14:01 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-2505071314010001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <r3ae53hfo3rg3ouklqhcrl71tuql18q3b8@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:43:22 +0200, in alt.atheism > >> >> Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote in > >> >> <f37423$cr6$02$1@news.t-online.com>: > >> >> >Jason wrote: > >> >> >> In article > ><1180048496.345636.295580@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >> >> >> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >>> On May 23, 6:07 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > >> >> >>>> Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote > >> >> >> innews:1179557065.234911.197640@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > >> >> >>>>> On May 19, 3:49 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >> >>>>>> That is true. In the real world, people can answer questions with a > >> >> >>>>>> question. Even schools have changed. I found out that they are now > >> >> >>>>>> showing Al Gore's movie in grade schools. One of those students came > >> >> >>>>>> home from school and was crying. She said that the planet would be > >> >> >>>>>> destroyed by the time she was an adult and was worried that > >she would > >> >> >>>>>> not be able to have a normal life. This real world is a crazy world. > >> >> >>>>>> We were worried about Russia firing nuclear missiles at America when > >> >> >>>>>> I was a child. > >> >> >>>>> I was in grade school thirty years ago and we were taught back > >then to > >> >> >>>>> care about the environment. Obviously your generation wasn't. > >> >> >>>> I was in high school thirty years ago, and I was taught about the > >> >> >>>> scientific method. Obviously your generation wasn't. > >> >> >>> The Earth is getting warmer. It's been slowly getting warmer since > >> >> >>> the end of the last ice age. It's an alarming trend and the question > >> >> >>> is whether or not there is anything we can do to slow it down. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Martin > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Martin, > >> >> >> If it's a natural cycle, there is nothing that we can do to slow > >it down. > >> >> >> Jason > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >Well, actually we can. The questions that are unanswered (as far as I > >> >> >understand it) are: Is this warming anthropogenic? (Don't make the error > >> >> >of mixing up "statistical correlation" with "cause and effect"). > >> >> >And, apart from that: No matter if it is anthropogenic, and provided we > >> >> >can do anything about it, should we? > >> >> > >> >> We will have to do something about it, one way or another. I think the > >> >> question is whether trying to stop the increase in greenhouse gases in > >> >> the atmosphere is likely to be successful or whether we would be better > >> >> off by spending our time and money trying to prepare for the changes in > >> >> climate that will occur. > >> > > >> >The state and federal government will use this issue to raise our taxes > >> >and the taxes of companies that produce lots of pollution. I live in > >> >Calfornia and the democrats in the state gov't want to charge some sort of > >> >special pollution tax to everyone that buys a huge SUV. I seem to recall > >> >that the proposed tax is about $2000 per vehicle. If they over > >> >tax--factories that make paper, steel, etc--the end result is that the > >> >owners of those factories will close them down and fire all of the > >> >American workers. They will build new factories in another country that > >> >does not have over-tax them. Those efforts will not have an effect on > >> >reducing the use of fossil fuels. > >> >Jason > >> > >> So you think that businesses need to be subsidized and allowed to > >> destroy the environment. Why? > > > >They should not be run out of business by huge pollution taxes. > > Why do you think businesses should have the right to steal clean air and > clean water from everyone else? > > >Thousands of American factories have closed down in the past 100 years. > > Yes, but they closed because they were not competitive or not useful any > more. > > >One of the reasons is because of the huge amounts of taxes the owners of those > >factories had to pay. > > Businesses that are making money pay taxes. The ones that are going out > of business are seldom paying income taxes and often don't pay the taxes > they have withheld on behalf of their employees. > > >The end result was that thousands of American > >workers have lost their jobs. > > The workers lost their jobs because the company managers screwed up. > > >The end result is that thousands of new > >factories have been built in China and various other countries. > > Many have been built. It appears to me that you don't care if factories > kill people. > > >They don't > >use pollution controls on many of those factories in foreign countries. > > Then maybe we shouldn't import products from countries that allow their > businesses to steal clean air and clean water from the people living > there. > > >If we use global warming as an escuse to charge even higher taxes on American > >businesses, it will mean that even more businesses will relocate to > >foreign countries and even more American workers will lose their jobs. > > Or we might have more jobs in the US because we were cooperating with > the rest of the world in cutting greenhouse gas emissions. > > >Is this what you want to happen? Don't you care about the thousands of > >workers that will lose their jobs? Don't you care about the pollution that > >is produced by factories in China and various other foreign countries? > > We don't have to import goods from China if China doesn't trade fairly. > We don't have to buy goods that were made by killing people. Visit any Walmart or any other discount store and you will find that most of those products were made in China. That country produces huge amounts of pollution. Americans will never stop buying products made in China since they usually cost much less than identical products made in other countries. You don't seem to have a concern for the millions of Americans that have lost their jobs as a direct result of factories closing down. You may think your plan will work--but actually it will not work. If your plan works, we will produce less pollution in America. However, the end result will be more pollution since the factories in most all foreign countries do not have any pollution control equipment. Most all factories in America have installed polluton control equipment. In other words, if we kept American factories running--there would be less pollution released into the atmosphere. jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 In article <lqne53hq645oldjm2qs0agmhnv49fo3g0j@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Fri, 25 May 2007 15:10:01 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2505071510020001@66-52-22-14.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <qfee5319c791fusl855bb56d0alnrhfp7j@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:19:27 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-2505071319270001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <7dce53lg6nfjjuss633jvi9ttehil1v39e@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > ... > > >> >> No more than it's possible that the hand grenade would have been a dud. > >> > > >> >If the grenade was a dud--the person that jumped on it would live. If you > >> >cast the elderly man overboard, he would have died. The scenarios are > >> >different. > >> > > >> You keep ignoring that one of the options was for _you_ to leave the > >> lifeboat and take your chances in the open water. Why are you unwilling > >> to take that option to save the others in the lifeboat? > > > >Because it is NOT certain that it would prevent the others from dying. In > >relation to the grenade, it would be certain that people would die if the > >grenade exploded. > > You are very dishonest in recasting what the problem was. I am now sure what you mean. If you are referring to the life boat scenario--the people in the lifeboat were on a ship that sunk. They were on the life boat and only had a limited amount of water. They had no idea as to when they would be rescued or if there was a nearby island. The professor wanted us to decide that the best option was to throw the sick elderly man overboard so that the water would last longer. We decided not to murder the elderly man and our professor was upset with us. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 On Fri, 25 May 2007 20:03:23 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2505072003230001@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <lqne53hq645oldjm2qs0agmhnv49fo3g0j@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 15:10:01 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2505071510020001@66-52-22-14.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <qfee5319c791fusl855bb56d0alnrhfp7j@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:19:27 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-2505071319270001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >In article <7dce53lg6nfjjuss633jvi9ttehil1v39e@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> ... >> >> >> >> No more than it's possible that the hand grenade would have been a dud. >> >> > >> >> >If the grenade was a dud--the person that jumped on it would live. If you >> >> >cast the elderly man overboard, he would have died. The scenarios are >> >> >different. >> >> > >> >> You keep ignoring that one of the options was for _you_ to leave the >> >> lifeboat and take your chances in the open water. Why are you unwilling >> >> to take that option to save the others in the lifeboat? >> > >> >Because it is NOT certain that it would prevent the others from dying. In >> >relation to the grenade, it would be certain that people would die if the >> >grenade exploded. >> >> You are very dishonest in recasting what the problem was. > >I am now sure what you mean. If you are referring to the life boat >scenario--the people in the lifeboat were on a ship that sunk. They were >on the life boat and only had a limited amount of water. They had no idea >as to when they would be rescued or if there was a nearby island. The >professor wanted us to decide that the best option was to throw the sick >elderly man overboard so that the water would last longer. We decided not >to murder the elderly man and our professor was upset with us. You decided not to jump on the grenade. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 On Fri, 25 May 2007 19:20:49 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2505071920500001@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <b3oe53hg3bqgr88miutbn89tmkmjrptgbe@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 15:22:02 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2505071522020001@66-52-22-14.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: .... >> >They should not be run out of business by huge pollution taxes. >> >> Why do you think businesses should have the right to steal clean air and >> clean water from everyone else? >> >> >Thousands of American factories have closed down in the past 100 years. >> >> Yes, but they closed because they were not competitive or not useful any >> more. >> >> >One of the reasons is because of the huge amounts of taxes the owners >of those >> >factories had to pay. >> >> Businesses that are making money pay taxes. The ones that are going out >> of business are seldom paying income taxes and often don't pay the taxes >> they have withheld on behalf of their employees. >> >> >The end result was that thousands of American >> >workers have lost their jobs. >> >> The workers lost their jobs because the company managers screwed up. >> >> >The end result is that thousands of new >> >factories have been built in China and various other countries. >> >> Many have been built. It appears to me that you don't care if factories >> kill people. >> >> >They don't >> >use pollution controls on many of those factories in foreign countries. >> >> Then maybe we shouldn't import products from countries that allow their >> businesses to steal clean air and clean water from the people living >> there. >> >> >If we use global warming as an escuse to charge even higher taxes on American >> >businesses, it will mean that even more businesses will relocate to >> >foreign countries and even more American workers will lose their jobs. >> >> Or we might have more jobs in the US because we were cooperating with >> the rest of the world in cutting greenhouse gas emissions. >> >> >Is this what you want to happen? Don't you care about the thousands of >> >workers that will lose their jobs? Don't you care about the pollution that >> >is produced by factories in China and various other foreign countries? >> >> We don't have to import goods from China if China doesn't trade fairly. >> We don't have to buy goods that were made by killing people. > >Visit any Walmart or any other discount store and you will find that most >of those products were made in China. That is because Walmart doesn't care if people die in China from pollution related to manufacturing. Since that is the case, it is necessary for our government to make certain that our businesses are not forced to compete with companies that are allowed to steal clean water and clean air and exploit their workers. >That country produces huge amounts >of pollution. Americans will never stop buying products made in China >since they usually cost much less than identical products made in other >countries. Americans will stop if we don't reward companies that cheat. >You don't seem to have a concern for the millions of Americans >that have lost their jobs as a direct result of factories closing down. I do have concern. I just don't buy your approach of allowing more companies to kill people. If Chinese companies kill people, they must not be allowed to sell their products in the US. It's that simple. >You may think your plan will work--but actually it will not work. If your >plan works, we will produce less pollution in America. However, the end >result will be more pollution since the factories in most all foreign >countries do not have any pollution control equipment. Most all factories >in America have installed polluton control equipment. In other words, if >we kept American factories running--there would be less pollution released >into the atmosphere. And we can keep American factories running or force China to treat its citizens like citizens by refusing to allow companies that kill to sell their products here. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 In article <aafki4-im2.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Fri, 25 May 2007 10:49:44 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > Do you believe that women and children would want to join our cause if > > they saw pro-life protesters on a news show harrassing and shouting at > > women as they were walking into an abortion clinic? yes or no > > i take it you've not read anything posted by Boedicia? If you had, you'd > realize how silly the question was. There are plenty of people whose > "morals" so overwhelm their reason that they'd merrily join a lynching, as > long as it was of someone they thought deserved it. > > > Do you believe that women and children would want to join our cause if > > they saw pro-life protesters on a news show standing peacefully (and > > hYou're simply demonstrating the initial steps of a > typical brainwisolding signs) on the public street outside an abortion clinic? yes or > > no > > Sure. So what? Ever seen a cult member? Most don't join because they > see ranting, frothing loonies; they join because they see bunnies and > light. It's after they join that they become indoctrinated - brainwashed. > > It is, of course, not being asserted that every single protest is, in > fact, a pack of frothing fundies hurling rocks; rather, that there have > been enough such cases to make it known that this is an ever-present > danger from you nutjobs and even when you aren't actually out frothing and > raving, you're still promoting an environment of emotional tyranny. > > Or, if you prefer it in simpler terms, yes, we are all aware that evil > sometimes wears a pleasant face. That does not mean it is no longer evil. The pro-lifers are making progress in convincing lots of people that unborn babies have the right to life. I posted the results of a recent poll and it indicated that a majority of Americans believe that there should be some restrictions on when abortions are performed. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 On Fri, 25 May 2007 21:27:33 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2505072127340001@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1180146027.923202.127550@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 25, 12:49 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1180062824.128380.135...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin .... >> > > Scientists had predicted that the warming would peak but they now say >> > > that the warming is accelerating. They point to the burning of fossil >> > > fuels and the subsequent increase in greenhouse gases as being the >> > > cause. >> > >> > Not all scientists. There are some scientists that believe it is a natural >> > cycle. >> >> But based on the theory that the warming was simply a natural process, >> scientists were expecting the Earth to start getting cooler again. >> >> Martin > >Martin, >Some scientists believe that it will start getting cooler again but they >are not sure when the cooling cycle will kick in. >Jason You don't seem to understand the problem. Yes, there has been a long-term climate cycle. What we are seeing right now is not part of that cycle, it is a result of human activity. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 On May 26, 1:49 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Do you believe that women and children would want to join our cause if > they saw pro-life protesters on a news show harrassing and shouting at > women as they were walking into an abortion clinic? yes or no > > Do you believe that women and children would want to join our cause if > they saw pro-life protesters on a news show standing peacefully (and > holding signs) on the public street outside an abortion clinic? yes or no Would people want to join your cause if they realized that the abortion rate was actually dropping? Would people want to join your cause if they realized that 90% of abortions took place in the first three months and 60% took place in the first 8 weeks of pregnancy? Would people want to join your cause if they realized that most women who had abortions in the second or third trimester were doing so because they had legitimate health concerns? Would people want to join your cause if they stopped to think about the hundreds of thousands of women who die every year during child birth? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 On May 26, 2:21 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <k0kd53hr57pjc5uouol048lefn61546...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Fri, 25 May 2007 00:39:15 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-2505070039150...@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <jctc53tufh7gtmk44632l3e7q7cmdj5...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On 21 May 2007 20:33:50 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > >> Martin <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote in > > >> <1179804830.804769.229...@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com>: > > >> >On May 22, 6:53 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > >> >> On Mon, 21 May 2007 11:49:05 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> >> <Jason-2105071149050...@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >> >> ... > > > >> >> >Martin, > > >> >> >No--that happened to another person. That was the teacher that > divided the > > >> >> >class into 5 small groups. We done the lifeboat scenario. Each > group had > > >> >> >to decide which person to cast overboard. Of course, she wanted > each group > > >> >> >to conclude that the elderly sick man would be cast overboard so that > > >> >> >there would be more water for everyone else on the lifeboat to share. A > > >> >> >group of mostly Christians decided to NOT cast anyone overboard > since we > > >> >> >viewed it as murder. She humiliated us and told us that the > logical thing > > >> >> >to do was to murder that old man. Of course, she did not use the term > > >> >> >"murder". I lost my respect for her on that day. One young > Christian man > > >> >> >dropped out of the class because of that professor. As I stated, > the other > > >> >> >atheist professors treated the Christians in their classes the same way > > >> >> >that they treated the non-Christians. In fact, I respected all of > > >> >> >them--except for that lady that humiliated us. > > >> >> >Jason > > > >> >> So, in your mind everyone should be 'murdered' because you are incapable > > >> >> of deciding who is least valuable when one has to go overboard and you > > >> >> are unwilling to go over voluntarily. It's your selfishness that causes > > >> >> all to die. > > > >> >It's not a real life scenario. In real life, the greater good is > > >> >served from cooperation rather than competition. > > > >> Of course it's not a real life scenario, but Jason-the-selfish is the > > >> one who insists on wallowing in it. I merely note that even if I have to > > >> buy into his nonsense, he isn't making Christians look good with his > > >> willingness to kill everyone. > > > >Are you saying that you would murder an elderly sick man in order to live > > >several extra days? I would not do that. > > > I see that you selectively ignored the option that you sacrifice > > yourself. Apparently you have decided that everyone should die because > > you are neither capable of sacrificing yourself nor making a rational > > decision about who else might be the best choice in this circumstance. > > > For what it's worth, the US is particularly bad in this area. We shower > > billions on desperate measures for those who are dying anyway while we > > allow children to die because their parents cannot afford health care > > for them. > > The commandment states: Thou shall not kill--that includes killing yourself. What if you refuse to eat or drink? Are you killing yourself or saving the lives of the others on the boat? In the scenario in which a group of people quite possibly could get rescued soon, the right thing to do would be to care for those who are the weakest because they would be the one's least likely to make it until the rescue arrived. The teacher's scenario is thus put entirely upside down in such a case. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 In article <1180146027.923202.127550@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 25, 12:49 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1180062824.128380.135...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On 5=A4=EB25=A4=E9, =A4W=A4=C88=AE=C945=A4=C0, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrot= > > > e: > > > > In article <1180048496.345636.295...@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 23, 6:07 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > > > > > > Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote > > > > > > innews:1179557065.234911.197640@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > > > > > > > > > On May 19, 3:49 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > > > >> That is true. In the real world, people can answer questions with a > > > > > > >> question. Even schools have changed. I found out that they are now > > > > > > >> showing Al Gore's movie in grade schools. One of those students ca= > > > me > > > > > > >> home from school and was crying. She said that the planet would be > > > > > > >> destroyed by the time she was an adult and was worried that she wo= > > > uld > > > > > > >> not be able to have a normal life. This real world is a crazy worl= > > > d=2E > > > > > > >> We were worried about Russia firing nuclear missiles at America wh= > > > en > > > > > > >> I was a child. > > > > > > > > > I was in grade school thirty years ago and we were taught back then= > > > to > > > > > > > care about the environment. Obviously your generation wasn't. > > > > > > > > I was in high school thirty years ago, and I was taught about the > > > > > > scientific method. Obviously your generation wasn't. > > > > > > > The Earth is getting warmer. It's been slowly getting warmer since > > > > > the end of the last ice age. It's an alarming trend and the question > > > > > is whether or not there is anything we can do to slow it down. > > > > > > If it's a natural cycle, there is nothing that we can do to slow it down. > > > > > Scientists had predicted that the warming would peak but they now say > > > that the warming is accelerating. They point to the burning of fossil > > > fuels and the subsequent increase in greenhouse gases as being the > > > cause. > > > > Not all scientists. There are some scientists that believe it is a natural > > cycle. > > But based on the theory that the warming was simply a natural process, > scientists were expecting the Earth to start getting cooler again. > > Martin Martin, Some scientists believe that it will start getting cooler again but they are not sure when the cooling cycle will kick in. Jason Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 On May 26, 3:38 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <pm9e53lj991i3lk1ul3etn5u6km7ibc...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Fri, 25 May 2007 11:21:19 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-2505071121190...@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <k0kd53hr57pjc5uouol048lefn61546...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 00:39:15 -0700, in alt.atheism > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> <Jason-2505070039150...@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >> >In article <jctc53tufh7gtmk44632l3e7q7cmdj5...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > >> ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> >> On 21 May 2007 20:33:50 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > >> >> Martin <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote in > > >> >> <1179804830.804769.229...@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com>: > > >> >> >On May 22, 6:53 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > >> >> >> On Mon, 21 May 2007 11:49:05 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > >> >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> >> >> <Jason-2105071149050...@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >> >> >> ... > > > >> >> >> >Martin, > > >> >> >> >No--that happened to another person. That was the teacher that > > >divided the > > >> >> >> >class into 5 small groups. We done the lifeboat scenario. Each > > >group had > > >> >> >> >to decide which person to cast overboard. Of course, she wanted > > >each group > > >> >> >> >to conclude that the elderly sick man would be cast overboard > so that > > >> >> >> >there would be more water for everyone else on the lifeboat to > share. A > > >> >> >> >group of mostly Christians decided to NOT cast anyone overboard > > >since we > > >> >> >> >viewed it as murder. She humiliated us and told us that the > > >logical thing > > >> >> >> >to do was to murder that old man. Of course, she did not use > the term > > >> >> >> >"murder". I lost my respect for her on that day. One young > > >Christian man > > >> >> >> >dropped out of the class because of that professor. As I stated, > > >the other > > >> >> >> >atheist professors treated the Christians in their classes the > same way > > >> >> >> >that they treated the non-Christians. In fact, I respected all of > > >> >> >> >them--except for that lady that humiliated us. > > >> >> >> >Jason > > > >> >> >> So, in your mind everyone should be 'murdered' because you are > incapable > > >> >> >> of deciding who is least valuable when one has to go overboard > and you > > >> >> >> are unwilling to go over voluntarily. It's your selfishness > that causes > > >> >> >> all to die. > > > >> >> >It's not a real life scenario. In real life, the greater good is > > >> >> >served from cooperation rather than competition. > > > >> >> >Martin > > > >> >> Of course it's not a real life scenario, but Jason-the-selfish is the > > >> >> one who insists on wallowing in it. I merely note that even if I have to > > >> >> buy into his nonsense, he isn't making Christians look good with his > > >> >> willingness to kill everyone. > > > >> >Are you saying that you would murder an elderly sick man in order to live > > >> >several extra days? I would not do that. > > > >> I see that you selectively ignored the option that you sacrifice > > >> yourself. Apparently you have decided that everyone should die because > > >> you are neither capable of sacrificing yourself nor making a rational > > >> decision about who else might be the best choice in this circumstance. > > > >> For what it's worth, the US is particularly bad in this area. We shower > > >> billions on desperate measures for those who are dying anyway while we > > >> allow children to die because their parents cannot afford health care > > >> for them. > > > >The commandment states: Thou shall not kill--that includes killing yourself. > > > So you are saying that it is a sin to dive onto a grenade to protect > > your buddies in battle? > > > You are absurdly selfish. Nothing from Jesus's teachings have gotten > > through to you. > > You are changing the goal post. In the hand grenade scenario, it is > certain that people would die if nothing was done. Related to the life > boat scenario, it is NOT certain that people would die. It's possible they > would have been rescued one hour after the elderly sick man was murdered. In all fairness, the teacher wasn't allowing for the possibility of rescue. She was an idiot. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 On May 26, 6:22 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <5iee53p601b4aaik43kujnddjol2ngd...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:14:01 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-2505071314010...@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <r3ae53hfo3rg3ouklqhcrl71tuql18q...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:43:22 +0200, in alt.atheism > > >> Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote in > > >> <f37423$cr6$0...@news.t-online.com>: > > >> >Jason wrote: > > >> >> In article > > <1180048496.345636.295...@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > >> >> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> >>> On May 23, 6:07 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > > >> >>>> Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote > > >> >> innews:1179557065.234911.197640@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > > >> >>>>> On May 19, 3:49 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> >>>>>> That is true. In the real world, people can answer questions with a > > >> >>>>>> question. Even schools have changed. I found out that they are now > > >> >>>>>> showing Al Gore's movie in grade schools. One of those students came > > >> >>>>>> home from school and was crying. She said that the planet would be > > >> >>>>>> destroyed by the time she was an adult and was worried that > she would > > >> >>>>>> not be able to have a normal life. This real world is a crazy world. > > >> >>>>>> We were worried about Russia firing nuclear missiles at America when > > >> >>>>>> I was a child. > > >> >>>>> I was in grade school thirty years ago and we were taught back > then to > > >> >>>>> care about the environment. Obviously your generation wasn't. > > >> >>>> I was in high school thirty years ago, and I was taught about the > > >> >>>> scientific method. Obviously your generation wasn't. > > >> >>> The Earth is getting warmer. It's been slowly getting warmer since > > >> >>> the end of the last ice age. It's an alarming trend and the question > > >> >>> is whether or not there is anything we can do to slow it down. > > > >> >>> Martin > > > >> >> Martin, > > >> >> If it's a natural cycle, there is nothing that we can do to slow > it down. > > >> >> Jason > > > >> >Well, actually we can. The questions that are unanswered (as far as I > > >> >understand it) are: Is this warming anthropogenic? (Don't make the error > > >> >of mixing up "statistical correlation" with "cause and effect"). > > >> >And, apart from that: No matter if it is anthropogenic, and provided we > > >> >can do anything about it, should we? > > > >> We will have to do something about it, one way or another. I think the > > >> question is whether trying to stop the increase in greenhouse gases in > > >> the atmosphere is likely to be successful or whether we would be better > > >> off by spending our time and money trying to prepare for the changes in > > >> climate that will occur. > > > >The state and federal government will use this issue to raise our taxes > > >and the taxes of companies that produce lots of pollution. I live in > > >Calfornia and the democrats in the state gov't want to charge some sort of > > >special pollution tax to everyone that buys a huge SUV. I seem to recall > > >that the proposed tax is about $2000 per vehicle. If they over > > >tax--factories that make paper, steel, etc--the end result is that the > > >owners of those factories will close them down and fire all of the > > >American workers. They will build new factories in another country that > > >does not have over-tax them. Those efforts will not have an effect on > > >reducing the use of fossil fuels. > > >Jason > > > So you think that businesses need to be subsidized and allowed to > > destroy the environment. Why? > > They should not be run out of business by huge pollution taxes. Thousands > of American factories have closed down in the past 100 years. One of the > reasons is because of the huge amounts of taxes the owners of those > factories had to pay. The end result was that thousands of American > workers have lost their jobs. The end result is that thousands of new > factories have been built in China and various other countries. They don't > use pollution controls on many of those factories in foreign countries. If > we use global warming as an escuse to charge even higher taxes on American > businesses, it will mean that even more businesses will relocate to > foreign countries and even more American workers will lose their jobs. Is > this what you want to happen? Don't you care about the thousands of > workers that will lose their jobs? Don't you care about the pollution that > is produced by factories in China and various other foreign countries? I thought the point was to reduce the pollution coming from the SUVs themselves and not the factories that make them. Obviously the thing to do would be to also place tariffs on SUVs being imported from China. It's simple. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 In article <dp9f53lfhknvntj3on25sj8df03cv2nhsh@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Fri, 25 May 2007 19:20:49 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2505071920500001@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <b3oe53hg3bqgr88miutbn89tmkmjrptgbe@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 15:22:02 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-2505071522020001@66-52-22-14.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > ... > > >> >They should not be run out of business by huge pollution taxes. > >> > >> Why do you think businesses should have the right to steal clean air and > >> clean water from everyone else? > >> > >> >Thousands of American factories have closed down in the past 100 years. > >> > >> Yes, but they closed because they were not competitive or not useful any > >> more. > >> > >> >One of the reasons is because of the huge amounts of taxes the owners > >of those > >> >factories had to pay. > >> > >> Businesses that are making money pay taxes. The ones that are going out > >> of business are seldom paying income taxes and often don't pay the taxes > >> they have withheld on behalf of their employees. > >> > >> >The end result was that thousands of American > >> >workers have lost their jobs. > >> > >> The workers lost their jobs because the company managers screwed up. > >> > >> >The end result is that thousands of new > >> >factories have been built in China and various other countries. > >> > >> Many have been built. It appears to me that you don't care if factories > >> kill people. > >> > >> >They don't > >> >use pollution controls on many of those factories in foreign countries. > >> > >> Then maybe we shouldn't import products from countries that allow their > >> businesses to steal clean air and clean water from the people living > >> there. > >> > >> >If we use global warming as an escuse to charge even higher taxes on American > >> >businesses, it will mean that even more businesses will relocate to > >> >foreign countries and even more American workers will lose their jobs. > >> > >> Or we might have more jobs in the US because we were cooperating with > >> the rest of the world in cutting greenhouse gas emissions. > >> > >> >Is this what you want to happen? Don't you care about the thousands of > >> >workers that will lose their jobs? Don't you care about the pollution that > >> >is produced by factories in China and various other foreign countries? > >> > >> We don't have to import goods from China if China doesn't trade fairly. > >> We don't have to buy goods that were made by killing people. > > > >Visit any Walmart or any other discount store and you will find that most > >of those products were made in China. > > That is because Walmart doesn't care if people die in China from > pollution related to manufacturing. Since that is the case, it is > necessary for our government to make certain that our businesses are not > forced to compete with companies that are allowed to steal clean water > and clean air and exploit their workers. > > >That country produces huge amounts > >of pollution. Americans will never stop buying products made in China > >since they usually cost much less than identical products made in other > >countries. > > Americans will stop if we don't reward companies that cheat. > > >You don't seem to have a concern for the millions of Americans > >that have lost their jobs as a direct result of factories closing down. > > I do have concern. I just don't buy your approach of allowing more > companies to kill people. If Chinese companies kill people, they must > not be allowed to sell their products in the US. It's that simple. > > >You may think your plan will work--but actually it will not work. If your > >plan works, we will produce less pollution in America. However, the end > >result will be more pollution since the factories in most all foreign > >countries do not have any pollution control equipment. Most all factories > >in America have installed polluton control equipment. In other words, if > >we kept American factories running--there would be less pollution released > >into the atmosphere. > > And we can keep American factories running or force China to treat its > citizens like citizens by refusing to allow companies that kill to sell > their products here. I agree that we should refuse to let China sell their products here. However, we both know that it will never happen. They would stop buying our cars and wheat and any other products produced in America. They probably also buy our 747 jet planes. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 In article <ei9f53ps9483bu71rh3hmucvdj2rs9cu35@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Fri, 25 May 2007 20:03:23 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2505072003230001@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <lqne53hq645oldjm2qs0agmhnv49fo3g0j@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 15:10:01 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-2505071510020001@66-52-22-14.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <qfee5319c791fusl855bb56d0alnrhfp7j@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:19:27 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> <Jason-2505071319270001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> >In article <7dce53lg6nfjjuss633jvi9ttehil1v39e@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > >> ... > >> > >> >> >> No more than it's possible that the hand grenade would have been a dud. > >> >> > > >> >> >If the grenade was a dud--the person that jumped on it would live. If you > >> >> >cast the elderly man overboard, he would have died. The scenarios are > >> >> >different. > >> >> > > >> >> You keep ignoring that one of the options was for _you_ to leave the > >> >> lifeboat and take your chances in the open water. Why are you unwilling > >> >> to take that option to save the others in the lifeboat? > >> > > >> >Because it is NOT certain that it would prevent the others from dying. In > >> >relation to the grenade, it would be certain that people would die if the > >> >grenade exploded. > >> > >> You are very dishonest in recasting what the problem was. > > > >I am now sure what you mean. If you are referring to the life boat > >scenario--the people in the lifeboat were on a ship that sunk. They were > >on the life boat and only had a limited amount of water. They had no idea > >as to when they would be rescued or if there was a nearby island. The > >professor wanted us to decide that the best option was to throw the sick > >elderly man overboard so that the water would last longer. We decided not > >to murder the elderly man and our professor was upset with us. > > You decided not to jump on the grenade. I would jump on the grenade but would not jump out of the boat. Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 On May 26, 6:13 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Fri, 25 May 2007 15:10:01 -0700, in alt.atheism > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2505071510020...@66-52-22-14.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <qfee5319c791fusl855bb56d0alnrhf...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:19:27 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-2505071319270...@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <7dce53lg6nfjjuss633jvi9ttehil1v...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> No more than it's possible that the hand grenade would have been a dud. > > >> >If the grenade was a dud--the person that jumped on it would live. If you > >> >cast the elderly man overboard, he would have died. The scenarios are > >> >different. > > >> You keep ignoring that one of the options was for _you_ to leave the > >> lifeboat and take your chances in the open water. Why are you unwilling > >> to take that option to save the others in the lifeboat? > > >Because it is NOT certain that it would prevent the others from dying. In > >relation to the grenade, it would be certain that people would die if the > >grenade exploded. > > You are very dishonest in recasting what the problem was. I disagree. In the lifeboat, one would have very little control over the factors determining whether or not the others live or die: a rescue could come in minutes, hours, days, weeks or never. The teacher assumed that the rescue would arrive in days or possibly weeks but there would be no advantage killing the man if the rescue came in minutes or hours. And what if the rescue never arrives? Then what good is served by killing the old man? Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 In article <s5bf531184gghqsgln6gggss9h668uoi3u@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Fri, 25 May 2007 21:27:33 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2505072127340001@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <1180146027.923202.127550@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> On May 25, 12:49 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > In article <1180062824.128380.135...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > ... > >> > > Scientists had predicted that the warming would peak but they now say > >> > > that the warming is accelerating. They point to the burning of fossil > >> > > fuels and the subsequent increase in greenhouse gases as being the > >> > > cause. > >> > > >> > Not all scientists. There are some scientists that believe it is a natural > >> > cycle. > >> > >> But based on the theory that the warming was simply a natural process, > >> scientists were expecting the Earth to start getting cooler again. > >> > >> Martin > > > >Martin, > >Some scientists believe that it will start getting cooler again but they > >are not sure when the cooling cycle will kick in. > >Jason > > You don't seem to understand the problem. Yes, there has been a > long-term climate cycle. What we are seeing right now is not part of > that cycle, it is a result of human activity. I know that is what many scientists believe. However, there are other scientists that believe it is a natural cycle but that human activity is playing a role in making the natural cycle worse than it would have been if humans were not on this planet. I agree with the scientists that believe that it is a natural cycle. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.