Guest Jason Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 In article <1180152273.852508.263040@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 I did not consider not eating or drinking as an option. I agree that taking care of the weakest would be the first priority. If that professor had been on the boat, she would have killed the weakest and cooked him for dinner--just kidding. Jason Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 On May 26, 12:27 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180146027.923202.127...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@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. > Some scientists believe that it will start getting cooler again but they > are not sure when the cooling cycle will kick in. Think of the Earth as one big lifeboat and we don't know if the "rescue" (cooling) will start in years, decades or centuries. By rationing fossil fuels now, we can actually avoid a calamity. We'd also need those fossil fuels later for heating if the Earth started to get cold. Polluting the environment now makes as much sense as throwing an old man overboard: if we ration our supplies then we can all be rescued. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 In article <1180151838.564556.259320@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 I don't know--it would be a case by case basis. I will tell you a story. I told you about the magazine that had a picture on the cover of a 3D color ultrasound of a third trimester fetus. I purchased a copy of that magazine and took it to work. I showed it to all of my co-workers and they were shocked when they seen it because it looked just like a baby. Partial birth abortions were still legal at that point in time. I told my co-workers that it was legal for abortion doctors to abort unborn babies that looked just like the one in the picture. They were shocked. Some of my co-workers were pro-choice but they all told me that third trimester abortions should be illegal. In other words, it's easier to get people to join our cause if we discuss third trimester abortions instead of discussing first trimester abortions. That's why some pro-lifers have pictures of third trimester fetuses on their posters. One famous pro-life protestor was arrested for actually showing an aborted third trimester fetus to a crowd of people. It was inside a glass jar. He should not have done that. jason Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 On May 26, 1:02 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <ei9f53ps9483bu71rh3hmucvdj2rs9c...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Fri, 25 May 2007 20:03:23 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-2505072003230...@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <lqne53hq645oldjm2qs0agmhnv49fo3...@4ax.com>, 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 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. Wouldn't it make more sense to pick up the grenade and throw it away? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 On May 26, 1:28 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > I did not consider not eating or drinking as an option. I agree that > taking care of the weakest would be the first priority. If that professor > had been on the boat, she would have killed the weakest and cooked him for > dinner--just kidding. Actually, no, you could probably survive for months off the flesh of the others. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 In article <1180153785.008934.290870@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 In fairness, the scenario was discussed in our textbook. She was actually shocked when we decided to not cast the elderly man overboard. We may have been the only group during her time as a professor that failed to decide to cast the elderly man overboard. The scenario was designed to influence us to decide to cast the elderly man overboard. I later came to the conclusion that the exercise was designed to influence people (including children) to be in favor of euthanasia. That is how brainwashing works. Instead of telling children to believe in euthanasia--you get the children to come to their own conclusions that euthanasia is a great idea. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 In article <1180155419.069584.151200@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 I would support that. Quote
Guest George Chen Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 On May 26, 2:03 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180151838.564556.259...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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? > > I don't know--it would be a case by case basis. I will tell you a story. I > told you about the magazine that had a picture on the cover of a 3D color > ultrasound of a third trimester fetus. I purchased a copy of that magazine > and took it to work. I showed it to all of my co-workers and they were > shocked when they seen it because it looked just like a baby. Partial > birth abortions were still legal at that point in time. I told my > co-workers that it was legal for abortion doctors to abort unborn babies > that looked just like the one in the picture. They were shocked. Some of > my co-workers were pro-choice but they all told me that third trimester > abortions should be illegal. In other words, it's easier to get people to > join our cause if we discuss third trimester abortions instead of > discussing first trimester abortions. That's why some pro-lifers have > pictures of third trimester fetuses on their posters. One famous pro-life > protestor was arrested for actually showing an aborted third trimester > fetus to a crowd of people. It was inside a glass jar. He should not have > done that. But don't you see how dishonest it is for people to show pictures of third trimester fetuses and say "We should stop abortion so fetuses like this won't get killed" when only 1.4% of abortions take place in the third trimester? I wonder if doctors will now try to save babies that would have been aborted through the partial birth procedure or if doctors will just insist that women make up their minds sooner. I doubt if women are having abortions in the third trimester on a whim. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 On Fri, 25 May 2007 22:15:59 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: - Refer: <ei9f53ps9483bu71rh3hmucvdj2rs9cu35@4ax.com> >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. Pity. -- Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 In article <1180155989.252279.241210@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 I believe the end goal of the exercise was to brainwash everyone that does the exercise to become advocates of euthanasia. They even use the scenario in high school sociology classes and psychology classes. it's an excellent exercise to help in the brainwashing of children and young adults. Jason Quote
Guest George Chen Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 On May 26, 2:50 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180155989.252279.241...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > 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? > > I believe the end goal of the exercise was to brainwash everyone that does > the exercise to become advocates of euthanasia. They even use the scenario > in high school sociology classes and psychology classes. it's an excellent > exercise to help in the brainwashing of children and young adults. When I was in school we were given a similar choice in which a group of people were the last people left on Earth eking out their lives in a bomb shelter following a nuclear holocaust. The situation was different because there was no chance of rescue what with the world outside being completely destroyed. If it were a question of the survival of the entire human race, it was assumed that the old man would voluntarily leave rather than be a burden. There was no question of physically throwing the old man out the door. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 On 25 Maj, 20:21, 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. > > > >> >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.- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 In article <1180158726.338881.255070@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 26, 12:27 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1180146027.923202.127...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@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. > > > Some scientists believe that it will start getting cooler again but they > > are not sure when the cooling cycle will kick in. > > Think of the Earth as one big lifeboat and we don't know if the > "rescue" (cooling) will start in years, decades or centuries. By > rationing fossil fuels now, we can actually avoid a calamity. We'd > also need those fossil fuels later for heating if the Earth started to > get cold. Polluting the environment now makes as much sense as > throwing an old man overboard: if we ration our supplies then we can > all be rescued. > > Martin Martin, Think about it---if it is a cycle--the global warming will continue regardless of what we do. We can't control the major polluting countries of the world like China and India. Those people will not take actions to control pollution. They are on the lifeboat and don't care about anyone else on the lifeboat. Jason Quote
Guest George Chen Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 On May 26, 3:14 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180158726.338881.255...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On May 26, 12:27 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1180146027.923202.127...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@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. > > > > Some scientists believe that it will start getting cooler again but they > > > are not sure when the cooling cycle will kick in. > > > Think of the Earth as one big lifeboat and we don't know if the > > "rescue" (cooling) will start in years, decades or centuries. By > > rationing fossil fuels now, we can actually avoid a calamity. We'd > > also need those fossil fuels later for heating if the Earth started to > > get cold. Polluting the environment now makes as much sense as > > throwing an old man overboard: if we ration our supplies then we can > > all be rescued. > Think about it---if it is a cycle--the global warming will continue > regardless of what we do. We can't control the major polluting countries > of the world like China and India. Those people will not take actions to > control pollution. They are on the lifeboat and don't care about anyone > else on the lifeboat. And yet China and India have both ratified the Kyoto accord. One problem is that China and India each have much larger populations than the US so even if their emissions were to each equal taht of the US, they still would be producing less emissions per capita. It is not fair to argue that they "don't care about anyone else on the lifeboat". The United States has no ratified the accord so logically it is Americans that don't care for other people in the world. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#People.27s_Republic_of_China and http://mindprod.com/environment/kyoto.html#RATIFIERS ) Quote
Guest George Chen Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 On May 26, 3:20 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180159937.797748.29...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On May 26, 1:28 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > I did not consider not eating or drinking as an option. I agree that > > > taking care of the weakest would be the first priority. If that professor > > > had been on the boat, she would have killed the weakest and cooked him for > > > dinner--just kidding. > > > Actually, no, you could probably survive for months off the flesh of > > the others. > > Even if that is true, I would have voted not to do that since it would be > considered a sin to murder an old man and eat him for dinner. Perhaps but it is another argument for NOT throwing him overboard. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 In article <1180159543.363964.271720@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 26, 1:02 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <ei9f53ps9483bu71rh3hmucvdj2rs9c...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > On Fri, 25 May 2007 20:03:23 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > <Jason-2505072003230...@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > >In article <lqne53hq645oldjm2qs0agmhnv49fo3...@4ax.com>, 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 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. > > Wouldn't it make more sense to pick up the grenade and throw it > away? > > Martin Martin, There is usually not enough time to do all of that. It's quicker to jump on top of it. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 In article <1180159937.797748.29780@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 26, 1:28 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > I did not consider not eating or drinking as an option. I agree that > > taking care of the weakest would be the first priority. If that professor > > had been on the boat, she would have killed the weakest and cooked him for > > dinner--just kidding. > > Actually, no, you could probably survive for months off the flesh of > the others. > > Martin Even if that is true, I would have voted not to do that since it would be considered a sin to murder an old man and eat him for dinner. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 In article <1180162408.823822.269740@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, George Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 26, 2:50 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1180155989.252279.241...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > 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? > > > > I believe the end goal of the exercise was to brainwash everyone that does > > the exercise to become advocates of euthanasia. They even use the scenario > > in high school sociology classes and psychology classes. it's an excellent > > exercise to help in the brainwashing of children and young adults. > > When I was in school we were given a similar choice in which a group > of people were the last people left on Earth eking out their lives in > a bomb shelter following a nuclear holocaust. The situation was > different because there was no chance of rescue what with the world > outside being completely destroyed. If it were a question of the > survival of the entire human race, it was assumed that the old man > would voluntarily leave rather than be a burden. There was no > question of physically throwing the old man out the door. That might also been an exercise designed to cause children and young adults to become advocates of euthanasia Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 In article <1180163860.653313.302890@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, George Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 26, 3:20 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1180159937.797748.29...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 26, 1:28 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > I did not consider not eating or drinking as an option. I agree that > > > > taking care of the weakest would be the first priority. If that professor > > > > had been on the boat, she would have killed the weakest and cooked him for > > > > dinner--just kidding. > > > > > Actually, no, you could probably survive for months off the flesh of > > > the others. > > > > Even if that is true, I would have voted not to do that since it would be > > considered a sin to murder an old man and eat him for dinner. > > Perhaps but it is another argument for NOT throwing him overboard. yes Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 In article <1180162865.376213.180240@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > On 25 Maj, 20:21, 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 s= > hare. 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 s= > ame 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 in= > capable > > > >> >> of deciding who is least valuable when one has to go overboard an= > d 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 hav= > e 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 l= > ive > > > >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 yourse= > lf.- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > > Now you are calling Jesus a sinner. Shame on you! Jesus did not kill himself. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 In article <1180163778.288934.59960@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, George Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 26, 3:14 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1180158726.338881.255...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 26, 12:27 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article <1180146027.923202.127...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@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. > > > > > > Some scientists believe that it will start getting cooler again but they > > > > are not sure when the cooling cycle will kick in. > > > > > Think of the Earth as one big lifeboat and we don't know if the > > > "rescue" (cooling) will start in years, decades or centuries. By > > > rationing fossil fuels now, we can actually avoid a calamity. We'd > > > also need those fossil fuels later for heating if the Earth started to > > > get cold. Polluting the environment now makes as much sense as > > > throwing an old man overboard: if we ration our supplies then we can > > > all be rescued. > > > Think about it---if it is a cycle--the global warming will continue > > regardless of what we do. We can't control the major polluting countries > > of the world like China and India. Those people will not take actions to > > control pollution. They are on the lifeboat and don't care about anyone > > else on the lifeboat. > > And yet China and India have both ratified the Kyoto accord. One > problem is that China and India each have much larger populations than > the US so even if their emissions were to each equal taht of the US, > they still would be producing less emissions per capita. It is not > fair to argue that they "don't care about anyone > else on the lifeboat". The United States has no ratified the accord > so logically it is Americans that don't care for other people in the > world. > > (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#People.27s_Republic_of_China > and http://mindprod.com/environment/kyoto.html#RATIFIERS ) Of course, the key question is will they abide by the accord? Of course, if the US voted to approve it--we would abide by the accord. Clinton did NOT want it approved while he was president since he knew it would destoy our economy. That's also the reason Bush does not want it approved while he is president. Do you really think that global warming would no longer be a problem if all countries abided by the Kyoto accord? All of those other countries know that we would be about the only country that would abide by the provisions which is the reason they approved it. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 Free Lunch 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. That is the question, I think. Is it? There are some things I don't understand relating to that topic. And I haven't made up my mind yet. But apart from that, the idea of reducing CO2 output is good. Whether it is the reason for global warming or not. Because mostly human made CO2 is produced by burning fossil fuels. An incredibly useful substance. And it is limited. So I think it is a good idea to start using it sensibly. And not just burning it up. Again, apart from the question whether or not CO2 leads to global warming, reducing it is a good idea. Tokay -- Always remember to pillage before you burn! Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 On May 26, 4:56 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180162865.376213.180...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On 25 Maj, 20:21, 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 s= > > hare. 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 s= > > ame 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 in= > > capable > > > > >> >> of deciding who is least valuable when one has to go overboard an= > > d 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 hav= > > e 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 l= > > ive > > > > >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. > > > Now you are calling Jesus a sinner. Shame on you! > > Jesus did not kill himself. Given that there was no mention of Jesus' life before 100 AD, it is possible that he never lived at all and that his entire life was something that Christians made up. Martin Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 On 26 Maj, 10:56, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180162865.376213.180...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On 25 Maj, 20:21, 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 s= > > hare. 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 s= > > ame 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 in= > > capable > > > > >> >> of deciding who is least valuable when one has to go overboard an= > > d 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 hav= > > e 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 l= > > ive > > > > >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 yourse= > > lf.- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > Now you are calling Jesus a sinner. Shame on you! > > Jesus did not kill himself.- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 On May 26, 5:32 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180163778.288934.59...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, George > > > > > > > > Chen <georgech...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On May 26, 3:14 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1180158726.338881.255...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 26, 12:27 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > In article <1180146027.923202.127...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > Martin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@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. > > > > > > Some scientists believe that it will start getting cooler again but they > > > > > are not sure when the cooling cycle will kick in. > > > > > Think of the Earth as one big lifeboat and we don't know if the > > > > "rescue" (cooling) will start in years, decades or centuries. By > > > > rationing fossil fuels now, we can actually avoid a calamity. We'd > > > > also need those fossil fuels later for heating if the Earth started to > > > > get cold. Polluting the environment now makes as much sense as > > > > throwing an old man overboard: if we ration our supplies then we can > > > > all be rescued. > > > > Think about it---if it is a cycle--the global warming will continue > > > regardless of what we do. We can't control the major polluting countries > > > of the world like China and India. Those people will not take actions to > > > control pollution. They are on the lifeboat and don't care about anyone > > > else on the lifeboat. > > > And yet China and India have both ratified the Kyoto accord. One > > problem is that China and India each have much larger populations than > > the US so even if their emissions were to each equal taht of the US, > > they still would be producing less emissions per capita. It is not > > fair to argue that they "don't care about anyone > > else on the lifeboat". The United States has no ratified the accord > > so logically it is Americans that don't care for other people in the > > world. > > > (Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#People.27s_Republic_of_China > > andhttp://mindprod.com/environment/kyoto.html#RATIFIERS) > > Of course, the key question is will they abide by the accord? Of course, > if the US voted to approve it--we would abide by the accord. Clinton did > NOT want it approved while he was president since he knew it would destoy > our economy. Actually, democracy demands that something like the Kyoto Accord requires a new mandate. Gore did run as an environmental candidate but voters in his own state voted for Bush. Again, logically it is Americans that don't care for other people in the world. Martin 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.