Political Crossfire Forums

[cap'n queasy]

ieatfood wrote: look, not everyone likes to ride bikes
stop trying to force everyone else to live the life you want them to live

this is a free country
if people want to ride bikes, they should ride bikes
if people want to drive hybrids, they should drive hybrids
if people want to drive hummers, they should drive hummers

worry about yourself
other peoples living habits are none of your business

Right on.

[mathurin]

Blinky wrote: ieatfood wrote: look, not everyone likes to ride bikes
stop trying to force everyone else to live the life you want them to live

this is a free country
if people want to ride bikes, they should ride bikes
if people want to drive hybrids, they should drive hybrids
if people want to drive hummers, they should drive hummers

worry about yourself
other peoples living habits are none of your business


ieatfood, other people's living habits ARE my/yours/everybody's business if they affect my/your/everybody's life.
Hummers use more fuel, creating more exhaust fumes, contributing more to air pollution/global warming etc. These far reaching issues affect everyone, so therefore they are our business. I for one don't want my children or grandchildren growing up wearing gas masks because the Earth's atmosphere has been totally f***ed up by morons who think they can do whatever the hell they want.
Your line of thinking is tantamount to your neighbour deciding he'll open a manure store in his front yard, and damn how you feel about the idea - a man's gotta make a living, right?
Let me ask you something - Do you currently live on a busy road and next to a coal burning plant? Why not? I bet it would be much cheaper - you'd save a fortune!

then encourage people to change, invest in companies that are building or using renewable energy

i personally love public transport systems, i think they would go over very well in many cities, but in the area i live there is no option, biking 10 miles to work (thats 16 km, i think) or 50 miles to school just isnt an option, and yes, i have run numbers on moving, it will not help, so i drive, because it is my most efficient option
in one year i am quitting my job and moving to school to work on a graduate degree, it is not the most money efficient option, but it gives the best utility for me, I.E. living close to school and having extra free time to spend on schoolwork (this work and school is killing me)

Blinky wrote:
mathurin wrote: WWII was a time of war
DDT was killing our national bird

Guess what? Petrol fuelled motor vehicles are (slowly) killing us and the entire planet.

this has not been proven to my satisfaction, there are too many unanswered questions

again, encourage other energy sources, dont force your fellow man to change at gunpoint, vote with the dollar, your highest utility choice may not be theirs


Blinky wrote:
Quote: and somehow civics still seem to be too wuss for me
i have a 1979 camaro, the engine is currently 5.0 liter, but that is to small for me, this summer i will be upgrading to a 5.7 liter
more power baby

Good to see your priorities are thoroughly backwards.
my priorities are to have a cool and high power car for less money, my car gets about 17 mpg, but in the past 5 years i have spent about $4000 on it, only $2000 of which would have been neccesary (wheels and paint arent needed, but are my preference) at current fuel prices, if i bought a car that got 30 mpg, i would save less than $1000 per year, sounds like a lot, but when compared to the price of a new car it is very little, since i am leaving kansas in 2 years and should have no need of a car afterwards i decided that the breakeven point is well beyond my use of the vehicle, so i pay the higher fuel price to avoid the higher buy-in price

i could buy a late model, but it would need repairs, and i cannot work on computerized cars, so costs would be even more, since i can fix my car personally (or call on my brother for help) maintenence costs are low, ill put it this way, my new engine, a moderatly high performance engine, costs about $700, also, because i have a chevy the parts are very inexpensive, i chose a chevy for just this purpose

i am a business student, i crunch numbers on almost everything in my life to make certain i am making informed choices, businesses are all about maximizing utility per dollar, and that is what i try to do in life

[Blinky]

Quote: then encourage people to change, invest in companies that are building or using renewable energy

How do you suggest "encouraging" people to change? I would say taxing the sh*t out of fuel would be a good start. Or you could charge people a hefty pollution tax on a sliding scale based on their choice of vehicle's emmissions.
Not everybody invests in companies (you mean shares etc, right?) The is a sure fire way to NOT invest in companies though - boycotting their product. So if Ford, or whoever, builds a car that is not as fuel efficient as it could be, you don't buy it. They'll learn pretty quickly what people want and cater for them.



Quote: this has not been proven to my satisfaction, there are too many unanswered questions

Not all scientists agree that HIV causes AIDS. But would you take the risk? Of course not. Ignoring even half credible evidence that suggests a link between vehicle emissions andf the greenhouse effect, is irresponsible and plain dumb. "Let's keep burning up oil until there can be no doubt that its bad, at which point we'll just stop and use another energy source" - Mate, there isn't time to take that gamble... can't you see that? Time and resources need to be invested in viable energy alternatives. In the mean time, we should be working on slowing down the possible disaster we are steering ourselves towards.


Quote: my priorities are to have a cool and high power car for less money, my car gets about 17 mpg, but in the past 5 years i have spent about $4000 on it, only $2000 of which would have been neccesary (wheels and paint arent needed, but are my preference) at current fuel prices, if i bought a car that got 30 mpg, i would save less than $1000 per year, sounds like a lot, but when compared to the price of a new car it is very little, since i am leaving kansas in 2 years and should have no need of a car afterwards i decided that the breakeven point is well beyond my use of the vehicle, so i pay the higher fuel price to avoid the higher buy-in price

i could buy a late model, but it would need repairs, and i cannot work on computerized cars, so costs would be even more, since i can fix my car personally (or call on my brother for help) maintenence costs are low, ill put it this way, my new engine, a moderatly high performance engine, costs about $700, also, because i have a chevy the parts are very inexpensive, i chose a chevy for just this purpose

i am a business student, i crunch numbers on almost everything in my life to make certain i am making informed choices, businesses are all about maximizing utility per dollar, and that is what i try to do in life

I understood all that from your initial post. What you don't seem to understand is that this isn't just a question of dollars and cents. You are thinking only of the financial impact that it has on you TODAY. This is shortsightedness at its most dangerous.

People used to dump all sorts of industrial chemicles in rivers and in harbours because it was cheaper, but the negative effects of these practices are becoming evident now.

[mathurin]

Blinky wrote: Quote: then encourage people to change, invest in companies that are building or using renewable energy

How do you suggest "encouraging" people to change? I would say taxing the sh*t out of fuel would be a good start. Or you could charge people a hefty pollution tax on a sliding scale based on their choice of vehicle's emmissions.

this is taxation, not encouragement
greenies have plenty of hollywood types with them, do PSAs, call friends, encouraging means just that, encourage, txes are force


Blinky wrote:
Not everybody invests in companies (you mean shares etc, right?) The is a sure fire way to NOT invest in companies though - boycotting their product. So if Ford, or whoever, builds a car that is not as fuel efficient as it could be, you don't buy it. They'll learn pretty quickly what people want and cater for them.

bingo, people voting with their dollars, investing in renewable energy projects (sure not everyone does it, but that doesnt mean everyone cant) not investing in companies and products is another way, unfortunatly for you americans are choosing safety (SUVs and trucks have full frames) and power over fuel economy, this may or may not change


Blinky wrote:
Quote: this has not been proven to my satisfaction, there are too many unanswered questions

Not all scientists agree that HIV causes AIDS. But would you take the risk? Of course not. Ignoring even half credible evidence that suggests a link between vehicle emissions andf the greenhouse effect, is irresponsible and plain dumb. "Let's keep burning up oil until there can be no doubt that its bad, at which point we'll just stop and use another energy source" - Mate, there isn't time to take that gamble... can't you see that? Time and resources need to be invested in viable energy alternatives. In the mean time, we should be working on slowing down the possible disaster we are steering ourselves towards.

no no, you have it somewhat off, not all scientists believe that HIV is the only cause of AIDS, i have yet to hear someone say that it doesnt cause it, just that other things do as well, though i havent delved deeply into the subject, and i dont really care

if you want to get into the global warming debate there are other threads for that, suffice to say that there is not enough evidence to convince me, and yes, we need to wait until we have good solid evidence before we destroy technological progress and our economy

fortunatly for you the oil company oligopoly has increased the incentive for development of alternate energy sources


Blinky wrote:
Quote: my priorities are to have a cool and high power car for less money, my car gets about 17 mpg, but in the past 5 years i have spent about $4000 on it, only $2000 of which would have been neccesary (wheels and paint arent needed, but are my preference) at current fuel prices, if i bought a car that got 30 mpg, i would save less than $1000 per year, sounds like a lot, but when compared to the price of a new car it is very little, since i am leaving kansas in 2 years and should have no need of a car afterwards i decided that the breakeven point is well beyond my use of the vehicle, so i pay the higher fuel price to avoid the higher buy-in price

i could buy a late model, but it would need repairs, and i cannot work on computerized cars, so costs would be even more, since i can fix my car personally (or call on my brother for help) maintenence costs are low, ill put it this way, my new engine, a moderatly high performance engine, costs about $700, also, because i have a chevy the parts are very inexpensive, i chose a chevy for just this purpose

i am a business student, i crunch numbers on almost everything in my life to make certain i am making informed choices, businesses are all about maximizing utility per dollar, and that is what i try to do in life

I understood all that from your initial post. What you don't seem to understand is that this isn't just a question of dollars and cents. You are thinking only of the financial impact that it has on you TODAY. This is shortsightedness at its most dangerous.

People used to dump all sorts of industrial chemicles in rivers and in harbours because it was cheaper, but the negative effects of these practices are becoming evident now.

i am thinking of the financial impact it will have on me for the next 2 years, the extent of my life in kansas (i hope)
or did you not notice that part of my model

your comparison is flawed, dumping major toxins in lakes and rivers does not compare to my exhaust in a barely populated area, kansas does not need pollution controls on individuals, bigger cities do, what is good for the goose is not always good for the gander, cities need work, a county with less people in it than workers in the empire state building does not, yes, my county has roughly 15,000 people in it, while a single building in new york city has more than 20,000 people working in in

[Blinky]

Quote: this is taxation, not encouragement
greenies have plenty of hollywood types with them, do PSAs, call friends, encouraging means just that, encourage, txes are force

Some items are already heavily taxed, like cigarettes. If you want to smoke, you pay the tax. Nobody forces you to smoke, in the same way nobody forces you to drive. And you certainly aren't forced to drive an innefficient vehicle.


Quote: bingo, people voting with their dollars, investing in renewable energy projects (sure not everyone does it, but that doesnt mean everyone cant) not investing in companies and products is another way, unfortunatly for you americans are choosing safety (SUVs and trucks have full frames) and power over fuel economy, this may or may not change

Its unfortunate for th entire world that Americans choose SUVs. Power is a backwards priority in most circumstances, especially for urban populations.



Quote: if you want to get into the global warming debate there are other threads for that, suffice to say that there is not enough evidence to convince me, and yes, we need to wait until we have good solid evidence before we destroy technological progress and our economy
fortunatly for you the oil company oligopoly has increased the incentive for development of alternate energy sources

But not before they've milked oil reserves for all they're worth. You're kidding yourself if you think that once there is a viable alternative, they will just stop drilling for oil. They're going to sell every last drop of it before the change, resulting in further air quality reduction. Its economics over environment, as it always has been.
Global warming is particlarly relevant to the topic of cars.


Quote: i am thinking of the financial impact it will have on me for the next 2 years, the extent of my life in kansas (i hope)
or did you not notice that part of my model


When I say today, I mean short term. I think you understood that, being tertiary educated, but are being pedantic.

Quote: your comparison is flawed, dumping major toxins in lakes and rivers does not compare to my exhaust in a barely populated area, kansas does not need pollution controls on individuals, bigger cities do, what is good for the goose is not always good for the gander, cities need work, a county with less people in it than workers in the empire state building does not, yes, my county has roughly 15,000 people in it, while a single building in new york city has more than 20,000 people working in in

How densley an area is populated is totally irrelevant. There is only one "Earth's atmosphere" - its not rocket science. Its naive, bordering on deluded, to think that air pollutants produced in one area will not affect the air quality as a whole.
Further, I would bet that a comparitively very small percentage of people who work in the Empire state building (and NY's central business district overall) would drive privately owned cars to work. NY has an extremely developed and efficient public transport system. It is true that larger cities are the source of more pollution per square mile than more rural areas, but the number of people in such cities is the reason for it. If those people all moved out of NY, the same or more amounts of resources would be consumed, producing the same or more pollutants as a result.




My overall point is this: There is no justification for the current rate of non-renewable resource consumption. It is dangerous (even if global warming is not the issue), and is the result of corporate and consumer greed (as opposed to need).

[mathurin]

Blinky wrote: Quote: this is taxation, not encouragement
greenies have plenty of hollywood types with them, do PSAs, call friends, encouraging means just that, encourage, txes are force

Some items are already heavily taxed, like cigarettes. If you want to smoke, you pay the tax. Nobody forces you to smoke, in the same way nobody forces you to drive. And you certainly aren't forced to drive an innefficient vehicle.

actually life forces me to drive, living in the midwest there is no public transport, no other way to get around, i reduce my driving as much as possible though
the only way to not drive is to become amish

and the choice between buying a newer car or going to college is what forced me to choose my vehicle

smoking is a luxury, in much of america driving is a neccesity, there is no comparison
but hey, since AIDS has such a big impact, lets tax sex, nobody is forcing you to have it
Blinky wrote:
Quote: bingo, people voting with their dollars, investing in renewable energy projects (sure not everyone does it, but that doesnt mean everyone cant) not investing in companies and products is another way, unfortunatly for you americans are choosing safety (SUVs and trucks have full frames) and power over fuel economy, this may or may not change

Its unfortunate for th entire world that Americans choose SUVs. Power is a backwards priority in most circumstances, especially for urban populations.

i do little driving in urban settings, but what i have driven has shown me that power, or at least, low end power, is absolutly vital for urban driving, my car currently has a problem with its responsiveness, i wont get into it, but i would not take it into a city without fixing that, the danger of a wreck is too high

as to backwards priority, thats just your opinion


Blinky wrote:
Quote: if you want to get into the global warming debate there are other threads for that, suffice to say that there is not enough evidence to convince me, and yes, we need to wait until we have good solid evidence before we destroy technological progress and our economy
fortunatly for you the oil company oligopoly has increased the incentive for development of alternate energy sources

But not before they've milked oil reserves for all they're worth. You're kidding yourself if you think that once there is a viable alternative, they will just stop drilling for oil. They're going to sell every last drop of it before the change, resulting in further air quality reduction. Its economics over environment, as it always has been.
Global warming is particlarly relevant to the topic of cars.

they will drill until the cost of drilling is not worth the cost of building or using renewable energy, that is the way of economics, even now fuels prices rise, because of a oligopoly imposed "shortage" which will soon bite them in the azz, since people are tired of it and want more renewable energy sources

did you sleep through your econ classes?


Blinky wrote:
Quote: i am thinking of the financial impact it will have on me for the next 2 years, the extent of my life in kansas (i hope)
or did you not notice that part of my model


When I say today, I mean short term. I think you understood that, being tertiary educated, but are being pedantic.

yes, i knew you meant short term, but you fail to see how the short term affects the long term, to buy a newer car i would have to pay much more money, reducing my income, and destroying my ability to go to college, yes there are loans, and at this point i would take them, but when i began college i was not serious enough to go into debt for it, so i would have quit school, thus affecting my entire life

short term has long term effects


Blinky wrote:
Quote: your comparison is flawed, dumping major toxins in lakes and rivers does not compare to my exhaust in a barely populated area, kansas does not need pollution controls on individuals, bigger cities do, what is good for the goose is not always good for the gander, cities need work, a county with less people in it than workers in the empire state building does not, yes, my county has roughly 15,000 people in it, while a single building in new york city has more than 20,000 people working in in

How densley an area is populated is totally irrelevant. There is only one "Earth's atmosphere" - its not rocket science. Its naive, bordering on deluded, to think that air pollutants produced in one area will not affect the air quality as a whole.
Further, I would bet that a comparitively very small percentage of people who work in the Empire state building (and NY's central business district overall) would drive privately owned cars to work. NY has an extremely developed and efficient public transport system. It is true that larger cities are the source of more pollution per square mile than more rural areas, but the number of people in such cities is the reason for it. If those people all moved out of NY, the same or more amounts of resources would be consumed, producing the same or more pollutants as a result.


ding ding ding, you hit the nail on the head, to reduce global pollution concentrate dollars on public transport in areas that need it, rural areas do not need it, would not use it, we dont even have taxis
granted the rural users have an effect, but you need to use practical theories, in business we use the 80/20 rule, applicable in most any situation, 80% of your defects (or problems) are caused by 20% of possible causes, they do pareto charts to find the areas to work on, then correct defects as they go, it is about cost benefit analysis, apply your resources to the cause of the most defects, then work your way down

fixing the big stuff will often have trickle down effects as well
trying to fix everything throws your focus off, nobody knows where they are going or what they are doing, broad goals are nearly impossible to achieve, narrow your focus, for example, raise taxes on gasoline within large cities, this will reduce the largest number of drivers while not terribly affecting the nation otherwise, since public transport exists to fill the gap

raising gas taxes in kansas will only bankrupt people, as they have no option, drive or dont work
Blinky wrote:
My overall point is this: There is no justification for the current rate of non-renewable resource consumption. It is dangerous (even if global warming is not the issue), and is the result of corporate and consumer greed (as opposed to need).
ok Komrade......

you can keep your need based commie crap, in america people earn resources based on their labor or intelligence, and they are allowed to decide where their resources go, so you may not like the people born into wealth, but you cannot deny someone the right to pass their hard earned dollars on to their children

as to greed, it is a human condition, everyone wants more, that is the oddest thing about humans, and that is why economics is defined as the study of how people satisfy unlimited wants with limited resources
though how is it dangerous beyond the farce of global warming?

[perdidochas]

Blinky wrote: Quote: this is taxation, not encouragement
greenies have plenty of hollywood types with them, do PSAs, call friends, encouraging means just that, encourage, txes are force

Some items are already heavily taxed, like cigarettes. If you want to smoke, you pay the tax. Nobody forces you to smoke, in the same way nobody forces you to drive. And you certainly aren't forced to drive an innefficient vehicle.

Some people are. While, if I really needed to change to a fuel efficient vehicle, I could, that's not an option for all people. Even at double the price of fuel, I could just barely justify buying a new vehicle with mileage I currently get. I currently use about $90 of fuel a month. My jeep is paid off. If I were to buy a 40 MPG car, my savings would be only $45 a month. At double the fuel price ($5.40 a gallon), my savings would only be $90 a month. The economics for me to buy a new car with 40 mpg just aren't there. It's much better for me to run my jeep into the ground before I replace it with a more efficient car. I will admit, at $5 a gallon, I'm buying a Vespa-like scooter. That 70-80 mpg will be worth the price of the scooter--$3-4K

[mathurin]

yeah, about my only option would be a used motorcycle, which i am very wary of doing, if it is anything like a car then anything in my price range will be old, and prolly require much maintenence

i too long of drives for a scooter, i would hate to take that baby 20 miles a day

which is another reason im wary of the motorcycle, cool as it is, i dont think it would work well on gravel, and i work late, so its night when i get home, hitting a giant pothole, or a deer, on a motorcycle, is not my idea of a good time

i saw a nice looking motorcycle in my price range, i am actually avoiding finding numbers to run on it to keep myself from considering it, the qualitative data just isnt there, besides, insurance would kill me

[Blinky]

mathurin wrote:
actually life forces me to drive, living in the midwest there is no public transport, no other way to get around, i reduce my driving as much as possible though
the only way to not drive is to become amish

Look, no matter how you want to justify it, it is based on choice. You are not forced to live in the midwest. Why don't you campaign for better public transport? Or ride a bicycle?

Quote: and the choice between buying a newer car or going to college is what forced me to choose my vehicle

You see - it is choice. You chose to go to college. You chose your vehicle accordingly.
I know for a fcat that 5.0 litre engine cars are not the only cheap cars available. (Remember also that you said you wanted to upgrade to a 5.7? Necessity? Hardly.)

Quote: smoking is a luxury, in much of america driving is a neccesity, there is no comparison
but hey, since AIDS has such a big impact, lets tax sex, nobody is forcing you to have it

Driving is not a necessity. Some people can't afford cars - what do they do?
You can have sex with people who don't have AIDS, and it is of no consequence to anyone. You cannot drive an inefficient car and have it be econimal. In fact, driving a car at all has some impact on everyone - the pollution it generates.


Quote: i do little driving in urban settings, but what i have driven has shown me that power, or at least, low end power, is absolutly vital for urban driving, my car currently has a problem with its responsiveness, i wont get into it, but i would not take it into a city without fixing that, the danger of a wreck is too high

This is simply not true. As demonstrated by the huge number of people all over the world who don't drive particularly powerful vehicles in cities. Myself included.


Quote: you can keep your need based commie crap, in america people earn resources based on their labor or intelligence, and they are allowed to decide where their resources go, so you may not like the people born into wealth, but you cannot deny someone the right to pass their hard earned dollars on to their children

How does this bear relevance to the discussion? You're talking about inheritance now?

Quote: as to greed, it is a human condition, everyone wants more, that is the oddest thing about humans, and that is why economics is defined as the study of how people satisfy unlimited wants with limited resources
though how is it dangerous beyond the farce of global warming


How is it dangerous to consume finite resources at a fast rate? Think about it for a second. No, make it half a second - the answer should be glaringly obvious. You were on the right track when you said : "...how people satisfy unlimited wants with limited resources"

[mathurin]

Blinky wrote: mathurin wrote:
actually life forces me to drive, living in the midwest there is no public transport, no other way to get around, i reduce my driving as much as possible though
the only way to not drive is to become amish

Look, no matter how you want to justify it, it is based on choice. You are not forced to live in the midwest. Why don't you campaign for better public transport? Or ride a bicycle?

leaving the midwest would incur a great expense, i live at home while going to college, i have already explained to you that public transport is not possible, and neither is riding a bike, why? because there are a grand total of 16 people living within a one mile radius of my house, so public transport is the dumbest idea ever heard
i would love to ride a bike, unfortuatly i live 10 miles away from work and 25 from school, again, you understand, it is cheaper to drive than move at this point, also, have you ever heard of a gravel road? bikes dont like them and i live on one

yes, i make a choice, i pick the most efficient option available to me, based on current market forces, you want to pervert market forces towards your ideology

Blinky wrote:
Quote: and the choice between buying a newer car or going to college is what forced me to choose my vehicle

You see - it is choice. You chose to go to college. You chose your vehicle accordingly.
I know for a fcat that 5.0 litre engine cars are not the only cheap cars available. (Remember also that you said you wanted to upgrade to a 5.7? Necessity? Hardly.)

so lets examine, instead of going to college i buy a new car, but wait, i still wouldnt buy a new car because i hate new cars, they break and i cant fix them, too complicated

5 liter cars are not the only cheaper cars, but you are missing a huge chunk of the puzzle, this car is a chevrolet, small block chevy to be specific, this engine is possibly the most rebuilt and used engine today, and so are most of the components in the whole car, because they are simple, easy to aquire, easy to work on, so i am saving considerable money by building the car myself, if i picked another vehicle, lets say the one i had before, a 1987 bronco 2, it has a 2.8 liter engine, alittle more on that later
anyway, the transmission went out, it cost about $2000 to have replaced, it also had a fit of some kind because the computer wasnt getting a good ground connection in one of the 5 billion wire it has,that was around $600

so, my current car, lets assume the engine breaks tommorrow, throws a rod through the side of the engine and is totally unrebuildable, perhaps $100 dollars, maybe less, for a core block, around $300 for machine work which may or may not be needed, many other components of my other engine can be used, only the block was damaged, a basic rebuild kit, including pistons, is about $500, so for $900 i could have a rebuilt engine
how about what actually broke on the bronco 2, the transmission, my current one is better than it needs to be, if it broke i could rebuild it for around $500, maybe more maybe less depending on its problem, but i could go with a less strong one, and selling the broken current one would get me most of the money i would need to fix a weaker one
how about the grounding problem, well there are only so many wires in this car, that would be an easy problem

so you see, i didnt just choose the car for low buy-in, i bought it for low lifetime cost


oh, and here is the kicker, this car gets better gas mileage than the 6 cylinder 2.8 liter bronco 2, it got about 15 mpg, my 5.0 liter gets about 17-18
the 5.7 is a personal vice, more power, without damaging the pocket book much, shouldnt hurt my mileage by more than a point or 2, hot rods are actually very efficient, half of hot rodding is decreasing how much power the engine wastes, granted the other half is cramming as much air-fuel mix into the engine as possible, that side is more expensive, and obviously, hurts milage, most of my modifications involve smoothing airflow and otherwise increasing efficiency, admittedly it doesnt get as good of gas mileage as i could make it get by meddling more with the cam, but i need to drive alot of highway miles, so i need some high end power as well

Blinky wrote:
Quote: smoking is a luxury, in much of america driving is a neccesity, there is no comparison
but hey, since AIDS has such a big impact, lets tax sex, nobody is forcing you to have it

Driving is not a necessity. Some people can't afford cars - what do they do?
You can have sex with people who don't have AIDS, and it is of no consequence to anyone. You cannot drive an inefficient car and have it be econimal. In fact, driving a car at all has some impact on everyone - the pollution it generates.

driving is not a neccesity for _YOU_
it is for me, it is for much of the midwest, you really need to get out of the city now and then

unsafe sexual relations increase the risk of spreading AIDs, regardless of what person you are having sex with, the more people who have unsafe sex the higher the chances in a society, nothing more nothing less, if the entire nation was involved in monogamous relationships than STDs would be incredibly rare, not saying anything about relationships, just talking statistics, so, statistically, each different partner you take increases the nations chance of spreading STDs and AIDs, and each relation with any partner also raises the chance

you claim it has an impact, and i dont doubt it has some small one, but the impact is negligble here in the midwest smog does not exist, you want to decrease emissions, go after cities

Blinky wrote:
Quote: i do little driving in urban settings, but what i have driven has shown me that power, or at least, low end power, is absolutly vital for urban driving, my car currently has a problem with its responsiveness, i wont get into it, but i would not take it into a city without fixing that, the danger of a wreck is too high

This is simply not true. As demonstrated by the huge number of people all over the world who don't drive particularly powerful vehicles in cities. Myself included.

they drive specifically tuned vehicles, they have no upper end power, injection also increases torque
still, think what you want, until you have driven in the country you dont know how different the driving is, i dont pretend to have driven in a real city, i drove around on the edge of kansas city, it was enough of me, i didnt relish the experience


Blinky wrote:
Quote: you can keep your need based commie crap, in america people earn resources based on their labor or intelligence, and they are allowed to decide where their resources go, so you may not like the people born into wealth, but you cannot deny someone the right to pass their hard earned dollars on to their children

How does this bear relevance to the discussion? You're talking about inheritance now?


you said
Quote:
My overall point is this: There is no justification for the current rate of non-renewable resource consumption. It is dangerous (even if global warming is not the issue), and is the result of corporate and consumer greed (as opposed to need).
when you start talking about need and greed it labels you a card carrying communist, what was that motto of communism, "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their need"
but america is based on freedom, freedom means choices, and you are trying to force your choices on people with legislation, that is anti-freedom

i moved to inheiritance because it always seems to come up with communists when i tell them that X person is rich because they earned it, they always spout "what about Y, it was all given to them" it was all given to themby X, who earned it

Blinky wrote:
Quote: as to greed, it is a human condition, everyone wants more, that is the oddest thing about humans, and that is why economics is defined as the study of how people satisfy unlimited wants with limited resources
though how is it dangerous beyond the farce of global warming


How is it dangerous to consume finite resources at a fast rate? Think about it for a second. No, make it half a second - the answer should be glaringly obvious. You were on the right track when you said : "...how people satisfy unlimited wants with limited resources"
gues what? all resources are limited, and all people have unlimited wants, so still we are back to economics

it is simple really, as the supply goes down the price will go up and alternatives will become competetive, we have already seen this as many alternative fuels and technologies have come alive since fuel prices went as high as they did
even the most conservative estimate i have heard shows we will have enough oil for over 100 years, and these are the people who want us to be scared we will run out soon

you still havent answered my question

[Blinky]

Quote: the 5.7 is a personal vice, more power, without damaging the pocket book much, shouldnt hurt my mileage by more than a point or 2,

Your words, not mine. Exactly what I was getting at. Thankyou.


Quote: you claim it has an impact, and i dont doubt it has some small one, but the impact is negligble here in the midwest smog does not exist, you want to decrease emissions, go after cities

This again?.. *groan*. How basic is this: There is one atmosphere for our planet. Smog emitted in Kansas, China, Madagascar, Australia or Brazil adds to the sum total of smog in the air. I mean, really, its like pretending you can have a tyre burning yard in Antarctica and saying it won't contribute.


Quote: they drive specifically tuned vehicles ,
What are you on about. I bought my car from a guy that lived in the country. Its not specifically tuned for country driving at all. What rubbish.

Quote: they have no upper end power, injection also increases torque
still, think what you want, until you have driven in the country you dont know how different the driving is, i dont pretend to have driven in a real city, i drove around on the edge of kansas city, it was enough of me, i didnt relish the experience

I have driven in the country. Upper end power is NOT a necessity, no matter how you look at it. You like to state that your preference for vehicular performance is necessity. This is not the case.


Quote: when you start talking about need and greed it labels you a card carrying communist,

:rotf:

No, you label it communism. Well it isn't. Its based on an environmental standpoint, and has NOTHING to do with communism.


Quote: but america is based on freedom, freedom means choices, and you are trying to force your choices on people with legislation, that is anti-freedom

Give me a break. Your choices are affected by legislation in EVERY facet of your life. Want to smoke pot? Nope, not allowed. Want to drive a tank? Nope, unless youre in the army. Want to walk down the street naked? etc etc etc...
You act like legislation aimed at saving our planet for future generations and thus ensuring the continued survival of our species, is an infringement on your rights as a consumer.


Quote: i moved to inheiritance because it always seems to come up with communists when i tell them that X person is rich because they earned it, they always spout "what about Y, it was all given to them" it was all given to themby X, who earned it

What you did was make an assumption about my political leanings, based on your perception of what a card-carrying communist thinks about environmental issues. You were wrong, and have steered this debate on an unnecessary tangent. Well done.


Quote: gues what? all resources are limited, and all people have unlimited wants, so still we are back to economics

Really? The sun is limited? There is a finite amount of wind?
And actually, not all people have unlimited wants. Again, you can't apply your preferences as universal truths.


Quote: even the most conservative estimate i have heard shows we will have enough oil for over 100 years, and these are the people who want us to be scared we will run out soon

Maybe you're not aware, but several third world countries with massive populations have, of late, been experienceing an economic boom, increasing their demand for oil, among other things. It is IMPOSSIBLE to predict how this rate of demand will increase over the next say 50 years. So don't you think its about time we looked for other energy sources? Or maybe we should sit pretty so long as people are willing to pay inflated prices?

Quote: you still havent answered my question

What was it again?

[black noise]

Blinky's awesome.

For the last time I'm not trying to shove my beliefs down anyone's throat. I'm giving an opinion that I think its relevent especially now as the demand for oil is rising and supply is not matching it. Plus there are better ways for urban areas to handle transportation than cars (though sadly they don't make as much profit, which is pretty much always placed before need or health and wellbeing in this country).

And your power argument is laughable. How much power do busses have? They're the slowest vehicles on the road and they seem to do fine in urban environments. I drive a 1.6 liter engine with barely 50hp and zero high end power and I'm not dodging "specifially tuned" vehicles at all, ever. You don't need a big car (though you like them and I respect that, I have a soft spot for burly cars too), and if our cities were designed better you wouldn't need a car at all. Think of the people in Atlanta or Los Angeles who have to live 40 miles from their jobs to get the affordable housing! Soon they won't be able to afford to drive, because the system was designed poorly. People need to realize that and come up with a real plan for transportation that doesn't include "3 more lanes in each direction".

[mathurin]

Blinky wrote: Quote: the 5.7 is a personal vice, more power, without damaging the pocket book much, shouldnt hurt my mileage by more than a point or 2,

Your words, not mine. Exactly what I was getting at. Thankyou.

so i sacrifice a small amount of mileage for my preference, it is none of your business

Blinky wrote:
Quote: you claim it has an impact, and i dont doubt it has some small one, but the impact is negligble here in the midwest smog does not exist, you want to decrease emissions, go after cities

This again?.. *groan*. How basic is this: There is one atmosphere for our planet. Smog emitted in Kansas, China, Madagascar, Australia or Brazil adds to the sum total of smog in the air. I mean, really, its like pretending you can have a tyre burning yard in Antarctica and saying it won't contribute.


rofl, again with this one atmosphere, true, but if you removed the cities then the world wouldnt have a problem, even now smog is only a problem in large cities in lowish areas

if you burned one tire in antarctica it would change nothing, if you burned the worlds tires it would matter, it is about concentration, tiny local contributions wind up feeding (Co2, we got lots of plant life here you understand) local plants or as small amounts of dust (on the ground)

Blinky wrote:
Quote: they drive specifically tuned vehicles ,
What are you on about. I bought my car from a guy that lived in the country. Its not specifically tuned for country driving at all. What rubbish.


you misunderstood
modern vehicles are fuel injected, injection increases low end torque, all cars are now sold with this, but the low end snap is about essential in the city
my car is carbureted, i would love injection but retrofitting modern systems is tough, and they suck, and purpose built stuff that i would like is expensive

Blinky wrote:
Quote: they have no upper end power, injection also increases torque
still, think what you want, until you have driven in the country you dont know how different the driving is, i dont pretend to have driven in a real city, i drove around on the edge of kansas city, it was enough of me, i didnt relish the experience

I have driven in the country. Upper end power is NOT a necessity, no matter how you look at it. You like to state that your preference for vehicular performance is necessity. This is not the case.

really?
i drive over 200 miles a week, mostly on highways, have you tried passing at high speeds on 2 lane roads, high end power is definitly a neccesity and i have designed my car around this need, most hot rods have low gears because they want take off, but i want a highway vehicle


Blinky wrote:
Quote: when you start talking about need and greed it labels you a card carrying communist,

:rotf:

No, you label it communism. Well it isn't. Its based on an environmental standpoint, and has NOTHING to do with communism.

when you talk about collective good and need vs greed
it closely mirrors communist and socialist ideas, so whether or not you think it is, it is

Blinky wrote:
Quote: but america is based on freedom, freedom means choices, and you are trying to force your choices on people with legislation, that is anti-freedom

Give me a break. Your choices are affected by legislation in EVERY facet of your life. Want to smoke pot? Nope, not allowed. Want to drive a tank? Nope, unless youre in the army. Want to walk down the street naked? etc etc etc...
You act like legislation aimed at saving our planet for future generations and thus ensuring the continued survival of our species, is an infringement on your rights as a consumer.

actually i can drive a tank, if i buy one, i can drive it, on my personal property i can, and if i tag and insure it i can drive it on public roads, i dont think pot should be illegal, though i dont want to use it, i bet it will be legal in another 10 years
i can be naked on my own private property, what is lewd and lavacious cannot be broadcast on public channels, so no, public nudity isnt and should be allowed, though, an interesting fact, in many cities, im pretty sure new york is one, women can go topless anywhere men can


you want legislation aimed at your idea of saving the planet, and your ideas are warped and extreme, i have alot of ideas for ways in which our society can improve, but what i want for the nation is not neccesarily what it needs or what they want, so i debate, i try to convince and sometimes if nothing else moderate, i expect you and your kind to do this, intelligently, not with cries of the sky falling, the sky isnt falling, and doomsday predictions are bad politics, perhaps you yourself have been taken in by them


Blinky wrote:
Quote: i moved to inheiritance because it always seems to come up with communists when i tell them that X person is rich because they earned it, they always spout "what about Y, it was all given to them" it was all given to themby X, who earned it

What you did was make an assumption about my political leanings, based on your perception of what a card-carrying communist thinks about environmental issues. You were wrong, and have steered this debate on an unnecessary tangent. Well done.

*shrug*
walks like a duck and quacks like a duck

like most long term internet debaters i sometimes get to know a debate too well, and attempt to head off possible arguments


Blinky wrote:
Quote: gues what? all resources are limited, and all people have unlimited wants, so still we are back to economics

Really? The sun is limited? There is a finite amount of wind?
And actually, not all people have unlimited wants. Again, you can't apply your preferences as universal truths.

yes the sun is limited, stars die on a regular basis, surely you knew this, wind is only an effect of the sun unevenly heating the earth, granted these are only a probability at this point, but for the purpose of our discussion a thousand years is as good as 400

so tell me, where do your wants end?
are you honestly so naive to think that any large group of humans, such as a nation, will have limited and realistic wants?


Blinky wrote:
Quote: even the most conservative estimate i have heard shows we will have enough oil for over 100 years, and these are the people who want us to be scared we will run out soon

Maybe you're not aware, but several third world countries with massive populations have, of late, been experienceing an economic boom, increasing their demand for oil, among other things. It is IMPOSSIBLE to predict how this rate of demand will increase over the next say 50 years. So don't you think its about time we looked for other energy sources? Or maybe we should sit pretty so long as people are willing to pay inflated prices?

rotfl
so it is possible to predict what global warming will do to the earth in 100 years, a largely unknown and unproven phenomenom, but the well documented flow and ebb of economics is impossible to predict, it is difficult i grant you, but not as difficult as many of the things environmentalists want you to believe they can predict

Blinky wrote:
Quote: you still havent answered my question

What was it again?

let me time myself

"though how is it dangerous beyond the farce of global warming"

20 seconds, it took me 20 seconds to find, copy and paste the original question, i timed myself and say this to show how obvious your dodge was, the question was there, you are just unwilling to answer it

to elaborate, you claim it is dangerous to "consume" at the rate we are, yet you offer nothing to prove this than the "it just is" explanation, i submitto you that we are not just consuming, we are growing, in ways other than numerically, technologically we have taken huge steps in the past 50 years, if you told someone 50 or more years ago that telephones would fit in their pocket and need no wires, that infact one of the bigger size constraints on phones would be space to put the buttons and screen
that the phonograph would evolve into a device smaller than 4 ciggaretes, yet run longer on less energy and hold many times the music

live in the dark ages if you must, but dont try to drag the world down with you until you have good proof, rather than conjectures drawn from ideas dreamed up before science could be designed to back it

[mathurin]

black noise wrote: Blinky's awesome.

For the last time I'm not trying to shove my beliefs down anyone's throat. I'm giving an opinion that I think its relevent especially now as the demand for oil is rising and supply is not matching it. Plus there are better ways for urban areas to handle transportation than cars (though sadly they don't make as much profit, which is pretty much always placed before need or health and wellbeing in this country).

And your power argument is laughable. How much power do busses have? They're the slowest vehicles on the road and they seem to do fine in urban environments. I drive a 1.6 liter engine with barely 50hp and zero high end power and I'm not dodging "specifially tuned" vehicles at all, ever. You don't need a big car (though you like them and I respect that, I have a soft spot for burly cars too), and if our cities were designed better you wouldn't need a car at all. Think of the people in Atlanta or Los Angeles who have to live 40 miles from their jobs to get the affordable housing! Soon they won't be able to afford to drive, because the system was designed poorly. People need to realize that and come up with a real plan for transportation that doesn't include "3 more lanes in each direction".

blinky has been brainwashed, i feel sorry for him, i am all for conservation, i feel that there is nothing wrong with public funding for public transportation, but the whole idea of artificially increasing gas prices just smacks of elitism, i know better than you crap, instead of dissuading by punishment, encourage, make the public transport system better and more people will use it, i have traveled in the former soviet union and i really liked that you could catch a bus to almost anywhere you needed to go for a pittance, and i think many people would use this, but it is not possibly in my area, we cannot even keep a taxi service running, the only taxi we have is "gorilla cab" its purpose is to keep college kids from driving home drunk

busses are a special situation, who cuts off a bus, and everyone knows a bus is slow, they dont expect snappy driving, in the same way i am cautious about semis, so they dont need to be responsive, cars do

think, and tell me, how far down do you put your foot, what kind of RPMs to you run when your car takes off from a standstill, the specificall tuned mention was misinterpreted, all modern cars are injected, which automatically increases low end torque, making them better suited for stop and go driving, i would never drive my car in the city unless i really had to, that kind of driving is murder on any car, but especially an old one like mine, i love my old car, and interestingly enough i can have it, and still come out monetarily ahead of driving a newer car

you have the right idea, go after the biggest offenders, fix city problems, and the overall problem will go away, this is what will happen, because it is win win, not "my way or you are a planet eating ****"

[Blinky]

Quote: so i sacrifice a small amount of mileage for my preference, it is none of your business

This was among the first points I made. It is my/your/everyones business so long as it affects me/you/everyone - which it does. Care to argue that excessive and unnecessary pollution caused by you and like-minded rev-heads doesn't affect other people?


Quote: rofl, again with this one atmosphere, true, but if you removed the cities then the world wouldnt have a problem, even now smog is only a problem in large cities in lowish areas

You contadict yourself: If we were to remove cities, the populations that currently dwell in them would be forced to move to more rural areas. Areas you claim make driving everywhere a necessity. So which is it?

Quote: if you burned one tire in antarctica it would change nothing, if you burned the worlds tires it would matter, it is about concentration, tiny local contributions wind up feeding (Co2, we got lots of plant life here you understand) local plants or as small amounts of dust (on the ground)

There is no plant life in Antarctica. So the smog would feed what exactly? Penguins?
Co2 is not the only emmission produced by cars either.



Quote: my car is carbureted, i would love injection but retrofitting modern systems is tough, and they suck, and purpose built stuff that i would like is expensive

Its one extreme or the other with you.
Your choice is not either a 5.7 liter carbureted fuel-guzzler or a brand spankin new hybrid. Why wouldn't you get a 1.6 liter fuel injected car? Say a mid 90s toyota?
Because its not what you want.

Quote: really?
i drive over 200 miles a week, mostly on highways, have you tried passing at high speeds on 2 lane roads, high end power is definitly a neccesity and i have designed my car around this need, most hot rods have low gears because they want take off, but i want a highway vehicle

If you want to pass someone, I assume your reason is that your top speed exceeds theirs?. If you have another lane in which to overtake, how does excessive high end power matter?



Quote: when you talk about collective good and need vs greed
it closely mirrors communist and socialist ideas, so whether or not you think it is, it is

Did you just finish high school or something?
Again, facets of your life are controlled by your government for the collective good. Eg: drug laws, public nudity laws, speed limits, social security, child-protection laws. The list is endless, yet something as important (read: vital) as environmental preservation remains a low priority in your eyes. Why?



Quote: actually i can drive a tank, if i buy one, i can drive it, on my personal property i can, and if i tag and insure it i can drive it on public roads, i dont think pot should be illegal, though i dont want to use it, i bet it will be legal in another 10 years
i can be naked on my own private property, what is lewd and lavacious cannot be broadcast on public channels, so no, public nudity isnt and should be allowed, though, an interesting fact, in many cities, im pretty sure new york is one, women can go topless anywhere men can

So basically, you don't refute that aspects of your life are controlled and thus the idea of personal choice is an illusion? Good.


Quote: you want legislation aimed at your idea of saving the planet, and your ideas are warped and extreme,

To encourage, via financial incentives, more conservative use of resources is neither extreme, nor unrealistic. I don't know about you but in Australia there are penalties in place for littering, and environmental vandalism. You need council permission to remove trees from your own property in Sydney.



Quote: like most long term internet debaters i sometimes get to know a debate too well, and attempt to head off possible arguments

Perhaps you should re-think this tactic in light of it having just been a waste of everyone's time?

Blinky wrote:
Quote: gues what? all resources are limited, and all people have unlimited wants, so still we are back to economics

Really? The sun is limited? There is a finite amount of wind?
And actually, not all people have unlimited wants. Again, you can't apply your preferences as universal truths.

Quote: yes the sun is limited, stars die on a regular basis ,

Good god! You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel with this. If our sun dies, (in many millions of years from now), the last of anyone's worries will be the price of crude oil. So your motto is: "The sun could die any day now, so we might as well consume like crazy because it could all end, just like that!"




Quote: "though how is it dangerous beyond the farce of global warming"

20 seconds, it took me 20 seconds to find, copy and paste the original question, i timed myself and say this to show how obvious your dodge was, the question was there, you are just unwilling to answer it

to elaborate, you claim it is dangerous to "consume" at the rate we are, yet you offer nothing to prove this than the "it just is" explanation, i submitto you that we are not just consuming, we are growing, in ways other than numerically, technologically we have taken huge steps in the past 50 years, if you told someone 50 or more years ago that telephones would fit in their pocket and need no wires, that infact one of the bigger size constraints on phones would be space to put the buttons and screen
that the phonograph would evolve into a device smaller than 4 ciggaretes, yet run longer on less energy and hold many times the music

live in the dark ages if you must, but dont try to drag the world down with you until you have good proof, rather than conjectures drawn from ideas dreamed up before science could be designed to back it

I answered this already, with a rhetorical question.
(How is it dangerous to consume finite resources at a fast rate? Think about it for a second. No, make it half a second - the answer should be glaringly obvious. You were on the right track when you said : "...how people satisfy unlimited wants with limited resources")

[mathurin]

Blinky wrote: Quote: so i sacrifice a small amount of mileage for my preference, it is none of your business

This was among the first points I made. It is my/your/everyones business so long as it affects me/you/everyone - which it does. Care to argue that excessive and unnecessary pollution caused by you and like-minded rev-heads doesn't affect other people?

excessive and unessecary are relative, what is excessive, if my car puts out less than 10% more net emmissions, who are you to question my preference

and again, in this area my emissions dont affect much, the local plant life uses the CO2 and the few particles will wind up as dust, so no, it is not any of your business because it does not affect you one bit

Blinky wrote:
Quote: rofl, again with this one atmosphere, true, but if you removed the cities then the world wouldnt have a problem, even now smog is only a problem in large cities in lowish areas

You contadict yourself: If we were to remove cities, the populations that currently dwell in them would be forced to move to more rural areas. Areas you claim make driving everywhere a necessity. So which is it?


do i really need to spell things out to you, i cant hardly draw a picture
ok, to clarify, since you insist on misunderstanding me at every turn

if someone was able to seriously cut or remove the emmissions of the cities, remove, not shift, then the minor emmissions released by those in rural areas would not matter

i might be able to draw a picture if i still was not clear



Blinky wrote:
Quote: if you burned one tire in antarctica it would change nothing, if you burned the worlds tires it would matter, it is about concentration, tiny local contributions wind up feeding (Co2, we got lots of plant life here you understand) local plants or as small amounts of dust (on the ground)

There is no plant life in Antarctica. So the smog would feed what exactly? Penguins?
Co2 is not the only emmission produced by cars either.


this one wasnt too hard to misunderstand, i really should have seperated the 2 more effectively, i went from tires in antartica to cars in rural areas, so, ignore the tire reference for now, the emissions from my car are naturally filtered through local vegitation, how local, try less than 2 feet from the road, i can get you a picture of the roads i drive if you like



Blinky wrote:
Quote: my car is carbureted, i would love injection but retrofitting modern systems is tough, and they suck, and purpose built stuff that i would like is expensive

Its one extreme or the other with you.
Your choice is not either a 5.7 liter carbureted fuel-guzzler or a brand spankin new hybrid. Why wouldn't you get a 1.6 liter fuel injected car? Say a mid 90s toyota?
Because its not what you want.


i like injection, i really do, but putting it on my car would be tough and expensive, why not buy a 90s vehicle?
because i wouldnt be saving much on buyin, base cost of my current car was less than $2k, which is hard to beat, and i still save a great deal on repairs, if my car breaks down i can usually fix it, usually in a short time right where it breaks down, i spelled this out for you before
many newer vehicle breakdowns actually cost more than the car is even worth, and are nearly impossible to work on, another method the car companies devised to get our money


Blinky wrote:
Quote: really?
i drive over 200 miles a week, mostly on highways, have you tried passing at high speeds on 2 lane roads, high end power is definitly a neccesity and i have designed my car around this need, most hot rods have low gears because they want take off, but i want a highway vehicle

If you want to pass someone, I assume your reason is that your top speed exceeds theirs?. If you have another lane in which to overtake, how does excessive high end power matter?

actually the reason is that they are stupid/old/slow, my top speed exceeds the majority of cars on the road, but i do not drive my top speed because i would be locked away, the police frown when you drive double the legal limit
and perhaps you misunderstood when i said 2 lane road
this is a 2 lane road

notice it has 2 lanes exactly, one lane goes in one direction, lets say north, and the other goes the other direction, south.

so if i am northbound behind a slow person, and i decide to pass, i have to move into the lane which is normally used by people heading south, so being able to quickly accelarate beyond 65mph is an important thing to successfully complete the operation. failure means braking and falling back in behind the slow person, or a high speed head on accident, depending on how well you judged distance

so while technically i have another lane to overtake, i need to use it quickly

Blinky wrote:
Quote: when you talk about collective good and need vs greed
it closely mirrors communist and socialist ideas, so whether or not you think it is, it is

Did you just finish high school or something?
Again, facets of your life are controlled by your government for the collective good. Eg: drug laws, public nudity laws, speed limits, social security, child-protection laws. The list is endless, yet something as important (read: vital) as environmental preservation remains a low priority in your eyes. Why?

because it is not tangible nor obvious, it also is not proven
i am a senior in college, nice ad hom
drug laws, speed limits, social security.............. these are not about need vrs greed, nor even collectiive good, collective security maybe, but not good



Blinky wrote:
Quote: actually i can drive a tank, if i buy one, i can drive it, on my personal property i can, and if i tag and insure it i can drive it on public roads, i dont think pot should be illegal, though i dont want to use it, i bet it will be legal in another 10 years
i can be naked on my own private property, what is lewd and lavacious cannot be broadcast on public channels, so no, public nudity isnt and should be allowed, though, an interesting fact, in many cities, im pretty sure new york is one, women can go topless anywhere men can

So basically, you don't refute that aspects of your life are controlled and thus the idea of personal choice is an illusion? Good.

everyone has constraints, the biggest question for a democratic people is how far the contraints should go, personal choice is only an illusion if you live in a micromanagement government, everyday i choose to go to work, to sleep, nothing forces me to do this




Blinky wrote:
Quote: you want legislation aimed at your idea of saving the planet, and your ideas are warped and extreme,

To encourage, via financial incentives, more conservative use of resources is neither extreme, nor unrealistic. I don't know about you but in Australia there are penalties in place for littering, and environmental vandalism. You need council permission to remove trees from your own property in Sydney.

we have littering and dumping laws, i dont have a problem with them so long as they are used properly

cities have always had stricter rules, which is why i dont have a problem with cities introducing environmental laws, that is there perogative, but the federal government in the united states is limited by the constitution, and many of your other ideas are unconstitutional


how is this for incentives, tax credits for buying efficient vehicles, or maybe bus services for places where it makes sense (of course we have those already) incentives, not punishments are the key

Blinky wrote:
Quote: like most long term internet debaters i sometimes get to know a debate too well, and attempt to head off possible arguments

Perhaps you should re-think this tactic in light of it having just been a waste of everyone's time?

shrug, its not a choice, if you are in the game long enough it will happen to you, and i have noticed it actually has already, you have tried to move a step ahead of my arguments many times, as well as misunderstanding what i was actually saying because of assumptions based on past experiences and arguments


Blinky wrote:
Quote: gues what? all resources are limited, and all people have unlimited wants, so still we are back to economics

Really? The sun is limited? There is a finite amount of wind?
And actually, not all people have unlimited wants. Again, you can't apply your preferences as universal truths.

Quote: yes the sun is limited, stars die on a regular basis ,

Good god! You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel with this. If our sun dies, (in many millions of years from now), the last of anyone's worries will be the price of crude oil. So your motto is: "The sun could die any day now, so we might as well consume like crazy because it could all end, just like that!"
[/quote]

have any proof of when the sun is going to burn out?
actually most people prolly would worry more about oil prices, since that oil would be about the only resource left that could give a few years more of life to individuals

fortuanatly we already have a natural constraint to such consumption, the production rate of wells

regardless, it is not as much consuption as growth, noone can doubt that inexpensive energy sources have led to the growth the modern world has seen


Blinky wrote:
Quote: "though how is it dangerous beyond the farce of global warming"

20 seconds, it took me 20 seconds to find, copy and paste the original question, i timed myself and say this to show how obvious your dodge was, the question was there, you are just unwilling to answer it

to elaborate, you claim it is dangerous to "consume" at the rate we are, yet you offer nothing to prove this than the "it just is" explanation, i submitto you that we are not just consuming, we are growing, in ways other than numerically, technologically we have taken huge steps in the past 50 years, if you told someone 50 or more years ago that telephones would fit in their pocket and need no wires, that infact one of the bigger size constraints on phones would be space to put the buttons and screen
that the phonograph would evolve into a device smaller than 4 ciggaretes, yet run longer on less energy and hold many times the music

live in the dark ages if you must, but dont try to drag the world down with you until you have good proof, rather than conjectures drawn from ideas dreamed up before science could be designed to back it

I answered this already, with a rhetorical question.
(How is it dangerous to consume finite resources at a fast rate? Think about it for a second. No, make it half a second - the answer should be glaringly obvious. You were on the right track when you said : "...how people satisfy unlimited wants with limited resources")
and thats not an answer
you more or less said, it is bad, because it is

thats not an answer, it is avoidance

[mathurin]

btw, i a leaving for kazakhstan on june 5th (about 16 hours from now) so i wont be able to reply to anything until june 25th

[Spider]

ieatfood wrote: look, not everyone likes to ride bikes
stop trying to force everyone else to live the life you want them to live

this is a free country
if people want to ride bikes, they should ride bikes
if people want to drive hybrids, they should drive hybrids
if people want to drive hummers, they should drive hummers

worry about yourself
other peoples living habits are none of your business

well put