UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-01-2012, 08:10 PM   #26
Amras.MG
Not sure if gone...
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Or just lurking.
Posts: 2,709
Don't be an asshole.

Also, don't straw-man Shuckle's argument, unownmew.

You know perfectly well that oil and nuclear power plants can't run all the time and require maintenance as well.
Amras.MG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 08:32 PM   #27
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amras.MG View Post
Also, don't straw-man Shuckle's argument, unownmew.


You know perfectly well that oil and nuclear power plants can't run all the time and require maintenance as well.
What straw man?

You're right, oil and nuclear power plants do require maintenance to keep in peek performance. Solar Cells are much much more delicate then Coal and Nuclear power plants though. How many power plants do you know that lose efficiency from just a couple bird droppings and fallen leaves? (or blown sand, if you're setting up a desert array)

Obviously they don't run all the time, but the sheer amount of time a Solar Cell and a Windmill can't run is drastically longer then regular power plants, unless they are perfectly positioned. As far as I'm aware, though I could be wrong on this small detail, normal Power plants shut down only during maintenance. Solar shuts off every night (thus requiring to draw from a battery), and Windmills won't generate at all if the wind isn't blowing fast enough to turn the turbine.

Last edited by unownmew; 03-01-2012 at 08:43 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 08:34 PM   #28
Amras.MG
Not sure if gone...
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Or just lurking.
Posts: 2,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
What straw man?

You're right, oil and nuclear power plants do require maintenance to keep in peek performance. Solar Cells are much much more delicate then Coal and Nuclear power plants though. How many power plants do you know that lose efficiency from just a couple bird droppings and fallen leaves? (or blown sand, if you're setting up a desert array)

Obviously they don't run all the time, but the sheer amount of time a Solar Cell and a Windmill can't run is drastically longer then regular power plants, unless they are perfectly positioned. As far as I'm aware, though I could be wrong on this small detail, normal Power plants shut down only during maintenance. Solar shuts off every night (thus requiring to draw from a battery), and Windmills won't generate at all if the wind isn't blowing fast enough to turn the turbine.
Nuclear maintenance is 9 months of the year.

Also, by straw man I mean straw man fallacy. Setting up a weakened form of your opponent's argument in order to defeat it easily.

For example: Saying that all creationists believe the Earth is 6,500 years old and then pointing to clear fossil evidence indicating the world is older than that and then saying "aha creationism is false" is a straw man argument.
Amras.MG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 08:41 PM   #29
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Yeah, I know what Straw man is, I was wondering what straw man argument I used, as I didn't make one purposefully, and don't recognize one being in my post.

If you guys are really looking for an efficient Alternative energy, you really should be looking at developing technology to utilize Solar THERMAL energy, instead of solar electric. Solar thermal can boil water to turn turbines at power plants, and at individual's homes for off-grid electrical generation, it can cook food, heat houses (even in winter), and be used in manufacturing if appropriate technology is developed and distributed. It's also cheap, and would be easy to harness with basic constructs.
Solar energy straight to electric is a waste of heat energy.


Anyway, my point is, the Alternative energy is not cost effective:
  • It costs more energy in Fossil Fuels to produce the materials and constructs needed to harness these alternative energy sources, then they'll ever produce in their own lifetimes.
  • Using these technologies is too costly for the general homeowner to install and maintain.
  • Using these technologies results in energy loss from conversion (Solar > Electric, Mechanical > Electric) which loss is much more then there would be if Fossil Fuels were used instead.
  • The cost of using these alternative technologies is much greater then the cost of using fossil fuels. This makes them uncompetitive, and artificially inflating the cost of Fossil Fuels (such as through the use of mandates, taxes and regulations), to set them up to be as expensive or more, than the alternative technologies, is terribly dishonest and will only hurt Citizens' finances in the long run.

If we were to transfer over to alternative energies, I'd want to go a direct route like humans used in the past:
Wind Mechanical energy for mechanical work (Crushing, Grinding, Sawing, milling, etc.)
and Solar Thermal energy for heating work (cooking, melting, heating, etc.)
And Solar Thermal to replace fossil fuel burning in stationary places (power plants) to generate electrical power.

Oh, and external combustion engines for Cars.

Last edited by unownmew; 03-01-2012 at 09:13 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 09:20 PM   #30
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 10:04 PM   #31
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Emina Isle
Posts: 14,198
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
Most alternative energy is cost effective. It's just not as cost effective as petrol, and since corporations strive to maximize their gains, it's not to their interest to switch to alternative when petrol is still a viable option. Either reserves have to deplete, or laws have to be enacted to make petrol no longer viable.

If you want solar, space-based solar is the way to go.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 10:36 PM   #32
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
Did you seriously just recommend using a Windmill to generate Electricity, to turn into heat energy, to boil water to make steam to turn a turbine and rotate a magnet, which is generally then used to generate electricity? Seriously?!


If you know anything about energy, you should know that the act of transforming one form of energy into another form, creates a loss of total energy available for work in that new form. Efficiency is how much energy you retain during the transformation, and Windmills and Solar Cells don't do it as well as burning oil, coal, and gas.
Yes, I know transforming energy results in energy loss. I'm not an idiot. But you forgot a detail.

Crude oil is not directly burned in power plants. In oil refineries, the oil is taken and separated into more efficient parts using ages-old techniques. This gasoline (going conversion rate is about 15 gallons of gas, which is around 21% of a barrel) is then burned in cars to produce movement, etc. etc.

Your precious oil (and even coal doesn't go directly from the mines to the lines) are basically going from:

Chemical energy - chemical energy - thermal energy - mechanical energy - electrical energy

instead of the hated and feared

mechanical energy - electrical energy - thermal energy - mechanical energy - electrical energy

We could even simplify it and make the windmill rotate the turbine directly, reducing fire hazard risks and placing the conversions at

mechanical energy - electrical energy

Not to be offend, but your argument is invalid, and the majority of the Debate forum agrees at this point. Alternative energy is better than fossil fuels, can't you see? Or are you too entrenched in your Tea Party mantra of Obama is the Antichrist to understand that it's more than politics?

Quote:
Windmills don't turn unless the wind is blowing hard enough, which is rare and unpredictable in most geographical locations, thus limiting their use to certain locations where the wind can be relied upon to blow fast enough, consistently. You can't just plop a windmill down in a random location and expect any sort of useful or consistent energy return.
"Most geographical locations" do have wind. Like, oh, everywhere in the Midwest and East coast. It's a rare day when you don't at least have a light breeze - and technological investment will surely find a way to allow windmills to operate even in the lightest of breezes and weather even the worst of storms, or at the very least make it efficient enough that we don't have to worry on windless days. To tell you the truth, this is the option I like the most.

The thing you have to remember is this; if we as a society paid as much attention to alternative energy as we do fossil fuels, oil dependence will disappear literally overnight. Look what we've done! We've made a super-dirty energy source that is literally dirt not so dirty anymore! Imagine what we could do with energy that was never dirty in the first place!

Quote:
Solar Cells need to be clean, and in an open space in order to work at peek performance. Regular maintenance is required to keep those conditions, or you'll start to loose efficiency, this costs extra money. They also need a lot of sun, so a Solar Cell would be practically useless in places like Washington State, where it's rainy and cloudy 80% of the year.
Oh my God, you're saying that a regular cleaning is more work than importing tons of nonrenewable energy sources at massive costs per year and also a regular cleaning from the pollution that such a source provides?

Surely I am the dumbest of men for thinking that solar was superior.

As for sunlight being a rare commodity in places, I don't disagree. Solar electricity was always a little dubious to me to be honest; while it's nice to imagine a world where you can just charge your cell phone in a nice patch of sunlight, it's a little impractical to assume it's a good solution to everything. What if it's cloudy? What if it rains? Still, in places like California, Arizona, or Mexico, it could work wonders. Remember the whole thing about running a large country - one size does not fit all?
__________________
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 10:51 PM   #33
Ethereal
Creepy Hand Person
 
Ethereal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,988
Send a message via AIM to Ethereal Send a message via MSN to Ethereal Send a message via Skype™ to Ethereal
The whole "sunlight sparse in many areas" argument is BS because there's infinitely more places in which sunlight could be collected compared to where oil can be drilled.
__________________
Ethereal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 10:52 PM   #34
Char
Banned
 
Char's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Patches made this cool Charmander pumpkin
Posts: 1,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by deoxys View Post
I can't believe I came here again. I must be a masochist or something.
__________________
Char is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 11:04 PM   #35
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
The whole "sunlight sparse in many areas" argument is BS because there's infinitely more places in which sunlight could be collected compared to where oil can be drilled.
Well, it seems you're right. My apologies for not addressing this point :P
__________________
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2012, 01:41 PM   #36
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
*sigh* Oh the naivety... If you would take a couple hours or so to actually educate yourself on these alternative energies instead of lapping up the soundbites Democrats and company advertisements feed you, you'd be a lot better off.


Sorry, but if anyone is going to destroy the nation through its bullshit, its Republicans.
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2012, 01:49 PM   #37
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuckle View Post
Yes, I know transforming energy results in energy loss. I'm not an idiot. But you forgot a detail.

Crude oil is not directly burned in power plants. In oil refineries, the oil is taken and separated into more efficient parts using ages-old techniques. This gasoline (going conversion rate is about 15 gallons of gas, which is around 21% of a barrel) is then burned in cars to produce movement, etc. etc.
Aye, and even with all that work, oil is cheaper then the "free energy" solutions you've mentioned.

Quote:
Your precious oil (and even coal doesn't go directly from the mines to the lines) are basically going from:

Chemical energy - chemical energy - thermal energy - mechanical energy - electrical energy

instead of the hated and feared

mechanical energy - electrical energy - thermal energy - mechanical energy - electrical energy
I knew oil was refined to be used as gasoline, but wasn't quite aware of refining coal, thanks for that. But going from Chemical to chemical isn't a conversion, and even then, Fossil Fuels are more energy dense then equal weight of Solar or Wind technologies.

I wasn't saying your method was hated though, I was saying it was unnecessarily complex, with unnecessary conversions. As you yourself simplified below:
Quote:
We could even simplify it and make the windmill rotate the turbine directly, reducing fire hazard risks and placing the conversions at

mechanical energy - electrical energy
That's what a windmill does.

Quote:
Not to be offend, but your argument is invalid, and the majority of the Debate forum agrees at this point. Alternative energy is better than fossil fuels, can't you see? Or are you too entrenched in your Tea Party mantra of Obama is the Antichrist to understand that it's more than politics?
Majority vote does not a truth make.
And I can't see any way you were not intending to offend by stating untruths like, "Tea Party mantra of Obama is the Antichrist."

Alternative energy is good, but it's not good enough yet. And until such time as it becomes as cheap as oil used to be for the end user, and cars given an alternative energy source that is just as effective and lasting as Gasoline, I'll continue to advocate using Fossil fuels over your alternate energy.
Furthermore, I will never support government subsidies for any industry, particularly alternative energy, and continue to rail against oppressive business regulations being placed upon any industry, including the oil industry.

Quote:
"Most geographical locations" do have wind. Like, oh, everywhere in the Midwest and East coast. It's a rare day when you don't at least have a light breeze - and technological investment will surely find a way to allow windmills to operate even in the lightest of breezes and weather even the worst of storms, or at the very least make it efficient enough that we don't have to worry on windless days. To tell you the truth, this is the option I like the most.
The problem, is windmills don't generate energy except under very fast breezes. I'm all for developing the technology to change this, but don't use my tax dollars to subsidize it, or let the government pick and choose which companies to support and not, let the private market determine if it's profitable and worth the investment.

Quote:
The thing you have to remember is this; if we as a society paid as much attention to alternative energy as we do fossil fuels, oil dependence will disappear literally overnight. Look what we've done! We've made a super-dirty energy source that is literally dirt not so dirty anymore! Imagine what we could do with energy that was never dirty in the first place!
I highly doubt that it would be overnight. No doubt we could improve it greatly, but let us use Fossil fuels until it's advanced enough to compete with them. On the second hand, the particular Alternative energy technologies being focused on, are the wrong ones to focus on:
Cold Fusion and Solar Thermal should be pressed twice as hard as Solar electric and Wind energy are.

Quote:
Oh my God, you're saying that a regular cleaning is more work than importing tons of nonrenewable energy sources at massive costs per year and also a regular cleaning from the pollution that such a source provides?
No, I'm saying it's much more costly to the end user then importing tons of oil on the part of the oil companies (and if we used our own oil, oil would be twice as cheap as now probably), and it doesn't work to power motor vehicles for any amount of range.

Quote:
As for sunlight being a rare commodity in places, I don't disagree. Solar electricity was always a little dubious to me to be honest; while it's nice to imagine a world where you can just charge your cell phone in a nice patch of sunlight, it's a little impractical to assume it's a good solution to everything. What if it's cloudy? What if it rains? Still, in places like California, Arizona, or Mexico, it could work wonders. Remember the whole thing about running a large country - one size does not fit all?
Exactly! No doubt a solar electric farm in a super sunny place could be useful, but the technology is still inferior to oil at this moment in time, and won't be useful for some unique applications.
Develop the technology, by all means! Just don't use my taxes to subsidize it, and don't force me to pay high prices at the Gas pump, or use an electric car if I don't want to.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2012, 04:08 PM   #38
Amras.MG
Not sure if gone...
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Or just lurking.
Posts: 2,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
Furthermore, I will never support government subsidies for any industry, particularly alternative energy, and continue to rail against oppressive business regulations being placed upon any industry, including the oil industry.
What about oppressive business regulations placed on the following industries, which fall under your category of "any industry":

- Contraception and abortion
- Drugs, both medical and hazardous
- Toxic waste and dangerous foodstuffs
- Weapons and paid violence
- Prostitution and porn
- Lobbying
- Anti-religious material
- Communism, socialism, and fascism material
- Child labor
Amras.MG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2012, 09:19 PM   #39
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amras.MG View Post
What about oppressive business regulations placed on the following industries, which fall under your category of "any industry":

- Contraception and abortion
What regulations are placed on those? I just don't want government funding them for people.

Quote:
- Drugs, both medical and hazardous
ensuring their safety in use, and liability for any unsafe material sold is all the regulation that's needed.

Quote:
- Toxic waste and dangerous foodstuffs
Restrictions on where it can be disposed of, and legal liability for injury.

Quote:
- Weapons and paid violence
Weapon ownership: uninfringed entirely.
Weapon Use: use only in safe areas (described but not pre-created) or in self-defense and liability for injuries incurred outside of self defense and dueling.
Violence: punishable determined by severity.
Mercenary: punished as aiding and abetting violence

Quote:
- Prostitution and porn
Prostitution: outlawed
Porn: restricted for only adult viewing.

Quote:
- Lobbying
I'd love to have it outlawed, but that would just prevent lawkeepers from accessing the benefits of it. I do not consider myself knowledgeable enough on the topic to proscribe regulations.

Quote:
- Anti-religious material
Slander, Libel, bigotry, and falsehoods illegal. All other materials legal.
Quote:
- Communism, socialism, and fascism material
Available for educational purposes, and watched for Anti-government/terrorist sentiment. Anything advocating, or supporting such, destroyed and punishable.

Quote:
- Child labor
Regulated for accommodations needed and generally safe environments, otherwise, unregulated. And deregulate regular labor, and have heavy sanctions on illegal labor.

Along with other deregulations needed, and a return to the gold standard, also eliminate the minimum wage.

Last edited by unownmew; 03-02-2012 at 09:22 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2012, 08:07 AM   #40
Amras.MG
Not sure if gone...
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Or just lurking.
Posts: 2,709
I don't think you get the point of me saying that.

You support no regulations on business... except in the cases I listed, for the most part. You can't have it both ways.
Amras.MG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2012, 12:07 PM   #41
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amras.MG View Post
I don't think you get the point of me saying that.

You support no regulations on business... except in the cases I listed, for the most part. You can't have it both ways.
Why can't I?

Obviously social order must be maintained, and morality, general safety, and cleanliness promoted, but beyond that, why do any businesses need to be regulated further?
All regulation is a cost to the business and a cut into profits, some less then others, but some basic regulation, required of all companies and others tailored to specific industries, is needed to ensure operational society. Anything beyond that however, just burdens companies, cuts into their profits, and reduces productivity and wealth generation. As well, starts to single out certain people who can not afford to comply with the regulations, preventing them from being free to enrich themselves, which people are usually the ones that are in need of the enriching (poor/working class).

When a company needs to hire a specialist lawyer just to understand the thousands of pages of regulations on their industry, it should be plain to see, something is clearly very wrong.

Last edited by unownmew; 03-03-2012 at 12:11 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2012, 12:14 PM   #42
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
Why can't I?

Obviously social order must be maintained, and morality, general safety, and cleanliness promoted, but beyond that, why do any businesses need to be regulated further?
All regulation is a cost to the business and a cut into profits, some less then others, but some basic regulation is needed to ensure operational society. Anything beyond that however, just burdens companies, cuts into their profits, and reduces productivity and wealth generation. As well, starts to single out certain people who can not afford to comply with the regulations, preventing them from being free to enrich themselves, which people are usually the ones that are in need of the enriching (poor/working class).
You're wishy-washy! TRAITOR TO THE CAUSE! You want social order, safety, morality, and cleanliness? YOU CANNOT FORCE US TO BE CLEAN! Making business be clean cuts into their profits by forcing them to hire janitors!

The only good way is the way before that stupid photographer went into the meatpacking plants. He was all, "oh, no, you can't have rats in the meat" and we were like "We'll do whatever the **** we want" and then he went to the President and that's why we're in this mess. And then he started whining about how it wasn't safe and people could fall into the pits and we were like "Well, we didn't lose that many workers" and he just EXPLODED he was so angry!

And what about this no-monopoly rule? It's True-Blue Amurrican Darwinism! If we can beat out all of the other companies, why should we let the other companies survive? Hell, we could buy other kinds of companies too so we can make more money! If they don't have money, that's they're fault for not being good enough to compete with our company.

Who needs government?
__________________
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2012, 02:30 PM   #43
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
If men were angels, there would be no need for government, but because men are not angels, they can not be trusted to rule over others. Government is a necessary evil at it's best, and an intolerable one at it's worst.

I fully support the customer's right to complain and sue for grievances from an offensive business or practice, but even more so, I support their right to do better job, by starting their own company and providing better service/products then their competitors, either to drive them out of business, or force them to step-up their own work. Regulation only gets in the way of this (such as through driving up the cost of starting the business greatly), and any that do so significantly should be stricken from the books forever.

One does not need to hire a janitor to clean-up after themselves, nor a safety inspector to know if something is generally built/used unsafely. Only for extensive cleanings, and intensive inspection should a company need any use of those services, if they do not require it of their own employees.

Anti-monopoly laws are necessary to keep businesses competitive and beholden to their customers. Without them, they will inevitably become as bad and oppressive as governments.

Last edited by unownmew; 03-03-2012 at 02:33 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2012, 06:52 PM   #44
Amras.MG
Not sure if gone...
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Or just lurking.
Posts: 2,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
Why can't I?
Because #1 you made an absolute statement that regulation was wrong. I was merely showing the contradiction in your policy.

Do you not think that there might be something immoral about using unrenewable energy sources, when there is a better, more moral and sustainable, path, the use of renewable energy sources? Do we humans not have an obligation to be stewards of the earth? Does that not include causing as little damage as possible when possible?

Also, there is government among the angels, so your saying is pretty stupid. Angels are governed by God's will, passed hierarchically down. Demons are governed by Satan.
Amras.MG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 12:34 PM   #45
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amras.MG View Post
Because #1 you made an absolute statement that regulation was wrong. I was merely showing the contradiction in your policy.
Of course there is contradiction!

Government is bad
Government Regulation is bad.

but!

government is necessary, and some government regulation also.

Thus, we need as little government as possible, and as little government regulation as possible. Only that which is absolutely necessary. In effect, there is no contradiction in my statements at all.

Quote:
Do you not think that there might be something immoral about using unrenewable energy sources, when there is a better, more moral and sustainable, path, the use of renewable energy sources? Do we humans not have an obligation to be stewards of the earth? Does that not include causing as little damage as possible when possible?
What is immoral, is the coercion of men by other men. I should have no say over how you live your life, nor you over mine. And government over neither of us.

This extends further to company and business:
If I want to rape and pillage the land for nonrenewable resources, if I own the land I am doing this pillaging on, and do not infringe on your powers, I should have that power.
If you want to be all huggy with the environment, use green energy in abundance, and live in ecohousing, as long as you own the land, and do not infringe on my powers, you also should have the power to do so.

Neither of us should have the power to disparage the other for the way we live our lives.

Now, I agree with you, Humanity has a responsibility to be good stewards over the Earth, which oftentimes we are not. And as I've said numerous time, I fully support development of alternative energy. But, Neither of us have the right or power to force the other to live in accordance to our beliefs.

Which restriction also extends to our government, which purpose is to protect my right to live as I desire, as yours, preventing either of us from infringing on the other, and providing for an orderly and moral society between us both. Neither is it's purpose to subsidize a private industry that is not profitable (Solyndra and Green Energy), nor assert it's worldviews on it's citizens (Global Warming, Evolution, etc.)

Global Warming, and Green Energy policies. Both infringe on the individual's right to live as they desire, as detailed above. Both are a coercion of men against other men.

Quote:
Also, there is government among the angels, so your saying is pretty stupid. Angels are governed by God's will, passed hierarchically down. Demons are governed by Satan.
I'm not so sure Satan can actually govern his devils.. but in a sense you're right that Angels live by God's will. But, free, Human angels, would choose to live always by His law, thereby governing themselves according to His laws, and not actually being governed by God.

Last edited by unownmew; 03-04-2012 at 12:45 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 07:54 PM   #46
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
>Government is bad

...Are you a closet anarchist?
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 08:56 PM   #47
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
This extends further to company and business:
If I want to rape and pillage the land for nonrenewable resources, if I own the land I am doing this pillaging on, and do not infringe on your powers, I should have that power.
If you want to be all huggy with the environment, use green energy in abundance, and live in ecohousing, as long as you own the land, and do not infringe on my powers, you also should have the power to do so.

Neither of us should have the power to disparage the other for the way we live our lives
In that case then, I will continue to build a missile strike force in my basement to eventually take over the entire Earth and claim it in the name of Big Government. Because it's my property, you cannot stop me until you prove that I am doing it to directly attack you because unless I tell you, it is impossible to gauge my intentions because you can't infringe on my rights and spy on me/force me to answer your questions.

While the situation is purposefully absurd, it is an accurate disproof of your statement and an appropriate analogy to what people are doing to the environment. I could state that I have a reasonable suspicion that your activities are causing an unfavorable situation in the Earth's atmosphere and I need you to stop before the seas rise.

In short, your statement is more full of holes than Custer's regiment. Try harder to make it feasible, pl0x.
__________________
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 09:57 PM   #48
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuckle View Post
In that case then, I will continue to build a missile strike force in my basement to eventually take over the entire Earth and claim it in the name of Big Government. Because it's my property, you cannot stop me until you prove that I am doing it to directly attack you because unless I tell you, it is impossible to gauge my intentions because you can't infringe on my rights and spy on me/force me to answer your questions.
You know, as I support your right to bear arms entirely uninfringed, if you want to build a couple missiles in your basement, I fully support your right to do so. However, if for any reason it becomes suspicious that you're planning to subvert the established government, you had better have a good explanation for the judge.

If it becomes overly suspicious or provable you plan to do harm in America with those weapons, I also support the government's right to disarm you as a terrorist. Maybe not actual spying, but I support the right of government to do an investigation, especially when dealing with such a potential threat as that.

Quote:
While the situation is purposefully absurd, it is an accurate disproof of your statement and an appropriate analogy to what people are doing to the environment. I could state that I have a reasonable suspicion that your activities are causing an unfavorable situation in the Earth's atmosphere and I need you to stop before the seas rise.

In short, your statement is more full of holes than Custer's regiment. Try harder to make it feasible, pl0x.
And I tell you that Global Warming is a provable hoax. But you don't listen to any I say. Also, don't straw-man my arguments.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 11:20 PM   #49
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
You know, as I support your right to bear arms entirely uninfringed, if you want to build a couple missiles in your basement, I fully support your right to do so. However, if for any reason it becomes suspicious that you're planning to subvert the established government, you had better have a good explanation for the judge.
Self-defense and patriotism. I want to claim the globe in the name of America, not Poland! Except yes, I really do want to claim it for Poland. That's a lie.

Quote:
If it becomes overly suspicious or provable you plan to do harm in America with those weapons, I also support the government's right to disarm you as a terrorist. Maybe not actual spying, but I support the right of government to do an investigation, especially when dealing with such a potential threat as that.
Is it ever really that simple? We thought that eradicating al Qaeda was going to be easy, but for every member we killed, there were fifty new recruits frustrated with the senseless violence. The hatred spread even to the highest levels of government until even the leaders hated us.

The Military Autocracy of Poland will not allow my imprisonment to go unavenged.

Quote:
And I tell you that Global Warming is a provable hoax. But you don't listen to any I say. Also, don't straw-man my arguments.
I'm not guilty of Straw-Man. Probably pedantry, because I took your statements quite literally.

Also, we've been over this. Common sense and Pascal's Wager completely overrules "Global Warming is a Hoax" because

a.) why would otherwise perfectly reputable scientists lie about something like this? It's not as if they have anything to gain from scaremongering, unlike the Tea Party.
b.) what if you're wrong and global warming really is happening? Humanity = screwed if you get your way.
c.) what kind of evidence do you have on your side? It is a proven fact that the earth has gone through warmer and cooler periods (case in point ice ages), proved by examining sedimentary layers in places like Utah. Global warming really is happening. The problem arises when you consider - is it normal, or is it being caused by humanity? With fossil fuels that produce cfc's and other greenhouse gases that eat away at the ozone layer and trap heat inside the Earth's atmosphere, I would say that the evidence swings strongly in favor of "not a hoax".

Please enlighten us as to what explanation you have for the effect of CFC's and greenhouse gases produced by the combustion of fossil fuels on the earth's atmosphere and how it is not at all linked to the rising temperatures around the globe. Why aren't the CFC's eating away at the ozone layer? What's happening to the greenhouse gases?
__________________
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2012, 10:35 AM   #50
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuckle View Post
Please enlighten us as to what explanation you have for the effect of CFC's and greenhouse gases produced by the combustion of fossil fuels on the earth's atmosphere and how it is not at all linked to the rising temperatures around the globe. Why aren't the CFC's eating away at the ozone layer? What's happening to the greenhouse gases?
Blaze here to tell you that the ozone layer has nothing to do with global warming, but, CFC's are potent greenhouse gases.

Also, it has to occur under certain atmospheric conditions because normally the reaction is extremely slow.
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:04 AM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.