An Experiment - And the Results
Posted by deleted 8 years, 1 month ago to Philosophy
Perhaps the questions I asked today were a bit odd or out of place. Let me explain.
The argument about purchasing from reputable sources titled "Low Oil Profits are Bad..." was also posted on Facebook. Did you know that here my view was seen as a left-wing climate alarmist nonsense while on Facebook it was seen as a right-wing corporatist propaganda?
I also suggested we use carbon-scarce fuels on Facebook and got an affirmative response. Here it was a side note: "Ingenuity will prevail" was taken almost on faith.
So, I don't actually happen to care about climate change. But I can tell you that if we elect a Democrat, we won't see ourselves off the hook from being sued by developing nations.
I know if I were to purchase pot, it would either be medical grown in California or shipped across the border by someone under threat of physical force. That is regrettable, but the federal government could easily end it by letting me smoke it legally.
At the same time, it is interesting to see what kinds of responses one can expect to receive on various media outlets.
What I commend the Gulch for is at least what I would call "rational coaching", whereas on Facebook, most people were glad to state their opinion to the contrary and move on. After all, time is in short supply and we want to make the most of it by spending it on things that support our views.
In the case of the Gulch, there is ideological argument and factual argument. Let's continue to support each other in a factual ideology.
I have attached the Lexicon's take on the environmental movement to finish off any doubts.
The ironic part of the experiment was this: I kept telling you all that you shouldn't buy from disreputable people and you reacted by telling me that I was a communist, a climate alarmist, non-objective, and had poorly formed arguments. No one would buy my idea about buying from ethically reputable sources. Ironically, neither would I.
The argument about purchasing from reputable sources titled "Low Oil Profits are Bad..." was also posted on Facebook. Did you know that here my view was seen as a left-wing climate alarmist nonsense while on Facebook it was seen as a right-wing corporatist propaganda?
I also suggested we use carbon-scarce fuels on Facebook and got an affirmative response. Here it was a side note: "Ingenuity will prevail" was taken almost on faith.
So, I don't actually happen to care about climate change. But I can tell you that if we elect a Democrat, we won't see ourselves off the hook from being sued by developing nations.
I know if I were to purchase pot, it would either be medical grown in California or shipped across the border by someone under threat of physical force. That is regrettable, but the federal government could easily end it by letting me smoke it legally.
At the same time, it is interesting to see what kinds of responses one can expect to receive on various media outlets.
What I commend the Gulch for is at least what I would call "rational coaching", whereas on Facebook, most people were glad to state their opinion to the contrary and move on. After all, time is in short supply and we want to make the most of it by spending it on things that support our views.
In the case of the Gulch, there is ideological argument and factual argument. Let's continue to support each other in a factual ideology.
I have attached the Lexicon's take on the environmental movement to finish off any doubts.
The ironic part of the experiment was this: I kept telling you all that you shouldn't buy from disreputable people and you reacted by telling me that I was a communist, a climate alarmist, non-objective, and had poorly formed arguments. No one would buy my idea about buying from ethically reputable sources. Ironically, neither would I.
'We' do not get sued, 'we' allow the do-gooder class to impose fines on ourselves for producing plant food to feed the hungry, and power to help lift the poor out of poverty.
'you shouldn't buy from disreputable people '
I disagree, whenever that sort of admonition is made I recognize logical and ethical contradictions. Some sectarian religious or (nowadays) collectivist case is being propounded.
I am told not to buy from companies who also make armaments, coal and nuclear power stations, tobacco, use components made in Israel (by Arab workers), and many other issues popular at the time. Every one of the supposed ethical claims can be refuted. All are 'virtue signalling' - statements made by ignoramuses to show how holy they are.
On "disreputable people". Look, it's a joke. You could have just said, "I'm not buying it" and gone about your business.
I smoke cigarettes and eat Israeli feta from Trader Joe's. I could care less who curdles the cheese as long as it's good.
In general I regard instructions about who I should, and who I should not, buy and sell to as high minded busybody power games.
Exception- when I read on a web-site about some appliance and someone says -do not buy model XX from company YY because .., then it is ok. This is sharing experience, advice, not the giving of instructions.
As to consumer choices, decisions made rationally or otherwise the consumer should be king, if this is not the case consider who it will be - the usual busybody elected green power seekers acting for the cronies who could not sell their product otherwise.
Being sued, correct. Not much chance of that event as mentioned. India has a power shortage and has thrown out Greenpeace due to their interfering with the planning for power stations. India has a big construction program for power stations and most of it is for coal power.