02-24-2003, 09:53 PM
Hi,
Why are people ridiculed, when they protest against a war?
Hmm, did you read what led up to my comment? Let me review it for you:
Occhi: Why don't these folks argue 'points against' that have a bit more value to them? Are they afraid to think? There are opposing arguments with greater merit, even if I personally disagree with some of them.
Me: Not all of them. Most are too stupid or ignorant to think.
You see? It is *not* people who protest a war, it is people who protest *anything* that they have no clue about. The loud and ignorant. Or, as Al Capp used to call them in Li'l Abner: SWINE. Those that have an opinion based on some facts and logic are *not* included in those comments. In fact they are explicitly excluded by Occhi's last sentence.
OK, that's your answer to your paragraph 1 and 2 straw man. However, one more comment: you make it sound like being against war is good. You glorify the peace protesters with "they cared about the wellfare of other humans." If a tyrant and a madman were to take advantage of their protests, of their opinions, at whose feet do we put 60 million dead? Before spouting your nonsense, read the history of the intra war period. Of how the people who wanted peace at any price gave us WW II. But when the fighting started I wonder how many of those people discovered that they were conscientious objectors and let others do their fighting. When their ideas were shown to be bankrupt, how many admitted their error and paid the price for correcting it? War is bad, it should never be engaged in unless the alternatives are worse. If you have *valid* arguments as to why Saddam should be permitted to continue developing the capability to, at the least, blackmail the world, then please give them. Especially since he is doing so in defiance of agreements he entered into.
And why is it, that the pollution of coal power plants makes nuclear power plants safer? How does being against nuclear power make you in favor of pollution? Don't we have other energy sources to explore? Is cutting down on our energy use (waste, rather) out of the question?
Gee, you didn't understand a word of it, did you? The pollution of coal plants makes nuclear plants *cleaner* not safer. Since the nuclear plants produce less pollutants (including radioactive pollutants) and less wasted heat, they are better for the environment, but that has nothing to do with safety. The fact that there have been a lot more deaths related to coal power than to nuclear power is what makes the nuclear plants safer. You see, they are "safer" because less people get killed per megawatt produced. You know, the same standard that makes airplane travel safer than driving?
No, we don't have any other sources of energy to explore. All the alternative forms are limited. Solar by area (or cost if you want to talk about beamed solar). Wind and water by where the plants could be located to generate any energy at all. Ditto geothermal. We've just about run out of dam sites for hydro. Fusion is still twenty years off, just like it has been for the last 50. Biomass is a joke. All this is well documented but ignored by the anti-nuke people.
Cutting down our use? Three answers: first, we have been cutting down our use. It is helping but it is not enough. Second, as population increases and more people move to cities, the *need* for energy to pump water, sewage, heat or cool, bring in food and keep it edible, move people around, etc. goes up. Third, the world population is increasing, and much of that increase is in developing countries. They are using less per capita energy presently than the industrial nations. But, guess what, they want air conditioners and fresh food and clean heat, too. They don't have any usage to cut down, they are going to use more. So, sure conservation is a good idea. But it is *not* a solution. At best, it reduces the rate at which new generating capacity is needed. But, whatever the rate, more capacity is going to be needed for more people all of whom want to live better lives.
Catching your opponent on a badly chosen statement might win you a discussion, but does it help to solve the conflict?
If all the opponent has are "badly chosen statements" (or, as I prefer to call them, "BS") then the only reason there is a conflict is because of that opponents stupidity (inability to learn the truth) or ignorance (failure to know it). The solution to that conflict does not lie in my power, it lies with my opponent's educating himself and then either countering with valid opinions or admitting his error.
Like everything else in the modern world, this war is about money.
One of the things you learn in logic is that from a false premise, any conclusion can be draw. Since this premise is false, and only accepted by unthinking fools or those that have been brainwashed, then everything following it is not worth considering. But I ask you to consider the number of people who devote their lives to science and I ask you to name me all the millionaire scientists. Or why all the teachers are so rich they retire at twenty five? Or all those greatly overpaid doctors and nurses working in those emergency rooms, especially those in countries that have socialized medicine? And don't forget the mercenaries, especially all those American mercenaries in the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines who do their job for such vast sums of money that they can almost afford to give their families all the necessities they need.
Yes, indeed. I'll gladly listen to an argument whose basic premise is "Like everything else in the modern world, this war is about money." And I'll have a high opinion of the intelligence and logical ability of him that proposes it.
BTW, most of what you say in the following paragraphs is pure crap. But you've already shown that you don't care about reality with your shot at nuclear power, so I'll save myself the effort of answering.
--Pete
Why are people ridiculed, when they protest against a war?
Hmm, did you read what led up to my comment? Let me review it for you:
Occhi: Why don't these folks argue 'points against' that have a bit more value to them? Are they afraid to think? There are opposing arguments with greater merit, even if I personally disagree with some of them.
Me: Not all of them. Most are too stupid or ignorant to think.
You see? It is *not* people who protest a war, it is people who protest *anything* that they have no clue about. The loud and ignorant. Or, as Al Capp used to call them in Li'l Abner: SWINE. Those that have an opinion based on some facts and logic are *not* included in those comments. In fact they are explicitly excluded by Occhi's last sentence.
OK, that's your answer to your paragraph 1 and 2 straw man. However, one more comment: you make it sound like being against war is good. You glorify the peace protesters with "they cared about the wellfare of other humans." If a tyrant and a madman were to take advantage of their protests, of their opinions, at whose feet do we put 60 million dead? Before spouting your nonsense, read the history of the intra war period. Of how the people who wanted peace at any price gave us WW II. But when the fighting started I wonder how many of those people discovered that they were conscientious objectors and let others do their fighting. When their ideas were shown to be bankrupt, how many admitted their error and paid the price for correcting it? War is bad, it should never be engaged in unless the alternatives are worse. If you have *valid* arguments as to why Saddam should be permitted to continue developing the capability to, at the least, blackmail the world, then please give them. Especially since he is doing so in defiance of agreements he entered into.
And why is it, that the pollution of coal power plants makes nuclear power plants safer? How does being against nuclear power make you in favor of pollution? Don't we have other energy sources to explore? Is cutting down on our energy use (waste, rather) out of the question?
Gee, you didn't understand a word of it, did you? The pollution of coal plants makes nuclear plants *cleaner* not safer. Since the nuclear plants produce less pollutants (including radioactive pollutants) and less wasted heat, they are better for the environment, but that has nothing to do with safety. The fact that there have been a lot more deaths related to coal power than to nuclear power is what makes the nuclear plants safer. You see, they are "safer" because less people get killed per megawatt produced. You know, the same standard that makes airplane travel safer than driving?
No, we don't have any other sources of energy to explore. All the alternative forms are limited. Solar by area (or cost if you want to talk about beamed solar). Wind and water by where the plants could be located to generate any energy at all. Ditto geothermal. We've just about run out of dam sites for hydro. Fusion is still twenty years off, just like it has been for the last 50. Biomass is a joke. All this is well documented but ignored by the anti-nuke people.
Cutting down our use? Three answers: first, we have been cutting down our use. It is helping but it is not enough. Second, as population increases and more people move to cities, the *need* for energy to pump water, sewage, heat or cool, bring in food and keep it edible, move people around, etc. goes up. Third, the world population is increasing, and much of that increase is in developing countries. They are using less per capita energy presently than the industrial nations. But, guess what, they want air conditioners and fresh food and clean heat, too. They don't have any usage to cut down, they are going to use more. So, sure conservation is a good idea. But it is *not* a solution. At best, it reduces the rate at which new generating capacity is needed. But, whatever the rate, more capacity is going to be needed for more people all of whom want to live better lives.
Catching your opponent on a badly chosen statement might win you a discussion, but does it help to solve the conflict?
If all the opponent has are "badly chosen statements" (or, as I prefer to call them, "BS") then the only reason there is a conflict is because of that opponents stupidity (inability to learn the truth) or ignorance (failure to know it). The solution to that conflict does not lie in my power, it lies with my opponent's educating himself and then either countering with valid opinions or admitting his error.
Like everything else in the modern world, this war is about money.
One of the things you learn in logic is that from a false premise, any conclusion can be draw. Since this premise is false, and only accepted by unthinking fools or those that have been brainwashed, then everything following it is not worth considering. But I ask you to consider the number of people who devote their lives to science and I ask you to name me all the millionaire scientists. Or why all the teachers are so rich they retire at twenty five? Or all those greatly overpaid doctors and nurses working in those emergency rooms, especially those in countries that have socialized medicine? And don't forget the mercenaries, especially all those American mercenaries in the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines who do their job for such vast sums of money that they can almost afford to give their families all the necessities they need.
Yes, indeed. I'll gladly listen to an argument whose basic premise is "Like everything else in the modern world, this war is about money." And I'll have a high opinion of the intelligence and logical ability of him that proposes it.
BTW, most of what you say in the following paragraphs is pure crap. But you've already shown that you don't care about reality with your shot at nuclear power, so I'll save myself the effort of answering.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?