The grey area laws are the most difficult to enforce, leading their advocates to call for increasingly harsher punishments... until they end up murdering their own.
Printable View
The grey area laws are the most difficult to enforce, leading their advocates to call for increasingly harsher punishments... until they end up murdering their own.
By which are you referring to (grey area laws) laws that say you are not aloud to object to who & how the country is run ???
Or am I getting lost here again mate ?
The grey area laws are those laws where the offending action is not clearly harmful to others.
Virtually everyone would agree that such things as murder, rape and robbery should be illegal.
Such things as speaking out against the powers-that-be (or for that matter not wearing a seat belt) are not as clearly wrong and many would view such laws as unjust.
Ok with you now
What about execution Gary, I think thats still active in your state ???
Whats your views there, is this justified ??? Do you think we should not ???
I dont get it & if I walk at night in the dark & tread on a snail/slug or anything else, I am not happy & feel I need to take better care where I walk, life is life to me & feel lucky to be part of the dominating creatures, and know could just as easily been born as something else & it could be me being trodden on
It would depend upon the extreme severity of the crime and how absolutely certain I am that they are guilty. After they are executed, you can't say, "Oops, wrong guy" and release them. That said, some people are clearly a waste of skin.
As to other creatures, the moral compact (I don't harm you and you don't harm me) only applies to humans.
I dont know, mate if I agree totally - for instance I watched the iraq leader hang, even though I do not agree with anything he did, I did not think it was right what happened & if I had the choice would have preferred to see him jailed for life, but then again looking at it from the other side, the people he had hurt then I think I would have been ok with it....& then when I think of the organisers behind the two towers, they should not be given mercy, So yeah the more I think about it I do agree, as long as it is certain they carried out the extremity
Thats another hard one for me as not harming others does not make certain they will not harm you...dogs come first in my world, they if brought up properly have the best morals, bitches more so than dogs, they will give you continued love & loylety and all they ask in return is food & exercise, a good bitch will defend you to the death, where as a dog will until they get flared and then they will flight...over the years I have taken two dogs off ex friends and decked a stranger in the street for kicking his dog, all animals even those I dont like get respect and I would not hurt any of them intentially, where as some humans like the one kicking his dog, ask for it, so maybe I have some double standards there, when I look back at the other quote and my response, but hey we would not be human if we were perfect
R's chillerman
ps: my pups attachedAttachment 7835
its all about opinion I agree with the dogs as they are as you say but older folk do not like others opinion if its different from their own we all will end up with a similar opinion
Hi Quality
Dogs I can yak on all night about, so I best not
I hear what you say about our elders, currently siting in the midle bracket here I try to keep up with the future (the younger Gen.) & try to see it from the past (the older Gen) I like the future as its always evolving as each generation goes by & I try to learn from the past.. The bit that makes me more past than future is change... many area's I like change especially technology/gadgets but I have noticed I really dont like change to what is the norm to me, the way I live my life in general, the natural me & most of all work, thats so hard to accept change, I am so set in my ways already that even though I dont agree with many recent events...I can see why some dont like that change... its just something we all need to get used to though... as its a cold hard fact of life, the younger generation are taking over all the time and with that comes change ! And without them and change we dont have a future
R's chillerman
Winning the lottery is change.
A sharp stick in the eye is change.
As you get older, you've gotten the sharp stick in the eye from those who promise change so many times that you start questioning whether it's change for the better or change for the worse.
It's not enough to say people (older or otherwise) resist change. Exactly what change are we talking about?
I have a lot of time for animals, i sponsor an animal sanctuary and have a couple of rescue dogs and a half share in a pony! I find it easy to be compassionate for animals as even if they have harmed me i don' think they have the, inteligence is not the right word as they are as bright as they need to be, maybe ego is a better description, they don't have an ego that leads to the harm. No dog would bite you because it thought you disrespected it for example.
I am working on having more compassion and understanding for my fellow humans as even when they harm me, even when its ego led, its also due to causes and conditions, in other circumstances we could have been friends, no person is inherantly bad (excepting people who have serious mental conditions and such and even here there are causes and conditions).
I have respect for all forms of life, yesterday i got an odd look from a customer as i rescued a beetle that was walking about where it would likely get squished.
Who knows i may well be a beetle next time round if i'm lucky enough :p
Jon :)
there are a many great ideas, that are ideals, but most just do not work in practice, because our human nature causes to strive for change. We attempt to evolve to make what we think is a better life.
What is right or wrong is only a perception in time and location.
Then again, always got time for Gary
change - forum/fridge controllers analogue to digital/price of a pint/weather/waist size/seat belt law revoked/cheap ciggies in florida & milton keynes/end of world famine...practically anything mate...all change will make some happier than others and changes come a knocking wether we like them or not...and I have found most are not welcome to me
R's chillerman
Really? I have no problem with most changes.
So... you must be older than me, right?
Is it possible to be older than you Gary :)
Of all the people I know and of all the people I think I know
you would be top of my list to sit down over a nice meal and have
a real good talk.
Your views and beliefs may differ from mine at times but you have a morral
conviction and a sense of right and wrong that I completely, 100% agree with.
I just don't always come up with the same conclusions as you :) but is that not what
makes life great.
We might not be totaly free to post everything on this site for obvious reasons
but we can have an exchange of oppinions.
All the best
mate taz.
Oh and Ps, regarding the death penalty I'm for it and against it.
I would not be prepard to actualy kill sombody in cold blood.so how could I ask sombody to do that for me.....
taz
.
Gary, the problem with humans is our absolute hubris and arrogance. It is a fact that as individuals, can come up with amazing ideas, philosophical and technical, but as a group we, like most animals, have a herd mentality and lack wisdom to see the effects of our actions. (Example...People say advertising doesn't affect them so why is there an industry...we are easily duped (yes, I really need that Caddy Escalade to move my one kid to school))
The idea that we can separate ourselves from the rest of the world we live in, make all sorts of changes to it (which we do, often without concern or awareness) and expect that at the end of the day, the steak and beer we enjoy now, we will be able to enjoy 20 years down the road is ludicrous.
There is too many of us, 80% of fish in the see are gone (to the point now that some fisherman are selling lesser species as more desirable ones because the good ones are not there any more), Almost every disease is on the rise. And we don't think we have an effect????????
We NEED to respect other animals and we need to realize we are not omnipotent....we need wisdom and it is in short supply.....and....we need to stop idolizing our idiology
There is too many of us, 80% of fish in the see are gone (to the point now that some fisherman are selling lesser species as more desirable ones because the good ones are not there any more), Almost every disease is on the rise. And we don't think we have an effect????????
Mike,
What makes you so certain that "WE" are the cause?
That is pretty simple. I assume that you are saying that climate change happens anyway. Yes it does, but never as fast as in the last century. Not even close. As I said above somewhere, the scientists make these conclusions by consensus therefore the reports must be middle of the road as you will always find someone who will believe things happen faster or slower. These scientists are from all disciplines, all countries with all ideologies and there is 10,000 or more of them.
These people ARE the experts in their fields, why, if they put through thoroughly vetted reports, should we not believe them.....the only reason I can think of is that we just don't want to. Either because it is too hard for our fragile egos to accept that we capable of it or because it is not in our current financial interest to accept it (maybe we just pine for the good old days).
Every report in the last 20 years stated the earth temp and co2 would rise by X amount and every subsequent one has said "oh I am sorry, it seems we were a bit low on the last prediction, it's rising more". And if there s dis agreement, it not about the basic understanding of climate change, it's about how much or how little the projections will be.
So, yes I am certain that we are the cause. Remember, we are the ones who make tools, we are the ones who mine mineral, burn oil and make dams in China that cause local major seismic activity. Not the apes or the whales. We are also the only species who is capable of wiping out whole other species within a few years and we breed like rabbits, no.
First of all, I find it hard to beleive that scientists or any other discipline can say with any certainty how fast the earths temperature has heated or cooled millions of years ago!
Second many things are decided by concensus. In this country laws are passed by concensus, taxes are levied by concensus in the courts, people are found guilty by concensus. That dosent make them right, law's are repealed, taxes are reduced and sometimes convictions are overturned. were all of these people wrong? probably not, they made the best decision they could with the information they had at the time which the decision had to be made.
Of these 10,000 or more scientist's, how many are actually experts in the field? not many they review the "information" and hypothesis presented by others from which they draw conclusions and maybe come to a concensus.
Since from your way of thinking these supposed experts have determined that the earths temperature has never risen so fast as in the last century, why cant they predict with any certainty what the earths temperature will rise by?
I do not want to believe or not believe what the "experts" say, I do however question all science which is not repeatable, if they cant reliably predict the future temperature what makes you think they can say what the rise was in the past, it dosent make sense! we must question all that is not proven and while these experts I am sure are as smart as they come, they too are human and therfore fallable, and subject to making the facts support there position.
Correct me if I am wrong but I am of the understanding that scientist ask questions form a hypothesis and then set out to prove or disprove there hypothesis, if a government entity or for profit entity see's benefit in the conclusion going one way or another are these same experts not subject to persuasion?
As to your lat point, what happened to the dinosaurs?
If you "cannot believe" that scientists can tell accurately what the temps 10,000 years ago then I may agree with you but I believe that they can tell withing a good range what those temps were and that is enough to create a working theory. Very little in this natural world can be proven 100%. They have even just "possibly" repudiated E=MC2 over at CERN and are looking for independent tests to see if they are right. Scientists get it wrong too. BUT science doesn't usually work in absolutes but in processes and trends. Outcomes are checked constantly against the theory. If it doesn't play out....the theory gets adapted.
If you want to know who the scientists are look up the IPCC and see who the contributing authors are. I can tell you they are atmospheric scientist, biologists, chemists, physicists, geologist etc, etc, etc from all over the world. I can tell you that you can tell how much CO2 there was in the atmosphere by doing ice core samples at the poles and they can go way way back in time. This is what they do and they are not here to BS people. They noticed trends long before anyone sent them out and the term "global warming" was not even coined yet.
Laws and taxes have nothing to do with the natural order of the world as they are completely human constructs.
Dinosaurs and comets as far as I know and that is the prevailing theory.
The real point here is that we can wait for absolute proof of something we will be waiting a bloody long time and if we have our heads up our a**es that far for that long, we deserve to follow the dinosaurs. So much for our superior intellect.
Sitting on the fence here, i have to say that we, the human race, are the first on this planet to use the earths resources to our advantage. Somewhere in our evolution, we became the number one rulers here, able to determine the fate of this planet and all life forms that have to co-exist with us. Never before has there been as many cars on the roads or planes in the air sucking in the air we breathe. Sooner or later, there has to be a tipping point where nature says, enough and fights back..or not... and we die from our own ignorance. Thinking that somewhere out there in space, another species is looking in on us and saying... Nope! If they can't keep their back yard tidy, then we don't want them in ours..mike.
They have even just "possibly" repudiated E=MC2 over at CERN and are looking for independent tests to see if they are right. Scientists get it wrong too.
My point exactly!
the·o·ry
/ˈθihttp://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/...una/thinsp.pngəhttp://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/...una/thinsp.pngri, ˈθɪərhttp://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/...una/thinsp.pngi/ http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/...on_default.gif Show Spelled[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/...on_default.gif Show IPA
noun, plural the·o·ries. 1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2.a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
The problem I have with all of this "global warming" is that the evidence isn't in yet and unlike you mike, I am unwilling to blindly follow the herd of 10,000 or more scientists because they have a "theory" about it. (I'm not from missouri but I may as well be). As you said it is possible that some scientists have found sub atomic particles which are moving faster then the speed of light, if it proves true that they have, then the "theory" E=MC2 will have been proven wrong!
So Mike,
I went to the IPCC website and a couple of things caught my attention.
1)The IPCC is a huge and yet very tiny organization. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis as authors, contributors and reviewers. None of them is paid by the IPCC.
If they are not paid by the IPCC then by whom?
2)The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.
If they conduct no research then how do they verify the information they are reviewing is accurate?
The point I am trying to make is this: There is an intire new industry spurned on by fear mongering about global warming, can we agree on that? if we can then can we also agree that those in a position to make all the money off of this new industry will stop at nothing to protect that? and if we can agree on that then can we agree that it is possible that the Theory was established to support the industry? and if we can agree on that then maybe we can agree that many, not all, of the reports provided to the ICPP are going to be in support of that theory. What do you think?
All scientific bodies, like the IPCC, rely on national and university based people to do the research (they are doing it anyway so why not) and this is the way most research that is not "product based for market" research is handled and is why the corporate agenda must be kept out of universities (a loosing proposition from what I see). By their very nature universities are supposed to train students to think objectively in the face of those who wish to co-opt them, be that business, govt or media or religion.
The IPCC doesn't need to pay anyone when they are doing the work as a doctoral thesis or as a prof. Information gained is verified through peer review (and a lot of peer review, both adherents and detractors). All points are taken in account (except for creationism, I believe).
What I ask you is this... our society goes through lots of changes (computers, new cars, airplanes, digital TV etc, etc,) most of which persuade or threaten us into parting with our money for the newest IPAD ir some such. Money is made on this all the time. Is it fear mongering to persuade people that it is for their betterment to do things that pollute less, eat better foods, and look outward at the planet rather than just inward at their own wants?
Yes, there is money to be made in this. I put in solar systems and am into heat pumps partly for the profit but I would not do it if it were not of net gain to both the person and to the climate. I will not sell someone a massive SUV and i don't hear anyone here arguing the necessity of a large SUV. There is no reason that doing good for the planet needs to be done without profit.
I cannot believe the theory was fabricated to support an industry, which didn't exist in the early days of global warming (actually 1000s of theories from 1000s of different people and places). That would take a massive conspiracy for little profit. What you may not know is that I have been in this business for 20 some years now and it has been slim pickings for most of that time. Unlike big oil, gas and nuc, environmental benign power gets less than 0.01% of the subsidies of the big boys so it is hardly a cash cow.
Like I said above somewhere, the IPCC is a consensus organization. All the scientists agree on the written report. Many would go a lot further but must compromise and it is too big of a group to be taken over by one ideology.
Well put Mr Mike
especially the bold type...100% with you on that one Mate
also the fish one is another good point, we are just take take taking and if we carry on like this there will be nothing left for future generations
there needs to be fish farms for all we eat and let the sea have a chance to recover, as its not just the fish we take on the decline but the natural feeders of these and the next in the food chain and onwards
R's chillerman
Morality cannot be subjective.
Imagine a world where everyone is born color blind. You would mention color, and everyone would say, "Huh?????"
Similarly, the very concept of morality must have it's basis in human instinct or you would mention morality, and everyone would say, "Huh?????"
The very concept of morality cannot exist without an objective basis and that basis must be instinctive.
When attacked by a fellow human, we automatically judge the morality of his actions. When attacked by an animal, we make no such moral value judgement. Morality is a human thing.
Gary, you are absolutely right. The only problem is that for every human, there is a different definition of morality and so you will never get consensus on the LAWS that all will deem necessary. This is why we must compromise, swallow our pride for some of those laws and move on. As I said before, humility is lacking amongst us humans.
Pride goeth before a fall, as they say
It's not that complicated. Basic laws enjoy near universal acceptance. As we add laws that are less clearly just, those laws become increasingly difficult to enforce and foster a culture of violence and discontent.
There is a point where persuasion is more effective than coercion.
You may have noticed that popular movements become less popular when they switch from persuasive tactics to coercive tactics. As soon as someone says, "Let's pass a law" it all goes downhill. Where there was token resistance, there is now very substantial and growing resistance. They have abandoned the very tactics which made them popular.
Some people don't like having their minds made up for them.
That is not true. They are in agreement on the text of the report but if we are looking at a 1000L container and I said it was at least a 500L container and you said it was at least an 800L container, could we not agree that it was at LEAST a 500L container. It satisfies both our statements.
That is what is happening every time a joint statement comes out of the G8 or G20 or, in this case, the statement says that the earth is rising by 1C over some time period, someone else might think it is 2C but if it is worded "at least 1C" it good for both parties. Consensus....these guys disagree a lot on the degree of change but not the fact that it is changing.
Mike,
I see your point, your are a very eloquent debator and your arguments are very persuasive, I would like to say you have convinced me, however I do not yet have a concensus.
I have learnt that many of us have a different opinion weather correct or not but I have also learnt that if you disagree with one certain member then your defiantly wrong
I have my opinion weather it is correct is off question but what I do know it is my own hence I will stand by it