What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

climate change times are a changin'

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: climate change times are a changin'

Interesting this thread has gone into religious talk. Seems fitting since climate change depends a lot on faith of models projecting things out beyond our lives, much like the bible.
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

Kepler said:
Good news, everyone. The voters have figured out how to solve climate change.

"Let's go burn down the observatory so this will never happen again."
Click to expand...

From that article...

"Public support is solidly behind action to tackle the climate crisis. While we have lost friends in Congress, we are gaining them in the streets, as our movement grows stronger and broader," Brune added.


“Whatever may have driven individual races, the American people want action on climate change,” Beinecke said.
Click to expand...

Um... don't think that is correct. If people really do want action wouldn't the results have been different? Isn't there also consistent polling ranking this issue way down on the list of importance? Those two things right there make me question his statement.
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

St. Clown said:
It's expected that people take the initiative themselves and not force the care upon the government.
Click to expand...

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to St. Clown again.


Also, I should have made a more clear distinction between the federal government, and state and local government. State and local governments (should) know and understand local conditions and adjust accordingly. The federal government pretty much "has to" take on a "one-size fits all" approach.

Every moral and ethical person "ought to" feel a responsibility to help those less fortunate. However, "those less fortunate" do not have a "right" to receive that help.

Part of life is growing up to be an adult. Adulthood is hard work and requires effort and sacrifice. Local people (hopefully) know each other and can tell who "truly needs" help and who is trying to game the system. We read about Medicare scams and Medicaid scams and all sorts of other scams going on all the time in federal programs. and I'm not talking about the supposed beneficiaries, I'm talking about the service providers, doctors who are performing one procedure but billing for a more expensive procedure, doctors who bill for office visits from people who never showed up. The amount lost to this kind of fraud is really significant compared to the amount that is delivered to the "truly needy." and I'm not even talking about people who pretend to "need" help who really don't (like all those disability scammers at LIRR who claim disability while running triathlons and the like).
 
Last edited:
Re: climate change times are a changin'

FreshFish said:
Every moral and ethical person "ought to" feel a responsibility to help those less fortunate. However, "those less fortunate" do not have a "right" to receive that help.
Click to expand...

At least we have reached the core distinction -- is the preservation of existence a human right that governments can use coercive means to achieve? Liberals say yes, conservatives say no. Conservatives have no problem with coercive means in other circumstances, such as the protection of property, the punishment of crime, or the security of the state, so this is not a disagreement about means, but ends. There actually are anarchists who are completely consistent and take your view to its reductio ad absurdum that no coercive means is ever legitimate. Bakunin and Proudhon have left the building, but their writings are bracing and even have the taste of truth about them. At first.

I do think you have placed the target well, in any case. On both the merits and in terms of the sheer practicality of maintaining a society with a sufficient popular buy-in not to self-destruct, I think you are utterly incorrect.

There was a time in the 19th century when the system of rights and law did reflect your attitude, and Anatole France took it down with one quip: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

Nothing privileges either your or my viewpoint on this. It is ultimately a political negotiation between the members of society that determines what rights are. Since the 1920s most members of western democracies have been of my opinion, though there have always and will always also be people of yours.
 
Last edited:
Re: climate change times are a changin'

Kepler said:
At least we have reached the core distinction -- is the preservation of existence a human right that governments can use coercive means to achieve?
Click to expand...

If you are an unborn child, apparently not. If you have been convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death, apparently not.

Speaking more broadly than a few targeted exceptions, you cannot seriously be suggesting that an able-bodied person can loaf around and do nothing all day and still expect to be fed anyway, are you?

For people who are in certain "hardship" cases, that's another targeted exception.

More concretely, in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, there is no "right" to be fed, clothed or housed. If you want to sponsor constitutional amendments to those ends, I wish you well in your endeavor.
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

Kepler said:
At least we have reached the core distinction -- is the preservation of existence a human right that governments can use coercive means to achieve? Liberals say yes, conservatives say no.
Click to expand...

Holy selective cases, batman.
Thanks for summing it up so nicely though. This helps me easily explain why I oppose abortion and the death penalty, and support increased aid to the homeless and hungry people. It's about the importance of the fundamental right to existence.
 
Last edited:
Re: climate change times are a changin'

FreshFish said:
If you are an unborn child, apparently not.
Click to expand...

False case. If everybody agreed a life began an conception this would be relevant, but the entire point of the pro-choice movement is it doesn't.

If you have been convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death, apparently not.
Click to expand...

This was covered in the sentence directly following the one you quoted. Conservatives support the state right to kill for revenge. That doesn't apply to this argument.


Speaking more broadly than a few targeted exceptions, you cannot seriously be suggesting that an able-bodied person can loaf around and do nothing all day and still expect to be fed anyway, are you?
Click to expand...

I am stating (not suggesting) that helping millions of people who work hard achieve a higher quality of life is worth the friction cost of supporting a handful of ne're-do-wells. I am willing to be rooked by a few people in order to provide for the vast majority who are "worthy." Conservatives will allow the misery of millions so that one jerk ski bum who lives off welfare can't get over on them. That's morally repellent.

And don't call me Shirley.

As I grow older I am more convinced that this is all emotionally driven. Conservatives are obsessed with laziness and are paranoid the poor are ripping them off. Liberals are obsessed with greed and are paranoid the rich are ripping them off. Whatever causes this fundamental division of minds, it's fixed early on and colors all other priorities and decision-making, and the two types just talk past each other forever. There will always be both types, and that tension is probably necessary for each to correct the excesses of the other.
 
Last edited:
Re: climate change times are a changin'

geezer said:
Thanks for summing it up so nicely though. This helps me easily explain why I oppose abortion and the death penalty, and support increased aid to the homeless and hungry people. It's about the importance of the fundamental right to existence.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you were being sarcastic but I think all of those positions are logically consistent (with pro-life assumptions obviously). Congrats -- you're one of the few people I've met who is both intellectually consistent and not (apparently) a zealot.
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

Kepler said:
Conservatives are .... Liberals are ... There will always be both types....
Click to expand...

You make a basic error in logic by assuming that everyone is either a "conservative" or a "liberal." There are many points of view which do not fit neatly into either label.
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

FreshFish said:
You make a basic error in logic by assuming that everyone is either a "conservative" or a "liberal." There are many points of view which do not fit neatly into either label.
Click to expand...

Everything is stochastic, as you well know. But from the evasion I take it I hit the target.
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

geezer said:
This helps me easily explain why I oppose abortion and the death penalty, and support increased aid to the homeless and hungry people. It's about the importance of the fundamental right to existence.
Click to expand...

... from natural procreation to natural death.

So, ... basically, ... you're the Catholic Church.

Which means Kepler just said the Catholic Church is ...

Kepler said:
... both intellectually consistent and not (apparently) a zealot.
Click to expand...

:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top