Warning signs to be placed immediately

Damocles said:
False dilemma fallacy.

If you had to choose between these 2 words regarding man's relationship w/ the planet, which would you go with? Leader, or victim?
Click to expand...

It's not a false dilemma. Anyone who thinks our relationship is symbiotic is smoking something. We consider the earth on only a minimal level when developing, if that.

And you can see the results. Anything dire won't happen in your or my lifetime, so we're cool w/ it. But if a mere 200 years of industrialization can have the effect that we are seeing, can you imagine 2,000 years?

At some point, we'll be forced to change the way we do things. As usual, it will be a reactive change, instead of proactive.
 
The Dude said:
The better question to ask is what regulations deems don't like. Sf obviously birds and dolphins are cuter than cows.
Click to expand...

I say we protect certain species of birds. We should do a study to see what type of windows would attract pigeons but deter other birds. Pigeons are just rats with wings and should be eliminated.
 
Onceler said:
It's not a false dilemma. Anyone who thinks our relationship is symbiotic is smoking something. We consider the earth on only a minimal level when developing, if that.

And you can see the results. Anything dire won't happen in your or my lifetime, so we're cool w/ it. But if a mere 200 years of industrialization can have the effect that we are seeing, can you imagine 2,000 years?

At some point, we'll be forced to change the way we do things. As usual, it will be a reactive change, instead of proactive.
Click to expand...

Anybody who thinks it can be simplified into those two words is a foolish ideologue. It's a false dilemma because neither of the words can accurately describe "man's relationship with the planet". At some point even ideologues should recognize that the world isn't as simple as their simplified black/white view of it.

BTW - Superfreak, this answer here would say that his answer was the latter of your two choices.
 
Damocles said:
Anybody who thinks it can be simplified into those two words is a foolish ideologue. It's a false dilemma because neither of the words can accurately describe "man's relationship with the planet". At some point even ideologues should recognize that the world isn't as simple as their simplified black/white view of it.
Click to expand...

I don't have much problem characterizing many of our actions w/ regard to the planet as "parasitic," and if you look at the definition of the word, along w/ the effects of those actions, it really isn't mere opinion.

All I'm saying is that we don't really plan or build w/ the long-term health of the planet in mind. You can point to certain restrictions or protected areas, but in the scheme of things, those are minimal. The effect of our actions is pretty clear. Like I said, in just 200 years - look at the loss of habitat, the poor air & water quality in some areas, the effect on food supply (I'm looking at you, oceans). It's not sustainable.

At some point, we have to look at the way we do things as a whole. A revolutionary change in philosophy WILL be needed. Again - that's not opinion.
 
Onceler said:
Apparently, it didn't help your ability to read the OP or ensuing discussion. No one was talking about oil.

But I understand your need to defend big oil whenever you can.
Click to expand...

No one was talking about windmills either...knowing your problem with reading comp. I guess you missed that part...

so what was your point anyway?
 
bravo said:
No one was talking about windmills either...knowing your problem with reading comp. I guess you missed that part...

so what was your point anyway?
Click to expand...

So, you're bragging about bringing up 2 things that no one was discussing?

Haven't you been lecturing me repeatedly about not having the "courage" to address the thread topic? That's funny....
 
Onceler said:
I don't have much problem characterizing many of our actions w/ regard to the planet as "parasitic," and if you look at the definition of the word, along w/ the effects of those actions, it really isn't mere opinion.

All I'm saying is that we don't really plan or build w/ the long-term health of the planet in mind. You can point to certain restrictions or protected areas, but in the scheme of things, those are minimal. The effect of our actions is pretty clear. Like I said, in just 200 years - look at the loss of habitat, the poor air & water quality in some areas, the effect on food supply (I'm looking at you, oceans). It's not sustainable.

At some point, we have to look at the way we do things as a whole. A revolutionary change in philosophy WILL be needed. Again - that's not opinion.
Click to expand...

When I look at the definition of the word "parasite", it immediately brings Democrats/liberals to mind....

a.... One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return.
b.... One who lives off and flatters the rich;
 
Onceler said:
So, you're bragging about bringing up 2 things that no one was discussing?

Haven't you been lecturing me repeatedly about not having the "courage" to address the thread topic? That's funny....
Click to expand...

Well, it went from windows, to energy efficiency, to decals, to screens, to shades, to louvers, to windshields, to bugs, to Alfred Hitchcock, to pooper scoopers, to Darwin, to beavers, etc., etc., etc......few of which were mentioned in the OP....

I didn't know windmills and oil were prohibited when talking about killing birds................................or some asshole would find them offensive....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top