News They've done another study

[Tom]

I disagree. I'm attempting to give answers, unlike thine good self.

Tell me, exactly, how my response of "bullshit" (plus additional explanation and engaging questioning) to your totally incorrect assertion on vegetarians is hypocritical or attempting to avoid an answer?

Quite simple really, I give you an example, you quote an extreme case. I give you another example, you instantly dismiss it.

I recall asking on another thread how you'd attempt to solve the debt crisis (a problem you seem to have many opinions about), and your failure to respond was quite telling. So why I should entertain you further is beyond me.

 

[Scouse]

IMO you're avoiding the question (how is my response to your incorrect assertion on vegatarians hypocritical or avoidant) again. I cannot see a direct answer to that which justifies the use of the terms hypocrtical or avoidant when I think I've given a good account of myself there.

I will however, answer you (again):

Quite simple really, I give you an example, you quote an extreme case. I give you another example, you instantly dismiss it.

1) Bikes:

You gave the example, so I dissected it and showed it to be nonsense. Your example - not mine. If you don't want your examples backfiring on you don't use "extreme cases" when making them and I won't be able to quote them back to you in my own argument.

I also made the point that your example was selective and doesn't apply to most of the UK population - so even if you think the "extreme case" thing still applies I've given secondary reasons why your example was incorrect.


Therefore, I'm not being avoidant - I'm simply asserting that you are wrong.


2) Vegetarianism:

I said "bullshit" - because being a vegatarian doesn't adversely affect your life in any way I can see and I backed up this opinion by showing that I have direct experience of a vegetarian lifestyle.

Therefore, I'm not being avoidant - I'm simply asserting that you are wrong. (Again).

I recall asking on another thread how you'd attempt to solve the debt crisis (a problem you seem to have many opinions about), and your failure to respond was quite telling. So why I should entertain you further is beyond me.

I recalled that very question when I was making my "thought-crime/intellectual bullying/freedom of thought" point. It's the main reason why I'm posting in this thread.

I'm attempting to defend someone you're trying to bully by saying they're not allowed to hold a certain intellectual position unless they conform to your mythical standards of action (which I've asked you to define, though you can't).


You assert that I cannot hold an intellectual anti-capitalist view unless I, personally, can solve the problems of capitalism all by myself.

That is shite. It's disgraceful and you know it - and is the reason I didn't bother to answer you was because of that.

My anger against your continued use of an abhorrent line of argument is the reason I'm posting in this thread.

 

[Job]

of course on a human level,species exctinction seems unpleasant,but it's a reflection of our reaction to all the changes of existance that we don't like.
Mankind is on a mission to freeze time,we don't like getting old..facelifts
We don't like losing memories..recording everything for posterity
We don't like change...charites and organisations everywhere trying to keep the world like it is this week.
National parks maintaining an idealistic version of the countryside, seed banks deep in the ground, supporting dead languages and cultures because they would be a 'loss' to the world.
Labelling new species'pests' if they are pushing out established creatures we are used to.
Well lif evolution had gone down that road we'd still be at the molecular level.

 

[Scouse]

Hey, if you simply say that you don't care that our actions are having a massive adverse effect on other plant and animal species, to the point that you could arguably classify us as an extinction level event, I won't argue the point.

Evolution has given us an intellect - and if we use it we have the ability to manage our actions in such a way that we can coexist with nature - not destroy it. Or do you not think that that is an admirable ideal?

Should we carry on like all the other "dumb" animals or should we use our evolution-given-talents to mitigate our adverse effects to the benefit of all?

 

[old.Tohtori]

I don't think nature has a "admirable ideal". As said, planet will take a lot fom us before it cracks and turns into a cluster of moons, hwich might be it's original plan all along, but as such, nature doesn't hold any ideals, morality, or a greater purpose. I think that is all human ideals. As such, it is kind of selfish to preserve nature.

Have to ask; if the bears had the means, would they use us as a nomnom buffet? I'd like to think they would.

 

[Tom]

load of hand-wringing

Just as I expected, really.

 

[Scouse]

Just as I expected, really.

If you've no answer to my well-made and serious points just concede. I'm not fucking about being a twat - I've taken the time to think about what you said and have given you a considered response.

I don't think nature has a "admirable ideal".

Way to miss the point Trolltori. I never said "nature" has an ideal - I said humans have evolved to the point where we can. We can choose to consider the impact of our actions, and not to do so is dumb (or selfish, or ignorant, or twattish (pick one))...

...and you don't want to, so...

 

[Uncle Sick]

If i was being trollish toht, i would've come up with some bullsh*t instead of saying i can't be arsed to argue it

Usually when people bring in some kind of "i'm better then you because of X2 argument, i tend to find the discussion over.

But yeah, george carlin pretty much sums up all the "save x" opinions i got.

So why are you posting in this thread? You don't give a shit what the place is going to look like when you punch your ticket. Cool.
You have to have the last word or something other mature then? That hasn't changed then either.

And George Carlin was a comedian. He was taking the piss. You might as well start quoting Jerry Seinfeld in regards to global terrorism.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I'm posting on the thread pretty much for the same reason you judgey f*ckers are; because i can and i have an opinion on it.

That doesn't mean i can't choose which people to discuss it with.

You care about what happens to the planet, cool. You gotta show off your high horse or something other mature then? What a surprise.

Oh and as for being a comedian, that doesn't mean they don't speak their mind.

scouse; not doing so is a choice, no one is dictating HOW we should live and how we should dictate over nature. Claiming that saaving nature is the only one way is as close to religion as one can get without the magic.

The reason you two can't disuss anything without resorting to insults and mudflinging is pretty damn obvious.

 

[Uncle Sick]

I'm posting on the thread pretty much for the same reason you judgey f*ckers are; because i can and i have an opinion on it.

That doesn't mean i can't choose which people to discuss it with.

You care about what happens to the planet, cool. You gotta show off your high horse or something other mature then? What a surprise.

Oh and as for being a comedian, that doesn't mean they don't speak their mind.

scouse; not doing so is a choice, no one is dictating HOW we should live and how we should dictate over nature. Claiming that saaving nature is the only one way is as close to religion as one can get without the magic.

The reason you two can't disuss anything without resorting to insults and mudflinging is pretty damn obvious.

Feeling responsibility for the planet we live on is sitting on a high horse?
Don't pout because I don't share your opinion, Toto. Makes me look more mature. And we can't have that.

 

[Scouse]

scouse; not doing so is a choice, no one is dictating HOW we should live and how we should dictate over nature. Claiming that saaving nature is the only one way is as close to religion as one can get without the magic.

The reason you two can't disuss anything without resorting to insults and mudflinging is pretty damn obvious.

I've not particularly slung mud around in this thread AFAIK?

I also disagree with your first paragraph (entirely). I have already conceded that, as educated beings, not giving a shit about the planet around you is a choice. No argument there.

(In fact, I never made that argument in the first place - you made it for me in your "interpretation" of what I have said. "Conceded" is a poor choice of word really - as I have nothing to concede).

My argument is that that choice, not to give a shit, is unenlightend, selfish and not very clever.

I've never claimed that "saving nature" (lol) is the only way. I freely admit that it's a choice.


I also agree with Uncle Sick that you're trolling. Reasoned argument cannot be equated with religion - and I have reasons for my opinons here. If you weren't trolling you would be attempting to add to this thread with reason, rather than repeatedly posting the same shite in different ways...as usual.

Feeling responsibility for the planet we live on is sitting on a high horse?

No mate. Don't you know? - it's some sort of religion!

 

[old.Tohtori]

Feeling responsibility for the planet we live on is sitting on a high horse?
Don't pout because I don't share your opinion, Toto. Makes me look more mature. And we can't have that.

You're telling me not to pout, when you're telling i shouldn't post at all because my opinion differs? Don't maike me laugh

I was taking the piss because of your comment on last word, that is all. Your high horse only comes from your kids, as with many other(not all) parents who think their kids are special

Not your fault.

Scouse; not what i said, don't twist ze words. I said claiming it's HOW we should live is as preachy and interfering with other peoples lives as a jehovas witness at the door at 6am on a sunday.

There is no being in the universe that has told us "you must protect nature"m, the planet hasn't farted a mission statement to us, so until it does, people can choose to be enviromentally concious or not with equal as much as they can choose to eat apples instead of oranges.

You two on the other hand seem to have an issue with anyone on the thread who doesn't agree

Yes Scouse, in the real world, calling someone a troll is mudflinging.

 

[old.Tohtori]

But really, if there's anything to misqute, then do this;

Done with this particular brand of insanity, i don't care that much about enviroment and you probably don't care supermuch either, what with the cars, houses, PCs, paved roads and all the sh*t you've gathered along the years that serves no purpose.

In the immortal words of some dude waay back in wild west, NS.

 

[Scouse]

Calling a troll a troll is mudflinging?

Oh sorry. I'll change my opinion. I'm mudflinging, Mr Troll.


And, just to be clear (again): Yes. There are NO supernatural beings saying "we should live this way" or "you should protect nature".

There are, however, very good reasons to choose to do so.



Kapiche?

 

[old.Tohtori]

I've understood you perfectly fine, what you need to understand is that a difference in opinion isn't trolling.

If you at any point say that what is important/smart/whatnot to you should be applied to ALL, you're just as bad as a religious preacher.

And that's what you are being now, a religious nutter.

 

[Scouse]

I've understood you perfectly fine, what you need to understand is that a difference in opinion isn't trolling.

I understand differences of opinion perfectly. I also understand when a troll is trolling

 

[old.Tohtori]

Clearly you don't.

 

[old.Tohtori]

though i do wish we could have one discussion where you're not screaming troll at me and i don't pull out the religious zealot card to counter

Can we just agree to disagree; you think caring for enviroment should be done by all, i say it should be a choice and not something that is dumb/ignorant/selfish bladibla?

 

[Scouse]

Ah, I'm out of work, so I'll bite:


I don't see how we can agree to disagree when your posts show that either A) you don't understand my argument, or; B) are deliberately refusing to acknowledge the points I have made - i.e.: acting like a troll.

you think caring for enviroment should be done by all, i say it should be a choice and not something that is dumb/ignorant/selfish bladibla?

I think caring for the environment is the only rational choice people can make, based on evidence. A dispassionate assessment of the evidence leads inexorably to that conclusion.

You keep repeating that it "should be a choice" - a point I keep agreeing with, loudly and often - an agreement that you continue to (one presumes with troll-like deliberacy) fail to acknowledge. You then start randomly, and with no reason that I can see other than toll-like baiting, wanging around the "religion" card (despite no beleif being present in any argument I have made).


As for "ignorance/selfishness/dumb-ness" - if you choose to cheat on your partner your choice confirms that you're a cunt. If you choose to not give a shit about the world you live in, that choice confirms that you are ignorant and selfish. If the reason you choose not to give a shit about the environment is that you can't understand the very simple reasons why caring is the correct choice - then it confirms you're dumb.

Simples.

 

[old.Tohtori]

That's just it, you think that "Oh yeah it's a choice, i'm not saying all should do it", then say it's stupid, selfish, ignorant(whatever you come up with) to choose anything else then what you choose.

That's a double-standard post.

Oh and i bet you only do things that don't have adverse effects, right? No car, no eating sugar, no drinking ofcourse, smokes...nope...nothing to actually enjoy yourself. Those are examples by the way, don't get all anal and quote each one and then say "No i don't" because we all know you do have some.

Saying that there's good things in caring for the enviroment does not mean that it's the only logical choice.

It's interesting though that you still claim that i'm trolling, and that you'll "bite" when i try to end the discussion with a modecum of decency.

You know what Scouse, you're not as intellectual and logical as you'd llike to think. You're just someone who uses that as an excuse to say "My way is right". Preacher boy.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Yes, that las line ws trolling, and now i'm done. Dropping it before a mod gets angry and drops us.

 

[Scouse]

Now we're getting somewhere. Please bear with - much 3rd person referencing action to ensue:

That's just it, you think that "Oh yeah it's a choice, i'm not saying all should do it", then say it's stupid, selfish, ignorant(whatever you come up with) to choose anything else then what you choose.

That's a double-standard post.

It is not a double standard - the reasoning is clear in the post (the cheating reference). However, since you cannot see that reasoning I'll take you through it step-by-step:

People are free to choose. I've no problem with that - and I'm glad you've finally acknowledged it.

However, my reasons for flinging the terms "dumb", "selfish", "ignorant" and "troll" about are thus. Please to be following closely for teh Peter & Jane style explanashun:

Example 1:
People are free to hold opinions - on the colour of the sky.

• If their opinion is "the sky is blue" then their opinion is correct.

• If their opinion is "the sky is black and white" their opinion is incorrect.

The correctness of their opinion has no bearing on their ability to hold it.


Example 2:
Men are free to choose their actions - to rape girls or not.

• If they choose NOT to rape that is the correct choice - and they are deemed "good".

• If they choose to rape that is a poor choice - and they are deemed "bad".

Example 3:
People get judged by the opinions they hold and the actions they take.

• If John holds the opinion that the sky is "black and white" Terry will form the opinion that John is dumb - and Terry is correct.

• If John rapes girls then Terry will form the opinion that John is bad - and Terry is correct.

Conclusions:

• People are free to hold whatever opinion they like. However, they will be judged on those opinions. Opinions can be, and frequently are, wrong.

• People are free to act however they like. However, they will be judged on those actions.

Application of above conclusions to real argument:

• Consideration of the evidence leads Scouse to form the opinion that mitigation of the effects of humans on their environment is the only correct course of action. Scouse is (obviously) correct.

• Toht believes that he should be free to do what he likes and damn the consequences. Toht is (obviously) incorrect.

Scouse thinks that Toht is being either:

• Ignorant and selfish

• Dumb

• A troll

- with the emphasis on the last option for several reasons:

1. Years of arguing with Toht leads Scouse to think he is neither ignorant nor selfish
2. Years of arguing with Toht leads Scouse to think he is not particularly dumb
3. The argument for caring is so obvious as to be self-evident - leading Scouse to form the opinion that Toht must be deliberately ignoring it.

Scouse takes the action to call Toht one of those terms - in accordance with above established rules.

Conclusion to real argument

• No evidence for double-standards (as Toht's incorrect opinion asserts) can be seen.
• Toht is Trolling.

As for the rest:

Oh and i bet you only do things that don't have adverse effects, right? No car, no eating sugar, no drinking ofcourse, smokes...nope...nothing to actually enjoy yourself.

I haven't denied doing any of these things (smoking aside).

My argument (another that you are steadfastly ignoring in a troll-like manner) is that my assessment of the evidence (after many years of study) is that systemic change is the only reasonable course of action.

Saying that there's good things in caring for the enviroment does not mean that it's the only logical choice.

I AM saying that caring for the environment is the only logical choice.

It's not the only choice - but it's the only logical one. Other conclusions are incorrect.


And:

It's interesting though that you still claim that i'm trolling, and that you'll "bite" when i try to end the discussion with a modecum of decency.

You posted twice after my last post. That's not the "end" of a discussion. I also explained I'm out of work - so I've got time to come up with the shit above. Also, I'm on this forum to argue from an intellectual standpoint, which I'm doing.


Lastly:

If the above post leads you to the conclusion that I'm condescending, opinionated and hard work - I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you. I am. And I don't care.

However, if you disagree with me on caring for the environment I think your opinion on that matter makes you a bit of a wanker. And I can't help that and don't care if it upsets you.

End of line....

 

[old.Tohtori]

Ok to put it to rest, i'll respond with an equally condecending(or more towards ignoring the rabble) reply, simply beuse we love to do it

Scouse is (obviously) correct.

Flawed logic in logic assesment is flawed.

 

[Scouse]

Ok to put it to rest, i'll respond with an equally condecending(or more towards ignoring the rabble) reply, simply beuse we love to do it

Flawed logic in logic assesment is flawed.

I debated removing those two sentences as I knew that's what you'd respond with. Funnily, a friend has turned up for a cup of tea - I showed him the post and we both agreed that that's what you'd pick up on.

Nice to be vindicated


Anyway. We're off to play Tribes now. Ta ta!

 

[Raven]

I bet your make up sex is fantastic.

 

[Uncle Sick]

You're telling me not to pout, when you're telling i shouldn't post at all because my opinion differs? Don't maike me laugh

I was taking the piss because of your comment on last word, that is all. Your high horse only comes from your kids, as with many other(not all) parents who think their kids are special

Not your fault.

Funny how you think Scouse is condescending, yet you wear condescension like a cheap cologne...
No, I'm not mad, bro... I just think, on my high horse, that your superciliousness is just attention whoring as it's always been.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Funny how you think Scouse is condescending, yet you wear condescension like a cheap cologne...
No, I'm not mad, bro... I just think, on my high horse, that your superciliousness is just attention whoring as it's always been.

LEarn to read, i didn't say he was condecending, he did

I also didn't ask if you were mad, i said it's not your fault.

 

[Scouse]

LEarn to read, i didn't say he was condecending, he did

Not in this thread...

 

[old.Tohtori]

Not in this thread...

Oh my, panties too twisted? Got some issues lingering in that noggin? Get over it.

Here's the nut of teh thread;

Caring or not means f*ck all, what have you done lately? Simple question, hoping to see atleast some exmples of this "caring" Scouse and Sick claim to have.

 

[rynnor]

I think caring for the environment is the only rational choice people can make, based on evidence. A dispassionate assessment of the evidence leads inexorably to that conclusion.

Actually the only rational choice is to exploit every resource for the benefit of our species - if your purely rational rather than emotional about it thats the only conclusion.

Wrapped up in that would be the need to protect certain species from extinction but it would also mean pursuing extinction for things that dont benefit us like mosquito's - there's no rational case for protecting things like panda's because we dont eat them and they dont produce anything we use.