Why Is Youth So Left-Wing?

[Mise]

It's amazing how these medieval tyrannies can hold a stranglehold on our governments with their oil. We should do something about that.

We are *cough* Iraq *cough* Afganistan *cough*

 

[insurgent]

As usual, luiz, you are holding the flag of freedom to the point of my redundancy...

I'd just like to say that I think neither guns nor drugs should be illegal as a matter of principle.

 

[insurgent]

We are *cough* Iraq *cough* Afganistan *cough*

And yet the oil prices go up. I say, if that's why we invaded, then I don't think we're accomplishing the task very well.

And so this omni-covering thread moves on to a new issue... This is really extraordinary.

 

[Mise]

And yet the oil prices go up. I say, if that's why we invaded, then I don't think we're accomplishing the task very well.

And so this omni-covering thread moves on to a new issue... This is really extraordinary.

Indeed, 24 pages and how long has it been since we talked about left wing youth?

 

[storealex]

It's amazing how these medieval tyrannies can hold a stranglehold on our governments with their oil. We should do something about that.

I say we nuke them all and take their oil while saying it's fighting terrorism!

Or maybe we should just develop other ways of energy till it became feasible...

 

[crystal]

No, let's burn all that oil in our SUV's and let our economies utterly crash when the oil runs out! Then we can start researching alternative energy sources in candlelight!

 

[storealex]

That's your opinion, not facts.

It's a fact that he is not a scientist in environmental issues. So, let's say Im a rocket-scientist with an oppion on whales. Should my scientist title then follow me to all whalo-conferences I attend? Should I give everybody the false impression that I know something about this subject because Im a scientist, even though that title only fall upon me in a completely different subject Because that IS what Lomborg is doing.
The rest are my opionions you say, well that's true, but it's some damn well founded ones.

I need to see plausible documentation to believe that.

Read in something about that in some newspaper - probably Urban or Metro but don't remember. I'll might try to dig something up when I come home from Prague.

Do you think the quality of your education is why we should listen to you?

Partly yes. We do it all the time. People educated in a subject tend to know about that subject, quite simple really. Of course Im not saying that non-educated people cant be right, but come on, you have to admit that a rocket scientist is likely to know more about rockets than Molly Malone...

That's what it is. I don't care that he is a statistician, as long as his results are credible and his work is sound, he could be a fishmonger, and I'd still take his work into consideration.

But the problem is that his work is NOT sound or credible. Yes there are people who claim it is, but most of these people have something to gain from it. Like when tobacco companies claim that the famous doctors work was sound and credible.
You seem to want Lomborg to be a Left versus Right polymic, but man, look at the example I presented you. Would you define it as sound and credible work?

And so far, every time his infuriated colleagues try to shut him up (you know what I'm talking about, storealex) and every time they try to trash his work, it's they who end up looking foolish. They seem almost blinded in their hatred against this man, and that only makes me respect him more for his work.

Yes. And when all Americans blindly hate Osama that makes me respect him even more. Seriously, that's not a valid argument.

 

[storealex]

I'd just like to say that I think neither guns nor drugs should be illegal as a matter of principle.

So would you defend a principle even if it meant more deaths and a worse soceity?

Imagine if their was no freedom of speach in the Weimar Republic. Would you then like to make a timemachine and go back there, and defend Hitlers right to speak? Knowing that it would lead to disaster? Because it's a principle?

 

[insurgent]

Partly yes. We do it all the time. People educated in a subject tend to know about that subject, quite simple really. Of course Im not saying that non-educated people cant be right, but come on, you have to admit that a rocket scientist is likely to know more about rockets than Molly Malone...

Do you respect George Bush for his education as a lawyer?

But the problem is that his work is NOT sound or credible.

Then say that instead of trying to discredit him. It only makes me suspicious about your intentions and those of the scientists slandering him.

Yes there are people who claim it is, but most of these people have something to gain from it. Like when tobacco companies claim that the famous doctors work was sound and credible.

That's exactly what I'm talking about: Unfounded slander.

You seem to want Lomborg to be a Left versus Right polymic, but man, look at the example I presented you. Would you define it as sound and credible work?

No, not from your description.

Yes. And when all Americans blindly hate Osama that makes me respect him even more. Seriously, that's not a valid argument.

Yes, yes, Osama... Lomborg... who can tell the difference? He's the Osama of the environment! Death to environmental heretics!

Slander, slander, always slander.

 

[insurgent]

So would you defend a principle even if it meant more deaths and a worse soceity?

I don't think it would. Look at luiz' defence of free drugs, think about Canada's low murder rates and think about the fact that they have 7,000,000 hand guns in private hands.

Imagine if their was no freedom of speach in the Weimar Republic. Would you then like to make a timemachine and go back there, and defend Hitlers right to speak? Knowing that it would lead to disaster? Because it's a principle?

Hitler wasn't the only one who spoke. Besides, I wouldn't try to change history, that'd disrupt the space-time continuum ( ), and who knows, I could soon be making out with my grandmother! (Insert Back to the Future theme music).

Seriously, yes, defending a principle cannot be wrong. Thinking carefully about how you can achieve the principles is also a good thing. Principles are absolutes and cannot be bent. Besides, there is no such thing as a "freedom of speech" (I believe I've said this before).

 

[storealex]

Do you respect George Bush for his education as a lawyer?

"come on, you have to admit that a rocket scientist is likely to know more about rockets than Molly Malone..."
When I say "is likely" I mean "is likely" Not "does always"

Then say that instead of trying to discredit him. It only makes me suspicious about your intentions and those of the scientists slandering him.

In my opinion saying that is actually discreditting him. If you are suspicious about my intentions please let me hear. I cant really see what I should have to gain from discreditting Lomborg, so Im quite curious.

That's exactly what I'm talking about: Unfounded slander.

You got me all confused now. Do you actually agree with me or do you accuse me of posting unfounded slander? If the later then I will gladly back up my statements, but then please ask me to do that instead of insulting me.

No, not from your description.

You might as well say: "If you're really saying the truth I believe you, but I think you lie" Nice!

Yes, yes, Osama... Lomborg... who can tell the difference? He's the Osama of the environment! Death to environmental heretics!

I said Osama to spice things up a bit, which I think you are totally aware of by the way. However, the fact that they cannot be compared on a "Who's the worst" scale does not provide you with a counter argument, when I claim that it's wrong to like someone more, simply because other people hate them.

Slander, slander, always slander.

You can call me Alex-slander if you like, but that dosn't make it right. I actually don't think it's fair and I think you should do better. Either you are wrongly accusing me of slandering, or everybody is by your definition of the word, slandering.

 

[storealex]

I don't think it would. Look at luiz' defence of free drugs, think about Canada's low murder rates and think about the fact that they have 7,000,000 hand guns in private hands.

However as both me and Luiz seem to agree that different things might work for different countries.

Hitler wasn't the only one who spoke. Besides, I wouldn't try to change history, that'd disrupt the space-time continuum ( ), and who knows, I could soon be making out with my grandmother! (Insert Back to the Future theme music).

The space-time yada yada has nothing do to with my point, please stick to it.

Seriously, yes, defending a principle cannot be wrong. Thinking carefully about how you can achieve the principles is also a good thing. Principles are absolutes and cannot be bent. Besides, there is no such thing as a "freedom of speech" (I believe I've said this before).

I don't know if you've said it before. I have not read all of your 3000 posts you know...
About the principle, well I disagree with you. Rememeber the thread with the question:
If you had to chose between two buttons, one killing a random person, one killing a million which one would you choose. Mind you, if you don't push a button all of them will die - leaving one million and one dead.
In this example I would break my principle not to kill, in order to save one million lives. That, I don't think is wrong. And never mind that the example is absurd since that has nothing to do with the point, or principle if you like.

 

[insurgent]

come on, you have to admit that a rocket scientist is likely to know more about rockets than Molly Malone...
When I say "is likely" I mean "is likely" Not "does always"

It depends... who is Molly Malone? Seriously, yes, I agree that is the fact. But a statistician can certainly deduct facts about the environment from statistics. The fact is that most environmentalists use statistics when they present their image of the world to the public.

In my opinion saying that is actually discreditting him. If you are suspicious about my intentions please let me hear. I cant really see what I should have to gain from discreditting Lomborg, so Im quite curious.

Of course not your intentions personally. I expect you say what you've been told is true. I just get suspicious when a hetz like the one in question is launched against a person. You must admit, he hasn't been treated very well by his colleagues or the media.

You got me all confused now. Do you actually agree with me or do you accuse me of posting unfounded slander?

The latter.

You might as well say: "If you're really saying the truth I believe you, but I think you lie"

Right.

Nice!

Thanks.

I said Osama to spice things up a bit, which I think you are totally aware of by the way.

Yes, but had there been any audience (do you realise that we probably constitute half of the active members here that could actually discuss this? ), this would mean that you are trying associate Lomborg with terrible and bad things. It's a common technique in discussions.

However, the fact that they cannot be compared on a "Who's the worst" scale does not provide you with a counter argument, when I claim that it's wrong to like someone more, simply because other people hate them.

If that's what I said, then it came out wrong. But when everybody just seems to try slander him without being able to pin anything serious on him and criticise his work without him being able to defend it very well, then I just have to sympathise with him. The fact is that every time he's been given a chance to defend himself, he's done so quite well.

You can call me Alex-slander if you like, but that dosn't make it right. I actually don't think it's fair and I think you should do better. Either you are wrongly accusing me of slandering, or everybody is by your definition of the word, slandering.

You're not the one who's doing the actual slandering. His colleagues and the media are. The fact that this seems to disrupt your view of him doesn't make me consider you anything more than a medium of the slander.

I'm a damned arrogant bastard, am I not?

Seriously, I don't want to discuss him any more. This is not interesting. I don't think there's any point in discussing this anymore. At least I have nothing to prove anymore. So if you could just wrap it up, trash me a little, and then call it a day, I'd be grateful.

 

[insurgent]

However as both me and Luiz seem to agree that different things might work for different countries.

I thought you disagreed on the drugs issue about that. Anyway, I disagree.

The space-time yada yada has nothing do to with my point, please stick to it.

It was meant as a light-hearted little quip. Perhaps I'm not a very funny person, but then you could just be tactful and ignore my poor sense of humour.
Anyway, I answered your question:

Seriously, yes, defending a principle cannot be wrong. Thinking carefully about how you can achieve the principles is also a good thing. Principles are absolutes and cannot be bent.

Hitler wasn't the only who spoke in the Weimar Republic, you know. I doubt what you proposed would have prevented WWII. You could just have said "kill him" instead. That would have been infringing on his rights as well.

I don't know if you've said it before. I have not read all of your 3000 posts you know...

I think you should. It's good stuff. The point about the freedom of speech was one of those irrelevant little remarks that didn't need to be pointed out. If you're dislike it, then just ignore it.

About the principle, well I disagree with you. Rememeber the thread with the question:
If you had to chose between two buttons, one killing a random person, one killing a million which one would you choose. Mind you, if you don't push a button all of them will die - leaving one million and one dead.
In this example I would break my principle not to kill, in order to save one million lives. That, I don't think is wrong. And never mind that the example is absurd since that has nothing to do with the point, or principle if you like.

I honestly don't know what I would do. I guess I'd do what you chose. But there's no way for me not to violate anyone's rights in that situation, is there now? There is with drugs.

 

[luiz]

But if guns should be judged individually why shouldn't drugs?

I think the subjects are different, but for the record I think that both guns and drugs, as a general rule, should be legalised. Not meaning that this is the best idea in all cases, but as a general rule.

 

[insurgent]

I can agree with that.

 

[storealex]

Seriously, I don't want to discuss him any more. This is not interesting. I don't think there's any point in discussing this anymore. At least I have nothing to prove anymore. So if you could just wrap it up, trash me a little, and then call it a day, I'd be grateful.

Since you don't want to discuss Bjørn Lomborg it would be rude of me to continue. However I do regard it quite rude when you call me a liar and an easy exponent to false media propaganda. Well, your accusations are wrong, and it takes away my incitament for participating in discussions with you, so I'll just answer your questions and leave the rest as it is.

who is Molly Malone?

Molly Malone is the famous fishmonger from an Irish folksong - you know, the one of which statue I showed to you over msn. You mentioned a fishmonger and I simply replaced fishmonger with Molly Malone.

I'm a damned arrogant bastard, am I not?

Indeed and the problem with it is that no one is never 100% right. So we're all wrong at least some times, and being arrogant makes it harder to accept when you're wrong.

 

[storealex]

It was meant as a light-hearted little quip. Perhaps I'm not a very funny person, but then you could just be tactful and ignore my poor sense of humour.

It never occured to me that you were trying to be funny. Probably because I was bitter over your accusations.

I think you should. It's good stuff. The point about the freedom of speech was one of those irrelevant little remarks that didn't need to be pointed out. If you're dislike it, then just ignore it.

I've always seen it as good custum to reply to everything people write to me.

I honestly don't know what I would do. I guess I'd do what you chose. But there's no way for me not to violate anyone's rights in that situation, is there now?

In that situation you would violate the rights of the single man you killed.

 

[luiz]

In that situation you would violate the rights of the single man you killed.

I had a gigantic discussion about this in a WillJ's thread, and my point was that Inaction does Equate Action.

Those people don't have the right to be saved by Insurgent. Insurgent doesn't have an obligation to save them, it is not his fault they are in that situation.

So if he refuses to push the buttom, he is not violating anyone's rights, even if it requires a heartless person to do so.

The only person who vilolated a right was the person that put those peope in that miserable situation.

An extention of this argument, albeit not perfect, can be drawn. In your scenario that single man would die anyway, so I could say that for all effects his right to live has already beign violated and there's no coming back. Killing him in order to save one million is therefore not violating his rights(his rights were already violated to a point where they didn't exist).

 

[insurgent]

Molly Malone is the famous fishmonger from an Irish folksong - you know, the one of which statue I showed to you over msn. You mentioned a fishmonger and I simply replaced fishmonger with Molly Malone.

Ah, that makes sense. I just thought it was a random person to use as an example.

Indeed and the problem with it is that no one is never 100% right. So we're all wrong at least some times, and being arrogant makes it harder to accept when you're wrong.

I don't think I'm wrong about him, but I've completely forgotten the relevance of this argument.

But yeah, you're right, much of what he does is probably not serious science, otherwise he wouldn't be trashed quite so much.

Did I just continue the discussion? Sorry about that.