Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
justme
Participant>>==Ren
>> I’m aware that a 500hp car driven at the limit will consume more than a 60hp Civic.Not only that, but it will consume 5x the oil when driven the way
a typical civic is driven, and MUCH MORE if driven if driven by a speed and acceleration enthusiast.It might interest people to know that Nascar and Formula 1 cars get about 4-6 mpg (FOUR TO SIX ) and 3mpg in a race. And they are not even doing any useful work, they are just going round in circles
http://www.youthyack.com/content/stories/editorial/1049140418.shtml
>>Carbon dioxide and water (also an exhaust emission) aren’t dangerous to people or the environment.
CO2 is dangerous without being toxic. It is dangerous for two reasons:
1. climate change
2. CO2 emissions is directly proportional to oil consumption. High oil consumption causes future energy deficits.
There are people who deny both 1 and 2. Category 1 are know as climate-change deniers. I guess we’ll have to come up with a name for category 2. Perhaps 1st-law-of-thermodynamics deniers? Or Immaculate oil conceptionists?
Participant>>==Ren
>> I’m aware that a 500hp car driven at the limit will consume more than a 60hp Civic.Not only that, but it will consume 5x the oil when driven the way
a typical civic is driven, and MUCH MORE if driven if driven by a speed and acceleration enthusiast.It might interest people to know that Nascar and Formula 1 cars get about 4-6 mpg (FOUR TO SIX ) and 3mpg in a race. And they are not even doing any useful work, they are just going round in circles
http://www.youthyack.com/content/stories/editorial/1049140418.shtml
>>Carbon dioxide and water (also an exhaust emission) aren’t dangerous to people or the environment.
CO2 is dangerous without being toxic. It is dangerous for two reasons:
1. climate change
2. CO2 emissions is directly proportional to oil consumption. High oil consumption causes future energy deficits.
There are people who deny both 1 and 2. Category 1 are know as climate-change deniers. I guess we’ll have to come up with a name for category 2. Perhaps 1st-law-of-thermodynamics deniers? Or Immaculate oil conceptionists?
Participant>>==Ren
>> I’m aware that a 500hp car driven at the limit will consume more than a 60hp Civic.Not only that, but it will consume 5x the oil when driven the way
a typical civic is driven, and MUCH MORE if driven if driven by a speed and acceleration enthusiast.It might interest people to know that Nascar and Formula 1 cars get about 4-6 mpg (FOUR TO SIX ) and 3mpg in a race. And they are not even doing any useful work, they are just going round in circles
http://www.youthyack.com/content/stories/editorial/1049140418.shtml
>>Carbon dioxide and water (also an exhaust emission) aren’t dangerous to people or the environment.
CO2 is dangerous without being toxic. It is dangerous for two reasons:
1. climate change
2. CO2 emissions is directly proportional to oil consumption. High oil consumption causes future energy deficits.
There are people who deny both 1 and 2. Category 1 are know as climate-change deniers. I guess we’ll have to come up with a name for category 2. Perhaps 1st-law-of-thermodynamics deniers? Or Immaculate oil conceptionists?
Participant>>==Ren
>> I’m aware that a 500hp car driven at the limit will consume more than a 60hp Civic.Not only that, but it will consume 5x the oil when driven the way
a typical civic is driven, and MUCH MORE if driven if driven by a speed and acceleration enthusiast.It might interest people to know that Nascar and Formula 1 cars get about 4-6 mpg (FOUR TO SIX ) and 3mpg in a race. And they are not even doing any useful work, they are just going round in circles
http://www.youthyack.com/content/stories/editorial/1049140418.shtml
>>Carbon dioxide and water (also an exhaust emission) aren’t dangerous to people or the environment.
CO2 is dangerous without being toxic. It is dangerous for two reasons:
1. climate change
2. CO2 emissions is directly proportional to oil consumption. High oil consumption causes future energy deficits.
There are people who deny both 1 and 2. Category 1 are know as climate-change deniers. I guess we’ll have to come up with a name for category 2. Perhaps 1st-law-of-thermodynamics deniers? Or Immaculate oil conceptionists?
Participant>>==Ren
>> I’m aware that a 500hp car driven at the limit will consume more than a 60hp Civic.Not only that, but it will consume 5x the oil when driven the way
a typical civic is driven, and MUCH MORE if driven if driven by a speed and acceleration enthusiast.It might interest people to know that Nascar and Formula 1 cars get about 4-6 mpg (FOUR TO SIX ) and 3mpg in a race. And they are not even doing any useful work, they are just going round in circles
http://www.youthyack.com/content/stories/editorial/1049140418.shtml
>>Carbon dioxide and water (also an exhaust emission) aren’t dangerous to people or the environment.
CO2 is dangerous without being toxic. It is dangerous for two reasons:
1. climate change
2. CO2 emissions is directly proportional to oil consumption. High oil consumption causes future energy deficits.
There are people who deny both 1 and 2. Category 1 are know as climate-change deniers. I guess we’ll have to come up with a name for category 2. Perhaps 1st-law-of-thermodynamics deniers? Or Immaculate oil conceptionists?
Participant>> == sdduuuude
>>Staying out of debt is a peaceful and honest activity. Nobody has the right to force them away from it, in my opinion.
Using your own type of argument, I could and will argue that wasting oil now imposes an energy debt on the public in the future. So how come that is ok while monetary debt is not? I want that we all stay out of energy debt, through democratic political means. Using your own words, are you gong to force me away from it because of your “inalienable right”?
>>So, note – taking on public debt and mandating MPG requirements both force people away from actions that are peaceful and honest.
That depends completely on some arbitrary choice that you make as to what constitutes “peaceful and honest”.
And by the way, is it “peaceful an honest to waste oil when the US military wastes hundreds of thousands of lives and, by the way, also incurs trillions in public debt dollars to support it?
>>Because, justme, I have very rigorous, objective definition of what is and what isn’t a right. I follow the series of actions all the way through and identify which actions force other people away from any peaceful and honest activity.
I’m not so sure that your definitions are very rigorous nor objective. And therein lies the problem of your stated method.
If you ask me, your whole argument that creating public monetary debt is somehow fundamentally different than wasting oil (creating public energy debt) does not hold up.I don’t expect to be able to convince you, but there may be others that gain some insight from this discussion.
>>Lets be clear – I don’t want to waste oil.
I am pleased to hear that, and there is absolutely no sarcasm intended by me in saying so. Thank you.
Participant>> == sdduuuude
>>Staying out of debt is a peaceful and honest activity. Nobody has the right to force them away from it, in my opinion.
Using your own type of argument, I could and will argue that wasting oil now imposes an energy debt on the public in the future. So how come that is ok while monetary debt is not? I want that we all stay out of energy debt, through democratic political means. Using your own words, are you gong to force me away from it because of your “inalienable right”?
>>So, note – taking on public debt and mandating MPG requirements both force people away from actions that are peaceful and honest.
That depends completely on some arbitrary choice that you make as to what constitutes “peaceful and honest”.
And by the way, is it “peaceful an honest to waste oil when the US military wastes hundreds of thousands of lives and, by the way, also incurs trillions in public debt dollars to support it?
>>Because, justme, I have very rigorous, objective definition of what is and what isn’t a right. I follow the series of actions all the way through and identify which actions force other people away from any peaceful and honest activity.
I’m not so sure that your definitions are very rigorous nor objective. And therein lies the problem of your stated method.
If you ask me, your whole argument that creating public monetary debt is somehow fundamentally different than wasting oil (creating public energy debt) does not hold up.I don’t expect to be able to convince you, but there may be others that gain some insight from this discussion.
>>Lets be clear – I don’t want to waste oil.
I am pleased to hear that, and there is absolutely no sarcasm intended by me in saying so. Thank you.
Participant>> == sdduuuude
>>Staying out of debt is a peaceful and honest activity. Nobody has the right to force them away from it, in my opinion.
Using your own type of argument, I could and will argue that wasting oil now imposes an energy debt on the public in the future. So how come that is ok while monetary debt is not? I want that we all stay out of energy debt, through democratic political means. Using your own words, are you gong to force me away from it because of your “inalienable right”?
>>So, note – taking on public debt and mandating MPG requirements both force people away from actions that are peaceful and honest.
That depends completely on some arbitrary choice that you make as to what constitutes “peaceful and honest”.
And by the way, is it “peaceful an honest to waste oil when the US military wastes hundreds of thousands of lives and, by the way, also incurs trillions in public debt dollars to support it?
>>Because, justme, I have very rigorous, objective definition of what is and what isn’t a right. I follow the series of actions all the way through and identify which actions force other people away from any peaceful and honest activity.
I’m not so sure that your definitions are very rigorous nor objective. And therein lies the problem of your stated method.
If you ask me, your whole argument that creating public monetary debt is somehow fundamentally different than wasting oil (creating public energy debt) does not hold up.I don’t expect to be able to convince you, but there may be others that gain some insight from this discussion.
>>Lets be clear – I don’t want to waste oil.
I am pleased to hear that, and there is absolutely no sarcasm intended by me in saying so. Thank you.
Participant>> == sdduuuude
>>Staying out of debt is a peaceful and honest activity. Nobody has the right to force them away from it, in my opinion.
Using your own type of argument, I could and will argue that wasting oil now imposes an energy debt on the public in the future. So how come that is ok while monetary debt is not? I want that we all stay out of energy debt, through democratic political means. Using your own words, are you gong to force me away from it because of your “inalienable right”?
>>So, note – taking on public debt and mandating MPG requirements both force people away from actions that are peaceful and honest.
That depends completely on some arbitrary choice that you make as to what constitutes “peaceful and honest”.
And by the way, is it “peaceful an honest to waste oil when the US military wastes hundreds of thousands of lives and, by the way, also incurs trillions in public debt dollars to support it?
>>Because, justme, I have very rigorous, objective definition of what is and what isn’t a right. I follow the series of actions all the way through and identify which actions force other people away from any peaceful and honest activity.
I’m not so sure that your definitions are very rigorous nor objective. And therein lies the problem of your stated method.
If you ask me, your whole argument that creating public monetary debt is somehow fundamentally different than wasting oil (creating public energy debt) does not hold up.I don’t expect to be able to convince you, but there may be others that gain some insight from this discussion.
>>Lets be clear – I don’t want to waste oil.
I am pleased to hear that, and there is absolutely no sarcasm intended by me in saying so. Thank you.
Participant>> == sdduuuude
>>Staying out of debt is a peaceful and honest activity. Nobody has the right to force them away from it, in my opinion.
Using your own type of argument, I could and will argue that wasting oil now imposes an energy debt on the public in the future. So how come that is ok while monetary debt is not? I want that we all stay out of energy debt, through democratic political means. Using your own words, are you gong to force me away from it because of your “inalienable right”?
>>So, note – taking on public debt and mandating MPG requirements both force people away from actions that are peaceful and honest.
That depends completely on some arbitrary choice that you make as to what constitutes “peaceful and honest”.
And by the way, is it “peaceful an honest to waste oil when the US military wastes hundreds of thousands of lives and, by the way, also incurs trillions in public debt dollars to support it?
>>Because, justme, I have very rigorous, objective definition of what is and what isn’t a right. I follow the series of actions all the way through and identify which actions force other people away from any peaceful and honest activity.
I’m not so sure that your definitions are very rigorous nor objective. And therein lies the problem of your stated method.
If you ask me, your whole argument that creating public monetary debt is somehow fundamentally different than wasting oil (creating public energy debt) does not hold up.I don’t expect to be able to convince you, but there may be others that gain some insight from this discussion.
>>Lets be clear – I don’t want to waste oil.
I am pleased to hear that, and there is absolutely no sarcasm intended by me in saying so. Thank you.
ParticipantListen sdduude, what I was attempting to do in my first post was to expose a very common double standard:
Whatever you want to do (waste oil) you define of as an inalienable right, and whatever you do NOT want to do you (incur public debt) you want to impose on everyone, although perhaps through a democratic political process of some sort.
Why does not the same standard apply the other way around? Or better yet, why do we not apply a regular democratic standard to all decisions and choices that clearly affect EVERYONE and are not just a private matter that does not affect anyone else?
This whole business of getting on a high horse and claiming inalienable rights in a matter that clearly affects directly every person on the planet is inconsistent, one might even say plain wrong.
ParticipantListen sdduude, what I was attempting to do in my first post was to expose a very common double standard:
Whatever you want to do (waste oil) you define of as an inalienable right, and whatever you do NOT want to do you (incur public debt) you want to impose on everyone, although perhaps through a democratic political process of some sort.
Why does not the same standard apply the other way around? Or better yet, why do we not apply a regular democratic standard to all decisions and choices that clearly affect EVERYONE and are not just a private matter that does not affect anyone else?
This whole business of getting on a high horse and claiming inalienable rights in a matter that clearly affects directly every person on the planet is inconsistent, one might even say plain wrong.
ParticipantListen sdduude, what I was attempting to do in my first post was to expose a very common double standard:
Whatever you want to do (waste oil) you define of as an inalienable right, and whatever you do NOT want to do you (incur public debt) you want to impose on everyone, although perhaps through a democratic political process of some sort.
Why does not the same standard apply the other way around? Or better yet, why do we not apply a regular democratic standard to all decisions and choices that clearly affect EVERYONE and are not just a private matter that does not affect anyone else?
This whole business of getting on a high horse and claiming inalienable rights in a matter that clearly affects directly every person on the planet is inconsistent, one might even say plain wrong.
ParticipantListen sdduude, what I was attempting to do in my first post was to expose a very common double standard:
Whatever you want to do (waste oil) you define of as an inalienable right, and whatever you do NOT want to do you (incur public debt) you want to impose on everyone, although perhaps through a democratic political process of some sort.
Why does not the same standard apply the other way around? Or better yet, why do we not apply a regular democratic standard to all decisions and choices that clearly affect EVERYONE and are not just a private matter that does not affect anyone else?
This whole business of getting on a high horse and claiming inalienable rights in a matter that clearly affects directly every person on the planet is inconsistent, one might even say plain wrong.
-
AuthorPosts