makeithappen40

>Will you be making that determination or will someone else? Did I make that determination? You will "have to" show me where I did. >Every now and then I have good reasons for causing planetary chaos - but only so much as necessary to have a safe ride. Or so we hope. Even you said that safety may (or may not) mean something else. That leaves the door open for other reasons to think SUV's in general (or even yours) are dangerous. >Actually, you did. You said "you have to...". It's a fairly innocent thing to most. Not to me. I find it to be a statement exercising authority. Which leads to certain ideas about the speaker Ok. Unfortunately, you know I didn't put it in a context that exersizes control over your will. As in, it means that adopting a pure version of that philosophy means that there are ill effects, and those ill effects, left untouched, will turn out to be something to be attended to, that is, if you so decided to. We will examine another statement. "You have to add water to the cake mix to make the batter." Unfortunately, the notion of "have to" can occur outside of authoritative requirement. Whether there is someone telling you to add water to the mix or not, you still cannot obtain the desired result without attending to the ingredients/steps. "To skydive you have to get out of the airplane" "To crawl you have to be on all fours" "To use a computer, you have to provide the computer electricity" No one is saying that you "have to" do anything, or even that you "should do" them here. Of course, we could create ethical statements or authoritative statements out of those above. "Get out of the airplane so you can skydive" "Get on all fours so you can crawl" "Provide the computer electricity, so you can use it" "If you want to skydive, then you should get of the airplane" "If you want to crawl, you should get on all fours" "If you want to use the computer, you should provide the computer electricity" There is a very sharp difference between each set of sentences. Please don't confuse them. >"I believe the limitations are desirable when the exercise of one person's freedom interfered with the freedom of another" Might your remaining course of action involve doing something about this? When you write "you have to" it sure as hell does. You told me I have no choice. In the interpretation that you are predisposed to, sure. See above. >The former presents a subkective opinion as objective fact (heres the statement again) "you have to add further instructions or restrictions" (heres a parallel statement) "You have to add water to mix to make cake mix" The latter, actually, is an objective fact. You can present "have to" statements as objective fact without losing the meaning. This is similiar to the "you have to do something to repair the damages of self-interest." >Different people have different perspectives based upon individual cloices of what it important Uh huh. That is why there are so many of you out there who drive the same cars, work in the same cities, eat the same types of foods, have the same diseases, see the same doctors, watch the same television programs, go to the same churches, take the same classes, have the same discussions, wear the same clothes, and adopt the same political perspectives that have been on paper since Plato's Republic. >There it is again. Do what you think you have to do. I would greatly prefer if you left it to me to decide what I have to do for myself. Why, it looks like you have used the same commandeering language toward me. "Do what you think you have to do." Did you mean to say that I am free to do what I please? Or could that statement be misconstrued as an authoritative suggestion as well?

>Are you are the arbiter of foolishness What? You do and do not make sense. >You are right. I don't accept your premise. I would considering accepting that it applied to my car, in the face of evidence to the contrary, to be contrary to objective data. Conveniently, I've shown you data (which did not exist when I bought my car) to show that my judgment was actually pretty solid, in my opinion. Fantastic. This is relevant information. Are you reading this rhys? >Yes. I just hate when people say, "You have to..." or "You need to..." Unless it's my boss, um, no I don't "have to" or "need to" do anything I don't want to do. I will add something because I want to. Not "have" to Ahhh I see now. Did I say anything so commanding? I didnt say you HAD to do anything, as in you were required to do so by my or some other external authority. I said that ethical egoism results in great damage, which is something that society ends up being interested in fixing. This doesn't mean that you have to do it, or that you wouldnt want to fix the ill aspects of self-interest, it just states that those aspects are there-fix them/don't fix them/do whatever. "I mean, I understand that you endorse the notion that all men be self-determining individualistic agents, but at the same time you have to add further instructions or restrictions to that in order to eliminate the undesirable side effects of such a philosophy." This statement doesn't imply that anyone is exercising their power over you. It entails that there are ill effects that, given your desire to fix them, would be something you want to fix. (Because self-interested results in many things that are damaging to society or even to your self in the long-run) > I concur. I did that assessment. So did the IIHS. I'd suspect that there will be those who will not admit that many SUV's of today are not those of the 1990s. Objective data suggests they are not Well done. Perhaps there will arise another reputable study that will indicate otherwise. Are there other factors involved that make SUV's dangerous that werent tested? We will have to look further. "But safety may mean more than that." >You have not provided any evidence of the hazards of my vehicle. Not "SUV's" - I mean MY vehicle. Well, was that the issue? I thought we were discussing all SUV's as a whole earlier. >And you know it. You begged the question by putting "IF" in CAPS. Yours parallels the anti-abortionists: "A fetus has a right to life. Ergo, abortion is immoral." Please explain how my hypothetical statement is circular. Why A? Because A.

Unfortunately, for every time you say that there is a debate, there are five more rushMC's out there to tell you that your wrong. The problem here, is that the rushMC's out there might have a point here, so we (for once) can't discredit that. There are valid objections to global warming theories, dude.

Isn't Co2 a prime factor in breaking down O3?

Not at all, but when the individual uses common sense and basic physics, and the sheep just believe what they are told, then the sheep are wrong. it take more courage to stand up for what you believe in than it does to go with the flow. there are not that many couragous human beings these days. The Catholic church also used "common sense" and "basic physics" to say that the Earth was the center of the Universe, too. That one didn't work out to well for them. Well of course it take courage to stand up to the masses. I think there are alot of couragous people out there today. (Like the women of Iran) Basic physics and common sense haven't quite answered the global warming debate yet. However, you can be firm in knowing that there will always be people out there who will never admit to you that their conception of something is false. Name your own examples.

This has to be the single most debated empirical phenomenon of the 20th century. Debated empirical phenomenon? What does that mean? How is it that having the ability to test claims like: "increasing CO2 levels have increased global temperatures by x number of degrees" hasn't solved this yet? It seems that there are two dominant sides to this issue: Side 1: Co2 levels have increased global temperatures, and we are causing it Side 2: Co2 levels have increased, but global temperatures have not increased as a result of Co2 emissions Side 2+: Co2 levels have increased, but were not doing it enough to slow down global warming (Yea. I know. I have heard this before and it sounds like total bullshit, but I figured I would stick it in here for those of us who feel they can explain how rising Co2 levels would decrease global temperatures on the same scale that the environmentalists think that it has increased on-this does not include resulting ice-ages. For the record, you people are nuts.) How the hell can something that is so testable be affirmed and then denied repeatedly for so long? Ill leave you with a quote from Eric Cartman's Somalian Pirate Adventures: "THE FUCK?"

>1000,000 sheep ganging up on one individual that believes otherwise, does not make the sheep right. Right. Does that mean that if "1000,000" sheep gang irrationally gang up on an individual, that what that individual has to say is correct?

Well, you know, unless you know that they came from Saudi Arabia.

I can get my Nav260 to go fast. Just kidding.

>Okay. So, therein lies the double edged sword. Whose values are more important? My desire to have an SUV versus his desire that I not have one? Or his desire that I not put more CO2 into the air than he deems necessary. More important in what context? Do you mean which one is more important in terms to the costs/benefits available to society? (That is, the society that will be putting forth measures to control such emissions) Can you explain how something like that is still up to your interpretation, and therefore subjective? We can be highly objective (explicitly clear/concrete) when discussing such issues. You are not an idiot for your choice unless your choice turns out to express the foolishness that idiocity is characterised by. Alot of people would here would say that the person who drives an SUV for the reasons you mentioned is an idiot because their delusion of safety is false given the other dangers that exist when so many people do drive SUVs. >So when I say, "I drive an SUV because my priority is the safest vehicle I can get" I have no contradiction Unless, of course, you accept the premise that SUV's are responsible for as many deaths as smaller cars are on highways. (Who was it here that mentioned this regarding children and rollovers?) In that case, you would have a contradiction. Of course, you aren't accepting that premise, so there is no contradiction in your own terms. Convenient. > I "have to add" nothing. That being said, I believe certain limitations on human behavior are necessary to avoid another person's infringement on the quiet enjoyment and quiet enjoyment of others. Isn't that "adding" something? >But, such side effects that I consider "undesirable" may be considered "desirable" by you. See? "Desirable" has no objective sense. No, your preference of big or small or red or green SUV's has no objective sense in itself. However, given that we can compare the dangers of driving large SUV's to smaller vehicles, we can uncover which vehicle is more likely to kill its occupants and under which circumstances those deaths would occur. That is not subjective. Those facts, once obtained, would be concrete i.e. objective. How have you said my statements are marked by subjectivity again? "Desirability" is fairly subjective, but facts aren't. Hooold on here. Ok I just saw this. Wow. "I am not saying that my SUV is morally correct. I am saying that my SUV is morally incorrect. " Fair enough. Interesting approach. Something is morally wrong, but you keep doing it. That puts a whole new spin on ethics. Maybe they will call the class Ethics: Doing what you think is wrong and making it not matter. >If rhys had simply said, "I believe that the harm fromskydiving operations is small enough to justify the continuing of the operations" then I absolutely cannot objectively disagree with him. Oh really? So forming a belief means that you cannot objectively criticize that person's belief. Interesting. "I believe all chickens are really dinosaurs." Well, lets be as objective as we can here. Evidence (which, of course, says that chickens aren't dinosaurs) allows us to disagree with that persons belief. They can believe all they want, it just turns out that their belief is false. Objectivity is concrete and fact-based. We can definitely use that here. >My view of morality respects the beliefs of others even if I disagree. I'll let him keep jumping. Well, even for you your own morality doesn't matter apparently. Just like when you said you drive an SUV yet think it is immoral. >On the other hand, I will disagree with objective assertions of idiocy because of subkective disagreement What? You could probably say this given that the definition of idiocity includes foolishness and senselessness. Does that mean we can't objectively criticize someone based on the criterion set forth in the definition of idiocity? Negatron. >Note - I pointed out how you inherently used subjective analysis. It is not wrong - it's expected from everyone. But it creates logical and ethical problems, does it not? Explain. >I will ask again - does my preference for an SUV objectively make me an idiot? You've skirted that Well, I suppose you can "prefer" whichever you want. But that does not mean that we cannot match a persons actions resulting from their choices with idiocity. In common usage of idiocity there comes a bit of variability regarding what an idiot is. However, we can still match facts with the definition of idiocity. IF driving an SUV makes you: 1. an utterly foolish or senseless person. 2. Psychology. a person of the lowest order in a former classification of mental retardation, having a mental age of less than three years old and an intelligence quotient under 25. THEN you are an idiot. Pretty objective, huh?

>The debate can be had IF and only IF there is a premise based on some level of truth or proof. That does not exist in this case That seems to be up for debate, still. It seems a bit hasty to say something like that, considering there are other damages being discussed regarding SUV's, in this thread.

Given the possibility that "reality" has often failed our expectations in the past, we have reason to suspect that the "reality" you speak of isn't actual. This is for the same reason that we can deny the existence of the Christian god. There is reason to suspect that this god does not exist. However, we equally as much cannot say that god does not exist. Is this sufficient to say that God does in fact exist? No. Is this sufficient to say that God does not in fact exist? No. Is this sufficient to say that God punishes those who don't follow him? No. Is this sufficient to say that God cares about the outcome of our actions? No Is this sufficient to say that God's interest is aligned with our interest at all? No.

>What is important to me is relevant to me and me alone. Unless, of course, it involves chemical weapons or anything that might interfere with the lives of other self-interested human beings. >Because I value certain things more than others does not make me an idiot, does it? If you think it does, then I disagree with you, too. If not, then you disagree with rhys Well that all depends. If you value something like the existence of a government that imposes no taxes on its citizens but fully endorse how it spends the majority of those funds, that could make you an idiot. (The idea here is that endorsing a major contradiction would make a person an idiot.) I mean, I understand that you endorse the notion that all men be self-determining individualistic agents, but at the same time you have to add further instructions or restrictions to that in order to eliminate the undesirable side effects of such a philosophy. (In a similiar way to how a socialist state would want to use capitalistic techniques to spike production) The pure socialist approach doesn't answer all of the problems it creates, just like pure capitalism doesn't. (edit) >I disagree with them because there is no right or wrong in subjective preference. Right. But does that mean that there is no right or wrong in evaluative standards? Nope, because we simply do not know at this point in time which set of ethical standards is "morally correct" and which ones aren't, other than the obviously false ethical sets that aren't even consistent.

>He would support the government imposing his views and actions on the rest of us Ok. You also advise that they should live in accordance with laws already set forth. If a law were created against say, SUV's, for a legitimate purpose, would you endorse such a law then? For how long could the ethical egoists thesis last here? Is it really feasible for each of us to "drive or burn as we wish?" Will there ever be a time where widespread self-interest destroys a population in such a fashion? I think strict self-interest eventually runs itself into the ground, in one way or another. I think this is why most libertarians adopt a mode of "rational self-interest,"-in an effort to cover-up the problems that a strictly self-interested approach creates; and it, I think, is also the reason people occasionally advocate new laws regarding such matters-like gun laws or emissions laws. (The egoists problems are the same things that Jesus warned about, you know, like: Greed, Lust, Power, Gluttony, and so-on.) Isn't THAT what this is really about?

Given that you still have a chance to get in an accident and that there is a chance that the SUV won't save you, you don't necessarily need to drive an SUV, either. I don't think rhys is saying that it is necessary to his existence that he continue skydiving. Also, because your interpretation of "what is important to me" is merely your interpretation, rhys can also say the same thing about skydiving quite easily. He decides to "waste" the fuel because skydiving is important to him. He feels that skydiving is a much safer sport than others. There are a whole list of things out there that are far more dangerous than skydiving, and there are also many sports that waste much more fuel than do trips in airplanes. Why is your conception of "what is important" more relevant than his? I don't think it is.

Right on man. It's been a while since we've had a goold ol' fashioned holocaust. We ought to learn from the last one, though. I mean, the Germans made it waaaay to obvious that they were murdering people. Is it possible that we could cover this one up, or maybe even put our camps on another continent? Oh... wait.. I didn't notice the expediency that you might have intended on your posts. Perhaps we could have our gestapo drive the ovens around instead. (edit: grammar)

Excellent. Change "invade" to "violent occupation" and you have a winner. My point still stands.

That might depend on what side you were on. I'm guessing the ones all over the country that were bombing americans didn't invite them.

*cough* vietnam, etc.

With Iran's political uprising and the United States' declaration of independence, you might almost start to think that people are capable of earning their own sovereignty, and that the last dozen infamous leaders of the United States just might not have an excuse anymore for invading other countries to "promote democracy" through authoritarian-level socialist means.

Jan... I looked up that name on the forums here... is there some animosity going on over this person?

Wow, I had no idea. (Honestly. It wasn't my intention to use another person's name.)

Red Herring.

NO! NO! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooo................ Mothafucka aint doin a good job. Mothafuckas need more reasons. Good reasons. Mothafucka. I never said that you FIRST mentioned funding in this topic either. I started with a caricature (your gonna like that word, Tom!) to have a little fun. You broadened the issue to other kinds of unnecessary funding. I don't really care if you use that. Discretionary funding that neither of us had said we preferred (ever) is applicable here. Are you done HERE? You have been doing a great job of bleeding threads dry. (Mothafucka.)

"Meet the new boss...same as the old boss" - The Who And here is where I made the connection to my response to your post. Meet the Boss. Same as the Old Boss. Decided to talk about it a little bit. You cared to join. Thanks. Great guy.