You still haven't pointed out ONE non sequitur. It's so bullshit of you to claim I have posted a fallacy and you refuse to identify it.
Every action we take affects the future. That's a non argument.
As far as the climate, none of us own it. And unfortunately, it can only exists as a commons given our current technological level. You have no more right to preserve it than I do to pollute it, except to make emotional arguments about future humans.
This isn't free speech. You have none in a theater, the theatre owns the property and can decide what appropriate speech is. If the theater doesn't own the property, then there is no free speech, there is only chaos.
This is simple socialism. Some people know better than others, and reserve the right to boss other people around at the barrel of a gun.
It's always the same story every time. The masses are too stupid to do the right thing. Some benevolent leaders and technocrats must tell them what to do.
Businessmen have an incentive to produce quality products without government intervention. It is called the profit and loss system.
That's debatable, because you haven't demonstrated much intelligence in this discussion. It's little critical thinking or understanding of economics.
Do the research. You're the one sporting him as your avatar. Who was he? What did he do? What did he preach and write?
It's all out there.
http://www.google.com/search?q=che+guevara+murderer
You still haven't pointed out ONE non sequitur. It's so bullshit of you to claim I have posted a fallacy and you refuse to identify it.
non se•qui•tur (nn skw-tr, -tr)
n.
1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence.
2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it.
For example: You're not smarter than me when it comes to my affairs, because in my life, I have one thing you do not. My own skin in my game. Likewise, you know better for your life, because you have your own ass on the line.
None of this really does anything for your argument. The matter being discussed here is the inefficient energy output being produced by old light bulbs and how much energy it draws from our energy grid and therefore the carbon footprint it leaves. This has nothing to do with someone’s “own ass on the line.” Someone’s “own ass on the line” at the time of purchase means saving 50 cents on light bulbs. This is contradictory to efficient energy use, which affects the rest of us.
I’ll admit, since your statements are more in the category of rants and not really drawing much of a conclusion, it may have been premature to assume a non sequitur since there doesn’t appear to exist an actual train of thought involved.
Every action we take affects the future. That's a non argument.
No doubt. We can clearly agree that none of us exist in a vacuum and our actions therefore have a resounding effect. However I’m sure you’ll agree that at some point there’s a threshold on what we should or shouldn’t b allowed to do. I don’t have the right to steal someone’s property or assault them simply because other things that I’m allowed to do, also affect them. So obviously there exists a point at which we can limit the effect one is allowed to have on another. We’re simply disagreeing on where that threshold lies.
As far as the climate, none of us own it. And unfortunately, it can only exists as a commons given our current technological level. You have no more right to preserve it than I do to pollute it, except to make emotional arguments about future humans.
Actually I do. You see, both you and I can live in the type of atmosphere that anatomically modern humans have always existed under. Whereas the type of atmosphere that we are creating is associated with mass extinctions on the past and it’s scheduled to happen at a much faster pace. I have every right to prevent you from ruining the atmosphere my children and I will live in as I do to prevent you from stealing something from me. The former is simply more subtle.
This isn't free speech. You have none in a theater, the theatre owns the property and can decide what appropriate speech is. If the theater doesn't own the property, then there is no free speech, there is only chaos.
Nice try, but this isn’t true. It’s a business not a monarchy and as a business is subject to certain regulations in order to stay in business. Furthermore, you can exchange a theatre for virtually any other edifice or a variety of media (ie a wbsite). By law we are allowed to express ourselves, but there are limits on what we can say.
This is simple socialism. Some people know better than others, and reserve the right to boss other people around at the barrel of a gun.
No it’s not. Socialism is the collective ownership of property and means of production. Regulation is simply the, well, regulation. Legislation that we can no longer use inefficient light bulbs is not tantamount to government ownership of the means of productions of light bulbs.
And for the record, some people do know better than others. That’s what an energy committee is for. People go to a doctor because that doctor knows better. People hire SEOs because they know better.
It's always the same story every time. The masses are too stupid to do the right thing. Some benevolent leaders and technocrats must tell them what to do.
And it’s always the same appeal to emotion about “the masses being too stupid” instead of addressing the actual facts. There are people who are in fact better at some things than others. “The masses” are a collection of people who are good at whatever they do in life. One guy may be an accomplished mechanic and know nothing about economics. And an economist, vice versa. Our elected officials have their cabinets and they do what we (at least most of us) elected them to do.
Businessmen have an incentive to produce quality products without government intervention. It is called the profit and loss system.
Indeed. Why not just let them dump their toxic chemicals in our lakes and rivers instead of paying to dispose of them properly. This would do wonders for their profit margins and we would all have neat tasting water.
That's debatable, because you haven't demonstrated much intelligence in this discussion. It's little critical thinking or understanding of economics.
Ok, here’s another direction. I put more stock in what economic history has shown and what modern evolutionary economics tells us about the affects of government regulation (or lack thereof) and how human brains function in reaction to various options are presented to them and how the portions of our brains conflict with our prefrontal cortexes when it comes to making economic decisions (which we didn’t evolve under) than Ayn Rand’s hypothetical writings of yesteryear.
Do the research. You're the one sporting him as your avatar. Who was he? What did he do? What did he preach and write?
It's all out there.
che guevara murderer - Google Search
It is indeed.
"I have yet to find a single credible source pointing to a case where Che executed 'an innocent'. Those persons executed by Guevara or on his orders were condemned for the usual crimes punishable by death at times of war or in its aftermath: desertion, treason or crimes such as rape, torture or murder. I should add that my research spanned five years, and included anti-Castro Cubans among the Cuban-American exile community in Miami and elsewhere."
— Jon Lee Anderson, author of Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, PBS forum [101]
Che Guevara - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You should try doing a little objective research on him someday. You’ll find out, like I did, that he wasn’t the crazed murderer we were brainwashed to believe.
