Politics vs. Reality.

[FoolKiller]

No the government, neither the Obama administration nor the preceding administration is responsible for an industrial accident. However, it is responsible for promoting policy that makes an attempt to intelligently weigh the risks & benefits.

And as I said, show me any single energy policy that doesn't have a high risk if a worst case scenario occurs.

I don't even know where to begin to respond to you Foolkiller - you throw so much undifferentiated nonsense around. 911 conspiracy theories? Limbaugh's environmentalist conspiracies??

Merely pointing out that the silly slogans are the least of the concerns in political discourse, while also pushing back against what appeared to be you claiming is just a Neo-Con issue. If the political discourse is your issue (I am still not sure what your point is) then why just attack Neo-Cons and why stop at silly slogans? The discourse has been in the crapper by both sides for well over a decade now.

The US helping to install & support the Shah, then supporting Saddam Hussein against the Iranians, then attacking Iraq - you know & I know, & certainly Ron Paul knows that the primary motivation for all these foreign interventions was OIL.

Trying to see where I said it wasn't. I did say that saying it was for cheap oil was a conspiracy, because quite frankly only someone without a proper grasp of the situation would think war taking place on oil fields would create cheap oil. Protecting our oil interests, yes. Making them cheaper, not happening. If it were about cheap oil we would declare Iraq a territory, make them pay us back for liberating them via oil discounts, take over the fields themselves, or actually be invading Canada, Mexico, or Venezuela (and Chavez has been inflammatory enough to give us a supposed motive). And Iran clearly wouldn't even be on the map.

Similarly, anyone that actually understands oil markets would know that cheap oil is not a motivation for expanded domestic drilling.

I know & you know & I know that you know that Ron Paul has spoken out repeatedly against these interventions.

Umm. OK. But do you know that I know that you know that I know?

To say the "discourse is the same all around" is reducing everything to a "political relativism" that would make any political statement, however absurd, as meaningful as any other.

But to suddenly comment on it now and only attack one side of the political spectrum looks biased and disingenuous, and to use a disaster which has resulted in the deaths of men to do so looks...bad. Very bad. Almost exploitative.

Clearly, Ron Paul would never endorse that viewpoint & it is intellectually dishonest of you to pretend that you do.

Do you seriously think that if you name drop the name of someone I support, repeatedly, I will go quietly away? Assuming you understood what I was getting at, I do not blindly agree with Ron Paul, or any politician 100%. The simple fact that my avatar, my signature, and a lot of my time has been dedicated to supporting his son, who has differing opinions from Ron Paul on certain issues, like parts of foreign policy, should tell you that. And I can even list off where I disagree with Rand Paul.

Yes, there is, & has always been, political sloganeering, but "Yes, we can!" isn't a policy statement - the "Drill, baby drill!" chant stuck out even at the time (which, as you well know, was not "years ago" but barely a year & a half ago), as a particularly idiotic slogan.

Both were election campaign chants. Do you not see the date of that article? Wait you do, as you are attempting to tell me that 1.5 years shouldn't be said as a plural. It was in the final two months before the presidential election. It was a campaign slogan that Michael Steele was attempting to use just as Obama was using Yes we can. Did you see any Republicans in Congress saying it during policy debates? Was it ever uttered in committee meetings? No. Was it said as part of the campaign trail? Yes.

It was disturbingly reminiscent of the unthinking drum beat to war that took place after the 911 attacks that only Ron Paul, & a handful of Republicans (as well as a larger group of Democrats) stood against.

I am guessing you mean the Iraq war stuff from a year later, because you clearly don't describe the Afghanistan debate.

Ron Paul, again? Really? What does he have to do with anything?

Specific energy policies? Well I would hope that it is possible to formulate an informed policy that attempts to ensure the best possible outcomes, but I'm pretty sure that "Drill, baby drill!" wouldn't be it.

I thought your issue was with the policy, but you clearly aren't thinking that, or weren't prepared to be questioned on it. So again, what does the slogan have to do with the incident? Republicans lost the election, no new expansion has taken place since then, and everyone is fully aware of how much of an idiot Michael Steele really is.

 

[Joey D]

And as I said, show me any single energy policy that doesn't have a high risk if a worst case scenario occurs.

I don't see much risk involved with alternative energies like solar or wind power. Really the only two problem I see with them is the cost and the space issues.

 

[Dotini]

I don't see much risk involved with alternative energies like solar or wind power. Really the only two problem I see with them is the cost and the space issues.

I agree with the need to deploy alternate energy systems. On a recent trip from Seattle to Grass Valley, Oregon for a kart race, we passed through the Columbia Gorge, and a vast wind farm with huge turbines everywhere as far as the eye could see, hundreds upon hundreds of them. Obviously they were providing a truly vast amount of green, "free" wind energy.

Even so, our national and global energy needs are such that there is no known way to replace petroleum oil as the key liquid source of energy. This problem will have more to do with any eventual apocalyptic collapse of civilization than any other factor I can think of.

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

 

[FoolKiller]

I don't see much risk involved with alternative energies like solar or wind power. Really the only two problem I see with them is the cost and the space issues.

And there is the further issue that their effectiveness is reliant on nature playing along. A cloudy day or even cold temperatures can cause problems.

But to be honest, I don't know enough about them to know what a worst case scenario would be after being expanded enough to be a primary energy source. Massive bird extinctions? Extreme localized atmospheric heating? Flying blades of death? Defeaning noise?

 

[Joey D]

I shouldn't say there aren't going to be problems, but the chances are pretty low. Even on a cloudy or cold day solar panels are still going to produce power, they just won't be efficient. And birds have learned to cope with out technology thus far, between skyscrapers, aeroplanes, cars, etc. I have to imagine they'll be able to cope with wind turbines. And obviously nature impact studies will be done before building of massive wind farms. There are also those huge solar farms in Spain that seem to be working pretty well without huge heating problems

It seems like whatever ill effects alternative energies might have they won't be nearly as bad as what we have now since pollution affects everything in nature.

We need to think about switching energy sources now while fossil fuels are still somewhat plentiful so we have time to get all the kinks out.

 

[Dotini]

Even so, our national and global energy needs are such that there is no known way to replace petroleum oil as the key liquid source of energy.
Dotini

But to be honest, I don't know enough about them to know what a worst case scenario would be after being expanded enough to be a primary energy source.

We need to think about switching energy sources now while fossil fuels are still somewhat plentiful so we have time to get all the kinks out.

This is the problem. We rely crucially on oil for liquid fuel. Nothing currently known can replace it. There is no plan to replace it. JoeyD is right, we all need to think about this.

 

[FoolKiller]

I shouldn't say there aren't going to be problems, but the chances are pretty low. Even on a cloudy or cold day solar panels are still going to produce power, they just won't be efficient.

Just to clarify, I wasn't thinking of solar panels when I mentioned cold temperatures. The cold freezes wind turbines.


But it is hard to determine what issues can arise since we don't even have an overall standard for what standards should be or even what effects certain things can have. Right now it is hard to pick myth from fact when dealing with these things. The bird issue has a small few instances and some environmentalists and NIMBYs have clung on to that. The noise issue seems to be more of a nuisance problem than anything with only a fast spinning windmill reaching what some claim to be helicopter-like noises, but then there are even claims that the slower spinning sounds can create a Vibroacoustic condition being called "Wind Turbine Syndrome," a claim some studies refute.

Honestly, a worst case scenario might not be known for a long time, nor even possible to determine until we determine the amount of these kinds of technology necessary to replace fossil fuels, if that's at all possible.



Who knows when and what will be necessary? Heck, these guys might kill us all with their miniature suns. Or they might make all other alternative energies a moot point.

 

[Dotini]

Heck, these guys might kill us all with their miniature suns. Or they might make all other alternative energies a moot point.

For decades and at great expense enthusiastic scientists have attempted hot fusion tokamak experiments without success. Now Lawrence Livermore is trying a new way of ignition, but nothing is mentioned about confinement. Even if cold fusion were eventually made practicable, it would do little to solve the global energy picture. What we need are liquid fuels.

 

[Danoff]

(And Danoff: I'm not sure, is having your beaches, fisheries, wildlife & habitat protected from huge oil spills a "right" or an "interest"? You'll have to parse that one for me. What would the libertarian position be exactly? You get to sue the responsible corporation after the fact?)

Depends on who owns the resources that are being polluted (hint, it could be the government). But in general yes, destroying someone else's property is a criminal offense.

 

[Biggles]

Everybody knows Michael Steele is an idiot.

If that is true, then perhaps it’s not such a good idea to have him as Chairman of the Republican National Committee. The fact is that Steele’s idiotic “Drill, Baby Drill!” was enthusiastically taken up by everybody in the GOP – from the rank & file, to all the leading GOP figures, from Rudy Guiliani, to Sarah Palin, to poor old John McCain – which would make them all a bunch of idiots.

I did say that saying it was for cheap oil was a conspiracy, because quite frankly only someone without a proper grasp of the situation would think war taking place on oil fields would create cheap oil.

The Middle East does possess a large percentage of the world’s “cheap” oil reserves. The GOP Neo-Con “Hawks” completely misjudged the costs – human & economic & political – of pursuing, by military intervention, secure access to this oil. Having made this appalling miscalculation, they now move on to the equally dubious conclusion that the answer to energy security lies in the mantra of “Drill, baby drill!”

Merely pointing out that the silly slogans are the least of the concerns in political discourse, while also pushing back against what appeared to be you claiming is just a Neo-Con issue. If the political discourse is your issue (I am still not sure what your point is) then why just attack Neo-Cons and why stop at silly slogans? The discourse has been in the crapper by both sides for well over a decade now.

I don’t believe this is true at all. The Democrats (whatever you may think of their actual policies) have always advocated a more nuanced, complex approach to policy-making. The Neo-Cons like to portray this as “indecisive”, “weak” or even “unpatriotic” (when it comes to war-making). I would challenge you to come up with any occasion in the past 10 years where the Democrats have come up with as stupidly simplistic a policy slogan as “Drill, baby drill!” “Hope”, Change”, or “Yes we can!” are not policy positions.

Both were election campaign chants. Do you not see the date of that article? Wait you do, as you are attempting to tell me that 1.5 years shouldn't be said as a plural. It was in the final two months before the presidential election.

Yes it was 1.5 years ago. If the Republicans had won the election, the implications of following that policy would just be starting to have an effect. In fact, I would say that the Republicans did put pressure Obama to push forward the whole offshore drilling agenda, against the better judgement of many Democrats & environmentalists, just as the war-rhetoric of the Neo-Cons pushed Democrats into giving the Bush administration authority to attack Iraq.

Do you seriously think that if you name drop the name of someone I support, repeatedly, I will go quietly away?

Well, judging by this ... no! I mention Ron Paul, because when it comes to his critique of US foreign policy, nobody in the US has spoken out more boldly or clearly - & I agree with most of what he has to say on the subject.

to use a disaster which has resulted in the deaths of men to do so looks...bad. Very bad. Almost exploitative.

I haven’t mentioned the deaths because they are irrelevant to the policy questions at issue (if anything they would tend to re-inforce the human risk of blindly promoting off-shore drilling). On the other hand, YOU (and, as I noticed, Famine) bringing up the human tragedy aspect of the accident does seem exploitative.

But to suddenly comment on it now and only attack one side of the political spectrum looks biased and disingenuous.

LOL. Now that’s a real hoot. You and your libertarian cronies have basically turned the entire Currrent Affairs section of the GTPlanet forums into a giant propaganda arm for the Libertarian party. Anybody posting any opinion even mildly deviating from the official party line is immediately shot down & buried under a pile of hardline, reductionist verbiage. Your signatures & avatars are festooned with libertarian mottos & imagery. Your own avatar is an explicit endorsement of an actual Republican candidate for the US Senate. YOU’RE criticizing ME for being biased? LOL.

 

[Famine]

I haven’t mentioned the deaths because they are irrelevant to the policy questions at issue (if anything they would tend to re-inforce the human risk of blindly promoting off-shore drilling). On the other hand, YOU (and, as I noticed, Famine) bringing up the human tragedy aspect of the accident does seem exploitative.

Please explain how pointing out to you that people died so you could make some point means I'm the one exploiting tragedy.

You won't, of course. You haven't yet explained why the accident means you can mock a soundbite at all, despite numerous requests.

Anybody posting any opinion even mildly deviating from the official party line is immediately shot down & buried under a pile of hardline, reductionist verbiage.

There is no "official party line". Perhaps you'd take time to notice that Foolkiller isn't a moderator and does not speak for GTPlanet. Nor is danoff. And Touring Mars, who is a moderator, often disagrees with views that can be classed as Libertarian.

Or perhaps you won't. It's more convenient that way.

Your signatures & avatars are festooned with libertarian mottos & imagery.

Really? Unless there's some subtext to a trike in Sacramento, Professor John Frink and a slightly pervy teenager in England that actually means "LOL! Libertarian", mine, as part of the accused, doesn't seem to conform with your notion.

 

[Joey D]

Biggles has a bit of a point, it is sort of ridiculous when someone posts something even slightly outside Libertarian/libertarian ideals and they get drilled to the wall for it. And I know a lot of people refuse to give their opinion here because if it. I just choose to start ignoring it when it gets to out of hand.

Honestly how the way many Libertarians I know act, has turned me off from the party completely because I don't wish to associate myself with people like that. Outside of politics they are fine though.

 

[Biggles]

mine, as part of the accused, doesn't seem to conform with your notion.

Hey Eva, I love each and everyone of your videos. You are unbeleivably sexy and seductive. I would love to know how tall you are Bradders xxx

Need I say more?

I don't mean GTPlanet is "Libertarian", but the Opinions & Current Events forums are completely swamped by a handful of libertarian posters. As JoeyD says, I suspect many have just been turned off posting by the unrelentingly aggressive rhetoric from the libertarian side. Also, as JoeyD says, being aggressively dismissive of any other viewpoints is not an effective way to win converts.

Please explain how pointing out to you that people died so you could make some point means I'm the one exploiting tragedy.

You won't, of course. You haven't yet explained why the accident means you can mock a soundbite at all, despite numerous requests.

"people died so that I could make some point"? I sorry this is just completely dishonest. If nobody had died in the circumstances leading up to the oil leak, it would not change the point at all. That point is: offshore drilling in US waters (& everywhere else for that matter) is not risk-free to the environment (& other economic interests), that the risks should not be under-estimated & should be weighed carefully against the potential benefits, & that oil companies assurances about the safety procedures in place should be viewed with scepticism.

"Drill, baby drill!" wasn't a "soundbite" - it was a major part of the GOP's platform, repeated at numerous political rallys around the country & used cynically to whip up sentiment against environmentalist concerns, in much the same way that the Neo-Cons around the Bush administration used "patriotism" to whip up support for their war against Iraq.

 

[FoolKiller]

If that is true, then perhaps it’s not such a good idea to have him as Chairman of the Republican National Committee.

I never said it was. I think he has been horrible at the job. Everything from his bad party direction (which seems to just be "follow Mitch"), to his stupid Web site redesign, to his "street lingo" in interviews has been a mistake.

The fact is that Steele’s idiotic “Drill, Baby Drill!” was enthusiastically taken up by everybody in the GOP – from the rank & file, to all the leading GOP figures, from Rudy Guiliani, to Sarah Palin, to poor old John McCain – which would make them all a bunch of idiots.

I will admit that I don't remember seeing that chanted that much by the GOP outside of Palin, but then I didn't have anything to do with the party after May of that year. And Drill, Baby, Drill aside, I do think that those three individuals are idiots. Not sure what your point is there. My goal hasn't been to defend the neo-cons.

The Middle East does possess a large percentage of the world’s “cheap” oil reserves. The GOP Neo-Con “Hawks” completely misjudged the costs – human & economic & political – of pursuing, by military intervention, secure access to this oil.

I still have yet to see evidence that the war in Iraq was about getting cheap oil. Repeating it without evidence does nothing to convince me. You would have an easier time convincing me that it was Bush finishing his daddy's problem, Bush believing there were WMDs, or even Bush just trying to be bigger than his father. Heck you would have an easier time convincing me that he just thought it would boost his approval rating.

I don’t believe this is true at all. The Democrats (whatever you may think of their actual policies) have always advocated a more nuanced, complex approach to policy-making. The Neo-Cons like to portray this as “indecisive”, “weak” or even “unpatriotic” (when it comes to war-making). I would challenge you to come up with any occasion in the past 10 years where the Democrats have come up with as stupidly simplistic a policy slogan as “Drill, baby drill!” “Hope”, Change”, or “Yes we can!” are not policy positions.

To start, I do see where the DNC last year worked hard to come up with a poll to put one of these five slogans on a billboard in Rush Limbaugh's hometown.

• “Americans didn’t vote for a Rush to failure.”
• “Hope and change cannot be Rush’d.”
• “Failure is not an option for America’s future.”
• “We can fix America, just don’t Rush it.”
• “Rush: Say ‘yes’ to America.”

So nuanced and complex. Or childish.

Then this year the DNC attempted to prevent congress members from looking to repeal reform by running ads using the previous GOP slogan of, "Hands off my health care."
Democrats use a different approach, but the same slogans? In fact, their use of the slogan was such a blatant copy that they were threatened with a lawsuit.

And I know stuff like, "No more blood for oil," comes to mind too, but I'm not sure those were official party sanctioned slogans. They definitely weren't discouraged though.

The problem I am finding issue with is your assertion that "Drill, Baby, Drill," is a large policy slogan. The thing is that I can't find it being used officially in any capacity outside of the 2008 election. Wikipedia even calls it a campaign slogan. Googling "Drill Baby Drill" just brings up a bunch of bloggers talking about how none of those who used the phrase in 2008 are even mentioning it now.

Unless you can show that it has been a chant used outside of the 2008 election then it is no different than any other campaign slogan on a bumper sticker that fall.

Yes it was 1.5 years ago. If the Republicans had won the election, the implications of following that policy would just be starting to have an effect.

Assuming it could have been moved forward at all with a Democratic majority in Congress. If it were passed at all it would have likely not been something that was done before now. Don't forget that the guy in the White House doesn't always get what he wants unless he can convince at least half of Congress too.

In fact, I would say that the Republicans did put pressure Obama to push forward the whole offshore drilling agenda, against the better judgement of many Democrats & environmentalists, just as the war-rhetoric of the Neo-Cons pushed Democrats into giving the Bush administration authority to attack Iraq.

Stop right there. The minority party, the party without enough votes to even successfully filibuster in Congress, pressured President Obama into doing something he was opposed to? How do you figure? How did they pressure him with no public notice, but fail to pressure him on health care with protesters in the streets of DC? Beware of the secret Big Oil strong-arm men. Really, I think if we took the time to look at campaign donors we would find the real answer.

Well, judging by this ... no! I mention Ron Paul, because when it comes to his critique of US foreign policy, nobody in the US has spoken out more boldly or clearly - & I agree with most of what he has to say on the subject.

But I have yet to mention my actual opinion on the war, other than the fact that I refuse to believe it was just about cheap oil, and I listed the reasons why. If I were looking for an oil-based conspiracy in regard to the war in Iraq I could come up with one that says everything up to the disaster was playing into their hands. You forget that Bush and other GOP members were oil men. Due to the way the market works cheap oil would actually hurt them.

I haven’t mentioned the deaths because they are irrelevant to the policy questions at issue (if anything they would tend to re-inforce the human risk of blindly promoting off-shore drilling). On the other hand, YOU (and, as I noticed, Famine) bringing up the human tragedy aspect of the accident does seem exploitative.

Trying to use an extremely rare disaster situation, which has major environmental and economic ramifications, to mock a political policy is exploitative. The fact that men also died in that event makes it worse.

LOL. Now that’s a real hoot. You and your libertarian cronies have basically turned the entire Currrent Affairs section of the GTPlanet forums into a giant propaganda arm for the Libertarian party. Anybody posting any opinion even mildly deviating from the official party line is immediately shot down & buried under a pile of hardline, reductionist verbiage.

I have confronted your accusations of this nature before and not received anything more than straw man arguments in response. You know, because I have pointed it out, that I have given more than verbiage.

I wonder though, is it truly hardline to defend our opinions when they are questioned? Should we just say, "I see your opinion and we differ. Good day to you, sir," whenever someone disagrees?

Your signatures & avatars are festooned with libertarian mottos & imagery.

If you don't know the difference between a Libertarian motto and philosophy behind the quote in my signature then maybe that is where part of your issue in trying to understand us comes from. The author of my quote actually had some fairly negative things to say about libertarians. And if you knew my opinions as well as you claim to you would know that the author and I differ on one very major issue.

But see, you wouldn't know that my political philosophy is actually a mix of three different schools of thought that are all based around individualism because you have assumed that I am some sort of hardline Libertarian only and you can't, or won't, get out of that prejudiced mindset.

Your own avatar is an explicit endorsement of an actual Republican candidate for the US Senate. YOU’RE criticizing ME for being biased? LOL.

Do I only attack one political party for activities both sides are guilty of, or do I say that there is very little difference between Republicans and Democrats? Do I support Republicans acting one way but insult Democrats for doing the same or do I attack both? I am not some Republican that supported the bank bailout right up until Obama became president. I didn't vote for either of the two parties.

My issue hasn't been that the Republicans might be wrong on this issue (in fact I think I said offshore drilling solves nothing) but rather your one-sided approach on the issue. From what I am gathering from you: Republicans supporting it is bad. Obama supporting it was him being forced. So yeah, I am criticizing you for being biased. Even if you honestly believe Obama was somehow forced you should at least be willing to criticize him for being weak-willed and unprincipled. Instead you make up reasons for why he is completely innocent. If your issue is the policy then criticize ALL who support that policy.

There is no "official party line". Perhaps you'd take time to notice that Foolkiller isn't a moderator and does not speak for GTPlanet. Nor is danoff. And Touring Mars, who is a moderator, often disagrees with views that can be classed as Libertarian.

I should also point out that we don't all agree 100% either. I know on abortion my opinion deviates, and when it comes to IP law I know that not all of us are on the same page.

 

[Joel]

In this whole "GTP Libertarian club" vs. "everyone else" debate, I find that whenever somebody in the "Libertarian club" says something that's "heartless" or even simply theoretical, it's disposed of as "hyperbole" or "rhetoric".

That being said, while I think Libertarianism is the most moral system of Government, it's not always the most practical.


And looking at Foolkiller's sig quote, "I swear by my life, and love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine".

What part of that quote is "hyperbole"?

 

[Danoff]

Honestly how the way many Libertarians I know act, has turned me off from the party completely because I don't wish to associate myself with people like that. Outside of politics they are fine though.

It's a philosophical difference rather than a random behavioral one. You take issue with people who consider their principles objective. It goes against everything you have been taught and the comforting notion that there is no accountability for your opinions. This is what bothers you about libertarians, it's what bothers EVERYONE about libertarians... and it will continue to do so until they consider the possibility that rationality can dictate the role of government.

Anyway, it's no mystery why objectivism bothers subjectivists. To tell you the truth, subjectivism bothers us objectivists just as much.

The author of my quote actually had some fairly negative things to say about libertarians.

What a coincidence...

 

[Joey D]

No what bothers me about a lot of Libertarians is they come across like they are some how holier than thou. Libertarianism is no better or no worse way then any other political philosophy, it has its strong points, its weak points and its filler.

In my experience many people who consider themselves Libertarian or subscribe to libertarian come across as extremely arrogant in conversations involving political ideology. To me, many of them can't see past their own self righteousness to see that much of their way of thinking is based on a utopian society and is not feasible in the real world. That's my problem with it and believe it or not I can actually think for myself on the subject.

This all could be said for a lot of political ideologies, it just seems those in the Libertarian camp are more extreme about it or I just notice it more.

And this does not mean I think they are bad people or jackasses, I just don't want to have a conversation dealing with anything remotely political with them. Also be sure and note that I said most and many, I am not grouping all of those who consider themselves Libertarians together.

 

[Danoff]

No what bothers me about a lot of Libertarians is they come across like they are some how holier than thou. Libertarianism is no better or no worse way then any other political philosophy, it has its strong points, its weak points and its filler.

In my experience many people who consider themselves Libertarian or subscribe to libertarian come across as extremely arrogant in conversations involving political ideology.

Yea, I'm pretty sure that's objectivism that you're taking issue with. It comes across as holier than thou when someone thinks their political philosophy is based in pure logic and is unimpeachable. When libertarians tell you that their philosophy is objectively correct, it bothers you. You'd prefer to think that political philosophies are subjective, and that they have their strong points, their weak points, and their filler. You think that what's right for one person isn't necessarily right for everyone - and it's why people who think they know what's right for everyone come across as arrogant to you.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting you but my understanding is that you don't like objective philosophy and I don't like subjective philosophy. That's the root of the problem.

To take it one step deeper, it's a fundamental disagreement on the existence of truth, about the notion that reality is knowable. It's a very metaphysical disagreement manifesting itself in government policy (because government policy applies to everyone and that's necessarily the battleground where objectivists and subjectivists clash).

 

[Joey D]

I'm no philosophy guru, nor will I claim/pretend to be so I don't want to get into all this metaphysical crap. I don't believe in universal truths, and thus I think universal logic based on those truths (or facts or whatever you want to call them) doesn't exist. No one can know anything for sure, it isn't possible. That's why I think anything claiming to be objective is foolish.

I don't like Libertarian thought because the way I see it, it's based purely on fantasy and does not take into account the real world. Would it be nice to live in a world run by libertarian ideals? Probably, but to change the world to it now would, in my opinion, doom way to many people. That's my biggest issue with it and why I can't support it. It works great in theory but not in practice, it's like Communism in that sense.

 

[Danoff]

I'm no philosophy guru, nor will I claim/pretend to be so I don't want to get into all this metaphysical crap. I don't believe in universal truths, and thus I think universal logic based on those truths (or facts or whatever you want to call them) doesn't exist. No one can know anything for sure, it isn't possible. That's why I think anything claiming to be objective is foolish.

I won't try to explain why I don't think it's foolish in this thread. But I'm glad that you realize that this is the crux of the problem - I think it's why libertarians seem arrogant to you, and it's why you don't like the philosophy. I suspect Biggles is in the same camp.

 

[Biggles]

Yea, I'm pretty sure that's objectivism that you're taking issue with. It comes across as holier than thou when someone thinks their political philosophy is based in pure logic and is unimpeachable. When libertarians tell you that their philosophy is objectively correct, it bothers you. You'd prefer to think that political philosophies are subjective, and that they have their strong points, their weak points, and their filler. You think that what's right for one person isn't necessarily right for everyone - and it's why people who think they know what's right for everyone come across as arrogant to you.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting you but my understanding is that you don't like objective philosophy and I don't like subjective philosophy. That's the root of the problem.

To take it one step deeper, it's a fundamental disagreement on the existence of truth, about the notion that reality is knowable. It's a very metaphysical disagreement manifesting itself in government policy (because government policy applies to everyone and that's necessarily the battleground where objectivists and subjectivists clash).

You said a mouthful there. Philosophy has concerned itself with the search for objective truth for millennia. Post-Kant, it has also concerned itself exhaustively with what “objective”means & how it is possible for humans to recognize “objectivity”. Philosophically, the issue cannot be baldly stated the way you are choosing to. Do you really think nobody else in history has thought his philosophy was “objectively correct”? But YOUR “objective philosophy” is the one that embodies “unimpeachable” truth?

Well fine, you’re entitled to your particular beliefs, but don’t assume that everyone else has to share them or they’re favouring “subjective philosophies”. The "root of the problem" is arrogantly assuming that you alone have a monopoly on the truth.

"Most of the greatest evils that man has inflicted upon man have come through people feeling quite certain about something which, in fact, was false." Betrand Russell

And Famine, talking about "pure logic":

Please explain how pointing out to you that people died so you could make some point means I'm the one exploiting tragedy.

I really would prefer to restrict myself to responding to posts that make at least some sort of objective sense. People died so that I could make some point? No, people died as a result of an industrial accident. My point would remain exactly the same if nobody had died.

You haven't yet explained why the accident means you can mock a soundbite at all, despite numerous requests.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie”. Joeseph Goebbels

Both you & Foolkiller would like to dismiss it as a "soundbite". It wasn't. It was a major plank - most especially a propaganda plank, mocking environmentalism & supporting the corporate agenda of Big Oil - in the GOP platform, & it was repeated often, very loudly, nationally. Goebbels would have been proud.

 

[Famine]

My point would remain exactly the same if nobody had died.

Exactly the point. You don't give a crap that people have died - you just see it as an opportunity to make a barely coherent political point. Utterly disgusting, exploitative behaviour.

 

[FoolKiller]

Both you & Foolkiller would like to dismiss it as a "soundbite". It wasn't. It was a major plank - most especially a propaganda plank, mocking environmentalism & supporting the corporate agenda of Big Oil - in the GOP platform, & it was repeated often, very loudly, nationally.

I am still confused as to whether your issue is with the policy itself or the fact that politicians use quick slogans (because they make great soundbites) to rally people behind them. Whichever it is, you still have yet to explain why you are only attacking one party.

Goebbels would have been proud.

And Mike Godwin is proud of you.

 

[Danoff]

You said a mouthful there. Philosophy has concerned itself with the search for objective truth for millennia. Post-Kant, it has also concerned itself exhaustively with what “objective”means & how it is possible for humans to recognize “objectivity”. Philosophically, the issue cannot be baldly stated the way you are choosing to. Do you really think nobody else in history has thought his philosophy was “objectively correct”? But YOUR “objective philosophy” is the one that embodies “unimpeachable” truth?

It relies on logic - which philosophically is close to but not exactly objective truth. A rigorous philosophical examination of logic has to conclude that something really wacky could be going on and that logic might not actually be reliable. I think that's fine from a purely philosophical point of view, but I think to refuse the fruits of logic on the basis that it might be wrong is not only putting the cart before the horse, but generally irresponsible and nihilist.

Granted that logic might be a trick to deceive us, but we have no choice but to accept it as truth. The fruits of that acceptance include all of mankind's technology (from fire to rockets) as well as a system of human rights that we require government to protect.

Well fine, you’re entitled to your particular beliefs, but don’t assume that everyone else has to share them or they’re favouring “subjective philosophies”. The "root of the problem" is arrogantly assuming that you alone have a monopoly on the truth.

I could restate this as the root of the problem being an unwillingness to see the truth when it is presented to you. The notion that logic works for me but not everyone is the subjectivist philosophy I'm describing. 2+2=4 for everyone, even you. And math is based on logic.

 

[Biggles]

OK. So to recap:

Famine has abandoned any semblance of logical argument & has adopted a “morally outraged” position.

Danoff is sticking to the tried & tested approach that his logic is "unimpeachable" & that any disagreement with him is simply “an unwillingness to see the truth when it is presented to you”.

Foolkiller has seen fit to introduce the idea that comments posted shouldn’t show bias to one side or the other. Hmm… fascinating. So I suppose I can expect to see a series of posts from libertarians arguing how a progressive income tax really represents a fair way of paying for government programs, to counter-balance the “gunmen at the door” rhetoric we’ve heard so far.

You guys crack me up …

 

[Danoff]

..also Biggles is once again refusing to respond to anything.

 

[FoolKiller]

Foolkiller has seen fit to introduce the idea that comments posted shouldn’t show bias to one side or the other Biggles is making an attack on neo-cons and ignoring that both the policy and the actions used to promote it are not a neo-con only issue, including making excuses for President Obama.

Fixed that for you.

Hmm… fascinating.

Indeed.

Speaking of logic.

 

[Famine]

Famine has abandoned any semblance of logical argument & has adopted a “morally outraged” position.

Actually not. But I have repeatedly asked you to justify using an industrial accident and deaths in order to attack a soundbite. And since:

..also Biggles is once again refusing to respond to anything.

I can only conclude you have no justification and are just using an industrial accident and deaths to attack a soundbite.

You don't care about the means, just "Lol neo-cons".

 

[GTsail]

Biggles first post on this thread was offering the suggestion that there might be a link between offshore drilling and oil spills.

With the further suggestion that if the United States follows the Republican Neo-con's policy of "drill baby drill", additional oil spills will occur in the future.

I think it was Famine who initially highlighted the deaths of the workers on the oil rig, not Biggles, when he queried Biggles about the link between the oil rig disaster on a British oil rig and US governmental policy allowing offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

My feeling is that this thread has drifted off-track into some-what personal attacks on how members word their posts instead of discussing the underlying issue of the danger or non-danger of oil spills from offshore drilling. Or the second issue (and less important) about politician's use of simplistic slogans during the discussion of complex issues (whether the issue is offshore drilling or any other).

A Division of the Company that I work for is located in Louisiana, and so far, they have only been minimally affected by the oil spill, but everyone is worried about the long-term effects. Both to the environment and to continued business opportunities since a significant portion of the Division's business is with the offshore drilling platforms.

Famine's question about the link between a British oil rig and US offshore drilling policy is an interesting one. I will ask a friend at the Louisiana Division what they think. It seems to me that if the oil spill starts to have a significant impact on the Louisiana and Alabama fishing business and Florida's tourism business, then the US government will have a clear stake in the matter, and will take the potential of future disasters into account when setting energy policy, rules and regulations, etc.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Famine]

Biggles first post on this thread was offering the suggestion that there might be a link between offshore drilling and oil spills.

It'd take a dense mind to not see a link between oil exploration and transportation and oil spills.

It's the inevitable result of an industrial accident in that industry.

With the further suggestion that if the United States follows the Republican Neo-con's policy of "drill baby drill", additional oil spills will occur in the future.

The more "x" happens, the more "y" will happen if "y" results from "x". Not a colossal surprise (though how opposition politicians would get any policies passed without the support of those in power is a mystery).

I think it was Famine who initially highlighted the deaths of the workers on the oil rig, not Biggles, when he queried Biggles about the link between the oil rig disaster on a British oil rig and US governmental policy allowing offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

I did indeed. The point being that in his zeal to mock someone he doesn't agree with, he not only forgot that people had died but has further stated that he just didn't care because the deaths don't affect his point - whatever that point turns out to be.

My feeling is that this thread has drifted off-track into some-what personal attacks on how members word their posts instead of discussing the underlying issue of the danger or non-danger of oil spills from offshore drilling. Or the second issue (and less important) about politician's use of simplistic slogans during the discussion of complex issues (whether the issue is offshore drilling or any other).

Those more involved in US domestic affairs than I have enquired why it is only the group with which he disagrees that have their simplistic slogans mocked. This has also yet to be explained.

Famine's question about the link between a British oil rig and US offshore drilling policy is an interesting one. I will ask a friend at the Louisiana Division what they think. It seems to me that if the oil spill starts to have a significant impact on the Louisiana and Alabama fishing business and Florida's tourism business, then the US government will have a clear stake in the matter, and will take the potential of future disasters into account when setting energy policy, rules and regulations, etc.

Not to mention the link between US drilling policy and that of opposition politicians...

28% of US oil consumption is US oil production. If you want to sustain that you need to either depend on foreign oil or increase domestic production. In order to increase domestic production, you need to drill more - and if you don't you will come to depend on foreign oil. A natural end-product of that is occasional oil spills either from source (as at present) or from transportation (as 1984).

But Biggles has still yet to draw the link between "Drill baby, drill" and this accident which allows him to mock "Drill baby, drill", at the expense of human life, as a result.