 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/30/2009 8:58 PM, somebody wrote:
> Besides, consistency is not a virtue.
?
It isn't?
At the very least, isn't inconsistency a vice?
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/30/2009 8:55 PM, somebody wrote:
> On evolutionary, geological or astronomical
> timescales, our values based on scales of a lifetime at most are
> meaningless.
Shouldn't you sit up and take notice, then, when mass extinction occurs
within a much smaller scale than a single lifetime?
If a species has been dying out for several hundred years, and we're
here to witness the end, it's one thing.
If a flourishing species suddenly drops dead one day, that's completely
different.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguy com> wrote in message
news:49fa9ae4$1@news.povray.org...
> If a species has been dying out for several hundred years, and we're
> here to witness the end, it's one thing.
>
> If a flourishing species suddenly drops dead one day, that's completely
> different.
Why?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
news:49fa99cb$1@news.povray.org...
> On 4/30/2009 4:24 PM, somebody wrote:
> > "nemesis"<nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
> >> This argument of "well, that's a problem for our sons and grandsons"
> >> really bothers me. We may well have no descendants to handle that kind
> >> of responsability.
> > I find it irrational for people to care about realities they are not,
and
> > cannot be, part of.
> I find it irrational not to plan for sustainability.
Sustain what exactly? If you don't exist, there's nothing to sustain,
nothing to break.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
news:49fa99fe$1@news.povray.org...
> On 4/30/2009 8:58 PM, somebody wrote:
> > Besides, consistency is not a virtue.
>
> ?
>
> It isn't?
No. Would you like to be consistently wrong, for instance?
> At the very least, isn't inconsistency a vice?
No again. See above.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> What makes you think they listen to me (or you, for that matter)? I may not
> be a part of LHC's reality, but LHC is a part of mine. Besides, consistency
> is not a virtue.
Yes, so don't preclude something happening 500 years down the road
being someone's reality.
And lack of consistency always works when pointed out...
--
Why do so many foods come packaged in plastic? It's so uncanny.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> On 4/30/2009 4:24 PM, somebody wrote:
>> "nemesis"<nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
>>> This argument of "well, that's a problem for our sons and grandsons"
>>> really bothers me. We may well have no descendants to handle that kind
>>> of responsability.
>>
>> I find it irrational for people to care about realities they are not, and
>> cannot be, part of.
>
> I find it irrational not to plan for sustainability.
You know all these laws we have about Internet arguments? Godwins Law, etc?
I need to come up with a catchy sounding phrase that points out the
meaningless throwing around of the word "irrational". It almost always
has no value when it comes to the argument.
--
Why do so many foods come packaged in plastic? It's so uncanny.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> > I find it irrational not to plan for sustainability.
> You know all these laws we have about Internet arguments? Godwins Law, etc?
> I need to come up with a catchy sounding phrase that points out the
> meaningless throwing around of the word "irrational". It almost always
> has no value when it comes to the argument.
I honestly fail to see how the use of the word "irrational" was meaningless
and without value in his post. It looks to me like a perfectly valid opinion,
which makes a point.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>>> I find it irrational not to plan for sustainability.
>
>> You know all these laws we have about Internet arguments? Godwins Law, etc?
>
>> I need to come up with a catchy sounding phrase that points out the
>> meaningless throwing around of the word "irrational". It almost always
>> has no value when it comes to the argument.
>
> I honestly fail to see how the use of the word "irrational" was meaningless
> and without value in his post. It looks to me like a perfectly valid opinion,
> which makes a point.
The problem with the word rational is that it's typically used with
assumptions that are not commonly shared.
--
Isn't it counterproductive to have incandescent bulbs in a fridge?
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1-5-2009 16:29, somebody wrote:
> "Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
> news:49fa99cb$1@news.povray.org...
>> On 4/30/2009 4:24 PM, somebody wrote:
>>> "nemesis"<nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
>>>> This argument of "well, that's a problem for our sons and grandsons"
>>>> really bothers me. We may well have no descendants to handle that kind
>>>> of responsability.
>
>>> I find it irrational for people to care about realities they are not,
> and
>>> cannot be, part of.
>
>> I find it irrational not to plan for sustainability.
>
> Sustain what exactly? If you don't exist, there's nothing to sustain,
> nothing to break.
>
There are a couple of theological and philosophical schools about what
the fact that we as a species 'rule' the earth means. One is that we are
given the power to do what we want and another stresses the concept of
'stewardship'. I know a fair number of small 'left wing' churches that
strongly support the latter but it is also important for big parts of
rather typical for the sort of born again Christians that were in the
previous US administration. Or at least those within that church that
supported this view were given more money and other support to spread
these concepts by those that had earned lots of money by not thinking of
their grandchildren. It might be that part of this difference may be
attributed to a different value of the Buxton index* on the two sides of
the Atlantic, but whatever the cause, I am an atheist who is firmly
rooted in the stewardship school and you're attitude frankly gives me
the creeps.
* The Buxton Index is a prospective measure of individual or
institutional persistence, defined as the time horizon over which an
entity makes its plans. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buxton_Index )
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
