The Anti-Civilization Thread

[z/m(Ret)]

scoundrels

Your recourse to name calling and insults is typical of someone who just ran out of argument. BTW, what was your argument? Don't recall of any.

For the record, here's where I'm coming from: I've travelled the world between age 22 and 35, literally and lived among the poorest segments of populations: the longest periods of time being in South America, Africa and South East Asia. I've seen too much to account for on this board but suffice to say that some of the "mechanism" of capitalism that were at work in many of the countries I've lived in were flagrant, hence my so-called "agenda".

So attack my credibility all you want it only reinforces my sense that I'm dealing here with utter ignorance and shallow commenting.

 

[eastender]

I'm Happy For You........

Your recourse to name calling and insults is typical of someone who just ran out of argument. BTW, what was your argument? Don't recall of any.

For the record, here's where I'm coming from: I've travelled the world between age 22 and 35, literally and lived among the poorest segments of populations: the longest periods of time being in South America, Africa and South East Asia. I've seen too much to account for on this board but suffice to say that some of the "mechanism" of capitalism that were at work in many of the countries I've lived in were flagrant, hence my so-called "agenda".

So attack my credibility all you want it only reinforces my sense that I'm dealing here with utter ignorance and shallow commenting.

Still avoiding proof - since none exists,supporting your seminal post in this thread.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Still avoiding proof - since none exists,supporting your seminal post in this thread.

Geez one must be quite the google incompetent for not being able to find the proof you're asking for! Told you already: I don't give in to arrogance. You want me to post the proof, accept my bet otherwise forget about it, believe what you want, and have a good life.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Lindzen

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html

 

[z/m(Ret)]

And a note on the CATO Institute

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute

Note: "libertarian" is to be understood as the political philosophy supportive of minimal taxation or no taxation and possesive individualism.

Connecting the dots? Wait there's more...

 

[JustBob]

Then if this is the case, allow me to retort as follows: It's obvious that you are dismissing the global warming issue as a means to push your pro-capitalism agenda. For the record, the seminal post spoke of deforestation, not global warming and we haven't yet touched the problem of water supply. Frankly there would exist a slight chance of a dialogue if you weren't so obstinate in accusing me on the basis of my supposed intentions.

Fair enough. So let's put global warming aside for a second. There are environmental problems so we should deal with them. That much we can agree on. However, you believe that these problems are overwhelming enough that they warrant radicalism and overthrowing (so to speak) capitalism. I totally disagree. Free market economies (despite all it's flaws) is the only model that has proven sustainable in the long run. Therefore, I believe we must address environmental problems within the framework of the existing system. As I stated before, we (the public and the governments) are a lot more environmentally conscious than we were 25 or 50 years ago.

Your accusation is not even reaching the level of idiocy and this is the only reason why I won't return it to you (though it would be easy). Again you're missing the point completely: first and foremost I also have done enough research and reading to acknowledge the different viewpoints and conflicting evidence. The only questions are "what to believe?" and "based on what?" You and I don't have the necessary expertise to decide who's right and who's wrong, therefore our decision to act or not to act can't be seriously based on our own scientific validation. So far so good? On a personal level and given my lack of expertise, the only criterion to base my decision to act or not is a sense of responsibility toward our environment, nothing more.

Well I do hold a Masters in marine biology but I'm certainly not an expert in other areas. Therefore, all I can do is try to weigh different viewpoints. Having a sense of responsibility is commendable, but the "precautionary principle" is just the opposite of what it is claimed to be when evidence for the danger (in the case of global warming) is so weak or contradictory. The driving forces of the betterment of life on Earth have long been economic growth leading to more wealth and technological advancement leading to our better being able to cope and adapt to our environment, not to mention being able to clean up our environment.

I sure did and thanks for posting it here. I am aware of Lindzen's position, believe or not, but what does that change from a citizen's, non-expert perspective? If, at some point, human induced global warming proves to be true without a doubt, what conclusion humans will reach? That they won a scientific debate? Certainly not. That we should have done what was necessary when it was necessary? Certainly.

See above about the "precautionary principle". In view of lack of overwhelming evidence, let's be careful and continue promoting environmental consciousness and taking steps to tackle tangible problems. "What if?" does not constitute grounds for radical action or grounds to spend trillions of dollars on the assumption that "maybe that will work" when the money could be better used to tackle other issues. Again, see the conclusion of that article I posted.

Concerning the accusation, please refer to my above comment. "Overwhelming evidence" because the findings concerning human activities warming the planet are coming from credible sources. My bad if I failed to mention that the opposite point of view is also coming from credible sources. Corrective statement is in order, done. That being said, how does that change my point concerning our readiness for responsibility? It doesn't.

Already answered. Let's tackle tangible problems like chemical polution (causing cancer), deforestation, and other environmental issues, as well as try to develop alternative sources of energy, within the framework of the system in place, regardless of it's flaws. Man has shown a tremendous ability to adapt, and thru inventiveness and ingenuity, tackle a host of different problems throughout the centuries. And this has always been done thru technological advancements that were rendered possible thru economic growth and the creation of wealth. To me that's being responsible. What's irresponsible, is to argue like Jensen does, that this is some sort of an end game between man and Gaia (which by the way, he refuses to engage in...) where man must somehow destroy civilization (i.e. evil capitalism) and start anew in some sort of utopian hippie dreamland.

Same brand of accusation, same reply: pot calls kettle "black". If "knee-jerk" and "old scapegoat" - the only two words you used to address the issue before moving on to your islamaphobic rant on multiculturalism - qualify as valid refutations for a concept that is supported by years of scholarly work, well for someone who allows himself to sanction other's abilities to debate, you're quite weak. Your above accusation, once again, doesn't make it to the level of idiocy. Let me use a mirror so you understand the idea: You stuck to your "multiculturalism" argument while dismissing every other argument because it's the only argument that allowed you to continue pushing your (not so hidden) pro-capitalism/pro-US/pro-Israel agenda. I would bet that you're doing exactly the same thing with the global warming issue.

In a word, and again, bullshit. That thread still exists for all to see. I thouroughly addressed your "grievances" argument and proved that it just doesn't stand when closely analyzed both in an historical and a contemporary context. And this is supported, not only by me, but by most Muslim scholars and moderate Imams in the West. I guess that makes them xenophobic against their own religion too... And multiculturalism has failed in Europe when trying to integrate large Muslim populations. That's not xenophobia, that's a fact. Furthermore it isn't an enditement of multiculturalism in general since it seems to work fine with other immigrants.

I went to great length to adrress your "arguments", you dismissed and refused to address mine. You have the nerve to call my debating "weak" when you not only refused to engage in any debate but, when pressed, you finally admitted that you "stuck to basics", an admission that you really don't know that much about the issues at hand in the first place... Take it like a man, you lost.

 

[JustBob]

Geez one must be quite the google incompetent for not being able to find the proof you're asking for! Told you already: I don't give in to arrogance. You want me to post the proof, accept my bet otherwise forget about it, believe what you want, and have a good life.

If I were a betting man, or if this were a poker game, I'd take you up on that bet and/or call your bluff. The reality is that you can't prove that that story is true. Why? Because it's from Jensen's book. And the story starts with (something like) "I recall a conversation I had with an activist...". This doesn't even remotely qualify as proof that the story is real, let alone true.

 

[JustBob]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute

Note: "libertarian" is to be understood as the political philosophy supportive of minimal taxation or no taxation and possesive individualism.

Connecting the dots? Wait there's more...

So, let me get this straight, because a 1992 article written by Lindzen appears on the Cato Institute website, it's somehow proof that it can't be taken seriously? Attacking the source (not mentionning the fact that Lindzen has been published in a host of different scientific publications...) instead of the arguments presented is one of the cheapest tricks in the debating book. Or should I say the non-debating book. Nine times out of ten, it's a copout non-argument...

 

[z/m(Ret)]

If I were a betting man, or if this were a poker game, I'd take you up on that bet and/or call your bluff. The reality is that you can't prove that that story is true. Why? Because it's from Jensen's book. And the story starts with (something like) "I recall a conversation I had with an activist...". This doesn't even remotely qualify as proof that the story is real, let alone true.

I have news for you: I've been in contact with Jensen for a while now and one of my first reaction to his opening story was "Agent Orange, really?", which he understood as skepticism on my part (not skeptical over timber companies using defoliants though just over Agent Orange being the defoliant in question) and he referred me to two sources of information reporting the exact same story. Ever tried to run a Lexis Nexis?

Readers: notice the insistence put by ea and jb on the identity of the defoliant used by timber companies. Here I am asked to prove beyond a doubt that the defoliant was, indeed, "Agent Orange". Failure to provide the proofs, according to ea, should lead to my retractation of the story.

Readers certainly noticed that I was never asked to prove that timber companies actually "use" defoliants. The issue doesn't seem worth debating if I judge by jb and ea's efforts to discredit me, their focus being uniquely on "Agent Orange". For posters who allow themselves to sanction my credibility as well as my capability to debate, this sort of diversion doesn't speak highly of their own capabilities.

So, jb, you're calling or folding? I'm going all in.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

So, let me get this straight, because a 1992 article written by Lindzen appears on the Cato Institute website, it's somehow proof that it can't be taken seriously? Attacking the source (not mentionning the fact that Lindzen has been published in a host of different scientific publications...) instead of the arguments presented is one of the cheapest tricks in the debating book. Or should I say the non-debating book. Nine times out of ten, it's a copout non-argument...

As you can see, I haven't reached a conclusion yet, you're doing all the talking.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

In what room and with what tool did Agent Orange use to kill whoever it is (I forget) that gets killed in Clue?

The room is "Vietnam", the victims are 6 million acres of vegetation destroyed and tens of thousands of civils and veterans suffering from soft-tissue sarcoma, leukemia and other foms of cancer.

(someone is about to post that there's no scientific certainty over Agent Orange causing cancer, countdown to more denial, in 8... 7... 6... 5...)

 

[Agrippa]

The room is "Vietnam", the victims are 6 million acres of vegetation destroyed and tens of thousands of civils and veterans suffering from soft-tissue sarcoma, leukemia and other foms of cancer.

I knew it was coming... It doesn't matter that it is AO specifically, those dioxins are toxic, on their own and in combination with each other. It speaks volumes that they were sprayed on the protesters, while they were protesting.

(someone is about to post that there's no scientific certainty over Agent Orange causing cancer, countdown to more denial, in 8... 7... 6... 5...)

It better not be easteneder since the link he posted makes mention of the link between AO and prostate cancer, (though note that no one ever says this causes that).

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Premises, Socialism, etc...

Fair enough. So let's put global warming aside for a second. There are environmental problems so we should deal with them. That much we can agree on. However, you believe that these problems are overwhelming enough that they warrant radicalism and overthrowing (so to speak) capitalism. I totally disagree. Free market economies (despite all it's flaws) is the only model that has proven sustainable in the long run. Therefore, I believe we must address environmental problems within the framework of the existing system. As I stated before, we (the public and the governments) are a lot more environmentally conscious than we were 25 or 50 years ago.

I accept that. For the record, my acceptance of radicalism applies to what I would consider being severe abuses of our ecology. The anarcho-primitivist framework defines priorities I'm comfortable with,ecology over profit, being the main one, and a sense of social-democracy I idealize (why not?).

Capitalism being, according to you, the only system that has proven sustainable in the long run is a fact. On the other hand, if - say - socialism failed, we're entitled to ask ourselves "what went wrong?" and therefore accept to look into the possibility that "nothing went wrong". I foresee a long discussion: not sure I feel like engaging right now.

Therefore, all I can do is try to weigh different viewpoints.

Expressed in those terms, your position is reasonable, debatable but reasonable.

Already answered. Let's tackle tangible problems like chemical polution (causing cancer), deforestation, and other environmental issues, as well as try to develop alternative sources of energy, within the framework of the system in place, regardless of it's flaws.

My above comment applies. The sense of urgency varies according to what one is being exposed to. Understand that I've seen with my own eyes Cambodian children drinking contaminated water because of the principle of "profit over people". These kids don't have the luxury of time: some might be already dead.

In a word, and again, bullshit. That thread still exists for all to see. I thouroughly addressed your "grievances" argument and proved that it just doesn't stand when closely analyzed both in an historical and a contemporary context (..).

Bullshit yourself. Your rebuttal of a widely accepted concept, supported by decades worth of scholarly research, was caricatural at best. It takes one set of nerves to completely discredit, as you did, the possibility that resentment of Israeli's occupation of the Gaza Strip and of US unconditional support of Israel is a reason for grievance. You're talking as if nothing ever happened in the Middle East.

I said that Islamic terrorists are a category of their own feeding their hatred from the same set of grievances. The concept is simple and straighforward (too simple for you, maybe? Doesn't it feel better to complicate matters uselessly so you can feel specially intelligent? ) and was proved correct countless numbers of times by historical facts, many of which accounted for in declassified US National Sercurity archives.

BTW, for the record, I'm not big on multiculturalism myself but absolutely not for the reasons you have evoked.

And- yes - the thread is there for anyone who cares to see. What the thread shows (well, not completely since all my posts are gone) besides my reluctance to have a part in what had quickly turned into a cesspool for xenophobia, is your zealousness to picture Islamic terrorism as a fatality, as if "hatred" is something embraided in the Koran. The readers will also note that some of your "supporters" are the same people who took part recently to another thread where the perspective of "beating up on Middle Easterns with baseball bats" was celebrated with uncontained joy...

If I were to subscribe to your theories, then it would be the case to say that "hatred" is embraided in the baseball game!

 

[JustBob]

Readers certainly noticed that I was never asked to prove that timber companies actually "use" defoliants. The issue doesn't seem worth debating if I judge by jb and ea's efforts to discredit me, their focus being uniquely on "Agent Orange". For posters who allow themselves to sanction my credibility as well as my capability to debate, this sort of diversion doesn't speak highly of their own capabilities.

Hummm no. I don't give a hoot if it was agent orange or dioxin, they are both toxic chemical crap. I simply stated that from what I found, a) it seemed to be dioxin and b) the only support for that story is "I've been told by an activist...". Hardly conclusive proof that the story is true. It might be, or not... Wouldn't be the first time that companies have dumped toxic chemicals into forests and rivers.

Not that I particularly care, but the diversion here seems to be entirely yours. You argue that you are in possession of "sources" but childishly refuse to provide them.

 

[eastender]

Paradoxical

For the record, here's where I'm coming from: I've travelled the world between age 22 and 35, literally and lived among the poorest segments of populations: the longest periods of time being in South America, Africa and South East Asia. I've seen too much to account for on this board but suffice to say that some of the "mechanism" of capitalism that were at work in many of the countries I've lived in were flagrant, hence my so-called "agenda".

Technology and capitalism.

Allowed you to travel as evidenced by the quote above.

Is responsible for enormous growth and benefits to the people in the former Soviet Bloc.

Is responsible for the economic boom and the resulting benefits to the people of China.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Technology and capitalism.

Allowed you to travel as evidenced by the quote above.

Is responsible for enormous growth and benefits to the people in the former Soviet Bloc.

Is responsible for the economic boom and the resulting benefits to the people of China.

The pounding sound you are hearing right now comes from my head banging repeatedly against the wall of exasperation...

 

[eastender]

Your Seminal Post

I have news for you: I've been in contact with Jensen for a while now and one of my first reaction to his opening story was "Agent Orange, really?", which he understood as skepticism on my part (not skeptical over timber companies using defoliants though just over Agent Orange being the defoliant in question) and he referred me to two sources of information reporting the exact same story. Ever tried to run a Lexis Nexis?

Readers: notice the insistence put by ea and jb on the identity of the defoliant used by timber companies. Here I am asked to prove beyond a doubt that the defoliant was, indeed, "Agent Orange". Failure to provide the proofs, according to ea, should lead to my retractation of the story.

Readers certainly noticed that I was never asked to prove that timber companies actually "use" defoliants. The issue doesn't seem worth debating if I judge by jb and ea's efforts to discredit me, their focus being uniquely on "Agent Orange". For posters who allow themselves to sanction my credibility as well as my capability to debate, this sort of diversion doesn't speak highly of their own capabilities.

So, jb, you're calling or folding? I'm going all in.

You made the original post.If you had used dioxin or a defoliant maybe the issue would not have arisen. You decided to use "Agent Orange" since for reasons unknown to the readers you deemed it preferable.That is the issue.Also at no point did you attribute the story to a source whereas you regularly attribute sources.

 

[JustBob]

Bullshit yourself. Your rebuttal of a widely accepted concept, supported by decades worth of scholarly research, was caricatural at best.

Sorry, that's as empty a statement as one can manufacture. I supported my position, you failed to support yours. "widely accepted" and "decades of scholarly research" are meaningless non-arguments if you can't back it up. Furthermore, you still fail to intelligently argue/debate my arguments, and explain why my position is "caricatural". Again, more empty rhetoric.

It takes one set of nerves to completely discredit, as you did, the possibility that resentment of Israeli's occupation of the Gaza Strip and of US unconditional support of Israel is a reason for grievance. You're talking as if nothing ever happened in the Middle East.

I don't totally discredit it, but with regards to Muslim fundamentalism, it does not stand up to in depth analysis. The reality is that Muslim history didn't start with the creation of Israel. They have been stuck in patriarchal, autocratic societies for centuries and have always, often violently, opposed a more liberal interpretation of their religious texts. Their failure to evolve into more open "civilized" societies is almost entirely of their own doing. And I'm going to say this again. Muslim scholars and moderate Imams in Europe who have finally decided to speak out agree that it's high time that Muslims stop blaming the US and Israel for all their failures and take a good look at themselves. One more time, does that make them xenophobic towards their own people and are the views "caricatural"?

You're views are overly simplistic because you are so blinded by your anti-US and anti-Israel agenda that you dismiss everything else. "Grievances" is (mostly) a copout argument. Other people have had grievances throughout history (and again, none more then the jews... how ironic...), and they've still managed to evolve into modern, productive, civilized societies, and don't resort to blowing themselves up over "grievances". So your "but the poor little Muslims are simply being oppressed!" argument is essentially moot.

And I haven't even gone into the fact that countries like Iran and Syria don't give a hoot about the Palestinians. They've got little to no interest in seeing a resolution to the conflict because they use the Palestinians as pawns, in order to further anti-US, anti-Israel sentiment. Blaming others for your own inadequacies is one of the oldest political trick in the book. As long as you have somebody else to blame, you don't have to admit or face your own failures.

Not to mention how you would account for homegrown terrorism in Europe, which mainly occurs in countries that have embraced multiculturalism...

I said that Islamic terrorists are a category of their own feeding their hatred from the same set of grievances. The concept is simple and straighforward (too simple for you, maybe? Doesn't it feel better to complicate matters uselessly so you can feel specially intelligent? ) and was proved correct countless numbers of times by historical facts, many of which accounted for in declassified US National Sercurity archives.

Complicate matters? Good one. I prefer to read, inform myself, and derive opinions based on careful examination of facts, whether they be historical, religious, sociological, or cultural. If you prefer to stick to overly simplistic views, knock yourself out...

And- yes - the thread is there for anyone who cares to see. What the thread shows (well, not completely since all my posts are gone) besides my reluctance to have a part in what had quickly turned into a cesspool for xenophobia, is your eagerness to justify Islamic terrorism as a fatality, as if "hatred" is something embraided in the Koran.

Ahhhhh xenophobia... Now why did I waste my time with lenghty intelligent arguments when I could have simply responded with thinly veiled accusations of anti-semitism... More knee-jerk reactions derived from the refusal or the inability to debate.

For the record, if you knew anything about the Koran and had taken the time to ponder my points about the refusal by Muslims, throughout history, to adhere to a more liberal interpretation of their religious texts coupled with the lack of central authority (or body) on Islamic doctrine, you would begin to understand why the teachings of Islam can be so easily distorted and perverted.

The readers will also note that some of your "supporters" are the same people who took part recently to another thread where the perspective of "beating up on Middle Easterns with baseball bats" was celebrated with uncontained joy...

I cannot be held responsible for the opinions of others, as misguided as they might be.

Since this is a total waste of time, I'm done arguing this issue with you.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Sorry, that's as empty a statement as one can manufacture. I supported my position, you failed to support yours. (...)

Mirror, mirror, lie to me, show me want I want to see.

Why don't I think before I speak?
I should've listened to that voice inside me
I must be stupid must be crazy must be out of my mind
to say the kind of things I say right now

EVERYBODY!

Mirror Mirror hanging on the wall
You don't have to tell me whos the biggest fool of all
Mirror Mirror I wish you could lie to me
and bring my senses back to me

Mirror Mirror lie to me, show me what I wanna see
Mirror Mirror lie to me

Sing it JB!

Since this is a total waste of time, I'm done arguing this issue with you.

ARE YOU REALLY, REALLY, DONE THIS TIME?

Good because now we'll speak of YOUR agenda starting with your consumed zealousness to cite works from scholars publishing in right-wing think tanks.

Stay tuned...

 

[korbel]

Open?

.....The reality is that Muslim history didn't start with the creation of Israel. They have been stuck in patriarchal, autocratic societies for centuries and have always, often violently, opposed a more liberal interpretation of their religious texts. Their failure to evolve into more open "civilized" societies is almost entirely of their own doing. And I'm going to say this again. Muslim scholars and moderate Imams in Europe who have finally decided to speak out agree that it's high time that Muslims stop blaming the US and Israel for all their failures and take a good look at themselves. One more time, does that make them xenophobic towards their own people and are the views "caricatural"?

Hello Justbob,

Yeah, Christians are open alright. We have gone from the worship of Christ to the worship of profits. Business is too often the religion of so-called Christians in more industrialized countries. We celebrate every holiday with business sales spending an hour in church, maybe, before we shop all day until we drop. In my view we pollute the sanctity of Christianity with business ethics. We give women and minorities more freedom and economic empowerment while encouraging their participation in the dilution of pure Christian principles for profits sake.

There is a hell of a lot that is reprehensible about Muslim fundamentalists, including killing on their religious days. A lot of what you say about them is very true, though exaggerated. But by comparison Christian history is generally identical overall if not in every detail. Any institutions run by humans will have all the human strengths and weaknesses. No religious institution that excuses violent retribution in the guise of sanctified justice, such as "an eye for an eye", has any basic difference from one another. Nearly every religion has found scriptural justification for otherwise evil acts. Whether one is good or evil is often ( not always) just a matter of who you are, how you were raised, and who is judging the episode.

What's most distressing about what you say about Muslim extremists and Islam, Justbob, isn't that you are way off base. It's that you both taint your statements with over-generalizations bordering on stereotype...and most egregiously that you indulge in relating all the wrong in Muslim history with practically no acknowledgment of the same character in Christian history as a counter balance for comparison. Of course you don't have to answer this...but how DO you compare the same malicious tendencies of both religions? Good side...bad side...there's not much difference.

Actually, this thread is not supposed to be about Religion. My question to Justbob is meant to be thought-provoking only. It is not meant to be a rebirth of the bitter Muslim thread.

Back to Global Warming,

Korbel