Climate Denialism paid by Exxon

[thaumaturgy]

And if you said you would do otherwise, you would be lying.

Ahh, here you are giving me an inkling of something like knowledge of philosophy.

You see, I am a hedonist in the philosophical sense.

Are you familiar with the Hedonistic Calculus of Jeremy Bentham? I believe that all people are hedonists in that they wish to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. But for people like me the "minimize pain" portion of the calculus does indeed factor quite prominently when I run the hedonistic calculus on any given possible action.

As such I ask myself:

Would I gain more personal joy if I did "X" or not? BUT I also think two or three steps ahead and say "What if my doing 'X' results in someone else being hurt even slightly?" If that is the case then I am unlikely to do "X", and even less so if I feel that it will somehow get me ostracized from the social group.

Why? Because as a social animal I realize I require the stability of a society around me.

As such I willingly give up personal liberties all the time in order that it might help improve the "good" (or pleasure, if you will) of those around me. I pay taxes with the intention and hope that it will make my city better.

As a concrete example: my wife and I have no children yet we often vote for tax increases that are aimed at improving public schools.

This isn't pure "altruism" (I am doubtful such a thing exists) but rather because we know the value of an educated populace to making a stable and secure society. We will, as we age, rely on the youth of today to be the adults of tomorrow.

So you are quite incorrect in one sense: I clearly do not consider my liberty of prime importance, but you are correct in another sense in that I am attempting at all points to maximize my pleasure and minimize my pain.

But as I clearly stated earlier and am re-stating now: when I run the "hedonistic calculus" I include a term for the "social" which automatically moderates my personal liberties

What is the collective will of 11 people on the island, and how is it determined? By a 6-5 vote? 7-4? And how often do you confuse majority with morality?

I have already explained my "morality" and "ethics" to you several times. If you wish to better understand what I am saying I highly recommend you take a philosophy class. I am more closely aligned with utilitarianism as a basis for my ethics and am hedonist who biases the hedonistic calculus to consider those factors that will increase the stability of the "group" that I am a part of which, by extension, will improve my existance.

I do not claim any "absolute moral law" exists outside of the function of those things which improve our survival advantage and bring the greatest good to the greatest number.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Are there two different people who post under your screen name? It is difficult to imagine that the same person who wrote post #491 wrote #494. Whoever it was that wrote post #491 was able to do so without the arrogance, without the condescension, without the boasting of phony academic credentials. It was actually an interesting post and a pleasure to read and respond to. This one, not so much.

"phony academic credentials"? I spent almost as much time in university getting my BS, MS and PhD as you spent between 1st grade and graduation. How, exactly, are my academic credentials "phony"?

I am surprised that you have such a thin skin. But so long as you get it out of your system.

Oh, and as for "arrogance" who was it that told me that my clear explanation of my morality and ethics as requested was not an answer? Who was it who said:

You mean this? You call this an answer?...

I don't know where you come from but that was pretty snotty and petulant.

But I also understand you are up against the ropes because you can't seem to discuss laws or philosophy in any detail, you seem to only have rhetoric that maximizes the use of the term "liberty".

I suspect someone could program a computer to generate that kind of post. Just maximize the number of times "liberty" is typed out.

Morality is too nebulous a term for the discussion of rights??

Again, have you ever taken a philosophy class? I don't mean this to sound "arrogant", but it will help me understand why you seem to think "morality" isn't a charged and debated term overall.

So, do you care to answer yet?

Rights are a moral concept, so I am not sure how you would discuss them outside of the context of morality.

There are so many different "moral codes" and "ethics" it boggles the mind.

I have explained to you numerous times the "ethics" I utilize so I don't know how much more clear I can be.

Again, I assume that most people have had at least an intro philosophy class so you can have an understanding that just yelling "morality" doesn't win any "points". It doesn't even begin to explain anything. It's a highly debated and debatable term.

So your moral code is based upon what one might come across during an introductory discussion of philosophy? Impressive.

In a very real sense, yes. Why is that bad? Perhaps I had a very good philosophy teacher? Or perhaps it was because one of my closest friends went on to become a philosophy professor so basically I've had this type of discussion with him for oh, about 20 years now.

It can be, but anyone who bothered to pay attention during an introduction to politics class would not even ask such a question. (See, I can be pompous too)

Don't worry, you were pompous long before this.

Why not? I thought you were for whatever resulted in the greatest good for the greatest number of people. You cant possibly achieve that without violating the rights of the others who happen to make up the minority.

Oh, I most assuredly realize that. That is, sadly, one of the outcomes of this whole thing. BUT that ignores the details of any given example.

Let's revisit a specific bit of legislation introduced in California called Prop 8 or "Prop H8" as many call it. It was largely driven by the fears of a well-funded religious group(s) that wished to ensure that a right was denied a certain group based on the way they were born.

The argument could be cast as:

The greatest good was whatever got passed in the law.

OR

The greatest good would be whatever maximized the happiness of the largest number while minimizing the pain of the largest number

Now: since no one was going to require a religious person of any persuation to marry a gay man or gay woman against their will the denial of the right for two consenting gay adults to marry did only one thing, it minimized happiness and in many cases actually increased pain for a small minority at no cost whatsoever to the people who voted for Prop H8.

ERGO a minority was actively "hurt" by the actions of a "majority" rule.

ERGO I call it unjust.

There, was that so hard?

It is not up to me to "prove otherwise." If you believe that groups have rights it is up to you to prove it.

I believe that I provided numerous examples.

That is because I am discussing principles; specifically, what principles should just law be based upon.

I just got done taking a Patent Law midterm last night, so you'll forgive me if I point out that there are numerous examples in case law in which the debate is hardly settled or is often settled less on a consistent principle than on a balance based on realities in play.

The judiciary (the folks who we empower to determine if laws are constitutional) does indeed attempt to maintain a systematic set of principles that guide the final decisions, but if you read a case like "Bilski v Kappos" you can see that the adjudication of what is right or wrong in a legal structure sometimes has to consider the broader effects.

Again, sorry to keep dragging this down to actual detailed discussion of laws, but laws do not exist outside of the social structure. Laws are mutually agreed upon codes of action and as such are not always perfectly ammenable to strict principle to decide.

You are a small businessman as you've pointed out. Let's say one day you stumble upon a unique method of conducting your business and you want to get protection for this intellectual property. Well, you can thank the strange discussions around "Bilski v Kappos" for the right to get a "business method patent", but still be mystified why you should be allowed to do so. I know I am. The supreme court affirmed the CAFC's rejection of Bilski's "business method" as abstract, but held open the door for other business methods.

The reality of business method patent law is fraught with danger not because of some principle but rather because the patent office was, with the advent of the internet, being flooded with methods of doing business that, while anticipated or inferred from prior usages had no specific prior art to "negate" it.

The reality was a possible breakdown in how the law should be applied using the strict principles. And remember, the verbiage of the various chapters of the USC don't necessarily lend themselves to strict interpretation.

Law is driven by priniciple, but requires additional support, usually based on individual case rulings.

With all of your supposed academic accomplishments

You mean the BS, MS and PhD in geology, the two chemistry postdoctoral appointments and 11 years as an industrial research chemist with several patents? That "supposed academic accomplishment"?

Is it more impressive than your "supposed skill as a businessman"?

, explaining the concept of 'collective will' cant be too great a challenge, can it?

Did I say it was?

The difference between you and me is that I put greater faith in my own ability to reach a proper conclusion than I do the unknowable "collective will" of the "mob."

That actually is a difference between us. I am not always so [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-sure of my judgement. I am by nature less self-assured. I'm not a "supposed business owner" such as yourself and that does mark a difference between us. I am more fearful of making an error of judgement and will rely on research into the topic, which is why I tend to rely on others' work.

But that's part of my life in achieving my "supposed academic credentials". I am a "learner" by nature which makes me more prone to, in some cases, over-researching my position.

I'm not saying you are better or worse than I am. We are clearly different in this respect and it is an honest difference (even if you continually insult my academic achievements as "supposed", almost as if you wish to tell me I'm lying about my academic background.)

I live among plenty of humans. I deal with them as equals. I respect their rights. Do you do things differently?

How can they be "equals" to the man who feels that when 2 or more of them get together any conclusions they reach are prima facie less proper than what you would achieve on your own? (Just using your earlier stated conditions)

I have thought through my point more than you have.

Unevidenced claim. I will only grant that you have thought through your position, but since there's no way for you to know how much I have thought through my position (apart from the fact that I have consistently dealt in details of actual law and philosophy in this discussion), so you are unable to back that claim up.

I accuse of disregarding the Constitution and embracing only two key phrases "general welfare" and the 'Commerce clause."

Hey, wait, wasn't I also the only one on here who reference Article I section 8 clause 8 as well?

Interesting. Seems you can't back that claim up either.

I accept the whole thing, you accept two phrases and throw the rest out.

-sigh- At least I've discussed specific judicial findings in relation to questions predicated on constitutional topics. So I think I've covered Article 3 as well (I've even cited a Supreme Court case, can you find it in my posts?)

And the authority to do this comes from where? Oh, thats right, the 'commerce clause.'

You asked me where environmental regulations get their authority in the Constitution and I pointed out where legal scholars clarify that point.

You didn't like the answer apparently. Take it up with legal scholars.

If the US could be said to have been founded upon a single word, that word would be liberty.

Hey! Guess how many times "Liberty" is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution?

Answer: ONCE

Where's that, Thaumaturgy? IN THE PREAMBLE.

To quote my new legal hero, lordbt:

Now thats funny. You ignore the body of the Constitution and rely upon the one part of the document that lacks any real legal heft--the Preamble. Good one.

Funny how someone with such an impressive education would not know this. Might just be that people on the internet can claim to be anyone or anything. Or have any level of education. No one is obligated to believe it, though.

Indeed. You are not obligated to believe a word I say. That's why I cite case law and specific detailed laws rather than speak in generalities.

(Oh, as an fyi, if you wish to be man enough to accuse me of lying about my education, do it outright. Don't wuss out and dance around the point. Could I call your accusation without evidence a part of your "morality"?)

 

[lordbt]

Ah, but there's a slight disconnect here: protecting the populace (i.e., all citizens) from harm IS a top priority, right? So if what you consider your "right" endangers the welfare of all citizens (and ultimately, this includes yourself), then it's the explicit job of the state to intervene. We cannot stand idly by and watch as the powerful squander scarce resources frivolously, not once we become aware of the consequences this entails for all of us. To ignore it would be just as unethical as witnessing a robbery and just walking away.

The state is there to secure rights and address violations of those rights. Global warming is a global phenomenon that is the result of the every day activities of 7 billion humans who need massive amounts of energy to survive. Rather than criminalize normal human activity, the state look to ways to promote our ability to adapt to the changing climate. No ones rights are violated by a temperature increase or the melting of glaciers, since no one has a right to the status quo.

In short, pollution and wastefulness are NOT inalienable rights, but infringements that carry disastrous consequences for all, the perpetrator included.

Pollution is only a crime if it harms the rights of another. Wastefulness is a right if what I am wasting is my own. The point here is that if the state can regulate how and for what purposes you use the energy you purchase at the corner gas station, then there is virtually no aspect of your life that the state does not control. Slaves live that way, not free men.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The state is there to secure rights and address violations of those rights. Global warming is a global phenomenon that is the result of the every day activities of 7 billion humans who need massive amounts of energy to survive. Rather than criminalize normal human activity, the state look to ways to promote our ability to adapt to the changing climate. No ones rights are violated by a temperature increase or the melting of glaciers, since no one has a right to the status quo.

Pollution is only a crime if it harms the rights of another. Wastefulness is a right if what I am wasting is my own. The point here is that if the state can regulate how and for what purposes you use the energy you purchase at the corner gas station, then there is virtually no aspect of your life that the state does not control. Slaves live that way, not free men.

Any chance that you will now address the objection that was raised to that point several pages ago, or will you carry on stalling?

 

[lordbt]

"Scratch an altruist, and watch a hypocrite bleed"?

One of the things that bothers me most about right-libertarians is their inability to see the rest of the world as anything other than a collective of Hobbesian sociopaths. Maybe it's just a case of projection, as many people who hold such views betray considerable deficiencies in the empathy department, but it still strikes me as unsettling.

Humans are a social species. Not selflessly eusocial like ants or bees, but social nonetheless.

In a starvation economy, things admittedly tend to get ugly - especially in societies that didn't put too much emphasis on solidarity and mutual support to begin with - but those are extreme situations that few of us have ever encountered. And even then, some of us would rather go on minimum rations of water and food rather than letting our neighbours starve while we hoard more than we need. It's the same impulse that makes us not want to shove a knife into their backs, or push them in front of a passing truck.

I think you misunderstand me. Just because I place a higher value on my own survival, which I do, does not mean that I will slit the throats of my neighbor to preserve that value. But then again, you dont determine proper and moral courses of action from survival scenarios and then apply that to every day life.

Humans are social creatures, but how society is best arranged is a matter of choice, it is not predetermined as it is for ants and bees. Humans cant survive on automatic knowledge because we dont have any. To survive, we must think, we must use our ability to reason. Since reason is mans method of survival, he must be free to use it or he will perish. It is from here that the concept rights evolves. So any social system must preserve to each man the ability to use his own mind to govern his own actions in pursuit of his own survival and goals. In short, liberty.

I mean, its not like man cant live like ants of bees, communist societies achieve those lofty standards. But if you want man to live like man, then human liberty and individual rights are essential.

 

[lordbt]

Who on earth is Archaeopteryx and how did he get on my ignore list? Someone must have changed his screen name, I guess.
Hmm. Should I take this mysterious new poster off my ignore list to see who it is????

Nah.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Who on earth is Archaeopteryx and how did he get on my ignore list? Someone must have changed his screen name, I guess.
Hmm. Should I take this mysterious new poster off my ignore list to see who it is????

Nah.

Was I setting the bar too high in expecting you to have the gumption to address a challenge to your point? What a way to weasel out of it. Reflects poorly on you lordbt.

 

[lordbt]

"phony academic credentials"? I spent almost as much time in university getting my BS, MS and PhD as you spent between 1st grade and graduation. How, exactly, are my academic credentials "phony"?

I am surprised that you have such a thin skin. But so long as you get it out of your system.

I am sure you remember Hogans Heroes. Every time you mention your academic qualifications, which seems to be every post, I am reminded of General Burkhalters response to Colonel Klinks endless boasting of how "there has never been a successful escape from Stalag 13." Burkhalter replies:

So you have told us Klink.

And told us.

And told us.

You must be aware that this is the internet. And you must also be aware that anyone can make any claim about their personal status, income, occupation, education, wealth, location, sex, etc. that they wish without backing it up. So the fact that you feel the need to constantly reiterate your educational achievements only makes me doubt them all the more. If you are brilliant, people will let you know, you dont have to constantly remind them.

Let's revisit a specific bit of legislation introduced in California called Prop 8 or "Prop H8" as many call it. It was largely driven by the fears of a well-funded religious group(s) that wished to ensure that a right was denied a certain group based on the way they were born.

The argument could be cast as:

The greatest good was whatever got passed in the law.

OR

The greatest good would be whatever maximized the happiness of the largest number while minimizing the pain of the largest number

Now: since no one was going to require a religious person of any persuation to marry a gay man or gay woman against their will the denial of the right for two consenting gay adults to marry did only one thing, it minimized happiness and in many cases actually increased pain for a small minority at no cost whatsoever to the people who voted for Prop H8.

ERGO a minority was actively "hurt" by the actions of a "majority" rule.

ERGO I call it unjust.

There, was that so hard?

So what would be your argument against the nationalization of industry? Clearly that would maximize the benefit to the most people. What would be your moral objection to communism? That surely maximizes the benefit to the most people. Oops scratch the moral part since you dont want to talk about morality. Why not ban smoking? That wold fit your calculus. Why not ban alcohol? That would fit your calculus. In fact, alcohol is the single most destructive product in society. It is the one case where the left can cry their usual "people will die in the streets" refrain and actually be correct. People are dying in the streets due to alcohol. Yet there is no effort to end global drunkenness or wean us off our dependence of alcohol. Why not just confiscate the wealth of everyone in the top 1% and redistribute it to the 99%? That would fit your calculus.

What you conveniently leave out of your calculus is the concept of individual rights and how the minority possesses the right not to be subject to your tyrannical fantasies. Somewhere in your vast and rigorous philosophical training the concept of "the voluntary" was overlooked. But it is never too late to learn.

The judiciary (the folks who we empower to determine if laws are constitutional) does indeed attempt to maintain a systematic set of principles that guide the final decisions, but if you read a case like "Bilski v Kappos" you can see that the adjudication of what is right or wrong in a legal structure sometimes has to consider the broader effects.

Again, sorry to keep dragging this down to actual detailed discussion of laws, but laws do not exist outside of the social structure. Laws are mutually agreed upon codes of action and as such are not always perfectly ammenable to strict principle to decide.

I dont have any trouble applying a strict set of principles to law, and your application of 'whatever benefits the most is the good' is a moral cop-out. Which explains why you avoid any discussion of moral principles like the plague.

I'm not saying you are better or worse than I am. We are clearly different in this respect and it is an honest difference (even if you continually insult my academic achievements as "supposed", almost as if you wish to tell me I'm lying about my academic background.)

I am not saying you dont have the academic credentials you claim you have, what I am saying is that it is an unsourced claim and should be treated as such.

How can they be "equals" to the man who feels that when 2 or more of them get together any conclusions they reach are prima facie less proper than what you would achieve on your own? (Just using your earlier stated conditions)

I didnt say they were less proper, I am saying that numerical superiority does not indicate moral authority. Numerical superiority is nothing more than another example of "might makes right." Just because 51% wish to do something does not make it right, or just or good. The rightness or wrongness of a particular action is not judged by how many people you get to go along with it.

Unevidenced claim. I will only grant that you have thought through your position, but since there's no way for you to know how much I have thought through my position (apart from the fact that I have consistently dealt in details of actual law and philosophy in this discussion), so you are unable to back that claim up.

OK, lets use your words--unevidenced claim--to describe your academic credentials.

But let me take this moment to clear something up. I dont find you to be an unintelligent person. And honestly, I dont find it inconceivable that you do possess the academic training you claim. My point is simply that it is irrelevant since it cannot be proven and certainly cannot be used as the argumentative sledgehammer you wield it as.

Hey! Guess how many times "Liberty" is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution?

Answer: ONCE

Where's that, Thaumaturgy? IN THE PREAMBLE.

I was referring to the principle of liberty upon which the text is based, not whether or not the word was actually mentioned in the text.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I mean, its not like man cant live like ants of bees, communist societies achieve those lofty standards. But if you want man to live like man, then human liberty and individual rights are essential.

That's a false dichotomy, and no, "communist" societies (more precisely: corrupt party dictatorships) were never viable, precisely because they wrongly assumed that human nature would not interfere with their ideals.

And the right-wing utopia is unattainable for the very same reason: it disregards the way people are: homo oeconomicus is as much of a fiction as the New Soviet Man. We are neither Hobbesian gladiators nor Leninist worker ants.

 

[lordbt]

That's a false dichotomy, and no, "communist" societies (more precisely: corrupt party dictatorships) were never viable, precisely because they wrongly assumed that human nature would not interfere with their ideals.

And the right-wing utopia is unattainable for the very same reason: it disregards the way people are: homo oeconomicus is as much of a fiction as the New Soviet Man. We are neither Hobbesian gladiators nor Leninist worker ants.

Then what are we?

 

[rambot]

The state is there to secure rights and address violations of those rights. Global warming is a global phenomenon that is the result of the every day activities of 7 billion humans who need massive amounts of energy to survive. Rather than criminalize normal human activity, the state look to ways to promote our ability to adapt to the changing climate. No ones rights are violated by a temperature increase or the melting of glaciers, since no one has a right to the status quo.

"Normal human activity" is an incorrect statement to say the least. 10 years ago we used less energy than we do now. 100 years ago, we used a fraction of that energy. 1000 years ago, we used virtually none. There are whole continents on this planet that don't need "massive amounts of energy to survive". We need massive amounts of energy for CONVINIENCE.
Driving a car; mixing chemicals to create Toluene and using asbestos to keep a building warm are NOT "normal human activities". One could argue, at best, that they are normalized, but that does not mean that humanity could not survive without them or that they are some intrinsic part of our species construct.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Most of the activities that either burn up vast amounts of non-regenerative resources or critically poison our ecosphere (and ourselves) are not essential to our survival, but merely outgrowths of consumerist decadence.

And most of the pollution is generated by the "global elite" - which includes pretty much all of us talking here. Not in service to human survival, but to perpetuate an unsustainable lifestyle that can lead nowhere except towards our own destruction.

We are the Marie Antoinettes of our age, blissfully unaware of the enormous energy that goes into sustaining our decadence. (And no, this is not a reference to the ahistorical "let them eat cake"-quote, but to the lifestyle of the French aristocracy prior to the revolution.)

Climate denialists like to pretend that their wastefulness can be sustained indefinitely without any ecological, economical or social consequences, or at least not generate any trouble for as long as they're still around.
They are gravely mistaken in this, not only because of anthropogenic climate change. If every single human being on every single continent was trying to emulate the lifestyle that most of us are used to, non-regenerative resources would be depleted within a couple of minutes, and the biosphere would face utter collapse.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Now, I'm not advocating a return to some pre-industrial utopia that never existed to begin with: technological progress is the key to establishing a more sustainable lifestyle, but as long as people keep on blindly consuming as if there was no tomorrow, we are heading for a dead end.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I was referring to the principle of liberty upon which the text is based, not whether or not the word was actually mentioned in the text.

That sounds like a double standard. When I pointed out the importance of common defense and general welfare you accused me of relying on a part of the Constitution without any legal "heft" because it was only in the preamble, yet when you mention something that is only mentioned in the Preamble suddenly it is of paramount importance.

And interestingly enough "common defense" and "general welfare" are then later repeated in the body of the Constitution (hence within the portion with legal heft) but ironically liberty is not.

Sounds like your points are ipso facto correct even when they fall afoul of your own pre-established critiques of others'.

How convenient for you!

I'm still waiting for you to discuss an actual law, any actual law in detail. I guess I can wait a bit longer.

 

[lordbt]

"Normal human activity" is an incorrect statement to say the least. 10 years ago we used less energy than we do now. 100 years ago, we used a fraction of that energy. 1000 years ago, we used virtually none. There are whole continents on this planet that don't need "massive amounts of energy to survive". We need massive amounts of energy for CONVINIENCE.
Driving a car; mixing chemicals to create Toluene and using asbestos to keep a building warm are NOT "normal human activities". One could argue, at best, that they are normalized, but that does not mean that humanity could not survive without them or that they are some intrinsic part of our species construct.

So driving a car is abnormal human behavior? What is abnormal about it? Seems normal to me, particularly when you consider how normal is it for man to adjust his surrounding to meet his needs. Personally, I prefer human advancement to stagnation as some primordial savage.

 

[thaumaturgy]

So driving a car is abnormal human behavior? What is abnormal about it? Seems normal to me, particularly when you consider how normal is it for man to adjust his surrounding to meet his needs. Personally, I prefer human advancement to stagnation as some primordial savage.

The original point is not that humans cannot modify their ecosystem, that is an adaptational device we have. However, it is not in any way necessary for human survival to drive a car.

In fact, just 60 or so years ago most of our population in cities were centralized and people literally walked to the store. You know those things you have dangling from your hips? They used to have a use other than depressing the gas or brake pedal.

In fact the development of the car lead to the sprawl of suburbia.

While that happened it is by no means "necessary" for human survival and in some ways is hastening our destruction of our larger ecosystem.

Driving, in the evolutionary scheme of things, is grossly abnormal. How can one say otherwise when humans have been around as many million years as we have and we only started "driving cars" a fraction of that time ago?

 

[rambot]

So driving a car is abnormal human behavior? What is abnormal about it? Seems normal to me, particularly when you consider how normal is it for man to adjust his surrounding to meet his needs. Personally, I prefer human advancement to stagnation as some primordial savage.

I'm not saying it is "abnormal". I'm saying it "normalized". That means, it is not a necessity, but it is considered a necessity.

Human advancement is fine and dandy but don't think it is a human necessity.

"Abnormal behaviour" could also be considered culturally relative. Ask a jungle man in Jakarta if it makes sense for him drive a car in the jungle.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So driving a car is abnormal human behavior? What is abnormal about it? Seems normal to me, particularly when you consider how normal is it for man to adjust his surrounding to meet his needs.

To put it into perspective, writing is a relatively 'abnormal' behaviour for human beings to engage in. We appear to be born with the necessary tools for acquiring a spoken language, but writing is (if you recall your childhood) a difficult thing to get an intuitive handle on.

But your argument that driving 'seems normal', when you consider how normal it is for man to adjust his surrounding to meet his needs, does not work. It is normal for man to adjust his surroundings. It does not follow from that that every adjustment is also 'normal' in itself.

Personally, I prefer human advancement to stagnation as some primordial savage

This thread has been replete with your false dichotomies. Now we are to choose between human advancement on the one hand and primordial savagery on the other. Is your thinking this black-and-white all the time?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

So driving a car is abnormal human behavior? What is abnormal about it? Seems normal to me, particularly when you consider how normal is it for man to adjust his surrounding to meet his needs. Personally, I prefer human advancement to stagnation as some primordial savage.

Another false dichotomy. AND you've switched the goalposts at breakneck speed. A few posts ago, you still deemed needlessly wasting resources (rather than conserving them prudently while looking for a more sustainable alternative) essential to our very survival.

Now, I grant you that a *very* small and radical part of the green movement has always been fundamentally opposed to technology at a very basic level, never quite realizing that a return to the palaeolithic hunter-gatherer societies is not only impossible, but also ill-advised for various reasons, including ecological ones.

However, the problem is this:
Mankind behaves just like any other invasive species that's introduced to an ecosystem. We maximize our resource consumption and multiply like crazy until we either
a) reach an equilibrium beyond which we cannot continue to grow, or
b) become extinct.

Now, given our current population spike, prudence is called for to avoid the fate of a locust swarm or a plague of rodents, who continue to gobble up resources until the population collapses upon itself.

Another point that we need to keep in mind, of course, is that we are not intrinsically apart from the rest of the ecosphere. It's not Man vs. Nature, because we ARE (a part of) Nature, and part of a complex ecological chain of interdependencies. It's impossible for us to mess it up without messing up ourselves.
To use a plain image: you cannot set fire to your own house and then expect not to choke on the smoke and get burned.

 

[Drekkan85]

That sounds like a double standard. When I pointed out the importance of common defense and general welfare you accused me of relying on a part of the Constitution without any legal "heft" because it was only in the preamble, yet when you mention something that is only mentioned in the Preamble suddenly it is of paramount importance.

And interestingly enough "common defense" and "general welfare" are then later repeated in the body of the Constitution (hence within the portion with legal heft) but ironically liberty is not.

Sounds like your points are ipso facto correct even when they fall afoul of your own pre-established critiques of others'.

How convenient for you!

I'm still waiting for you to discuss an actual law, any actual law in detail. I guess I can wait a bit longer.

An you've just, very briefly, touched on one of the key reasons that "Originalism" is a lazy and frankly, not truly internally consistent "philosophy" that leaves much to be desired. Search out Randal Graham's "The Myth of Originalism" in SSRN (and its frequent citations on other papers on the subject).

The problem is that "intent" can be monkeyed around with in such a way that an "originalist" can make a document say whatever they want it to say. That's the fun of the philosophy - you can claim some kind of moral authority (though, one wonders why someone is basing what's just on the opinions of 18th century white, upper class, slaveowners instead of on modern principles of egalitarianism for all races, genders, and classes, but I digress) - while still having the flexibility to make any cliam you want.

***

As for LordBT - it's not a dichotomy of "we must burn fossil fuels and cause massive climate change" or "we must revert to a savage primordialism". There are a huge spectrum of options. My own views aline with the scientists at bravenewclimate.com - healthy investment in nuclear infrastructure and energy is necessary, combined with increased spending on developing renewables. That will keep us going for quite a while, and for the development of more and improved energy sources.

To help pay for this, offset by increasing things like gas taxes (seriously, the US has, I believe, the lowest gas taxes in the developed world) to properly incentivize behaviour and to help pay for increased funding in renewable and other energy development. Encourage things like house renovations via tax cuts and credits on reno-work done to fix energy inefficiencies. These are all things the government can do to counter-act a real problem (the latest confirming study was done by a group funded by the Koch brothers and Big Oil - they're hardly likely to fudge the results against their masters wishes in order to secure more funding).