 |
| |
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:32
|
|
Ah! Thats the problem here. Unless you can base your arguments on something unequivocably canonical, it is not necessarily correct, and another comparable argument in contradiction is also correct. We are dealing with views of qualitative logic which is far more ambiguous than qualitative logic. An analogy like "liberals are arguing 2+2=5" and "conservatives are arguing 2+2=4" simply does not hold. If things were that simple, the erroneous views would simply not exist and be regarded as intellectual waste-paper. And whatever remarks some smart-arse is thinking of posting, that is not the case with either.
You can't prove either position to be correct, unless you can get 100% understanding of all human conditions, all economic conditions, all political conditions, all philosophical conditions and all logical conditions. That is required to say that conservativism or liberalism are inherently correct, and as we are all aware, there are myriad flaws in the myriad interpretations of both theories. Since that level of understanding is implausible at the current time, and I dare say impossible by definition, then we are left to conclude that liberalism and conservativism are both equally right and wrong. Different theories may provide better answers in certain situations, but not all.
I may see something as wrong, but someone obviously disagrees, and who is more true? In the absense of a set means of judging, paramaters etc, or even a canonical basis for qualitative logic, neither of us are more correct than another. All I can do therefore is communicate my idea, attempt to undermine (in a critical and civil way) the other, advocate it, explain the logic behind it and compare it to others. Such is the nature of the debate.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Whoha
|
 |
The TOC is supposed to be classified guys...
Dec 2001
time: 23:32
|
|
Providing for defense is one of about 4 basic things that Government HAS to do.
How do you reconcile the effects of Gravity with the belief that Freon/CFC's causes the destruction of the ozone?
Oh, the real reason it was banned "Many people may be unaware of both Du Pont and ICI's vested financial interest in the banning of CFCs. These two corporations have worked together for decades, maintaining their dominance in the world chemical market.[31] The Du Pont Corporation's monopoly patent on CFCs was about to expire and become public domain. It was therefore in Du Pont's interest to sponsor the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit conference, and surprise, surprise; Du Pont secured the patent on the replacement HFC 134a gas.[32] The Montreal Protocol to limit CFCs was revised and on 11th February, 1992, President Bush announced a ban on CFCs by 1995.[33]"
and a refutation of the fake reason:"Dr. Ray also pointed out that "CFC molecules are four to eight times heavier than air." And poking fun at the ridiculous claim that CFCs have caused a "hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica," she wrote: "We do not know how these heavier-than-air molecules cross the equatorial counter currents to accumulate at the South Pole and do the most ozone damage there." In point of fact, as Dr. Ray explained, "The regular, annual ozone 'hole' that appears over Antarctica was first measured in 1956-57, long before CFCs were in common use. The 'hole' appears at the end of the dark, cold Antarctic winter [a period of reduced incoming ultraviolet radiation], lasts about three to five weeks, and then disappears." "
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-12-2003 00:47
I expect you to get wasted in my honour... 
And I thought it worked rather well... 
|