A Question about Global Warming:

[Modbert]

guilty conscience?

Nah, I'm the only "kid" here being 18 and all. It's her nickname for me to try and take all value away from my posts since her arguments are fragile at best sometimes.

 

[WillowTree]

so the blacks who worked the fields were only 'almost' slaves, since they ate a portion of the value of their labors?

but you said taxation was slavery... now it's parial slavery?

?!?!?!?!

what would you call giving 90% of all your earnings if not slavery? If somebody told me I had to work and pay 90% of my money in taxes,, I'd join the non workers and sit on the porch a spell.

I'd call it taxes. If I voted against it, I'd call it exploitation and labile to lead to great alienation. If I voted for it, I'd probably call it labouring for my medical care/roadways/food allotment/whatever else was handled through through the ta-and-allotment system instead of the market.

Are the members of Twin Oaks slaves, since they do not pocket (any meaningful portion of) the value of their labours directly?

who are the members of Twin Oaks???

 

[Si modo]

My experience has been mainly in the semiconductor business, either Physicists or Chemists. I'm trying to think of one who didn't fit my summary. Still thinking...

My experience has been over twelve years with chemists doing mostly basic (and some applied) research (academic and government), and I have yet to meet one who is driven by politics and money with respect to their research. Power, yes - and that's a big yes.

It's amazing how our experiences are so different, but perhaps it's in the way I phrased my post. Power, yes; we can both agree on that. Money is a big factor, especially in industry. (That would include myself, although that became less of an issue about 15-16 years ago.) If you get the right patent or develop a superior technology, you get paid handsomely for your work. That's a huge motivator. I've seen basic researchers get offered a job by oil companies because of the huge salary increase and they left without a thought. And as far as politics go, those I've met have very strong political views one way or the other. Getting funded and published always brought out the worst in people. If politics gave you an edge, that's where you would go.

Yes, in industry, money is a big deal. One doing research is going to make his/her research priorities not on what is going to advance the body of scientific knowledge more, but what will add to the bottom line. The two don't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive, though.

Getting published and funded are important. However, being beyond reproach in one's proposals for funding (peer-reviewed) and in one's publications (also peer-reviewed, well, the important pubs) is paramount. As we can see, those who do not value this sort of integrity will fall and fall hard in the scientific community.

 

[Modbert]

who are the members of Twin Oaks???

Twin Oaks is a restaurant. He's referring to the waiters and cooks I do believe.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

what would you call giving 90% of all your earnings if not slavery? If somebody told me I had to work and pay 90% of my money in taxes,, I'd join the non workers and sit on the porch a spell.

I'd call it taxes. If I voted against it, I'd call it exploitation and labile to lead to great alienation. If I voted for it, I'd probably call it labouring for my medical care/roadways/food allotment/whatever else was handled through through the ta-and-allotment system instead of the market.

Are the members of Twin Oaks slaves, since they do not pocket (any meaningful portion of) the value of their labours directly?

who are the members of Twin Oaks???

Twin Oaks Intentional Community Homepage

 

[Modbert]

Twin Oaks Intentional Community Homepage

Interesting. Guess you do learn something new everyday.

 

[Vel]

I just have to keep reminding myself that you're not full grown yet. Think about this.. 40 years ago doctors were encouraging pregnant woman and fat people to smoke to keep their weight under control. No one back then could have possibly conceived that one day they'd have people suggesting that criminal charges be brought against them for smoking around their own children. Grown ups know the implications of the EPA classifying human exhalations as toxins. Wait for the first lawsuit because an employer is making someone work in the same room with another person. When you think it can happen, remember that no one would have imagined smoking restrictions like we have now 30 years ago.

And forty years ago, race relations were at a boiling point. 40 years is a large difference, much growth.

While once again, someone is bringing my age into this, do realize I am not ignorant of the past. Do recall, it is my generation that is trying to avoid the mistakes that previous generations made, including yours maybe. (Don't know your age.)

Grown ups such as myself also know the definition of something called frivolous lawsuits. You are acting irrational with your thinking, using what if thinking and apple/oranges examples to try and prove your point.

Well maybe grownups such as yourself haven't noticed that your Congress has no desire to curb frivolous lawsuits. And the smoking analogy is as close to apples to apples as you can get. You may know of the past, but your posts make it clear that you don't understand it. Action and reaction Bobby.

 

[Modbert]

Well maybe grownups such as yourself haven't noticed that your Congress has no desire to curb frivolous lawsuits. And the smoking analogy is as close to apples to apples as you can get. You may know of the past, but your posts make it clear that you don't understand it. Action and reaction Bobby.

I understand the past quite well. The smoking analogy is quite different from the breathing analogy. Why you think the two are even comparable is illogical.

Congress has no desire supposedly to curb frivolous lawsuits, but did you forget about the whole justice system?

 

[Modbert]

Alright, it's almost midnight.

Let us all join hands in the holiday spirit and sing.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xV7GmbUARI[/ame]

 

[WillowTree]

I'd call it taxes. If I voted against it, I'd call it exploitation and labile to lead to great alienation. If I voted for it, I'd probably call it labouring for my medical care/roadways/food allotment/whatever else was handled through through the ta-and-allotment system instead of the market.

Are the members of Twin Oaks slaves, since they do not pocket (any meaningful portion of) the value of their labours directly?

who are the members of Twin Oaks???

Twin Oaks Intentional Community Homepage

Sounds as if each member is expected to contribute.. huh?

 

[WillowTree]

Twin Oaks Intentional Community Homepage

Interesting. Guess you do learn something new everyday.

I know that's surprising to an "18" year old huh?

 

[Vel]

Well maybe grownups such as yourself haven't noticed that your Congress has no desire to curb frivolous lawsuits. And the smoking analogy is as close to apples to apples as you can get. You may know of the past, but your posts make it clear that you don't understand it. Action and reaction Bobby.

I understand the past quite well. The smoking analogy is quite different from the breathing analogy. Why you think the two are even comparable is illogical.

Congress has no desire supposedly to curb frivolous lawsuits, but did you forget about the whole justice system?

See.. you make my points for me. The justice system doesn't MAKE law. They INTERPRET it and APPLY it. They can't do diddly squat about frivolous lawsuits. And come on, you can make the connection. If second hand smoke is a toxin and can be regulated than all toxins can be regulated. CO2 ( exhaled in human breath) is NOW a toxin.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

who are the members of Twin Oaks???

Twin Oaks Intentional Community Homepage

Sounds as if each member is expected to contribute.. huh?

like every other community...


YOu're kinda slow, aren't ya?

 

[Modbert]

I know that's surprising to an "18" year old huh?

What Willow? You don't think I'm 18?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Alright, it's almost midnight.

Let us all join hands in the holiday spirit and sing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xV7GmbUARI

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22Ftbp_zw3o[/ame]

 

[☭proletarian☭]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5uG6zaDaIM[/ame]

 

[Modbert]

If second hand smoke is a toxin and can be regulated than all toxins can be regulated. CO2 ( exhaled in human breath) is NOW a toxin.

Second hand smoke is different from one's breathing. That's what you seem to be missing. All you're doing is taking sound logic and applying it illogically to make your point.

How about this. We don't debate what ifs since it's a giant circle. How about we debate the facts?

Fact: Human Breath is not regulated as a toxin.

Well hells bells, that was easy.

 

[elvis]

If second hand smoke is a toxin and can be regulated than all toxins can be regulated. CO2 ( exhaled in human breath) is NOW a toxin.

Second hand smoke is different from one's breathing. That's what you seem to be missing. All you're doing is taking sound logic and applying it illogically to make your point.

How about this. We don't debate what ifs since it's a giant circle. How about we debate the facts?

Fact: Human Breath is not regulated as a toxin.

Well hells bells, that was easy.

AGW theory is completely based on what-ifs.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

If second hand smoke is a toxin and can be regulated than all toxins can be regulated

Are you retarded? ShS contains toxins. It's not one chemical, genius. And not all toxins are regulated, nor is your idiocy remotely resemble a logical implication of tobacco legislation.

 

[Vel]

If second hand smoke is a toxin and can be regulated than all toxins can be regulated. CO2 ( exhaled in human breath) is NOW a toxin.

Second hand smoke is different from one's breathing. That's what you seem to be missing. All you're doing is taking sound logic and applying it illogically to make your point.

How about this. We don't debate what ifs since it's a giant circle. How about we debate the facts?

Fact: Human Breath is not regulated as a toxin.

Well hells bells, that was easy.

What YOU'RE missing is that the federal government just declared breathing as the basic equivalent of second hand smoke. Human breath is not regulated YET.