UK to Ban Plasmas?

[Highlander]

I say, if a person pays his own energy bills, than he should be allowed to use the energy.

Even to the detriment of the natural environment? How is this not tantamount to rape of the environment?

What a legacy to leave future generations. And what a selfish attitude.

I...have a fluorescent bulb plugged into virtually every socket in my house and love the savings. But what if people do not want to buy them? Why make them? Why tax them if they don't? Why ban traditonal bulbs? That's raping people's choices, isn't it?

Not at all. If people are so selfish as to consume to the detriment of the environment then they should be penalised.

Like science though, religion requires faith.

How does science require faith?

 

[Johnd]

Even to the detriment of the natural environment? How is this not tantamount to rape of the environment?

What a legacy to leave future generations. And what a selfish attitude.

Precisely. Many of us only think of ourselves, and/or do not think of the consequences of our actions.

Not at all. If people are so selfish as to consume to the detriment of the environment then they should be penalised.

I live on one of the Great Lakes. Water here is plentiful and cheap. This is actually prairie land (before we civilized it). It astounds me that people insist on water their lawns in July and August, keeping their's semi-green whereas mine looked like straw, only to have them all spring to life with our first heavy rain. Millions of people have difficulty getting any water, let alone clean drinking water. We conveneiently forget that in the Western world.

How does science require faith?

Yes. A non sequitor.

 

[Johnd]

Even to the detriment of the natural environment? How is this not tantamount to rape of the environment?

What a legacy to leave future generations. And what a selfish attitude.



Not at all. If people are so selfish as to consume to the detriment of the environment then they should be penalised.



How does science require faith?

Oh, that's you Robbie. I thought we had a new Scot here that was also named Robbie. Cheers to the new avatar, and love the pics in your sig, I will view them more than once.

 

[Highlander]

I thought we had a new Scot here that was also named Robbie.

There's only one of me.

Cheers to the new avatar...

Thank you. It's an actual photo of my kilt as opposed to a swatch of the tartan lifted from a website that was used in my previous incarnation.

...love the pics in your sig, I will view them more than once.

I'm off back home in a week for a week's holiday. Assuming the weather isn't a disaster, expect the photos to be updated shortly thereafter.

 

[Johnd]

There's only one of me.



Thank you. It's an actual photo of my kilt as opposed to a swatch of the tartan lifted from a website that was used in my previous incarnation.



I'm off for a week's holiday back home in a week. Assuming the weather isn't a disaster, expect the photos to be updated shortly thereafter.

Happy Holiday.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

There's nothing redeeming in communist/socialist philosophy as evidence I present to you Soviet Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, etc.

My father (who is much more of a historian than I will ever be) had the best comment on this. He said: "Nobody knows whether or not communism works, because it has never been tried." The point being that attempts to implement true communism (which, as a philosophy, contains many good ideas) have always been thwarted by corrupt leaders who twist it to their own ends.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Many good morals today like honesty, hard work, freedom, acceptance, etc. are all found in God's teachings.

I have seen both religious people who are profoundly evil (including serial killers) and atheists who are paragons of virtue. Religious faith and ethical behavior are, therefore, quite independent of one another.

 

[Davemcc]

My father (who is much more of a historian than I will ever be) had the best comment on this. He said: "Nobody knows whether or not communism works, because it has never been tried." The point being that attempts to implement true communism (which, as a philosophy, contains many good ideas) have always been thwarted by corrupt leaders who twist it to their own ends.

Communism has been tried, as in Stratman's examples, and failed in every case because the fundamental premise is flawed, i.e. that the rights of the individual are subservient to the will of the masses. Well, somebody has to decide upon and implement the will of the masses, even if it means sacrificing a few individuals for the "common good". Another fundamental flaw is exposed in the mantra "Each according to his ability, each according to his needs".

I hope these inherent contradictions need no explanation because I really don't want to get into Marxist dialectics.

 

[Hi-Fi ve]

So no computers, Refrigerators, or TVs... well there is only one thing left to say.

The United Kingdom, the worlds biggest camp-ground.

Soon they'll ban people from having more than 5.1 in their home theater. Multiple array for home surrounds will get you punished.

 

[MapleSyrup]

Conservation

Well, sir, that is simply contrary to the facts. Energy wasters are a primary reason for our shortage. Additionally, you fail to mention/recognize the costs associated with heavy energy use. That is the reason for conservation.

Forced conservation wastes far more energy than simply allowing people to be free to live and progress. the hybrid car was not a result of forced conservation. People simply like cars that get higher gas mileage. Hybrid car sales are through the roof because of it. But why ban SUVs? Why tax SUV owners and users? To save the planet? Save it from what? if you want a global pollution/warming debate may I direct you to HSU Research's forum where I, under the same user name, hashed this topic out with others. If the global Warming thread is still up, go there and please read my posts.

Also on forced conservation. African countries are not allowed by environmentalists to use their own resources to produce electricity and provide natural gas to their homes. So the "common people" resort to burning sticks in their homes. That's very toxic. Also, hospitals experience extraordinarily high power shortages. So, please do share with me the "high costs" you refer to.

By the way, are energy shortages from energy wasters or from NOT tapping into our own resources. Ergo, no drilling oil, building refineries, developing coal mines, etc.

 

[MapleSyrup]

Serial killers?

I have seen both religious people who are profoundly evil (including serial killers) and atheists who are paragons of virtue. Religious faith and ethical behavior are, therefore, quite independent of one another.

Outside of Holywood films, what serial killer was religious?

I know "religious" people who used drugs, stolen, cheated on spouses, blah, blah, blah. So what? The very idea of religion, "going to church" so to speak, is to control natural impulses that hurt yourself and others and replace those urges with godliness. You'll find, across the board, that the more religious people are, the better they are. Exceptions? Sure, but the pattern is clear. The more religion, the better people are.

I'll tell you first hand, were it not for my religious upbringing and for eventually making my own choices to follow the teachings I was brough up with, I'd be dead right now. I would have delved into sex and drugs, just like many of my friends did. My best friend who I'll testify is a living miracle in the fact that he's still alive from the choices he made early on, called my out of the blue to tell me of the passing away of his sister. She got lung cancer and unfortunately did not beat it. I remember when she first started smoking. She was about 15 (I forget how many years older she was from me) and quickly became a very heavy smoker. Their father too passed away. Heavy smoker/drinker. My friend told me of four others who have died all from similar problems. All smoking, drinking, drug, and dietary reasons. Why did I avoid it? Because I chose to. Why did I chose to? Religion. God told me personally not to follow that path or I'd die physically and more damning, I'd die and spiritually. So I chose to abstain.

Today I am a much better father, husband, friend, teacher, and loved one primarily because of chosing to follow God and to be religious.

 

[MapleSyrup]

My father (who is much more of a historian than I will ever be) had the best comment on this. He said: "Nobody knows whether or not communism works, because it has never been tried." The point being that attempts to implement true communism (which, as a philosophy, contains many good ideas) have always been thwarted by corrupt leaders who twist it to their own ends.

Christianity is the epitome of true Communism. The main difference, though, in how Communism has been practiced and Christianity, is that the former recognizes the state as being supreme and the latter does so to glorify God as He is supreme. Why help others? You glorify God by doing so. How do you best glorify God, by helping others. Love and service are the two key principles that Christianity is based upon.

 

[MapleSyrup]

Even to the detriment of the natural environment? How is this not tantamount to rape of the environment?

Please, tell me how my going on a joy ride around town, just for the sake of enjoying the ride, is raping the environment? What am I raping by playing my home theater a couple of semi-decibles higher or by using a subwoofer with a 350 watt amp as opposed to one that has only 100 watts? It's YOUR money, if you pay the bills why should you NOT use the energy available to you?

What a legacy to leave future generations. And what a selfish attitude.

What is selfish is forcing people NOT to use available energy. What is a detrimental example for furture generations is to teach them that they are nothing more than pawns to use and exploit. That they have little to no say as to how they live their lives.

Not at all. If people are so selfish as to consume to the detriment of the environment then they should be penalised.

Does that include Al Gore and John Edwards? Who will punish or penalize them? How much should people be penalized? Will YOU be the one to determine is somebody used too much energy? Do you support prohibiting developing countries to tap into their own oil and natural gas resources so that they can create power plants to produce egergy and heat into their own homes?

Really, who is being selfish?

How does science require faith?

Some "scientists' say global climatic change is due to CO2 output (and the whole computer models s a HUGE leap of faith). Others say it's due to the fact we are at the latter end of a little ice age. Still others say it's the Sun, stupid (I'm not calling you stupid, it's just general expression).


So which is correct and why? By answering this question, you'll answer your own question proposed to me.


On a slightly different matter.

The latest on dark matter and a question problem proposed to atheists.

http://afk.townhall.com/g/46d9dc59-f179-48b6-8982-e4684f5c1bfd&comments=true#795158f2-ceb7-471d-a5e7-45c92689c43a

 

[MapleSyrup]

Doh

I blotched those quotes up. I'm learning.

 

[Johnd]

Also on forced conservation. African countries are not allowed by environmentalists to use their own resources to produce electricity and provide natural gas to their homes. So the "common people" resort to burning sticks in their homes. That's very toxic. Also, hospitals experience extraordinarily high power shortages.

Why are you so high on "forced conservation?" What about voluntary conservation?

So, please do share with me the "high costs" you refer to.

Ummm....Geez. That's a tough one.

Have you seen the LA skyline lately...or some of China's?
Have you heard about our ozone layer? Newsflash!!! There's a hole in it!
W/o getting into the whole global warming debate, it is indisputable that the glaciers and arctic mass are both receding.
Have you ever seen a 120 car train make one stop? What, my friend, do you think they're hauling?

There are many more examples...just use you imagination, and read.

 

[Johnd]

Some "scientists' say global climatic change is due to CO2 output (and the whole computer models s a HUGE leap of faith). Others say it's due to the fact we are at the latter end of a little ice age. Still others say it's the Sun, stupid (I'm not calling you stupid, it's just general expression).


So which is correct and why? By answering this question, you'll answer your own question proposed to me.

Robbie's out of town for the moment, so allow me to interject w/o speaking for him.

You're kidding, right?

 

[MapleSyrup]

Why are you so high on "forced conservation?" What about voluntary conservation?



Ummm....Geez. That's a tough one.

Have you seen the LA skyline lately...or some of China's?
Have you heard about our ozone layer? Newsflash!!! There's a hole in it!
W/o getting into the whole global warming debate, it is indisputable that the glaciers and arctic mass are both receding.
Have you ever seen a 120 car train make one stop? What, my friend, do you think they're hauling?

There are many more examples...just use you imagination, and read.

I'm totally fine with voluntary conservation. My main point is that it needs not be forced.

Because of LA's geological location, there needs to be regulations according to their circumstances. And did you mean Beijing's sky line or China's? China's skyline is fine and downright beautiful. Beijing's needs improvement. If you'r talking about health issues as in the cases of LA and Beijing, then of course, I support regulations. That's what I meant when I posted earlier that I DO support fundamental regulations. But this thread is not based on health issues but rather based on banning plasma TVs. This is not "voluntary", but forced. That I'm against. If people voluntarily give up their plasmas because they suck up too much energy, than that's totally OK with me; even if their reason s to save the planet. It's their money, they should use it as THEY see fit, not the government.

Hole in the ozone? So what caused it? Let me guess, CO2s? Let me restate what I recently stated about how I hashed out the whole global warming issue at hsuresreach.com I did so under the same username I use here. So it's a topic fresh in my mind and I promise you that the CO2 theory, is just that, a theory. Claiming that the "debate is over" is purely political, NOT scientific. Scientific debate is NEVER over.

Here's an article just recently published regarding CO2s and the environment.

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml

What's the train hauling? Probably resources used to build your home, computer so you can chime in on this forum, cars, furniture, appliances, dishes, fans, air conditioning units, etc. What, you don't use these things? If trains bother you so much, what limits would you support legislating as how much resources a train will be allowed to haul? Would you limit how big people's homes should be? And if you want trains to "voluntarily" limit their haul, how would you motivate them? What if less hauling means less employment?

See how complicated things can be? Just let those who pay their own engergy bills use the enegery that's available. If there is a lack of energy, it's only because we are not using the earth, which can and does produce and over abundant amount of energy (always has and probably for the next billion years or so, always will) as we should.

LOL, "indisputable" that the glaciers are melting. I bet you like Al Gore. How much "voluntary" energy has he given up? And do you hear your own tone? You're essentially saying that I nobody can refute the glacier issue. How scientific is that approach? It may work well for Gore and Nationalgeographic, but it is NOT scientific.

I forget the exact term, I think it's called "shelving", but what you see is glaciers breaking apart, WHICH HAS ALWAYS HAPPENED NATURALLY. Glaciers get so big and massive that they break into smaller parts. But, miraculously by liberal standards, they reform. This ALSO HAPPENS NATURALLY.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1523042/posts
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tyne/5283278.stm

What amazes me is that people say, "I traveled to the Artic and saw first-hand the glaciers melt". These are the same people who say energy cnsumption is the primary cause of melting ice (ergo, the CO2 emmisions) and yet they "travel" to see it first-hand. Essencially these people say "this is the reason ice is melting at dangerous rates and so I'll embrace this evil cause so that I can see the danger first-hand." Weirdos!!!

 

[MapleSyrup]

Robbie's out of town for the moment, so allow me to interject w/o speaking for him.

You're kidding, right?

Not in the least. Go fo it.

 

[MapleSyrup]

Johnd

Just a thought. Tell me what country is better off for NOT having huge trains making big hauls.

 

[Johnd]

I'm totally fine with voluntary conservation. My main point is that it needs not be forced.

Well, regulation is necessitated by lack of "volunteering", in any strata.

But this thread is based on banning plasma TVs.

Actually, it delved into energy conservation because of just how much energy plasmas waste.

so its a topic fresh in my mind and I promise you that the CO2 theory, is just that, a theory. Claiming that the "debate is over" is pure political, NOT scientific.

Science is mostly based on "just theories." Talk to a couple of chemists or physicists...don't take my word for it. Ask them how much science is proven (via proofs).

What's the train hauling? Probably resources used to build your home, computer so you can chime in on this forum, cars, furniture, appliances, dishes, fans, air conditioning units, etc. What, you don't use these things? If trains bother you so much, what would you propose to limit how much resources a train will be allowed to haul?

Well, I'll have to admit that I've never seen 120 train cars of dishes or fans with a single destination. But I have seen many 120 train cars of coal with a single destination.

See how complicated things can be? Just let those who pay their own engergy bills use the enegery that's available. if there is a lack of energy, it's only because we are not using the earth, which can and does produce and over abundant amount of energy (always has and probably for the next billion years or so, always will) as we should.

Things are only complicated until one understands them. We are not using the Earth? Hmmmph.

LOL, "indisputable" that the glaciers are melting. I bet you like Al Gore. how much "voluntary" energy has he given up? And do you hear your own tone? you're essentially saying that I nobody can refute the glacier issue. how scientific is that approach? It may work well for Gore and Nationalgeographic, but it is NOT scientific.

I forget the exact term, I think it's called "shelving", but what you see is glaciers breaking apart, WHICH HAS ALWAYS HAPPENED NATURALLY. Glaciers get so big and massive that they break in parts. But, miraculously by liberal standards, they reform. This ALSO HAPPENS NATURALLY.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1523042/posts
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tyne/5283278.stm

What amazes me is that people say, "I travelled to the Artic and saw first-hand the glaciers melt". These are the same people who say energy cnsumption is the primary cause of melting ice (ergo, the CO2 emmisions) and yet they "travel" to see it first-hand. Essencially these people say "this is the reason ice is melting at dangerous rates and so I'll embrace this cause so that I can see the danger first-hand." Weirdos!!!

It is not only indisputable that the glaciers are melting, it is indisputable that they are melting on an historic scale. Like Al Gore? Of course. I try to like most people. People travelling to the Arctic? I've never spoken to any traveller that has gone cruising in Alaska with such an opinion. The scientific reports abound. Your simple fix of "Just let those who pay their own engergy bills use the enegery that's available" is hugely problematic. If you do not understand this already, I cannot simply explain it to you in this thread.

Some see only what they choose to see.

I was having a conversation with a Quantum Physicist the other day...now that was enthralling, informative...and humbling.