Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Climate change = religion?

ournamestoolong
Posts: 1,059
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 6:05:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/28/2009 6:02:58 PM, Puck wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk...

Anything could be considered a religion, if people truly believe in it strongly enough. i.e. Flying spaghetti monster
I'll get by with a little help from my friends.

Ournamestoolong

Secretary of Commerce

Destroy talking ads!
ournamestoolong
Posts: 1,059
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 6:37:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/28/2009 6:15:12 PM, Puck wrote:
Also an amusing side note:

http://www.scientificblogging.com...

It makes sense, but only to a point.
This effect wouldn't change the result of global warming much.
I'll get by with a little help from my friends.

Ournamestoolong

Secretary of Commerce

Destroy talking ads!
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 6:42:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/28/2009 6:02:58 PM, Puck wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk...

The judges definition of religion can be applied to a bunch of things commonly not considered religion.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 6:45:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/28/2009 6:15:12 PM, Puck wrote:
http://www.scientificblogging.com...

That's dumb. One could simply eat the same and work out more and still maintain a healthy body, while hurting the environment more... It's retarted. Professional football players eat more and maintain a healthier body than the everyday fatboy, and has more greenhouse gas emmisions.

It's a big non-sequitor. Eating more, not being healthy, contributes to global warming.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 11:52:00 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
While this sounded resoundingly stupid at first, it actually makes a lot of sense. While 'religion' is an unfortunate term, it's definitely an accurate decision. He deserves the right to refuse an act that contradicts his person beliefs if the act is outside of an acceptable request.

So no, it doesn't establish a slippery slope. There are very, very few situations where his type of thing would ever be ruled on by a judge. Say, for example, a boss orders his employee to go and buy a gun for him. The employee shouldn't be forced to do so because, A. the boss can do it himself yet he chooses to order his employee to do it despite knowing that he is, say, a staunch anti-gun advocate and is scared of them, and B. it was outside of the employee's understood job.

So while it's odd to rule it as a religion, I think it's acceptable with the caveat that there's no other legal framework for those incredibly rare cases where this sort of thing pops up.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 12:00:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 11:52:00 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:
While this sounded resoundingly stupid at first, it actually makes a lot of sense.

It doesn't make any sense. This guy was fired from his company because his "green" perogatives were putting an additional burden upon the company he worked for. He wasn't fired for believing, he was fired for acting in a manner which was not best for the company which exists in a competitive market and needs to perform.

If I am Christian and I decide to give some company money to the poor, not as a PR stunt, and not to somehow do better for the company, but only because I view it as the right thing to do, then I ought be fired.

You may think something is good, but a company should be able to fire you for inflicting unnecessary self harm which will work to give others a competitive advantage.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 12:03:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 11:52:00 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:
While this sounded resoundingly stupid at first, it actually makes a lot of sense.

It doesn't make any sense. This guy was fired from his company because in trying to advance his "green" perogatives he was trying to place an additional burden upon the company he worked for. He wasn't fired for believing, he was fired for acting in a manner which was not best for the company which exists in a competitive market and needs to perform.

If I am Christian and I decide to give some company money to the poor, not as a PR stunt, and not to somehow do better for the company, but only because I view it as the right thing to do, then I ought be fired.

You may think something is good, but a company should be able to fire you for inflicting unnecessary self harm which will work to give competitors an advantage.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 12:18:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
To be honest, I would question whether Dickenson should have been fired. Using a company jet to retrieve a BlackBerry? Really? What a waste of money.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 12:36:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 12:18:20 PM, Volkov wrote:
To be honest, I would question whether Dickenson should have been fired. Using a company jet to retrieve a BlackBerry? Really? What a waste of money.

Agreed, but maybe they were just trying to make him know how unwelcome he was as he was trying to implement non mandatory, and very expensive, reforms which would affect the competitive nature of the company, and thus it's soundness.

Government ought to err on the side of non-intervention, if he could prove his firing was not related to the nature of his managing proposals, and insistence on making the company non-competitive then the idea of prosecution of the company might be arguably sensible.

Though even then I would suggest that I need not give my money to anyone, and it ought to be my discretion whether or not i continue to give my money to those whom I currently do. And it's tough to see why this ought not be the case for collections of people; ie: companies.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 12:39:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 12:36:54 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Agreed, but maybe they were just trying to make him know how unwelcome he was as he was trying to implement non mandatory, and very expensive, reforms which would affect the competitive nature of the company, and thus it's soundness.

Government ought to err on the side of non-intervention, if he could prove his firing was not related to the nature of his managing proposals, and insistence on making the company non-competitive then the idea of prosecution of the company might be arguably sensible.

Though even then I would suggest that I need not give my money to anyone, and it ought to be my discretion whether or not i continue to give my money to those whom I currently do. And it's tough to see why this ought not be the case for collections of people; ie: companies.

This, mind you, was not the government erring on the side of intervention - it was the courts. They are, as far as I know, still separate institutions in England.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 12:44:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I hate activist judges. They just make up the law. The CEO wants his cell phone, your his b1tch, get the man his phone. If you feel like you don't want to be his b1tch, then quit. I can only imagine the excuses that are being dreamt up now. "I'm not delivering the CEO his phone because he is a phone and I am a woman, and I won't humiliate my feminist religionist beliefs." "I'm a crazy person and therefore can not fly airplanes when people tell me to, I can only fly on my own free will, this is the core of my made up religion." Sick.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 12:49:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 12:44:22 PM, Nags wrote:
I hate activist judges. They just make up the law.

They don't "make up the law," so much as they pass judgment upon situations based on what laws already in place state. It is completely within the power, and is actually the job description, of judges to do so.

The CEO wants his cell phone, your his b1tch, get the man his phone. If you feel like you don't want to be his b1tch, then quit. I can only imagine the excuses that are being dreamt up now. "I'm not delivering the CEO his phone because he is a phone and I am a woman, and I won't humiliate my feminist religionist beliefs." "I'm a crazy person and therefore can not fly airplanes when people tell me to, I can only fly on my own free will, this is the core of my made up religion." Sick.

Sick to you, to some others it is very real, and somehow I doubt they care what you do and do not find sick.

Mind you, in my opinion, I don't believe Mr. Nicholson was really worried about his beliefs being offended, so much as I think he just wanted to stick it in the craw of his boss.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 12:55:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 12:49:06 PM, Volkov wrote:
They don't "make up the law," so much as they pass judgment upon situations based on what laws already in place state. It is completely within the power, and is actually the job description, of judges to do so.

You don't think declaring environmentalism as a religion is activism? Wow, I think anyone in their right mind and a decent education would destroy the judge in a debate about this.

Sick to you, to some others it is very real, and somehow I doubt they care what you do and do not find sick.

Ok? No one cares about your opinion either. We're here to discuss. That was awfully harsh of you.

Mind you, in my opinion, I don't believe Mr. Nicholson was really worried about his beliefs being offended, so much as I think he just wanted to stick it in the craw of his boss.

Obviously.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 1:02:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 12:55:24 PM, Nags wrote:
You don't think declaring environmentalism as a religion is activism? Wow, I think anyone in their right mind and a decent education would destroy the judge in a debate about this.

I question the term "judicial activism" in general, as it is within the judge's job description to make such a choice. I do believe it should be reviewed, however.

Ok? No one cares about your opinion either. We're here to discuss. That was awfully harsh of you.

Well, I apologize if I offended you - but it is the truth, for me and for you.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 1:10:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 1:02:52 PM, Volkov wrote:
I question the term "judicial activism" in general, as it is within the judge's job description to make such a choice. I do believe it should be reviewed, however.

Indeed. I disagree with judicial activism as I disagree with many other governmental policies, but I guess if it's legal, it goes.

Well, I apologize if I offended you - but it is the truth, for me and for you.

I don't see the point in bringing it up though. Why say my opinion doesn't matter? I know that. You know that. Ergo, no point. Ad hominem, that's all it was.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 1:13:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 1:10:09 PM, Nags wrote:
Indeed. I disagree with judicial activism as I disagree with many other governmental policies, but I guess if it's legal, it goes.

True. It is of course countered when you have the ability to appeal and have a judge's decision peer reviewed. It is always good to have that balance though, because just remember: one day, when some social regulations are brought to court, it will most likely be an activist judge that will bring them down. ;)

I don't see the point in bringing it up though. Why say my opinion doesn't matter? I know that. You know that. Ergo, no point. Ad hominem, that's all it was.

It would only be an ad hominem if there was an argument, and if I had meant it to characterize you negatively. But, it isn't an issue.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 8:44:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 12:39:05 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 11/30/2009 12:36:54 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Agreed, but maybe they were just trying to make him know how unwelcome he was as he was trying to implement non mandatory, and very expensive, reforms which would affect the competitive nature of the company, and thus it's soundness.

Government ought to err on the side of non-intervention, if he could prove his firing was not related to the nature of his managing proposals, and insistence on making the company non-competitive then the idea of prosecution of the company might be arguably sensible.

Though even then I would suggest that I need not give my money to anyone, and it ought to be my discretion whether or not i continue to give my money to those whom I currently do. And it's tough to see why this ought not be the case for collections of people; ie: companies.

This, mind you, was not the government erring on the side of intervention - it was the courts. They are, as far as I know, still separate institutions in England.

an institution of governing, which supposedly rules based upon the law
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2009 8:54:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Technically, because climate change is declared religious, by the common laws of religious freedom, we cannot be required to limit greenhouse gases in the name of climate change.