Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

System that prevents waste

Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 2:08:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Here's a scenario.

A man of wealth buys up as much oil as he can and just burns it.

Without going into the good and bad of it, we can see that this is wasteful.

Shouldn't whatever system we have stop such things?

Conversely, isn't whatever system that allows such a thing to happen a bad one?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 2:16:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 2:08:43 PM, Indophile wrote:
Here's a scenario.

A man of wealth buys up as much oil as he can and just burns it.

Without going into the good and bad of it, we can see that this is wasteful.

Shouldn't whatever system we have stop such things?

Conversely, isn't whatever system that allows such a thing to happen a bad one?

1: People of wealth do not behave like this, otherwise they would not be people of wealth.
2: No one can buy sufficient oil to cause this to be much of a problem.
3: If it was an issue we would simply go to 'war' with this bizarre plutocratic pretroleum pyromaniac.
4: In reality such a massive increase in the sale of oil would likely result in a massive production of oil... in practical terms if not objective reality resources have therefore been created, not expended... its a matter of perspective.
5: Sensible oil companies ought to be ploughing their profits into alternatives for oil, the destruction of a key resource is in theory moot.

I am disgusted that I love capitalism so much.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 2:30:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 2:16:57 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/3/2011 2:08:43 PM, Indophile wrote:
Here's a scenario.

A man of wealth buys up as much oil as he can and just burns it.

Without going into the good and bad of it, we can see that this is wasteful.

Shouldn't whatever system we have stop such things?

Conversely, isn't whatever system that allows such a thing to happen a bad one?

1: People of wealth do not behave like this, otherwise they would not be people of wealth.
2: No one can buy sufficient oil to cause this to be much of a problem.
3: If it was an issue we would simply go to 'war' with this bizarre plutocratic pretroleum pyromaniac.
4: In reality such a massive increase in the sale of oil would likely result in a massive production of oil... in practical terms if not objective reality resources have therefore been created, not expended... its a matter of perspective.
5: Sensible oil companies ought to be ploughing their profits into alternatives for oil, the destruction of a key resource is in theory moot.

I am disgusted that I love capitalism so much.

Going to war is a solution for any system. Wouldn't a good system by definition not necessitate wars?

Given that oil is limited as a resource, what massive production are you talking about?

Given that the topic we are discussing is about waste, bringing in words like "sensible" just about defeats the purpose, doesn't it?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 2:46:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 2:30:17 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 11/3/2011 2:16:57 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/3/2011 2:08:43 PM, Indophile wrote:
Here's a scenario.

A man of wealth buys up as much oil as he can and just burns it.

Without going into the good and bad of it, we can see that this is wasteful.

Shouldn't whatever system we have stop such things?

Conversely, isn't whatever system that allows such a thing to happen a bad one?

1: People of wealth do not behave like this, otherwise they would not be people of wealth.
2: No one can buy sufficient oil to cause this to be much of a problem.
3: If it was an issue we would simply go to 'war' with this bizarre plutocratic pretroleum pyromaniac.
4: In reality such a massive increase in the sale of oil would likely result in a massive production of oil... in practical terms if not objective reality resources have therefore been created, not expended... its a matter of perspective.
5: Sensible oil companies ought to be ploughing their profits into alternatives for oil, the destruction of a key resource is in theory moot.

I am disgusted that I love capitalism so much.

Going to war is a solution for any system. Wouldn't a good system by definition not necessitate wars?

No system is perfect, war will always remain the final solution for absurd situations such as what you describe.

Given that oil is limited as a resource, what massive production are you talking about?

Corporations react to demand.
The extent to which oil is limited is hotly debated, what if the scenario you envisage results in increased oil exploration and the discovery of massive untapped reserves? In which case resources have effectively been created.


Given that the topic we are discussing is about waste, bringing in words like "sensible" just about defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

I am sorry that I destroyed your questions after a few seconds of consideration and so early on in the thread.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 2:53:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
what drives the american army? oil? wars just for the fun of them could hardly be considered productive.

i'd consider seperate states pretty much the same as separate corporations. maybe just on a grander scale. definitely capitalistic.
signature
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 3:06:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 2:53:29 PM, badger wrote:
what drives the american army? oil? wars just for the fun of them could hardly be considered productive.

i'd consider seperate states pretty much the same as separate corporations. maybe just on a grander scale. definitely capitalistic.

as in to say rich people are squandering arseholes. i mean once you pass the threshold of being able to keep yourself fed and watered for the rest of your life, what's left to do but act the bollox?
signature
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 3:09:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 2:46:12 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/3/2011 2:30:17 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 11/3/2011 2:16:57 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/3/2011 2:08:43 PM, Indophile wrote:
Here's a scenario.

A man of wealth buys up as much oil as he can and just burns it.

Without going into the good and bad of it, we can see that this is wasteful.

Shouldn't whatever system we have stop such things?

Conversely, isn't whatever system that allows such a thing to happen a bad one?

1: People of wealth do not behave like this, otherwise they would not be people of wealth.
2: No one can buy sufficient oil to cause this to be much of a problem.
3: If it was an issue we would simply go to 'war' with this bizarre plutocratic pretroleum pyromaniac.
4: In reality such a massive increase in the sale of oil would likely result in a massive production of oil... in practical terms if not objective reality resources have therefore been created, not expended... its a matter of perspective.
5: Sensible oil companies ought to be ploughing their profits into alternatives for oil, the destruction of a key resource is in theory moot.

I am disgusted that I love capitalism so much.

Going to war is a solution for any system. Wouldn't a good system by definition not necessitate wars?

No system is perfect, war will always remain the final solution for absurd situations such as what you describe.

The situation may be absurd, but it's perfectly legal under the current system. Making war on something that's not even breaking your laws is a sign of a bad system.

Given that oil is limited as a resource, what massive production are you talking about?

Corporations react to demand.
The extent to which oil is limited is hotly debated, what if the scenario you envisage results in increased oil exploration and the discovery of massive untapped reserves? In which case resources have effectively been created.

Yes, I know there could be massive untapped resources that will last forever. But in the current situation, we are assuming (among other assumptions) that reality is reality, and oil is scarce.

Given that the topic we are discussing is about waste, bringing in words like "sensible" just about defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

I am sorry that I destroyed your questions after a few seconds of consideration and so early on in the thread.

Ha! Yeah. You could as well have said, no sensible person will do anything wasteful, and the discussion would have stopped. But we know that sensible things are not being done.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 3:13:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 3:09:07 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 11/3/2011 2:46:12 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/3/2011 2:30:17 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 11/3/2011 2:16:57 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/3/2011 2:08:43 PM, Indophile wrote:
Here's a scenario.

A man of wealth buys up as much oil as he can and just burns it.

Without going into the good and bad of it, we can see that this is wasteful.

Shouldn't whatever system we have stop such things?

Conversely, isn't whatever system that allows such a thing to happen a bad one?

1: People of wealth do not behave like this, otherwise they would not be people of wealth.
2: No one can buy sufficient oil to cause this to be much of a problem.
3: If it was an issue we would simply go to 'war' with this bizarre plutocratic pretroleum pyromaniac.
4: In reality such a massive increase in the sale of oil would likely result in a massive production of oil... in practical terms if not objective reality resources have therefore been created, not expended... its a matter of perspective.
5: Sensible oil companies ought to be ploughing their profits into alternatives for oil, the destruction of a key resource is in theory moot.

I am disgusted that I love capitalism so much.

Going to war is a solution for any system. Wouldn't a good system by definition not necessitate wars?

No system is perfect, war will always remain the final solution for absurd situations such as what you describe.

The situation may be absurd, but it's perfectly legal under the current system. Making war on something that's not even breaking your laws is a sign of a bad system.

I've given you the worst case solution to a situation that is almost certain never to occur.

Given that oil is limited as a resource, what massive production are you talking about?

Corporations react to demand.
The extent to which oil is limited is hotly debated, what if the scenario you envisage results in increased oil exploration and the discovery of massive untapped reserves? In which case resources have effectively been created.

Yes, I know there could be massive untapped resources that will last forever. But in the current situation, we are assuming (among other assumptions) that reality is reality, and oil is scarce.

Is that reality?


Given that the topic we are discussing is about waste, bringing in words like "sensible" just about defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

I am sorry that I destroyed your questions after a few seconds of consideration and so early on in the thread.

Ha! Yeah. You could as well have said, no sensible person will do anything wasteful, and the discussion would have stopped. But we know that sensible things are not being done.

Waste creates efficiency, it is the wonderful paradox of capitalism.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 3:18:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 3:13:44 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Waste creates efficiency, it is the wonderful paradox of capitalism.

efficiency of what? waste creates work you mean? sounds a wonderful paradox...
signature
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 3:28:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 3:13:44 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
No system is perfect, war will always remain the final solution for absurd situations such as what you describe.

The situation may be absurd, but it's perfectly legal under the current system. Making war on something that's not even breaking your laws is a sign of a bad system.

I've given you the worst case solution to a situation that is almost certain never to occur.

You can never know what can never occur. What Hitler did was, I'm sure, what somebody must've said "It is almost certain never to occur".

Also, what you are saying is "might makes right" is the only system that works all the time. War.

Yes, I know there could be massive untapped resources that will last forever. But in the current situation, we are assuming (among other assumptions) that reality is reality, and oil is scarce.

Is that reality?
It looks like it is. What you are saying, however, is certainly not reality. At least, not yet.


Given that the topic we are discussing is about waste, bringing in words like "sensible" just about defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

I am sorry that I destroyed your questions after a few seconds of consideration and so early on in the thread.

Ha! Yeah. You could as well have said, no sensible person will do anything wasteful, and the discussion would have stopped. But we know that sensible things are not being done.

Waste creates efficiency, it is the wonderful paradox of capitalism.

I sometimes wish we had a sarcasm emoticon.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 3:29:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 3:06:59 PM, badger wrote:
At 11/3/2011 2:53:29 PM, badger wrote:
what drives the american army? oil? wars just for the fun of them could hardly be considered productive.

i'd consider seperate states pretty much the same as separate corporations. maybe just on a grander scale. definitely capitalistic.

as in to say rich people are squandering arseholes. i mean once you pass the threshold of being able to keep yourself fed and watered for the rest of your life, what's left to do but act the bollox?

it might not be so easy to see how those paragraphs followed each other, but they do! i make separate governments out as separate corporations or just pretty much the same as, and, well, look at our governmnent officials!
signature
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 3:36:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 3:28:36 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 11/3/2011 3:13:44 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
No system is perfect, war will always remain the final solution for absurd situations such as what you describe.

The situation may be absurd, but it's perfectly legal under the current system. Making war on something that's not even breaking your laws is a sign of a bad system.

I've given you the worst case solution to a situation that is almost certain never to occur.

You can never know what can never occur. What Hitler did was, I'm sure, what somebody must've said "It is almost certain never to occur".

You are being deliberately obtuse right?


Also, what you are saying is "might makes right" is the only system that works all the time. War.

Name one system that does not ultimate have recourse to violence?

Yes, I know there could be massive untapped resources that will last forever. But in the current situation, we are assuming (among other assumptions) that reality is reality, and oil is scarce.

Is that reality?
It looks like it is. What you are saying, however, is certainly not reality. At least, not yet.


Given that the topic we are discussing is about waste, bringing in words like "sensible" just about defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

I am sorry that I destroyed your questions after a few seconds of consideration and so early on in the thread.

Ha! Yeah. You could as well have said, no sensible person will do anything wasteful, and the discussion would have stopped. But we know that sensible things are not being done.

Waste creates efficiency, it is the wonderful paradox of capitalism.

I sometimes wish we had a sarcasm emoticon.

I sometimes wish intelligent people would not lobotomise themselves in the interest of ideological purity.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 3:40:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 3:36:07 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I sometimes wish intelligent people would not lobotomise themselves in the interest of ideological purity.

aha! so we're admitting it's a strong getting onto the weak thing? i personally only make argument as a sort of justification for my actions. a the whole world is doing it so why shouldn't i kinda thing... but to argue for capitalism to me seems rather silly.
signature
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 3:42:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 3:36:07 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/3/2011 3:28:36 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 11/3/2011 3:13:44 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
No system is perfect, war will always remain the final solution for absurd situations such as what you describe.

The situation may be absurd, but it's perfectly legal under the current system. Making war on something that's not even breaking your laws is a sign of a bad system.

I've given you the worst case solution to a situation that is almost certain never to occur.

You can never know what can never occur. What Hitler did was, I'm sure, what somebody must've said "It is almost certain never to occur".

You are being deliberately obtuse right?

Yes, of course. You are answering my theoretical question with "it will never occur" "sensible people won't do it" etc.

Don't we know that war will always be the ultimate recourse? I thought we were talking about systems which would prevent wars from happening.

Or are you saying that there is literally no system which will prevent wars and the current system is the most perfect one we can expect?

Also, what you are saying is "might makes right" is the only system that works all the time. War.

Name one system that does not ultimate have recourse to violence?

I though that's what we are trying to discuss and find out. I don't have all the answers.

Yes, I know there could be massive untapped resources that will last forever. But in the current situation, we are assuming (among other assumptions) that reality is reality, and oil is scarce.

Is that reality?
It looks like it is. What you are saying, however, is certainly not reality. At least, not yet.


Given that the topic we are discussing is about waste, bringing in words like "sensible" just about defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

I am sorry that I destroyed your questions after a few seconds of consideration and so early on in the thread.

Ha! Yeah. You could as well have said, no sensible person will do anything wasteful, and the discussion would have stopped. But we know that sensible things are not being done.

Waste creates efficiency, it is the wonderful paradox of capitalism.

I sometimes wish we had a sarcasm emoticon.

I sometimes wish intelligent people would not lobotomise themselves in the interest of ideological purity.

Touche!
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 3:42:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
i mean i have 200 acres of green fertile land in my family that's done nothing with. how many africans could live on that... but i'm not gonna give it away or anything lol..
signature
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 3:44:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 3:40:38 PM, badger wrote:
At 11/3/2011 3:36:07 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I sometimes wish intelligent people would not lobotomise themselves in the interest of ideological purity.

aha! so we're admitting it's a strong getting onto the weak thing? i personally only make argument as a sort of justification for my actions. a the whole world is doing it so why shouldn't i kinda thing... but to argue for capitalism to me seems rather silly.

also, that seems a rather silly thing to wish for, capitalistically.
signature
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 7:56:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 3:42:07 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 11/3/2011 3:36:07 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/3/2011 3:28:36 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 11/3/2011 3:13:44 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
No system is perfect, war will always remain the final solution for absurd situations such as what you describe.

The situation may be absurd, but it's perfectly legal under the current system. Making war on something that's not even breaking your laws is a sign of a bad system.

I've given you the worst case solution to a situation that is almost certain never to occur.

You can never know what can never occur. What Hitler did was, I'm sure, what somebody must've said "It is almost certain never to occur".

You are being deliberately obtuse right?

Yes, of course. You are answering my theoretical question with "it will never occur" "sensible people won't do it" etc.

I am not quite an an-cap no. But it's a bit like asking what if the richest man on earth draws all his money out at once and in doing so destroys the economy... it is going to happen?

Don't we know that war will always be the ultimate recourse? I thought we were talking about systems which would prevent wars from happening.

Or are you saying that there is literally no system which will prevent wars and the current system is the most perfect one we can expect?

Capitalism is probably the best system we have, attempts to create a perfect one produce a pile of corpses followed by a return to capitalism.


Also, what you are saying is "might makes right" is the only system that works all the time. War.

Name one system that does not ultimate have recourse to violence?

I though that's what we are trying to discuss and find out. I don't have all the answers.

Yes, I know there could be massive untapped resources that will last forever. But in the current situation, we are assuming (among other assumptions) that reality is reality, and oil is scarce.

Is that reality?
It looks like it is. What you are saying, however, is certainly not reality. At least, not yet.


Given that the topic we are discussing is about waste, bringing in words like "sensible" just about defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

I am sorry that I destroyed your questions after a few seconds of consideration and so early on in the thread.

Ha! Yeah. You could as well have said, no sensible person will do anything wasteful, and the discussion would have stopped. But we know that sensible things are not being done.

Waste creates efficiency, it is the wonderful paradox of capitalism.

I sometimes wish we had a sarcasm emoticon.

I sometimes wish intelligent people would not lobotomise themselves in the interest of ideological purity.

Touche!

I thought it was a good line yes!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 7:57:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 3:42:45 PM, badger wrote:
i mean i have 200 acres of green fertile land in my family that's done nothing with. how many africans could live on that... but i'm not gonna give it away or anything lol..

Why don't you farm it? Build houses on it? Turn it into a golf course?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 8:38:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 7:57:07 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/3/2011 3:42:45 PM, badger wrote:
i mean i have 200 acres of green fertile land in my family that's done nothing with. how many africans could live on that... but i'm not gonna give it away or anything lol..

Why don't you farm it? Build houses on it? Turn it into a golf course?

it's not yet mine. do you really think the utopic communist dream entirely unfeasible? i mean it's what the chinese bought into for what they got and if them, why not the world together? and then why couldn't we do it right? a democratic world utopia might have more of a chance? but i suppose i don't really care. i think there's certainly something there though lol...

i suppose i should've been following you from your disgust with yourself for loving capitalism so much lol. i skim. justifications aren't that important :P
signature
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 11:44:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 2:16:57 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
1: People of wealth do not behave like this, otherwise they would not be people of wealth.

People of wealth did do this.

2: No one can buy sufficient oil to cause this to be much of a problem.

It was a huge problem that has since dramatically affected the industry.

3: If it was an issue we would simply go to 'war' with this bizarre plutocratic pretroleum pyromaniac.

That is precisely what we did, although it was a nation (Iraq), rather than one psychopath.

4: In reality such a massive increase in the sale of oil would likely result in a massive production of oil... in practical terms if not objective reality resources have therefore been created, not expended... its a matter of perspective.

Not according to many theorists -- apparently, we're running out.

5: Sensible oil companies ought to be ploughing their profits into alternatives for oil, the destruction of a key resource is in theory moot.

They aught to be, but the largest reason why alternative fuel has taken so long to catch on is because they're been ploughing their money into preventing the use of alternative oil, instead.

I am disgusted that I love capitalism so much.

Me too...?
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 11:46:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 2:46:12 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Corporations react to demand.
The extent to which oil is limited is hotly debated, what if the scenario you envisage results in increased oil exploration and the discovery of massive untapped reserves? In which case resources have effectively been created.

Replace "untapped" with "secret" or "unreported."
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 11:47:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 3:09:07 PM, Indophile wrote:
The situation may be absurd, but it's perfectly legal under the current system. Making war on something that's not even breaking your laws is a sign of a bad system.

Agreed. As are bailouts.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 5:58:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 8:38:22 PM, badger wrote:
At 11/3/2011 7:57:07 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/3/2011 3:42:45 PM, badger wrote:
i mean i have 200 acres of green fertile land in my family that's done nothing with. how many africans could live on that... but i'm not gonna give it away or anything lol..

Why don't you farm it? Build houses on it? Turn it into a golf course?

it's not yet mine. do you really think the utopic communist dream entirely unfeasible?

Yes.

i mean it's what the chinese bought into for what they got and if them, why not the world together? and then why couldn't we do it right? a democratic world utopia might have more of a chance? but i suppose i don't really care. i think there's certainly something there though lol...

China is not communist in the happy clappy idealised version of that ideal, it is a dictatorship, its succeses come from being a dictatorship.


i suppose i should've been following you from your disgust with yourself for loving capitalism so much lol. i skim. justifications aren't that important :P
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 6:00:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 11:44:46 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/3/2011 2:16:57 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
1: People of wealth do not behave like this, otherwise they would not be people of wealth.

People of wealth did do this.

When?


2: No one can buy sufficient oil to cause this to be much of a problem.

It was a huge problem that has since dramatically affected the industry.

When?


3: If it was an issue we would simply go to 'war' with this bizarre plutocratic pretroleum pyromaniac.

That is precisely what we did, although it was a nation (Iraq), rather than one psychopath.

No... Saddam burnt his oil during the war to make a point.

4: In reality such a massive increase in the sale of oil would likely result in a massive production of oil... in practical terms if not objective reality resources have therefore been created, not expended... its a matter of perspective.

Not according to many theorists -- apparently, we're running out.

And according to many theorists known reserves are increasing.


5: Sensible oil companies ought to be ploughing their profits into alternatives for oil, the destruction of a key resource is in theory moot.

They aught to be, but the largest reason why alternative fuel has taken so long to catch on is because they're been ploughing their money into preventing the use of alternative oil, instead.

Until we start to run out this makes economic sense.


I am disgusted that I love capitalism so much.

Me too...?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 6:00:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 11:46:34 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/3/2011 2:46:12 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Corporations react to demand.
The extent to which oil is limited is hotly debated, what if the scenario you envisage results in increased oil exploration and the discovery of massive untapped reserves? In which case resources have effectively been created.

Replace "untapped" with "secret" or "unreported."

No, untapped is a perfectly decent word.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 10:44:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 5:58:06 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/3/2011 8:38:22 PM, badger wrote:
At 11/3/2011 7:57:07 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/3/2011 3:42:45 PM, badger wrote:
i mean i have 200 acres of green fertile land in my family that's done nothing with. how many africans could live on that... but i'm not gonna give it away or anything lol..

Why don't you farm it? Build houses on it? Turn it into a golf course?

it's not yet mine. do you really think the utopic communist dream entirely unfeasible?

Yes.

i mean it's what the chinese bought into for what they got and if them, why not the world together? and then why couldn't we do it right? a democratic world utopia might have more of a chance? but i suppose i don't really care. i think there's certainly something there though lol...

China is not communist in the happy clappy idealised version of that ideal, it is a dictatorship, its succeses come from being a dictatorship.

that's what they thought they were getting though in signing up for it. it took a while for it to become obviously a tyranny. and that's a considerable population they have. i mean you'd think it possible if the world wanted it surely? and then but one alteration to a direct democracy would all that'd be needed to have everything running beautifully rather than tyrannically...


i suppose i should've been following you from your disgust with yourself for loving capitalism so much lol. i skim. justifications aren't that important :P
signature
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 6:06:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 6:00:13 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/3/2011 11:44:46 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/3/2011 2:16:57 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
1: People of wealth do not behave like this, otherwise they would not be people of wealth.

People of wealth did do this.

When?

In the late eighties/early nineties.


2: No one can buy sufficient oil to cause this to be much of a problem.

It was a huge problem that has since dramatically affected the industry.

When?

^^^^

3: If it was an issue we would simply go to 'war' with this bizarre plutocratic pretroleum pyromaniac.

That is precisely what we did, although it was a nation (Iraq), rather than one psychopath.

No... Saddam burnt his oil during the war to make a point.

That's irrelevant.

4: In reality such a massive increase in the sale of oil would likely result in a massive production of oil... in practical terms if not objective reality resources have therefore been created, not expended... its a matter of perspective.

Not according to many theorists -- apparently, we're running out.

And according to many theorists known reserves are increasing.

True.

Doesn't really change OP's point.

5: Sensible oil companies ought to be ploughing their profits into alternatives for oil, the destruction of a key resource is in theory moot.

They aught to be, but the largest reason why alternative fuel has taken so long to catch on is because they're been ploughing their money into preventing the use of alternative oil, instead.

Until we start to run out this makes economic sense.

Lol... would starting a conversation about this be "derailing"?
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 6:07:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 6:00:48 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/3/2011 11:46:34 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/3/2011 2:46:12 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Corporations react to demand.
The extent to which oil is limited is hotly debated, what if the scenario you envisage results in increased oil exploration and the discovery of massive untapped reserves? In which case resources have effectively been created.

Replace "untapped" with "secret" or "unreported."

No, untapped is a perfectly decent word.

Well, my contention with it is that people aren't really finding much new oil anymore.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2011 6:38:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 6:06:08 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/4/2011 6:00:13 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/3/2011 11:44:46 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/3/2011 2:16:57 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
1: People of wealth do not behave like this, otherwise they would not be people of wealth.

People of wealth did do this.

When?

In the late eighties/early nineties.

Who did this?



2: No one can buy sufficient oil to cause this to be much of a problem.

It was a huge problem that has since dramatically affected the industry.

When?

^^^^

3: If it was an issue we would simply go to 'war' with this bizarre plutocratic pretroleum pyromaniac.

That is precisely what we did, although it was a nation (Iraq), rather than one psychopath.

No... Saddam burnt his oil during the war to make a point.

That's irrelevant.


How is it irrelevant?

4: In reality such a massive increase in the sale of oil would likely result in a massive production of oil... in practical terms if not objective reality resources have therefore been created, not expended... its a matter of perspective.

Not according to many theorists -- apparently, we're running out.

And according to many theorists known reserves are increasing.

True.

Doesn't really change OP's point.

It's called a counter-argument.


5: Sensible oil companies ought to be ploughing their profits into alternatives for oil, the destruction of a key resource is in theory moot.

They aught to be, but the largest reason why alternative fuel has taken so long to catch on is because they're been ploughing their money into preventing the use of alternative oil, instead.

Until we start to run out this makes economic sense.


Lol... would starting a conversation about this be "derailing"?

No... because it is directly relevant to my counter-argument.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.