Jump to content

MtnGoat

Members
  • Posts

    739
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by MtnGoat

  1. "So, MtnGoat; when your SUV kills some Geo Metro-driving mother and her kids in a collision," So, are you saying I set out to intentionally target and kill her and her kids because I don't like her choices? That because she won't do what I want, I planned to harm her, hunted her, and killed her? Not even close. "or when DFA starts developing lung cancer from breathing the coal-burning-power-plant's worth of shit it spews into the air, are we not talking about an irretrievable loss?" What, did I say I supported spewing unregulated shit into the atmosphere? Did I direct a particular bad molecule just to you to do you in intentionally? "Is it not then the right of the aggrieved party to seek appropriately damaging compensatory action against *you*?" If I intentionally specifically harmed them, sure. Shall the person who dies in a collision because you wouldn't let them choose a larger car be able to sue *you*? Now why is it I get the impression you wish to hold me responsible for risks I supposedly force on you, but you find your actions and restrictions free of risk to others? We're not talking about generalized random risk here from car accidents or pollution. We're talking about individuals hunting down people for doing what they don't approve of, and *specifically* harming them for it.
  2. MtnGoat

    Free Press

    "Hey, no one's forcing the others to buy a safer car, so they can make it to work alive. It's a choice, see? And that's the difference!" And on this, you are finally correct. How you evaluate your risk and your willingness to work around it is your own buisness. I assume that as a liberal, you automatically take into account all the ramifications of your choices on society, as is proper. I'd never claim you shouldn't do so. This is the essence of our differences in viewpoint. While I recognize your right to make your choices for you, using your standards, and live by them, you are far less likely to do the same for me.
  3. MtnGoat

    Free Press

    "So, you think it's wrong for people to be coerced into not buying an SUV, which makes other people feel unsafe." Yup, you're writing a law, using threats specific to what you wish to achieve, and threatening people to observe your specific ends and goals or else go to jail. "So, your suggestion to those people is to buy a car that they would not otherwise buy so that other people can drive their SUV's and not smash people?" My suggestion is that they do what everyone else does, what it their right to do, control their *own* choices using the *own* values according to the world around them and the others they can't control, just like everyone else does. Claiming everyone effects everyone else is so basic as to be useless. The question is not effect, it's whose effects are within the sphere of their self determination and who is trying to reach outside that. If you claim some people are effecting others and thats a problem, why do you get to turn around and demand another effect is your right to impose? "So you're fine with just passing the coersion buck down the line, is that correct?" No, it is not correct. There is no law specifying that you shall be forced to drive a specific car and accept a specific risk level. Under what you are supporting, the opposite is not true. Those you wish to coerce with law on this, are *not* coercing you with law detailing how you shall value risk, what choices you shall make to deal with it, or what you shall drive or not drive. There is no "passing the buck" here. On one hand we have everyone making many different choices "coerced" only by their own values, their own choices, and what they have done with their lives, etc. On the other, we have folks who intend to use threats to remove choices from others.
  4. yeah, great. Someone uses their valuable and irretrievable time working for something they want and value, and somebody comes along and says, I don't like what you want and now I'll destroy the product of all your time and effort. How caring and nonviolent. Anybody that comes to burn my house or my car or anything I've worked for is going to get a fight. When they're non violent, they have a right to say what they want. When they come to destroy what someone else has worked for, the gloves come off. Finally the "caring" of these Stalinists is shown for what it is, do what they want how they want or they'll get frustrated and start to kill. That earns them criminal status, and will also earn them a bullet, justifiably.
  5. Since only 12% of US oil comes from the mideast, the easiest way to deny them control is to not buy it from them anymore, while expanding our purchases from other sources, as well as drilling our own.
  6. MtnGoat

    Free Press

    Who said anything about staying off the streets? One option is to choose a vehicle built with cage protection. Even cheap ass Saturns use it. It's become a common design these days. Rights being trampled? When did forcing someone else to choose a car *you* approve of, become a right? If I'm a crackpot because I refuse to threaten my neighbors and car manufacturers, simply because I don't like what they like or build, what does that make you? Somethings pretty sideways when proudly proclaiming you'll threaten others over their peaceful choices, in the name of your morals makes you "normal".
  7. "uh, I don't read any of those to have been directly instigated by him" Why is it anything enviros don't like that happens while Bush is in office, wether or not it's instigated by him, is attributed to mean ol Bush, but anything positive must be instigated by him for him to get credit? Curious.
  8. MtnGoat

    Free Press

    "I'm not saying I know why they choose what they choose, nor am I saying I care. " So now you not only make a case for your coercion on their behalf, you don't even care why they choose what they choose? How can you be so sure their reasons are bad if you can neither know what they are, nor care why they made them? This doesn't sound like a selfish position to you? "SUVs are generally a problem vehicle." They are? Why would people buy problems? "If a case can be made about the damage caused by something in particular, then efforts can be made to correct the problem. Democracy in action, my friend." When one equates democracy with threatening ones neighbors with jail because one doesn't like their peaceful choices, while calling them selfish as you threaten them, I guess you're right about that. "If I can objectively see that my effect brings about increased safety for myself and others, while the effect of the other is the opposite, then those are effects I can live with, my friend." So now safety is your value, that others must live by because you value it? When did your notion of safety become more important than their values, and you so confident of your judgement you'll threaten other people to get your way on something like a vehicle? "But if what they value is a danger to others, it can collectively be agreed that the rights of the group outweigh the right of said individual. Democracy in action, my friend." Tyranny in action, is the outcome. There is no limit to what you can justify in the name of limiting danger. If others had no recourse and were forced by the individuals you don't like to take risks, I'd agree with you, but they have recourse. Everyone has a choice of what to drive, where to drive it, when to drive it, what options to get, and all the rest. Rather than respecting peoples rights to choose and try and convince them to do what you want because they agree with you, you prefer the handy shortcut of threats.
  9. MtnGoat

    Free Press

    only when trying to get j_b to answer simple, direct questions.
  10. If that's their point, they should make that point. Ad's aren't made by mistake, they don't write themselves. As it is they attack one segment of the population, cause of the moment being those horrible SUVs, when waste of resources occurs everytime someone decides they "need" to vacation by jet, for example.
  11. MtnGoat

    Free Press

    I can't figure out why you think you know so much about why other people choose what they choose, when you can't possibly do so without unavoidably injecting yourself and your own values into any evaluation of what they do. Then you figure *they're* selfish, en masse, when you don't know them, or their reasons, really, other than your own interpretation. You're concerned about their "effect", but then turn around and then decide your "effect" is OK. I cannot understand such an overeaching desire to determine others lives for them, especially when you have to threaten them to get it done. What is so darned hard about allowing others to decide what they value?
  12. MtnGoat

    Free Press

    "MG, that's bullshit and you know it." I think your statement is bullshit. You don't comment on the fact we each choose risk all the time, you don't attack people buying larger regular cars than smaller ones, you don't comment that anyone who wishes to value safety from other vehicles can likewise make other decisions in what they purchase. You do try to tell me what I know, which you can't know in the first place. Part and parcel of valuing other people so, so much you are ready to fix their lives for them, wether they like it or not. But that's not selfish, right, because you care. "The SUV controversy isn't simply about what's dangerous to the owner of one; it's also about the effect they have on the rest of society." I see. So when you intend to have an effect and do so by threatening people, your effect is OK, when others have an effect and those around them are free to chose how to deal with that effect merely by choosing different vehicles, boy, that's unacceptable. Your effect is OK for your selfish reasons, someone elses for theirs is just way out there because you don't like it, so you want to coerce them. "The same argument applies to the use of SUVs." Of course it does. It applies to so much you probably justify nearly every situation where you intend to coerce someone else with it. It's the all purpose conscience scrubber for making decisions for other people and then imposing them at gunpoint, while you feel caring. You decide your caring trumps their values, and then proceed to justify forcing them to live to your standards. "Come out of your idealised dream-world. There are people out here." You mean the one where *your* effects and coercion are OK. There are people everywhere. Do you intend to require all cars to be the same size? How far will you go to remove risk to your satisfaction, in the name of your values, in someone elses name you don't even value enought to permit them to choose their effects, while you intend to make *yours* mandatory?
  13. A purely political move to slam SUV's, while completely ignoring that even if this is true, it also applies to *all* oil users and users of oil products. If you fly on an airplane, you're paying terrorists. If you live in a older home and heat with oil, you're paying terrorists. If you use petroderived plastics, which is nearly all of them, you're paying terrorists. If you ride the ferry, or take a ship anywhere, you're paying terrorists.
  14. she's kinda a hottie, eh? is she wunna them danged librals?
  15. MtnGoat

    Free Press

    On SUV's and safety, we come right back to personal values and choices, personal assumption of risk and the value of assuming said risk to any particular person. Wether or not someone is aware of a high rollover rate in no way tells us what the "correct" choice for them will be. People choose to assume risk for their own reasons all the time. Wether or not their values for risk tolerance in rollovers are yours has nothing to do with their right to assume such risks as they are comfortable with. I am well aware my rig has a higher rollover risk, and yet I choose that risk because I value what i can haul in what conditions to what sites, more than I fear the risk. People choose their risk factor when they buy *any* car. They choose their risk factor when they choose how to travel, car vs plane vs train, or when to drive, at rush hour, late at night, and on what kind of road. A choice to buy a conventional car of smaller size is in itself often an assumption of greater risk due to collision than an equally designed larger one. Some people choose anti lock brakes, some do not. Some choose small cars, some choose medium, some choose large. Even the choice of manufacturer plays a role in what risks you will assume. The attempt to micromanage everyone *elses* risk factors because of *your* risk tolerance is precisely the kind of imposition of your values over others, I comment on here constantly. It seems many are so concerned about someone elses "effect" on society as a justification, that they then want to legislate their *own* effect , ignoring the effect they complain about is not a compulsory one, while theirs shall be. No one threatens them with jail or state coercion for choosing their risks as they see fit, and yet they are comfortable with threatening others to make choices with respect to risk as they see it.
  16. MtnGoat

    Free Press

    "Answering Goat's innuendo to the effect that acceptable peer review is a function of my stand on global warming would be like saying it is a relative issue." No, answering my "innuendo" to the effect you will only accept peer reviews from peers who agree with you, would indicate your position on review is relative. Answering that a "peers" position does not matter and their review will still be valid to you, will indicate you do not find it relevant. I am asking you, not someone else, not a journal or group of other scientists. You are the only one who can tell me what your standards are. So in order to make it crystal clear your position on acceptable peers, for you, all you need to do is answer. Will you, J_b, accept peer reviews as impartial even if you don't agree with their stances? It's a very simple question.
  17. MtnGoat

    Free Press

    "I am supposed to answer all of this? I don't think I need to and this is getting nowhere anyway." So you tag me and run. Some substantiation.
  18. MtnGoat

    Free Press

    lock step press? Well that should be less and less of an issue as they continue to lose market share and are forced to define themselves. With FOX gaining market share, and various Blogs and Drudge carving out still others, the days of the centrally controlled media are fast passing, and that's a good thing. It will be harder and harder to carry on about programs "for all the people", which often means some of them, and the rest pay, when hard questions are asked by people who don't have to answer to the news editor down the hall.
  19. MtnGoat

    Free Press

    "I am not sure why I should acknowledge such low attempts at distorting my point of view. " I am not sure why asking what *your* view of an acceptable peer is, is such a bad thing. All you need to do is take the high road, say peer reviews need not agree with you to be credible, and that's it. I want you to commit. "Go find your peer reviewed articles. And to find them you'll have to learn what peer reviewed means. " Wow. This is the same guy concerned about low attempts and "bile, and all that. Hard to imagine.
  20. MtnGoat

    Free Press

    "yeah, calling them unamerican during a war build up is just so light hearted." using your own rules of engagement, I now expect you to substantiate this claim. First, explain wether or not you are directly claiming I did this, so there isn't any wiggle room later. then explain who "them" is, so there's no wiggle room. Then provide evidence I have said this, or will you just make the accusation and attack me personally and not bother backing it up? "Or having our kids choose between MCD and DQ, is not imposing the laws of profit onto them." Did I miss where the "laws of profit" written somewhere tell us we must go to MCD or DQ? Did I miss legislation by evil libertarians forcing kids to MCD or DQ under penalty of fine or imprisonment or both, as backs up laws normally? Most of all, did I miss the grocery stores that exist everywhere with all kinds of healthy foods in them, should they be chosen? The choice is there for everyone to make on their own, wether or not their values make that choice desirable to them. *Regardless* of what your values are. "Or justifying gas guzzlers or child labor in the name of whatever principle is not imposing your value onto others. " child labor? Gas Guzzlers? Being imposed? where's the substantiation? Even a basic explanation will do. Yes, disagreeing with you is bile. Another little detail we get a lot of from the left. Check up on Gore, it's an attack. Disagree with you, it's bile. No, it's just disagreement. Try some more names later, maybe it will work then. In the mean time, I'll be looking forwards to proof of claims I called folks unamerican and some details on how I support gas guzzlers being forced on people.
  21. MtnGoat

    Free Press

    "I don't define what peer review is." No, you don't, but you do define which peers *you* consider credible. "Although you apparently still don't know what peer review means. " Oh please. What I don't know is why you will not answer my direct question.. which I will repeat one more time... must the peers who review an article share your views to be considered credible by you? A simple yes or no will suffice.
  22. MtnGoat

    Free Press

    "why don't you provide your evidence? this is usually the way it works: you assert something and you back it up." Why didn't it work that way when you claimed Bush had never been challenged? You sat and asked*me* for references to prove your point wrong, you presented no evidence beyond your claim, which was a convenient one for you, since you claimed a negative. Unfortunately, as convenient as it was, it was also easy to show it was wrong. Which shouldn't have been my job according to your own statements, but I'll let that go.
  23. MtnGoat

    Free Press

    "hey watch out because anyone reading this, can plainly see who is using morality/values to castigate." Thing is, I don't use my castigation to support making those other people do what I think they should do on your scale. Everybody judges other people, that's unavoidable, natural, and our right. But not all of us figure our judgments are so superior to theirs we need to impose them into nearly so many places in their lives.
  24. MtnGoat

    Free Press

    I decided to waste a few minutes to see the novel ways in which you'll decide this was "never" discussed before the elections. Editorials & Opinion: Monday, October 02, 2000 Guest columnist Bush on education: defending the indefensible http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=harvey02&date=20001002&query=bush+not+qualified Editorials & Opinion: Friday, August 11, 2000 Guest columnist The high-tech implications of the GOP's all-oil ticket by Kevin Phillips Special to the Times http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=phillips11.art&date=20000811&query=bush+not+qualified ******************************** And one using Gores critiques of Bush.... Nation & World: Sunday, July 16, 2000 Gore says Bush squandered budget surplus by Sandra Sobieraj The Associated Press http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=prez16&date=20000716&query=bush+not+qualified All this from one search, of one paper, in 5 minutes. Apparently "never" would include Gore and his workers, so I guess part of their election bid did not include substantive rebuttals of Bushes postitions, nor releases of same, nor pro Gore journalists using these for editorials in papers major and minor. Do these examples count as the press, or is there some dodge here too? Shall I spend five minutes at CNN to not have that count as press? Enlighten us.
  25. MtnGoat

    Free Press

    I can't really see why I should waste my time. Anyone awake during a presidential campaign can remember numerous critiques of both candidates, from both sides. What you're telling us is Dems didn't critique Bush. Now that must have been an interesting way to campaign. As for the other issues, I am *still* waiting for your definition of what you consider acceptable peer review, and if the "peers" are judged by you on a basis of wether they agree with you in the first place. Repeating "peer review" numerous times simply does not reveal your standard for peer review, only that you claim to value it. Likewise, I'm still waiting for you to confirm or deny that Gore ever made false claims about his disaster visit. Going to ignore that too?
×
×
  • Create New...