Originally Posted by jazzguru
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty
, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
--The Declaration of Independence, emphasis added
I love noting to people that our Declaration of Independence has a built in self-destruct mechanism.
Originally Posted by Internet Nickname
I am new to this forum, so don't go too hard on me!
You certainly are something new to this forum, IN. This refreshing post contains complete sentences, coherent thoughts, a lack of distracting and cartoonish photos and finally only one insinuation about the intent of the original poster.
That is rare here indeed so congratulations and welcome!
This really is an interesting question you're posing here, trumpetman— but I believe your comparison to be flawed!
To begin, it seems that you're proposing a sort of "thought experiment", I think, where you seek to equate
those opposed to the unilateral invasion of Iraq
those who think that radical, unilateral measures to contain the problem of climate change are permissible.
It seems that the soi-disant point of your thread, the question If the globe doesn't sign off, what are we allowed to do? is perhaps a pretext for you to be able to deduce from your "thought experiment" the result:
those who think that radical measures to contain the problem of climate change are needed or permissible are hypocrites, since they were opposed to the kind of unilateral action required by the invasion of Iraq.
I'm simply scaling up the reasoning. If it is wrong to take unilater action to save people, a building, a city or perhaps even a country, it would be wrong to do so to save the planet as well correct?
The president's new science adviser said Wednesday that global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth's air.
To support this argument, I must note that Holdren
characterized the potential need to technologically tinker with the climate as just his personal view
and added that these actions
could have grave side effects and would not completely solve all the problems from soaring greenhouse gas emissions. So such actions could not be taken lightly
Certainly discussion is not action and an advisor to the president is not the president himself, but we can have a discussion before these items are being considered for a vote or being put into a bill. The point for now is only discussion.
so it does not look likely to be government policy. In other words, it is not an urgent question, so your aim in starting this thread (I suggest!) might not be the 'discussion' you claim you seek!
The question for now is merely one of possibilities and of hypotheticals. Please try not to change the topic by attempting to read into the poster intent. As someone new here, there is no reason to not take someone at their word. Plus it is a bad habit that often leads one to begin attacking the poster rather than the material in the post. Such actions are dealt with rather strictly around here.
You also make the comparison between
those who are opposed to torture
those who think that radical measures to contain the problem of climate change are needed or permissible
but this is a poor comparison, I think, since you misconstrue the motives of those who object to torture. Those tortured in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and in the European and Pacific "black sites" were not tortured to the background of a ticking clock. Torture presents moral problems that make the "ticking clock" argument a terrible over-simplification and not the strongest hook for you to hang your "thought experiment."
Actually I look at the actions of those who desire to protect. The scale is merely different. Some will claim they are protecting a building, city, state or country. Others will be claiming they are protecting the planet. The point is to what degree do you need the consent of those being protected while acting to protect them?
Well, my first post is a long one!
I'm glad to be a member of this community.
Actually it isn't long at all and is well appreciated! Just don't get down on yourself if people who have understanding long posts complain about the lack of pretty pictures and one line quips.
Keep posting and nice to have you here.