Originally posted by xxxenophobeBreak your habit for your own good and so we can understand you better.
Why the hell not... well just take over the world.. duh.. i said i didnt justify the hoser bushs' reasoning... if there is ause.. of wich id have to see to justify... or at least be lied to some more by the poopshoot of a prez... so i cant answer that.. but i do think a democracy would be benificial to there way of life... but not through war if at all possible..
Originally posted by ivangriceSince I'm saying the results are the same, it doesn't matter what decision is taken, there is no "ten" there is only "100" and "100".
Decisions are taken in the real world, and have real consequences. If I can take a decision today that costs ten lives, and by doing so save 100 lives, then my decision needs to be judged on that basis.
Guilt, responsibility, ownership - in the real world, they're nice to haves. By all means discuss them, by all means grow. But please have someone making decisions that are 'mired' in the real world.
For you to say otherwise is for you to automatically disavow any responsibility for the deaths. Congratulations on taking the moral low road...
MÅ¥HÅRM
Originally posted by xxxenophobethis attitude seems to be the crux of the matter:
oyu obveously wernt listening to my original posts you wank.... i do think he lied and is a masive hoser.. hell i didnt vote for him ether time... but what i am saying.. is.. due to the situation.. however it got started... that contry..i see.. in the future being much better prosparity wise.. and humanity wise. Thats what im saying.. and yes he is a &^* ...[text shortened]... .. millions will be happier and healthier and better off in the future because of it.... period.
the attack was for falsely represented as necessary and the people know that it was falsely represented,
but they still want it anyway.
i guess it is the same with cigarette advertising ... sure smoking is bad, but i will smoke anyway, i am an unthinking addict.
Originally posted by MayharmEr...I'm not sure I understand the point you are making.
Since I'm saying the results are the same, it doesn't matter what decision is taken, there is no "ten" there is only "100" and "100".
For you to say otherwise is for you to automatically disavow any responsibility for the deaths. Congratulations on taking the moral low road...
MÅ¥HÅRM
I believe that decisions can be made that lead to one outcome as opposed to another. It's how we make decisions. If I knew that by pressing button X I would kill ten people, but ultimately save 100, I would press button X.
I don't understand how a decision can have the *same* outcome if it is made or not, unless we live in a deterministic world.
And I don't understand your rather unpleasant final sentence. How is making a utilitarian decision an act of the 'moral low road'?
Originally posted by ivangriceI'm full of unpleasant sentences, harsh, true and OTT is the way I play it. You dont like it, then drop it...
Er...I'm not sure I understand the point you are making.
I believe that decisions can be made that lead to one outcome as opposed to another. It's how we make decisions. If I knew that by pressing button X I would kill ten people, but ultimately save 100, I would press button X.
I don't understand how a decision can have the *same* outcome if it ...[text shortened]... pleasant final sentence. How is making a utilitarian decision an act of the 'moral low road'?
There is an assumption in what you are saying that whatever decision was made, war or peace, would result in a difference in the number of deaths. The outcome will *certainly* be different, and sure the death tolls would not be *precisely* the same, but I see nothing to back that up.
I say the death toll is roughly equivalent, or "the same", proove me wrong...
With regards to decisions having different outcomes, yes indeed they do, but in this case the difference does not lie in the death toll! "Guilt, responsibility and ownership" are what should guide you to the right decision, not some ridiculously (and in IMO stupid) notion that one course (war no less!) would "somehow" result in less deaths.
As for the "moral low road" comment itself...
If you delude yourself into thinking that one course will result in less deaths when you have no evidence to back that thinking up, you are avoiding responsibility for the deaths caused by your choice.
That's why you've taken the moral low road.
Taking the moral high road involves proof. Proof that saddam was directly responsible for mass-murders, proof that sanctions are killing children, proof that there were no WMD's, proof that he was involved in 9/11, proof that he was keeping the many disparate cultures from killing each other, proof that iraq was ready for democratic rule.
Or proof to the contrary...
By comparison the possible death toll, prior to the war, for either choice is an excercise in guesswork and little more... hardly a sound basis for ethical decision-making.
MÅ¥HÅRM
Originally posted by MayharmSo if I understand your position correctly (and I'm sure you'll let me know if I don't), *no* decision can be said to be the 'best' one, even in retrospect, because there can be no proof that it resulted in the least moral harm/most moral good.
I'm full of unpleasant sentences, harsh, true and OTT is the way I play it. You dont like it, then drop it...
There is an assumption in what you are saying that whatever decision was made, war or peace, would result in a difference in the number of deaths. The outcome will *certainly* be different, and sure the death tolls would not be *precisely* th ...[text shortened]... guesswork and little more... hardly a sound basis for ethical decision-making.
MÅ¥HÅRM
So if a child ran out onto the street in front of you whilst you were at the wheel of a car, would you not be able to decide whether or not to brake? And if you did brake, and saved the child's life, how could you *prove* to yourself that that was the right thing to do?
Originally posted by ivangrice"So if I understand your position correctly (and I'm sure you'll let me know if I don't), "
So if I understand your position correctly (and I'm sure you'll let me know if I don't), *no* decision can be said to be the 'best' one, even in retrospect, because there can be no proof that it resulted in the least moral harm/most moral good.
So if a child ran out onto the street in front of you whilst you were at the wheel of a car, would you no ...[text shortened]... saved the child's life, how could you *prove* to yourself that that was the right thing to do?
In other words, you didn't bother to try understanding and you know it.
You're very proficient evasion skills coming to the fore again I think...you really must learn to stop running, it doesn't do you any good...
IF you think you can stand still and feel some pain, feel free to try understanding my position again.
(I'm not going to bother re-phrasing it, I'm pretty confident I can rely on you not to even try)
MÅ¥HÅRM
Originally posted by STANGSo your theory is that the problems of the world are caused by people other than Stan G., like Bush for example? Do you use any petroleum products, Stan? We all have personal financial interests in pipe lines and military equipment. Have you misled us about anything? Perhaps lied? I personally do look into my heart and do what I feel is morally and ethically right. That's why I ask you these questions. Bush is not the source of your unrest, Stan. Bush is simply currently the easiest target. You are the source of your unrest, Stan.
WMD's were a lie. Not giving the UN more time was wrong. Bush has personal financial interests in oil pipe lines in the Middle East and companies that produce military equipment.
Yes, Bush is a liar and a war monger. Bush, and those who support him, are a threat to the security of the world.
Look into your heart and do what you feel is morally and ethic ...[text shortened]... patriotism and selfishness take priority. If you can do that, then I don't mind being ignored.
I don't have a car, choosing public transport or walking. Here's an article I wrote some time ago. It also applies to America. By the way, Bush makes himself and his supporters an easy target. So you're mistaken.
CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS FOR AUSTRALIA’S ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Consider organisations that produce household products like sandwich spreads and the bread itself, building materials and the packaging that everything comes in, organisations such as banks, telecommunications companies and commercial property conglomerates, and government departments ranging from waterboards through to defence.
They all consume huge amounts of energy, with annual energy spends typically in the order of $20M to $100M+, and corresponding greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.
Of all the countries in the world, Australia has one of the highest per capita levels of energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, yet attention to international emissions targets, debated in Kyoto last year, seems to have dwindled in the face of the federal election and news like September 11.
If you recall, our government representatives were throwing their arms up in the (warming) air as if limiting energy consumption and emissions was beyond us. This article touches on some key and yet actually simple challenges and solutions.
The writer was engaged in a $6M+ development and promotion of a proven technological solution to enable organisations to achieve significant and sustainable reductions in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Whilst he was retrenched (during negative market sentiment following the burst of the technology bubble and impacts of September 11), the writer has insight and maintains a firm belief in the availability of viable solutions that organisations must embrace, and that we can all play a role in making this happen.
A major obstacle would seem that, whilst organisations have the option to make a small investment in solutions for significant and sustainable reductions, and not only in financial terms, their attention is directed toward “more newsworthy” investments that increase their financial revenue.
Taking a 9 hour train trip across Java, the writer observed that most of the passing landscape had been reduced from lush vegetation; a potentially huge greenhouse gas filter, to flat rice fields and wasteland. Australians have it easy compared to a poor country of over 200M people mostly struggling to survive on a subsistence living.
The first step is for individuals within organisations to be frank about their current limitations and pursue available solutions even at the risk of sounding boring compared to talk about expansions and increased revenue streams.
As large energy consumers, with corresponding greenhouse gas emissions, the organisations typically have hundreds to thousands of sites across Australia. There are different energy suppliers in each area, supplying different types of energy (such as electricity, gas and coal) and sites may be engaged in different activities, where an organisation may produce flour at one site and bake bread at another, for example.
In a nutshell, management in corporate offices can already be enabled to track and control energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions across all their sites, with managers at site level being automatically informed of their performance, possibly benchmarked against other sites, with measurement of key performance indicators (such as energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions per tonne of flour or square metre of building space), being automatically alerted to variances from targets and having their responses monitored.
Whether an industrial, commercial or government organisation, Australia needs to introduce “corporate oversight and site responsibility”.
The reality is that there are proven technologies that enable organisations to unite their people towards significant and sustainable reductions in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, which would fall well within targets debated in Kyoto.
(For example, the $6M+ development of www.our-e-manager.com links corporate offices, sites and energy suppliers with automatic performance reports).
Given the inclination for organisations to direct their attention elsewhere, we could impose, reward and even cheaply subsidise use of such solutions. This could be promoted and monitored by the likes of SEDA (Sustainable Energy Development Authority).
In some instances, organisations are multinationals whose overseas head quarters need to approve finance even for a relatively small energy and greenhouse solution. However, the stock market has seen the introduction of Socially Responsible Investment classifications that reward an organisation with a positive position on such important issues.
Of course, there’s even simpler things we can do as individuals on a day-to-day basis (e.g. FuelStar and products being promoted at the EnviroFair). At every level, there is actually no basis to throw our arms up in the air as if reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions is beyond us.
Originally posted by STANGImpressive, Stan. Who published it?
I don't have a car, choosing public transport or walking. Here's an article I wrote some time ago. It also applies to America. By the way, Bush makes himself and his supporters an easy target. So you're mistaken.
CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS FOR AUSTRALIA’S ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Consider organisations that produce household produ ...[text shortened]... rms up in the air as if reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions is beyond us.