Odyessy Mars Mission
- Thread starter Bob_Trevithick
- Start date
- Views: 3407
Chuck52
Veteran Member
Yep! We've been here all these years and never polluted a single stream or lake. The air in all our cities is so pristine and clear that we rural types often travel there to simply inhale that good stuff. Our fresh water aquifers are all perfectly safe...just ask Franz. How could any sane person possibly believe man could do anything to harm the environment? Why the ocean is obvously benefitting from the fertilizer we provide. What are these idiots thinking? And those jerks who think their data may possibly indicate that man's activities might be affecting the atmosphere! And global warming! Don't those fools know that the earth has gone through temperature cycles since it's creation? Are they unaware of solar cycles? They must be, or perhaps they're all in the pay of the windmill industry! Yes! That's it! That's the ticket! It's the great windmill-solar energy industrial complex! Hoo Haa! We got 'em now!
Chuck
Chuck
PitbullMidwest
Platinum Member
Chuck,
I can't find any reference in this thread to anyone claiming that man had not polluted the earth. What I have said, and others agreed with, is that extremist enviromentalists manipulate gullible people for the sake of obtaining large grants. You obviously swallow the global warming claims hook line and sinker. A single volcanic eruption produces more ozone depleting gases than does all of the world's industry. Maybe the UN could fund a study into banning all volcanos, fine those countries that have volcanos and give grants to developing countries who don't have the technology to prevent volcanic eruptions.
Of course your fossile fuel burning tractor doesn't pollute. Isn't that the way it always is? It's always the other guy's tractor, you know the guy that doesn't care nearly as much about the earth as you do. Maybe we should all use oxen or horses instead of tractors, less we be hypocrits. Oops! Can't do that, enviromentalists say that the methane produced by cow poop in Australia is depleting the ozone layer.
What are we to do? Where is Ed Beggly Jr. when you need him.
I can't find any reference in this thread to anyone claiming that man had not polluted the earth. What I have said, and others agreed with, is that extremist enviromentalists manipulate gullible people for the sake of obtaining large grants. You obviously swallow the global warming claims hook line and sinker. A single volcanic eruption produces more ozone depleting gases than does all of the world's industry. Maybe the UN could fund a study into banning all volcanos, fine those countries that have volcanos and give grants to developing countries who don't have the technology to prevent volcanic eruptions.
Of course your fossile fuel burning tractor doesn't pollute. Isn't that the way it always is? It's always the other guy's tractor, you know the guy that doesn't care nearly as much about the earth as you do. Maybe we should all use oxen or horses instead of tractors, less we be hypocrits. Oops! Can't do that, enviromentalists say that the methane produced by cow poop in Australia is depleting the ozone layer.
What are we to do? Where is Ed Beggly Jr. when you need him.
Chuck52
Veteran Member
Pitbull,
I swallow nothing hook line and sinker, including the lines you just quoted which apparently presume all those who think we might be changing the environment are extremists. I also never claimed to care more about the earth than anyone else in this group. Yes indeed, I drive a tractor and I drive a truck and I drive a minivan. All pollute. I'm aware of that. In fact, since my tractor is pretty old, I wouldn't be surprised if it pollutes more than yours. I don't see any hypocrisy in my remarks, but "the eye of the beholder" applies I guess. What I was attempting to get across is my view that if one agrees with the concept that man's activities have resulted in damage to some parts of the environment....can I assume you agree with that?....then it is not such a stretch to think that we might also be contributing to the effect called Global Warming. Perhaps I read more into the previous posts than was there, as I think you did with mine, but it seemed to me that honest scientists, who are doing their best to measure these things, are being unfairly characterized as either fools or cheats. Is that too holier than thou for you? So far as I can see, most of the folks who think we might be contributing to Global Warming suggest only that we try to decrease our dependence on fossil fuels and maybe try to limit use of some chemicals which may be particularly harmful. These same folks also admit not knowing for sure, for instance, just which chemicals might be at fault. That's part of what they study, and I can't see blaming them for not having all the answers. Certainly there are extremists who take these studies and use them for their own purposes. However, it is not just or correct to lump everyone who studies global warming in with the nut cases.
Chuck
I swallow nothing hook line and sinker, including the lines you just quoted which apparently presume all those who think we might be changing the environment are extremists. I also never claimed to care more about the earth than anyone else in this group. Yes indeed, I drive a tractor and I drive a truck and I drive a minivan. All pollute. I'm aware of that. In fact, since my tractor is pretty old, I wouldn't be surprised if it pollutes more than yours. I don't see any hypocrisy in my remarks, but "the eye of the beholder" applies I guess. What I was attempting to get across is my view that if one agrees with the concept that man's activities have resulted in damage to some parts of the environment....can I assume you agree with that?....then it is not such a stretch to think that we might also be contributing to the effect called Global Warming. Perhaps I read more into the previous posts than was there, as I think you did with mine, but it seemed to me that honest scientists, who are doing their best to measure these things, are being unfairly characterized as either fools or cheats. Is that too holier than thou for you? So far as I can see, most of the folks who think we might be contributing to Global Warming suggest only that we try to decrease our dependence on fossil fuels and maybe try to limit use of some chemicals which may be particularly harmful. These same folks also admit not knowing for sure, for instance, just which chemicals might be at fault. That's part of what they study, and I can't see blaming them for not having all the answers. Certainly there are extremists who take these studies and use them for their own purposes. However, it is not just or correct to lump everyone who studies global warming in with the nut cases.
Chuck
PitbullMidwest
Platinum Member
Agreed, but then again a debate between 2 moderates isn't much fun is it? /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif
Wingnut
Veteran Member
oops, from the tone of yoru reply, RanchMan ... you took me a lot more seriously than I'd intended, and I do apologize if I offended or upset you.
A lot (not all, mind you) of my "opinion" was intended to keep stirring the pot ... just hate it when everyone is "me, too'ing".
And thanks for ignoring the spelling errors resulting from typing too fast in that small window.
I won't make this as long as your's .. we don't want out host to curtail our free speech.
I never said no exploration had merit ... all I said is "where's the beef" ... show me the business plan outlining what you expect to respolve ... and how you plan to get some benefit back to the taxpayer. Are you seriously trying to tell me that the nifty cooler in my van with the outre cooling system was PLANNED to result - or was it a happy accident.
As I see your comments, you're practcing the "good defence" rukle by asking me to explain my occassional optimism ,,, instead of "you" (NASA, gov, FDA, whomever) having to explain why you deserve my tax dollars.
Again ... do I have to be ashamed to ask "what's in it for me?" when "you" come with hat in hand (well, actually, the IRS doesn't beg, they threaten) for my tax dollars? Yes, tongue in cheek I said "me, me, me" ... and you reacted like a true liberal .... where my idea of a true liberal is one who wants to have society do good ... with MY tax dollars (and usually the good liberal is in a tax exempt organization). Please believe that when I say "you" , I am NOT trying to personally (ad hominim) attack YOU ... I'm generalizing.
Favors? Me ... nope, not ever. I have no time for favors, what with cleaning neighbors drives, working on the boards of clubs and organizations, helping others with computer problems ... and working way too many hours ... have no time to do favors at all. But ... if you need one, feel free to ask ... I;m well known for getting myself in more hot water because I apparently don't know the meaning of "no".
You are absolutely right, sir, about me NOT representing "phantom everyman" ... I guess I should more correctly have said "phantom taxpayer" to exclude the vast majority of citizenry that depend on our government rather than supporting it.
I'm not sure about wither the smog or other "something"fighting additives and whether fuel would be better or not. Again ... all these were mandated by that government for which you realize I am overly fond of ..... (sorry, I seldom use emoticons, so you have to guess when I'm smiling ... of which I stand accused most of the time).
Hospitals ... yes it is a serious subject and yes, I'm actually quite serious. I am anti-artificailly-life-supporting ... but support, fully, your right be to pro-. I came by my aversion to enforced life and pain honestly - watching my wife painfully suffer through three VERY long years before she finally releived herself of the pain. Served to give me a somewhat different outlook than others ... but, unlike many others - especially the liberal media and public ... I apply it to myself and don't consider others subject to my feelings.
No need to feel bad about bringing it up, if you do, my feelings aren't easily hurt and I've learned that you live life while you have it and don't seweat the small stuff ... and the big stuff you have no control over ...
I'm sorry you disbief my assertion that I can be swayed by logic and proof. The fact that I don't immediately change sides when you say "boo" may only signify that you haven't presented me with (what I consider) adequate proof or logic. Or I may not have reread your comments yet ... or I may not yet consider the topic discussed enough. If you do ... lack of response is enough to terminate the "discussion" ... I usally leave that to the other party since I was brainwashed by my mother to be polite and not walk away from a conversation. Makes me hate sales calls since I can't turn off being olite (which forces my wife to be nice to me and take most phone calls).
Politicians. Sorry ... I guess I was too far out on that one ... my meaning was high level ... country and state governments .. although I have my suspicians about that clown that was jut recall as mayor of Flint. Most dogcatchers, I don't consider as politicians. Rmember, I'm still carrying the baggage of having lived most of my life in Alberta, where jobs like DA, sheriff, dogcatcher, etc are not elected. They're appointed or "real" jobs. I certainly don't consider myself, president of the local chapter of APICS, to be a politician ... I just accepted the position because the chapter would have folded had I refused (no, I'm not that self-important, no one else on the board was willing ...)
wow ... this is getting far too personal ... I guess I'm overly worried about your opinion of my ... which I am NOT usually wont to be.
As for the rest ... again, not going over them point by point is not because you don't have good points ... but because this si a tractor board and I haven't even mentioned my trusty L3710 ... so I'll just finsih by noting that ... yes, I have become pretty much a libertarian and do not personally happen to believe the car insurance is the necessity it has become .. but I obey laws and therefore am insured ... even though many state Democrat voters are not ... costing me an extra $92 per vehicle for uninsured motorist ... oops, no that the catastrophic iunjury pool ... oh well, some liberal fund that I'm forced to support. Personal choices ... now that a different thing, I wear safety equipment - always - because I'm logical - and think people who don't wear seatbelts are idiots and should not be covered by socilaized medicine ... but should have a right to be idiots if they choose.
Again, I do apologize for the fact that you took me more seriously than I'd intended as evidenced by you refusing to be my "pet". Too bad ... my pets get more treats than I do ...
Wing(and a prayer) nut
A lot (not all, mind you) of my "opinion" was intended to keep stirring the pot ... just hate it when everyone is "me, too'ing".
And thanks for ignoring the spelling errors resulting from typing too fast in that small window.
I won't make this as long as your's .. we don't want out host to curtail our free speech.
I never said no exploration had merit ... all I said is "where's the beef" ... show me the business plan outlining what you expect to respolve ... and how you plan to get some benefit back to the taxpayer. Are you seriously trying to tell me that the nifty cooler in my van with the outre cooling system was PLANNED to result - or was it a happy accident.
As I see your comments, you're practcing the "good defence" rukle by asking me to explain my occassional optimism ,,, instead of "you" (NASA, gov, FDA, whomever) having to explain why you deserve my tax dollars.
Again ... do I have to be ashamed to ask "what's in it for me?" when "you" come with hat in hand (well, actually, the IRS doesn't beg, they threaten) for my tax dollars? Yes, tongue in cheek I said "me, me, me" ... and you reacted like a true liberal .... where my idea of a true liberal is one who wants to have society do good ... with MY tax dollars (and usually the good liberal is in a tax exempt organization). Please believe that when I say "you" , I am NOT trying to personally (ad hominim) attack YOU ... I'm generalizing.
Favors? Me ... nope, not ever. I have no time for favors, what with cleaning neighbors drives, working on the boards of clubs and organizations, helping others with computer problems ... and working way too many hours ... have no time to do favors at all. But ... if you need one, feel free to ask ... I;m well known for getting myself in more hot water because I apparently don't know the meaning of "no".
You are absolutely right, sir, about me NOT representing "phantom everyman" ... I guess I should more correctly have said "phantom taxpayer" to exclude the vast majority of citizenry that depend on our government rather than supporting it.
I'm not sure about wither the smog or other "something"fighting additives and whether fuel would be better or not. Again ... all these were mandated by that government for which you realize I am overly fond of ..... (sorry, I seldom use emoticons, so you have to guess when I'm smiling ... of which I stand accused most of the time).
Hospitals ... yes it is a serious subject and yes, I'm actually quite serious. I am anti-artificailly-life-supporting ... but support, fully, your right be to pro-. I came by my aversion to enforced life and pain honestly - watching my wife painfully suffer through three VERY long years before she finally releived herself of the pain. Served to give me a somewhat different outlook than others ... but, unlike many others - especially the liberal media and public ... I apply it to myself and don't consider others subject to my feelings.
No need to feel bad about bringing it up, if you do, my feelings aren't easily hurt and I've learned that you live life while you have it and don't seweat the small stuff ... and the big stuff you have no control over ...
I'm sorry you disbief my assertion that I can be swayed by logic and proof. The fact that I don't immediately change sides when you say "boo" may only signify that you haven't presented me with (what I consider) adequate proof or logic. Or I may not have reread your comments yet ... or I may not yet consider the topic discussed enough. If you do ... lack of response is enough to terminate the "discussion" ... I usally leave that to the other party since I was brainwashed by my mother to be polite and not walk away from a conversation. Makes me hate sales calls since I can't turn off being olite (which forces my wife to be nice to me and take most phone calls).
Politicians. Sorry ... I guess I was too far out on that one ... my meaning was high level ... country and state governments .. although I have my suspicians about that clown that was jut recall as mayor of Flint. Most dogcatchers, I don't consider as politicians. Rmember, I'm still carrying the baggage of having lived most of my life in Alberta, where jobs like DA, sheriff, dogcatcher, etc are not elected. They're appointed or "real" jobs. I certainly don't consider myself, president of the local chapter of APICS, to be a politician ... I just accepted the position because the chapter would have folded had I refused (no, I'm not that self-important, no one else on the board was willing ...)
wow ... this is getting far too personal ... I guess I'm overly worried about your opinion of my ... which I am NOT usually wont to be.
As for the rest ... again, not going over them point by point is not because you don't have good points ... but because this si a tractor board and I haven't even mentioned my trusty L3710 ... so I'll just finsih by noting that ... yes, I have become pretty much a libertarian and do not personally happen to believe the car insurance is the necessity it has become .. but I obey laws and therefore am insured ... even though many state Democrat voters are not ... costing me an extra $92 per vehicle for uninsured motorist ... oops, no that the catastrophic iunjury pool ... oh well, some liberal fund that I'm forced to support. Personal choices ... now that a different thing, I wear safety equipment - always - because I'm logical - and think people who don't wear seatbelts are idiots and should not be covered by socilaized medicine ... but should have a right to be idiots if they choose.
Again, I do apologize for the fact that you took me more seriously than I'd intended as evidenced by you refusing to be my "pet". Too bad ... my pets get more treats than I do ...
Wing(and a prayer) nut
Chuck52
Veteran Member
Wingnut,
Maybe I'm mis-reading you, but do you really think that conservatives are more likely to support death-with-dignity laws than liberals? This is probably not one of those cut and dried, liberal vs conservative issues, which are pretty non existent anyway, but my impression is that the "liberal" press by-and-large supports such laws. I certainly do, as does my nurse wife, who will make sure I have the needed paperwork ready if I get to that point.
Chuck
Maybe I'm mis-reading you, but do you really think that conservatives are more likely to support death-with-dignity laws than liberals? This is probably not one of those cut and dried, liberal vs conservative issues, which are pretty non existent anyway, but my impression is that the "liberal" press by-and-large supports such laws. I certainly do, as does my nurse wife, who will make sure I have the needed paperwork ready if I get to that point.
Chuck
Wingnut -
Ok, I'll reply. I tried to make this short (honestly), but I tend to be verbose. (My wife gets on my case about it all the time.../w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif)
I think the whole issue was that we were at two different ends of the "conversation" spectrum. You were far more to the "entertainment" end while I was far more to the "serious" end. /w3tcompact/icons/frown.gif The other main problem is it is hard to reflect emotion in text, (e.g. seriousness, playfulness, etc.) With all that in consideration....
(1) spelling errors - No problem - I cheat and use spell checkers all the time, so since I live in a glass house, I wasn't about to throw stones! /w3tcompact/icons/clever.gif
(2) "Planned result" - Well, no, I don't think that there was ever a business plan to help Igloo capture the market for coolers or Tang to become the new breakfast beverage - by your definition, then, yes, they are "happy accidents".
My point was that I seriously doubt anyone would have sat down and thought "lets develop the MRI for medicine!" (or whatever else) without it solving a practical issue for the space program first. Could it have been developed without the S.P. - perhaps, but where you appear convinced it would have, I'm less optimistic.
Actually, its kindof funny in that your feeling seems to reflect my point exactly, in that your cooler was NEVER PLANNED to be a spinoff, but may never have resulted without the space program (I'm just using your cooler as an example, as I really don't know if the S.P. contributed to Igloo coolers or not.)
(3) "good defense" - Yes, I was asking you to defend your arguments, but at the same time, I believed I provided a "good offence" by trying to back mine up with logic processes & practical examples. My approach was to not just use "smoke & mirrors" but to play a "good game" from "both sides of the ball."
(4) "Tax money" - Do you have to be ashamed of wanting to know where your tax money goes? ABSOLUTELY NOT! That was never my point (and I don't believe I implied that). My point was although you don't "see" the practical benefits to space stuff, I do, and unfortunately, there's no such thing as a "free lunch." Everything costs something.
(5) "liberal definition" - Ha! /w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif If my wife only knew that I was accused of using "liberal arguments" to justify my perspective!!! I'd agree with you basic definition of liberal - but I think that you have taken what I said and extrapolated that into my beliefs regarding "other stuff." On the whole, I would say that yes, I'd like society, as a whole, to be good, decent, and caring. (e.g. completely UNLIKE anything ******, Stalin, etc. had in mind.)
Now, that being said, it’s a -H U G E- leap to say that I believe in a "welfare state" or other "government is our parent" stuff. It appears that you are equating "society" with "government". Yes, I want to live in a society where neighbors help neighbors, people follow the "golden rule", etc. Do I want a government playing "wealth redistribution" or creating "universal healthcare" or deliberately wasting money in other ways - er, no...
(6) "Favors" - See, I knew you were probably a helpful kind of guy.
(7) "fuel additives" - what I was really speaking to was all of the extra "junk" they bolt on to new cars, and not fuel "additives" per se. I can't offer "hard evidence" here other than to say I've yet to see a vehicle go down in "power" once that stuff was removed (e.g. more power per unit of fuel, more efficient use of said fuel).
(8) "hospitals" - I really wasn't speaking to long term life support technology - and I agree with you on that one (that's what I have dictated already for myself - no "long term stays" if things go South). What I was referring to is the other stuff that has been developed that helps people recover and lead productive lives. Years ago before the MRI & CT scans (for example), we had only basic X-rays, which didn't give near the detail as the newer technologies. With these new technologies, doctors could more effectively treat their patients. Does that mean every person who is in a serious car wreck will survive? No, but if I am unlucky enough to be in one, I'd much rather the trauma surgeon use advanced optical technology and MRI scans than use a magnifying glass and an old fashioned X-ray.
(9) "Logic" - Although I agree with you that nobody should be "wishy-washy" and "jump philosophical ship" at the first hint of another idea, based on your previous messages, when I attempted to offer up evidence, it was dismissed with no logical arguments I could find. I understand the concept of "sheer weight of evidence", but also believe in the concept of "reasonable doubt". "Reasonable doubt" is a far cry from "no doubt" - if no doubt was the standard, we wouldn't have any criminals locked up! But that's another subject.../w3tcompact/icons/eyes.gif
If we were to have a logically based discussion, I'd have expected that you would link your arguments with more "evidence" and pick away at my perspective with logical arguments instead emotional ones. (Again, it appears that this may be due to your motivation - i.e. a sparing match).
(10) "Walk away" - Well, believe it or not, I hate to walk away from a conversation too, but there's always a point when you need to know "when to hold 'em & when to fold 'em." I felt like no matter what I said, I'd have 0 chance of convincing you of my viewpoint. If that was my goal (which it was) and there is 0% chance of achieving said goal, why do it? (i.e. you can lead a horse to water, but can't make him drink) It's kindof like a bad general throwing men into battle - unless they have a chance of wining the battle or if they have no chance of winning the battle but it helps achieve a larger objective (like winning the war), why do it?
I guess this whole thing made me revert to my collegiate days when I would discuss the subject of gun control with peers who had bought in to the whole media-hyped benefits thereof. No matter what information you brought to them, no matter what the source, it would be dismissed and they would pull out the name-calling "card" to try and bolster their argument.
(11) Politicians - We may be closer together on this than it initially appeared (although I've known some really corrupt local politicians and consider some national ones are probably really good people.) /w3tcompact/icons/hmm.gif
(12) Irony - The ironic thing about this whole thing is that we are probably a lot closer together on a lot of our opinions than it would appear on the surface.
I guess this all boils down to you and I, while we probably see things the same way on a lot of other subjects (and boy have we gone there!), we will continue to disagree on the value of the space program. So be it - it isn't the end of the world /w3tcompact/icons/tongue.gif. Believe it or not, I'm not really any kind of "space nut", so although I do have beliefs, and passions, this isn't the area where they really lie (or is that "lay" - I always have trouble with the Lie/Lay grammar thing....) This 'discussion' has taken a lot more energy than I thought it would. (worn me out, actually).
I'm not a "quitter" by any means, but I'd rather focus my thoughts elsewhere (as you suggest when you mention your L3710). I think that's fair - We can have a truce and agree to disagree in this arena. (Plus I’m sure the rest of TBN folks are rather tired of us ‘going at it’)
PS: The 'faces' were inserted in an attempt to prove my blood pressure has returned to normal. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif
Ok, I'll reply. I tried to make this short (honestly), but I tend to be verbose. (My wife gets on my case about it all the time.../w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif)
I think the whole issue was that we were at two different ends of the "conversation" spectrum. You were far more to the "entertainment" end while I was far more to the "serious" end. /w3tcompact/icons/frown.gif The other main problem is it is hard to reflect emotion in text, (e.g. seriousness, playfulness, etc.) With all that in consideration....
(1) spelling errors - No problem - I cheat and use spell checkers all the time, so since I live in a glass house, I wasn't about to throw stones! /w3tcompact/icons/clever.gif
(2) "Planned result" - Well, no, I don't think that there was ever a business plan to help Igloo capture the market for coolers or Tang to become the new breakfast beverage - by your definition, then, yes, they are "happy accidents".
My point was that I seriously doubt anyone would have sat down and thought "lets develop the MRI for medicine!" (or whatever else) without it solving a practical issue for the space program first. Could it have been developed without the S.P. - perhaps, but where you appear convinced it would have, I'm less optimistic.
Actually, its kindof funny in that your feeling seems to reflect my point exactly, in that your cooler was NEVER PLANNED to be a spinoff, but may never have resulted without the space program (I'm just using your cooler as an example, as I really don't know if the S.P. contributed to Igloo coolers or not.)
(3) "good defense" - Yes, I was asking you to defend your arguments, but at the same time, I believed I provided a "good offence" by trying to back mine up with logic processes & practical examples. My approach was to not just use "smoke & mirrors" but to play a "good game" from "both sides of the ball."
(4) "Tax money" - Do you have to be ashamed of wanting to know where your tax money goes? ABSOLUTELY NOT! That was never my point (and I don't believe I implied that). My point was although you don't "see" the practical benefits to space stuff, I do, and unfortunately, there's no such thing as a "free lunch." Everything costs something.
(5) "liberal definition" - Ha! /w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif If my wife only knew that I was accused of using "liberal arguments" to justify my perspective!!! I'd agree with you basic definition of liberal - but I think that you have taken what I said and extrapolated that into my beliefs regarding "other stuff." On the whole, I would say that yes, I'd like society, as a whole, to be good, decent, and caring. (e.g. completely UNLIKE anything ******, Stalin, etc. had in mind.)
Now, that being said, it’s a -H U G E- leap to say that I believe in a "welfare state" or other "government is our parent" stuff. It appears that you are equating "society" with "government". Yes, I want to live in a society where neighbors help neighbors, people follow the "golden rule", etc. Do I want a government playing "wealth redistribution" or creating "universal healthcare" or deliberately wasting money in other ways - er, no...
(6) "Favors" - See, I knew you were probably a helpful kind of guy.
(7) "fuel additives" - what I was really speaking to was all of the extra "junk" they bolt on to new cars, and not fuel "additives" per se. I can't offer "hard evidence" here other than to say I've yet to see a vehicle go down in "power" once that stuff was removed (e.g. more power per unit of fuel, more efficient use of said fuel).
(8) "hospitals" - I really wasn't speaking to long term life support technology - and I agree with you on that one (that's what I have dictated already for myself - no "long term stays" if things go South). What I was referring to is the other stuff that has been developed that helps people recover and lead productive lives. Years ago before the MRI & CT scans (for example), we had only basic X-rays, which didn't give near the detail as the newer technologies. With these new technologies, doctors could more effectively treat their patients. Does that mean every person who is in a serious car wreck will survive? No, but if I am unlucky enough to be in one, I'd much rather the trauma surgeon use advanced optical technology and MRI scans than use a magnifying glass and an old fashioned X-ray.
(9) "Logic" - Although I agree with you that nobody should be "wishy-washy" and "jump philosophical ship" at the first hint of another idea, based on your previous messages, when I attempted to offer up evidence, it was dismissed with no logical arguments I could find. I understand the concept of "sheer weight of evidence", but also believe in the concept of "reasonable doubt". "Reasonable doubt" is a far cry from "no doubt" - if no doubt was the standard, we wouldn't have any criminals locked up! But that's another subject.../w3tcompact/icons/eyes.gif
If we were to have a logically based discussion, I'd have expected that you would link your arguments with more "evidence" and pick away at my perspective with logical arguments instead emotional ones. (Again, it appears that this may be due to your motivation - i.e. a sparing match).
(10) "Walk away" - Well, believe it or not, I hate to walk away from a conversation too, but there's always a point when you need to know "when to hold 'em & when to fold 'em." I felt like no matter what I said, I'd have 0 chance of convincing you of my viewpoint. If that was my goal (which it was) and there is 0% chance of achieving said goal, why do it? (i.e. you can lead a horse to water, but can't make him drink) It's kindof like a bad general throwing men into battle - unless they have a chance of wining the battle or if they have no chance of winning the battle but it helps achieve a larger objective (like winning the war), why do it?
I guess this whole thing made me revert to my collegiate days when I would discuss the subject of gun control with peers who had bought in to the whole media-hyped benefits thereof. No matter what information you brought to them, no matter what the source, it would be dismissed and they would pull out the name-calling "card" to try and bolster their argument.
(11) Politicians - We may be closer together on this than it initially appeared (although I've known some really corrupt local politicians and consider some national ones are probably really good people.) /w3tcompact/icons/hmm.gif
(12) Irony - The ironic thing about this whole thing is that we are probably a lot closer together on a lot of our opinions than it would appear on the surface.
I guess this all boils down to you and I, while we probably see things the same way on a lot of other subjects (and boy have we gone there!), we will continue to disagree on the value of the space program. So be it - it isn't the end of the world /w3tcompact/icons/tongue.gif. Believe it or not, I'm not really any kind of "space nut", so although I do have beliefs, and passions, this isn't the area where they really lie (or is that "lay" - I always have trouble with the Lie/Lay grammar thing....) This 'discussion' has taken a lot more energy than I thought it would. (worn me out, actually).
I'm not a "quitter" by any means, but I'd rather focus my thoughts elsewhere (as you suggest when you mention your L3710). I think that's fair - We can have a truce and agree to disagree in this arena. (Plus I’m sure the rest of TBN folks are rather tired of us ‘going at it’)
PS: The 'faces' were inserted in an attempt to prove my blood pressure has returned to normal. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif
Wingnut
Veteran Member
Chuck, Chuck, Chuck ... you KNOW I label everyone who doesn't immediately agree with me a liberal, ha.
Remember that in my lifetime (in Canada), Liberals and Conservatives are actual parties. (Actually the conservatives are PC or progressive conservatives). As opposed to labels to stick on people.
So, yes, in my pre-Michigan world at least, Liberals were the ones fighting for more socialized medicine where you have little or no say in what treatment you get. The conservative Conservative party on the other hand, want less social (i.e. bureaucrat-controlled) medicine and more patient input and responsibility.
The Liberal laws ensured that when my previous wife attempted to abate her pain by taking her life, and failed, she was arrested "for her own protection".
Personally, my belief is that I have no right to tell you what to do with your life .... unless you're endangering mine (and then you better have your will made out) ... and therefore, nobody has a right to dictate my life ... unless I'm endangering others.
I fully realize that I have to make sacrifices to co-exist in thuis society ... but some bug me more than others.
The "liberal press" (gosh, you think one actually exists? I thought that was some kind of "hate speech") supports anything that conservatives are against, nicht wahr? So, yes, they glorify Holland because it irritates the religeous right. Don't however, mistake the beliefs of the vocal minority in the religious right with the ranks of the generally conservative and the libertarians. Some of us prefer common sense to rules nobody had input to.
I somehow have a problem believing that the Oregon I've visited so often is a real hotbed or liberalism.
On the other hand ... I don't see a real death-with-dignity movement in the "red" states of Mass., Cal. or NY?
I think this subject, as is medical care in general, is a personal choice issues that transcends political or philosophical beliefs .... and could quickly change should the unthinkable happen as was suggested by RanchMan.
I know that my beliefs certainly solidified when Dorothy's health deteriorated to the extent that she would think death would at least relieve me of a "burden".
as the chinese curse goes: "may you live in interesting times"
Wingnut
Remember that in my lifetime (in Canada), Liberals and Conservatives are actual parties. (Actually the conservatives are PC or progressive conservatives). As opposed to labels to stick on people.
So, yes, in my pre-Michigan world at least, Liberals were the ones fighting for more socialized medicine where you have little or no say in what treatment you get. The conservative Conservative party on the other hand, want less social (i.e. bureaucrat-controlled) medicine and more patient input and responsibility.
The Liberal laws ensured that when my previous wife attempted to abate her pain by taking her life, and failed, she was arrested "for her own protection".
Personally, my belief is that I have no right to tell you what to do with your life .... unless you're endangering mine (and then you better have your will made out) ... and therefore, nobody has a right to dictate my life ... unless I'm endangering others.
I fully realize that I have to make sacrifices to co-exist in thuis society ... but some bug me more than others.
The "liberal press" (gosh, you think one actually exists? I thought that was some kind of "hate speech") supports anything that conservatives are against, nicht wahr? So, yes, they glorify Holland because it irritates the religeous right. Don't however, mistake the beliefs of the vocal minority in the religious right with the ranks of the generally conservative and the libertarians. Some of us prefer common sense to rules nobody had input to.
I somehow have a problem believing that the Oregon I've visited so often is a real hotbed or liberalism.
On the other hand ... I don't see a real death-with-dignity movement in the "red" states of Mass., Cal. or NY?
I think this subject, as is medical care in general, is a personal choice issues that transcends political or philosophical beliefs .... and could quickly change should the unthinkable happen as was suggested by RanchMan.
I know that my beliefs certainly solidified when Dorothy's health deteriorated to the extent that she would think death would at least relieve me of a "burden".
as the chinese curse goes: "may you live in interesting times"
Wingnut
