Bulgaroctonus

Perhaps, but remember this conversation is digital! The effect of hot 'bytes' or otherwise antic bits of binary code on global warming is at this juncture unknown.

Shek

But this digital conversation requires electricity, and since the majority of the participants are Americans, results in the release of carbons into the atmosphere while producing the requisite electricity.

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

Bulgaroctonus

Yes, this conversation does require electricity. Much of that electricity is created by burning fossil fuels, thus releasing carbon and hot air into the atmosphere. It appears we have dilemma. Can we still run the World Affairs Board in good conscience? Can we use any fossil fuels in good conscience?

Far be it from me to care about good conscience, but I feel the Amish life calling.

Shek

The effect on the conscience requires the discussion to revolve around whether this release of carbons into the atmosphere has the purported effect of all the studies touted by environmentalists, and with that, the discussion has gone full circle.

Bulgaroctonus

The programs I am espousing are not direct discrimination against obese people. While I have a disgust for misuse of the human body, I recognize that it is against explicit U.S. law to discriminate against a group of people.

That being said, I shall clarify my position. Agencies like the FDA have the power to control the supply of dangerous and unhealthy substances. That power is inherent in the framework of the FDA as outlined in 1906 by the Wiley Act. This power has historically been used to refuse consumers certain products, such as chemical-ridden meat and other unsavory items. The FDA has also curtailed tobacco advertising and has generally been hostile to the that industry.

This authority, which was granted by Congress, is directly applicable to the obesity problem. This problem can be solved without discrimination. The FDA can enact stringent measures on the companies that produce junk food, which has been proven to be injurious to humans. These measures will include absolute disclosure of the health threats posed by these items, the removal of very dangerous foods, and education about the dangers of junk food.

I recognize your Constitutional qualms about this issue. However, it is in our nation's best interest to assure good health and productivity for its citizens. The suggested campaign against obesity would be similar to the campaign against drugs and cigarettes. Obesity can be as harmful, if not more so, than drugs and cigarettes.

Fortunately, your libertarian opinion was not one held by the majority when our government was being formed. Such a blithe dismissal of government power leads to weakness of our nation. A fault of many minds is to seek political extremes. That is, some people want absolutely no government control (pure capitalism), while others desire an autocratic government. This is a false dilemma. The best path lies in the middle, where both free-market dynamics can prosper, and the government can ensure the success of America. This is similar to the status quo, a fine balance between liberty and regulation.

In all things, moderation.

I also wish to draw your attention to the motivations of the founding fathers. They wrote the Constitution in the context of the failed Articles of Confederation. These Articles were a libertarian triumph, but were also a failure for the nation, predictably so.

Therefore, the writers of the Constitution did not desire a powerless government, as you might be inclined to think. They had seen the effects of that disastrous experiment. Article I was not meant to be weak and ineffectual.

No.

Obviously, I need to draft up my whole tax plan. However, before I do that, I want to reinforce that the measures I have planned are most likely of the non-coercive sorts. That is, fat people will not be penalized for being fat (other than the inherent health penalties). Instead they will be offered money in the form of tax relief if they clean up their act. This is in the nation's best interest to offer these incentives, because they encourage obese people to live longer and increase their productivity.

I hate that Benjamin Franklin quote for several reasons. First, I had to hear it all the time during my CVC debates in school. Secondly, it is often misused (like in this case). Thirdly, people assume that good Mr. Franklin is always right. Well, let me show that the honorable Franklin need not be here.

Your use of the quote is not proper here. This is largely because no one is giving up any essential liberties. My entire plan is within the context of nutritional legislation and regulation (as per the FDA) and non-coercive tax measures. You can continue to believe that these constitute a grave infringement on our liberties, but I deem that unreasonable. You will have to explain to me where and how our rights will be taken away.

The second part of the quote is also inappropriate in this case. We are not talking about security, but basic bodily health and economic productivity.

Mr. Brandeis makes a good point. However, I want to reinforce that the anti-obesity measures I am considering are not abrogations of Constitutional rights. Look at cigarettes and drugs. One could easily say that the government's measures against those items constituted discrimination against drug and cigarette users. However, banning those substances has proven to be a good thing. Few, if any, rights were infringed upon, and life has gone on.

Confed, I recognize your fears. Valuable as they are in some contexts, I think your fears are unnecessary concerning this topic. Perhaps your efforts are better spent against the PATRIOT Act, or something else that actually poses a threat to our liberties.

I know what Unconstitutional means. Is there actually a term 'Non Constitutional?'

Good to see we can agree, albeit on small points.

It is infantile to continue with the Pol Pot reference. You equate gentle measures against obesity (a health issue) to some kind of tyrannical experiment in the jungles of Cambodia.

This is called the 'red herring' approach to debating. Not only is it an invalid logical method, but it also annoys me. I have to comment every time against this thing. It is a waste of time, and a perversion of logical argument.

I guess if you just spoke explicitly and with meaning, I wouldn't have to waste time on that nonsense.

Your Pol Pot analogy is nonsense and hogwash, rubbish, trash, and all assortment of scum and villainy.

Bulgaroctonus

Frustrating isn't it? The circle? I encountered the same damn problem with my Free Will arguments against Monk and Praxus, although it was the latter that keenly deciphered the problem.

You know, we really should write about Global Warming again. However, I feel compelled to answer all of these ridiculous Pol Pot/Death Camp ideas. My reputation is at stake, and swords have been drawn.

clegane

That's true but look at this
I promise it has nothing to do with pirates.

There is correlation, and I'll grant you that I haven't cited causation yet and I probably won't since I don't have that much time on my hands.

__________________
"Its true, we add insult to injury, but... you add the injury"
-Jon Stewart to Bill O'Reilly

Bulgaroctonus

I sense that this post will be the mother of many others. Man does not require reason to live. He may require reason for advanced neurological functions. For example, differential caluculus and quantum mechanics are impossible without the exercise of reason.

However, I think that all of man's basic biological functions operate at the subconscious and subrational level (i.e. heartbeat, breathing, etc.)

Force does not inhibit the intellect, maybe too much force does. A certain amount of discipline (proper and regimented force) is necessary for the proper growth of intellect. But this warrants a long discussion.

I sense the ghosts of Locke, Rousseau, and all the Enlightenment speaking in this post.

Praxus

Don't use reason for the next week, then lets see what happens. If you survive it will be because of the application of reason by others.

Sure, your immediate needs for survival (i.e. heartbeat, breath, et al) are met subconsciously, but not your mid-term and long term requirements. The preparation of food requires reason. The consumption of food requires the same. If you get sick, reason, through medicine can bring you back to health. Reason tells you not to jump out of a window, not to drink poison, not to burn yourself to death, etc.



Correction, the initiation of force inhibits the intellect. The proper use of force in retaliation or in the raising of a child is not included. This in itself requires an entirely different thread. If you wish to discuss it, I'd be more then happy to post in a new thread. In other words this only applies to an adult human with a fully developed brain.

Shek

Hey, I noticed that the pirate chart didn't have any data reflecting the cruiseline attack. I think pirates are on the rise.

As far as the last link, the way that I am reading the link is that temperature increases lag CO2 increases by 400-1000 years. So, the conclusion I draw is that current warming trends are related to the devestation and ravaging of the Middle Ages. I guess our great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great,
great grandkids are screwed!

Bulgaroctonus

You mean if I didn't think at all. Do you mean that reason is synonomous with thought? I need clarification.

Bulgaroctonus

I will agree that the exercise of reason is conducive to success. Another question: Does reason form the basis of our motivations? Or is reason a tool for the execution of motivations that have their basis in the subconscious? I think a neurologist might be best qualified to answer some of these questions.

The reason why I take issue with your emphasis on reason is that I generally do not view man a perfectly rational animal. I think that psychological approaches that emphasize the subconscious have been more helpful than the systems that emphasize pure reason. To me, it seems that most, if not all, of our motivations are based on subconscious agents. Reason may form the method of execution of those motives.

All things considered, another good conversation!

It does require a longer thread. I have enough threads to monitor right now, but create one if you want. As per my Nietzschean upbringing, I love the exercise of force. Quite often it is invigorating and strengthening to the intellect.

I much prefer victory and strength to an enervated intellect alone.

Praxus

I meant to include the definition of reason but I would have edited after you posted, so here it is: Reason is the faculty that perceives, identifies and integrates the material provided by his senses.

Praxus

I agree that not everyone excercises reason to it's full capacity. Many people follow their emotions, but even then they require reason to an extent to carry out what their emotions tell them, as you say.

Bulgaroctonus

Alright, that's acceptable. By reason you mean 'intelligence.' I'll agree that intelligence is essential to success.