The Big Issues page 2 (locked)

61 posts

Flag Post

Global Warming

Few (though I won’t say none) will try to argue that the earth isn’t warming up. However, there are three major points that come up when discussing global warming. First, is the warming anthropogenic (i.e. man-caused)? Secondly, is it even a concern, or is the warming we’re seeing not enough to do any appreciable damage? And finally, should the government be legislating change based on these findings? The first two questions will remain within the scope of this topic, while the third will be reserved for the politics discussion on “The Green Movement”.


Affirmative Opinion, by Navarre:

Fun Fact #1: Climate change is happening and it is our fault

Fun Fact #2: The temperature is increasing to rise

Fun Fact #3: This isn’t part of a natural cycle

Fan Fact #4: This cannot be explained by the sun or other factors

The global temperature is rising -

Global Temperature is clearly linked to CO2 levels -

CO2 levels are higher than they should be in the natural cycle because of human emissions -

Observed temperatures correlate most closely with climate forcasts that take into account human emissions than ‘natural’ CO2 levels -

Climate change will not increase temperature everywhere. Someplace’s will cool down because the rising temperature will disrupt the gulf stream.


Negative Opinion, not yet written:


Relative Forum Links:

Global Warming

Evolution; Scientific fact or believed by faith?

Theories of Evolution can never be right

 
Flag Post

[moved to the Evolution post]

 
Flag Post

Wonderful, thank you Navarre!! If it’s okay with you, I’ll delete your post so we don’t have duplicates within the same thread (I’ve already moved your contents to the Evolution entry in this thread).

 
Flag Post

Fine with me.

 
Flag Post

we get it guys…….

 
Flag Post

Uh…what?

Also, Navarre, I’ve used your post in the Global Warming thread as the affirmative in that entry. Is that okay? Any changes you’d like to make?

I suppose it’s not a cohesive argument as much as a series of strong points. Lemme know what you think.

 
Flag Post

As you all burn, I’ll be in a spaceship. And I’ll laugh, I’ll laugh the laugh of the laugher.

 
Flag Post

Are you talking about global warming? Or are you a Scientologist?

 
Flag Post

Wait, there’s something about being in a spaceship in Scientology?

 
Flag Post

aliens

 
Flag Post

Not to be off-topic, but you used gov.uk links as sources of fact, which makes me giggle and seriously question the veracity of the data.

 
Flag Post

The Met office is a reliable source.

Phoenix: Cheers for that, I was basically going to do the same. I don’t see the need for many changes, but I might try some at a later time.

 
Flag Post

That doesn’t make sense. Humans are only responsible for 3% of the Carbon Dioxide level…

You know an Adult Tree produces more CO2 than Oxygen. We should grow trees then chop them down when they are fully grown.

Algae produces at the hgihest estimate 90% of the world’s oxygen so we should make them.

 
Flag Post

The difference between the validity of our posts is that I quote my sources, you don’t.

 
Flag Post

Right, so we assume where you get them from is right…

Mabye this is where I got it, except I got it from a book… :O

 
Flag Post

RMcD – This is not a discussion thread. Please do not try to debate any of the points here. If you want to challenge something (unless you think there’s an erroneous source or fact given), please do so in the linked forums, or write a negative opinion that we will post as the official negative argument.

 
Flag Post

Navarre, if God existed, he would defy all the reasons you gave for him not existing by his very nature. God is not merely a form of life. He is supernatural.

On evolution: Natural selection is pretty solid, but even simple single-celled organisms are mind-numbingly complex. Half the proteins could be formed in nature, but the conditions required would kill the other half, and, note spelling, everyone, vice versa. Also, the order of the universe tends to disintegrate, rather than grow, over time. Rocks don’t just randomly fall off cliffs and form castles. Not in a billion years. Not ever.

This isn’t meant to be an extensive refutation, just some basic points.

 
Flag Post

However there is a chance that the rock will fall off and arrange itself as a castle, that’s what evolutions about. Billions of planets, one has to get it right at least.

 
Flag Post

Please allow me to restate the purpose of this thread. It is not a debate thread. Please do not respond to the arguments presented here, unless you are making a factual correction to some error in them. This thread is meant to be a reference so that people can get some of the basic arguments and have links to the threads about them. If you’d like to discuss evolution and God, please do post in the respective threads. We’d love to argue with you there, but this is not the place. :)

 
Flag Post

Pheonix you’re awesome

 
Flag Post

explanation for why your formatting isn’t working

(need to use HTML over 1500 characters)

<img src="angry.gif" alt="Angry" />
 
Flag Post

It’s handy that I can link to my religion post but this thread is a bit pointless if no-one writes the negative opinions.

 
Flag Post

It’s handy that I can link to my religion post but this thread is a bit pointless if no-one writes the negative opinions.

I think that says volumes in of itself.

 
Flag Post

Perhaps it says that the people who hold the opposite opinions don’t possess enough knowledge about the subject in order to create a proper rebuttal. Perhaps it does.

 
Flag Post
What Is Socialism/Marxism? There are plenty of misconceptions about Socialism floating around- I hope you guys don't mind if I start a summary of socialism? If there are any socialists out there I'm sure they can do a better job than I, and I'm not up on many of the further developments beyond Marx and Engels. This might not belong here, as I'm not trying to argue for Socialism, just describe the Socialist point of view. But here goes.... Socialism is a collectivist economic theory. It doesn't deal with personal freedoms and secret police and such, Stalinist-socialism was also authoritarian, and that's the value that made the USSR so undesirable, not its Socialist aspects. Most socialism, including Socialism as envisaged by it's creator Karl Marx, don't wish to restrict personal liberties- and in fact were early proponents of civil rights and gender equality. A key issue with Socialism is the way it views Capitalism- which it views as the problem. This is how capitalism is seen by socialism: The workforce produces the goods and gets them to the shelves. This "workforce" includes all those that are necessary to turn resources into produce and get them to the consumer. The Capitalists pay the workforce in money for what they deem the work put in by the workers is worth. The Capitalists then charge the workforce for that produce, who also make up the consumers, more money than they deemed the work put in was worth. This is "profit". Profit is the gap between the cost to make and the the cost to buy. The Capitalists don't help at all in the effort to fashion resources into produce and get them to shelves, they handle the "profit con"- selling the products for more than it cost to make. Thus, capitalism is inherently unjust, because of the concept of "profit"- of people who don't play any part in the process of turning resources into produce getting not only a portion of the money generated by this work- but most of it. Anything the Capitalist gets is money taken from the workers. It's three people baking a pie and having most of it taken by a fourth who hasn't contributed- there's no possible way the original three can get a share equal to their contribution. I'll try to make it clearer- say it takes five people one hour each to get a banana from a tree to a market. They each get paid 1p for their hours work- total cost 5p. The Capitalists don't help with production, they deal with getting profit from this- so they price the banana at 30p. Common sense would dictate that, seeing as each worker did a fifth of the work required to produce a banana, they would be able to afford a banana after five hours of work, but because of the profit con they have to work thirty hours to afford a banana. Capitalism is thus the theft of the workforce's labour. In short: Under capitalism a worker cannot get a fair share of the fruits of their labour. The Capitalists can get away with this because they own the means of production- which they neither invented, nor built. The things the Capitalists own that gives them free reign to demand the fruits of the labour of others they have no moral right to. Money and property that has been inherited either through the family or through the company- that originally came to be in their possession through unjust means- gifts from a monarch who had no right to the land and money himself, profit from land taken forcefully, profit from slavery etc. In short: the Capitalists that own the means of production that allow them a stranglehold on the workforce have no right to it. Now, that's a simplistic summary of the Socialist view of capitalism. Next- what would socialism change....? Socialism would bring the means of production into the hands of the state (there are various proposed methods, some by force- considering that it would be merely re-taking what was taken from collective humanity by force in the first place- some politically, by for instance disallowing ownership of the means of production to pass hands and when it's current owner dies it becomes property of the state.) Socialism wouldn't seek to redistribute wealth like people seem to think- if you think of wealth as money. It would merely cease to deal in money! A person can keep their money, and trade with it if they wish- but it wouldn't be recognised by the state. As the state owns the means of production, this money would rapidly become obsolete. Under socialism, everyone would be a part of the workforce. Everyone puts in the same amount of hours (less than under capitalism, as everyone would be doing jobs that are necessary. I don't mean "necessary" as in only food, shelter, etc- only work that is necessary to turn resources into produce and get that produce to the consumer, or only work that is necessary to bring a service to the consumer.) The workforce, that is- everyone able to work- would collectively produce a mass of products. Everyone would be paid in a currency only that individual would be able to redeem for produce, and everyone would get an equal amount- having each contributed the same. Four people bake a pie and each gets the same amount of the pie. The price of products would be set by the amount of time taken to make from being a natural resource to being a product in the hands of the consumer. Rarer products would be subject to a kind of rationing (For example, a diamond ring may take the same amount of work to produce as a wooden table, but as a diamond ring is rarer it would have a classification, say a diamond ring would be "Band A" and a Wooden Table "Band B". Both would cost the same amount of Commie-Currency but a person may be restricted to a certain number of Class A products a week, or something similar). Resources would add no cost, as the people collectively own the resources already. So each person gets Commie-Currency equal to the amount of hours they themselves put in- and as everyone puts in the same amount of hours, there's no reason to undervalue. And there's no reason to overvalue (which would prevent welfare for those who need it- overvaluation for work would be impossible because there then just wouldn't be enough). FAQ (I'll add to this if anyone has any questions and such about what Socialism is that I haven't thought to answer). I'll start with a couple of common ones- What about productivity? People when they say this think of profit, would is an alien term, rather than productivity. Under capitalism, people who do the hardest jobs aren't necessarily in it to get more money. Doctors for example- there are easier jobs with greater financial gain. People get into the harder jobs because that's what they want to do with their lives. The only jobs that people do only do because of want of more money are the Capitalist-types that wouldn't exist under Socialism. People who invent new things haven't done it for want of money- they've mostly been people with enough money to not have to work a job in the first place or people who've lived in poverty all their lives while Capitalists profit from their inventions. Productivity, Socialism says, would actually be increased, as people would end up in the jobs they're best suited for and want to do, rather than the ones they maybe aren't as good at but get into because of financial considerations and unequal education. When all jobs give the same financial rewards and everyone has the same education, you're free to aspire to the one you're enthusiastic about, rather than being merely a jobsworth. You can say "Well, wouldn't everyone want to be a rockstar and no one would want to be a binman?" Everyone starts at the bottom and works their way up through the ranks, through competitive examinations- when a person gets to a point they can't pass, they've found the highest that their ability allows. The least-wanted jobs would be filled by a changing roster of people, as they first enter the workforce and after a time graduate. There would be no dead end jobs, all can aspire- and all would seek to excel in their job in order to progress to the next rank if they want to. If they want to stay in the job they're in and not attempt to go higher, they'd be free to do so and it can be expected they'd excel in the job they qualified for as long as they want to do that job- if they ever decide they dislike that career path, they're free to take the tests for other career paths. No one is ever trapped in a job, unless they choose to stay in it- but the more rubbish menial jobs would get done, by people using it as a stepping stone to the next level, and so on until they find their peak! Note that work isn't the whole of a persons life, especially with less hours being worked due to everyone contributing the same. Outside of work people would be free to do as they pleased- paint, make music, watch TV, whatever. Within the law, that isn't the state's business as it isn't the business of other people (who the state represents). If a person wants to make their job their whole life however, they're free to do so and would have a greater chance of progressing due to greater effort and study and self-betterment. It's a meritocracy at it's most pure. What about welfare? I don't think anyone has a problem with people taking a share when they don't work because they aren't able to- the problem with welfare is people who are perfectly able to work but choose not to. The former would be provided for, the latter would not. The latter would get the same education as everyone else, and have the same opportunities to go into work. It wouldn't hurt the system at all to get everyone into work- each person would take what they contribute, and all would contribute the same, so by adding a person to the workforce you're also adding enough total produce to sustain them. What about "dictatorship of the proletariat"? Would I be bossed around by Joe the Plumber? Nope! Under socialism, all who do a job necessary to turn resources into produce and put it in the hands of the consumer are "the proletariat". And that's everyone- the managers and organisers and all. It's just a word to distinguish from the idle few who get the profits under capitalism- the capitalists. Anyway, I'm sure I've missed things out so feel free to ask questions and I'll answer as best I can. This isn't starting an argument about whether socialism is right or wrong, workable or unworkable- it's just an account from the POV of socialism, to try and dispel all the misconceptions (Socialism is more tax! etc.). Communism would be pretty much this, but taken to a point where it self-governs and a State is no longer necessary. That Ayn Rand assumption that Socialism is votes and Communism force is complete nonsense. EDIT: Alright, it's quite long for a summary. It is a summary of several books and essays all rolled into one, though! Also... Christ, it's suddenly one in the morning! G'night!