• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we allow people to die?

Peter Grimm

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Messages
10,348
Reaction score
2,426
Location
The anals of history
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Every now and then, people show you their true colors.

I spent the last few days riding around in a car with a lesbian photographer from Colorado and a Belgian lady.... needless to say, both were uber-liberal.... and needless to say, we got in to some political debates.

We started to talk about food and energy. Typical of liberal opinion, they felt that the United States is way behind, that we're awful for being the champions of fossil fuels and genetically engineered food, and that we should be more like Europe in our support of non-modified food and alternative fuels.

I calmly let them know my opinion: Liberals are influenced by European thought, and Europeans 1.) don't have many fossil fuels and 2.) don't have a lot of sunlight or land to farm. It's in Europe's self-interest to create a world of alternative energy and in which food production can be kept local.

They had never heard this argument before, and I could tell it sparked thought in them. The lady from Belgium started to agree somewhat with me, but the lesbian from Colorado started to dig in her liberal heels.

I then put the final nail in the coffin.... "If we didn't have cheap fossil fuels that we can easily transport, and if we didn't have these super-crops we have today, we could never support the population levels we have today. There is no way on earth we could ever feed the whole world like we are doing now.

This argument cut deep, and neither one said anything for about 2 minutes.


Their reply, when it finally came, shocked me. But I think it struck at the heart of how liberals think.

"Sometimes we just need to let people die. It's for the good of the earth. Famine and death are part of how the earth regulates itself. I don't think we should help people in any other part of the world."

Wow, was I ever shocked. What a horrible, ugly thing to say! In my opinion, we have a responsibility to our fellow human beings. I let them know that. And we were at an impasse.

So I leave it to you. Do we have a responsibility to our fellow human beings to create enough food and energy to keep them alive, or should we switch to windmills and organic food so that Europe can be wealthier?
 
Well..... forgot to post the poll.

1.) Yes. Allow billions of people to die so that we can have organic food and windmills

2.) No. Produce as much food and energy as we can because human beings have a responsibility to one another.
 
What a complete and utter false dichotomy. Researching an applying alternate energies will not cause people to die of starvation.
 
What a complete and utter false dichotomy. Researching an applying alternate energies will not cause people to die of starvation.

Switching off fossil fuels will absolutely kill billions of people. What do you think tractors run on, buddy? Hint: it ain't butterfly farts.
 
How about a non-biased, non-loaded fair poll ?
I do not care for the "lesbian" reference .. what difference can this make ?
When a man's time has come , I do favor that he be allowed to die .. in dignity, NOT on life support ..
One reason why we "liberals" follow Europe is that they are simply ahead of us, as well they should be ,,
 
Switching off fossil fuels and mandating alternative energies will absolutely kill billions. What do you think tractors run on, buddy?

Ah right, so when you are caught using a logical fallacy you double down on it. Carry on.
 
i read the OP, and it's a false dichotomy.
 
In my opinion, we have a responsibility to our fellow human beings.

I find that opinion very refreshing coming from a conservative.

GMOs have and will continue to save millions, if not billions, from starvation. The phobia over GMOs is irrational and the women you debated with were ill informed.

As for alternative sources of energy? We should all be in favor of alternative sources of energy. Even if you don't believe in AGW wouldn't you prefer a clean source of energy that doesn't pollute the air? We should always be trying to find better ways of doing things.

But no, we shouldn't abandon fossil fuels in the meantime if it means people will die.
 
People are dying now as a result of policies... switching policies just means different people are going to die as a result.
 
Ah right, so when you are caught using a logical fallacy you double down on it. Carry on.

This might be hard for you, but try to follow along. I'll try to use small words.

Farm equipment runs on mostly petroleum. Fertilizers are mostly petroleum based. If you cut petroleum production, we would not be able to produce as much food.

GMO's are genetically modified crops that increase food output, sometimes dramatically. If you banned them, you wouldn't be able to produce as much food.


If you have less food, you will have less people.
 
This might be hard for you, but try to follow along. I'll try to use small words.

Please do, because it is just so difficult following along with this narrow thinking of yours.

Farm equipment runs on mostly petroleum. Fertilizers are mostly petroleum based. If you cut petroleum production, we would not be able to produce as much food.

Who said alternate energies would cut petroleum production? Or for that matter, who said it is impossible to create farm equipment and fertilizer that doesn't relay on oils?

GMO's are genetically modified crops that increase food output, sometimes dramatically. If you banned them, you wouldn't be able to produce as much food.

There is no serious threat to ban GMO's.

If you have less food, you will have less people.

Sure, but who says it is impossible to have our cake and eat it to when it comes to discovering and using alternate energies?
 
I find that opinion very refreshing coming from a conservative.

GMOs have and will continue to save millions, if not billions, from starvation. The phobia over GMOs is irrational and the women you debated with were ill informed.

As for alternative sources of energy? We should all be in favor of alternative sources of energy. Even if you don't believe in AGW wouldn't you prefer a clean source of energy that doesn't pollute the air? We should always be trying to find better ways of doing things.

But no, we shouldn't abandon fossil fuels in the meantime if it means people will die.

I'm all for alternative energy but then someone needs to figure out how to do it cheaper and more effectively than fossil fuels. These women were talking about cutting off fossil fuels. That's ridiculous.

There should be no attempt made to harm fossil fuel production. Only if something better comes along should we move in that direction.

Because remember, not only do you need petroleum for fuel, you need it for plastics and fertilizer as well.
 
Please do, because it is just so difficult following along with this narrow thinking of yours.



Who said alternate energies would cut petroleum production? Or for that matter, who said it is impossible to create farm equipment and fertilizer that doesn't relay on oils?



There is no serious threat to ban GMO's.



Sure, but who says it is impossible to have our cake and eat it to when it comes to discovering and using alternate energies?

Well, now you're moving the goalposts. If someone discovers some magical fuel that can replace everything fossil fuels gives us, I'm all for it.

In my OP, I mentioned the stance that these two women had, which was that 1.) GMO's are bad and need to be banned (they were going to a Monsanto march, which is a liberal rally to get rid of GMO's) 2.) We need to tax and limit petroleum production, stop fracking altogether, and dump a bunch of money in to researching alternative fuels..... money gotten by a carbon tax and a tax on oil.
 
We should allow false dichotomies to die.
 
Well, now you're moving the goalposts. If someone discovers some magical fuel that can replace everything fossil fuels gives us, I'm all for it.

I haven't moved the goalposts at all. I merely presented that your doomsday proposal that presenting alternate fuels won't kill millions of people.

In my OP, I mentioned the stance that these two women had, which was that 1.) GMO's are bad and need to be banned (they were going to a Monsanto march, which is a liberal rally to get rid of GMO's) 2.) We need to tax and limit petroleum production, stop fracking altogether, and dump a bunch of money in to researching alternative fuels..... money gotten by a carbon tax and a tax on oil.

And once again you double down on your logical fallacy that depends on a anecdote about your personal life.
 
I haven't moved the goalposts at all. I merely presented that your doomsday proposal that presenting alternate fuels won't kill millions of people.



And once again you double down on your logical fallacy that depends on a anecdote about your personal life.

Alright well, we'll wait around for your magical alternative fuel to be invented but in the meantime.... any liberal going to Monsanto marches or supporting crazy ideas like carbon taxes or increased oil taxes are basically rooting for people to die.
 
Remember kids, because we're currently using certain technologies, we can't replace them with newer and better ones!

Also, "sometimes we just need to let people die" seems to be the mantra of the right when sending young (poor, often non-white) men to die for oil profiteering and to kill Muslims.
 
Remember kids, because we're currently using certain technologies, we can't replace them with newer and better ones!

Also, "sometimes we just need to let people die" seems to be the mantra of the right when sending young (poor, often non-white) men to die for oil profiteering and to kill Muslims.


Why do so many liberals go to protests against GMO's? Why do so many liberals support a gas tax hike, or support banning fracking? These things have nothing to do with supporting new technologies.... they're just trying to bury the current ones.

And if people in Africa starve? Oh well. At least a few pelicans in California will have their nests undisturbed. And the French will make a killing on their nuclear energy plants.
 
It means a lot more people will die. Less food = less people.

Who said that we have to shut off current food production to achieve the desired result in the end?

They were just being dramatic but the sentiment regarding the outcome is logical and fine.
 
Back
Top Bottom