• 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 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Ummm...why did you keep referring to the woman from Colorado as lesbian? Why can she not just be the woman from Colorado? If some guy says he only has sex with busty women would you call him the big boob lover from Miami?

My guess is you have a problem with lesbians.
 
DA60 said:
Ummm...why did you keep referring to the woman from Colorado as lesbian? Why can she not just be the woman from Colorado? If some guy says he only has sex with busty women would you call him the big boob lover from Miami?

My guess is you have a problem with lesbians.
Click to expand...

Because lesbian women are generally known to be pretty liberal.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Wow, was I ever shocked. What a horrible, ugly thing to say! In my opinion, we have a responsibility to our fellow human beings.
Click to expand...
This from a guy who just said in another thread, tough **** if grandma is taxed out of her home. :roll:

Good grief, you're all over the map.

Bob Blaylock said:
And my mother, in Santa Barbara, a seventy-something widow living in a house that she and my father bought in the 1960s for about $20,000, in which I and my siblings grew up, and which is now worth nearly a million. It's not even a particularly large or fancy house, just one in a community where the cost of housing has skyrocketed. The OP's idea, as described so far, would, if implemented, eventually force my mother, along with many others like her, out of her own home that she and my father worked nearly all their lives to secure.

It takes a special kind of evil to support or advocate, even in ignorance, such a policy.
Click to expand...

Peter Grimm said:
Boo hoo, my millionaire mother has to pay taxes. Oh the humanity.
Click to expand...
 
I hate to break the news to you, but everybody dies eventually.
 
countryboy said:
This from a guy who just said in another thread, tough **** if grandma is taxed out of her home. :roll:

Good grief, you're all over the map.
Click to expand...

Way to bring over a completely unrelated topic over to this thread. Yes, I think someone owning a million dollar home should have to pay tax on it. No, I don't care if it's a grandma.... a million dollars is a million dollars.

And that has literally nothing to do with the OP. So as punishment for your getting out of line, consider this my last response to you on either thread.
 
Peter Grimm said:
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?
Click to expand...


Just an fyi - the lesbian is also a lady so I find the distinction you have made to be more of an anti-gay statement than anything else. In fact, both are women so I find that the use of the word "lady" is signifying that she has more credibility as a woman than the "lesbian" has credibility.

As far as the topic at hand - GMO foods have been around for decades. The effects of GMO's do not show up overnight. I'm not keen on a company like Monsanto telling me that its GMO products are safe for me. Who pays into their research and who would benefit the most?

I do agree with you that we are all responsible one way or another for our fellow human (and animal) companions, but that does not mean that we sally forth with flags waving to promote GMO's and to negate other ways to provide fuel for the continuing growth in the world population.

I believe that the topics of food, energy, and other resources do not belong labeled as conservative vs. liberal. It doesn't matter what one believes; in the end these topics will end up (and are already) affecting everyone regardless of political slant.

People die because the world selectively determines who receives the best resources and who does not. All the GMO food in the world will not feed the starving peoples in third world countries; the issue is working around the world to provide the best leadership so that people of all walks of life can live sustainable lives.

I find it repulsive that any person would think that is it fine to let people die when not by their own choice (such as right to die supporters).
 
Last edited:
Peter Grimm said:
Switching off fossil fuels will absolutely kill billions of people. What do you think tractors run on, buddy? Hint: it ain't butterfly farts.
Click to expand...

Eco-friendly vehicles making farms even greener - Environment - The Independent

The tractor can produce 106 hp/142 kW, and runs on hydrogen stored in tanks, which New Holland believes makes it ideal for farmers.

"Farmers are in a unique position to benefit from hydrogen technology," said a statement from the firm.

"Unlike many people, they have the space to install alternative electricity generation systems, such as solar, wind, biomass or waste, and then store that power as hydrogen."

With more stringent emissions standard on the way for heavy industrial vehicles in both Europe and North America, New Holland could be on to something, although it's not the only group to spot a gap in the market.
Click to expand...

Consumer interest growing in eco-friendly tractors and mowers - John Deere MachineFinder

Being eco-friendly is only a positive if you have the right piece of equipment for your property, says one dealer in Virginia. If a small push mower or electric mower won't do the job for your property, some multi-purpose models are available that can be used in all seasons for pushing snow or pulling up stumps.
Click to expand...

Tractors New Holland TD5 - Models, technical data and characteristics

Tier 3 compliant TD5 engines not only allow overall better working performance, but also dramatically reduce your end-of-the-year fuel bill. For example, the new TD5.90 is 10% more fuel efficient than the current model at maximum torque. This means for a tractor used for 500 hours / year a saving of 1062 litres each year. Just multiply this figure by the cost of litre of diesel and you will be astonished by the amount of savings you can achieve.
Click to expand...

https://www.deere.ca/en_US/corporat...ironmental_stewardship/products/products.page

Our 644K Hybrid Loader goes well beyond burning less fuel while reducing emissions. With its PowerTech™ 6.8-L IT4/Stage IIIB engine, hybrid-electric transmission, and brushless generator, the 644K boasts:
Fuel consumption reductions up to 25%
Operation at constant operator-selected speeds of 1200, 1500, or 1800 RPMs to reduce engine wear, noise levels, and fuel consumption
Quiet operation, with in-cab levels at 68 dBA because the engine does not need to rev up and down
Click to expand...

Seems to me like strides are being made in an environmentally friendly direction... Do you believe that there is no alternative to fossil fuels? Do you believe the technology is moving too slowly? What's the exact point you're making here?
 
Peter Grimm said:
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?
Click to expand...

Well, we can't stop anyone from dying because everyone does it. If they have a will to live they should receive the help they require. My mother died of terminal cancer and if I knew then what I know now, I would have personally shortened her misery. My opinion about euthanasia changed after going through that.
 
It is a false choice. Changing our energy use so suddenly that it would cause famine would be impossible, even if a policy decision was made to do so.

Don't forget that we currently accept many deaths and much illness from air pollution, exposure to toxics and other causes directly related to fossil fuel use and production.

I don't support letting people die, but we should encourage lower birth rates in general, and with the most urgency in places where the population exceeds the carrying capacity of the land.
 
Last edited:
Sadie said:
Just an fyi - the lesbian is also a lady so I find the distinction you have made to be more of an anti-gay statement than anything else. In fact, both are women so I find that the use of the word "lady" is signifying that she has more credibility as a woman than the "lesbian" has credibility.

As far as the topic at hand - GMO foods have been around for decades. The effects of GMO's do not show up overnight. I'm not keen on a company like Monsanto telling me that its GMO products are safe for me. Who pays into their research and who would benefit the most?

I do agree with you that we are all responsible one way or another for our fellow human (and animal) companions, but that does not mean that we sally forth with flags waving to promote GMO's and to negate other ways to provide fuel for the continuing growth in the world population.

I believe that the topics of food, energy, and other resources do not belong labeled as conservative vs. liberal. It doesn't matter what one believes; in the end these topics will end up (and are already) affecting everyone regardless of political slant.

People die because the world selectively determines who receives the best resources and who does not. All the GMO food in the world will not feed the starving peoples in third world countries; the issue is working around the world to provide the best leadership so that people of all walks of life can live sustainable lives.

I find it repulsive that any person would think that is it fine to let people die when not by their own choice (such as right to die supporters).
Click to expand...

Didn't read after the first paragraph. Get over yourself.
 
Peter Grimm said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think your theory is very interesting. I take exception, though, to your description of the two women. So you rode around with an American and a Belgian woman. I'm left wondering whether "ladies" don't work and also why you think that lesbians are "needless to say, ...uber-liberal." Some are conservative; they're just not dickmatized. :roll:
 
nota bene said:
I think your theory is very interesting. I take exception, though, to your description of the two women. So you rode around with an American and a Belgian woman. I'm left wondering whether "ladies" don't work and also why you think that lesbians are "needless to say, ...uber-liberal." Some are conservative; they're just not dickmatized. :roll:
Click to expand...

I have never met a lesbian who is conservative.
 
Peter Grimm said:
I have never met a lesbian who is conservative.
Click to expand...

Mary-Cheney.jpg
 
DA60 said:
Ummm...why did you keep referring to the woman from Colorado as lesbian? Why can she not just be the woman from Colorado? If some guy says he only has sex with busty women would you call him the big boob lover from Miami?

My guess is you have a problem with lesbians.
Click to expand...

I don't think he had any ill intent by mentioning that one of the women was a lesbian. The only problem that seems to exist is that he didn't explain why the fact that she is a lesbian is important enough to mention.
 
Henrin said:
I don't think he had any ill intent by mentioning that one of the women was a lesbian. The only problem that seems to exist is that he didn't explain why the fact that she is a lesbian is important enough to mention.
Click to expand...

The fact that she is a lesbian seems to have nothing to do with the story AND he just described the other one by where she was from and he repeated calling her a lesbian strongly suggests to me he has a problem with lesbians.

Why on Earth would someone who has zero problem with them describe someone as a lesbian but their friend just as anyone else?

You don't agree...so be it.
 
Peter Grimm said:
I have never met a lesbian who is conservative.
Click to expand...

Meet Ruth Davidson, leader of Scottish Conservative Party ...

1411049934473_wps_82_Mandatory_Credit_Photo_by.jpg


Peter Grimm said:
... 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.
Click to expand...

They surely started laughing at the inaccuracies by this point. Certainly the Belgian.:shock:

Europe was fossil fueled before US existed. trades food and everything :lol: whilst maintaining local production. Based on the OP, who knows what your geographic concept of Europe might be.

This part is horse trading over wind turbines, fracking, long established solar panel installation (funded for years by a controversial UK Government scheme which allows people to install the panels, plug them into the national grid and be paid for the energy they supply to the grid). Apparently nowadays, some solar panels don't require much sun, they produce energy just from light. However, large swathes of Europe bakes in the sun for large parts of the year. Sunshine in Europe, shockerooni.

It is in everyone's interests to continue to develop alternative energy. Big business are investing and Government is forcing their hand. There are also things like this going on...

The UK and Norway are to build the world’s longest undersea interconnector – a method of linking up electricity and gas networks – to provide enough low-carbon energy for almost 750,000 British homes.

National Grid and Statnett, the Norwegian transmission system operator, are due to sign the ownership agreement for the 450-mile (730km) interconnector at the British embassy in Oslo, on Thursday. UK and Norway to build world's longest undersea energy interconnector | Business | The Guardian
Click to expand...

or

The proposed 400MW West Islay Tidal Farm will be one of the first commercial scale tidal energy projects in the world. The project is located off the west coast of Islay, the fifth largest island of Scotland. It is being developed by DP Marine Energy (DPME) in partnership with DEME Blue Energy (DBE). The offshore construction works of the project are expected to start by 2015. The tidal farm is expected to start full scale production by 2024.West Islay Tidal Farm - Power Technology
Click to expand...

or

SeaEnergy PLC delivers strategic operational solutions to energy companies around the world.

As an innovation-led offshore energy services business, we work with our clients in the offshore Oil and Gas and renewable industries providing innovative solutions to commercial and technical challenges to improve business performance...

...SeaEnergy was one of the first participants in the offshore wind farm development sector and Ramco, was a pioneer of new markets; for instance it was one of the first foreign companies to work in Azerbaijan...

...Originally adopted by and developed in conjunction with the forensic market, research and development has allowed for market diversification. R2S Visual Asset Management (VAM) now works with 17 international oil and gas operators, including four of the five global super-majors. In parallel, R2S Forensic continues to work in support of police forces and government agencies both in Scotland and internationally Scottish Enterprise: Infinite Possibilities - Sea Energy PLC | Herald Scotland
Click to expand...

If you don't get in on this, you will be out in the cold when your fossils expire and all the eggs fall out of your one basket.

.... "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.
Click to expand...

You don't feed the whole world.

..."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."
Click to expand...

They are some very bad girls, upsetting you like that.

Peter Grimm said:
...
1.) ...Allow billions of people to die so that we can have organic food and windmills
Click to expand...

We have organic food and windmills. No more billions seem to be dying of it than might without it. How many people die or just go mental from non organic farming processes...

2.) ...Produce as much food and energy as we can because human beings have a responsibility to one another.
Click to expand...

The fat people of Europe say, perhaps you could cut out junk food production and improve the world in that way.
 
Sorry Viv EU conservatives are not considered conservatives on the better side of the pond here. Nor has Europe been using fossil fuels to drive their societies before the US was created. You used non-fossil fuels like whale oil. The internal combustion engine wasn't even invented until the 1850s and fossil fuels came into vogue after that. Fossil fuel based fertilizers didn't come into play until after WWII.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom