• 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?

Sadie said:
Not only is your mind closed but you are sitting on the lid.:thumbdown
Click to expand...

I just don't like being lectured to. Me describing my trip with a liberal lesbian from Colorado is no more offensive than the story I'm sure she is telling her friends about that time she rode in a car with a white conservative gun owner from Texas.

Not every stereotype has to be offensive all the timd
 
clownboy said:
.................. Nor has Europe been using fossil fuels to drive their societies before the US was created. You used non-fossil fuels like whale oil.
Click to expand...
You ever heard of coal? Pretty much established by 1570 in Europe?
The internal combustion engine wasn't even invented until the 1850s
Click to expand...
So? The need for warmth was invented well before
and fossil fuels came into vogue after that.
Click to expand...
Sure. That doesn't mean that steam engines didn't do the job before.
Fossil fuel based fertilizers didn't come into play until after WWII.
Click to expand...
would you, before that, rate gypsum as fossilious? Turf, at least pre-fossilized?
 
Peter Grimm said:
I just don't like being lectured to. Me describing my trip with a liberal lesbian from Colorado is no more offensive than the story I'm sure she is telling her friends about that time she rode in a car with a white conservative gun owner from Texas.

Not every stereotype has to be offensive all the timd
Click to expand...
But a white conservative gun owner from Tejas has a hard time in keeping from it.:mrgreen:

Relax, just joshing ya ;)
 
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...

1st of all either there was a language barrier or they weren't very bright. They fell for your ruse hook line and sinker. It is not GMO seeds that have made our corn crops so huge. It is HYBRIDIZATION done the old fashioned way that has dramatically increased crop yields. So your story of us feeding the starving masses with GMO food is totally false. Their response was equally idiotic following the "Garbage in-Garbage out" rule. At least I hope that was the reason.
Sadly when they find out that you were lying, you will have made yet another foreigner think of Americans as weaselly a-holes. Not that a few more will matter.
 
Last edited:
Peter Grimm said:
I just don't like being lectured to. Me describing my trip with a liberal lesbian from Colorado is no more offensive than the story I'm sure she is telling her friends about that time she rode in a car with a white conservative gun owner from Texas.

Not every stereotype has to be offensive all the timd
Click to expand...

You put the issue out there, not me. A reasonable discussion cannot be had if all must stand in line with your insistance that the lesbian be labeled for us to see. Her sexuality had nothing to do with GMO's and fossil fuels.

You are assuming that she will be talking about her ride with a white gun owning conservative Texan and you simply cannot equate an assumption with a known fact about your post regarding her sexuality.

Stereotyping is what it is - an assumption that one must be of a certain persuasion based on nothing more than one's own bias of another's sexuality, color, religion - I think you are intelligent enough to get what I am saying to you.

Since you didn't read my whole post, I will leave you to make up even more assumptions about who I am and where I stand on the issues you presented.
 
Sadie said:
You put the issue out there, not me. A reasonable discussion cannot be had if all must stand in line with your insistance that the lesbian be labeled for us to see. Her sexuality had nothing to do with GMO's and fossil fuels.

You are assuming that she will be talking about her ride with a white gun owning conservative Texan and you simply cannot equate an assumption with a known fact about your post regarding her sexuality.

Stereotyping is what it is - an assumption that one must be of a certain persuasion based on nothing more than one's own bias of another's sexuality, color, religion - I think you are intelligent enough to get what I am saying to you.

Since you didn't read my whole post, I will leave you to make up even more assumptions about who I am and where I stand on the issues you presented.
Click to expand...

When you wag your finger at someone and lecture them, don't be surprised then if they're off put by that and don't wish to engage in a debate.

I really only try to have debates on here with people who are respectful and mature, as my time and happiness are too valuable to me to be engaged in negativity
 
Viv said:
Meet Ruth Davidson, leader of Scottish Conservative Party ...

1411049934473_wps_82_Mandatory_Credit_Photo_by.jpg




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...



or



or



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.



You don't feed the whole world.



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



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...



The fat people of Europe say, perhaps you could cut out junk food production and improve the world in that way.
Click to expand...

The UK had a lot of coal once upon a time, but most of it ran out. Today, your fossil fuel reserves are a tiny fraction of that found in other parts of the world such as Middle East, North America, and Russia.

GMO do increase crop yield, this has been studied extensively

The United States supplies 10 percent of the worlds food and is the number one food exporter on earth

Nothing bad or wrong with alternative energies but we are not in a position to break from them yet. How many plastic parts in your windmills or solar panel networks? Guess what plastic is a petroleum product.
 
shrubnose said:
Tater's never did taste good with chicken on the plate, eh?
Click to expand...

...clearly you have never had properly prepared taters. :( I am so sorry for you.
 
cpwill said:
...
clearly you have never had properly prepared taters. :( I am so sorry for you.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I have Scots/Irish ancestors.I've eaten lots of excellent taters.

But that's an old Tennessee saying. We used to eat fried chicken for breakfast sometimes (Kept about 100 chickens in the backyard.).

:lol:
 
Last edited:
earthworm said:
How about a non-biased, non-loaded fair poll ?
Click to expand...

You're asking too much of the OP.


earthworm said:
I do not care for the "lesbian" reference .. what difference can this make ?
Click to expand...

It reinforces his homophobia, the fact that she had views he disagreed with amplifies his dislike of lesbians. Probably makes him feel more like a man to talk that way, as that kind of man is usually a bit put out to meet a woman more intelligent than himself. Yes, I know, pathetic isn't it?
 
Peter Grimm said:
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.
Click to expand...

These choices are not realistic. I dont think we should allow billions of people to die. Instead lets kill them and get it over with. or 2.)producing as much food as we can bc human beings have a responsibility to one another. the 2nd statement doesnt make sense bcus we have a responsibility to live in a way that is beneficial to the health and well being of others. we do not have a responsibility to make sure huge companies survive and shareholders are paid. in recent years food and energy has been on a path that is unsustainable and produced in a way that does not show responsibility towards humans or resources. If the worlds population is dependent upon the u.s. or any other countries resources then what would happen if the supply of fuel or food were lost through natural or other means. the dependent people would not be in a desirable position. The providing country could use their supply as a means to manipulate the dependent nations or people.
 
i opened this thread thinking it was going to be about the right to die. I was mistaken. This poll doesnt make much sense to me. The choices are kill billions or mass produce "garbage" food and frivolously waste resources?
 
Kreton said:
i opened this thread thinking it was going to be about the right to die. I was mistaken. This poll doesnt make much sense to me. The choices are kill billions or mass produce "garbage" food and frivolously waste resources?
Click to expand...

Right wingers seem to fall prey to absolute thinking more than others. He seems under the impression that people are suggesting we stop using all fossil fuels instantly.
 
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...

So why do you not fix poverty if you are so concerned about human life? I am of the belief that Gaia will eventually enact processes that will drastically decrease the human population. She has to to preserve life itself, and without life, Gaia would not exist. Secondly, when looking at humanity from a biological standpoint, Gaia has done things to contract our population. However, innovations have kept us from feeling the consequences. The catch, is that the rate of innovations have continually increased. Eventually, we will not be able to innovate in time, and there will be a die off of humanity.

I find it humorous that you are taking the moral route about feeding humanity world wide, when we have soup kitchens in our very cities. It makes no sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom