"A thinking mind cannot feel."

[Iamwhomiam]

Discounting operation? Perhaps you'll explain. I doubt I'm discounting anything, but then again, I just may be. A little help to point out my error?

I'm always earnest in what I say or write and I should say here I like you, really I do, and I understand all too well the pain of being separated from a loved one. Sorry you mistook my kindness for something artificial. And your contributions here over the years I've often valued, so my welcome too, was genuine.

You can express yourself with words far better than I can presently. Alzheimer's limits me these days, not only in my writing, which must seem to you quite inadequate, but also in long and complex thought construction. As far cry from days gone by. And so it goes. I try my best to express my feelings accurately.

"So then, it sounds like you feel that while a ‘carbon tax’ is necessary and not a scam carbon credit trading is a scam?"

Yes. That's what I wrote.

"Is there a difference between the two?"

Yes, there is a difference; one's a tax that must be paid by an emitter/polluter and one's a commodity that can be marketed. Many phony corporations have been set-up by large polluters to feign achieved carbon offsets to gain carbon credits. Ending subsidies for dirty energy is a must.

"Does the one feed the masses while the other merely feeds traders bank accounts?"

Neither feeds the masses. One pads polluters and bankers' pockets and the other pays for prosecuting permit violators and other essential governmental administered services, like subsidizing truly renewable energies. (In order to become competitive with common energy producing fuels)

"Do you really not see a problem in those two sentences?"

I'm sorry, but I do not understand which two sentences you're referring to. Please identify which you're referring to so I may answer you. You've asked four questions

No environmentalist believes any Utopian society is at all possible.

"Because utopianism so obviously robs individuals of self determination, it has become less fashionable to identify as such. Now we just act as if the ends justify the means while we make expediency the new ‘proper’ measure of truth."

I should have added "or desirable." The Precautionary Principle cautions one to act differently, with caution and not expeditiously. But who wouldn't wish for a better world; a less polluted, less waring world? Surely, one who wishes such things cannot be confused with those desirous Utopian society. I mean, who wouldn't want their baby born free of the 200 or more pollutants burdening their tiny body?

From what I hear, a masters degree today robs one of their self-determination. Just ask all those MBAs working at McDs. I'm sure that was not in their plans. In many cases I think necessity determines direction more so than one's will. I mean, if the the bridge is washed-out, you simply have to figure out another route, regardless of how determined you were to take the road across the bridge.

"The common ploy of religionists (anything that requires strong belief commitments) of every stripe is to promise paradise later in exchange for a few sacrifices now. Or, we can only build a better world if we focus on what ‘really’ matters."

Do you not see yourself doing just this? Frankly, it sounds like you're the one now promising a Utopia. Like disassembling the current system will make all out radioactive materials and other toxic contaminants disappear! And everyone lived peacefully ever after.

I asked:

What do you suggest then, that we do to reduce pollution?

"Dismantle the vertical authority distribution system that is the natural result of western exceptionalism."

I would say that exceptionalism existed long before and outside of western nations. Like as in ancient Egypt or any of several other early societies. So how do you suggest we begin dismantling the vertical authority distribution system? Do you think this can be achieved peacefully? Please explain because I think I really don't know what such a dismantling would entail.

I wrote: "Seems to me that a lot of people have quit smoking cigarettes not because of their negative health effects, but because they've become quite expensive. Sometimes you need to hurt someone's pocketbook if you want to change their behavior. How do you suggest we effect such a change to prevent our doom? Or do you feel its all "liberal propaganda" and the only doom we can expect is our own unavoidable death?"

Your reply:
"(add on edit) Nice show of commitment to the idea that expediency is the best measure of Truth. Well done. I guess AGW must be 'true' then. Wow this feels great, I just love having my mind twisted up into a pretzel.
Prevent our doom? Wow and thanks for providing my options so conveniently. Its all liberal propaganda therefore the only doom to be had is our own unavoidable death?

Anyway, no it’s not ‘liberal propaganda’, its fascist propaganda dressed up as liberal propaganda. Remember eugenics anyone, no of course not, who wants to remember the faux-progressive element in that movement."

Quite considerable edits, I see you've now added. Oh, well.

"Doom" referred to the thinking of the author in the OP. I offer you nothing but my friendship.

I'm doing my best to respond to your comments. I've never before, not once, been referred to as being fascist in my ways or thinking. This I'll remember. Being equated to a faux-progressive eugenicist is another first. That I'll forget.

I wrote: "But thanks for dropping by. It's always good to hear from a libertarian. Hope you'll stick around to keep reminding me how I've been wasting my life."

and you replied: "Yes I think everybody should live on labels, better than three meals a day.

No I don’t think you are wasting your life, it’s just that you have a lot to learn about the false assumptions that drive our intellectual structures.(2nd edit add) I salute activists of many stripes, we need you. At the same time I am suggesting that the best things in us are the exact things that shitheads try to monetize and turn toward different ends. If we are not aware of this, then activism is bound to become another impotent appendage on this rotting corpse of exceptionalism. You know, like the Sierra Club or WWF. And yes I do feel that people like you do any and everything you can to discount your own part in enabling psychopathic actors to have their way. Your purpose in life is to learn. You have a lot to learn so you have great purpose.

I trust that folks here at least have an inkling of the difference between conditioning and education."

For one who despises being labeled, you've done your fair share of labeling me, Sounder. I in fact thought you had long ago identified yourself as a libertarian, so pardon me for wrongly identifying you as one. However, you do express yourself in a manner reflecting that ideology. I'm sure everyone would agree being called a fascist eugenicist is as terribly offensive as being called a libertarian.

So you need activists like me? Really? While I and my international cabal of environmental activists are enabling psychopathic actors to have their way? Thanks for the lesson on critical thinking, because I don't think like that at all. Maybe I should try it sometime.

The battle starts at home, my friend. That's why I asked you about the wood and choice of fasteners you've used. You support the powers that be while feeding your face. I don't, at least not to the extent I imagine you do. I pay no taxes, aside sales taxes; I have no assets and live in a 200 sq.ft. space. I do buy fuel and pay for my utilities, so in that way too, I'm dependent upon the offerings of this society. At this stage of my life there's little else I'm capable of doing to remove myself from society.

I come from a very long line of cabinet makers and I am an accomplished woodworker, too. In fact, right now I'm sitting in front of a mahogany table made by my gg grandfather in 1810. Was once a contractor, but I couldn't profit from my work. I had the hardest time charging anyone more than my costs. So I went back to fabricating steel. For bridges and buildings. The kind of buildings fascists of all sorts reign from and bridges to facilitate their transport. Oh, but that's not all. Regular people, pawns, I think you called them, live in these buildings and use these bridges too. But I'm so fucking evil!! You have no idea. Just ask the kitty now sleeping on my lap.

Of course it's always difficult to take seriously one who preaches, but practices not what they preach. I trust you bought your supplies at a local lumber yard, at least. My point was to reveal your continuing support of the psychopaths you and I and all here condemn. But you conveniently omitted answering those questions.

Self-sufficiency is more difficult to achieve today than every before, so I don't fault your (hopefully) unintended support of empire. Only the staunchest of outdoorsmen, male and female, can make a go of it today without societal supports.

[Sounder]

Thanks for your response Iamwhomiam, if is nice to not be totally shunned

Discounting operation? Perhaps you'll explain. I doubt I'm discounting anything, but then again, I just may be. A little help to point out my error?

No worries, it is what everyone does. When a substantive point cannot be dealt with, attention naturally shifts toward more ‘safe’ territory. For instance most people will discount a connection between AGW being a distraction from the many other heinous ways that our tax dollars are spent while also serving a dual purpose of draining ever more tax dollars from the beleaguered masses.

I'm always earnest in what I say or write and I should say here I like you, really I do, and I understand all too well the pain of being separated from a loved one. Sorry you mistook my kindness for something artificial. And your contributions here over the years I've often valued, so my welcome too, was genuine.

OK then, I apologize.

You can express yourself with words far better than I can presently. Alzheimer's limits me these days, not only in my writing, which must seem to you quite inadequate, but also in long and complex thought construction. As far cry from days gone by. And so it goes. I try my best to express my feelings accurately.

I’m sorry to hear that and I hope that you get the support that you may need.

Neither feeds the masses. One pads polluters and bankers' pockets and the other pays for prosecuting permit violators and other essential governmental administered services, like subsidizing truly renewable energies. (In order to become competitive with common energy producing fuels)

I recall seeing a WaPo headline about Obama wanting to claim carbon tax money to pay off our debt. Sounds to me like about how things work in the real world.


"Because utopianism so obviously robs individuals of self determination, it has become less fashionable to identify as such. Now we just act as if the ends justify the means while we make expediency the new ‘proper’ measure of truth."

I should have added "or desirable." The Precautionary Principle cautions one to act differently, with caution and not expeditiously. But who wouldn't wish for a better world; a less polluted, less waring world? Surely, one who wishes such things cannot be confused with those desirous Utopian society. I mean, who wouldn't want their baby born free of the 200 or more pollutants burdening their tiny body?

Of course we share a desire for a better world. The question is one of; how best do we get from here to there. Do we focus on ends and prescriptions for the ‘proper’ expressions of being, or do we focus on improving the expressions of becoming. I choose becoming because that is where life is found, whereas prescriptive requirements for being are the product of this coercive and intellectually hubristic western canon. Like as if some well paid fool in Brussels is better situated to design the nature of my being better than I am.

[/quote]
"The common ploy of religionists (anything that requires strong belief commitments) of every stripe is to promise paradise later in exchange for a few sacrifices now. Or, we can only build a better world if we focus on what ‘really’ matters."

Do you not see yourself doing just this? Frankly, it sounds like you're the one now promising a Utopia. Like disassembling the current system will make all out radioactive materials and other toxic contaminants disappear! And everyone lived peacefully ever after.

Frankly, I don’t see how you see me promising Utopia. I focus on finding value in becoming. This is messy and in no way proffers visions of perfection. Ever.

I asked:
What do you suggest then, that we do to reduce pollution?


"Dismantle the vertical authority distribution system that is the natural result of western exceptionalism."

I would say that exceptionalism existed long before and outside of western nations. Like as in ancient Egypt or any of several other early societies. So how do you suggest we begin dismantling the vertical authority distribution system? Do you think this can be achieved peacefully? Please explain because I think I really don't know what such a dismantling would entail.

If all people were encouraged to think for themselves we might be very surprised at our collective intelligence. Big Papa in no condition to do our thinking for us anymore.

I wrote: "Seems to me that a lot of people have quit smoking cigarettes not because of their negative health effects, but because they've become quite expensive. Sometimes you need to hurt someone's pocketbook if you want to change their behavior. How do you suggest we effect such a change to prevent our doom? Or do you feel its all "liberal propaganda" and the only doom we can expect is our own unavoidable death?"

Your reply:
"(add on edit) Nice show of commitment to the idea that expediency is the best measure of Truth. Well done. I guess AGW must be 'true' then. Wow this feels great, I just love having my mind twisted up into a pretzel.
Prevent our doom? Wow and thanks for providing my options so conveniently. Its all liberal propaganda therefore the only doom to be had is our own unavoidable death?

Anyway, no it’s not ‘liberal propaganda’, its fascist propaganda dressed up as liberal propaganda. Remember eugenics anyone, no of course not, who wants to remember the faux-progressive element in that movement."

Quite considerable edits, I see you've now added. Oh, well.

"Doom" referred to the thinking of the author in the OP. I offer you nothing but my friendship.

I'm doing my best to respond to your comments. I've never before, not once, been referred to as being fascist in my ways or thinking. This I'll remember. Being equated to a faux-progressive eugenicist is another first. That I'll forget.

The substantial point here is that you seem to equate ‘truth’ with expediency. It is part of the discounting impulse that ignores this in preference to asserting that I am calling you fascist in your way of thinking. Which I did not do, even if it does seem to me that you are a victim of fascist propaganda in that you, to my mind (unconsciously no doubt) support the merger between govt. and corporations that may well result from this fresh pile of money.

For one who despises being labeled, you've done your fair share of labeling me, Sounder.

I don’t despise it because that would then call for too strong a reaction. No, it’s par for the course and is simply another discounting ploy.

I in fact thought you had long ago identified yourself as a libertarian, so pardon me for wrongly identifying you as one.

No, not at all. I find libertarians to be selfish covert corporatist apologists. I do not share their desire for a weak social contract.

However, you do express yourself in a manner reflecting that ideology. I'm sure everyone would agree being called a fascist eugenicist is as terribly offensive as being called a libertarian.

But I did not call you that. I merely pointed out that the eugenicist movement was fascist even while it presented a ‘progressive’ face to the world. And you can call me a libertarian but it is not true.

So you need activists like me? Really? While I and my international cabal of environmental activists are enabling psychopathic actors to have their way? Thanks for the lesson on critical thinking, because I don't think like that at all. Maybe I should try it sometime.

The priests know what’s going on and they are not really gonna tell the parishioners.
Same as it ever was.

Here are a few examples of expediency taken as a proper measure of 'truth'. Who really wants to be associated with these folk?

"The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself." - Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank, consultants to the United Nations

"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." - Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy." - Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." - Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

"The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.” - Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

"The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” - Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University

Of course it's always difficult to take seriously one who preaches, but practices not what they preach. I trust you bought your supplies at a local lumber yard, at least. My point was to reveal your continuing support of the psychopaths you and I and all here condemn. But you conveniently omitted answering those questions.

Reading untoward things into another persons writing is exactly how discounting works.
OK then, you think that I am preaching disengagement? Not true, I merely advocate engagement without the blinders and double binds that are so thoughtfully provided by our social betters.

Self-sufficiency is more difficult to achieve today than every before, so I don't fault your (hopefully) unintended support of empire. Only the staunchest of outdoorsmen, male and female, can make a go of it today without societal supports.

We will do better to improve our connections than to improve our disconnections.

[compared2what?]

The authority granted to ‘scientists’ through Descartes works, in my opinion, was a ploy to bolster the authority of a failing and corrupt priesthood. That is, by splitting the material and the spiritual, God was placed far away, thus requiring ‘Priests’ as mediators between the common man and this far away God.

The entire west has been built on a concept of vocational authority that arose from that premise at least since St. Augustine's formulation of it in the fourth century. All that stuff evolved between the fourth and eleventh centuries, along with the west itself. And all of it originated in ecclesiological doctrine. Contemporary western exceptionalism very decidedly not excepted. It's where the proto-west was born.

Seriously. Western/proto-Western thinkers (both secular and non-) had already been alternately coming up with ploys to bolster the authority of a failing and corrupt priesthood and/or attempting to throw it off for a solid millennium by the time Descartes came along. Why single him out?

[vanlose kid]

Compare and contrast:

"A thinking mind cannot feel."

^ ^ thread title, based on the idea of a mind-body "problem" or split (that is empiricist ask Dennett and the zombie masters Churchland et al.) attributed to Descartes who supposedly is the father of ruin and western exceptionalism etc., etc., etc. this is what those who are taught to think of themselves as free-thinking individuals with their own opinions are taught to think. in school and university.

and:

8. But what, then, am I? A thinking thing, it has been said. But what is a thinking thing? It is a thing that doubts, understands, [conceives], affirms, denies, wills, refuses; that imagines also, and perceives. [L][F]

9. Assuredly it is not little, if all these properties belong to my nature. But why should they not belong to it? Am I not that very being who now doubts of almost everything; who, for all that, understands and conceives certain things; who affirms one alone as true, and denies the others; who desires to know more of them, and does not wish to be deceived; who imagines many things, sometimes even despite his will; and is likewise percipient of many, as if through the medium of the senses. Is there nothing of all this as true as that I am, even although I should be always dreaming, and although he who gave me being employed all his ingenuity to deceive me? Is there also any one of these attributes that can be properly distinguished from my thought, or that can be said to be separate from myself? For it is of itself so evident that it is I who doubt, I who understand, and I who desire, that it is here unnecessary to add anything by way of rendering it more clear. And I am as certainly the same being who imagines; for although it may be (as I before supposed) that nothing I imagine is true, still the power of imagination does not cease really to exist in me and to form part of my thought. In fine, I am the same being who perceives, that is, who apprehends certain objects as by the organs of sense, since, in truth, I see light, hear a noise, and feel heat. But it will be said that these presentations are false, and that I am dreaming. Let it be so. At all events it is certain that I seem to see light, hear a noise, and feel heat; this cannot be false, and this is what in me is properly called perceiving (sentire), which is nothing else than thinking.[L][F]

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/ ... tion2.html

that's ^ ^ Descartes, in his own words, in argument against the skeptic/manichaean/buddhist/materialist/physicalist/empricist/reductionist, not in support of them. if only the well-educated idiots of this world would sit down and read Descartes and, one would hope, think, before they speak. THINK:

SENTIRE: to feel, to hear, to smell; from sentio: i feel, i perceive with the senses...

what he's saying is: EVEN IF YOU, SKEPTIC, ARE RIGHT (note that this skeptic claim can never be proven (it isn't even worthy of being called a hypothesis--it is in fact the purest nonsense)) AND ALL OF THIS IS AN ILLUSION (the world or whatever) and that I am fooled and fooled and fooled, there is one thing in which I am not fooled: that I think--that I think. and therefore I am morally responsible, pace the skeptic et al.

read Descartes. as far as I can tell from this thread it wouldn't hurt any of you.

*

[vanlose kid]

one is constantly reminded of the fact that people who take pains to congratulate themselves for "questioning" the Grand Evolutionary Progressive Narrative of Western Culture/Civilisation (or the Big Lie: that superior technology, strict regimentation, and great wealth are proof of advanced moral standing) fail to question e.g. "Descartes" role in it. this happens again and again.

*

[Iamwhomiam]

Thanks for that, vanlose kid. It was refreshing. But do you really think a thinking person who thinks really need reread Rene? I think not. Though surely some should; critically.

edited to correct misspelled 3rd word 'than' to 'that'

[Sounder]

Thanks for that vanlose kid. When I ran a quick summary of this thread past my wife last week, her comment was; ‘I thought feeling was thinking’. I agreed.

As per your recommendation, I am reading a good bit of Descartes. Anyway, I love Descartes and always have. He did however work within a fairly limiting context and seems somewhat timid toward authority, for which I cannot fault him in the least. The West would be nothing without Descartes. Still hopefully in the future the Analytical Method that has helped so many people develop their cognitive abilities will become integrated with another level of understanding that puts back together some of the things that we so ably take apart.


C2W?, I love to see others display their gifts. Your writing is almost always a pleasure to read, even if I feel sometimes that you make a bit of sport out of talking over other people’s heads. Look, I never expected an easy reception among a group that displays such high cognitive and verbal skills, given that my basic thesis is something like; ‘you are not as smart as you think you are’. All this coming from a fairly uneducated person no less, absurd no? Even though, if as I say, the smart people are the folk most addicted to current forms of understanding, still they are the ones with greatest role on shaping cultural norms of the larger population. So I continue in my efforts, but man o man, smart people are stubborn.

Also, you owe me an apology.

[Iamwhomiam]

Think I'll start a thread... "Really, you're even dumber than you think you are." How do you think that would go over here, among a group that displays such high cognitive and verbal skills.

No offense inended, Sounder, honestly. But seriously, after considering your comments on discounting error and critical thinking it seems to me you've just discounted the possibility of a warm welcome and perhaps that brought with it your feeling defensive right from the get-go. I'd say that was a gross failure to think critically before beginning an intelligent discussion with a group that displays such high cognitive and verbal skills. But I think it's a good way to start an argument.

It's all in the approach; tailor it one way and you find yourself in a defensive position. Try another, one without preconceived prejudices, and you'll allow for an interesting and productive for all discussion.

I've just remember this memorable and embarrassing for me RI moment when I called you a Twit. I promise I'll not do that again.

Reading only my first line there seems like I'm opening a can of worms and raises your defenses for the next, which you see is unnecessary. Let's be friends. RI as you well know is fairly unique, at least in my experience, and what brings us together aside our host's fine mind and writing skills, are the wonderful and horrible stories of our experiences including discussions of current and historical events with just the right touch of woo. (way-out observations) I enjoy reading and participating in those discussions and I think you do too. It's bothersome though, that we're being told we're unable to think 'appropriately,' especially considering our make-up and for some who have for many years actively fought those of the empire whom we all so detest, are blind or pawns of those powers.

We're all guilty slaves of sorts, feeding the empire while feeding ourselves; just as guilty of supporting empire as the guy buying supplies at the local home center or lumber yard. Because he has to do that in order to support himself and his family. Who could fault whom? By chance we've all been born into the circumstances we find in society today. Who could possibly blame a slave for their slavery?

That some try to empower others to find their own voice and to use it freely and powerfully should be commendable in my book, not to be told that doing so aids empire, because those voices attached to their bodies are the only things that effect change. Choose your enemies wisely.

edited to replace 'them' in the first sentence of last paragraph with 'it'

[compared2what?]

C2W?, I love to see others display their gifts. Your writing is almost always a pleasure to read, even if I feel sometimes that you make a bit of sport out of talking over other people’s heads. Look, I never expected an easy reception among a group that displays such high cognitive and verbal skills, given that my basic thesis is something like; ‘you are not as smart as you think you are’. All this coming from a fairly uneducated person no less, absurd no? Even though, if as I say, the smart people are the folk most addicted to current forms of understanding, still they are the ones with greatest role on shaping cultural norms of the larger population. So I continue in my efforts, but man o man, smart people are stubborn.

I'm sometimes stubborn. But that's usually because of the limited understanding that goes hand in hand with being not all that smart.

Thanks for your kind words. In this case, I was really displaying Elaine Pagels's gifts, since she's the person from whom I learned (a) how innovative it was for the church to make people whom only it could appoint the non-negotiable and exclusive conduit of sacramental grace; and (b) how influential it became.

I'm not very well-educated either. Actually. Your post just happened to fall within hailing distance of one of the few things I've ever learned..

Also, you owe me an apology.

I apologize very sincerely for any actions or words of mine that caused you a moment's avoidable sorrow, pain, trouble or distress. It's the last thing I'd ever want to do. Seriously..

[Sounder]

Iamwhomiam wrote…

That some try to empower others to find their own voice and to use them freely and powerfully should be commendable in my book

Yes it’s very commendable to empower others to find their own voice.
So when I wrote upthread…

If all people were encouraged to think for themselves we might be very surprised at our collective intelligence. Big Papa in no condition to do our thinking for us anymore.

And

Of course we share a desire for a better world. The question is one of; how best do we get from here to there. Do we focus on ends and prescriptions for the ‘proper’ expressions of being, or do we focus on improving the expressions of becoming. I choose becoming because that is where life is found, whereas prescriptive requirements for being are the product of this coercive and intellectually hubristic western canon. Like as if some well paid fool in Brussels is better situated to design the nature of my being better than I am.

And

The substantial point here is that you seem to equate ‘truth’ with expediency. It is part of the discounting impulse that ignores this in preference to asserting that I am calling you fascist in your way of thinking.

And when I posted these quotes;

The priests know what’s going on and they are not really gonna tell the parishioners.
Same as it ever was.

Here are a few examples of expediency taken as a proper measure of 'truth'. Who really wants to be associated with these folk?

"The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself." - Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank, consultants to the United Nations

"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." - Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy." - Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." - Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

"The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.” - Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

"The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” - Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University

There is a connection that I am trying to make between the implicitly claimed right of an elite class to define the ‘proper expressions of being’ for the general population and a lack of respect for individual self determination. This ‘right’ is bolstered by an assertion that it is OK to lie; ‘for the greater good’.

Lying is abuse and disrespect for others and could never be seen as a proper way to help others ‘find their voice’.

When this thread is toast I will post a bit written before this current game of dodgeball. The silence will be deafening.

C2W? awhile back I was impressed and gratified by how you and Jack addressed and added to a thread started by Aloeus Kephas despite his having a previous thread banned for its anti-Semitic potential. So I know that you have it in you to do more than simply play word games.

What you do is your call, but to my way of thinking, a real apology would be a bit less generic. And a really real apology would involve you engaging with any potentially substantial ideas that I am trying to bandy about.

[compared2what?]

C2W? awhile back I was impressed and gratified by how you and Jack addressed and added to a thread started by Aloeus Kephas despite his having a previous thread banned for its anti-Semitic potential. So I know that you have it in you to do more than simply play word games.

SIMPLY?

Well, of all the...

What you do is your call, but to my way of thinking, a real apology would be a bit less generic. And a really real apology would involve you engaging with any potentially substantial ideas that I am trying to bandy about.

That wasn't meant to be generic. It was more that since you didn't state your grievance and I know how much you dislike having other people's assumptions foisted off on you, I was trying to err on the side of encompassing.

You just can't win sometimes, can you? "You" meaning "any given person," not "you." Or "me."

[Sounder]

That wasn't meant to be generic. It was more that since you didn't state your grievance and I know how much you dislike having other people's assumptions foisted off on you, I was trying to err on the side of encompassing.

Ah, right. Like as if your calling me an anti-semite while driving away the most gifted poster on this forum is just 'mixed' in with all the other grievances I might have. Yeah right.

You just can't win sometimes, can you? "You" meaning "any given person," not "you." Or "me."

You cannot win at all if you do not play the game. I however win all the time, maybe by default, but hey, a win is a win.

I did establish a few things anyway, like how white exceptionalism is truly the elephant in this room.

[compared2what?]

That wasn't meant to be generic. It was more that since you didn't state your grievance and I know how much you dislike having other people's assumptions foisted off on you, I was trying to err on the side of encompassing.

Ah, right. Like as if your calling me an anti-semite while driving away the most gifted poster on this forum is just 'mixed' in with all the other grievances I might have. Yeah right.

I never called you an anti-semite. Or even suggested it. That's completely, totally false.

I'm sorry Alice stopped posting.

But my account here was already closed and inactive when she did.

And one of the main reasons I closed it was in order to leave the field to her, just as a nod to basic good sportsmanship.

So it's also not true that I drove her away.

I certainly can't pretend to have played no part whatsoever in the process that led to her leaving.

But I don't. I've already apologized for it. I've also already stated that anyone who feels further amends are warranted should let me know. And given that I can't sincerely apologize for offenses that I don't know I've committed any more than I can for offenses that I've never committed, that's just literally and objectively as far as it's possible for me to go.

In the event that you're ever sincerely interested in accepting it, the sincere apology I already made to you is always on offer.

You just can't win sometimes, can you? "You" meaning "any given person," not "you." Or "me."

You cannot win at all if you do not play the game. I however win all the time, maybe by default, but hey, a win is a win.

I'm happy for you. My losses have been doing nothing but mount for quite a while now. But that's life.

I did establish a few things anyway, like how white exceptionalism is truly the elephant in this room.

More like a herd, I'd say. But that's usually the case in rooms where white people dwell. Probably always, even. So, you know. All kinds of complications tend to ensue.

[sushil_yadav]

Via Ran Prieur, who writes:

October 1. A set of ten studies suggests that intuition promotes cooperation, but rational thought turns us selfish. This reminds me of a strange speculative piece from a few years back: In a fast society slow emotions become extinct. A thinking mind cannot feel.

It is strange, and thought-provoking. I'm posting it more-or-less as it stands, but with a few typos removed. It's by an Indian guy called Sushil Yadav.

I am sushil yadav from India.

I want to thank MacCruiskeen for starting this thread.

This article was written by me....It is an older version....The new/ modified article is titled "Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment".

Here is a link to the article :

http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtop ... f=3&t=2915

.

[FourthBase]

Via Ran Prieur, who writes:

October 1. A set of ten studies suggests that intuition promotes cooperation, but rational thought turns us selfish. This reminds me of a strange speculative piece from a few years back: In a fast society slow emotions become extinct. A thinking mind cannot feel.

It is strange, and thought-provoking. I'm posting it more-or-less as it stands, but with a few typos removed. It's by an Indian guy called Sushil Yadav.

I am sushil yadav from India.

I want to thank MacCruiskeen for starting this thread.

This article was written by me....It is an older version....The new/ modified article is titled "Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment".

Here is a link to the article :

http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtop ... f=3&t=2915

.

You are the author?

A big, warm WELCOME.