1
   

Obama permits off-shore oil drilling

 
 
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 03:51 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;157492 wrote:
although I am still concerned about the danger behind that envy.

Who isn't? That is why we are sacrificing blood and treasure in Afghanistan and in Iraq.


Aren't we allowing our lifestyle to choose our enemies?
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 03:56 pm
@wayne,
wayne;157647 wrote:
Aren't we allowing our lifestyle to choose our enemies?


I don't know what that means. But if you mean that because we are a democratic country we choose Islamic fascists as enemies, that is false. If anything, the Islamic fascists chose us to be their enemies. Just as did the Nazis. Of course, we ought to be enemies of all fascists including the Islamic fascists.
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 05:48 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;157649 wrote:
I don't know what that means. But if you mean that because we are a democratic country we choose Islamic fascists as enemies, that is false. If anything, the Islamic fascists chose us to be their enemies. Just as did the Nazis. Of course, we ought to be enemies of all fascists including the Islamic fascists.


What I mean is that, if by my actions I cause some one to hate me shouldn't I reconsider my actions.

Are you saying we don't choose our enemies?
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 07:35 pm
@wayne,
wayne;157688 wrote:
What I mean is that, if by my actions I cause some one to hate me shouldn't I reconsider my actions.

Are you saying we don't choose our enemies?


Not at all. Why should I reconsider my actions when who hates me for what I do and think is a evil person; An Islamic fascist, for instance? Of course we don't always choose our enemies. What makes you believe we do? A Jew, for instance, may walk down the street in traditional Jewish garb, and an anti-Semite might find this infuriating. Did the Jew then choose the anti-Semite as his enemy? Of course not. The anti-Semite chose the Jew to be his enemy. The Jew had nothing whatever to do with it.
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 08:21 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;157714 wrote:
Not at all. Why should I reconsider my actions when who hates me for what I do and think is a evil person; An Islamic fascist, for instance? Of course we don't always choose our enemies. What makes you believe we do? A Jew, for instance, may walk down the street in traditional Jewish garb, and an anti-Semite might find this infuriating. Did the Jew then choose the anti-Semite as his enemy? Of course not. The anti-Semite chose the Jew to be his enemy. The Jew had nothing whatever to do with it.


We always have the power to choose our enemies.
Just because someone chooses to see me as an enemy doesn't mean I have to be that enemy.
That's what politics and negotiation are all about.
Unreasonable people do exist, but they don't have to be my enemy.
I can defend myself without malice.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 08:29 pm
@wayne,
wayne;157722 wrote:
We always have the power to choose our enemies.
Just because someone chooses to see me as an enemy doesn't mean I have to be that enemy.
That's what politics and negotiation are all about.
Unreasonable people do exist, but they don't have to be my enemy.
I can defend myself without malice.


So the Jew chose the anti-Semite to be his (the Jew's) enemy? How did he do that? You think it is up to the Jew whether he will be the enemy of the anti-Semite? If someone you don't know, strides up to you and hits you on the head because he does not like the way you wear your hair, that is your fault. To quote the late Senator Kennedy, "What planet do you come from?"
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 08:35 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;157727 wrote:
So the Jew chose the anti-Semite to be his (the Jew's) enemy? How did he do that? You think it is up to the Jew whether he will be the enemy of the anti-Semite? If someone you don't know, strides up to you and hits you on the head because he does not like the way you wear your hair, that is your fault. To quote the late Senator Kennedy, "What planet do you come from?"


You've missed the point I wanna make. Having an enemy presupposes malice. I am able to, in principle, defend myself without malice.
I can't change the past, but I can, in principle, determine my response.
See?
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 09:02 pm
@wayne,
wayne;157730 wrote:
. Having an enemy presupposes malice.


No, I don't see at all. Whose malice does it presuppose? The victim's? What makes you think that the victim of an person's malice is, himself, malicious? What planet did you say?
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 09:13 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;157738 wrote:
No, I don't see at all. Whose malice does it presuppose? The victim's? What makes you think that the victim of an person's malice is, himself, malicious? What planet did you say?


The guy hit me on the head, thats not my fault.
I retaliate in anger, that's my fault.
I face the threat with reason and absence of malice, that's called courage.
Peace requires sacrifice.
The Hatfields and Mcoys practice a different principle.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 09:57 pm
@wayne,
wayne;157746 wrote:
The guy hit me on the head, thats not my fault.
I retaliate in anger, that's my fault.
I face the threat with reason and absence of malice, that's called courage.
Peace requires sacrifice.
The Hatfields and Mcoys practice a different principle.


But I did not say you retaliated at all. So where did that come from? I simply said that he hit you on the head. It was not your fault. He chose you to be his enemy. You did not choose him to be yours. What is debatable about that. You are the one who wants to engage, and not argue. But, at least, you shouldn't create an argument where there is none. You can, if sincere about it, at least not do that.
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 01:37 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;157766 wrote:
But I did not say you retaliated at all. So where did that come from? I simply said that he hit you on the head. It was not your fault. He chose you to be his enemy. You did not choose him to be yours. What is debatable about that. You are the one who wants to engage, and not argue. But, at least, you shouldn't create an argument where there is none. You can, if sincere about it, at least not do that.



Simply responding to your question about the malice of the victim, and the implication that I somehow said the victim was at fault.
That seems to be a step along the road.

Your original purpose when you created the story was to show that we don't always choose our enemies. Now you have stated that I did not choose him to be my enemy, which is exactly what I said in the first place.

I don't see where you get that I'm arguing at all, I am trying to answer the questions you proposed, except the planet question, which I chose to ignore.

Of course the point you have been making is true and realistic.
I am trying to present a philosophical principle which ,although it may be impracticle, is a solid principle for which men have died.
Pepijn Sweep
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 03:28 am
@wayne,
Is the oil-spil now going to change USA policy ? Or do you not have any options left ? I wish a world without 800.000 tons or barrels or even liters spilling in international waters. The oil company should pay up the damage done; but not to US government since they are faulty as well. Donation to Haiti instead ?

Pepijn
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 03:41 am
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep;157853 wrote:
Is the oil-spil now going to change USA policy ? Or do you not have any options left ? I wish a world without 800.000 tons or barrels or even liters spilling in international waters. The oil company should pay up the damage done; but not to US government since they are faulty as well. Donation to Haiti instead ?

Pepijn


Doubt if policy changes much, exxon valdez spilled 11 million gals in Alaska and they still want to drill there. Doesn't appear they even know how much oil is really being spilled in this one yet. It's really close to an already stressed and fragile ecosystem though, and cleaning oil out of a tidal marsh is probably a logistical nightmare compared to cleaning it from rocks and sand. Could turn out to be very very bad, I am hoping for the best though.
Pepijn Sweep
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 03:47 am
@wayne,
Good 4 employment in Loisiana; or USA counts on volunteers ? Spanish people have done it in Gallicia.
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 03:57 am
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep;157859 wrote:
Good 4 employment in Loisiana; or USA counts on volunteers ? Spanish people have done it in Gallicia.


The oystermen are talking about towing booms out to protect the inlets.
The government has offered their assistence to the company BP.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 05:39 am
@wayne,
wayne;157837 wrote:


Of course the point you have been making is true and realistic.
I am trying to present a philosophical principle which ,although it may be impracticle, is a solid principle for which men have died.


I would rather support a true and realistic principle than an impractical philosophical principle. And, unless is it is true, how can it be "solid"? Come to think of it, what is a "solid" principle anyway. Do you think that philosophical principles (or any principles, for that matter) are worth anything unless they are true however "solid" they may be. (The inverted commas around the word solid indicates I don't know what you mean by the word, especially since you don't think solid principles have to be either true or practical. No one gets a free pass to talk nonsense just because he is philosophizing. It is not as if you can say to someone, "What you say does not make sense, but that's all right. You are just philosophizing. Philosophers don't have to be sensible". I admit, though, that some people who philosophize seem to think that is the attitude of others.
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 07:54 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;157884 wrote:
I would rather support a true and realistic principle than an impractical philosophical principle. And, unless is it is true, how can it be "solid"? Come to think of it, what is a "solid" principle anyway. Do you think that philosophical principles (or any principles, for that matter) are worth anything unless they are true however "solid" they may be. (The inverted commas around the word solid indicates I don't know what you mean by the word, especially since you don't think solid principles have to be either true or practical. No one gets a free pass to talk nonsense just because he is philosophizing. It is not as if you can say to someone, "What you say does not make sense, but that's all right. You are just philosophizing. Philosophers don't have to be sensible". I admit, though, that some people who philosophize seem to think that is the attitude of others.


When did I ever say solid principles don't need to be true?

Because you fail to understand a word I use, it becomes nonsense??

"SOLID" ; firm, strong, substantial; reliable or dependable.

The principle may be impractical because few people are willing to make the sacrifices required in upholding such a principle.
I find the principle to be quite practical in my own life.

No human being has the power to annoy, irritate, anger, or cause my participation as an enemy without my permission.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 08:14 am
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep;157853 wrote:
Is the oil-spil now going to change USA policy ? Or do you not have any options left ? I wish a world without 800.000 tons or barrels or even liters spilling in international waters. The oil company should pay up the damage done; but not to US government since they are faulty as well. Donation to Haiti instead ?

Pepijn


Why would a rare accident change policy if the policy is vital to the interests of the United States? Automobile accidents are not rare at all, but no one is proposing that we get rid of automobiles. Everything carries risks. The importance we give to those risks is largely a function of the importance of what we do to incur those risks. It is overwhelmingly important that we get the oil we need. It is a matter of costs and benefits.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/10/2022 at 11:03:13