Global Warming vs. Terrorism

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I have the following questions.

1) Which would you support in response to the threat of terrorism if they were deemed by the government to be effective?

a) Gun control laws.
b) Enhanced law enforcement powers at the expense of civil liberties.
c) Tougher regulation on businesses.
d) Expanded presidential powers.
e) Expanded federal government control of state and local resources.

2) Which would you support in response to the threat of global climate change if they were deemed by the government to be effective?

a) Gun control laws.
b) Enhanced law enforcement powers at the expense of civil liberties.
c) Tougher regulation on businesses.
d) Expanded presidential powers.
e) Expanded federal government control of state and local resources.

3) Lastly, which is the greater threat to the world and our nation: global climate change, or terrorism?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 25,679 • Replies: 809

No top replies

Too many "ifs" that I don't agree with. Your premises are flawed.

Question 3 is a no-brainer. Terrorism.

0 Replies

There are exactly two "ifs" which are actually the same "if". "If the government deemed them to be effective..." Are you saying that my premise that the government might deem something to be effective is flawed?

0 Replies

I may or may not agree with whatever the government deems, so the quesions cannot be answered honestly. I may agree sometimes with the premise, sometimes with part of the premise, and sometimes not at all. The 2 "ifs" become 10 "ifs" when applied to a, b, c, d, and e.

0 Replies

That's kind of the point of the questions. If the government deems them to be effective but you don't, the answer is that you wouldn't support the measure. Unless you would support ineffective measures for some other unknown reason, in which case feel free to explain.

As to number 3, how did you come to the conclusion that terrorism is the greater threat?

0 Replies

Wrong again. I might support some of the measures, but not all.

Obviously I look at the evidence, and conclude terrorism is a much, much greater threat. Weather has always been a threat, but common sense can help us avoid those things, and where we can't, we live with it. It is an acceptable part of being alive. It shouldn't have to be with terrorism. I don't happen to relish the idea of nuclear weapons, bioweapons, or chemical weapons in the hands of terrorists that hate Western Civilization.

0 Replies

Climat, especially global climate change, is something completely different to weather.

Besides, there's terrorism outside those who "hate Western Civilization".

0 Replies

FreeDuck, I should clarify that it depends on what type of gun control laws, law enforcement, tougher regulation, presidential powers, and more government control you are talking about. I apologize if my argument about premise didn't make total sense. But I guess what I mean is the "devil is in the details." I cannot really answer without knowing the details.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Wrong again. I might support some of the measures, but not all.

Uh, they are separated out by letter. You can just say: a, b, but not c, or whatever. Or you can just say you don't want to answer a hypothetical question, which is fine too.

Quote:

Obviously I look at the evidence, and conclude terrorism is a much, much greater threat. Weather has always been a threat, but common sense can help us avoid those things, and where we can't, we live with it. It is an acceptable part of being alive. It shouldn't have to be with terrorism. I don't happen to relish the idea of nuclear weapons, bioweapons, or chemical weapons in the hands of terrorists that hate Western Civilization.

Well, it's not so obvious to me. If the question were WMD vs. Global Warming, it might be a little more obvious, but still not so clear cut. As of now, knock on wood, there have been no terrorist attacks using WMD. Natural disasters appear to be just as, if not more, deadly than terrorist attacks.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Climat, especially global climate change, is something completely different to weather.

Besides, there's terrorism outside those who "hate Western Civilization".

Agreed.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Uh, they are separated out by letter. You can just say: a, b, but not c, or whatever. Or you can just say you don't want to answer a hypothetical question, which is fine too.

I think I posted the above at the same time so you may have missed it, but anyway to better explain:
FreeDuck, I should clarify that it depends on what type of gun control laws, law enforcement, tougher regulation, presidential powers, and more government control you are talking about. I apologize if my argument about premise didn't make total sense. But I guess what I mean is the "devil is in the details." I cannot really answer without knowing the details.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

FreeDuck, I should clarify that it depends on what type of gun control laws, law enforcement, tougher regulation, presidential powers, and more government control you are talking about. I apologize if my argument about premise didn't make total sense. But I guess what I mean is the "devil is in the details." I cannot really answer without knowing the details.

Ah, ok. Well, you can answer on general principle if you like. Or you can assume the worst in each case and decide whether it would be worth it to you. Like, in the case of gun control, let's say they were advocating outlawing assault weapons.

0 Replies

For terrorism, MAYBE I would support b and d. Actually, the question of presidential powers is controversial, and has always been more asserted during wartime, so I'm not sure that any laws need to changed, maybe just clarified to show that presidents have always had and exercised the power when needed. I have traditionally found problems with loopholes allowing criminals to skate because of some procedural loophole, so yes, I think slightly tighter law enforcement is appropriate.

For global warming, I don't agree there is any great threat, but for the purpose of this argument, if there were, I might support only c.

That was a pretty quick analysis. Further consideration may be appropriate.

0 Replies

Okey-dokey, okie. I've been dying to say that. Thanks for the input.

0 Replies

Re: Global Warming vs. Terrorism

FreeDuck wrote:

I have the following questions.

1) Which would you support in response to the threat of terrorism if they were deemed by the government to be effective?

a) Gun control laws.
b) Enhanced law enforcement powers at the expense of civil liberties.
c) Tougher regulation on businesses.
d) Expanded presidential powers.
e) Expanded federal government control of state and local resources.

2) Which would you support in response to the threat of global climate change if they were deemed by the government to be effective?

a) Gun control laws.
b) Enhanced law enforcement powers at the expense of civil liberties.
c) Tougher regulation on businesses.
d) Expanded presidential powers.
e) Expanded federal government control of state and local resources.

3) Lastly, which is the greater threat to the world and our nation: global climate change, or terrorism?

A very interesting post.

I haven't read through all of the thread, but I feel certain someone must have raised the point that your questions #1 and #2 focus more on the degree to which someone trusts the government rather than what they actually belive about the issues.

For questions #1 and #2, I would support whatever measures I felt advanced the cause which I supported. In arriving at an opinion on these measures I would certainly consider as one (and an important one at that) factor what the government believed. Acknowledging that the government is not omniscient nor entirely altruistic, I do recognize that it knows more about these matters than do we, and that even partisan hacks have a tendency to think about what is best for the country when given power.

The really interesting question is #3 - No tricks - full front.

Without a doubt, terrorism is a greater threat to our nation and world than global climate change.

Hollywood's "Day After Tomorrow" is a fantasy. Whatever the ultimate effect of global climate change may be it will not manifest itself, in total, within several weeks.

The same cannot be said about terrorism. The worst that terrorism has to offer can easily be visited upon us within a matter of days, weeks, months or years.

For all you tree-huggers who would argue otherwise, think on this: The ultimate terrorist attack involves WMDs - nuclear, chemical, or biological. Is it simply a matter of time?

All of these methods of attacks carry with them ecological dangers and disasters.

Global climate change has happened before and the world (clearly) and mankind has survived.

True to form, we will not react to a situation until it becomes a crisis, but it is highly unlikely that there will be sudden effects of global climate change that will not meet a tardy but, essentially, effective human response.

Terrorism in its ultimate extreme has the potential for ridding us of our concerns about global climate change (If we believe such changes are human induced).

Terrorism, rather than global climate change has the potential for retrogressing, or destroying human civilization. The New Caliphate will almost certainly impose reactionary forces upon our civilization and thus give, at least some breathing room to Gaia.

Within the next twenty years, which is more likely to cause your death or the deaths of your loved ones: Terrorism or global climate change.

0 Replies

Starting to think I am the only one around here with only one navel. Don't you people have LIVES?

0 Replies

paull wrote:

Starting to think I am the only one around here with only one navel. Don't you people have LIVES?

Says the joker to the thief.

0 Replies

Re: Global Warming vs. Terrorism
I can always count on Finn. (I mean that as a compliment.)

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

For all you tree-huggers who would argue otherwise, think on this: The ultimate terrorist attack involves WMDs - nuclear, chemical, or biological. Is it simply a matter of time?

Is it? Is the threat from terrorism or is the threat from weapons of mass destruction? Let's say that terrorists did attack a US city with WMD. Then what? A global war with us retaliating against any country that could have provided them with the WMD. That seems to me to be the same threat as in the cold war, which is just the threat of the existence of weapons with the capability to destroy human life on the planet.

Quote:

Global climate change has happened before and the world (clearly) and mankind has survived.

And mankind would also survive terrorist attacks.

Quote:

True to form, we will not react to a situation until it becomes a crisis, but it is highly unlikely that there will be sudden effects of global climate change that will not meet a tardy but, essentially, effective human response.

Well, here's the thing. I admit my ignorance as to what the full array of possibilities are, but it seems plausible that we could reach a point of no return. A point where the ice caps have melted to such an extent that suddenly cutting emissions is useless.

Quote:

Terrorism in its ultimate extreme has the potential for ridding us of our concerns about global climate change (If we believe such changes are human induced).

And vice versa, I'm afraid.

Quote:

Terrorism, rather than global climate change has the potential for retrogressing, or destroying human civilization. The New Caliphate will almost certainly impose reactionary forces upon our civilization and thus give, at least some breathing room to Gaia.

Within the next twenty years, which is more likely to cause your death or the deaths of your loved ones: Terrorism or global climate change.

I don't know that answer. Has anyone ever measured the probability of either? If I lived in New Orleans or on the island of Tuvalu, I might think the latter is more likely. If I lived in NY city or Israel, I might believe it's the former. Even though we call terrorism a global problem (which it is in as much as violence is a globally human problem), the threat is largely localized.

If terrorism is a crime, it seems ludicrous to think that crime will destroy human civilization. If it is an act of war, it defies recent history to believe that war will destroy human civilization (on a global scale, anway, it's pretty effective at the local level). However, major changes to our life support system, the very thing that makes life possible, could do the trick IMO.

0 Replies

Free Duck- It is my considered opinion that you know very little about climate change, if by climate change you are speaking about the alleged global warming.

As usual, Finn knocked the ball out of the park.

My answer, if by climate change, you mean the alleged global warming, would be to choose global warming immediately as a choice over terrorism.

Although nature can be terrible, nuclear weapons in the hands of murderous Islamo-fascists are far far more terrible.

Besides, FreeDuck, I am sure you know that those who control the terms of an argument always win. Your questions were a set-up!

0 Replies

Global Warming vs. Terrorism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know