'@ThorsomeTarmukas' I don’t think there is any point discussing the science with thee. The two camps both have their arguments and their data, and neither side can be clearly ruled out. That is the major problem with this conflict, the ambiguity.
I will only end by saying that the final lie from the climate hoax is that they equate “climate change” (notice that this have replaced global warming) with pollution. And it is not the same thing.
It is much more simple to look at the political consequences.
Thou mentioned another thing that I find very important. Namely the goal. Thou said that the goal is all that matters. I disagree, we need to look at the means. I don’t think there is such a thing as an ignoble goal, at least not in the eyes of these who have them. We cannot want evil. We all want Good, the problem comes from people not having a clear understanding of what Good is.
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” Isaiah 5:20
That is the problem. Remember that Good, Truth and Beauty is a trinity, and as a consequence so is their opposite Evil Hideous Lies.
What we should concentrate on is the means. As I said, there are things that are inherently Good and there are things that are inherently evil, and the consequences of actions are not relevant.
Consequentialist always decays to a “the goal justifies the means” mentality, they never look at the inherent moral value of an action, but only on its consequence. Consequences that can never truly be calculated in the complex world we live in.
The principle of human laws, are the Natural Law of fundamental rights, and of malum in se.
I don’t get what thou mean by thy rejection of the right to live and the right to multiply. If thou by “multiply” means procreate, then it is the same thing.
And tragedy of the commons, comes from the lack of property. I don’t deplete land that I own, no one does, unless they are idiots, but then they would lose their land to someone else anyway, it is self correcting.
And so is the climate, if the global temperatures were to rise above a certain threshold, we would get a new iceage. The gulf stream that gives life to all of Northen Europe could be turned away. Nature always corrects, one way or another, as I said, Earth is a living organism, it have a metabolism, and it is in homeostasis.
But enough of that ,seriously, and I have to go in a moment, so I have to make the last point short.
Malum in se means evil in itself. It is the basis of law. Robbery, Theft, Swindle, Murder, Rape, Adultery these are all malum in se.
Copyright infringement is not, it is an abstraction, and unlike traffic laws, that can be justified as a malum prohibitum, evil due to conventions, it harms no one.
But the point is, we need to look at the actions themselves. Of what they are inherently and on their own. We cannot just look at the consequences, because that leads to an infinite regress, it ultimately takes us nowhere.
0
'@ThorsomeTarmukas' I don’t think there is any point discussing the science with thee. The two camps both have their arguments and their data, and neither side can be clearly ruled out. That is the major problem with this conflict, the ambiguity.
I will only end by saying that the final lie from the climate hoax is that they equate “climate change” (notice that this have replaced global warming) with pollution. And it is not the same thing.
It is much more simple to look at the political consequences.
Thou mentioned another thing that I find very important. Namely the goal. Thou said that the goal is all that matters. I disagree, we need to look at the means. I don’t think there is such a thing as an ignoble goal, at least not in the eyes of these who have them. We cannot want evil. We all want Good, the problem comes from people not having a clear understanding of what Good is.
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” Isaiah 5:20
That is the problem. Remember that Good, Truth and Beauty is a trinity, and as a consequence so is their opposite Evil Hideous Lies.
What we should concentrate on is the means. As I said, there are things that are inherently Good and there are things that are inherently evil, and the consequences of actions are not relevant.
Consequentialist always decays to a “the goal justifies the means” mentality, they never look at the inherent moral value of an action, but only on its consequence. Consequences that can never truly be calculated in the complex world we live in.
The principle of human laws, are the Natural Law of fundamental rights, and of malum in se.
I don’t get what thou mean by thy rejection of the right to live and the right to multiply. If thou by “multiply” means procreate, then it is the same thing.
And tragedy of the commons, comes from the lack of property. I don’t deplete land that I own, no one does, unless they are idiots, but then they would lose their land to someone else anyway, it is self correcting.
And so is the climate, if the global temperatures were to rise above a certain threshold, we would get a new iceage. The gulf stream that gives life to all of Northen Europe could be turned away. Nature always corrects, one way or another, as I said, Earth is a living organism, it have a metabolism, and it is in homeostasis.
But enough of that ,seriously, and I have to go in a moment, so I have to make the last point short.
Malum in se means evil in itself. It is the basis of law. Robbery, Theft, Swindle, Murder, Rape, Adultery these are all malum in se.
Copyright infringement is not, it is an abstraction, and unlike traffic laws, that can be justified as a malum prohibitum, evil due to conventions, it harms no one.
But the point is, we need to look at the actions themselves. Of what they are inherently and on their own. We cannot just look at the consequences, because that leads to an infinite regress, it ultimately takes us nowhere.