Libfas, please explain your ethics

1.  Why is it wrong to kill a violent criminal but okay to kill an innocent fetus?  I'm not particularly opposed to abortions, but it makes no sense that you rail against capital punishment while endorsing abortion.

2.  Why do you despise Christianity but tell everyone else that their religions are beautiful and are to be respected?  I don't understand how you can extol the greatness of science and education while while telling everyone (other than Christians) that their baseless beliefs should be protected.  I'm generally opposed to religion, so I say if you're going to hate one of them, hate all of them.

3.  Why is it wrong from conservatives to go on fear mongering about terrorism but it's okay for you to tell everyone the world is going to end because of global warming?  Whether or not you believe in either of these supposed threats it's clear that both sides are using fear to manipulate people.  Why not take the higher road if you're so educated and ethical?

4.  Why do you like Mac so much?

5.  Why do you believe the federal government can fix all of society's ills when it can barely deliver the mail?  It has been proven throughout history that large central governments lead to corruption and abuse.  Why do you continue to support big government?

"That threat, by now has been proven, beyond a reasonable doubt to be existent. The only people who say other wise are ignorant fucktards."

Yeah, those scientists who are in the minority are 'ignorant fucktards' aren't they? I'm sure you are WAY more informed/intelligent.

With regard to the supposed global warming 'threat,' you need to consider what the impacts of global warming actually will be. 

Hint:  even were it true, the effects aren't going to be nearly as bad as all the envirofags are saying they will be.  Gore had to do a good deal of fearmongering and doomsday preaching that just isn't conclusively supported by the data in order to sound interesting enough to make your average guy listen to his blather on the environment. 

"That threat, by now has been proven, beyond a reasonable doubt to be existent. The only people who say other wise are ignorant fucktards."

And what about the threat of terrorism?  I mean, it's not like there has never been a terrorist act anywhere ever.  The only conclusive evidence for global warming is what a group of scientists has told you.  So far, global warming has killed 0, that's ZERO, people.  Islamic terrorists on the other hand have actually killed many many people.  Hmmm, I wonder which is the more immediate threat?

>>39
That's not the point, faggot.  The point is that you should be opposed to all forms of human rights violations.  Shouldn't you?  Or can you just pick and choose now?

>>42
yeah, worldwide crop failures, coastal cities going below sea level, stronger/more frequent storms... yeah, that shit's nothing.  fucking moron.  the only scientists that say global warming isn't real and isn't a threat are the same type that said cigarrettes aren't bad for you - lying sacks of shit.

>>43
global warming is the graver threat.  its already killed people by storms/droughts.  islamic terrorism is a social issue which cannot be solved by military intervention (short of exterminating all muslims).  maybe if you actually learned about this shit instead of parroting what you hear on talk radio you wouldn't sound like such a retard.

>>44

it's not a human rights violation to imprison people, it's a human rights violation to do it because of things listed in the human rights charter. you can't imprison people because of what they say or think, or because of how they look, or because of where they're from, etc.

some people find prison inhuman, other's don't, as long as there  is access to certain facilities it isn't considered inhuman according to the various international agreements on what is inhuman and not inhuman.

>>45
Scientist say X, scientists say Y, scientists say....etc. etc.

True fact:  Scientists are humans and are just as biased as anyone else.  And you can minipulate a study or a statistic to say whatever the fuck you want.

Scientists want funding and grants for research, so why not tell everyone something interesting so maybe people will throw money at them for more studies?

>>47
fucking retard.  the evidence is beyond overwhelming, you're apparently just too stupid to understand it.

>>46
many of the holes in foreign countries we throw people in are inhuman.  the do torture.  too many of the people we imprison in the 'war on terror' are innocent - either mistaken identity or innocent people turned in by vindictive neighbors.  this kind of shit just makes more terrorists.

>>43
and terrorism is a issue that needs to be addresses,
but not by running around like a chicken with its head cut off and bombing anyone who looks at you the wrong way

Here's the thing:

It doesn't matter what "international charters" say.  What is and is not humane treatment is metaphysically independent of that.

Prison and the death penalty are inhumane--which is why they're perfectly appropriate for those who choose to violate the sacred individual rights of others.

The problem with government welfare is that it is slavery, which is wholly indefensible.

The individual is an end in himself, and exists solely for his own sake, to pursue his own rational self-interest.  He has no obligation to provide for others, and others have no obligation to provide for him.  The mere fact of his existence does not entitle him to the means by which to continue that existence.

As for global warming, it's absurd to say it's not happening unless you want to claim that everyone is lying about what they're reading off their thermometers (simplified, I know, but that's the gist of it).  The problem, though, is this: is the cure worse than the disease?

Climatologists are uniquely qualified to tell us about what is likely to happen with the climate, what is causing it, and how it can be stopped.  What neither they nor anyone else is qualified to answer is the normative question of whether it should be stopped.  The answer to this question depends on the cumulative subjective value judgments of the entire world's population.

See, in the real world everything is a tradeoff.  Every use of resources to stop or contain global warming proactively diverts them from other uses that might in fact have a more desirable net effect--and what constitutes a "desirable net effect" is based on the sum of the utility preferences of every single human being on earth.  No climatologist, no government, no monolithic entity at all has the information necessary to decide which measure would be the best to take.  But the free market, in which every individual implicitly contributes his own bit of knowledge and his own value preferences to maximize his own utility, can do just that.

So it's a horrible idea to try and get government involved in dealing with climate change.  The market, by definition, will produce the outcome that best maximizes utility across the board--in other words, it will produce the solution that is best for actual people.  It's the ultimate in distributed decision-making.

>>51
the market alone doesn't work any more than communism works.  your argument is pie in the sky horseshit.  the market will do what looks best in next quarter's report.

Germany's a good example of how gov't can make change happen:  they give tax breaks to homeowners who put solar cells on their property and connect them to the electric grid.  solar collectors are popping up all over and are making a real contribution to electric power in Germany while also helping reduce global warming.

>>52
lol @ libfags.  who gives a fuck about global warming? I certainly don't.

i say let the world warm up.... we'll grow oranges in alaska! HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHA

>>53
You're not helping you faggot.

But the truth is humans can do nothing to prevent global warming.  They can't do anything to contribute to it either.  I don't what fucking level of huburis libfags have but it must be amazing for them to actually think humans can have some sort of disasterous effect on the climate of the entire fucking planet.

Also, please do explain why the polar caps of Mars are also melting.  Is my CO2 pumping car causing a warming effect there too?

>>54
So ignore the numerous reports that it is actually happening.
Humans are having an extreme impact on the environment, research damage done to the Great Barrier reef is just a small example of this. Humans have been affecting the world, over fishing, over hunting has caused the extinction of numerous species and poor farming methods are also having effects on the environment. To say that humans arent having an impact is stupid, early farmers in the Fertile crescent over harvested nearby trees for fire wood, causing total deforestation, to which the region has not recovered. Were not looking at mars, which is a completely different thing. It is simple, were taking CO2 from under the ground (oil, coal, etc) and releasing it into the atmosphere and it is having an adverse affect on the environment.

>>48

yes, and those countries are doing human rights violations which we should try to stop, furthermore we should stop working with them.

51: You're missing the point.  You're saying the market won't do what you want done, which is probably correct if you think the only way to minimize its negative impact is to stop it outright.

But that's incredibly narrow-minded, not to mention megalomaniacal, thinking.

It isn't necessarily true that the most effective and efficient method of dealing with climate change is to proactively stop it.  It could be that the method which best minimizes impact on human life--that is, the method which maximizes utility globally--is instead reactive.  The ONLY means of discovering this method is through the workings of the free market.

Climate change isn't something that needs to be stopped for its own sake.  It only needs to be dealt with to the extent that it negatively affects the actual interests of real people IF IN FACT IT DOES--and the market is the only mechanism capable of dealing with this, because it is the only means available of accumulating and processing all the information necessary to make such a decision.

And if the market winds up not dealing with climate change at all, it's because people have decided that it's not actually a problem--which is perfectly fine, and perfectly possible.

Your problem is that you are a megalomaniac.

>>55
Yes let's just ignore what's happening on Mars.  That couldn't possibly be related at all to what's happening on Earth.  No, the sun's activity has nothing to do with it all.  It's all the little green men on Mars with their SUVs that are causing Martian polar caps to melt.

If you're going to insist that scientists are right about what's happening on Earth you're going to have to accept what they say about Mars too.  You can't choose to take in scientific evidence only when it's convenient you fucking prick.

>>1
Why are you clinically retarded?

Your Bush Administration currently uses terrorism as a means to a more sinister end. That is, a justification for the forcible sodomy of your Constitution.

>>53
>>54
so, when the predictions come true, can we put you to death for your part?  worthless piece of shit, go live in bangledesh and enjoy some death.

>>60
Chances are you contributed just as much.  So you can die too.
Or do you think that buying carbon credits (modern day indulgence certificates) exhonorates you.

>>57

I find this to be reckless thinking. You keep saying the market will take care of it as if (A) we should be relying solely on the market in the first place and (B) without stating what the market would do to solve it.

If I'm megalomaniac for questioning how a market, which as thus far proven to not give a shit about the present and has offered us shitty solutions for problems they've created, then the market itself is a tyrant.

We can sit here and flip around this market vs government shit all day, meanwhile I don't see anyone doing a god damn thing about a problem this IS FACT. This is what you fucks don't understand. This is happening.

You guys seem to rab medias attoin but feds seems to not care.
I would never join you as i have a belife of 4chan.....
I belive it was started to cause kids to repeal from rules even though they always do.. but biger rules...
the leader of 4chan i belive is infact a alcada member..
How i can tell?
You make encomy worse with your treats.
Hiting it online is a cheaper way.

But. IF the feds dont take you as a treat you are not one they would have data on you..

All of these theroys are not confirmed True just a opnoin.

Any how i find this place dangous to post at. No offnce but your guys are insane you probly cant even reson with human logic. Your mind have been whiped by Cult like tactics.
Just to say i do not Rep or am with 4chan infact i hope they are caught and sent to jail. Since you did that stunt feds probly crawl all over here.. Who ever this anomus is has to be caught and puneshd. And ive met you member Ian in secondlife. i reported him to linden lab hes banned but what gets me is his account was 1 year of age.

I'm a Eurofag, and I believe that America's so called "liberals" have distorted the meaning of the word. It used to mean less government, not a huge state which they want.

>>64
This is true.  The definitions of the words we're using today are completely inaccurate (with respect to liberal -> conservative, that is). 

To chime in on the original question (and the responses to it):
1. Criminals cost around 20k per year, per inmate.  Some 4-member families can live on this.  I say end them and save us all some scratch, or find a way to charge only those who oppose the death penalty. 

By the same token, if a woman doesn't want her damned kid, see if someone will adopt, and, failing that, let her get rid of it.  I don't want her raising a child any more than she does. 

2.  I'll reiterate what others have said: the far left agenda has had a far more profound effect on America than the Christian agenda.  I don't care for either of them, personally, but I'd sooner live in a society with uptight Christian morals than the hyper-PC society we seem to be building up to today.  I guess a happy middle is out of the question?

3.  Excellent question, to which there has been little substantiative response, IMO.  If terrorism is a threat at all, it is a big one.  The second those fellows get a nuke will be end of global warming.  Our new concern will be nuclear winter.    Both issues have been over politicized, however, so a healthy consensus can no longer be reached.  Oops.

5.  The literature I've read sings a strong tune about the virtues of the free market (Look up John Stossel if you're interested).  It lists a myriad of examples of the free market working, and government intervention failing.  Two examples: rent control and the pharmaceutical industry.  And of course, history is replete with "big governments" in general failing.

If the market doesn't solve global warming, it means that IT'S NOT ACTUALLY A PROBLEM.

That is to say, it means that generally people have decided that the positive consequences of global warming outweigh the negative ones.

You're a megalomaniac because you're not okay with that if it happens.  You want things your way, regardless of what everyone else prefers.

>>66
there are no positives to global warming for us.  it's also bad for all plants that cannot utilise the C4 or CAM pathways for fixing carbon into sugar (non tropical).  it's bad for shell fish as the oceans become more acidic (CO2 in water = carbonic acid, also ties up more calcium).  it's bad for us when nasty tropical diseases migrate further north.  in fact, global warning is a lose for everyone, dipshit.  belief in the market as some be all, end all system is moronic.  you are a fucking retard.

>>67

There is no positive?  Who are you to say that?  Not even the most advanced global climate model can accurately predict what could happen. 

You know what I say will happen?  For every inch the water level rises, there's another inch of water contributing to the circumpolar currents.  You know what those do?  They keep the poles cold.  It'll get warmer, sure, but who's to say that it won't get colder just as fast as it got warm?  All we can say is that things are changing.  It is arrogant to assert that you know what those changes will be.

As for the market, it will evaluate every single option that is presented and select the option(s) that are the most effective (cost effective inclusive).  You know what breaks that?  Artificial government controls. 

>>68
again with the talking about shit you have no clue about.  nearly all the changes thus far have been very bad.  biggest extinction in 65 million years.

when the water rises it doesn't help the currents that bring water to/from the poles - it stills them retard (all that cold, unsalted water fucks the currents up).  and those currents distribute cold water south, evening out temps in Britain and Europe.

now, if you've anything useful to contribute (like actual facts) that would be nice, otherwise shut the fuck up and let the adults have grown up talk.

ps, the market doesn't work they way you've been told.  without gov't controls, there's nobody to stop them from going all China on your ass - poison food, fake (deadly) drugs, lead/poison covered toys.... same thing as here in the USA about 100 years ago (lessez-faire and the guilded age), that's how the market actually works fucktard.

now go troll somewhere else.

>>68
>>69
the biggest contributor to the water level isn't snow and ice etc. melting, it's water expanding as it's temperature increases.

"3.  Why is it wrong from conservatives to go on fear mongering about terrorism but it's okay for you to tell everyone the world is going to end because of global warming?  Whether or not you believe in either of these supposed threats it's clear that both sides are using fear to manipulate people.  Why not take the higher road if you're so educated and ethical?"

The thing to keep in mind is that while faggots like Al Gore say the sea levels will rise like 20 feet, the actual TRUTH is that they WON'T.  They'll rise by roughly ONE foot.  Gore's statistic shows an increase that is like 2000% greater than the actual sea level increase.  Even if global warming is actually happening, it doesn't really mean shit anyways. 

Also, the resulting temperature increase in northern areas will mean fewer people will die from cold deaths... and far more people die of cold deaths than die of heat-related deaths. 

The cost of implimenting Kyoto would be about 160-180billion each year for five years... and would only postpone the effects of global warming by about 7 days at the end of the century.  The costs of implementing Kyoto are FAR greater than the cost of simply sending direct aid to the people who need it NOW, which is yet another reason not to be concerned with it.  The risks of global warming are worth considering, but in the end minuscule.

>>71
the temp increase in northern areas means an increase in deaths from malaria and other tropical diseases.  malaria kills over one million people per year already, imagine how much worse it will be when it starts happening in Europe and North America.

if you're gonna lie, try not to fail so hard at it.

>>70
for now its thermal expansion, but when significant portions of the polar icecaps/greenland melt its gonna play hell with the ocean currents that are a big contributer to global weather.

>>71
the cost of implementing kyoto pales in comparison to the cost of the shitstorm that will happen within 50 years if we do nothing.  another specious argument from the oil/coal industry.  try thinking for yourself, tool.

You don't know what the costs--whether in terms of money, human life, quality of life, or any other form of utility--of not dealing with global warming proactively will be.  You also don't know what the costs of implementing Kyoto or any of the other various proposals will be, either.

No one can.  The number variables involved is too high, and their interactions too complex, to make it possible for any monolithic entity to make this judgment.

But markets can.  Markets, the ultimate distributed decision-making mechanism, work by bringing together billions of people, each of whom possesses information regarding his own personal interests and preferences.  By aggregating all this information, markets necessarily produce the outcome that best maximizes utility across the board.

ITT:  we're all experts in global climate, economics, and politics

Right?

WRONG.
I love how everyone in this thread speaks like they're some kind authority on whatever the fuck they're talking about.  Truth is you know just about as much as anyone else who isn't seriously studying the data.  Get real faggots.

>>74
give it up retard, the markets simply don't work the way you think.

Such a brilliant argument...

>>77
I knew you'd come around.  welcome to the world of rational thought!  its a lovely place, enjoy your stay!

1. There's a chance that capital punishment is taking an innocent, sentient life. With abortions before twenty weeks into the pregnancy, there's no chance of that, because its brain and nervous system have yet to be developed enough for it to happen. Furthermore, restricting legal abortions will just lead most women to get back-alley abortions, thereby not saving any fetuses' lives and causing quite a few more unnecessary injuries and deaths of pregnant women. Furthermore, anyone who trusts any government with the power of life and death over its citizens is asking for trouble.

2. I hate all religions equally.

3. Because, unlike terrorism, there are accredited, peer-reviewed scientists claiming that global warming is a threat to everyone's way of life, whereas terrorism affects only thousands of us each year at most. However , I actually do care about terrorism quite a bit, and it has also been established that the policies our government is pursuing in an attempt to curb it are failing miserably.

4. I don't really give a shit about the stupid operating system debate actually, but Windows *is* buggy as all get-out.

5. I don't support big government. My ideal government at this stage in time would educate, provide health care to its citizens, protect its citizens from external and internal threats, prosecute corporate fraud ruthlessly, and provide unemployment benefits. That's all. Compared to the borderline theocracy a lot of conservatives want to implement, that's a small government. And it's only "large government" in comparison to what most libertarians envision if one disregards corporations, which would under their system continue their trend of becoming even larger than most governments, so that (as of the most recent figures I've obtained) fifty-one of the world's hundred largest economies are corporations.

>>1
killing a featus implies that its alive, and even then it assumes its human, when in actual fact a featus is a parasite

untill you can cut it out and it still have a reasonable chance to live, its not a baby but a parasite, and in my definition that isnt human

thats how im ok with abortion and not corperal punishment