It appears that a large segment of the population bases much of it's "philosophy" upon whether they will be inconvenienced.
If the idea of global warming is recognized, then there may be limitations in the use of certain types of fuels and some increased costs. Therefore there is no global warming.
If there are requirements for increased fuel efficiency in vehicles, there may be an increased cost for those, too. Therefore it is unwise and unnecessary to increase fuel efficiency.
If there is a benefit to the environment in having more energy efficient appliances, such as light bulbs, and those might cost more, to them that is a gross invasion of privacy and should not be applied.
However, in foreign affairs, diplomacy are signs of weakness and compromise is a total loss. It is better to demonstrate one's resoluteness by attacking and taking what one wants than to be preceived as cowards who can be taken advantage of easily.
It is better to bomb and destroy and be feared than to build a school or hospital and let the other side be seen as winning.
Given those biases, one does not have to follow the phonied rationalizations which is used to justify - they aren't based upon any other logic than selfishness and and a grandiose view of their importance. They are entirely predictable when one used those yardsticks.
Arf
Flame » in reply to Largely, I have said what I have to say to you
An ideology based upon inconvenience.
The whole thread (43 posts)
- Continued from "Community"
- Redefine "do" to popular slang nomenclature.
- re: Interesting
- "The Montreal Protocol is 20 years old. How's that ozone hole been coming along?"
- Largely, I have said what I have to say to you