|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:51 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Anyway, most people missed my main point. Thanks showing me pet people can't argue a rational point. |
Um, you're missing a very basic fact. people love their pets. Love is not rational. In many ways, it's the opposite of rational. So, you're asking people to argue rationally about something is at core a very irrationalpart of life ... and that's illogical.
I was wondering, would you consider carbon-trade-offs to be a viable solution? That is, a pet owner would need to calculate the cost to the ecosystem their cuddly friend is incurring, then make some other sacrifice in their lifestyle, like riding a bike to work when you just as easily drive, that sort of thing. Heck, just something like never using anything but rechargeable batteries goes a lot farther than you might think.
Just an idea, thought I'd throw it out there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JongnoGuru
Joined: 25 May 2004
Location: peeing on your doorstep
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Anyway, most people missed my main point. Thanks showing me pet people can't argue a rational point. |
I was wondering, would you consider carbon-trade-offs to be a viable solution? That is, a pet owner would need to calculate the cost to the ecosystem their cuddly friend is incurring, then make some other sacrifice in their lifestyle, like riding a bike to work when you just as easily drive, that sort of thing. Heck, just something like never using anything but rechargeable batteries goes a lot farther than you might think.
Just an idea, thought I'd throw it out there. |
That's just what I was thinking. It's not the individual components but rather the totality of our "carbon footprint" that matters and that we should be concerned about minimising. And I don't think it even requires conscious, quid pro quo sacrifices or trade-offs, though that's probably the most useful approach for addressing the issue.
I happen to raise dogs, BUT... I've never bought one from a petshop, they were all rescued or (as occurred recently) were born of rescued dogs. I wasn't thinking "minimise my carbon footprint" when I took any of those dogs in, but I believe it was more beneficial to the environment than had I bought petshop dogs. So I want my carbon credit for that.
I happen to ride motorcycles and take public transportation, rather than own a car. That decision had nothing to do with carbon footprints. The primary factors were practicality, economy, fun and chick appeal. All very noble considerations, but environmental friendliness wasn't one of them. Still, gimme my carbon credit.
I have cut way, way down on animal meat. Not quite a vegetarian, but I'm closer to it than I've ever been, and closer to it than most people I know who aren't self-professed vegetarians. Again, I didn't do this out of any concern for the environment or how much pollution the beef industry generates or animal welfare. I did it solely for my own greedy self -- for the physical, bodily, feel-good, feel-clean, feel-strong sensation of it. Go, me! Oh yeah, and please gimme my carbon credit.
When the time comes, I'll buy used cars rather than new ones. I would always prefer to remodel or renovate existing buildings, rather than tear off a fresh strip of wilderness to build on. I recycle like a madman. And on top of that, I'm pretty easy-going, I try to mind my manners, and gosh darn it, people like me. Well, at least they seem to. So how about laying some of that carbon credit on me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sineface
Joined: 27 Feb 2006
Location: C'est magnifique
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| sineface wrote: |
Yes I have a somewhat outlandish suggestion for the OP. It is fundamentally centered around switching of one's bl00dy computer. I've heard using less electricity (and producing a damn sight less hot air) does wonders for reducing climate change.
And um,
| mindmetoo wrote: |
Anyway, there's a logical fallacy called inconsistency. It's silly to argue against global warming, like SUV ownership, while you're keeping a pet, which itself adds to carbon emissions and provides nothing that human companionship can't provide. Unless you're into making friends who lick their ass and then lick your face. |
Unless I'm grossly mistaken and studied another kind of logical philosophy during my degree than you did, I'm rather certain that's incorrect. There is no such logical fallacy named Inconsistency. And whilst we're at it, though an argument may be "silly" , that makes it no less valid or sound. Thus, if you do so plan on attacking other's arguments based on these premises, I suggest basing your own on them first. |
http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/incon.htm
Inconsistency
Definition:
The author asserts more than one proposition such that the propositions cannot all be true. In such a case, the propositions may be contradictories or they may be contraries. |
Well, whilst I'll admit I'd never read of that one before, something about this:
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Anyway, most people missed my main point. Thanks showing me pet people can't argue a rational point. |
Rings a bell. Hasty Generalisation? Voice of An Ar$e? I'm not sure of the technical term. Regardless. You are tiresome. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Anyway, most people missed my main point. Thanks showing me pet people can't argue a rational point. |
Um, you're missing a very basic fact. people love their pets. Love is not rational. In many ways, it's the opposite of rational. So, you're asking people to argue rationally about something is at core a very irrationalpart of life ... and that's illogical.
I was wondering, would you consider carbon-trade-offs to be a viable solution? That is, a pet owner would need to calculate the cost to the ecosystem their cuddly friend is incurring, then make some other sacrifice in their lifestyle, like riding a bike to work when you just as easily drive, that sort of thing. Heck, just something like never using anything but rechargeable batteries goes a lot farther than you might think.
Just an idea, thought I'd throw it out there. |
Holy God. This crap thread produced a golden turd.
If the world is really in deep trouble, carbon-pet-trade-offs would be the way to balance libertarian freedom-of-choice and communal need to combat global warming. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rD.NaTas
Joined: 06 Nov 2007
Location: changwon
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| gingermongrel wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
Indeed. Pet ownership is purely an act of selfishness and now it is having a devastating environmental impact. |
\
A "devastating" environmental impact"? According to whom? You?: Please share with us some independent research to back up this BS.
I'm try to recall whether the recent World Economic Forum in Davos held a climate change roundtable on the topic "Pet Ownership: Focus On This Devastating Contributor To Global Warming"
I don't think they did, but I could be wrong of course.... |
Anything that contributes to global warming and returns no efficiency to society by definition is contributing to the devastating environmental impact of CO2. |
you are contributing to the enviromental impact of stupid |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
