Political debate: Make Your Voice Heard

Arellia · **Sat Oct 02, 2004 6:19 pm**

True. But my family has had to defend themselves before. So, I see logic in it. Guy tried to kill my father, my father shot him. The guy didn't die, which was kind of unfortunate, since he then made an attempt on my dad again. It might not be entirely right either way, but I think self-defense is permissable.

Zeke Zabertini · Captain Joined: 13 Sep 2002 Posts: 4832

Okay, I'm going to give us a new topic soon, but... why was he trying to kill your dad? If he made two attempts there must have been a motive.

Arellia · **Sat Oct 02, 2004 6:25 pm**

The first attempt was robbery. My father only passingly knew the man, and my dad's an ex-sherriff deputy. The second attempt...well, just because my dad shot him. The man's dead now, though. Heart attack or some such. I'm rather relieved, I'm sorry to say.

Zeke Zabertini · Captain Joined: 13 Sep 2002 Posts: 4832

Heh. I suppose that's understandable. All right, any closing statements?

Hitchhiker · **Sat Oct 02, 2004 6:27 pm**

I can see how a personal experience such as that will change one's outlook on life, and ethics. I'd like to say that in the same situation, I would still be a pacificist, but the realist in me doubts that.

Oooh, new topic. ::excited::

Puck · The Texan Joined: 05 Jan 2004 Posts: 5596

Zeke Zabertini · Captain Joined: 13 Sep 2002 Posts: 4832

All right. Next topic is... wait for it... the environment! How high a priority should the environment be in federal regulation of business? Should businesses be expected to pay for cleaner methods of running their operations? How much? Do you support international treaties regulating pollution, or feel that each nation should be left to make its own decisions? Should alternative energy be more actively pursued? What do you think?

Arellia · **Sat Oct 02, 2004 7:02 pm**

I'm all for pursuing alternate forms of energy, especially if it takes our dependence off of foreign countries. Businesses should be regulated on polluting, I agree... I'm not exactly a green party advocate, (Obviously) and I don't have a dismal "GREENHOUSE EFFECT! THE WORLD IS DYING! TREES ARE FALLING! THE OZONE IS GONE!" ...opinion...however. The environment should be protected to at least some extent. Other countries should not be regulated by foreign countries, though. That's not within the jurisdiction one country should have over another.

Hitchhiker · **Sat Oct 02, 2004 7:08 pm**

I'm neither an avid environmentalist, nor am I the opposite.

I'm concerned about the world's dependence on fossil fuels, oil in particular, because even the loosest estimates predict that useful oil will be depleted before this century is out, which may seem like a long time, but it isn't really.

Everyone says, "Oh, we'll have a hydrogen fuel cell economy by then," but sadly we've still got to come up with cheap palladium for the cells themselves. However, the hydrogen fuel cell developments are impressive.

I think that global warming is an issue that needs to be taken seriously, but that the Kyoto Protocol was a huge mistake. We basically told developing countries that they could catch up to developed countries in greenhouse gas emissions before they had to stop. The U.S. did the right thing by not signing it.

So I think that nations should continue to work to improve our environment, we're in a sorry state right now, but I'm not being a doomsayer here.

After all, we only have one planet, one Earth, and we are all in this together.

Arellia · **Sat Oct 02, 2004 7:21 pm**

True. However, I don't see evidence of the problems being horrific yet. Just as of yet, of course. That could very well change. As for hydrogen cells...I think that nanotechnology is actually a better alternative to most stuff. I know it sounds odd, but I'd been studying it, and the research is promising. IF it works. Big IF.

Republican_Man · **Sat Oct 02, 2004 7:33 pm**

Hitchhiker · **Sat Oct 02, 2004 7:58 pm**

Globalwarming.org speaks of the supposed "Mediaeval Warm Period" as if it were truth, this has largely been proven false however.

Nanotechnology is indeed looking impressive, I just finished reading Michael Chrichton's Prey, and the implications of nanotechnology are certainly both exciting and disturbing.

Arellia · **Sat Oct 02, 2004 8:21 pm**

Zeke Zabertini · Captain Joined: 13 Sep 2002 Posts: 4832

My views on this are pretty loose. I mostly think that the environment should be protected by requiring companies to use the cleanest methods of manufacture and disposal. I also believe that it should be the federal government's responsibility to regulate such things since companies cannot be expected to pour money into regulating their pollution output unless someone is standing over them. International treaties settin environmental standards are also a good idea, since pollution is something that actually affects us around the globe. However, joining a treaty should be voluntary at this point. As for development of alternative energies, I'm all for it. It needs government money though, since the big oil companies certainly aren't going to pay to make their product obsolete.

Kyre · Commodore Joined: 15 Mar 2002 Posts: 1263

Republican_Man · **Sun Oct 03, 2004 10:36 am**

Hitchhiker · **Sun Oct 03, 2004 10:44 am**

Republican_Man · **Sun Oct 03, 2004 10:47 am**

^Yes, agreed, and did you know that Bill O'Reilly is an environmentalist!

Jeremy · **Sun Oct 03, 2004 5:09 pm**

I'm rather annoyed with Americans saying the enviroment doesn't matter and so on. I'm not one of the nutter tree hugging hippies but it does matter - a lot. Britian isn't exactly the best country at improving stuff but it's doing a lot better than America. Sure, global warming is a natural process - when it's happening to raise the earth's temprature 1 degree F over the last 10 000 years or so. But at the moment it's going to be rising about 2.5�-10.4�F over the next 100 years. That won't cause a problem?

* mountain glaciers the world over are receding;

* the Arctic ice pack has lost about 40% of its thickness over the past four decades;

* the global sea level is rising about three times faster over the past 100 years compared to the previous 3,000 years; and

* there are a growing number of studies that show plants and animals changing their range and behavior in response to shifts in climate.

Also people say it is cheaper to use the more unenviromentally options - what about the damage caused by the ever increasing adverse weather conditions? Between 1990 and the year 2000, 7 of the 10 hottest years for the centuary were recorded. El Nine also increased. A coincidence?

Hitchhiker · **Sun Oct 03, 2004 5:24 pm**

Jeremy · **Sun Oct 03, 2004 5:28 pm**

Scotland seems to be doing ok at the moment, although new legislation that's coming in will probably affect it's green power projects badly. Energy that is near cities will be cheaper than that from far away and since a lot of green electricity is far from towns then it's going to make it more expensive and so is less likely to be considered.

Zeke Zabertini · Captain Joined: 13 Sep 2002 Posts: 4832

I'm beginning to run low on topics here, people. Any suggestions you send me via PM would be greatly appreciated.

The next topic is... WMD proliferation; specifically nuclear weapons, though you can feel free to throw in your thoughts on the chemical and biological weaponry too. What action should the United States and/or other nuclear-capable nations do to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction? Should they do anything? As an aside, is the mutual assured destruction theory still an effective deterrant today? Should stable, democratic nations be allowed to develop nuclear capability, or even be given nuclear technology? What do you think?

Arellia · **Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:50 pm**

Not an easy subject. Saying that one country can have WMD's and not another sounds bad, quite frankly. I do think that a stable nation could probably handle their own weapons' programs. However, less stable nations like Iraq, Iran, Korea and the like should keep their hands off. Further, I wouldn't be for getting rid of WMD's across the board, even though it'd be kind of nice not to worry about that much power getting into the wrong hands. It's like guns. You can't keep criminals permanently away from guns just by banning them. Likewise, you can't get rid of every WMD in the world, and trust that the "bad guys" don't have them. And anyway...I kind of *am* in favor of keeping them. *eh-heh* You consider that a good neuclear blast can end conflicts quite quickly. Not that it's great to kill that many civilians. But, desperate times, desperate measures...

Jeremy · **Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:23 pm**

In some ways. Guns can only kill a "few" people, so it is ok to ban them. Nukes will kill millions if used, so I see this as as enabling stable governments to have them for deterent means. I would like the whole world to get rid of them, but it won't happen.

Arellia · **Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:28 pm**

Should probably not go into the gun thing again, but.

It's not any more "okay" to get rid of guns when you consider it could be your life, or a family members' life in danger. And I will drop it here, since we already went over this... Not to take away from the fact that nuclear weapons are far more a danger than firearms, mind.