Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 86

Thread: do you agree? If not, why? If so, why?

  1. #1
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default do you agree? If not, why? If so, why?

    Perhaps you agree in certain situations....please explain

    "In our every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations." --From the Great Law of the Iroquois Confederacy

  2. #2
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: do you agree? If not, why? If so, why?

    to be honest, I agree with the Iroquois approach as it pertained to 'traditional' life as the Iroquois lived it ... i.e. they were reasonably sure that the same basic tenets of tribal life at the time the decision was made, such as living by hunting and fishing and wearing mocassins, would also apply to their descendents 7 generations later.

    However, I disagree with the Iroquois approach today, as I am absolutely certain that the leaders in the mid-1850s could never have envisioned that today's most important aspect of tribal life for their 7th generation descendents is supreme court litigation and gambling casinos !

    It's just a simple fact that the rate of change of technology, and the rate of change in basic tenets of life which technology affects, move SO fast that even decisions which will affect a single generation i.e. 20 years must be founded in a large percentage of supposition that today's 'rules' will still apply 20 years in the future.

  3. #3
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: do you agree? If not, why? If so, why?

    So it's OK for us to make decisions today that may be disastorous for people 2,4,7 generations later simply because we don't know what their technology or lifestyle will be?

  4. #4
    God/dess doc-catfish's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    123 Tornado Alley Way, Hooterville USA
    Posts
    6,322
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 36 Times in 30 Posts

    Default Re: do you agree? If not, why? If so, why?

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    So it's OK for us to make decisions today that may be disastorous for people 2,4,7 generations later simply because we don't know what their technology or lifestyle will be?
    You just summed up the debacle regarding Social Security in a single question. Thanks.
    Former SCJ now in rehab.

  5. #5
    God/dess onlythebest's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Hurricane Wasteland,Louisiana
    Posts
    8,088
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 23 Times in 19 Posts

    Default Re: do you agree? If not, why? If so, why?

    I agree with Doc-Catfish.By the time all of us are eligible for Social Security,there won't be anything left.This is the main reason I hate the IRS.They are worse than any mafiosos.
    One of woman's cardinal rule: Body parts can be fake,everything else has to be real.

    一个女人的枢机规则:肢体可以伪造,一切必须真实.

    中国大CHINESE BIG BOOBS!!!中国大




  6. #6
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: do you agree? If not, why? If so, why?

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    So it's OK for us to make decisions today that may be disastorous for people 2,4,7 generations later simply because we don't know what their technology or lifestyle will be?
    Well you just proved my point ... in regard to Social Security, OSHA, last decimal place Environmental restrictions on businesses etc. it is absolutely impossible to make an intelligent decision at a given point in time and actually understand the true consequences and ramifications of that decision 5 or 6 or 7 generations down the road. For example FDR's institution of Social Security could not have forecast that the result 7 generations later would be the confiscation of 18% of the income of every working American just for SSI in the year 2042. When Social Security was instituted, the total of ALL federal, state and local tax rates didn't even approach 18%.

    Similarly, the imposition of OSHA and last decimal point environmental requirements upon the US auto or chemical industry in the 1970's did not anticipate that seven generations later there would no longer BE a US auto or chemical industry (which will be put out of business by foreign competition about 5 generations after these changes went into effect by my best guess).

    Bottom line is that there is no way to accurately determine future impact beyond some relatively short range projection. Bottom line also is that decisions do need to be made to keep this country going forward. Therefore the two choices open to gov't are to take their best shot based on limited information, or to do nothing - which ironically enough seems to coincide pretty closely with the republican versus democratic party agendas !

  7. #7
    Veteran Member Lurker's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    209
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: do you agree? If not, why? If so, why?

    I assume you're not talking about environmental policy with that last snide remark, Melonie!
    "All this time you were pretending
    So much for my happy ending."
    --Avril Lavigne

  8. #8
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: do you agree? If not, why? If so, why?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lurker
    I assume you're not talking about environmental policy with that last snide remark, Melonie!
    well, yes actually I was ... in regard to doing nothing to alter the current policy towards ANWR drilling etc.

  9. #9
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: do you agree? If not, why? If so, why?

    ANWR. Sigh.

    Look, I'm a conservative on this issue, in two ways:

    1) I would like this area conserved.

    2) I give a strict-construction interpretation. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. If it's a "refuge," treat it as such. To me, perhaps just me, a "refuge" would be expected to remain a "refuge" until faced with emergent circumstances. I don't see emergent circumstances. I don't even see a pressing need yet.

    Agree or disagree with the statement "in decision-making, think ahead seven generations." Well, sure, we should always think about impacts to the people who will come after us. But we can't put those impacts wholly at the forefront in order to neglect present-day needs, either. The costs and benefits to current and future inhabitants is an ever-present balance (whoops, there's that word again).

  10. #10
    Veteran Member Lurker's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    209
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: do you agree? If not, why? If so, why?

    To give a full answer--I agree with the statement. I also agree with Melonie that there are LOTS of things we can't evaluate seven generations out, so we just have to do what seems sensible/reasonable at the time. The environment (which I think is where you're headed with that question, DD) is one of the very few arenas of public policy where we probably CAN look that far ahead, and by and large we're choosing not to.

    Melonie--you say "potato", I say "tomato". I could turn your statement on its head and say it shows that the Republican ENERGY policy is a do-nothing policy (i.e. keep relying on oil which may well run out some day). It's silly to say Republicans are the activist party on the environment (ANWR is really an energy issue to them--the only environmental question is how much we're despoiling it!).

    It's silly to say that Dems are the defenders of the status quo/"doing nothing" and the Repubs are working to change things. When the Dems are in power, THEY'RE working to change things. It's called "advancing your agenda". It's typically done by the party in power, which generally introduces the majority of the legislative initiatives. Which is why the Dems right now are playing defense. I'm sure that if GWB and the Republicans in Congress promised to pass any bill that the Democrats proposed, you'd see them "taking their best shot" in a LOT of areas!
    "All this time you were pretending
    So much for my happy ending."
    --Avril Lavigne

  11. #11
    Veteran Member myssi's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    341
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: do you agree? If not, why? If so, why?

    As for Social Security... if it had really been a real pay into/get out later system and not a Ponzi scheme then nothing would be at issue now.
    It's odd that the question implies that laws should be made to last 150 years... I doubt that people who oppose "strict construction" reading of the constitution would agree... that would keep abortion outlawed, racism institutionalized... all the usual arguments for "modern interpretation" like why we really don't need gun rights anymore, etc. Yet when it comes to the environment, oh those laws are unchangeable.

  12. #12
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: do you agree? If not, why? If so, why?

    Quote Originally Posted by myssi
    I doubt that people who oppose "strict construction" reading of the constitution would agree... that would keep abortion outlawed, racism institutionalized... all the usual arguments for "modern interpretation" like why we really don't need gun rights anymore, etc. Yet when it comes to the environment, oh those laws are unchangeable.
    Nah, not for me.

    My own strict construction impression of the Constitution is that abortion rights are not addressed in the Constitution; therefore, those rights a province of the states. The Supreme Court has disagreed with me. I lose.

    The 14th Amendment is patently anti-institutionalized racism.

    Gun rights are abridged, since we can't have privately owned machine guns (without special licenses), grenades, atom bombs. I'm not comfortable with the proliferation of firearms, but hey, that's part of the Constitution. (Can't we just stick to single-shot muskets?)

    As far environmental laws, we didn't have an EPA until the 1970s (created by that archliberal Nixon, no less). Environmental laws are statute- and policy-driven, not Constitutionally driven, and are at the whim of the party in power.

    The "strict construction" I referred to regarding the plain-English meaning of the "Arctic Natural Wildlife Refuge" was a language comment, not a Constitutional comment. But I'm generally comfortable with strict interpretation. To turn it the other way, it's notable how many strict-construction people like to cite it for such things as the Second Amendment (gun rights) but when it comes to environment issues or other issues they don't like, the language become so very malleable and subject to changing conditions.

    A side note on decisions affecting future generation. I was able to see Yellowstone and Rocky Mountain National Park and a few other places last year in a semblance of their natural state because of the activisim of Theodore Roosevelt a hundred years ago.

  13. #13
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: do you agree? If not, why? If so, why?

    Melonie, if there were " no longer [BE] a US auto ... industry" because of environmental and OSHA regulations (which came about because of private industry abuses and mistreatment of workers, and basically created the "huge strides" in both environmental and worker safety you say are good enough) then where are those 6,000 lb SUVs being made that you say our tax deduction promotes American manfacture of?

    It's really easy to determine the long range impact of certain activities...pump arsenic into the ground (which is part of gold extraction) and you poison that land and any land conneted to it via surface or groundwater. "borrow" money from SS trust fund to pay for general fund expenses, and you will accelerate a problem with the social security system. Make it tax and expense advantageous for American companies to move production overseas...and allow those overseas plants to mistreat workers (enhancing the image of American Imperialist Pigs) and create pollution (poisoning locals and creating blowback pollution) and you can imagine the impact on US economy and global geo-political stability.

    The question doesn't imply laws should last 150 years...it merely asks whether we value the impact current decisions (such as the decision that it's better to throw away enough metal and glass in three months to rebuild the entire US airline fleet...or find a way to create more reusable products or recycle more materials) will have on the future (don't worry about correcting the world's trend toward more oil consumption, even though we KNOW the volume of oil in the world is finite- since the volume of the globe is finite) and how we integrate that impact into current decision making (like maybe looking for BALANCE or SUSTAINABLE paths which allow us to reach short term goals while preserving long term options).

  14. #14
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: do you agree? If not, why? If so, why?

    The world is changing so fast, if we were to try and predict what life will be like 7 years from now, we'd be way off, much less 7 generations. What we owe future generations is our own good example and a government and society that will give them their best chance of success.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  15. #15
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: do you agree? If not, why? If so, why?

    And are our current decisions truly good examples? I can think of (and have mentioned) dozens which are horrible examples of short term, destructive practices and policies.

  16. #16
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: do you agree? If not, why? If so, why?

    Actually, those SUV's liberals hate so much appear to be about all that was keeping the US automakers out of the red ...

  17. #17
    Veteran Member Lurker's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    209
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: do you agree? If not, why? If so, why?

    Melonie, what's the point of that comment? Are you suggesting that we should all like goods with high profit margins, because they're great products for the companies that make them? Is that really what you're saying?
    "All this time you were pretending
    So much for my happy ending."
    --Avril Lavigne

  18. #18
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: do you agree? If not, why? If so, why?

    What I was saying was a response to Discrete, in the context of her scoffing at the idea that US auto companies may not exist 10 or 20 years from now due to high US taxes and regulatory costs i.e. OSHA, environmental, comp/disability etc. which forces US auto companies to play on a 'tilted playing field' vs foreign car makers (and particularly small car makers from Asia) who don't have to bear such high taxes and regulatory costs. The link article specifically points out that SUV's have been providing a large share of US auto company profits in recent years, but SUV sales have been falling recently due to rising oil prices and liberal outcries ... presumably contributing in a big way to today's downgrading of GM's and Ford's bond ratings to 'junk'. If US car makers can't compete effectively making small cars vs Asian car companies, and if profitable SUV sales are rapidly drying up, and if their borrowing costs increase as a result of a 'junk' rating, this is a formula for bankruptcy at some point.

  19. #19
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: do you agree? If not, why? If so, why?

    I don't want to repeat what's been posted in other threads about how we can level the "tilted playing field"... it's been said too many ways already, and I can't translate it to other lannguages.

    Regarding the US auto makers....your statement (earlier in the thread) was that there is "no US Auto industry" yet in other threads and later in this one you credit it as profiting from the SUV sales....which is it?

    Nevermind....the point of the thread is to see whether as a group we value the needs of future generations in decision making - your support of shortsighted policies and resistance to balanced production and economic methods seem to provide that answer.

  20. #20
    Veteran Member Lurker's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    209
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: do you agree? If not, why? If so, why?

    Melonie--

    I see. Well, the non-US carmakers can make SUVs as easily as they make small cars. The US companies came up with them first, but margins were doomed to fall on those products eventually.

    Ford and GM are going to go bankrupt eventually, not because of high taxes and regulations in the US (both Honda and Toyota now produce over 50% of their sales to the US market in the US) but because of much higher pension costs than their competitors. It's the employees and ex-employees of Ford and GM that are forcing the company into bankruptcy, not the US government.
    "All this time you were pretending
    So much for my happy ending."
    --Avril Lavigne

  21. #21
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: do you agree? If not, why? If so, why?

    I was wondering how Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Mitsubishi could get around these regulatory costs that traditional automakers have. Their factories and workers in the U.S. seem to have no problem with cranking out pretty good cars on a competitive basis.

  22. #22
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: do you agree? If not, why? If so, why?

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    And are our current decisions truly good examples? I can think of (and have mentioned) dozens which are horrible examples of short term, destructive practices and policies.
    Some are, some not. Global Warming? Our kids will laugh at us over that one. Our grandkids will look back and laugh at us over all the cancer scares we publish. Two generations from now, most of what today is foisted on the public as "science" will be viewed as superstition.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  23. #23
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: do you agree? If not, why? If so, why?

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    Some are, some not. Global Warming? Our kids will laugh at us over that one. Our grandkids will look back and laugh at us over all the cancer scares we publish. Two generations from now, most of what today is foisted on the public as "science" will be viewed as superstition.
    you know this how?


    research I've read supports they'll cry over how we've ignored warnings on these and similar issues until it's too late - simply because it was easier/cheaper to do so REGARDLESS of the dangers of not acting and the benefits of acting now.

  24. #24
    God/dess onlythebest's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Hurricane Wasteland,Louisiana
    Posts
    8,088
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 23 Times in 19 Posts

    Default Re: do you agree? If not, why? If so, why?

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    Some are, some not. Global Warming? Our kids will laugh at us over that one. Our grandkids will look back and laugh at us over all the cancer scares we publish. Two generations from now, most of what today is foisted on the public as "science" will be viewed as superstition.
    No offense,but this is the exact mentality that makes this country such lazy gluttons.It has been scientifically proven that we do in fact,have global warming.Go ahead and drive your Hummers and use our natural resources frivolously.Take all of this for granted,why don't you???

    EDITTED TO ADD: This is the EXACT type of invincible,selfish mentality that will be the ruin of this nation one day.But according to people like you,you won't be here by that time so who cars,right???
    Last edited by onlythebest; 05-06-2005 at 11:09 AM.
    One of woman's cardinal rule: Body parts can be fake,everything else has to be real.

    一个女人的枢机规则:肢体可以伪造,一切必须真实.

    中国大CHINESE BIG BOOBS!!!中国大




  25. #25
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: do you agree? If not, why? If so, why?

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    you know this how?


    research I've read supports they'll cry over how we've ignored warnings on these and similar issues until it's too late - simply because it was easier/cheaper to do so REGARDLESS of the dangers of not acting and the benefits of acting now.
    DD, you've stated on this board before that you don't know for sure if global warming is actually occuring or not. Have you changed your mind? Besides that, some people believe that global warming (if in fact it is even occuring) would be good for mankind.

    Quote Originally Posted by onlythebest
    No offense,but this is the exact mentality that makes this country such lazy gluttons.It has been scientifically proven that we do in fact,have global warming.Go ahead and drive your Hummers and use our natural resources frivolously.Take all of this for granted,why don't you???
    In the early 70's scientists were warning people about the dangers of global cooling. What makes you think scientists today are any smarter? 30 years is not very long in the life of a planet. Besides that, if in fact global warming is occurring, and if its a bad thing, the United States is already doing more than its fair share to ameliorate the problem.

    Air pollution for the six major pollutants has significantly decreased over the past 15 years, and over the past 20 years U.S. contributions to carbon dioxide, the leading manmade greenhouse gas, have steadily decreased as well. The U.S. uses the most advanced technology available to make us more energy efficient than any other nation. For example, India uses three times the energy and emits four times the carbon dioxide per unit of GDP than the U.S., and China use five times the energy and emits eight times the carbon dioxide.

    For the record, neither India nor China have signed the Kyoto Treaty on Global Warming. So the U.S. is supposed to incur billiions of dollars of expenses to our economy so that India and China can continue to destroy the planet? That makes no sense. The sensible way to attack the problem would be to deal with the worst offenders first. You can save your guilt trip about hummers for someone who will buy into it. The U.S. does not use our natural resources frivously, the U.S. worker is the most productive in the world and our efficiency is a model for the rest of the world. If you want to lay a guilt trip on someone, I'd suggest either India or China.

    Why all the calls for the U.S. to reduce its emmission when we are already so far ahead of the rest of the world?

    Such facts question the motives behind China and the European Union’s call for stricter reductions of greenhouse gas emissions by developed nations. Environmental record does not show that these countries are more environmentally conscious than the U.S., but the fact that stricter reductions would undoubtedly hurt the U.S.’s international competitiveness would certainly benefit them economically.

    The rest of the wold can't compete with us, so they are trying to get us to impose burdensome restrictions on ourselves to help them.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Do You Agree or Disagree with This Escort Board?
    By Lady Xplicit18 in forum Other Work
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 12-06-2011, 08:19 PM
  2. Do you agree?
    By pookie in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-14-2007, 10:27 AM
  3. I Agree With Kaylinn & Thoreau
    By Budai in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-26-2007, 03:49 AM
  4. Who Agree's?
    By tampafldancer in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 09-20-2005, 08:01 AM
  5. 9/11 Families Agree: Bush Admin. Has Failed America
    By Weekend Reports in forum Political Poo
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-30-2005, 04:32 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •