Shady Posted April 13, 2010 Report Posted April 13, 2010 You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried! British campaigner urges UN to accept 'ecocide' as international crimeA campaign to declare the mass destruction of ecosystems an international crime against peace - alongside genocide and crimes against humanity - is being launched in the UK. The proposal for the United Nations to accept "ecocide" as a fifth "crime against peace", which could be tried at the International Criminal Court (ICC) Supporters of a new ecocide law also believe it could be used to prosecute "climate deniers" who distort science and facts to discourage voters and politicians from taking action to tackle global warming and climate change. Link Pure thought police. You'd be required to believe in global warming or face prosecution by the United Nations. These fascist/neo-communists need to be stopped. :angry: Quote
BubberMiley Posted April 13, 2010 Report Posted April 13, 2010 Earthlings get emotional when their planet is destroyed. Go figure. Fascists. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 13, 2010 Report Posted April 13, 2010 Earthlings get emotional when their planet is destroyed. Go figure. Fascists. It's not "their" planet. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
BubberMiley Posted April 13, 2010 Report Posted April 13, 2010 And they can't vote for president either. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 13, 2010 Report Posted April 13, 2010 And they can't vote for president either. Why would all the planet's flora and fauna want to vote for president? The humans are just a blip in time. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Guest TrueMetis Posted April 13, 2010 Report Posted April 13, 2010 (edited) Why would all the planet's flora and fauna want to vote for president? The humans are just a blip in time. So's pretty much every single species. Edited April 13, 2010 by TrueMetis Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted April 13, 2010 Report Posted April 13, 2010 What's a climate denier? Are they people who deny the climate exists? Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 13, 2010 Report Posted April 13, 2010 So's pretty much every single species. Much longer blips...they have tenure over hominids. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 13, 2010 Report Posted April 13, 2010 What's a climate denier? Are they people who deny the climate exists? That's a good question, as the term "denier" harkens back to a time of witchcraft and religion. What a strange term to be invoked by our overcooked brethren. Maybe they have hooded robes in their closets too. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Bonam Posted April 13, 2010 Report Posted April 13, 2010 The humans are just a blip in time. I disagree. While it is true that we have thus far only existed for a relatively short span of time, we have the potential to continue (in some form) for much longer timescales. Quote
Guest TrueMetis Posted April 13, 2010 Report Posted April 13, 2010 Much longer blips...they have tenure over hominids. So what? The average length a species last is about 10 million years. The earth is 4.5 billion. What's the point of argueing over the size of a blip. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted April 13, 2010 Report Posted April 13, 2010 How is "mass destruction of ecosystems" a thought crime ? Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Bonam Posted April 13, 2010 Report Posted April 13, 2010 So what? The average length a species last is about 10 million years. The earth is 4.5 billion. What's the point of argueing over the size of a blip. What's the average length that an intelligent species capable of developing technology lasts? Anyone have any data? To dismiss humanity as a blip the same as any other species is unwise. Quote
Guest TrueMetis Posted April 13, 2010 Report Posted April 13, 2010 What's the average length that an intelligent species capable of developing technology lasts? Anyone have any data? To dismiss humanity as a blip the same as any other species is unwise. Good point. Though we'll see if we manage to last longer than the average species, it's entirely possible that the very technology that seems to give us such an advantage may destroy us. Quote
Bonam Posted April 13, 2010 Report Posted April 13, 2010 Good point. Though we'll see if we manage to last longer than the average species, it's entirely possible that the very technology that seems to give us such an advantage may destroy us. And it is also possible that it will allow us to outlive the Earth and the solar system. Quote
Guest TrueMetis Posted April 13, 2010 Report Posted April 13, 2010 And it is also possible that it will allow us to outlive the Earth and the solar system. Yep, though thinking that far ahead doesn't seem neccesary to me as we won't be there to see it. Quote
Bonam Posted April 13, 2010 Report Posted April 13, 2010 Yep, though thinking that far ahead doesn't seem neccesary to me as we won't be there to see it. Unless technology enables us (or at least our thought patterns) to survive for indefinite timespans, before our current natural lifetimes are over. There are credible reasons to believe that may be possible within the present century. I plan to stick around. Quote
Guest TrueMetis Posted April 13, 2010 Report Posted April 13, 2010 Unless technology enables us (or at least our thought patterns) to survive for indefinite timespans, before our current natural lifetimes are over. There are credible reasons to believe that may be possible within the present century. I plan to stick around. Why the hell would anyone want to live indefinitely? I'd go with a few hundreds years max. Quote
Bonam Posted April 13, 2010 Report Posted April 13, 2010 (edited) Why the hell would anyone want to live indefinitely? There are many reasons. I certainly wouldn't mind. In any case, one would presumably always have the option to cease existing. Allowing indefinite life simply removes any external constraints (besides the entropy death of the universe in a few hundred quadrillion years), it doesn't force you to live forever involuntarily. Edited April 13, 2010 by Bonam Quote
Guest TrueMetis Posted April 13, 2010 Report Posted April 13, 2010 There are many reasons. I certainly wouldn't mind. In any case, one would presumably always have the option to cease existing. Allowing indefinite life simply removes any external constraints (besides the entropy death of the universe is a few hundred quadrillion years), it doesn't force you to live forever involuntarily. Oh right, whenever I have this debate there are different circumstances so nevermind the last post. Quote
jbg Posted April 14, 2010 Report Posted April 14, 2010 Earthlings get emotional when their planet is destroyed. Go figure. Fascists. So Bubber Miley or some equivalent is going to dictate to everyone how to live? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted April 14, 2010 Report Posted April 14, 2010 Why the hell would anyone want to live indefinitely? I'd go with a few hundreds years max. It is true that Chretien said that unless Kyoto were passed "in the next 30 years people are going to start dying". I thought that meant that once Kyoto was ratified we were all going to live forever. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 14, 2010 Report Posted April 14, 2010 It is true that Chretien said that unless Kyoto were passed "in the next 30 years people are going to start dying". I thought that meant that once Kyoto was ratified we were all going to live forever. LOL! Has it come to this? The most compelling argument to jump onboard the global warming climate change bandwagon is that we are all going to die? That's not very original! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
jbg Posted April 14, 2010 Report Posted April 14, 2010 LOL! Has it come to this? The most compelling argument to jump onboard the global warming climate change bandwagon is that we are all going to die? That's not very original! Chretien is one of Canada's great national thinkers and heros. Don't denigrate him. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 14, 2010 Report Posted April 14, 2010 Chretien is one of Canada's great national thinkers and heros. Don't denigrate him. I apologize for questioning the motives of a respected war crimes criminal! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.