Neither are they in ours. But I believe that tactics debate would be lost by you bob. I've seen montes tactics, and I've seen yours, and yours by far deal far more in ignoring the actual talking about of the debate and trying to get people to ignore what is being said. Your even rather successful at it, i'll give you that. But it doesn't make you right....
And i'm not sure you have learned that lesson yet.
Unless your doing what i think your doing, which is just be as frustratingly resistant to actually learning something that a teacher like Monte get's stuck in this trying to talk to you reasonably place that he doesn't get alot of work done and wants to pull his hair out. Seriously, Monte, if someone doesn't get something after your 40th time saying it, just stop talking to the guy. I think your on try 4000 with bob here.
Now, back onto the topic again. Crap, you might want to try posting something similar in the nuc threads if you haven't already. Very comprehensive.
I would say that a tipping point can't nessesarily be measured, as they are so different for everyone. Like i said in my earlier post, the point at which there is no return depends entirely on what your willing to accept afterwards. The point of no return happened about 1 year ago for alot of my friends. Where as my point of no return i don't think has happened yet. That may just be the optimist in me, but I really don't think i have gotten past the point where society would be something i didn't want to be in post peak. I think i might actually enjoy it more. But that isn't something i can be sure of till afterwards. And really, it will depend on the type of peak we experence. If it's a hard crash, no one is going to enjoy it except the suicidal. If it's a long decline, I think it will be alot more tolerable.
PeakOil is You
Peak Oil: Beyond the Point of No Return
Re: Peak Oil: Beyond the Point of No Return
by bobcousins » Mon 06 Mar 2006, 10:52:28
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('azreal60', 'N')either are they in ours. But I believe that tactics debate would be lost by you bob. I've seen montes tactics, and I've seen yours, and yours by far deal far more in ignoring the actual talking about of the debate and trying to get people to ignore what is being said. Your even rather successful at it, i'll give you that. But it doesn't make you right....
And i'm not sure you have learned that lesson yet.
And i'm not sure you have learned that lesson yet.
I have learned the lesson that Monte is excellent at denying there is any other way to consider an issue other than the way he has framed it, and that it is futile to attempt to argue with that. I have learnt that, but that does mean I have to like it or agree with it. While it is allowed, I challenge the assumptions anyone makes in their argument, whether in favor of nuclear or not. You may not remember, but I have frequently challenged the nuclear boosters about their assumptions.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')nless your doing what i think your doing, which is just be as frustratingly resistant to actually learning something that a teacher like Monte get's stuck in this trying to talk to you reasonably place that he doesn't get alot of work done and wants to pull his hair out. Seriously, Monte, if someone doesn't get something after your 40th time saying it, just stop talking to the guy.
You have attacked my debating skill, my motives and are questioning my intelligence because I don't 'get' the lesson the teacher is telling me. I believe these are ad hominems.
I am not attempting to waste Monte's time or divert debate. I think it is legitimate to challenge the assumptions of the "teacher", to determine whether what is being "taught" is fair and accurate. I have never been one to accept without question what people tell me. I am persuaded by facts and figures, not rhetoric and hyperbole.
I still believe the assumptions in the original question are moot:
1. That a 'single technology' solution is the only one proposed. What about a mix including conservation?
2. That there is a discrete doomed/not doomed state. Surely it is a continuum between some adverse affects and a lot of adverse effects?
It just seems to me, that building one windmill or installing one solar power panel or one new power plant is better than none. (Better, in the sense that it provides some mitigation). And building 10 is better than 1. We may not able to build the 1000s we need to prevent any adverse effect whatsover. Does that mean we just don't try at all?
Perhaps we can't prevent a severe recession. But perhaps we can prevent mass starvation. To that end, we should do what we can. Of course, it is out of our hands - governments will step in and do what they can. As for cost, if the situation is truly severe governments will simply commandeer people and resources.
In Hirsch's report, he says if we don't act until the peak happens, there will be a severe recession. That's bad, but he's not talking about billions starving.
It's all downhill from here
-
bobcousins - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1164
- Joined: Thu 14 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Left the cult
Re: Peak Oil: Beyond the Point of No Return
by bobcousins » Mon 06 Mar 2006, 11:12:39
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bobcousins', ' ')If anyone doesn't think that the phrase "literally overnight" in Monte's initial post is setting up a giant strawman, then [ad hominen deleted]. Monte is a smart man, so knows that literally overnight means a period of 12 hours, which is preposterous. If he meant figuratively overnight, I'm sure he would have written that, but that is a rhetorical measure of time that means whatever you want.
And everyone knows that you don't build anything overnight, so it is obvious that this was a hyperbole--an exaggeration for effect. To attack me, rather than the merits is an ad hominem. You are attacking my motive or agenda which has nothing to do with the issue. Setting up strawmen is not on my agenda.
Your accusation of a strawman by me is a strawman. You seem to wish to attack my credibility. Why not debate the issue?
Ok, let me see if I understand how the rules work:
I can use hyperbole in an argument - it's legitimate debate
I can use a strawman in an argument (if it does not attack someone) - it may be faulty, but does not violate CoC.
I cannot be attacked for using hyperbole or exaggerating - that is questioning my motives, and thereore an ad hominen
I cannot be attacked for using a strawman - that also questions my motives and credibility, and is also an ad hominen
Is that right?
It's all downhill from here
-
bobcousins - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1164
- Joined: Thu 14 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Left the cult
