thegreatheed wrote:Isetnefret wrote:But by skipping over noble and necessary, and missing those points, I can make assumptions about your values base, since I've seen your thinking process.
Is there anyone else in this group I should know about that actively seeks to make personal attacks? FFS.
Right here you made assumptions about my values. You assumed that because I was saying you have a different value system, that I was demeaning yours. Thereby assuming my values base isn't tolerant of yours.
When in fact, I told you that your statements definitely were logical since you have a different value base. Here is my assumption on your values base
This was summed up here:
Arcand wrote:By making assumptions about something as complex and personal as a person's value system (and I don't think anyone got the impression you'd reached flattering conclusions), based on a couple tiny scraps of data, it looks like you're in a hurry to get to the part where you're standing triumphantly over them, heaping scorn on their ideas. Throwing derision in your follow-up post doesn't do much to dispel the notion either.
thegreatheed wrote:me wrote:maybe you take carbon emissions as a more serious harm to a community than a family broken apart by addiction. if that's your values base, then you would see a ban on plastic bottles as more logical than a ban on illegal drugs.
All that statement did was explore the logic behind
you wrote:Indeed, one impacts the person using it, while the other impacts the environment that we all share.
To me, that statement is silly. Because of my values base. To you apparently it is significant, since you led off a reply with it.
I do not take carbon emissions as a more serious harm to a community than a family broken apart by addiction. I take carbon emissions as a more serious threat to the entire human population than a family broken apart by addiction.
On a macro scale, some junky doesn't make nearly as much difference as trashing the environment. On a community level, unless you're dumping toxic waste or poisoning local water supplies, obviously broken families and drug trafficking are a much bigger issue than a few plastic bottles.
Perhaps you missed the part of this thread where I said:
Isetnefret wrote:In general, I'm against bans like this. If people want to pay for bottled water, let them.
I understand the pollution issue, but there are for more polluting activities that would be easier to stop.
That said, I also think bottled water is kind of ridiculous if you live in a country/area with any kind of "modern" water treatment program...which should include about 99% of the United States.
I have no clue about Europe, but I'm guessing that most countries over there have even more strict regulations than we do.
If you hadn't missed that, maybe you would reach a different conclusion about my convictions regarding carbon emissions.
thegreatheed wrote:I
first became derisive after you said
you wrote:You don't know shit about my values and anything you THINK you can deduce from statements I've made here is wrong.
Basically there you just call me stupid and wrong. I'm sorry if I respond dersively to that. It's impossible to have a debate when you tell your opponent, "well you're stupid and wrong". And that's where we stand.
I never said you were stupid, nor did I imply you were stupid. I said, plainly, that you were wrong in your assumptions about my values and thought processes. The ideas you put forth, in between making assumptions about me personally, were well worth debating and indeed could have furthered a worthwhile discussion, whether I agreed with them or not.
thegreatheed wrote:You even assumed I was talking about dictators in that post, when in fact my comments are about a democratic country making "benelovent" fascist decisions. I only mention dictators because it's easier to illustrate points with extreme analogy. Before you go off on the word fascist, I use that word as describing a political decision, group, or ideology that seeks to remove personal freedoms at a high rate. This democratically run town has just removed the right of the entire populace to choose their method of drinking clean water.
You apparently argue for the change because it will help the environment. And thus you would believe so strongly in saving the environment, that you approve of removal personal freedoms in order to accomplish that cause. Obviously, if you were sarcastic in your remarks about "the environment we all share", there's no way I can possibly know that. If so, we all know that pure emotion will never be evident in type. The only thing I can assume is that you're serious. And if I do, it has logical extensions whether you like it or not.
See above as to why I did NOT argue for this change. I think it's a stupid idea. However, I also think that if the populace of this democratically elected town has a real problem with the ban, then it won't stand for long.
I think the idea of paying for bottled water on a regular basis is stupid. However, if you want to do it, I would never stand in your way. There are worse things you can spend your money on, and the environmental impact of your purchase is less than the environmental impact of my own personal purchase of bottles of soda. I would never harp on that, except to concede in passing that ultimately, it's not the best thing for the environment. I'm not so driven as to make a change to my own behavior, therefore championing that cause would make me a hypocrite.....so I don't do it. I did, however, mention my cities recycling efforts, and my participation in them.
If you honestly believe that I would be in favor of removing personal freedoms, you obviously haven't read this post at all.
