And while it is perfectly legitimate to address this topic from a scientific point of view (as I have),

I doubt you've got the background to do so, from what I've read elsewhere, but I am willing to be shown otherwise
it is equally legitimate to also address it from an ethical, & or moral point of view (as I have).
And after I did, you replied derisively, because you disagree.

I'm also looking at it from a moral and ethical viewpoint. As to the derision, I'm responsible for neither your imaginings nor your apparent low self esteem. If you dislike my 'tone', well, don't respond to my posts.

And in such disagreements, it's perfectly acceptable to attempt to cite the hypocrisy of one's debate opponent, by citing a contradiction between analogous positions (as it seems I have).

Back to the discussion: The only hypocrisy I've seen thus far is your apparent concern for future generations while blithely accepting 50,000 dead per year from fossil fuel use, plus god only knows how many millions from global warming and resource wars like Iraq. As for your analogy, I understand what your trying to gwet at, but I regard it as a false analogy. In my view you're trying to compare apples and rocks.

Well MG, that's not very bright.
It's plain for all to see that your position is to ignore the direct question.
And in light of your style, and such redirected pettiness as:


Again, if you don't like my style, go away, as I did on your board when I found your paranoic ravings about a 'new American revolution', government conspiracy and other crap over the top. Vote with your feet, otherwise get your big girl panties on and suck it up, princess.

Indicates you're not comfortable with your answer.
It doesn't require an Einstein to figure out why.


Actually, I'm really comfy with my answer. But you seem really, really invested in this. It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out why.

I know for a fact you did not answer explicitly, which means, in the context of the rest of your post, your implicit answer is fairly obvious.
But there's no point in speculating or squabbling about it. You can put an end to all that simply by declaring your position on it.

If its obvious, you don't need an answer, do you? But for the record, I take a dim view of deficit spending, although it can have it's very limited uses. But on the scale of the US government? No.

Or do you prefer bickering; or trying to "win" against an opponent, instead of cooperatively seeking truth & solution through constructive clarity?

image pot, meet kettle....

M. Graham

Last Edited By: Murray Graham Aug 29 07 9:56 AM. Edited 1 times.