A Question for Greens - Possible show-stopper for terraforming

NovaMarsollia · 2002-09-21 17:13:13

In my opinion there's nothing wrong with fighting oppressive laws. Laws which prohibit people from colonizing another planet are most certainly a form of oppression.

Seems to me that the Moon Treaty and the Outer Space Treaty are not oppressive but very egalitarian cause they allow every body on the planet to benefit from space development instead of a technological and economic elite.

I know you all here don't care about the rest of the world (those in first, second and third world nations who will Never get any thing from space travel), but that's because just about all space fans are right wing idealogues that rampantly believe in free market principles and private peoperty nonsense. The problem is, is that you all try and present your self and just repesenting 'freedom' and 'civilization' and 'exploration' but like 19th century US imperialists that took land from native Americans, you just don't give a toss about who you hurt while you go around grabbing other peoples land in the name of science and development.

(The Good thing is , though, you are all dreamers. It is never going to happen. You are never going to go to Mars, nobody is ever going to find anything valuable on Mars, and you lot will be relegated to a sub-corner of eccentric history like the British Interplanetary Society in the 1940s that wanted lunar bases by 1980)

Pat Galea · 2002-09-22 01:19:42

I know you all here don't care about the rest of the world (those in first, second and third world nations who will Never get any thing from space travel), but that's because just about all space fans are right wing idealogues that rampantly believe in free market principles and private peoperty nonsense. The problem is, is that you all try and present your self and just repesenting 'freedom' and 'civilization' and 'exploration' but like 19th century US imperialists that took land from native Americans, you just don't give a toss about who you hurt while you go around grabbing other peoples land in the name of science and development.

Thanks for this revealing post. You've made very clear the basis on which you make your decisions, and from that it's possible to deduce that you are not at all interested in a serious discussion.

This will save us a lot of time and effort.

NovaMarsollia · 2002-09-22 05:20:03

You've made very clear the basis on which you make your decisions, and from that it's possible to deduce that you are not at all interested in a serious discussion.
This will save us a lot of time and effort.

What a lame and transparent way to show you don't have any ideas to debate with! ???

Pat Galea · 2002-09-22 08:06:58

What a lame and transparent way to show you don't have any ideas to debate with! ???

Can you really not tell the difference between unintended consequences and motives?

Type 1:
"The application of socialist ideas will result in impoverishment"

Type 2:
"You socialists want to impoverish everyone"

Josh uses type 1 arguments. I disagree with almost everything he says, but because he uses this type of argument it is possible to have a reasoned discussion.

You use type 2 arguments. It is literally not possible to argue against them; any such argument would amount to an almost worthless "No, that's not true". There's no way to prove them right or wrong. They are altogether outside the realm of debate.

NovaMarsollia · 2002-09-22 09:01:37

Josh uses type 1 arguments. I disagree with almost everything he says, but because he uses this type of argument it is possible to have a reasoned discussion.
You use type 2 arguments. It is literally not possible to argue against them; any such argument would amount to an almost worthless "No, that's not true". There's no way to prove them right or wrong. They are altogether outside the realm of debate.

And you use type 3 arguments. Talking bullshit about nothing.

Pat Galea · 2002-09-22 09:15:24

And you use type 3 arguments. Talking bullshit about nothing.

Sure, whatever.

Palomar · 2002-09-22 09:55:00

(The Good thing is , though, you are all dreamers. It is never going to happen. You are never going to go to Mars, nobody is ever going to find anything valuable on Mars, and you lot will be relegated to a sub-corner of eccentric history like the British Interplanetary Society in the 1940s that wanted lunar bases by 1980)

*Nobody is ever going to prove the Earth ISN'T flat, if man were meant to fly God would've given him wings, nobody will ever reach the peak of Mount Everest, men will never land on the moon, blah blah blah blah.

Since you think we're all "dreamers" here, I'm sure you'll be leaving very soon. After all, why would you wish to hang around with "dreamers" who will "never" accomplish their goals?

You aren't here to discuss your differences; you're simply here to insult and degrade others. I for one don't appreciate a garden-variety sh*t disturber like you.

Don't let the doorknob hit your arse on the way out.

--Cindy

Pat Galea · 2002-09-22 11:54:06

Josh uses type 1 arguments. I disagree with almost everything he says, but because he uses this type of argument it is possible to have a reasoned discussion.

Oops!

I mean to say "I disagree with almost everything he says on the subject of economics". As it happens, I do agree with Josh on lots of other things.

My point wasn't to criticise Josh's views, but to show that he debates them in a rational way rather than through personal attack.

My apologies to Josh if it came across badly. (I just re-read the thread, and I thought "ouch!" when I saw my post.)

Phobos · 2002-09-22 12:38:36

Since you think we're all "dreamers" here, I'm sure you'll be leaving very soon. After all, why would you wish to hang around with "dreamers" who will "never" accomplish their goals?
You aren't here to discuss your differences; you're simply here to insult and degrade others. I for one don't appreciate a garden-variety sh*t disturber like you.
Don't let the doorknob hit your arse on the way out.

Go Cindy! It's often the dreamers who moves things forward. If you read the writings of most of the early rocket pioneers like Goddard, etc, they clearly had visions of travelling to Mars and beyond before even before jet engines were invented. And I guess Arthur C. Clark was a happless dreamer when he envisioned communication satellites in 1948! And you certainly would find no shortage of people even in the 50's and 60's who said a manned moon mission could never happen. I think our friend here epitomizes the common smug shortsightedness that seems to be catching on in our culture.

I mean to say "I disagree with almost everything he says on the subject of economics". As it happens, I do agree with Josh on lots of other things.
My point wasn't to criticise Josh's views, but to show that he debates them in a rational way rather than through personal attack.

Greets Pat. I don't think you have to prove to anyone that you were defending your opinions in a legitimate way. After all there's a big difference between smearing people and merely disagreeing with them. I think our new member here can't quite comprehend that fact.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2002-09-21 17:13:13

Re: A Question for Greens - Possible show-stopper for terraforming

#27 2002-09-22 01:19:42

Re: A Question for Greens - Possible show-stopper for terraforming

#28 2002-09-22 05:20:03

Re: A Question for Greens - Possible show-stopper for terraforming

#29 2002-09-22 08:06:58

Re: A Question for Greens - Possible show-stopper for terraforming

#30 2002-09-22 09:01:37

Re: A Question for Greens - Possible show-stopper for terraforming

#31 2002-09-22 09:15:24

Re: A Question for Greens - Possible show-stopper for terraforming

#32 2002-09-22 09:55:00

Re: A Question for Greens - Possible show-stopper for terraforming

#33 2002-09-22 11:54:06

Re: A Question for Greens - Possible show-stopper for terraforming

#34 2002-09-22 12:38:36

Re: A Question for Greens - Possible show-stopper for terraforming

Board footer