Text 1163, 84 rader
Skriven 2006-06-01 15:30:00 av Robert E Starr JR (1609.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Paul Harper to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <d4cu72do81p6m56ameakdtiku3q5v3o1d8@4ax.com>
@REPLY: <mbul72l385asn52fk8ncp3s49hs61e57gl@4ax.com>
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 18:13:58 +0000 (UTC), "Vorlonagent"
<jt@otfresno.com> wrote:

>
>"Paul Harper" <paul@harper.net> wrote in message 
>news:bq3t72ltritun0c9eeplnnkc6ppeg8kqjs@4ax.com...
>
>>>20 years ago we were sure that civilization would zie in a nuclear 
>>>exchange
>>>too.
>>
>> When did we achieve certainty that we won't? All that's happened in
>> that the definition of the "bad guys" has changed (well, actually,
>> *my* definition of the bad guys hasn't - bad guys are people who use
>> WMDs, not those who merely threaten to - but let's not go there).
>
>You don't seriously believe that the threat of global nuclear war is the 
>same now as in 1980, do you?

That's not what you said. You said "civilisation would die in a
nuclear exchange". It wouldn't take a global nuclear war for this to
happen. A heated exchange between Israel and Iran would drag in The US
on one side and probably China or Russia on the other, or do you
seriously think they'll stand back and let the US defend Israel with
Nukes?!

I very much doubt that Europe would survive the fallout from such an
exchange, and certainly none of the Middle East. That might not bother
you much but it's my back yard - it bothers me, and as far as I am
concerned, civilisation would have ended!

>>>To approximately quote Kirk from Star Trek 6, we haven't run out of 
>>>history
>>>just yet.
>>
>> I didn't say we had. What I did say is that it won't be long if we
>> continue to sit around doing absolutely nothing about a situation that
>> is of our own species' arrogant making. We're not taking
>> responsibility for our ancestors mistakes, we're continuing down the
>> same path they took, too afraid and too selfish to stop and realise
>> that this isn't a rehearsal.
>
>That's your opinion, which you hold for reasons that make sense to you.

Yup. I want a viable, liveable future for my kids and their kids.

>For reasons that make sense to me, I don't agree that there IS a threat much 
>less that the threat is apocalyptic in nature.  I maintain that the results 
>are too preliminary to make a decision and that no rush to judgement is 
>indicated by the thin gruel of facts that aren't in dispute.

I (genuinely) would have more sympathy for that position if the
solutions being proposed for the problems that you see as "too
preliminary to make a decision on" were in some way bad.

They're not. The very worst case (or best case, depending upon your
pov) if we on the "environmentally worried" side are completely and
totally wrong, is that money has been spent where it didn't need to
be, and the air and rivers are cleaner than they used to be.

That's it. That's the total down-side to being careful if the
environmentalists are completely wrong.

What's the down-side to the other side being completely wrong?

Which is the better of the two downsides?

Wanna gamble?

Paul (who doesn't).
-- 
. Bill Maher: "Tulips aren't flowers, they're gay onions"
. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
. Is there a moron carrot above?  Have you replied to it?  Are you sure?
. EMail: Unless invited to, don't; it's likely to be automatically deleted.
                                                           
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)