How sustainable are you?

Also, on risk assessment, managing companies and personal life is different from having a risk being, even of a very little chance, destroying the whole humanity.

My point is that replacing small risk with big risk is not very wise. If you slow down the economy by 1% you will kill people, same as if you scare them to die in car crashes.

I presented Wikipedia and advised you that the quote I was pulling was cited 4 times...
 You discounted it and said Wikipedia was erroneous based on your own personal opinions. If 4 cited sources is not good enough for you, you think I would go out and find a 5th?

 I apologize if you are an EAL speaker, you present yourself very eloquently, and I had assumed you were just being lazy.

 And, once again, I will just affirm that even if I choose to believe you are correct, I don't think that is

A) an excuse to pump needless amounts of anything into the atmosphere, as you are proposing

Or

B) worth the risk to put a few extra bucks in some CEO's pocket.

 There is no situation in which you would dare to pretend that pollution is good for mankind, so I will ask you why you are so insistent on proving to me that it is bad.

 Your position is such that it is 'neutral' and while one that I disagree with, one I can respect - but I ask you again, even if you are correct, from a purely financial standpoint, is burning more gas, using more paper, and more electricity cheaper or more expensive?

 There is absolutely nothing to be gained by taking any position other than "use less" so I don't understand why you would even argue for some sort of middle ground that basically equates to "use less or more, whatever you want."

Being cited 4 times in a single source does not make it 4 sources

I was indeed being somewhat lazy. I apologize again for it

I did NOT, in ANY given moment, propose that we should pump anything to the atmosphere. I actually said I am against it, as it makes human life near those "pumps" dangerous. I said it, and will say again, these can result in breathing diseases, cancer, stillborn and/or anencephalic children. Do not say I proposed anything like this, you are distorting my text

I did not say pollution is good for mankind, and would not dare to say it. I am not trying to prove it is bad for mankind either, this is not the point of my posts.  I am trying to prove that apocalyptic heralds based on human-intervention leading to catastrophic results is false, at least when using global warming and ozone levels. Toxicity in the air, water and soil are serious problems though, and I am not arguing about it. Carbon emissions by industries are not enough to make the air, in a global level, hazardous though. We have not discussed soil and water pollution, and I will not delve into that right now.

From a financial standpoint, if you lived in a developing country you would understand that patent fights and climate resolutions break the economical development of the country immensely. Developed countries control the production of most huge barriers to companies, forcing them to pay for the developed countries' industry in order to be "legal". Brazil is, of the industrialized countries, one with the least emissions, and most of it done by multinationals, but UN enforces that it is more important for developing countries to contain their growth pace with less emissions. Financially, it is used to create monopolies and market intervention, which makes the end product cost way more than it should. Most economists would disagree with you saying that burning less gas (and I assume you mean it as means of getting energy out of it) is cheaper. Alternative energy is way more expansive with the technology we have today

About gaining anything with other positioning than "use less", I agree with you on end user level. When you escalate it to companies, "use more" means "grow more, earn more, get better". And although multinationals have other means of doing it, small companies are slowed down by environmental concerns

From a financial standpoint, if you lived in a developing country you would understand that patent fights and climate resolutions break the economical development of the country immensely. Developed countries control the production of most huge barriers to companies, forcing them to pay for the developed countries' industry in order to be "legal". Brazil is, of the industrialized countries, one with the least emissions, and most of it done by multinationals, but UN enforces that it is more important for developing countries to contain their growth pace with less emissions. Financially, it is used to create monopolies and market intervention, which makes the end product cost way more than it should.

This is .loving. evil and illegal under iMtG Law. Logic provided at your request.

And I am still waiting for scientists lists, with 90% of them against me, as well as your empirical evidence, data, information in general.
Stating that what I am saying is pointless, that one would be asinine to agree with me, that one cannot contest your thoughts or that most scientists agree with you doesn't add anything to the discussion, we are trying to expose new ideas and point of views, not defame people here.

Logic provided at your request.

Please do. I would like to see your reasoning on it

I apologize if you are an EAL speaker, you present yourself very eloquently, and I had assumed you were just being lazy.

I assume you are referring to the 3rd party as your response had not much to do with what I was expressing in this thread. In any case, being eloquent or simply put smart ass about things does not make you right. The opposite can be true, one can talk like a moron but still have a true theory. When did you stop stealing money from your mother?

Quote from: Piotr on May 22, 2013, 10:07:11 AM

Logic provided at your request.

Please do. I would like to see your reasoning on it

You can only do to others what they wouldn't want to be done to them if you are dealing punishment. True.

I don't want any third party extorting any tax* on any business between me and my customers. True.

Sales and income taxes are illegal under iMtG Law. So are any other taxes on business between voluntary parties.

Tax* tax is not voluntary.

Quote from: KangaRod on May 22, 2013, 08:47:44 AM

I apologize if you are an EAL speaker, you present yourself very eloquently, and I had assumed you were just being lazy.

I assume you are referring to the 3rd party as your response had not much to do with what I was expressing in this thread. In any case, being eloquent or simply put smart ass about things does not make you right. The opposite can be true, one can talk like a moron but still have a true theory. When did you stop stealing money from your mother?

Calm down, Piotr. This is a discussion on sustainability. You are discussing his person, on something related to me, and being aggressive about it.

Also, I think he meant that I was eloquent and used good reasoning, leading him to think that I was a native speaker because my use of the language was good. Leave it by that.

Thirdly, you should pg-9 that .loving. evil comment

Quote from: Piotr on May 22, 2013, 10:13:22 AM

Quote from: KangaRod on May 22, 2013, 08:47:44 AM

I apologize if you are an EAL speaker, you present yourself very eloquently, and I had assumed you were just being lazy.

I assume you are referring to the 3rd party as your response had not much to do with what I was expressing in this thread. In any case, being eloquent or simply put smart ass about things does not make you right. The opposite can be true, one can talk like a moron but still have a true theory. When did you stop stealing money from your mother?

Calm down, Piotr. This is a discussion on sustainability. You are discussing his person, on something related to me, and being aggressive about it.

Also, I think he meant that I was eloquent and used good reasoning, leading him to think that I was a native speaker because my use of the language was good. Leave it by that.

Thirdly, you should pg-9 that .loving. evil comment

Never been calmer in my life,

I'm simply having fun using the same techniques as my opponents do. Asking questions which are poisonous boxes, without any significant link to the topic of the discussion. You live by the sword, you die by the sword

I still condemn this actions on both sides. If you are unhappy with the way he did something, judge him by the law. I feel bad for a discussion I engaged on to veer into aggression towards others. I can even say I feel offended by it. I felt offended by the asinine comment as well, but dealt with it my way, and unless repeated, no punishment should be issued. I did not feel offended be the comment on eloquence, I actually like to see that I put my opinions out well enough that he felt I am eloquent, even though I do not feel so sure about some parts of my speech.

If it just keeps turning towards a personal offense thread, I will just leave it. I do not feel offended by people saying bad things of me over the Internet, but I fell genuinely offended when people discuss something based on attacks to the other person(people) instead of addressing the subject, that is why I am absent on most online discussions. This one was one I participated because it showed up in my replies because I commented about going off-topic, and at that time I was just checking the new forum section. When I saw the replies I had an itch to rectify the direction this thread was going, because it was looking rather "I think THIS and you are wrong - NO, I think THAT and you are wrong" to me, and I dislike this type of discussion. I accomplished my mission to some degree, but will have no problem leaving because it became a personal offense thread.

You still have to PG that ".loving. evil" comment.

I'm with you, thanks.

You still have to PG that ".loving. evil" comment.

What do you mean? .loving. is already censored?

Not on your post
I censored it in my quote only, so as to not create another edited comment. Your post was
"This is .loving.(censored only in my post) evil and illegal by iMtG Law.
Logic provided at request."
On page 3

Wow, must be a bug. I see it as censored, how about anyone else?

Wow, must be a bug. I see it as censored, how about anyone else?

Everything is censored

Not on your post
I censored it in my quote only, so as to not create another edited comment. Your post was
"This is .loving.(censored only in my post) evil and illegal by iMtG Law.
Logic provided at request."
On page 3

Could be that theme=1 is not doing it. Theme=6 has it on 5th page.