Discussion in 'Culture' started by GlennInFlorida, Feb 16, 2008.
what do you think?
is global warming a myth?
Václav Klaus is an expert in a field of mythology
Sorry, when I found out Klaus was gonna be a Czech president again, I almost bought a bottle of booze :!: . He is a joke on our political scene!.
I could put here 37 reasons why Václav Klaus is better president than Mr. Švejnar would be. But I'm not gonna do that. Today was a beautiful day and I don't wanna waste the rest of it in a senseless political debate. You do?
We' electing a president this year. Here's hoping we get the one we need and not the one we deserve! (Hoisting a beer here)
Klaus is a funny guy!
He's now suggesting that passive smoking is safe: http://www.radio.cz/en/article/100197
Hmmm... what will be his next topic, do you think? Maybe that the earth isn't as round as we thought?! :wink:
It was the better choice. And a choice without a single commie, that counts.
It depends on your definition of GW which is very vague term. That’s why you can never disprove this VK’s statement. :wink:
If you ask whether the GW campaign is exaggerated, my answer is yes. I share VK’s opinion that precautionary principle is highly irresponsible and that a standard cost-benefit analysis is the instrument we should use.
He is an expert in political marketing. He has a gift to formulate political slogans and he likes to speek in strong words, but his actual policy is less confrontational than his words. That applies even for the statement above.
He is also skilled in pointing out the existing problems.
Klaus himself or his picture in media? :wink:
He is mostly misquoted.
Perfect example of such a misquotation. :!:
He never said it is safe, he said it does not justify a state regulation.
And he is right, the law should be not complicated with such particularities. It decreases the law enforceability and legal safeguard.
This is matter of morals!
It is definitely not ball-shaped. :roll:
I’m tired of these causual ways of jeering, it shows that most people only repeats unthinkingly somebody else’s words. It’s like the Chinese whispers game, maybe somewhere at the begining there was a good argument, but now it is only a useless parody.
Anna683, could you fabricate something more original? (Earth roundness, geocentric system, Galileo Galilei and links to tabacco industry or oil companies don’t apply.)
And here I thought (our unreformed old-school communistic party) KSČM allowed Klaus to be re-elected, particularly considering their charade with Bobošíková. Well, at least that's what the leader of ČSSD said. :wink:
Let's not forget whom they voted for five years ago and Klaus's pleads to them, including his infamous "anti-communism is dead" statement (I don't want to hear this-was-taken-out-of-context excuses). The fact is both (serious) candidates were brownnosing KSČM in one way or other openly and who knows what happened backstage during political parties' negotiations. Anyway, I was still happy that M. Zeman wasn't elected instead.
Klaus vs Švejnar: I don't know who would be a better president, I don't care for either. The whole process of the presidential election was incredibly lame, embarrassing and disgusting. On the other hand, I'm afraid had the president been chosen directly by people, it wouldn't have been any better. I can easily see some "celebrity" or a 3rd rate populist politician being elected. Good thing is our president doesn't really have that much power.
Disclaimer: My last vote in any elections (back in 1996, I refuse to vote since then) went to Klaus's ODS. I've never been a big fan of ODS, I just thought they were the least wrong choice and that no citizen should waste their vote not using it - yes, I used to be THAT stupid.
Well, he has aggressive-looking hair. :wink:
Seriously, though, the environment and public health are important issues to a lot of people.
Klaus has said quite clearly that global warming is neither significant nor man-made: http://www.klaus.cz/klaus2/asp/clanek.a ... HwpGc13sXM
As for the smoking ban, if he's denying the need for it then that is tantamount to denying the seriousness of the risks posed by passive smoking.
Like the South African President refusing to accept the connection between HIV and Aids, Klaus's dismissive attitude to the findings of scientific experts seems to be out of place in a President.
And? What is the purpose of this proclamation? Do you want to say that everybody who is opposed to GW movement wants to destroy the environment and everybody who is opposed to regulation of all health risks wants to destroy somebody’s health? That’s nonsense.
Well, I’m not a maniac who listens to every VK’s word, and thus I don’t know what he did said or not, but in the linked speech there he says something different – He says that the significance of man-made GW is not proven and that he himself disbelieves it.
This is a logical lapse.
I don’t know what are RSA President’s opinions on HIV and AIDS, but I know for sure it has no relation to Klaus.
First, a dismissive attitude are a little too strong words, right? An opposition to some findings of some scientific experts is not a dismissive attitude. And it is definitely much more reasonable attitude than blind reliance on all scientific experts.
I just want to elaborate on how it's a logical lapse. One can agree that an activity or behavior is harmful to one's health without advocating a need for the government regulation. For example, I personally believe it is spiritually harmful to participate in fornication. Yet, that doesn't mean I think the government should pass laws making fornication illegal. I also believe that eating McDonald's every day is physically harmful, yet I'm against government regulation of the consumption of McDonald's food. One can admit that an activity/behavior is harmful and yet continue to believe that citizens should be free to choose to participate in such a harmful behavior. Like wer stated, these are moral arguments. They have no place in government regulation; unless of course you'd like to relinquish your freedom and go back to the days of tyranny.
You can't compare these two to passive smoking. You deliberately choose whether to eat at McDonald or involve yourself in fornication*. Passive smoking is different because often you can't avoid it just on your own (waiting at a bus stop, public places, ...). Using same arguments you could say all drugs should become legal, people should be allowed to drive their cars how they want (no speed limits etc.) and so on.
* Fornication ("voluntary sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons or two persons not married to each other") being harmful is just your opinion / position of your religion; many and many people consider it normal and they think the forced celibacy is what is unnatural and harmful to one's body and even mind. On the other hand, it is considered to be a scientifically proved fact that passive smoking kills people. It's said several dozens people a year in CZ die because of passive smoking, though I don't have a slightest idea how they came to this number.
Your are right, Petr_B, these examples are not the best ones, but the line of reasoning is correct.
If you want something harmful to others, you can think of persons infected with influenza and their forced isolation.
I consider this much more harmful than passive smoking. And in addition, I can hardly defend myself against it because an infected person is not as conspicuous as a smoker.
But in spite of it I do not support a forced isolation of persons infected with influenza nor health examinations at doors of restaurants.
And just in case, what I wrote is not a simple yes-no principle. It’s matter of measure and proportions. I’m opposed to isolations of persons infected with influenza, but I would support a forced isolation of a person infected with bubonic plague.
You are correct Petr and although I recognized that it is merely my opinion that fornication is spiritually harmful, I failed to realize that passive smoking means second-hand smoke.
Yet, the fact remains that one can believe something is harmful yet continue to deny a need for government bans. For example, leaving the choice to the people may be more appropriate. Chicago has banned smoking in public places such as restaurants. Shouldn't the choice be up to the people, not the government? The owners can choose to allow smoking and customers can choose to give business/dollars to such a restaurant. In other words, one can believe that smoking is harmful (including second-hand smoke) but believe that the exposure to second hand smoke should be driven by the consumer rather than regulated by the government.
So, following your reasoning: let me guess - you DO support for example legalization of prostitution or selling marijuana/other drugs, right?* Let the people decide with their money - if they don't like it, they won't go to brothels or buy pot. It's not the government's business if one pays for sex / gets paid for selling his/her body or buys/sells drugs (as long as taxes are paid properly) - it's only people involved who can make the decision, right? You don't need to answer, these were only rhetorical questions, I think I know your answers to them - when you believe even pornography or pre-marriage sex are harmful, I can easily imagine your view on prostitution. :wink:
By the way, I had to look up the word "fornication" in the dictionary, it had probably been my first time ever encountering it - the day we learn something new is not a day lost.
*I myself would support legalization of prostitution, but not legalizing any other drugs (having two legal ones is more than enough, there's no reason to let another genie out of bottle).
And back to the topic. I wonder with whom the political parties come after 5 years. More of the "noname" candidates like the ones suggested earlier in this campaign by ČSSD and others? J. Paroubek? Any suggestions about whom would YOU like to sit at the Prague Castle?
I gotta agree with wer - Klaus´s stable inclination to liberalism is much better than Šveinars flexible positions(cz: postoje).
btw: Global warming is nice example of something made up by media - noone knows how much (in %) is caused by people and which part is natural.
All it seems to me as big lame propaganda. and its also great green business...
Why no-one cares about polution(poisons) dust(especialy from diesel engines and coal-burning powerplants) while this harm many more people and other creatures than poisonless CO2? why nobody is interested in connection between temperatures and developed areas? - compare parkinglot covered by asphalt and green meadow..
And why CO2 ? why not vapour?
Good question and I know you said I don't have to answer but I'd like to. As prostitution is an age old profession and we will NEVER get rid of it, I'm prone to support the legalization because at least they would pay taxes and there could be some regulations such as mandatory testing for STD's, which would support the overall health of the community. The conflict comes into play when I consider my personal religious convictions in that partaking in prostitution is spiritually unhealthy. However, I don’t believe that by keeping it illegal, our nation decreases the number of those who partake in prostitution. By legalizing it, we can only help the evil become less evil by imposing some regulations.
As for legalizing marijuana and other drugs (I haven't really thought about other drugs, only marijuana) I’m also conflicted. Given the argument made above about smoking, I could apply the same argument for the legalization of marijuana use and I have argued this to myself in the past - no I'm not schizophrenic :wink: . However, there remains two arguments against the legalization of it. Leaving my religious convictions completely aside, one could continue to argue that marijuana causes a societal decline. Given that a side affect of marijuana can cause one to be indifferent toward life and society, one can argue that a greater use of marijuana would cause our society to have a greater number of unproductive citizens. I know many who refuse to use marijuana merely because it's illegal and they don't want to take the risk. Therefore, if it were to become legal one could assume the use would be greater thus damaging our society by decreasing the number of productive citizens and enlarging the number of less productive citizens - a reason to keep it illegal which has nothing to do with religion or personal choice.
The same argument could be applied the seatbelt law. One could argue that using a seatbelt should be personal choice and none of the government's business. Yet another could argue that mandatory seatbelt usage keeps down the number of auto injuries, thus keeping down the medical cost to insurance companies which affects overall insurance costs - affecting everyone.
I personally have not remedied these conflicts on any of the three issues therefore I don’t take a firm stand on either side. However, lucky for me, since I’m not a member of Congress, making a firm decision is not urgent. 8)
I hope this isn't directed to me because like the typical American, I'm self involved in my own country’s politics and pay no attention to yours. :wink: :twisted:
It was aimed at all readers, Czechs in particular, in a desperate attempt to get the topic back on its original track (as I'm partially guilty for taking it off-topic).
And now, your are taking it five years off-topic.
A suggestion? What about Václav Klaus Jr. or Livia Klausová? :wink: :twisted:
OK, bad joke.
Such dynastic practices are possible only in countries like North Korea, Azerbaijan or United States. :twisted:
Honestly, I think we can take a pause for a while. Right now, we know only 27 of 281 electors.
Anybody like Bem?
(here we go again :wink: !)
Separate names with a comma.