| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| FUBAR |
Posted - 08/10/2007 : 17:36:28
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1287361,00.html
Cops Called As Protesters Blockade Airport |Sky News|UK News
So how far will they go? And I don't mean for their holidays. Do your beliefs over-ride others who don't believe as you? At least they shouldn't be crashing jets as the carbon released would make a mockery of their cause. Modern evangelists for the new religion....... |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| moon23 |
Posted - 17/10/2007 : 13:56:10
quote:
Originally posted by Daveb
Shame, I was thinking about starting an Eco-Terrorist Group.
You could kidnap an MP and hold them hostage in your yurt. Force them to do yoga and eat tofu. |
| Daveb |
Posted - 16/10/2007 : 17:40:16
Shame, I was thinking about starting an Eco-Terrorist Group. |
| moon23 |
Posted - 16/10/2007 : 13:47:43
quote:
Originally posted by Daveb
Stop all flights
Ban all cars
Kill all cows
Kill all people over 60, all criminals and the unemployed
Will that help?
It is for the good of the planet
Overkill |
| moon23 |
Posted - 16/10/2007 : 13:45:24
quote:
Originally posted by Pennywise
Miriam
He needs time to grow up.
In a recent survey Green Party supporters whilst pontificating about what we should all do admitted that they would not give up their summer holiday flights. Moon types are the "have not's" that is why they squeal so loud.
Moony likes the sound of his own keyboard, or at least cut & paste..
It's a shame that after Mim and I had a fairly reasoned debate on the matter you have to come in with such a childish post. |
| Pennywise |
Posted - 15/10/2007 : 20:50:24
Miriam
He needs time to grow up.
In a recent survey Green Party supporters whilst pontificating about what we should all do admitted that they would not give up their summer holiday flights. Moon types are the "have not's" that is why they squeal so loud.
Moony likes the sound of his own keyboard, or at least cut & paste.. |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 15/10/2007 : 20:21:03
quote:
Originally posted by moon23
So do you think they should just trust in the nice politicans and global buisness interests to look after our planet.
No ... what I think is that they should put their money where their mouth is and find a less polluting way of pushing their agenda!
|
| Daveb |
Posted - 15/10/2007 : 20:12:41
Stop all flights
Ban all cars
Kill all cows
Kill all people over 60, all criminals and the unemployed
Will that help?
It is for the good of the planet |
| moon23 |
Posted - 15/10/2007 : 18:17:53
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
Look at the original post on this thread Moon. These people are definitely the sort that give 'Green uber Alles' the very bad after-taste they so thouroughly deserve and in fact put people off the whole ecology argument with their self-righteous disregard for anyone who does not happen to sing from their hymn-sheeet.
It is those that behave as if it is all a man-made catastrophe and it is they who, as you yourself put it, think that the end justifies the means.
So do you think they should just trust in the nice politicans and global buisness interests to look after our planet.
|
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 15/10/2007 : 17:08:49
Look at the original post on this thread Moon. These people are definitely the sort that give 'Green uber Alles' the very bad after-taste they so thouroughly deserve and in fact put people off the whole ecology argument with their self-righteous disregard for anyone who does not happen to sing from their hymn-sheeet.
It is those that behave as if it is all a man-made catastrophe and it is they who, as you yourself put it, think that the end justifies the means. |
| moon23 |
Posted - 15/10/2007 : 17:00:53
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
I would say is that we now have a term that can serve to describe past phenomena.
This is where we differ, because I think it's inaccurate to describe the phenomena in these terms. Primarily because Ecology is a scientific Endeavour, but also because I think it's important to remember how people might have understood things in their frames of reference. This is applying modern insights to describe past behaviors, which although occasionally useful, it more often than not misrepresents what people were doing.
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
I would also suggest that you are deliberately (giving you the benefit of the doubt here) attempting to infer that I have indeed claimed that Global Warming is a religion when in fact what I have said, and quite clearly at that is that "So far we have theories and suppositions dependent on the initial acceptance of non-proven premises that climatic change is not natural and normal.
And that is why it can be likened to a religion. In fact I would go further and say that is what it has in common with religion.
No, I think you have likened Eco-activists behavior to religious extremists because you are aware of the psychological factors that are at play here. You should however be clearer in drawing the distinction on different nature of the premises that these people use to justify their behavior.
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
And it is far from a flaw in my argument Moon when you look at what started this thread which was the behaviour of fervent adherants to the notion that Global Warming is brought about by human agency with the inherent implication that human agency alone will bring about a volte-face in the process. This is indeed an utterly ludicrous notion which depends on their belief or, to use a slightly better term, 'faith' alone.
I think it is perfectly rational given the current scientific evidence to think that Human agency is a major if not primary cause of global warming. Its not true to portray these people as acting on faith alone as leading scientific theory suggests that a reduction in our CO2 emissions will help to negate the current trend in global warming.
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
What I do not accept, in the total absence of any non-biased scientific findings on the matter, is that it is entirely caused by human agency. And that my dear Moon is where I and the 'Green uber Alles' crowd part company.
I disagree, I know a lot of environmentalist who don't think that Global Warming is 100% Man Made. The most likely explanation is that we are coming out of an ice age and contributing to a natural warming cycle.
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
I do not hold with the 'Doomsday' scenario that they are intent on screeching about at every opportunity - warranted or not. Nor do I hold with the notion that the ends justify the means. I do hold with the notion that, where possible, we try an minimize our adverse impact on the world around us however I also hold that we, as a species, are part and parcel of the natural phenomena of this planet.
Mim, most of the 'Doomsday' scenarios have been jumped on and hyped by the main stream media rather than the green movement. At the grass roots level the green movement is very focused on making local positive changes. Look at free-cycle for instance for one example.
(EDITED) Although I accept there are plenty of people within the green movement who are 'nutters' and do the cause a lot of harm.
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
I may not agree but I would have respect for 'green activists' who put their money where their mouths are and would not assume that they have the right to force a local increase in the carbon footprint to point out the folly of increasing the local carbon footprint. I certainly do not respect and I doubt that many reasonable individuals would, spurious arguments based on a narrow and biased interpretation of data. And I most emphatically cannot respect a debater who cannot stay within the goalposts and argue his case but needs must move them to accommodate his limited ability to stick to the point.
Whether or not you agree with direct action really depends more on your general political output. Personally I don't think we live in a working democracy and as such people have little other option. Having said that I don't take part in direct action and stick to conventional lobbying because I don't want to be arrested and imprisoned by the state.
In my view the many hours of conventional political campaigning that I carry out are mostly a waste of my time. I waste my time happily in such a manner because I otherwise would feel to guilty.
|
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 15/10/2007 : 13:38:36
quote:
Originally posted by moon23
I am obviously therefore not trying to say that tangible external objects and phenomena don't exist until we have named them.
Describing historical human behavior is somewhat different though. You cannot say that Romans practiced eco-religion as there was no concept of eco-religion at the time. People at the time simply didn't think of things in those terms.
You could draw comparisons between the concept of 'eco-religion' and Roman religion. You could even say we now understand Romans to have practiced what we would now call an eco-religion. Making sweeping statements about how eco-religions have existed for thouhands of years though is just nonsense.
Which is exactly what I have done Moon Please note "Are you really trying to say that nothing exists until we have a word to describe it - whatever it may be? This may well to a certain extent be true of manufactured goods - microwave/bicycle/transistor radio et cetera. It most certainly does not hold for anything as complex as human emotion/human motivations and human politics - in fact I would say it doesn't hold true for all abstract concepts. As it isn't till we start trying to describe an abstract concept that we will coin the term." I did not at any stage say that the Romans were aware of their adherance to an eco-religion. What I would say is that we now have a term that can serve to describe past phenomena.
I would also suggest that you are deliberately (giving you the benefit of the doubt here) attempting to infer that I have indeed claimed that Global Warming is a religion when in fact what I have said, and quite clearly at that is that "So far we have theories and suppositions dependent on the initial acceptance of non-proven premises that climatic change is not natural and normal.
And that is why it can be likened to a religion. In fact I would go further and say that is what it has in common with religion.
quote:
Originally posted by moon23
This is the biggest flaw in your argument Mim. You fail to draw any difference between a Scientific Theory and a Religious Theory. The former is based within a empirical framework where premises can be tested by Scientific Experimentation. So far the overwhelming evidence suggests that temperature rises are linked to the volume of CO2 in the atmosphere and that by increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere we are the main cause of global warming. It may still be a 'theory' but that does not make it the same as a Religious theory.
Religious is based on faith alone and by it's very definition cannot be scientifically disproved. (Something Darkwin's would do well to realize)
And it is far from a flaw in my argument Moon when you look at what started this thread which was the behaviour of fervent adherants to the notion that Global Warming is brought about by human agency with the inherent implication that human agency alone will bring about a volte-face in the process. This is indeed an utterly ludicrous notion which depends on their belief or, to use a slightly better term, 'faith' alone.
quote:
Originally posted by moon23
As to whether global warming is natural or not, surely that depends on whether you view humans as natural entities? I assume in this instance you mean to say that Global Warming is natural if there is a non-anthropological cause to the phenomena.
As I have always maintained that I accept that human agency has a part to play in exacerbating the phenomenon of Global Warming, I fail to see where you think you are going with this?
quote:
Originally posted by moon23
Is it Normal? Well given that there is only one Earth with one history then your frame of reference is very small. Therefore whatever happens at any given point of time is 'normal'. Is the temperature rise abnormal when compared to historical flux in temperature. Well the Ice-Core data suggests this rise isn't 'normal', but we do not know for certainty the temperature changes before what we can gain from the ice.
Global Warming is a perfectly 'natural' reaction to an increased level of Green House gases in the atmosphere. It is 'normal' for Global Warming to occur when mankind increases it's CO2 output. Whether these natural and normal things are desirable is an entirely different matter....
What I do not accept, in the total absence of any non-biased scientific findings on the matter, is that it is entirely caused by human agency. And that my dear Moon is where I and the 'Green uber Alles' crowd part company.
I do not hold with the 'Doomsday' scenario that they are intent on screeching about at every opportunity - warranted or not. Nor do I hold with the notion that the ends justify the means. I do hold with the notion that, where possible, we try an minimise our adverse impact on the world around us however I also hold that we, as a species, are part and parcel of the natural phenomena of this planet.
I may not agree but I would have respect for 'green activists' who put their money where their mouths are and would not assume that they have the right to force a local increase in the carbon footprint to point out the folly of increasing the local carbon footprint. I certainly do not respect and I doubt that many reasonable individuals would, spurious arguments based on a narrow and biased interpretation of data. And I most emphatically cannot respect a debater who cannot stay within the goalposts and argue his case but needs must move them to accomodate his limited ability to stick to the point.
|
| moon23 |
Posted - 15/10/2007 : 12:55:12
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
quote:
Originally posted by moon23
Before the word socialism, there were no socialists! People might still have behaved in a way that is similar to what we now call socialism but they were not 'practicising' socialism. A Roman was not practicing eco-religion because they would not have conceptualized it within a scientific framework. It is therefore a misuse of the word ecological.
What an utterly ludicruous notion. Are you really trying to say that nothing exists until we have a word to describe it - whatever it may be? This may well to a certain extent be true of manufactured goods - microwave/bicycle/transistor radio et cetera. It most certainly does not hold for anything as complex as human emotion/human motivations and human politics - in fact I would say it doesn't hold true for all abstract concepts. As it isn't till we start trying to describe an abstract concept that we will coin the term.
Mim if you followed your own patronizing advice about reading what other people have written you might have noticed this following statement:
quote:
Originally posted by moon23
Mim Electricity is a physical phenomena that has existed before the word to describe it has.
I am obviously therefore not trying to say that tangible external objects and phenomena don't exist until we have named them.
Describing historical human behavior is somewhat different though. You cannot say that Romans practiced eco-religion as there was no concept of eco-religion at the time. People at the time simply didn't think of things in those terms.
You could draw comparisons between the concept of 'eco-religion' and Roman religion. You could even say we now understand Romans to have practiced what we would now call an eco-religion. Making sweeping statements about how eco-religions have existed for thouhands of years though is just nonsense.
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
So far we have theories and suppositions dependent on the initial acceptance of non-proven premises that climatic change is not natural and normal.
And that is why it can be likened to a religion. In fact I would go further and say that is what it has in common with religion.
This is the biggest flaw in your argument Mim. You fail to draw any difference between a Scientific Theory and a Religious Theory. The former is based within a empirical framework where premises can be tested by Scientific Experimentation. So far the overwhelming evidence suggests that temperature rises are linked to the volume of CO2 in the atmosphere and that by increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere we are the main cause of global warming. It may still be a 'theory' but that does not make it the same as a Religious theory.
Religious is based on faith alone and by it's very definition cannot be scientifically disproved. (Something Darkwin's would do well to realize)
As to whether global warming is natural or not, surely that depends on whether you view humans as natural entities? I assume in this instance you mean to say that Global Warming is natural if there is a non-anthropological cause to the phenomena.
Is it Normal? Well given that there is only one Earth with one history then your frame of reference is very small. Therefore whatever happens at any given point of time is 'normal'. Is the temperature rise abnormal when compared to historical flux in temperature. Well the Ice-Core data suggests this rise isn't 'normal', but we do not know for certainty the temperature changes before what we can gain from the ice.
Global Warming is a perfectly 'natural' reaction to an increased level of Green House gases in the atmosphere. It is 'normal' for Global Warming to occur when mankind increases it's CO2 output. Whether these natural and normal things are desirable is an entirely different matter....
|
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 14/10/2007 : 23:18:26
I suppose it does make a difference whether it is a 'concerned from Barnsley' or a frontman for a vested interest. As to why the 'Observer' should care???? Muck raking has become the new spirit of journalism. |
| FUBAR |
Posted - 14/10/2007 : 23:11:42
Why would you be surprised? Why would you mention it? Why does the Observer care who paid for the case? |
| Tombstone Blues |
Posted - 14/10/2007 : 08:39:13
quote:
Originally posted by FUBAR
ooops........
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/british-judge-bruises-al-gores-movie/?hp
British Judge Bruises Al Gores Movie - The Lede - Breaking News - New York Times Blog
Oh well so it's not all fact, sometimes fiction is better than the truth..........
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2190770,00.html
No surprises there. |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 12/10/2007 : 16:58:23
quote:
Originally posted by moon23
Eco-Religion is a recently made up compound word that is meant to describe human behavior. It isn't accurate to describe historical human behavior in terms of new descriptive words.
By your reasoning we should not attempt to describe anything that predates us. Of course it is perfectly possible, in fact highly desirable to describe anything using words a current audience can put in to a frame of reference thereby giving them the contextual meaning.
quote:
Originally posted by moon23
Before the word socialism, there were no socialists! People might still have behaved in a way that is similar to what we now call socialism but they were not 'practicising' socialism. A Roman was not practicing eco-religion because they would not have conceptualized it within a scientific framework. It is therefore a misuse of the word ecological.
What an utterly ludicruous notion. Are you really trying to say that nothing exists until we have a word to describe it - whatever it may be? This may well to a certain extent be true of manufactured goods - microwave/bicycle/transistor radio et cetera. It most certainly does not hold for anything as complex as human emotion/human motivations and human politics - in fact I would say it doesn't hold true for all abstract concepts. As it isn't till we start trying to describe an abstract concept that we will coin the term.
quote:
Originally posted by moon23
Do you see the difference?
Oh, I see the difference alright Moon ... I think you would do better reading some Putnam, Frege and Quinn for starters.
quote:
Originally posted by moon23
Of course there are similarities between the way in which people behave in a large political movements and the way in which people in a religion behave. I would have thought it was obvious that the similarity is nothing to do with religion or spirituality and all to do with people. The aspects that you identify as being religious have more to do with group sociological/psychological traits rather than anything spiritual.
I really suggest you look at my previous post where I state why there is something akin to the 'religious' way of thinking in the 'Green uber Alles' crowd Moon. It may stop you talking anymore rot.
In fact, to save you the effort, I'll requote it here:
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
So far we have theories and suppositions dependent on the initial acceptance of non-proven premises that climatic change is not natural and normal.
And that is why it can be likened to a religion. In fact I would go further and say that is what it has in common with religion.
I won't sink to your low level by stating that you are too bloody far up your own backside to actually be able to read what is written rather then what you think is written ... I'll leave the casting of doubt on the intellectual capacity of others to your good self   quote:
Originally posted by moon23
Mim it's not my fault you are too dim to understand the differeance between a scientific theory and religous belief.
|
| moon23 |
Posted - 12/10/2007 : 16:18:58
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
quote:
Originally posted by moon23
Mim Electricity is a noun that describes actual phenomena in the real world. Of course it existed before it was discovered.
But isn't that the point? Electricity existed before the term to describe it was coined. And by the same token, eco-religions have existed before the term to describe it was coined.
As far as these new 'Green uber Alles' followers of the ecological bandwagon is concerned ... yes it is akin to a religion. with the extremism, the holier-then-thou, salvation vs. eternal damnation all based on accepting on faith alone certain premises on which theories are then mounted and paraded as gospel* truths.
*No pun intended or then again ....
Mim Electricity is a physical phenomena that has existed before the word to describe it has.
Eco-Religion is a recently made up compound word that is meant to describe human behavior. It isn't accurate to describe historical human behavior in terms of new descriptive words. Before the word socialism, there were no socialists! People might still have behaved in a way that is similar to what we now call socialism but they were not 'practicising' socialism. A Roman was not practicing eco-religion because they would not have conceptualized it within a scientific framework. It is therefore a misuse of the word ecological.
Do you see the difference?
Of course there are similarities between the way in which people behave in a large political movements and the way in which people in a religion behave. I would have thought it was obvious that the similarity is nothing to do with religion or spirituality and all to do with people. The aspects that you identify as being religious have more to do with group sociological/psychological traits rather than anything spiritual.
I guess that's why people use the word eco-religion, but it's not really a very helpful way of describing things.
|
| Daveb |
Posted - 11/10/2007 : 20:14:01
Boom Bang a Bang on actually. |
| long time no see |
Posted - 11/10/2007 : 18:33:11
quote:
Originally posted by Tombstone Blues
'it's really simple, Reg!'
Global warming is a scientific theory supported by a majority of scientists
Some scentists don't agree that it's caused by human activity, but most agree that it is actually happening.
The Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe is also a scientific theory. Not all scientists agree with that. But they all agree that the universe does exist.
To talk of 'eco-religion' is nonsense. And so is blocking airport lounges. These stupid demos achieve absolutely nothing,apart from getting people's back up.
Bang On
Right. |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 11/10/2007 : 18:20:21
quote:
Originally posted by moon23
Mim Electricity is a noun that describes actual phenomena in the real world. Of course it existed before it was discovered.
But isn't that the point? Electricity existed before the term to describe it was coined. And by the same token, eco-religions have existed before the term to describe it was coined.
As far as these new 'Green uber Alles' followers of the ecological bandwagon is concerned ... yes it is akin to a religion. with the extremism, the holier-then-thou, salvation vs. eternal damnation all based on accepting on faith alone certain premises on which theories are then mounted and paraded as gospel* truths.
*No pun intended or then again ....
|
| Tombstone Blues |
Posted - 11/10/2007 : 18:09:53
'it's really simple, Reg!'
Global warming is a scientific theory supported by a majority of scientists
Some scentists don't agree that it's caused by human activity, but most agree that it is actually happening.
The Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe is also a scientific theory. Not all scientists agree with that. But they all agree that the universe does exist.
To talk of 'eco-religion' is nonsense. And so is blocking airport lounges. These stupid demos achieve absolutely nothing,apart from getting people's back up. |
| moon23 |
Posted - 11/10/2007 : 17:03:40
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
quote:
Originally posted by moon23
[brEcology was coined as a phrase in 1866 so I very much doubt the Egyptians, Romans and Native Americans had 'eco-religion'.
Ecology is a word that decribes the study of how living organism interact with the environment around them. To talk of 'eco-religion' is therefore nonsense as ecology is a scientific endevour.
Please don't dirty the name of ecologist by using the phrase to describe pseudo-environmentalist crystal loving, david Icke freaks.
So Moon, according to your reasoning there was no static electricity before William Gilbert in 1600 described the electrification of many substances and coined the term electricity from the Greek word for amber.
I really wish you actually thought about your arguments sometimes you know rather then just throw them about because they sound good.
Mim Electricity is a noun that describes actual phenomena in the real world. Of course it existed before it was discovered.
Eco-Religion is a recently created (by tabloid press) compound word that doesn’t accurately describe aforementioned Pre Judeo-Christian religions. Romans were not engaged in ‘Eco-Religion’, they were engaged in a cultural and historically specific set of religious beliefs. If anything Roman religion favored the supra-natural power of man-gods over any kind of elemental spirituality.
The aim of this word ‘Eco-Religion’ is simply a political label which is employed by those for whom climate change is seen as a threat to their lifestyles. To suggest that environmental protesters are engaged in something called 'Eco-Religion' which has been practiced for thousands of years is just a piece of dribble. It's a label which is used to put ecological and scientific ideas in the same category as subject and relative religious belief.
It’s incredibly dangerous and naive to dismiss climate change as some cult phenomena, although I concede that many of these protesters are more concerned about their own image than the environment. Is it not Human to desire to be seen as a Hero as well as being a Hero?
|
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 11/10/2007 : 14:22:51
quote:
Originally posted by moon23
[brEcology was coined as a phrase in 1866 so I very much doubt the Egyptians, Romans and Native Americans had 'eco-religion'.
Ecology is a word that decribes the study of how living organism interact with the environment around them. To talk of 'eco-religion' is therefore nonsense as ecology is a scientific endevour.
Please don't dirty the name of ecologist by using the phrase to describe pseudo-environmentalist crystal loving, david Icke freaks.
So Moon, according to your reasoning there was no static electricity before William Gilbert in 1600 described the electrification of many substances and coined the term electricity from the Greek word for amber.
I really wish you actually thought about your arguments sometimes you know rather then just throw them about because they sound good. |
| moon23 |
Posted - 11/10/2007 : 14:14:57
quote:
Originally posted by Daveb
Ancient Egptians had a sun god.
Romans had a god of the sea.
I believe native American indians and others considered wind, fire, water to be gods.
So there has always been eco-religion.
Ecology was coined as a phrase in 1866 so I very much doubt the Egyptians, Romans and Native Americans had 'eco-religion'.
Ecology is a word that decribes the study of how living organism interact with the environment around them. To talk of 'eco-religion' is therefore nonsense as ecology is a scientific endevour.
Please don't dirty the name of ecologist by using the phrase to describe pseudo-environmentalist crystal loving, david Icke freaks. |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 11/10/2007 : 14:01:25
quote:
Originally posted by moon23
Yep and climate change requires people of action.
No, climate change requires nothing. It is people that require action. |
| moon23 |
Posted - 11/10/2007 : 13:59:49
Yep and climate change requires people of action. |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 11/10/2007 : 13:46:44
quote:
Originally posted by moon23
Ok Mim so hypothetical you would shoot a terrorist with a tazer if you were certain they were about press a button to nuke a country.
Sometimes you need to cause harm to prevent it.
There is a huge difference between reacting to a situation and provoking a situation Moon. |
| moon23 |
Posted - 11/10/2007 : 13:41:22
quote:
Originally posted by Daveb
By protesting the protesters emit more CO2 than if they were chilling out and meditating. The also cause the police and press to follow them which uses more energy.
True, but 'chilling out' didn't get climate change on the political agenda...
|
| moon23 |
Posted - 11/10/2007 : 13:38:48
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
quote:
Originally posted by moon23
Sometimes you need to use a little bit of energy to save a lot. Sometimes the ends to justify the means.
Now where have I heard that before? Ah yes ... good old Machiavelli.
Ok Mim so hypothetical you would shoot a terrorist with a tazer if you were certain they were about press a button to nuke a country.
Sometimes you need to cause harm to prevent it. |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 11/10/2007 : 13:36:54
quote:
Originally posted by moon23
Sometimes you need to use a little bit of energy to save a lot. Sometimes the ends to justify the means.
Now where have I heard that before? Ah yes ... good old Machiavelli. |
