The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Framing language, changing meaning > Comments

Framing language, changing meaning : Comments

By Chris James, published 24/12/2008

Cognitive linguistics - the appropriation of language: truths, fantasies or lies?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. All
One Under God

The US government is not bailing out capitalism, they are bailing out specific companies, at the expense of everyone else in the country. They are violating the property rights of the entire population in an attempt to bail out a system of central economic planning of the economy, based on trying to force interest rates below the market rate, for reasons of 'social justice'. It is a mistake to call this by the name of capitalism. It is anti-capitalist, and whether you call it socialism or fascism you need to understand that the only thing that can protect us against this kind of legal scamming and political favouritism is private property, individual freedom, sound money and little or no taxation or government - real capitalism. The attempt to centrally plan the economy, or even a part of it, must fail because it violates economic laws that it is simply not open to governments to repeal, no matter how much vanity or force they bring to bear .

As for sustainability being the premise, that's fine, but the premise has to be proved in its own right. The conclusion of an argument can't be assumed as a premise, otherwise it's not logical.

By the way, your style is very hard to comprehend. All those square brackets don't do much for clarity.
Posted by Diocletian, Sunday, 4 January 2009 8:41:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
dio i will try to modify, i agree with most of what you say, but would like to add some things,this colapse was set up post 911..

[there were bailouts then ,that set this one up]..and 911 was mainly about shutting down the enron trial..[its 'evidence' was all in building 7] as well as a few billion's of gold that simply 'disappeared'] ..a busche was in charge of security in the buildings [brought down by thermite planted during renovations]

but back to the credit crisis

there were 800 billion of bad mortgauges[but these were leveraged into 50 trillion of insured underwritten 'securities'..thus the insurance went bust..[also turned into securities are things like a hydro sceme way up north[i forget its name][a tiny country;less than one million..

[anyhow many govts [state'govts too got sucked into this securitisation sceme [estimaTES SAY up to 5 QUADRILLION]total

the second wave is meeting margin calls [something the bail out has allowed to delay]but watch the credit market keep tightening up[we are presumed to see the banks consolidating up the smaller players; up to one third will shut shop this year[reportedly]

i know qld govt lost heaps

anyhow i agree the very selective resque..[favoured those who used to work for them..[who now disperse the aid] the 800,billion has been leveraged into 3 trillion so far, wonderfull power owning the fed[by the 12 banks running it audit free..[its not govt and not public;result no audit

all these numbers..[but a mere 800 billion only is blamable upon the poor[their mortgauges insuror's should have covered them..[it was the market who did the big vile stuff]

as long as we value paper ,we are assured that in the end time thats all that will be left to eat

Posted by one under god, Sunday, 4 January 2009 10:25:04 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Diocletian, you wrote;

“What you are saying assumes what is in issue, both:

1. whether sustainability is a problem in fact, and

2. whether the policy responses proposed will make the situation better not worse.”

The first point – most definitely. The second point – the assumption is that it absolutely has to be addressed. Implicit in that is the belief that addressing it will improve the situation, but there is the possibility of making it worse, which we all have to be very mindful of, and thus make sure that our approach is a good one.

“You might think that the sustainability problem is so obvious that it goes without saying. If it’s obvious, it should be easy to prove. But you haven’t done that yet.”

And I don’t intend to. Is there anyone who thinks that on global or national scales that failing to live sustainably and thus continuing to run down our resource base and quality of environment is a good idea or an acceptable strategy, or anything less than an appalling way of running our social and economic paradigms? No.

In all my discussions on OLO over the last three years and various other media for twenty years, I haven’t struck anyone who has come straight out and poo-pooed sustainability. Not even the most rampant rednecks and pro-expansionists attack the basic philosophy.

Why you feel the need for it to be proven or strongly substantiated is very perplexing.

Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 5 January 2009 7:16:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“ …how are we going to know whether we’re wasting natural resources in a given productive activity or not?”

It is not just about the efficient use of resources, it is also very much about the ever-increasing demand from ever-increasing population and the desire for higher rate of per-capita consumption in order to increase quality of life, amongst huge populations such as China and India.

“The very least we are going to need is a method of figuring out whether the inputs of an action are less than the outputs…”

We don’t need intricate calculations. We can see what is happening without them.

“Total government control would mean the abolition of economic calculation.”

Why do you say this? Who’s talking about total government control? It is not about government dictating lines of action to the people, it is about getting the populace of whole countries predominantly onside with the need for certain actions and outcomes.

Of course it will be hard…..and very easy to essentially do nothing, with just a bit of tinkering around the edges, until we all suffer very greatly from our inaction.

But we don’t have the option of doing absolutely nothing. The awareness of the sustainability problem is out there and rapidly gaining momentum. Governments and whole societies ARE doing stuff. This will continue to increase. No government in any country where this momentum is taking hold has the option of doing nothing. If they try, they’ll soon be booted out or pressured into some form of action.

Such negativity Diocletian! Your whole premise is that it is too hard and therefore we shouldn’t bother trying….or at least not until intricate calculations have proven the need for sustainability. Am I right in this interpretation?

You seem to be quite misfocussed. Why not put your mental energies into how we can best achieve a sustainable future instead of insisting that the bleeding obvious needs proof before any actions should be taken?
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 5 January 2009 7:19:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
haste makes waste?

The Greenhouse Gas
That Nobody Knew

When industry began using NF3 in high-tech manufacturing, it was hailed as a way to fight global warming.

But new research shows that this gas has 17,000 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide and is rapidly increasing in the atmosphere – and that's turning an environmental success story into a public relations disaster.
by richard conniff

Hypothetical question: You’re heartsick about global warming, so you’ve just paid $25,000 to put a solar system on the roof of your home.

How do you respond to news that it was manufactured with a chemical that is 17,000 times stronger than carbon dioxide as a cause of global warming?

It may sound like somebody’s idea of a bad joke. But last month, a study from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography reported that nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), with a global warming potential of 17,000, is now present in the atmosphere at four times the expected level and rapidly rising.

Use of NF3 is currently booming, for products from computer chips and flats-screen LCDs to thin-film solar photovoltaics, an economical and increasingly popular solar power format.

Moreover, the Kyoto Protocol, which limits a half-dozen greenhouse gases, does not cover NF3. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change now lists it among five major new greenhouse gases likely to be included in the next phase of global warming regulation, after 2012.

And while that may be reassuring, it also suggests the complicated character of the global warming problem.

In fact, NF3 had become popular largely as a way to reduce global warming. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency began actively UC Irvine researchers noted that NF3 is one of the most potent greenhouse gases known and persists in the atmosphere for 550 years.

encouraging use of NF3 in the 1990s, as the best solution to a widespread problem in making the components for everything from cell phones to laptop computers.

article in full here
Posted by one under god, Monday, 5 January 2009 9:36:02 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy