I'm going to make two lists. One will be a set of propositions which you will (most likely) support and believe in. The second list will be a set of beliefs. If you accept an initial proposition, and then go on to simultaneously hold one of the corresponding beliefs - you're a hypocrite.

Propositions:
1 - You support reliable sources of clean energy.
2 - You think "dirty" forms of energy generation should be replaced.
3 - You think it's a problem that billions of people go hungry throughout the world.
4 - You think the West should make an effort to help the Rest get out of poverty.
5 - You think greenhouses gases are heating up the Earth, and we need to try and slow or stop global warming.
6 - You think wages should be higher. 
7 - You think we should have the most efficient healthcare system possible .

Contradictory beliefs:
1 - You oppose nuclear energy.
2 - You oppose fracking.
3 - You oppose genetically modified crops.
4 - You support buying food locally; you oppose sweatshops.
5 - You oppose efforts to dump iron sulphate in the ocean.
6 - You think corporations should be taxed.
7 - You oppose the use of private services.

Propositions:
1 - You support reliable sources of clean energy.

Contradictory beliefs:
1 - You oppose nuclear energy.

I don't see how agreeing to both those statements would be hypocritical. There are other forms of reliable clean energy than just Nuclear (and I wouldn't really count Nuclear as clean, considering what it gains in no CO2 emissions it makes up in radioactive waste that we have to dump somewhere for millenia, and has created arguably the most inhospitable places on Earth).

There's plenty of others like Wind, Solar, Hydro-electric and Tidal energy, and the more abundant, efficient and less wasteful Thorium reactors (which can't be used to enrich uranium, which would help out Iran who need power but are strictly sanctioned by the US because they suspect bomb making by enriching Uranium in their nuclear plants).This kinda covers point 2, as most of these could easily replace dirty forms of energy over time.

Also, you could agree with points 3 of both tables. I do think it is a problem that 900 million suffer from undernourishment globally, yet I could still oppose GM crops because only large corporations can create them, turning the agricultural market into a monopoly, bleeding 3rd world countries dry of their annual GDP's to buy GM seeds (as GM plants are sterile), which could be used for infrastructural and industrial development instead. Also, GM atm only benefits us 1st worlders as we are technologically developed enough to use it, leading to over consumption and has caused 1.8 billion people to be overweight. The problem is distribution.

_{I should probably point out that I'm not opposed to GM myself, but your 'hypocriticality test' looks rather biased towards what I assume are your own beliefs on these matters.}

Quote from: Meta Cognition on August 04, 2014, 02:34:09 PM

Propositions:
1 - You support reliable sources of clean energy.

Contradictory beliefs:
1 - You oppose nuclear energy.

I don't see how agreeing to both those statements would be hypocritical. There are other forms of reliable clean energy than just Nuclear (and I wouldn't really count Nuclear as clean, considering what it gains in no CO2 emissions it makes up in radioactive waste that we have to dump somewhere for millenia, and has created arguably the most inhospitable places on Earth).

There's plenty of others like Wind, Solar, Hydro-electric and Tidal energy, and the more abundant, efficient and less wasteful Thorium reactors (which can't be used to enrich uranium, which would help out Iran who need power but are strictly sanctioned by the US because they suspect bomb making by enriching Uranium in their nuclear plants).This kinda covers point 2, as most of these could easily replace dirt forms of energy over time.

Also, you could agree with points 3 of both tables. I do think it is a problem that 900 million suffer from undernourishment globally, yet I could still oppose GM crops because only large corporations can create them, turning the agricultural market into a monopoly, bleeding 3rd world countries dry of their annual GDP's to buy GM seeds (as GM plants are sterile), which could be used for infrastructural and industrial development instead. Also, GM atm only benefits us 1st worlders as we are technologically developed enough to use it, leading to over consumption and has caused 1.8 billion people to be overweight. The problem is distribution.

_{I should probably point out that I'm not opposed to GM myself, but your 'hypocriticality test' looks rather biased towards what I assume are your own beliefs on these matters.}

Spoiler

Have I thought too much in to this? If so, I put it down to my Geography lessons. My bad.

Nop the post is stupid, you're right on the nose with that.

The problem, in your first point, is not so much the technology itself but the application of it. I haven't read too much into the subject, but HurtfulTurkey would've been the guy to ask about this stuff (too bad he isn't here) and I remember him getting into a massive debate on the environmental impacts of nuclear energy and waste. What it comes down to is the fact that the management of waste is sub-par, not the process of generating energy itself.

And there's the problem. The same reason we have fears of current dirty energy supplies is because of our sub-par management of the waste. It can't be ignored again with newer supplies, certainly considering it'll have worse short and long term effects for us.

As for GM crops? You certainly have a valid point. However, it would absolutely not turn into a monopoly. GM crops don't benefit us 1st worlders nearly as much as they could because they are regulated to the extreme, and the sheer quantity of them should they be used to their full potential wouldn't allow price gouging to exploit poorer nations. Regardless of that, the solution is to oppose the potential for companies to patent the seeds more than anything else. Just because there are a few (solvable) problems with a model, it doesn't justify rejecting it.

While you are right about GM not helping us as much as it should, I fear a growth in it with current procedures (as it's already too late to oppose patents for most of these GM crops) is going to be another fuck-up later on. Companies will lobby for increased GM use, leading to increased cost for farmers, leading to increased lobbying for farming subsidies. We'll end up footing the bill twice, as the food may be more abundant in the future but I doubt it'll be cheaper as a result.


...Wow-oh-wow. That coffee I had earlier is seriously kicking ass at the thought department today.

I'm going to make two lists. One will be a set of propositions which you will (most likely) support and believe in. The second list will be a set of beliefs. If you accept an initial proposition, and then go on to simultaneously hold one of the corresponding beliefs - you're a hypocrite.

Propositions:
1 - You support reliable sources of clean energy.
2 - You think "dirty" forms of energy generation should be replaced.
3 - You think it's a problem that billions of people go hungry throughout the world.
4 - You think the West should make an effort to help the Rest get out of poverty.
5 - You think greenhouses gases are heating up the Earth, and we need to try and slow or stop global warming.
6 - You think wages should be higher. 
7 - You think we should have the most efficient healthcare system possible .

Contradictory beliefs:
1 - You oppose nuclear energy.
2 - You oppose fracking.
3 - You oppose genetically modified crops.
4 - You support buying food locally; you oppose sweatshops.
5 - You oppose efforts to dump iron sulphate in the ocean.
6 - You think corporations should be taxed.
7 - You oppose the use of private services.

Propositions:
1- yes
2- yes
3- yes
4- yes
5- no, because its mother nature, plus we get global warming all the time.
6- yes
7- yes

Contradictory beliefs:
1- No, we need that energy to survive
2- yes
3- yes
4- yes and no, no part about the sweetshops.
5- yes
6- yes
7- no, why should i want to know what there doing, although i do get curious of what there talking about, but i intend to go about my business

Whats my grade?

Quote from: CyberGama on August 04, 2014, 04:05:06 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on August 04, 2014, 02:34:09 PM

I'm going to make two lists. One will be a set of propositions which you will (most likely) support and believe in. The second list will be a set of beliefs. If you accept an initial proposition, and then go on to simultaneously hold one of the corresponding beliefs - you're a hypocrite.

Propositions:
1 - You support reliable sources of clean energy.
2 - You think "dirty" forms of energy generation should be replaced.
3 - You think it's a problem that billions of people go hungry throughout the world.
4 - You think the West should make an effort to help the Rest get out of poverty.
5 - You think greenhouses gases are heating up the Earth, and we need to try and slow or stop global warming.
6 - You think wages should be higher. 
7 - You think we should have the most efficient healthcare system possible .

Contradictory beliefs:
1 - You oppose nuclear energy.
2 - You oppose fracking.
3 - You oppose genetically modified crops.
4 - You support buying food locally; you oppose sweatshops.
5 - You oppose efforts to dump iron sulphate in the ocean.
6 - You think corporations should be taxed.
7 - You oppose the use of private services.

Propositions:
1- yes
2- yes
3- yes
4- yes
5- no, because its mother nature, plus we get global warming all the time.
6- yes
7- yes

Contradictory beliefs:
1- No, we need that energy to survive
2- yes
3- yes
4- yes and no, no part about the sweetshops.
5- yes
6- yes
7- no, why should i want to know what there doing, although i do get curious of what there talking about, but i intend to go about my business

Whats my grade?

F, because you don't believe in Global Warming.

You think greenhouses gases are heating up the Earth, and we need to try and slow or stop global warming.

First of all i do believe in global warming, i'm just saying that we get global warming all the time, how is that not believing, also you would be a terrible grade person if you think that i should get an F all because of one stupid mistake.

Propositions:
1 - You support reliable sources of clean energy. Yes.
2 - You think "dirty" forms of energy generation should be replaced. Yes.
3 - You think it's a problem that billions of people go hungry throughout the world. Yes.
4 - You think the West should make an effort to help the Rest get out of poverty. Kinda?
5 - You think greenhouses gases are heating up the Earth, and we need to try and slow or stop global warming. Yes.
6 - You think wages should be higher.  Yes.
7 - You think we should have the most efficient healthcare system possible. Yes.

Contradictory beliefs:
1 - You oppose nuclear energy. No.
2 - You oppose fracking. Yes. If there was a way to avoid contaminating local land and water supplies, I would be more supportive.
3 - You oppose genetically modified crops. No.
4 - You support buying food locally; you oppose sweatshops. Indifferent; yes. I don't see what sweatshops have to do with local food.
5 - You oppose efforts to dump iron sulphate in the ocean. I don't know. What does that do?
6 - You think corporations should be taxed. Yes.
7 - You oppose the use of private services. I guess? There usually isn't a choice.

Do I fail miserably?

Quote

Dumping iron sulphate in the ocean supposedly leads to algae booms and helps boost fish stocks, as well as decrease oceanic carbon emissions.

I could be wrong, but aren't algae blooms what cause dead zones in the water?

Only in areas where they can cover the entire surface of the body of water.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on August 05, 2014, 08:15:06 AM

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on August 05, 2014, 07:03:49 AM

Quote

Dumping iron sulphate in the ocean supposedly leads to algae booms and helps boost fish stocks, as well as decrease oceanic carbon emissions.

I could be wrong, but aren't algae blooms what cause dead zones in the water?

Only in areas where they can cover the entire surface of the body of water.

But keeping the blooms in check is going to be ridiculously hard to do when you have vast tracts of water coated with them.

You would really need to, unless you dumped a fucking retarded amount of iron sulphate into the oceans. And I mean a metric retard tonne of iron sulphate.

The contradiction doesn't necessarily lie in the opposition of the programme (there is wiggle-room for information, of course), but completely opposed to any sort of experimentation or research on the topic either.

itt: you're a hypocrite if you don't agree withe the op's solutions to some universally acknowledged issues

You're an idiot if you think the fact that the solutions are "mine" that makes them any less of a solution.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on August 05, 2014, 10:34:06 AM

Quote from: RC5908 on August 05, 2014, 10:30:29 AM

itt: you're a hypocrite if you don't agree withe the op's solutions to some universally acknowledged issues

You're an idiot if you think the fact that the solutions are "mine" that makes them any less of a solution.

there are different ways of solving issues. someone isn't a hypocrite if that person believes that nuclear energy does more harm than good, or that private sector healthcare is inefficient. disclaimer: these examples don't reflect my actual beliefs.

Yes, but that doesn't make them right.

There's a solid empirical basis for nuclear energy being ridiculously safe in the very near future (2030s) and private actors being incredibly efficient at the administration of healthcare. People can think what they want about these two things, but it probably means they're wrong.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on August 05, 2014, 10:37:57 AM

Quote from: RC5908 on August 05, 2014, 10:35:56 AM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on August 05, 2014, 10:34:06 AM

Quote from: RC5908 on August 05, 2014, 10:30:29 AM

itt: you're a hypocrite if you don't agree withe the op's solutions to some universally acknowledged issues

You're an idiot if you think the fact that the solutions are "mine" that makes them any less of a solution.

there are different ways of solving issues. someone isn't a hypocrite if that person believes that nuclear energy does more harm than good, or that private sector healthcare is inefficient. disclaimer: these examples don't reflect my actual beliefs.

Yes, but that doesn't make them right.

There's a solid empirical basis for nuclear energy being ridiculously safe in the very near future (2030s) and private actors being incredibly efficient at the administration of healthcare. People can think what they want about these two things, but it probably means they're wrong.

you can say that you're right all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that someone who holds an opposing viewpoint to you and is knowledgeable about that viewpoint would probably easily hold their own in any kind of debate. you're coming off here as saying "i'm always right," and it's honestly very embarrassing.

You're misunderstanding me.

Not opposing nuclear energy doesn't entail supporting it, and supporting it doesn't entail opposition to other methods. I, personally, support alternatives to nuclear energy when the chips are down. The point is that if you believe reliable and clean energy is important, and you reject nuclear energy purely on that basis then you're a hypocrite, and there really isn't any other criteria (that I can think of) whereby you can judge nuclear energy and still turn out to be in opposition to it - that's why I'm limiting it to a certain set of propositions. The first example isn't the clearest, but the healthcare one is good. Private administration of healthcare is efficient, and if you're striving for efficiency then rejection of such a model is hypocrisy - plain and simple.

There's really nothing else to it. I'm not claiming to be right; if I wanted to do that I could've thrown in more controversial issues like the minimum wage, banking or welfare where the debate is definitely still on the table.