Is Driving Fossil-Fuelled Cars Immoral?

[Age]

No, really, Age. A PM.

I'm sure you can, in fact, hallucinate motivations that are convenient for you, but I suggest this option for the reasons given in my previous post.

And kudos to

Ah yes, the "your arguments are so wrong I can't be bothered to address them" gambit. The last refuge of those with no cogent reply. To be honest, you're not necessarily my target audience. Have a nice day.

What do you even mean by 'PM'?

And, considering that you actually believe that what "luckyr" said and wrote here is even close to what the actual Truth is here, once again, shows to me just how much you really do miss here.

Once again, I never ever said nor wrote that "luckyr's" arguments are 'so wrong' and that is why I did not bother replying.

Once more, I did not bother replying to "luckyr'" because it was "luckyr's" assumptions about what I was saying, and meaning, which were so, so Wrong, which is why I did not bother replying.

Hopefully, you also will be able to recognize and see the difference here, now.

[Iwannaplato]

What do you even mean by 'PM'?

Private Message.

If you look up and to the left you should see a 'box' where you can search for things. Underneath this you should see a bell Notifications a symbol (of what I'm not sure) then Private Messages.

[Age]

What do you even mean by 'PM'?

Private Message.

If you look up and to the left you should see a 'box' where you can search for things. Underneath this you should see a bell Notifications a symbol (of what I'm not sure) then Private Messages.

So, if you want 'me' to private message 'you', then why do 'you' not just private message 'me', instead?

What 'you' are doing here would be like someone waiting for another one to call them, and telling the other to call them. Which, from my perspective, is beyond absurdity and stupidity.

Also, why have you previously claimed, and on more than one occasion, that you will never speak with me again, but yet here you are now speaking with me and requesting 'me' to 'private message' 'you'. Can you recognize any 'mixed messages' you are communicating here.

Furthermore, if, and when, you decide to admit the mistakes that you have made here and the Wrong and False claims also, which I have pointed out shown here, then I will think about private messaging you.

[Iwannaplato]

So, if you want 'me' to private message 'you', then why do 'you' not just private message 'me', instead?

Sure, that's an option. But it seemed you were reluctant to answer my question about how often you are in social or professional interactions where you get face to face feedback about your communication. I thought perhaps a PM would be easier and suggested it.

What 'you' are doing here would be like someone waiting for another one to call them, and telling the other to call them. Which, from my perspective, is beyond absurdity and stupidity.

No, it's not like that situation and I'm not waiting.

Also, why have you previously claimed, and on more than one occasion, that you will never speak with me again, but yet here you are now speaking with me and requesting 'me' to 'private message' 'you'. Can you recognize any 'mixed messages' you are communicating here.

I've certainly gotten fed up with and expressed that in whatever way I did. And it wouldn't surprise me if I said I'd never contact you again. Once I explained to you that language is expressive and a way to convey information (and other things also). You reacted to this quite negatively, if I remember correctly, seeming not to realize that a lot of literal language is actually metaphorical. This attitude you have often comes in clusters with myopic focus, perseveration and the others parts of your communication I mentioned earlier.

Furthermore, if, and when, you decide to admit the mistakes that you have made here and the Wrong and False claims also, which I have pointed out shown here, then I will think about private messaging you.

Oh, I've pointed out false claims you've made about me many times and while you can manage to agree your grammar or spelling is incorrect, I haven't seen you admit anything of significance. I did not exactly write what I my post assumed I would, earlier around 'This one...' Otherwise my claims about you I stand by - which, of course, does not mean I am 100% certain, unlike you with all your proofs and irrefutables and so on.

Our little king of absolutism.

I realize there may be a misconception on your part. I did not suggest PMs for a general discussion. I was suggesting as a way to focus on that single issue: how much you meet others in person where you get feedback on your communication. Just that. So it is a conditional suggestion: if you are will to be clear about that issue, let's do it by PM.

The reason my decision to communicate or not - with posters like you, VA and Iambiguous, is that I notice something different - often I noticed how I've been distracted by inessentials, earlier, in my interactions. So, I get curious if I focus on something that I haven't earlier or haven't in quite the same way.

[Age]

So, if you want 'me' to private message 'you', then why do 'you' not just private message 'me', instead?

Sure, that's an option. But it seemed you were reluctant to answer my question about how often you are in social or professional interactions where you get face to face feedback about your communication.

Really, it only 'seemed' like I was reluctant?

I thought I was making it blatantly obvious that I was reluctant.

I also thought I made the reason why I am reluctant blatantly obvious when I expressed that this site is a 'philosophy forum' and that how often one interacts so-called 'face-to-face' with others was of no 'philosophical issue' at all.

However, it appears that what I thought was 'blatantly obvious' was 'blatantly not', well to some anyway.

I thought perhaps a PM would be easier and suggested it.

And, I thought that it was blatantly obvious that you could private message me, and suggested it.

Again, you are absolutely free to private message me. And, to ask me absolutely any thing in a private message.

Just like you are absolutely free to ask me any thing in public, and to also try to make out that you are more superior, to me, or others, in public arena as well.

What 'you' are doing here would be like someone waiting for another one to call them, and telling the other to call them. Which, from my perspective, is beyond absurdity and stupidity.

No, it's not like that situation and I'm not waiting.

Okay.

So, 'this' is really another complete none issue, right?

Also, why have you previously claimed, and on more than one occasion, that you will never speak with me again, but yet here you are now speaking with me and requesting 'me' to 'private message' 'you'. Can you recognize any 'mixed messages' you are communicating here.

I've certainly gotten fed up with and expressed that in whatever way I did. And it wouldn't surprise me if I said I'd never contact you again.

So, do you, often, say and claim things, to others, but then 'go back on your word', or do you only do this some times?

Once I explained to you that language is expressive and a way to convey information (and other things also).

Off topic.

you said, and claimed, that you would never communicate with me, ever again, yet here you communicating 'with me', and even suggesting that I can contact you through private messaging.

You reacted to this quite negatively, if I remember correctly, seeming not to realize that a lot of literal language is actually metaphorical.

Besides this being off-topic, again, and this being another attempt of yours to appear as though you are superior to me and/or that you know more than I do, this is just another load of absolute lies or misinformation. I have never not realized that you adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, very regularly use metaphorical language.

After all you adult human beings, literally, quite often do not say what you, actually, mean, and do not mean what you, actually, say, or write.

This is blatantly obvious, well to me anyway, so I have absolutely no idea nor clue as to why, to you, that I would seem to not realize 'this'. Are you able to explain why 'this' has appeared, to you, and why you assumed such a Wrong thing as 'this'?

Have you ever considered that you 'see' things and say and write things in 'a way', and in public, so as to come across as 'the other' is less than, or more inferior, to you, or to 'the way' that you are?

you may well do this completely unconsciously, but have you ever considered that you might be doing this but have not, yet, realized that you do this?

This attitude you have often comes in clusters with myopic focus, perseveration and the others parts of your communication I mentioned earlier.

Again, off topic. Let 'us' not forget that you said and claimed that you would never communicate with me, ever again, but yet here you are.

Anyway, could 'this attitude', supposedly of mine, which 'you' continually 'see', and continually 'talk about', here, in public. be some thing which does not actually exist but which is some thing that 'you want to see', and which you would like to express and convey, to others, 'about me', for reasons that I have expressed above here?

Or, is this not a possibility that could ever exist and occur in 'your world' and/or in 'your thinking'?

Furthermore, if, and when, you decide to admit the mistakes that you have made here and the Wrong and False claims also, which I have pointed out shown here, then I will think about private messaging you.

Oh, I've pointed out false claims you've made about me many times and while you can manage to agree your grammar or spelling is incorrect, I haven't seen you admit anything of significance.

But, just like I have previously said, there are quite a lot of what I am saying, and actually meaning, which you do 'not see', and even admit to 'not seeing'.

Even in this thread, for example, you wrote;
So, do you think driving fossil-fuelled cars is immoral?

And then claimed;
This one has posted about the OP topic in a primarily questioning approach. I wonder if this one will actually take a position on the issue, here in the thread.

To which I replied;
But, I already have a so-called 'position', on this issue. Which, by the way, some would have ascertained, or partly ascertained, by now.

And concluded with;
However, there are others, like "iwannaplato" who, still, have absolutely no idea nor clue at all.

So, again, a lot of what I say, and mean, which you do 'not see', and MISS, here. So, it is not surprising at all that you have 'not seen' when I have admitted things here.

I did not exactly write what I my post assumed I would, earlier around 'This one...'

Thank you for, finally, admitting this.

it took some work, from me, to get 'here', but we finally got here.

Also, my point was never about you not writing what you assumed you would. My point was that you claimed that you 'did write' what you assumed you would. Which, again and obviously, you did 'not write' 'it'.

Otherwise my claims about you I stand by - which, of course, does not mean I am 100% certain, unlike you with all your proofs and irrefutables and so on.

1. What are 'your claims' 'about me', exactly, which you now say and claim that 'you stand by'?

2. And, if you are not 100% certain of 'your claims' anyway, then why would you even claim that 'you stand by them'? Do you not see 'the contradiction' here.

3. When I have become savvy to a 'proof', which obviously has to be irrefutable, then I can make a claim, and do make claims, which I am actually 100% certain about, unlike you, and they are the ones that 'I stand by'.

Our little king of absolutism.

Do you speak and write like this because you are not certain about absolutely any thing?

I realize there may be a misconception on your part.

Whereas I know there are misconceptions on your part.

I did not suggest PMs for a general discussion. I was suggesting as a way to focus on that single issue: how much you meet others in person where you get feedback on your communication. Just that. So it is a conditional suggestion: if you are will to be clear about that issue, let's do it by PM.

you say and claim that 'my grammar and communication' is not always clear and right. Do you think or believe that your communication and grammar always is?

Could you express what you are trying to say here, better and/or clearer?

Also, as I have suggested earlier, if you are willing to be Truly open and honest here, then I will private message you.

The reason my decision to communicate or not - with posters like you, VA and Iambiguous, is that I notice something different - often I noticed how I've been distracted by inessentials, earlier, in my interactions. So, I get curious if I focus on something that I haven't earlier or haven't in quite the same way.

The reason my decision to communicate or not, with posters like you and others, is for other reasons.

But, so what?

Who cares what 'your claimed reason' is for why you communicate with some, and not others?

[Ansiktsburk]

But just hang in bed surfing the intenet on one’s IPAD, isnt that still better than driving around in a car from a Greta POW? Aint saying that surfing is all that clean.

... But the OP makes the argument that we should stop doing what causes harm...

Thats an argument that's probably not all that fruitful IRL, since it will only piss normal people, not brought up in a sheltered environment, off. But yeah, in a philosophical discussion it might be entertaining.

If btw the OP is the article, it seems like the bagnole is the really bad guy.

[Iwannaplato]

For example, every human being knows it is Wrong to kill animals, when it is unnecessary to. (But, if someone thinks or believes that it is okay or all right to kill animals, then please speak up and tell 'us' how and/or why it is.)

What are some important situations where it is necessary to kill animals, if any? Does killing them for the purpose of eating them count as necessary and in which cases or is it all cases?

[Age]

For example, every human being knows it is Wrong to kill animals, when it is unnecessary to. (But, if someone thinks or believes that it is okay or all right to kill animals, then please speak up and tell 'us' how and/or why it is.)

What are some important situations where it is necessary to kill animals, if any?

In a 'life or death' situation.

Does killing them for the purpose of eating them count as necessary and in which cases or is it all cases?

Again, 'when necessary to'.

Maybe you are not yet sure of what the 'necessary' word here is in relation to, exactly.

[Iwannaplato]

For example, every human being knows it is Wrong to kill animals, when it is unnecessary to. (But, if someone thinks or believes that it is okay or all right to kill animals, then please speak up and tell 'us' how and/or why it is.)

What are some important situations where it is necessary to kill animals, if any?

In a 'life or death' situation.

So, for example, if a bear attacked you, it might well be necessary to kill the bear to survive. Is this correct? Would that be a situation where it is not Wrong to kill an animal?
Is it ever ok to kill animals for food?
For example, is it OK to eat animals as a regular part of your diet? Should one become a vegetarian? and if so, why?

Does killing them for the purpose of eating them count as necessary and in which cases or is it all cases?

Again, 'when necessary to'.

Maybe you are not yet sure of what the 'necessary' word here is in relation to, exactly.

Yes, I am not sure, yet, what you consider 'necessary' in this context.

Would you consider necessary for most Americans to eat meat? It is certainly part of how they get their nutrition, but do you consider it necessary?

Elsewhere you wrote:

Because so-called "writers", or you 'human beings' if you like, are not worthy of capital letters, at the beginning of individual names, or labels.

you human beings have just done this, mostly unconsciously, because you consider "yourselves" above all other animals, creatures, and things. When obviously you are not.

Would eating meat, when there are vegetarian alternatives also be falsely considering 'oneself' above all other animals (except perhaps in a survival situation)?

[Age]

What are some important situations where it is necessary to kill animals, if any?

In a 'life or death' situation.

So, for example, if a bear attacked you, it might well be necessary to kill the bear to survive. Is this correct?

Yes, it is correct that it might well be necessary to kill the bear, to survive.

Would that be a situation where it is not Wrong to kill an animal?
Is it ever ok to kill animals for food?
For example, is it OK to eat animals as a regular part of your diet? Should one become a vegetarian? and if so, why?

Are 'you' asking 'me' these questions as though you are seeking 'answers to life, 'for guidance', to try to 'find fault' somewhere in what I say and write here, or for some other reason?

If for the latter, then what specific reason is that?

The answers to these questions, which could be agreed upon, and accepted, by absolutely every human being is, already, 'known', within 'you'.

There is absolutely no reason for 'you' to ask 'me' for the answers to these questions. Unless, of course, you have some ulterior motive for doing so.

Do you?

Yes, I am not sure, yet, what you consider 'necessary' in this context.

Okay

Would you consider necessary for most Americans to eat meat? It is certainly part of how they get their nutrition, but do you consider it necessary?

Once again, this one shows how these people, back then, would almost instantaneously make an 'assumption', and as this one is showing, again, makes 'the assumption' from a very narrowed or shallow perspective or point of view.

Instead of just being absolutely, completely open, and just asking a Truly simple and open clarifying question like, for example, 'What do you mean when you use the 'necessary' word here?' it is like they 'hell bent', as some might say here, on trying 'catch the other out', based on some preexisting belief or presumption.

Elsewhere you wrote:


Would eating meat, when there are vegetarian alternatives also be falsely considering 'oneself' above all other animals (except perhaps in a survival situation)?

Not necessarily so.

[Iwannaplato]

Are 'you' asking 'me' these questions as though you are seeking 'answers to life, 'for guidance', to try to 'find fault' somewhere in what I say and write here, or for some other reason?

I am trying to understand your views and asking for clarification of them. I don't know where this will end up.

The answers to these questions, which could be agreed upon, and accepted, by absolutely every human being is, already, 'known', within 'you'.

There is absolutely no reason for 'you' to ask 'me' for the answers to these questions.

Are there any questions where the answer is not already 'known' within?

What do you mean when you use the 'unnecessarily' word and the 'necessarily' word here?

To Me, killing any thing unnecessarily would be the same for any living thing, so if we are killing some thing necessarily then I can not, yet, see any moral distinction between wild and domesticated.

If one lives in nature or near enough to get enough sustenance via only eating non-animals - iow not through farming, especially larger than very small plot farming - one might be able to avoid killing animals larger than one's thumb, say. One would be killing smaller animals even just procuring food. But if one does not have access to nature in this way and gets one's food through supermarkets, even if one is a vegetarian, one is setting in motion, the deaths of many animals larger than one's thumb through agricultural practices, even ecological ones.

Since most 'human beings' do not have access to nature (and likely lack the skills) can we consider it necessary, in your sense of the term, for them to have these animals killed via their economic support for the killing, so that they can survive?

Does doing this mean that one makes choices that lead to the deaths of many animals in order for one to survive one is considering oneself above those animals?

[Age]

Are 'you' asking 'me' these questions as though you are seeking 'answers to life, 'for guidance', to try to 'find fault' somewhere in what I say and write here, or for some other reason?

I am trying to understand your views and asking for clarification of them.

Yes I know. But, what for, exactly?

I don't know where this will end up.

Yes I know you do not.

The answers to these questions, which could be agreed upon, and accepted, by absolutely every human being is, already, 'known', within 'you'.

There is absolutely no reason for 'you' to ask 'me' for the answers to these questions.

Are there any questions where the answer is not already 'known' within?

That all depends on how 'deep within' you are meaning and referring to here?

What do you mean when you use the 'unnecessarily' word and the 'necessarily' word here?

To Me, killing any thing unnecessarily would be the same for any living thing, so if we are killing some thing necessarily then I can not, yet, see any moral distinction between wild and domesticated.

If reference to life, and/or living.

If one lives in nature or near enough to get enough sustenance via only eating non-animals - iow not through farming, especially larger than very small plot farming - one might be able to avoid killing animals larger than one's thumb, say. One would be killing smaller animals even just procuring food. But if one does not have access to nature in this way and gets one's food through supermarkets, even if one is a vegetarian, one is setting in motion, the deaths of many animals larger than one's thumb through agricultural practices, even ecological ones.

What do you mean by, 'lives in nature or close enough to nature'?

I do not know of absolutely any thing that lives outside of 'Nature'.

Since most 'human beings' do not have access to nature (and likely lack the skills) can we consider it necessary, in your sense of the term, for them to have these animals killed via their economic support for the killing, so that they can survive?

Again, I do not know of any human being who does not havea access to 'Nature', and have absolute direct access as well.

Does doing this mean that one makes choices that lead to the deaths of many animals in order for one to survive one is considering oneself above those animals?

It is this, exact, way and type of questioning that led to a great deal of opposition and conflict, in 'the world', back in the 'olden days' when this was being written.

[Iwannaplato]

What do you mean by, 'lives in nature or close enough to nature'?

I do not know of absolutely any thing that lives outside of 'Nature'.

Well, as you've pointed out about other words, there are different meanings to the word nature. In one sense, yes, all is in nature. But in the sense that the word is contrasted with civilization, not everything is nature.

I was referring to the people who have access to those portions of nature where one can find food without depending on farming. And then they have the skills and level of health to forage, hunt, etc. to get enough food to live.

Does doing this mean that one makes choices that lead to the deaths of many animals in order for one to survive one is considering oneself above those animals?

It is this, exact, way and type of questioning that led to a great deal of opposition and conflict, in 'the world', back in the 'olden days' when this was being written.

So, you will not answer, despite the importance of the issues. But I do understand that cognitive dissonance can be unpleasant and some avoid it at all costs.

[Iwannaplato]

So, let's look at this again:

Because so-called "writers", or you 'human beings' if you like, are not worthy of capital letters, at the beginning of individual names, or labels.

you human beings have just done this, mostly unconsciously, because you consider "yourselves" above all other animals, creatures, and things. When obviously you are not.

Age hallucinates a pattern in humans, universalizes it to cover all humans/humans in general, and based on this hallucination psychoanalyzes them. Perhaps someone will feel shame over nothing.

Why call it hallucination? Because when humans do have names for animals, for example, they capitalize the names. Even scientists, not just pet owners, when studying animals give them names and in notes capitalize the names. If I talk about a man or a zebra, I capitalize neither. Likewise 'friends' is not capitalized and so on. And there are many, many people who do the same thing. Of course we tend not to write letters to animals, most communication is oral or even non-verbal.

He gets to tell us we are not worthy of capital letters. Nice. Clearly someone who has the secret of reducing conflict and bringing peace and harmony to the world.

[Age]

What do you mean by, 'lives in nature or close enough to nature'?

I do not know of absolutely any thing that lives outside of 'Nature'.

Well, as you've pointed out about other words, there are different meanings to the word nature. In one sense, yes, all is in nature. But in the sense that the word is contrasted with civilization, not everything is nature.

But, this, 'Nature is constrained with civilization', saying is what has led some of you human beings to think or believe that you or what you do is above, beyond, or apart from 'Nature', Itself. Which is obviously a Truly False and Wrong perception to have and hold.

Absolutely every thing is natural and a part of 'Nature', Itself. But, I do agree and do accept that some of what all of you adult human beings do, in the days when this is being written, really does go completely against what is Naturally intended.

I also do agree and accept that you adult human beings have and are creating 'a world' or 'civilizations', in the days when this is being written which completely goes against 'Nature', Itself. But, like all things, 'Nature' overrides all things and brings Everything back to 'equilibrium', including any species that 'oversteps its mark'.

I was referring to the people who have access to those portions of nature where one can find food without depending on farming.

Is there some thing wrong with farming?

And then they have the skills and level of health to forage, hunt, etc. to get enough food to live.

Why do you think or believe that human beings need to hunt food, to live and survive?

Does doing this mean that one makes choices that lead to the deaths of many animals in order for one to survive one is considering oneself above those animals?

It is this, exact, way and type of questioning that led to a great deal of opposition and conflict, in 'the world', back in the 'olden days' when this was being written.

So, you will not answer, despite the importance of the issues.

What 'importance'?

And, once again, the way you are asking questions, that is; with some pre-existing believe or presumption, and from a narrowed perspective, and with what appears to be some intended purpose, is why you human beings have not really 'progressed' in terms of obtaining new knowledge, finding answers, and re-solutions, and why you keep just fighting and bickering instead.

The answer to your question' here is, 'No'. But, in relation to 'what', exactly, you might completely and utterly misinterpret.

But I do understand that cognitive dissonance can be unpleasant and some avoid it at all costs.

Okay.

What is also well understood is that sometimes questions are asked so ambiguously, so that when answers are provided, well for some anyway, that their cognitive dissonance remains, and/or so that they then can believe that they are 'winning' some thing.