Could you give up flying?

[krebbe]

This thread has become a monster, so I'm going to be as concise as possible.

The argument can be reduced down to whether other people's frequent flying infringes on the rights of others' to have a safe planet (not put in jeopardy by human activity), and whether infringing that right is worse than limiting individual freedom.

Potential climate change is such a problem, because the amount of risk it poses (not just in terms of whether the climate change will occur but how we'd be able to cope with it) is virtually incalculable.

Terrorism poses a calculable and large risk to our society, yet we still find it unacceptable to detain suspect terrorists for long periods of time without proper evidence. In this case we didn't sacrifice individual freedom in the aid of containing a known threat to society.

So, why should we sacrifice freedom to counter a vaguer threat?

To come back to my summary of the argument, we won't know if other people's rights have been infringed by flying until the infringement actually happens. And I find it unacceptable to limit personal freedom when the evidence that their freedom is going to damage others' is inconclusive.

[Duarh]

My sweet lord...someone (considerably) more annoying and long winded than max, surely this is a sign of the apocalypse?

Proceed.

Thanks for the valuable contribution to the issue there. Easy enough to call everyone you disagree with annoying. As for length, surely you do not believe the issues under discussion can be treated satisfactorily with sound bites? Short posts are easy if you agree with the popular opinion, not so much if you want to clarify an opposing and unpopular (in the sense of not well known as well as often disagreed with) viewpoint.

Sorry for posting again; as I said, no more of this discussion for me outside of PMs - replied only to the ad hominem. . .

[Qu Klaani]

Thanks for the valuable contribution to the issue there. Easy enough to call everyone you disagree with annoying. As for length, surely you do not believe the issues under discussion can be treated satisfactorily with sound bites? Short posts are easy if you agree with the popular opinion, not so much if you want to clarify an opposing and unpopular (in the sense of not well known as well as often disagreed with) viewpoint.

Oh I never said if I disagreed or agreed with you, you're just being incredibly annoying by writing essays when paragraphs will do. Plus this whole "Im so oppressed because mine isn't the popular opinion!" crap is irritating. Seriously, most people at least say hello before launching into tediously epic theses.

[DutchCrunch]

Duarh, why don't you post in other threads as well? You seem to be able to express an opinion, perhaps you will share your views on non-environmental things as well, perhaps some HDM discussion even.

[Peter]

Not appropriate to respond to a perceived ad hominem with another, however disguised.

Locked, before Godwin's Law kicks in.