Comments on: The miracle of impotent symbolism http://www.likelihoodofsuccess.com/2007/12/04/the-miracle-of-impotent-symbolism/ Ron Coleman’s retired general topic blog Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:43:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: craig mclaughlin http://www.likelihoodofsuccess.com/2007/12/04/the-miracle-of-impotent-symbolism/comment-page-1/#comment-2445 craig mclaughlin Mon, 24 Dec 2007 21:09:25 +0000 http://likelihoodofsuccess.com/2007/12/04/the-miracle-of-impotent-symbolism/#comment-2445 "What dim bulbs." Or guttered candles. I don't know candles, but I know gutters. “What dim bulbs.”

Or guttered candles. I don’t know candles, but I know gutters.

]]> By: Ron Coleman http://www.likelihoodofsuccess.com/2007/12/04/the-miracle-of-impotent-symbolism/comment-page-1/#comment-2446 Ron Coleman Mon, 24 Dec 2007 20:56:33 +0000 http://likelihoodofsuccess.com/2007/12/04/the-miracle-of-impotent-symbolism/#comment-2446 OK, YL, so we mostly disagree about the empirical question of what is and what is not likely to do any good. OK, YL, so we mostly disagree about the empirical question of what is and what is not likely to do any good.

]]> By: yoseph leib http://www.likelihoodofsuccess.com/2007/12/04/the-miracle-of-impotent-symbolism/comment-page-1/#comment-2447 yoseph leib Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:23:47 +0000 http://likelihoodofsuccess.com/2007/12/04/the-miracle-of-impotent-symbolism/#comment-2447 Right. THIS kind of thing is stupid, as if candles were the problem. But that doesn't take away the power of mass boycotts of the consumer and industrial goods and fuels that are closer to being "the" problems. Why equate petty obnoxious empty sacrifices with potentially effective and popularizeable movements or ambitions towards longer term solutions? Right. THIS kind of thing is stupid, as if candles were the problem.

But that doesn’t take away the power of mass boycotts of the consumer and industrial goods and fuels that are closer to being “the” problems. Why equate petty obnoxious empty sacrifices with potentially effective and popularizeable movements or ambitions towards longer term solutions?

]]> By: Jack. http://www.likelihoodofsuccess.com/2007/12/04/the-miracle-of-impotent-symbolism/comment-page-1/#comment-2449 Jack. Wed, 05 Dec 2007 02:17:46 +0000 http://likelihoodofsuccess.com/2007/12/04/the-miracle-of-impotent-symbolism/#comment-2449 If you're just symbolically impotent then you should go ahead and try a nice toddy and a warm blanket. Maybe some light conversation first. Just relax a little, take your mind off of it, and it'll pretty much fix itself. If you’re just symbolically impotent then you should go ahead and try a nice toddy and a warm blanket. Maybe some light conversation first.

Just relax a little, take your mind off of it, and it’ll pretty much fix itself.

]]> By: Pete Madsen http://www.likelihoodofsuccess.com/2007/12/04/the-miracle-of-impotent-symbolism/comment-page-1/#comment-2448 Pete Madsen Wed, 05 Dec 2007 00:04:38 +0000 http://likelihoodofsuccess.com/2007/12/04/the-miracle-of-impotent-symbolism/#comment-2448 I can't help but wonder how long Liad Ortar would have to hold his/her breath to achieve the same CO2-reducing effect as this ridiculous campaign would. The dimbulbs who natter on about carbon dioxide miss two big points. First, it's not a pollutant but the life-sustaining gas that plants need the same way that animal life needs oxygen. Second, it's one of the <b>main products</b> of combustion - and respiration - and can't reasonably be reduced as though it were a trace by-product like carbon monoxide, ozone, or nitrogen oxide. (To say nothing of its lack of causal effect on global warming.) The only way to get less CO2 is to breathe less or to have less of an economy - that is, to burn less fossil fuel. Period. I can’t help but wonder how long Liad Ortar would have to hold his/her breath to achieve the same CO2-reducing effect as this ridiculous campaign would.

The dimbulbs who natter on about carbon dioxide miss two big points. First, it’s not a pollutant but the life-sustaining gas that plants need the same way that animal life needs oxygen. Second, it’s one of the main products of combustion – and respiration – and can’t reasonably be reduced as though it were a trace by-product like carbon monoxide, ozone, or nitrogen oxide. (To say nothing of its lack of causal effect on global warming.) The only way to get less CO2 is to breathe less or to have less of an economy – that is, to burn less fossil fuel. Period.

]]>