Messageby Exnihiloest »04 / 01 / 19, 22: 11
janic wrote: Otherwise your posture is indeed and only ideological and you can not blame others for what you do yourself.
For me, society is the collective result of individual behavior
You still do not realize that your argument turns systematically against you, making you judge and judge at the same time. We'll see that :
So yes, a society is indeed the result of individual behavior, we agree, so a good point for you, but then it goes bad:
Individual behavior does not have to be imposed in the name of any ideology,
Indeed, individual behavior does not have to be imposed on a community, but democracy, the real one, consists in taking into account these individualities expressed by groups or associations of defense of victims, for example.
for example, tobacco: does the individual have the right to smoke his environment as his family, colleagues and other individuals, individual behavior if any, and yet it required a binding law to prevent This is so, others forbid spitting on the ground, picking up the dog's poop or putting garbage in garbage cans. So can an individual be subjected to the constraints of the community? Well no, whatever you think! That's why even if one discovered to the tobacco of the hidden virtues (one finds to justify to booze) I would not smoke, nor would I drink to bend myself to this collectivity. This is called the right of conscience (of what is right or wrong in one's own eyes) guaranteed by our laws.
always developed from shots drawn on the comet without anyone ever going there, no one with the same aspirations.
The "
always"seems excessive to me, as usual. You live in a republic which could only exist by calling into question established systems that do not take into account all these individual behaviors, which gave rise to the revolution which was not that disorder in an ordered world, and it is this one to which you are heir and which gives you the possibility (to me too) to express yourself "freely".
It has given right and left dictatorships, as well as religious theocracies, and ecology is related to it.
So our democracy (it as it is defined itself) is only the result of this liberation of established dominant systems, but you dispute that we can question the new order as if it were better than what had preceded it. But on what basis? Totalitarianism replacing another totalitarianism has never been and never will be better than what preceded it.
My posture is pragmatic,
So you have a vision of pragmatism rather watered down and as I am a pragmatic .....!
I do not need any ideology, I do not want any,
and yet your whole speech is based on it, which is serious that you do not even realize it as others have already told you
which is why I only propose to solve problems on a case-by-case basis,
We are all in this case, you are not an exception
unlike you whose posture is only ideological, with general and stupidly sclerosing "great principles", like the principle of excessive precaution, brandished at every moment, a principle of cowardice as I said and for them. reasons already expressed.
The hospital that makes fun of charity. Your point of view obviously only involves you and you have the right to express it. For all that, it's only a point of view, how do you say? ah yes, individual and not collective, at first sight. As to consider stupid general principles, it is often these principles that have built our societies.
Now be precise what principles it is about, do not stay in generalities "
stupidly sclerosing"(Sic).
Now, maybe you did not realize it, I'm not the inventor of the precautionary principle and it's because no precaution was recognized as important that the law incorporated it in his codes.
In France, the Barnier law of 1995, codified in environmental code, specifies in a second formulation, that "the absence of certainties, considering the scientific and technical knowledge of the momentshould not delay the adoption of effective and proportionate measures to prevent a risk of serious and irreversible damage to the environment at an economically acceptable cost "1. Thus, France has added to the Rio definition the notions of proportionate response and economically acceptable cost.As for the excessive or the cowardice, it is to the independent managers, by courts interposed, to establish the validity or not, because you are still not the reference on the subject.
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
