Author Topic: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development  (Read 907 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3117
Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
« Reply #15 on: July 22, 2019, 01:21:23 AM »
2397, is the degree of risk and harm in any way relevant to discussions of risks and harms? You appear to be saying that we should restrict discussion to the class of behaviour without any consideration of the nature of the consequences. By that logic I think I can argue fairly persuasively that your disagreeing with me is the same as murder (and other conclusions that you can invent when dividing by zero).

I'm not saying restrict discussion, I'm saying expand it. I'm challenging the notion that we should limit the topic of genital mutilation to only female genital mutilation. I'm not against the use of categories, I'm against jumping straight into FGM as if that is all there is, when the very term FGM recognizes that there is other genital mutilation going on. If not, then there would only be the term genital mutilation, and no need to qualify it.

Offline arthwollipot

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9449
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
« Reply #16 on: July 22, 2019, 01:23:01 AM »
There is no reason other than religion to circumcise anyone, male, female or otherwise.
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him.

Offline arthwollipot

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9449
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
« Reply #17 on: July 22, 2019, 01:23:43 AM »
So who snuck "cleaner fossil-fuel technology" in there?

America, of course. Probably aided and abetted by Australia.
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12564
Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
« Reply #18 on: July 22, 2019, 03:12:32 PM »
There is no reason other than religion to circumcise anyone, male, female or otherwise.

Agreed. But the same is true for piercing ears, or getting tattoos. But only one of those things (Female Genital Mutilation) is especially egregious.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline brilligtove

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7679
  • Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity, you deal with.
Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
« Reply #19 on: July 22, 2019, 05:02:02 PM »
2397, is the degree of risk and harm in any way relevant to discussions of risks and harms? You appear to be saying that we should restrict discussion to the class of behaviour without any consideration of the nature of the consequences. By that logic I think I can argue fairly persuasively that your disagreeing with me is the same as murder (and other conclusions that you can invent when dividing by zero).

I'm not saying restrict discussion, I'm saying expand it. I'm challenging the notion that we should limit the topic of genital mutilation to only female genital mutilation. I'm not against the use of categories, I'm against jumping straight into FGM as if that is all there is, when the very term FGM recognizes that there is other genital mutilation going on. If not, then there would only be the term genital mutilation, and no need to qualify it.

2397 could you answer the question I asked instead of answering the reframing I am challenging as invalid?

(Edited to correct the position of the word 'invalid'.)
evidence trumps experience | performance over perfection | responsibility – authority = scapegoat | emotions motivate; data doesn't

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12564
Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
« Reply #20 on: July 22, 2019, 06:43:40 PM »
2397, is the degree of risk and harm in any way relevant to discussions of risks and harms? You appear to be saying that we should restrict discussion to the class of behaviour without any consideration of the nature of the consequences. By that logic I think I can argue fairly persuasively that your disagreeing with me is the same as murder (and other conclusions that you can invent when dividing by zero).

I'm not saying restrict discussion, I'm saying expand it. I'm challenging the notion that we should limit the topic of genital mutilation to only female genital mutilation. I'm not against the use of categories, I'm against jumping straight into FGM as if that is all there is, when the very term FGM recognizes that there is other genital mutilation going on. If not, then there would only be the term genital mutilation, and no need to qualify it.

2397 could you answer the question I asked instead of answering the reframing I am challenging as invalid?

(Edited to correct the position of the word 'invalid'.)

The term "Female Genital Multilation" came has replaced the term "Female Circumcision" for the exact reason that it is not circumcision. And, no, the "female" does not imply there is other genital mutilation occurring. It is used to describe what is happening and to whom.

and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline stands2reason

  • Empiricist, Positivist, Militant Agnostic
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10838
Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
« Reply #21 on: July 22, 2019, 09:02:30 PM »

Offline stands2reason

  • Empiricist, Positivist, Militant Agnostic
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10838
Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
« Reply #22 on: July 22, 2019, 09:04:40 PM »
(https://rbutterworth.nfshost.com/Conspiracy/Agenda21)

Quote
A more recent UN publication, Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, lists 17 goals to be achieved by 2030, and lists 169 targets that would ensure that the goals have been reached. This document is commonly referred to as Agenda 2030.

Again, even though it sounds like a specific plan, Agenda 2030 is very vaguely worded and full of weasel words. For instance, consider Goal 12: Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns. Assuming we know what this goal actually means, we might expect the 11 associated targets to be explicit measures of what it hopes to achieve by the year 2030. But instead the targets are items like:

12.5 — By 2030, substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse
12.6 — Encourage companies, especially large and transnational companies, to adopt sustainable practices and to integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycle
12.c — Rationalize inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption by removing market distortions, in accordance with national circumstances, including by restructuring taxation and phasing out those harmful subsidies, where they exist, to reflect their environmental impacts, taking fully into account the specific needs and conditions of developing countries and minimizing the possible adverse impacts on their development in a manner that protects the poor and the affected communities
Does substantially reduce mean make a token effort, or almost totally eliminate? Does encourage mean make gentle suggestions or force under threat? Does rationalize … actually mean anything? If it did, wouldn't it simply say Eliminate fossil-fuel subsidies?

...

The communist ideals of equality for women (by free abortions, the elimination of marriage and family, and making child raising and domestic work community activities), and of social and economic equality (by the elimination of private property (property is theft)), fit very well into the Agenda 21 model.

Both groups would welcome a world in which everything is a service or a consumable and nothing is a commodity, a world in which family farms and small businesses don't exist, a world in which interchangable people are packed and stacked along transit corridors, a world in which all individuals rely on the government for their existence.

The original experiment in the Soviet Union failed mostly because it was blatantly and forcefully imposed from above. The citizens could accept that the world might be a better place to live in without religion, family, or property, but those citizens were already used to their current lifestyle and didn't want to give it up.

Today though, the world, especially the western world, is becoming more and more of a social welfare state. Marriage and organized religion are becoming obsolete, while more and more people are relying on the government for welfare and social assistance. People are demanding government supported day-care, an end to all forms of discrimination against sexual orientation, minimum guaranteed incomes, and so on. Many are rejecting the idea of local police, and want policing and enforcement at the national level (something that goes very much against the basic principles of the American constitution). Private property too is becoming less and less important; people collect things on their phones and other devices, they don't care so much about physical possessions.

Even the concept of what rights are has changed completely, from The government shall pass no law restricting citizens from … to The government shall provide each citizen with …. Everyone's freedom from government intervention is rapidly turning into everyone's dependence on entitlements from government

The Communist conspiracy is real and has been operating for nearly a century. Communists are patient; they know they will eventually win. Agenda 21 provides an excellent tool by which they can change society and win the common people over to their view of the world without ever calling it communism. Instead of having communism forcefully imposed on them from above, as it was a hundred years ago, people will soon be welcoming and even demanding that form of government.

Offline arthwollipot

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9449
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
« Reply #23 on: July 22, 2019, 09:06:19 PM »
There is no reason other than religion to circumcise anyone, male, female or otherwise.

Agreed. But the same is true for piercing ears, or getting tattoos. But only one of those things (Female Genital Mutilation) is especially egregious.

I have a pierced ear, a tattoo, and no foreskin. Only one of those was not my choice.
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him.

Offline brilligtove

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7679
  • Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity, you deal with.
Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
« Reply #24 on: July 23, 2019, 12:00:37 AM »
2397, is the degree of risk and harm in any way relevant to discussions of risks and harms? You appear to be saying that we should restrict discussion to the class of behaviour without any consideration of the nature of the consequences. By that logic I think I can argue fairly persuasively that your disagreeing with me is the same as murder (and other conclusions that you can invent when dividing by zero).

I'm not saying restrict discussion, I'm saying expand it. I'm challenging the notion that we should limit the topic of genital mutilation to only female genital mutilation. I'm not against the use of categories, I'm against jumping straight into FGM as if that is all there is, when the very term FGM recognizes that there is other genital mutilation going on. If not, then there would only be the term genital mutilation, and no need to qualify it.

2397 could you answer the question I asked instead of answering the reframing I am challenging as invalid?

(Edited to correct the position of the word 'invalid'.)

The term "Female Genital Multilation" came has replaced the term "Female Circumcision" for the exact reason that it is not circumcision. And, no, the "female" does not imply there is other genital mutilation occurring. It is used to describe what is happening and to whom.

That is not the question I asked. For your reference: "2397, is the degree of risk and harm in any way relevant to discussions of risks and harms?"
evidence trumps experience | performance over perfection | responsibility – authority = scapegoat | emotions motivate; data doesn't

Offline brilligtove

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7679
  • Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity, you deal with.
Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
« Reply #25 on: July 23, 2019, 12:06:27 AM »
On a separate note, I only came across the 2030 Agenda for the first time a few weeks ago. I'm developing a course for a university here and had to put together a case study for a fake company. I drew inspiration from the Co-operators - a surprisingly green organization - and have integrated this agenda into the made-up company's strategic goals. I will have the students take a look at SDG11 Sustainable Cities and Communities, Vancity on p37 of the SDGsEmergingPracticeGuide-firstedition.pdf, found at https://www.globalcompact.ca/sdgs-emerging-practice-guide/.
evidence trumps experience | performance over perfection | responsibility – authority = scapegoat | emotions motivate; data doesn't

Online 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3117
Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
« Reply #26 on: July 23, 2019, 03:14:14 AM »
2397, is the degree of risk and harm in any way relevant to discussions of risks and harms? You appear to be saying that we should restrict discussion to the class of behaviour without any consideration of the nature of the consequences. By that logic I think I can argue fairly persuasively that your disagreeing with me is the same as murder (and other conclusions that you can invent when dividing by zero).

I'm not saying restrict discussion, I'm saying expand it. I'm challenging the notion that we should limit the topic of genital mutilation to only female genital mutilation. I'm not against the use of categories, I'm against jumping straight into FGM as if that is all there is, when the very term FGM recognizes that there is other genital mutilation going on. If not, then there would only be the term genital mutilation, and no need to qualify it.

2397 could you answer the question I asked instead of answering the reframing I am challenging as invalid?

I already answered that question. The level of risk is not relevant, because there are no benefits to outweigh the risks. The best case is that they don't mind having been cut when they're older and realize what you've done to them. The worst case is that they die.

Offline brilligtove

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7679
  • Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity, you deal with.
Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
« Reply #27 on: July 23, 2019, 01:42:57 PM »
No, you did not. You answered a question about a specific subject. My question is about how logic and argumentation work.

Based on your responses I can infer that you believe that the degree of risk and harm is not relevant to discussions that relate to risk and harm. Do you see how this is not a reasonable position to take?
evidence trumps experience | performance over perfection | responsibility – authority = scapegoat | emotions motivate; data doesn't

Online 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3117
Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
« Reply #28 on: July 23, 2019, 02:38:01 PM »
General or specific, risk is weighed against benefit. If there is no benefit to the person you're doing something to, how do you justify exposing them to potential harm without their consent?

If it's the type of risk where maybe the LHC will destroy the world, and realistically it will never happen, okay, that can be ignored. But if it's something that has known cases of the risks having been realized, then it can't.

Offline brilligtove

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7679
  • Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity, you deal with.
Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
« Reply #29 on: July 23, 2019, 06:52:24 PM »
General or specific, risk is weighed against benefit. If there is no benefit to the person you're doing something to, how do you justify exposing them to potential harm without their consent?

If it's the type of risk where maybe the LHC will destroy the world, and realistically it will never happen, okay, that can be ignored. But if it's something that has known cases of the risks having been realized, then it can't.

That is not how risk assessment works. What you are doing is avoiding an answer that demonstrates how your argument is hollow.

I won't bother you again.
evidence trumps experience | performance over perfection | responsibility – authority = scapegoat | emotions motivate; data doesn't

 

personate-rain