Libertarians are lazy - Page 5

lew · 07-28-2006, 12:56 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

You were saying that a differance of definition is a social responsibility problem.

To some degree it can be. The Religious Right believes that unborn fetuses are persons, and that killing them is the same as killing any other person. So, it's a social responsibility to not abort them. I don't see how this is hard for you to grasp.

Scrum · 07-28-2006, 12:56 AM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Endangering lives

Like I said, it's a turnkey operation... no self-respecting judge would, given America's current state of envio-consciousness, let them off the hook

Laws like that existed long before that kind of regulation did.

lew · 07-28-2006, 12:57 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Who says they killed anyone?

If they harmed anyone, they can still be criminally prosecuted. Under "normal" criminal laws. There doesn't need to be special EPA laws.

Ardentfrost · 07-28-2006, 12:58 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Laws like that existed long before that kind of regulation did.

like I said, you don't NEED regulation if you have information. And you can't count anything BEFORE environmentalism was widespread. That's the evolution of society. It's just like gay marriage... I'm sure a law will be written eventually that allows it, but 30 years down the road, will that law REALLY be needed? We have evolved as a society to include gay marriages in our natural law. It needn't be protected directly because all other laws apply

Scrum · 07-28-2006, 12:59 AM

Originally Posted by lew

To some degree it can be. The Religious Right believes that unborn fetuses are persons, and that killing them is the same as killing any other person. So, it's a social responsibility to not abort them. I don't see how this is hard for you to grasp.

It's not a social responsibility to not abort them.

Unless all those on the religous right are ready to open their homes to little javier and tyrone? (which most aren't)

bheld · 07-28-2006, 12:59 AM

If you talk to anybody that was alive before 1970 and spent any amount of time outdoors they can personally attest to the night and day difference between the sixties and after federal environmental regulation. There's no arguing with those results.

lew · 07-28-2006, 01:01 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

It's not a social responsibility to not abort them.

Unless all those on the religous right are ready to open their homes to little javier and tyrone? (which most aren't)

/sigh

To you, it's not. To them, it is.

Just like to you, free public education is a social responsibility. But to me, it's not.

Scrum · 07-28-2006, 01:01 AM

Originally Posted by lew

If they harmed anyone, they can still be criminally prosecuted. Under "normal" criminal laws. There doesn't need to be special EPA laws.

And in 20 years when the assholes have died rich and those people are dying of cancer, I'm sure that will be a great comfort.

lew · 07-28-2006, 01:01 AM

Originally Posted by bheld

If you talk to anybody that was alive before 1970 and spent any amount of time outdoors they can personally attest to the night and day difference between the sixties and after federal environmental regulation. There's no arguing with those results.

My parents were alive in the 40s. And they liked the time period in which they grew up much better than how the country is today.

bheld · 07-28-2006, 01:02 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

It's not a social responsibility to not abort them.

Unless all those on the religous right are ready to open their homes to little javier and tyrone? (which most aren't)

Using them as some sort of illustration of social responsibility makes zero sense. You can't rectify the inconsistencies between their positions on abortion and their positions on welfare etc. Their religion advocates both of them but they only want to use the federal government to mandate one. They're not worth any attention at all.

Scrum · 07-28-2006, 01:03 AM

Originally Posted by lew

My parents were alive in the 40s. And they liked the time period in which they grew up much better than how the country is today.

Most generations feel that way...

bheld · 07-28-2006, 01:03 AM

Originally Posted by lew

My parents were alive in the 40s. And they liked the time period in which they grew up much better than how the country is today.

That has nothing to do with my post. I'm talking specifically about the state of the environment.

lew · 07-28-2006, 01:05 AM

Originally Posted by bheld

That has nothing to do with my post. I'm talking specifically about the state of the environment.

So am I.

They liked it when they were free to be able to go look at forests, rivers, etc and not have to worry about being arrested because they were breaking some retarded regulation codes on some national forest.

bheld · 07-28-2006, 01:06 AM

Originally Posted by lew

So am I.

They liked it when they were free to be able to go look at forests, rivers, etc and not have to worry about being arrested because they were breaking some retarded regulation codes on some national forest.

That makes zero sense.

lew · 07-28-2006, 01:07 AM

Originally Posted by bheld

That makes zero sense.

It makes perfect sense.

Ardentfrost · 07-28-2006, 01:07 AM

I told you guys that you CANNOT bring up the time BEFORE environmentalism to give examples of what would happen today. where's the "bash head into keyboard" smiley?

Scrum · 07-28-2006, 01:12 AM

Originally Posted by lew

So am I.

They liked it when they were free to be able to go look at forests, rivers, etc and not have to worry about being arrested because they were breaking some retarded regulation codes on some national forest.

Looking at forests are rivers is violating some regulation?

bheld · 07-28-2006, 01:17 AM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I told you guys that you CANNOT bring up the time BEFORE environmentalism to give examples of what would happen today. where's the "bash head into keyboard" smiley?

Why? You think everybody that was dumping tires into rivers had a sudden change of heart and decided to stop? I'm pretty sure that penalties for pollution had an effect. You can't just chalk up the dramatic change to a social movement.

edit: well you could, but it would be because that social movement forced the government to start regulation.

Ardentfrost · 07-28-2006, 01:27 AM

Originally Posted by bheld

Why? You think everybody that was dumping tires into rivers had a sudden change of heart and decided to stop? I'm pretty sure that penalties for pollution had an effect. You can't just chalk up the dramatic change to a social movement.

edit: well you could, but it would be because that social movement forced the government to start regulation.

exactly!!! lol, all regulation comes from public demand. If you hang around long enough, you'll see me say this a lot, but if the people are given information, that is more powerful than ANY regulation.

And history proves it! I've already mentioned the Beurau of Mines and since that's the one I'm most familiar with, I'll be happy to explain why it was better than the 2 sets of regulation in the 1960's and 70's, but there are also more examples of it.

bheld · 07-28-2006, 01:33 AM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

exactly!!! lol, all regulation comes from public demand. If you hang around long enough, you'll see me say this a lot, but if the people are given information, that is more powerful than ANY regulation.

And history proves it! I've already mentioned the Beurau of Mines and since that's the one I'm most familiar with, I'll be happy to explain why it was better than the 2 sets of regulation in the 1960's and 70's, but there are also more examples of it.

You don't need information handed to you to look at a creek and see beer cans and tires sticking up out of it. The people that were involved in the environmentalist movement weren't the ones polluting, they were just fed up with it. Environmental regulation was the enforcer. You think people cared back then what the environmentalists thought? Look at how they're treated today; people throwing crap in waterways back then wouldn't have given two shits what they said. It took stiff penalties to get them to stop, not a disapproving look from some "hippie."