Greg_W Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 Maybe this one. If you shoot 'em in a window drag their ass back in the house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 shit, comeon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 I'm giving up on this page top quest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winter Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 losers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbw1966 Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 Good thing you threw in the towel. Whew--close one! Â So Greg, I asked you this before but didn't get a response, probably because so much else was going on in that excretional debates topic. Did you serve in the military? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbw1966 Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 quote: Originally posted by Winter: losers Pot, meet kettle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 quote: Originally posted by Greg W: My point here is that in order for people to change, you have to make it affordable. The majority (which is what you need to effect change) of people will remain with the status quo unless so motivated to change. If you can offer them a cleaner-burning engine with the same power, torque, ease-of-operation, and ease-of-maintenance, for the same cost, they are more likely to try it. Q: Why do we have cleaner-burning cars nowadays than in the 60's? A: Because the government made 'em do it. Â quote: Originally posted by Greg W: I don't know if there is a "God-given right to make money"; I think "pursuit of happiness" does or does not include money. No one has a "right" to make lots of money; we all have the right to be free to attempt this. Then I don't see why you think we need to provide financially viable options for people to avoid polluting. Unless they have a right to make their money any way they choose, I don't see why their right to corrupt the drinking water should trump my right to live a life free of toxins in my water supply. Â quote: Originally posted by Greg W: I have yet to understand how "people soiling the environment are infringing my 'freedom and liberty'". Which freedoms? Define "soiling." Freedom to drink from public water supplies without fear of toxins. Freedom to breath the air without fear of toxins. Â I ask you, why does someone's freedom to do business, trump my desire for freedom to not have to hide inside on a smog-alert day? Â Here's a little microcosm (true) story. When we moved into our new house, there was a mysterious extra-green patch in the backyard. Turns out that the nextdoor neighbors' sewer pipe went under our yard and was backed up and leaking raw sewage into our yard. Whose freedom trumps whose in this case? My desire to not have myself or my kids poisoned? Or my neighbors' desire to not have to spend a bunch of money to get their shitpipe fixed? I'll tell you what happened. We didn't make it "financially viable" for this guy to plug his pipe. We just made him fix it, using the law of the land. Are you against that? Â quote: Originally posted by Greg W: You are soiling the environment by driving to the crags. I'm serious. I guess you really do understand what I mean by "soiling" so I won't respond that question. Â Also, your gambit on prohibiting me from asking anyone for constraints on their polluting ways just because I do some polluting too is a tired tactic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted October 23, 2002 Author Share Posted October 23, 2002 Is it lunchtime yet? Â Pot Stickers YUM! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 chuck says... Â "Greg seems to think that his statement validates degradation of the environment, because people who protest such activities are infringing upon the freedom and liberties of the degraders." Â I'm wondering what you find acceptable degradation, if any. It's not sufficient to simply be against "degradation" because your very life depends upon degradation of some kind occuring somewhere. Â "If called on this point, he makes up some bullshit sidestep of how mining and logging are very clean and don't hurt anyone." Â Again, where do you feel mining and logging is permissible in view of the fact that it must occur. Â [ 10-23-2002, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 quote: Originally posted by rbw1966: Good thing you threw in the towel. Whew--close one! Â So Greg, I asked you this before but didn't get a response, probably because so much else was going on in that excretional debates topic. Did you serve in the military? Sorry, thought I had answered that. No, I've never served. (Afraid to ask, but) Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbw1966 Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 I was just wondering if service in the military had any correlation between political views. My hypothesis is no. But so far the sample size is pretty small. Â It was in no way meant as a slur at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 "Why should the burden be upon us to offer "FINANCIALLY VIABLE" alternatives to inhibit wonton resource destruction?" Â because you are the one demanding others incur costs to serve ends you find desirable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 "I don't see why their right to corrupt the drinking water should trump my right to live a life free of toxins in my water supply." Â Do you have such a right? You do realize even "natural" water sources contain toxins, toxins placed there by entirely natural processes? How does your "right" to water with no toxins, square with the fact toxins wind up in water via natural processes? Does your "right" to toxin free water also apply to water that must be cleaned even though the pollution, such as biological and chemical agents, may occur naturally? Who shall pay for this "right"? Â "Freedom to drink from public water supplies without fear of toxins. Freedom to breath the air without fear of toxins." Â It's impossible to demand a "right" to be free of "fear", because fear is entirely subjective, depends on each individual, and can be claimed for anything, anywhere, under any conditions. Â "Turns out that the nextdoor neighbors' sewer pipe went under our yard and was backed up and leaking raw sewage into our yard. Whose freedom trumps whose in this case?" Â He does not own your land, polluting land you own, without your consent, to a standard you can prove is harmful, violates your right of ownership. Â "I guess you really do understand what I mean by "soiling" so I won't respond that question." Â Not surprising. You complain repeatedly about degradation and environmental damage without specifying what you mean, then do not wish to comment on the very real impacts you incur in a chosen activity. Which you do on a whim which is not actually necessary except for your personal selfish reasons, which you find sufficient for you, but insufficient for others when they make similar choices. Where is the concern for others on the planet you show, when polluting their air so you can be happy? Â By not taking ownership of the damage you yourself cause, in this case emitting pollutants even you admit are pollutants, you appear to be claiming your soiling isn't soiling while absolutely attacking it in others. Â I for one am not interested in prohibiting you from questioning others pollution because you pollute, so you can feel free to answer why it's OK for you to pollute when you feel like it while using absolutes applied subjectively for others. Â [ 10-23-2002, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted October 23, 2002 Author Share Posted October 23, 2002 quote: Originally posted by MtnGoat: "Why should the burden be upon us to inhibit wonton destruction?" My Wonton is just fine, thanks.   Bon Apitit  [ 10-23-2002, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: trask ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 "Q: Why do we have cleaner-burning cars nowadays than in the 60's? A: Because the government made 'em do it."  Technology and the marketplace also played a part in this.  "Then I don't see why you think we need to provide financially viable options for people to avoid polluting. Unless they have a right to make their money any way they choose, I don't see why their right to corrupt the drinking water should trump my right to live a life free of toxins in my water supply."  People have choices in the marketplace. If you want people to choose your lower-pollution option, you have to make it more attractive than other options; price is one way to do this.  "I ask you, why does someone's freedom to do business, trump my desire for freedom to not have to hide inside on a smog-alert day?"  I don't really know how to answer this except to say, how are your market choices supporting those industries who are most responsible? Also, you do not have to live in an area with smog-alert problems; part of freedom means that you are free to move somewhere that doesn't have such a problem.  Your sewer pipe story is a case where your neighbor was responsible to make things whole. "Financial viability" does not apply here because he didn't have a choice.  "Also, your gambit on prohibiting me from asking anyone for constraints on their polluting ways just because I do some polluting too is a tired tactic."  Not my intent, I was being sarcastic. Go ahead if you have any examples. Also, your tactic of calling my tactics tired is tiring  Greg W  [ 10-23-2002, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: Greg W ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Caveman Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 quote: Originally posted by snoboy: quote:Originally posted by Cpt.Caveman: Sponsors hire French Legionnaires to commando their yacht vs GP Shit bro what the fuck were they even that close for is the real issue. It's a fuckin boat race for cryin' out loud. LOL Â They were trolling... Super Trollers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 "I made this point to my neighbor lady a few weeks ago when she said she hated guns." Â You should suggest she place a few signs around her property stating it is a gun free zone and see what she says. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 quote: Originally posted by MtnGoat: "I made this point to my neighbor lady a few weeks ago when she said she hated guns." Â You should suggest she place a few signs around her property stating it is a gun free zone and see what she says. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 quote: Originally posted by Greg W: "Q: Why do we have cleaner-burning cars nowadays than in the 60's? A: Because the government made 'em do it." Â Technology and the marketplace also played a part in this. Now c'mon Greg. You know that's a dodge at best. The change came about primarily because of the government meddling in the free market. Â quote: Originally posted by Greg W: Your sewer pipe story is a case where your neighbor was responsible to make things whole. "Financial viability" does not apply here because he didn't have a choice. Exactly!!!! He didn't have a choice because the government prohibited him from polluting. Â That's what this argument is about. I am for laws based on protecting our environment. I am for more of them. Forgive me if you think I am putting words in your mouth, but my take on this is that you are against such laws. Â Do you think my neighbor should have had the choice? Or should we have let the "market" take it's course? Do you agree with the Seattle City Ordinance that prohibits turd dumping? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 Chuck; The main reason your neighbor had to compensate you is that he infringed upon your property; his sewer leak was damaging your property. For the record, I am against government meddling in the marketplace - they don't know what the fuck they are doing and they usually screw things up worse. Â You say you are for lots of government regulations against "pollution". Are you prepared for the lack of choice, lack of freedom, and increase in taxes that this will lead to when the government declares that they are the only ones who can administer such laws? If you are, that is fine; send them extra money now. I am not, and I do not agree with the idea of forcing my compliance to YOUR environmental agenda. My V-8 Chevy is probably more clean-burning than most of the crappy old cars that you environmentalists drive. Â One of the responsibilities of our original government was infrastructure: roads, sanitation, etc. So you example of the Seattle City Ordinance against dumping turds would fall under this purview. You are mixing two issues, Chuck, Market and Property. Your neighbor fell under the Property issue; cars is a market issue. Â Greg W Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 "Now c'mon Greg. You know that's a dodge at best. The change came about primarily because of the government meddling in the free market." Â Sure, this particular change was forced by meddling. This is not however proof this change would not have occurred anyway, only that people can be forced to observe laws that are passed, something we already know works some of the time, kind of. Â "Do you think my neighbor should have had the choice?" Â To pollute your property without your consent at levels known to be toxic? No. How is damaging your property without your consent consistent with your self determination? It isn't. Â "Or should we have let the "market" take it's course?" Â The market did take it's course, seen generally. No one I am aware of supports transactions based in force or fraud, and from what I can see your neighbors actions violated the former. Â "Do you agree with the Seattle City Ordinance that prohibits turd dumping?" Â Surely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 Just walking around, looking for a  PAGE TOP! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-rock Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 Hate to burst any bubbles, and I haven't read this thread so I apologize for bringing it back on track. Â Shit, maybe someone already said this, but that story sounds like an urban myth, where in a submarine are you gonna plug in an electric razor to recharge it? I'm sure they have 220 volt, sockets along the baseboards... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 pathetic attempt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 Hide your children! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.