Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Regulate Our Problems Away

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
    So what is your premise towards CNN? A high schooler was told to file a frivolous lawsuit against CNN for somehow ruining his life? He was coached to do it. Now it's RW propaganda talking points that we get to witness here.

    Republican elitists telling a kid to file a suit (and help him with it). Over nothing.

    Hardly a first. This one is ongoing and just as idiotic.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v._United_States

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
      So what is your premise towards CNN? A high schooler was told to file a frivolous lawsuit against CNN for somehow ruining his life? He was coached to do it. Now it's RW propaganda talking points that we get to witness here.

      Republican elitists telling a kid to file a suit (and help him with it). Over nothing.



      Weird. Does the Court where the case is pending know you have all the answers yet?
      In your world the villain is a 16 year old kid who said nothing and CNN is the victim. Gotcha.

      Given that the Court didn't find the suit frivolous, I'm going to assume it wasn't. "Frivolous" suits are sanctionable. This one wasn't sanctioned.
      The decision on the WAPO case is up on appeal so you better contact the appellate court and let them know what you think.
      I'm sure they would appreciate it.

      To my knowledge the CNN case is still pending.
      I have no premise against CNN. I'm not an advocate.

      In the future, I will assume it is acceptable for multi-billion dollar corporations to smear 16 year old kids without the benefit of any facts.

      I do find your comment that the suit was "over nothing": funny though, Given that the court hearing the WAPO matter didn't reach that conclusion, I am amused at your certainty.
      Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

      Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

        Hardly a first. This one is ongoing and just as idiotic.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v._United_States
        We're talking about a frivolous lawsuit against a private media corporation. Not the US gov't.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
          We're talking about a frivolous lawsuit against a private media corporation. Not the US gov't.
          Frivolous lawsuits are frivolous lawsuits. Juliana was brought by children acting as proxies for true believers like James Hanson, in Gorebal Warming.

          I'd add, that if it weren't for Progressive judges appointed by Clinton and Obama, the suit would have already died, and is likely to once it reaches the Supreme Court in what is likely going to be a 7-2 decision against it.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

            Frivolous lawsuits are frivolous lawsuits. Juliana was brought by children acting as proxies for true believers like James Hanson, in Gorebal Warming.

            I'd add, that if it weren't for Progressive judges appointed by Clinton and Obama, the suit would have already died, and is likely to once it reaches the Supreme Court in what is likely going to be a 7-2 decision against it.
            Ah, but the suit you mentioned wasn't dismissed was it?

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
              Ah, but the suit you mentioned wasn't dismissed was it?
              The only thing that has stood between it being dismissed are a couple of Leftist / Progressive Clinton era judges that keep resurrecting and saving it from that fate. As it moves forward, court observers all are saying it's almost a 100% certainty it will be overturned outside the 9th Circuit Court and by the Supreme Court.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                plastic ones. The point remains the same.


                San Francisco quickly followed suit and passed an ordinance that, once approved, will ban plastic straws beginning in July of 2019
                https://www.businessinsider.com/plas...so-many-2018-7
                Meh. I don't mind banning cheap usless sh*t (in particular single-use plastics) that most people don't really use/need anyways, and inevitably ends up in oceans/environments that hard-working taxpayers like you and I have to pay to clean up again. That, and there's far more constructive uses for limited oil resources to produce useful materials rather than on crap like this.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                  The only thing that has stood between it being dismissed are a couple of Leftist / Progressive Clinton era judges that keep resurrecting and saving it from that fate. As it moves forward, court observers all are saying it's almost a 100% certainty it will be overturned outside the 9th Circuit Court and by the Supreme Court.
                  Always a conspiracy theory. Doesn't seem so frivolous now does it?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Schmart View Post

                    Meh. I don't mind banning cheap usless sh*t (in particular single-use plastics) that most people don't really use/need anyways, and inevitably ends up in oceans/environments that hard-working taxpayers like you and I have to pay to clean up again. That, and there's far more constructive uses for limited oil resources to produce useful materials rather than on crap like this.


                    So the fact that you have decided you don't need to use it or value it means you can bar others from using the item?
                    There are lots of things that I have no use for or need of, but that doesn't mean the item should be banned.
                    That isn't how a free society works.

                    If we are to ban something, we really should have to establish a little better reason for the ban than simply you don't need the item.
                    Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                    Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
                      Always a conspiracy theory. Doesn't seem so frivolous now does it?
                      It isn't a "conspiracy theory." Judge Ann Aiken has a long history of Leftist / Progressive political activism on the bench.

                      For instance, in the Juliana case she ruled that individuals have a Right to a clean and pollution free environment. That was made up out of thin air. She ignored several other already settled cases where this was found to not be a Right.

                      https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...awsuit/516054/

                      https://slate.com/technology/2016/11...-hope-now.html

                      https://www.elaw.org/us.juliana.mtd

                      Her reasoning consisted of citing Obergefell v. Hodges and same-sex marriage as a Right...

                      The plaintiff's position is that they are suing to prevent future possible damages, something that goes against legal precedent at every level-- that is, you can't sue over potential but unproven harm that might or might not occur.

                      The Supreme Court has also previously ruled in American Electric Power v. Connecticut that it isn't for the courts to decide what the appropriate levels of pollution allowed are, fundamentally undermining Aiken's position entirely.

                      The only reason this case is still before the 9th Circuit is that it has entirely been handled by Progressive judges appointed by Clinton and Obama.

                      http://climatecasechart.com/case/jul...?cn-reloaded=1

                      The last action in this case was oral arguments held before a panel of three Obama appointed judges from the 9th Circuit. That was back in June.

                      So, once the 9th rules, it will either end there or go to the Supreme Court, where based on previous actions related to this case a likely 7-2 ruling against the plaintiffs is likely to occur.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                        So the fact that you have decided you don't need to use it or value it means you can bar others from using the item?
                        There are lots of things that I have no use for or need of, but that doesn't mean the item should be banned.
                        That isn't how a free society works.

                        If we are to ban something, we really should have to establish a little better reason for the ban than simply you don't need the item.
                        Point taken.

                        It's just that to me, plastic straws or single use grocery bags just seem like such an insignificant thing to be getting our panties in a bunch over. Lefties scream about how plastic straws are choking the whales, and righties scream about the tree-huggers trampling their rights. There's far more important problems in this world to put our energies towards than wether or not our drinks have a plastic straw in them. Also, what does society gain from plastic straws vs the gain from getting rid of them? I think the overall greater gain is on the side of getting rid of them, in terms of the waste generated by a single use/throw-away plastic item.

                        Or, why not use opt-in/opt-out philosophies for things like this, where the default would be the most benificial to the general public. In this case, the default would be that no straw will be supplied. If you really want a straw or feel it's more sanitary, ask for one and you'll get one (and there's even enough non-plastic straw options nowadays as well). In this case, an opt-in system. I think the majority of people wouldn't really care one way or the other. Give them a straw and they'll use it, not necessarily because it's useful, but simply because it's there. Take the straw away and they'll barely notice.

                        I've been in some municipalities that banned plastic grocery bags. There's an initial sky-is-falling backlash against it by some, but people generally adapt to the new habit surprisingly quickly. I've stopped using plastic grocery bags, even though my city hasn't banned them. Admitedly, it took some getting use to, but in the scheme of things, it was a small habit to learn for the greater good. Many years ago, smoking was banned from bars and restaurants in Canada (most provinces?). Same thing. The sky-is-falling, the bar/restaurant industry is going to implode (where will all the customers come from!?), and close to 20 years on, I'd say the bar/restaurant industry is thriving even more than it ever was. People adapted surprisingly quickly, after an initial learning period.

                        That isn't how a free society works.
                        Then again, what about others' freedom not to live in a world filling up with plastic garbage?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          When you suggest that we incinerate most organic, non-metal / glass trash to generate electricity, the usual bunch on the Progressive front go nuts that it will contribute to Gorebal Warming.
                          Some things, like plastics, are hard to recycle. The plastic has to be clean, free of foreign materials like paper labels and glue that held them, and most importantly, it has to all be the same kind of plastic. Now, there are dozens of different plastics, so it becomes difficult to sort them out.
                          Paper recycling costs about the same as making new paper from pulp. There's really little advantage other than trying to keep the waste down.
                          Both paper and plastics can only be recycled a few times before they lose their properties and become unrecyclable too.

                          Glass is best recycled by turning empties in to be returned to the company that uses that particular container. Crushed glass has limited use because of coloring.

                          Metals are highly recyclable. Aluminum in particular is a good value as it takes far less energy to recycle it than make new from ore. Steel is less so. Alloying is a problem here however. Mixes of undifferentiated grades of a metal often have limited uses as a result.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Schmart View Post

                            Point taken.

                            It's just that to me, plastic straws or single use grocery bags just seem like such an insignificant thing to be getting our panties in a bunch over. Lefties scream about how plastic straws are choking the whales, and righties scream about the tree-huggers trampling their rights. There's far more important problems in this world to put our energies towards than wether or not our drinks have a plastic straw in them. Also, what does society gain from plastic straws vs the gain from getting rid of them? I think the overall greater gain is on the side of getting rid of them, in terms of the waste generated by a single use/throw-away plastic item.

                            Or, why not use opt-in/opt-out philosophies for things like this, where the default would be the most benificial to the general public. In this case, the default would be that no straw will be supplied. If you really want a straw or feel it's more sanitary, ask for one and you'll get one (and there's even enough non-plastic straw options nowadays as well). In this case, an opt-in system. I think the majority of people wouldn't really care one way or the other. Give them a straw and they'll use it, not necessarily because it's useful, but simply because it's there. Take the straw away and they'll barely notice.

                            I've been in some municipalities that banned plastic grocery bags. There's an initial sky-is-falling backlash against it by some, but people generally adapt to the new habit surprisingly quickly. I've stopped using plastic grocery bags, even though my city hasn't banned them. Admitedly, it took some getting use to, but in the scheme of things, it was a small habit to learn for the greater good. Many years ago, smoking was banned from bars and restaurants in Canada (most provinces?). Same thing. The sky-is-falling, the bar/restaurant industry is going to implode (where will all the customers come from!?), and close to 20 years on, I'd say the bar/restaurant industry is thriving even more than it ever was. People adapted surprisingly quickly, after an initial learning period.



                            Then again, what about others' freedom not to live in a world filling up with plastic garbage?


                            The solution to your concern about plastic garbage is voting candidates into office who share your views. Or giving you options at the point of service.

                            You ask a good question. What are the benefits v. the harms due to the use of such straws. I don't know and neither do the people trying to ban them. I would submit that the people trying to ban such straws need to justify what it will do beyond make them feel good about themselves.


                            I would rather we let society decide what it wants or doesn't want, rather than some "woke" politician trying to make a name for himself by banning things.
                            I think the "fight for 15" is an example of this.
                            It sounds really generous for me to support making other people paying their employees more and that may work out great for the employees that keep their jobs, but mandating that places like MacDonalds pay its servers more doesn't make those employees more valuable to Macs. As a result, those people lost their jobs due to "woke" generosity. So my hypothetical support for the "fight for 15" made me feel good, but it hurt the very people I pretend to care about.

                            One of my favorite quotes seems relevant:
                            “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

                            C.S. Lewis
                            Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                            Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                              When you suggest that we incinerate most organic, non-metal / glass trash to generate electricity, the usual bunch on the Progressive front go nuts that it will contribute to Gorebal Warming.
                              My response would be that burning it is a wasted and inefficient use of the materials/resource. If there's no other alternative (ie we're stuck with it in the moment), then modern high efficiency incinerators are effective in converting the waste to electricity and minimizing the pollution created. I think it's a second best option though. Using resources/materials more efficiently would reduce the need to incinerate.

                              Some things, like plastics, are hard to recycle. The plastic has to be clean, free of foreign materials like paper labels and glue that held them, and most importantly, it has to all be the same kind of plastic. Now, there are dozens of different plastics, so it becomes difficult to sort them out.
                              It's saddening to see how little of the plastics that we send to 'recycling' actually get effectively recycled, for the reasons you noted. We feel good dropping items into the recycling bins, but it's not as peachy as we may like to think. I grew up with the 3 Rs: Reduce, Re-use, Recycle, in that order. Recycling should be the last resort. I think we've become far too much of a single-use throw-away society. The costs are cheaper upfront for us so it seems like we're saving money, but it's more expensive in the long run. And I think we're literally throwing away good useful resources. We spend so much time and money and effort to pull it out of the ground (I see it and sometimes live it, as my line of work does alot of oil & gas support), and then just throw it away.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Schmart View Post

                                My response would be that burning it is a wasted and inefficient use of the materials/resource. If there's no other alternative (ie we're stuck with it in the moment), then modern high efficiency incinerators are effective in converting the waste to electricity and minimizing the pollution created. I think it's a second best option though. Using resources/materials more efficiently would reduce the need to incinerate.



                                It's saddening to see how little of the plastics that we send to 'recycling' actually get effectively recycled, for the reasons you noted. We feel good dropping items into the recycling bins, but it's not as peachy as we may like to think. I grew up with the 3 Rs: Reduce, Re-use, Recycle, in that order. Recycling should be the last resort. I think we've become far too much of a single-use throw-away society. The costs are cheaper upfront for us so it seems like we're saving money, but it's more expensive in the long run. And I think we're literally throwing away good useful resources. We spend so much time and money and effort to pull it out of the ground (I see it and sometimes live it, as my line of work does alot of oil & gas support), and then just throw it away.
                                The problem here is the cost of recycling is often, far more often, higher than the value of the recycled materials. A better way to reduce waste is to eliminate things from the cycle before hand. For example, many products are unnecessarily packaged in ways that contribute nothing to their value but waste materials.
                                Other recyclables simply have limited uses. An excellent example of this is rubber products. They cannot be recycled into new rubber. Tires for vehicles are the most problematic, often ending up in huge "tire" dumps. There is some use for these ground up used in rubberized asphalt, but that hardly makes a dent in the number disposed of already. One way to use them is to grind them up, magnetically seperate the steel belt material, then burn them to make electricity. Weight for weight they are more efficient than coal.

                                This has been slow to take hold due to the cost of building the generation plants, but it is happening-- except in places like California where they think the carbon produced is going to end the world...

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X