Conservative Case for Environmentalism

[gslack]

I'm all for environmentalism, as long as those participating in the practice do so by managing their own piece of the environment.

... and i thought, that wont work from what ive seen...

Depends upon the brand of "environmentalism" you're talking about.

That which usurps property rights in order to protect some rare mosquito is as overbearing and tyrannical as it gets.

i dunno about mosquitos, but does this guy think that the whole country could just go about caring for the environment on their own accord? that people who spend their lives assessing environmental impact are somehow unqualified to raise concerns about environmental hazards on private property?

i guess so. this guy cant see the forest from the trees in his own neighborhood. it seems like he does believe landowners are so beneficent to the environment that they dont warrant scrutiny by a third party.

tough nut, this guy.


this is a neat story. its more about aesthetics and maintenance, than preventing damage to environments though. where the government has reserved land for nature, i dont think private owners would have the resources, wherewithal, consensus, education, time, motivation and intent to care for it like the government.

has this guy considered that there are more issues than lawn height and suburban neighborhoods at stake on a national scope?


well, i guess he has inasmuch as aesthetics and stewardship goes. he seems to say that appeals to good nature is the way to go, but mandates and laws throw a wrench in the mix. he couldnt actually believe that you could stop toxic dumpers and other criminals on this basis, or illicit compliance with best practices for the environment where homes or businesses are concerned, does he? better ask..
wtf?
gimme a break.
...i thought dude was clear about autonomy on his property this guy speaking for him seems to be a bit more reasonable, but freedom with oversight is the point i was making in the first place when i told dude:

"there's seeing that environmental policy has to take a seat at a table among many other concerns in our society, and then there's your take that property ownership will speak entirely on its behalf, and and be remotely effective at it. "​

and

"dude, the presumption is that landowners know more than bureaucrats. the bureaucrats leverage well-considered environmental policy giving reasonable breadth for landowners to do what is right. ideally, unless you are doing some flagrant environmental damage, there wouldn't be any oversight intervention. "​

maybe we dont really have an argument, that is, except for this post-reading sandy-snatch he's got.

this guy has a complex about this shit!

No ya didn't.... You just think you are so all-knowing you only glimpse at it... there is a difference between comprehension and assumption, and you tend to use the latter...

what a freak.
wait.. he's speaking for dude again...

That is an extreme case scenario correct? Yes it was and that was not what either dude or I was talking about.... That is the kind of thing the EPA is for, but the point dude was making was that some EPA regulations are redundant and made ineffective by the pressures of politics and activist groups.

i dont think that this guy appreciates how often shit like this happens. this is not extreme at all. this is just typical of what people do with land, waste and overconsumption. im starting to sound like an environmentalist freak, here, but maybe its the better side of the coin to be on than those who dont realize that people have a net negative impact on the environment they inhabit, and that it's important to have some force to check that those effects arent taken past a certain point.

i could tell him the story about the groundwater treatment plant i worked on when i worked for CDM, or the SNEA issue i had with parking my old trucks on my dirt lot a few months ago. he seems to like the stories. nah. i think we're on the same page afterall, and all he wants is a handjob for his contributions to the argument. better let it lay.

Why don't you try addressing me instead of everyone else douchebag?

You know what it means when a person talks to everyone else around them about a discussion with another person? It means the little twerp is more interested in how something looks than any truth at all... And that the person doing it is a weasel....

I noticed you didn't even address what I said again.... You just rambled on trying to convince someone you are right.... YO dumazz, do you really think people will believe you because you beg them to?

I told you twice now that NO ONE said anything like what you are trying to claim here. And you just posted from previous posts of dudes that not only DO NOT say what you claim, but only prove ever more what I already claimed.

Please buddy, show us where anyone said no regulation at all.... Can't can you dumazz.... Thats because no one said any such thing thats just the crap you been claiming they said.... Why not debate what they said rather than whatever you feel like making up now?

Here is a quick version of what you have done here so far...

me: the EPA can go too far sometimes...

antagon: You can't call the EPA evil!

me: I didn't say that...

antagon: (fingers in ears) Yes you did!

me: no... You are exaggerating...

antagon: (pleading with everyone else) look what a jerk he is.... he makes me want to cry.... How dare he call the EPA evil...


Now that was a very simplified example of your behavior here so far... That is what people will see if they read it, and no amount of pleading or crying from you will change that.. Now grow up junior you look idiotic...

 

[antagon]

that was addressed to you, gslack. i was explaining my reactions to the specific things i read and how i interpreted them to be making a case that intervention should be curtailed in lieu of property rights... specifically for you to see the conclusions i had made with direct respect to what Dude was saying.

if you dont believe the EPA is evil, gslack, then you are a reasonable person. i've known some people who really do believe that the government should mind their own business, even if it comes at the expense of others or the environment. they ran with the same rhetoric that Dude did. they downplayed negative environmental impact through anecdotes like Dude's with yosemite and the kudzus.

if the country was full of people who believed that what they did on private property was beyond reproach, then the world wouldnt be as it is now. instead, there is order. while the fact that that order can be heavy-handed doesnt take a genius to point out, you volunteered to be that genius, intervening in defense of Dude, who's willing to argue that the government does more harm than good in caring for the environment. in doing so, you too made the argument that mandates evoke rebellion, and that captain obvious conjecture is the basis for us to consider whether law is the right approach at all. other than to repeat 'NO ONE is saying..' you havent come to understand that the EPA's role is already exclusive to grievous environmental risk, and are hence barking, again, obvious shit about an existing paradigm that i was taking up defense of in the first place.

 

[Oddball]

Why don't you try addressing me instead of everyone else douchebag?

You know what it means when a person talks to everyone else around them about a discussion with another person? It means the little twerp is more interested in how something looks than any truth at all... And that the person doing it is a weasel....

I noticed you didn't even address what I said again.... You just rambled on trying to convince someone you are right.... YO dumazz, do you really think people will believe you because you beg them to?

I told you twice now that NO ONE said anything like what you are trying to claim here. And you just posted from previous posts of dudes that not only DO NOT say what you claim, but only prove ever more what I already claimed.

Please buddy, show us where anyone said no regulation at all.... Can't can you dumazz.... Thats because no one said any such thing thats just the crap you been claiming they said.... Why not debate what they said rather than whatever you feel like making up now?

Here is a quick version of what you have done here so far...

me: the EPA can go too far sometimes...

antagon: You can't call the EPA evil!

me: I didn't say that...

antagon: (fingers in ears) Yes you did!

me: no... You are exaggerating...

antagon: (pleading with everyone else) look what a jerk he is.... he makes me want to cry.... How dare he call the EPA evil...


Now that was a very simplified example of your behavior here so far... That is what people will see if they read it, and no amount of pleading or crying from you will change that.. Now grow up junior you look idiotic...

Actually, he's proving my point about PANGies.

People Are No Good....Except, of course, for those who are invoking the argument or those who "think" (for lack of a better term) as do they.

Very instructive of the totalitarian mindset.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

No one supports pollution. Everyone is an Environmentalist at heart. We do have take better care of our Planet. I think most agree on that. We can do this without creating Global Warming Government Gestapos though. For me,Freedom & Liberty are more important than fearing Global Warming. Hey that's just how i feel anyway.

 

[antagon]

you're right, dude. if you dont believe that people are care bears, you're totalitarian.

 

[Oddball]

Another red herring and total mischaracterization of my overall point.

But if that's all you have.......

 

[Old Rocks]

wonder where all that electricity comes from.

42% of the new generation in 2009 came from wind.

 

[antagon]

wonder where all that electricity comes from.

42% of the new generation in 2009 came from wind.

thats interesting, man. what is 'new generation'? the difference between 08 and 09?

 

[antagon]

Another red herring and total mischaracterization of my overall point.

But if that's all you have.......

so the pot calls the kettle..

its called hyperbole, dude. you've got a slick hand at it yourself, unless you actually think that people who feel that there is a need for law and oversight must be these 'pangies' with a self-righteous, 'totalitarian mindset' by virtue of that. what'll it be? look who's being self-righteous now.

 

[Foxfyre]

[I think everyone is an Environmentalist in their heart. How do we take better care of the Planet?That's a very important but also very difficult question. Personally,i will never support Global Warming Gestapos who push their agendas with force. There has to be a balanced answer no? An answer that achieves better results for the Environment while at the same time preserving individual Freedom & Liberty. I think this can be done. I guess we'll see though.

That is the question isn't it? How do we take better care of the Planet and not enbrace
Environmental 'gestapos', especially government environmental 'gestapos'?

In my opinion, you do that by:

1) Education. Begin teaching people at a very young age at how it all inter-relates and the consequences of what we do. How some substances can infiltrate and poison the drinking water of thousands. How destroying a mother anything can doom her young to a dismal death by starvation. How removing or destroying many living things can eradicate them from the Earth so that there is none for anyone to enjoy. Most human develop social conscience purely from being informed.

2) Make it something to be proud of to have endangered plants and species on your property. Make it socially enhancing to protect such things. Make it mandatory with punative measures and property owners who find some endangered something on their property are much more likely to destroy it lest its presence inhibit the property owners' ability to use their property as they want and destroy its commercial value.

3) Implement policy to help people prosper. Poor people will never put the environment ahead of keeping a roof over their head or clothes on their back or feeding their children. Prosperous people demand clean water, clean soil, clean air and aesthetic beauty and are far more likely to conserve, protect, recycle, and improve their environment than are poor people. Most of the most polluted places on the planet are among the poorest of the world's people.

 

[gslack]

that was addressed to you, gslack. i was explaining my reactions to the specific things i read and how i interpreted them to be making a case that intervention should be curtailed in lieu of property rights... specifically for you to see the conclusions i had made with direct respect to what Dude was saying.

if you dont believe the EPA is evil, gslack, then you are a reasonable person. i've known some people who really do believe that the government should mind their own business, even if it comes at the expense of others or the environment. they ran with the same rhetoric that Dude did. they downplayed negative environmental impact through anecdotes like Dude's with yosemite and the kudzus.

if the country was full of people who believed that what they did on private property was beyond reproach, then the world wouldnt be as it is now. instead, there is order. while the fact that that order can be heavy-handed doesnt take a genius to point out, you volunteered to be that genius, intervening in defense of Dude, who's willing to argue that the government does more harm than good in caring for the environment. in doing so, you too made the argument that mandates evoke rebellion, and that captain obvious conjecture is the basis for us to consider whether law is the right approach at all. other than to repeat 'NO ONE is saying..' you havent come to understand that the EPA's role is already exclusive to grievous environmental risk, and are hence barking, again, obvious shit about an existing paradigm that i was taking up defense of in the first place.

Just once I wish you would stop lying about what we say..... Seriously...

You are taking a simple thing like a disagreement on the level of regulation, and trying to make it out to be a total opposition to ALL regulation. Dude seriously stop lying and stop exaggerating already. Every one can read for themselves see what we said versus what you claim we said.

Until you can be honest about what we say or said, and stop trying to make it seem like an extreme polarization on our part, you show us what you are really about. I think you just want an excuse to bytch at someone you think is a conservative but lack the courage to show your true intentions outright. Or thats really how you see things; extreme left or right no middle ground or anything like the real world. just a twisted view given to you from the media.

You DID change your tone and manner this time at least. But I wonder how much of that is decency and how much of it is the simple fact you cannot provide a single post where either dude or I said anything you claimed we said..

 

[antagon]

down from your horse, buddy. you've accused me of lying so many goddamn times. wtf? you've whined about my not having addressed your points and griped about your not liking what shortcomings i seen in them... purported to channel whether i even read them... get a grip.

I'm all for environmentalism, as long as those participating in the practice do so by managing their own piece of the environment

the fact remains that the above doesnt pay any respect to the idea that environments can be compromised from private citizen's activities, and that it regularly happens. sure, it is a short, from the hip comment, but subsequently dude has paid no acknowledgment to any need for oversight on the environment. he argued instead that it is 'totalitarian' and enforced and advocated by self-righteous people... failing, of course, to see that his projection is one of self-righteousness. in fact, he points out that the EPA failed to oversee mining ops, the usda failed to save yosemite, and bureaucrats fail to curtail kudzu infestation in the south.

what you feel is a well balanced argument is not, gslack. your contribution has declined since your first post, mostly to whining about my protocol with some baseless shit about me trying to lie in a lil internet debate.

But I wonder how much of that is decency and how much of it is the simple fact you cannot provide a single post where either dude or I said anything you claimed we said..

i broke down quote by quote how i felt dude's argument fit the glove ive got for it and the whole saga starting with your lawns and trash post and the numerous times you called me a liar. you got butthurt... again. do your eyes tear up or something, and you cant read what ive written? dare i get on some pussy shit and whine about you not lauding over my every word like ive had to endure from you?

 

[Toronado3800]

Human nature is the problem with both business and individual property management.

Leave folks alone at work and they develop an unbelievable tolerance for pollution.

Leave a good property manager like you all sound to be alone living inbetween polluting neighbors who are throwing away tires and refrigerators sometimes ppl to either move or give up.

At home ppl think "its only oil" when they dump it or throw it away instead of exerting the calories and thought to take the used oil back to the auto parts store in the jug the new oil came in. Or they keep burning dirty coal to heat their homes. (you've seen my link, its the truth)

So here comes big government in to threaten both private land owners and ppl who run businesses with criminal penalties they can feel.

 

[gslack]

down from your horse, buddy. you've accused me of lying so many goddamn times. wtf? you've whined about my not having addressed your points and griped about your not liking what shortcomings i seen in them... purported to channel whether i even read them... get a grip.

Let me see.... OH yeah you did lie.. Plain and simple you said we meant something we didn't, you even tried to insult me and plead to everyone else over things we as dude or I did not say. And instead of being honest you still lie about it.

Once more point to where we said anything like what you claim we said..... 3 posts now I asked you to do that, and in 3 posts you couldn't.... The posts you did cite didn't say that, and yet you continue to try and claim they did..

Point out where its says anything you claimed..... Come on buddy stop being a weasel and do the honest thing now... 3 posts I asked for you to do this simple thing and 3 posts you refused.

I'm all for environmentalism, as long as those participating in the practice do so by managing their own piece of the environment

the fact remains that the above doesnt pay any respect to the idea that environments can be compromised from private citizen's activities, and that it regularly happens. sure, it is a short, from the hip comment, but subsequently dude has paid no acknowledgment to any need for oversight on the environment. he argued instead that it is 'totalitarian' and enforced and advocated by self-righteous people... failing, of course, to see that his projection is one of self-righteousness. in fact, he points out that the EPA failed to oversee mining ops, the usda failed to save yosemite, and bureaucrats fail to curtail kudzu infestation in the south.

DO you realize in the above quote you basically said because dude didn't specifically say he was for some regulation that meant he was diametrically opposed to ALL regulation... Dude thats like saying all things that are not red are blue... Thats just ignorant.

what you feel is a well balanced argument is not, gslack. your contribution has declined since your first post, mostly to whining about my protocol with some baseless shit about me trying to lie in a lil internet debate.

There ya go again..... Buddy your immaturity and ignorance are showing again... How old are you? Seriously, that is something a teenager would try and say....

What do you call it when someone claims you say or imply something that you have already said and shown you didn't say or imply? Well that person is in fact lying.....

But I wonder how much of that is decency and how much of it is the simple fact you cannot provide a single post where either dude or I said anything you claimed we said..

i broke down quote by quote how i felt dude's argument fit the glove ive got for it and the whole saga starting with your lawns and trash post and the numerous times you called me a liar. you got butthurt... again. do your eyes tear up or something, and you cant read what ive written? dare i get on some pussy shit and whine about you not lauding over my every word like ive had to endure from you?

No man you took posts and pretended they said something.... Thats it, they didn't say what you claimed they did and all the lying, weaseling, and excuse making will not change that...

This is what dude said...
"I'm all for environmentalism, as long as those participating in the practice do so by managing their own piece of the environment"

And this is what you claimed he said or meant.....
"it seems like he does believe landowners are so beneficent to the environment that they dont warrant scrutiny by a third party. "

NOT the same thing is it. No and to try and claim it is or pretend it said something else is in fact lying......

Now you want to be rude to me for a several posts then cry because I am rude back, fine but don't lie to try and make a case azzhole...

 

[antagon]

This is what dude said...
"I'm all for environmentalism, as long as those participating in the practice do so by managing their own piece of the environment"

And this is what you claimed he said or meant.....
"it seems like he does believe landowners are so beneficent to the environment that they dont warrant scrutiny by a third party. "

these statements are the same. they both claim landowners are above scrutiny on their own land. nothing dude said in this thread has claimed otherwise. nothing. you claimed you dont feel that way, but you claim to be speaking for dude.

 

[editec]

We all live downwind and downstream, too.

Environmentalism is a world wide problem.

So if we're going to tackle this problem efficiently, we do need worldwide cooperation.

We don't live in the 18th century anymore.\

Thinking we can have the same type of governance that worked well 200 years ago, and that will suffice for the problems facing us now, is just wishful thinking.

 

[antagon]

We all live downwind and downstream, too.

Environmentalism is a world wide problem.

So if we're going to tackle this problem efficiently, we do need worldwide cooperation.

We don't live in the 18th century anymore.\

Thinking we can have the same type of governance that worked well 200 years ago, and that will suffice for the problems facing us now, is just wishful thinking.

i dont think our type of governance fails us with respect to the environment. there is plenty of room within the confines of our 18th century charter to affect consideration for the environment among the other needs of our society.

this century, perhaps we've rekindled some of the recklessness for the environment that our unwitting predecessors in the industrial revolution had. the fact is that now we know better. in light of realizing the arrogance of our impact, i think that we are backing down from the righteousness we seemed to have about our waste and impact, toward a lifestyle that our ancestors could share in, rather than just ourselves.

 

[antagon]

Environmentalism is a world wide problem.

im pretty sure i know what you mean, but environmentalism is a problem onto itself. the carbon brigade has cast a massive shadow on what i'd say are more pressing concerns with the environment, on more local levels.

 

[gslack]

This is what dude said...
"I'm all for environmentalism, as long as those participating in the practice do so by managing their own piece of the environment"

And this is what you claimed he said or meant.....
"it seems like he does believe landowners are so beneficent to the environment that they dont warrant scrutiny by a third party. "

these statements are the same. they both claim landowners are above scrutiny on their own land. nothing dude said in this thread has claimed otherwise. nothing. you claimed you dont feel that way, but you claim to be speaking for dude.

If you really think the statements are the same, you should stay as a far away from anything political as you can.... The politicians rely on people like you to vote for what they tell you....

Another teenager trying to play adult on a web forum... Great..

 

[antagon]

who's stretching, gslack? you claim that the statement is not an absolute elevation of property rights above oversight. what part of it or anything said after the fact supports that? i see 'leave private property alone', and that is all that dude has defended since.

if im a teenager, you'll have to be a 6y/o little girl with all that whining and pussy accusation. it is absolutely over the top.