37 thoughts on “Crowder Chat

  1. It's quite possibly the stupidest law ever, and there is no way it can be enforced. And really, plastic bottles? Oh, they take up MUCH more space than say, garden tools and extension cords and other ridiculous things people throw away. But, I'm sure the politicians are in their fantasy land patting themselves on the back, thinking they made a difference. And that's really all that matters.

    1. Of course it infringes upon a freedom. That is what freedom is, the ability to do something. I am not saying that throwing away batteries is a necessary freedom. I am simply saying that we ought to weigh our laws very very very very carefully because they, by definition, restrict our freedoms. Therefore, if the argument is (as the government has made clear) that global warming is coming, let's all be collective! I am against that even it seems irrational to most people. I do not care. I hate what they are doing to my country.

      1. its not just Your country. Its ALL of us= America, maybe you should consider that…
        Crowder's discernment on what is wise or unwise is not sufficient reason to adjudicate laws for us all

      2. An unsupported assertion, another unsupported assertion, a third unsupported assertion which contradicts the first two, an appeal to authority and an attempt at a unilateral declaration of victory.

        Your logic is flawless!

      3. By "the natural order", I assume you mean that natural law is unchanging and self-evident in nature.

        However, human attempts to understand the divine vary wildly, both in their conceptions of the divine and in the conclusions that they draw about morality. Given these widely varying and often contradictory conclusions, how can you use human attempts to understand the divine as evidence for a universal and self-evident natural law?

      4. "Name me a culture where…murder is legal."

        I'll give you a few examples:

        Charles Manson's "family"
        The Aum Shinrikyo cult in Japan – both murdered people to promote Armageddon.
        Aztecs – human sacrifice of war prisoners.
        Ancient Mesopotamia – human sacrifice of the servants of kings upon the king's death.
        Incas – human sacrifice
        New Guinea – cannibalism
        Moabites – child sacrifice
        Tuscarora and other Iroquoian tribes – ritual torture killings of war prisoners
        Nazi Germany – argued that "thall shalt not kill" is a false Jewish invention.
        Scythians – sacrifice of the servants of a dead king
        Islamic world – honor killings of women whose family honor has been disgraced.
        Hinduism – burning a deceased man's widow alive.
        Any culture that recognized a divine right of kingship – the king has life and death power over his people and can kill whomever he wishes.
        Sparta – to become a man you had to go into the countryside and murder a slave with your bare hands.

        And so on…

        You may argue that these cultures still recognized the concept of murder, they just disagreed on what murder was and they didn't consider the above actions murder. Well, if they can't even agree on what constitutes murder, it's hard to argue that they are all seeing the same natural law, isn't it?

        Besides, even if all we can agree on is that murder and treachery are wrong, that's not a very big area of agreement that would indicate that there is a natural law behind it. There is a lot more to morality than strictures against betrayal and murder.

      5. And I would agree with that…it's just that I don't see how this water bottle thing is that big of a deal. Its benefits may outweigh its costs. And like you said, all laws are a cost/benefit analysis of benefits versus infringing on our freedoms.

        Regardless, saying that laws mandating recycling equal fascism is not only laughably ridiculous, it's insulting to those who suffered or were killed under actual dictatorial regimes.

      6. Well, when the government enacts a law that is a major infringement on liberty, I will fight it then.

        Your initial surrender in the fight for freedom was allowing a government in the first place. Everything else following that is just a cost/benefit analysis.

      7. You are saying that once government gets a foot in the door in suppressing our liberties, it's just a step away from taking more and more of our liberties.

        I'm saying that the foot in the door happened a long time ago when we allowed government to form in the first place. Everything else is just details over how much liberty is appropriate. It's a debate of degrees, not of kinds.

      8. I don't see how it ISN'T a big deal. Why can the government tell me what to do with MY water bottle that I bought with MY money? And who are they to judge whether its "benefits" outweigh the costs? Not everyone lives on a university campus where there are recycling bins within eyesight at all times, it isn't a simple matter of putting bottles in a separate bin and magically saving the environment.

        If I were to recycle my bottles at home, I would use 1.5 gallons of gas to take them to the nearest recycling center (13 miles away). A truck would pick them up from the recycling center and take them to a plant where would be separated, crushed, and melted. Once the bottles are in their "original state" they would be shipped to where they can be re-made into new products.

        Do you really think that is beneficial? To me it looks more like a feel-good law so Joe Green can sleep well at night.

        It would probably also help the environment if they passed a law to limit the number of miles we drive every day. Do you think that's a good idea? Because the water bottle idiocy is a step in that direction.

      9. Why can't the government tell me what to do with MY laptop battery bought with MY money? And who are they to judge whether the benefits outweigh the costs? Not everyone lives near a toxic waste recycling facility where they can easily take rechargeable batteries to be properly disposed of and magically save the environment.

      10. Government has a responsibility to protect citizens. Putting hazardous waste in the ground affects people's well-being. That is why they can tell you what to do with your battery.

      11. Is this the dumbest argument ever? I think it might be. You chose to buy something in a plastic bottle. If you own any land, you could dig a hole and bury the damn thing yourself, but if you want to throw it in the trash then you're sending it to the municipal landfill. You've decided to dispose of your waste on property that is not your own, so I don't see how you have a leg to stand on in attempting to argue that your "rights" are being infringed upon. If you don't like it, don't buy things in plastic bottles.

      12. I believe that your freedom does not give you right to infringe upon the freedom or rights of others.

      1. No, really! Why is it OK to restrict my freedom to harm others?

        I mean, if all laws are restricting freedom, and restricting freedom is bad…

  2. The proper attitude to be shown to the divine in worship and in everyday life for starters.

    Also, property rights.

    Cultures can't agree on these either, especially the first one.

  3. The proper attitude to be shown to the divine in worship and in everyday life for starters.

    Also, property rights.

    Cultures can't agree on these either, especially the first one.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s