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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Loading...
Nemesis
I believe that your freedom does not give you right to infringe upon the freedom or rights of others.
yeah yeah I said "throw away" instead of "recycle" at 1:00 . . . get over it.
you are stupid and careless. i might as well just throw you away since you don't care… get over it jerk!
Let me pose this question to you:
Should you be able to throw hazardous waste such as rechargeable batteries into whatever trash can you want?
It makes the landfill fill up faster. This contributes to using up a finite public resource (landfill space).
Then why act like it is by calling it fascist?
Not all actions by fascists infringe on liberty either. I'm sure I can find one action that didn't.
I think freedom is a precious thing. That is what I think.
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.
So, does the law against throwing your laptop battery in the regular trash bin infringe upon your freedom?
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.
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
Unless, of course, natural rights don't exist [CAC debate last Wednesday].
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!
Where does natural law come from?
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?
"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.
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.
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.
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.
It depends on your definition of "harm others."
Chris, chris, chris . . . I mean you are correct except for the "then"
Chris, Chris, Chris . . . I mean you are correct except for the "then." thanks for the comments and making me look so dadgum good haha.
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.
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.
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.
"Putting hazardous waste in the ground affects people's well-being."
In other words, restricting our freedom for the common good!
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.
I believe that your freedom does not give you right to infringe upon the freedom or rights of others.
i highly doubt people in Africa are dying from CO2 emissions…..
maybe in South Africa…
but most are not.
haha, Yelena that is funny
Recycling water bottles is still not on the same order of magnitude as putting people in labor camps!
You haven't given a compelling reason why it's OK to restrict my freedom to harm others.
Chris, quit being silly.
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…
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.
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.
Which is a greater threat to liberty: recycling mandates or indefinite detention and torture?