Topic: Study: Everyone hates environmentalists and feminists - page 30. (Read 80480 times)

So you presume that if it takes a man a minute to dig a post-hole, that 60 men can dig a post-hole in one second?

I actually do lean in this direction quite a bit.  And why isn't it reasonable to presume that if you have x number of people "doing a job", then if you have 3x or 4x number of people "doing that job" it will be that much more objectionable and intrusive?

Only if you assume there's some constant that correlates number of people getting degrees with pages of regulations.  That isn't actually the case, nor is it even the case that rules and regulations themselves directly correlate to evil, assuming evil is some measurable value.

A lot of what is called "deregulation" isn't.  A lot of times, some measure is proposed as "deregulation" and after it's done, if you count up the pages of "regulations," they're much larger.  What was called "deregulation" was simply a list of exceptions for the purchasers of the "deregulation."  When corporate sponsors purchase "deregulation," what they generally mean is deregulating THEM.  Not you or me.

Also, extremists themselves may be rare, but they're often influential or at least used as tools by the more powerful. 

The Sue-and-Settle Racket, an article by Forbes (yes I know) on the practice of setting policy you can't get through the legislature by having a "friendly" group sue you, then settling out of court on pre-arranged terms allowing you to do what you can't get passed into law.

I actually sometimes agree with policies that get enacted with this kind of shit, but it is obviously pernicious to have policy set in what amounts to a corrupt bypass of democracy.

I see the causative factors of rule making like this quite differently.  There is no need to ascribe it to extremists, who are yes, quite interesting, but rare.

Suppose we envision two possible futures. 

(1) 100,00 people getting college degrees that serve no purpose in the open society and free market, but who find that with those degrees, they can get jobs with the EPA. 

(2) 50,000 people getting similar degrees and similarly getting jobs with the EPA.

(2) will yield twice as many rules and regulations, won't it?  It's all pretty simple, really.

Assume there was a floor of some building in the District of Criminals where "particular emission specialists" slithered around.  Budget grew, they got two floors and staffed the cubicles.

What the hell would you expect?

Personally I believe it is no simplification of reality to assert that cutting staff and budget of an agency such as the EPA by 75-90% will do no harm and will do considerable good.  Might need to tell them which areas to cut the staff in, instead of leaving it to them to decide.

Well, you might recall that the progenitor of American environmentalism, and arguably modern environmentalism (in its rational state) was Teddy Roosevelt.  The common term for the philosophy then was "conservation."  It's difficult to imagine anything more conservative than conservation itself. 

It's quite easy to see the flaws with going after family (and individual) use of things like fireplaces and stoves, which are a very traditional means of generating heat and are usually used in relatively remote areas where they pose little threat except theoretically in the aggregate. 

Suppose you get equal results from shutting down, say, an old coal-fired electric plant, one that couldn't possibly ever even get near compliance with even loose regulations, and in fact belches gigantic clouds of smoke and particles that are actually making people sick.  There are, in fact, many of these kinds of plants.  Most of them have been grandfathered. 

On the other hand, suppose you have a similar amount of smoke generated over 100,000 square miles in some remote area, by tens of thousands of mostly poor people.  On paper, the environmental impact looks the same, but if you visited this remote area, the air would be clean and you would see no health issues whatsoever.  It would be the equivalent of someone smoking a cigarette a mile away from you once a year.

So you can take on the coal plant that's actually causing problems.  Okay, they hire a bunch of lobbyists and obstruct everything for years or decades.  You have a fight on your hands.

Or you can, relying on bullshit numbers, go after poor people who can't fight back.  If you're a politician, this choice is easy.

But if you actually care about the environment, you've just created an entire generation of people who hate your guts, and think you're a bunch of fascists, and actually, they're right.

Extremists serve no purpose but their own.  Beware whoever claims to love humanity.  Because they don't like YOU.

But that illustrates nicely the point, that when well meaning individuals attempt to change government through creation of laws, agencies and regulations, they presume....wrongly...that the agency will inherit their well meaning.  Quite the reverse, usually.

Which is why it's often said that radical environmentalists were more socialist/communist than environmentalists.  The impression is they want the rules and the controls on the populations, results be damned.

I consider myself an environmentalist, but environmentalism and the EPA are two different things.  One is a general philosophy and the other is an utterly corrupt government agency.

Incidentally, this is not about carbon, but about particulate pollution.  Doesn't really matter, though.  It's an absolutely stupid way to make enemies out of a lot of people simultaneously, and at the same time, a retrograde tax on poor people who can little afford it.  At the very least, any currently existing fireplace/wood heater/water heater should be grandfathered in out of basic decency.  At best, though, this whole stupid policy should be reconsidered.

I can't think of a more ridiculous thing to go after.

I guess it's easier to do this than go after 70 year old coal-fired power plants dirtier than 100,000 homes.  After all, poor people don't have the money to fight back in court.

[/quote]Well, couple things wrong there.  Burning wood is what greenies consider "carbon neutral".

http://youtu.be/FWxAljFlb-c

 

In order to halt global warming, people have to freeze to death... or ask their government for permission to survive?

Yep! "From my dead cold grill!"

I don't think this argument is correctly formulated.

For example, take a unique group of obviously 'high testosterone' individuals.  Say Delta Forces. 

Funniest thing, they stand at attention, passivist and meekly, and take orders.

Second, a "Dominant" person is not one who is "dominating".  The first is a matter of successfully rising to a position of dominance, the second implies what may be a rather annoying personality characteristic, which does not lead to success in the former.

I think I said all that right...

Take it one step further and ban BBQs, and you'll have a revolution.

As of January 3rd, the EPA banned about 80% of the wood-burning stoves and fireplace inserts in the United States. Stoves which are used to heat 12% of the homes in America and are especially needed in outlying rural areas. Fireplaces are also being looked at.

The EPA is attempting to reduce particle pollution with new rules. Instead of limiting fine airborne particulate emissions to 15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) of air, the change will impose a maximum 12 μg/m3 limit. That is equivalent to a person smoking 3 to 4 cigarettes in a small confined space.

The draconian EPA regulations will be spread out, one will take place in March and the next in five to eight years. Stoves currently in use will not be affected but obviously, getting them repaired will become more and more difficult.

They haven’t yet gone after outdoor appliances or home heating appliances, but can they be far behind? Will people be able to heat their homes in a future controlled by extreme environmentalists?

Even fireplaces are being looked at though not included yet. They are part of the future research.

Forced air furnaces will also face drastic cuts and are headed for extinction over the next five years unless they meet near-impossible limits to their emissions.

The ruling will “require efficiency and carbon monoxide testing and reporting, which will provide consumers additional information to help them select the best wood heater for their homes,” which will cost sellers and home owners time and money as they face an unbending bureaucracy overseeing these simple devices.

Some local governments in some states have gone further and banned stoves as fireplaces, placing fines on users. Montréal, Canada has banned them altogether. It gets pretty cold there but they don’t care.

The Attorneys General in Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont, strongholds for far-left Democrats, have filed suit against the EPA demanding wood-burning water heaters and outdoor wood boilers also be included. The extreme environmental group EarthJustice also filed suit.

Senators David Vitter (R-LA) and James Inhofe (R-Okla.), along with Rep. James Lankford (R-Okla.), Chairman of the House Oversight Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health Care, and Entitlements, et al have been investigating and will continue to hold the administration accountable where possible.

http://www.independentsentinel.com/epa-bans-most-wood-burning-stoves-in-a-corrupt-scheme-fireplaces-next/

Check this. A perfect example.

So if a woman is assertive in her position and goals, and aggressively works to pursue them, instead of being submissive to others' opinions and wishes, she might also have a higher testosterone level?

I'm all for empowering women, but it seems that feminists who want to "de-masculanize" things are being somewhat counter-productive. Get women to be assertive and aggressive in their pursuit of things too, instead of trying to make everyone passifist and meek.

(though I do like femboys....)

I don't think that assertive is the same as dominant. Dominant people are more agressive.
They probably have a higher testosterone level, which means they are more masculine.

So a female who is assertive / confident / dominant is masculine? 

What's the difference between "masculine" and "assertive?" (Aka dominant, or confident).

Wouldn't it be more like ...

"a left wing organization" found some stupid undergrads willing to play up to its image of feminism and is trying to make a story out of it?