The case for recycling - Page 3

ConstantineX · #21 10-15-2007, 12:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Much like welfare hurts the poor

[/ QUOTE ] !?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, I believe that is a concept a bit above your understanding of the principles of human behavior and economics.
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Much like this guy, who was so hurt by welfare that, when it was cut off, he transcended humanity and went to a better place.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think that's a good way to form policy? Rank anecdotes? There are alot of intelligent and well-informed liberals that don't have to resort to those tactics. It's a shame that man died. It's also a shame that he wasn't working to support himself, too!

adanthar · #22 10-15-2007, 01:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So you think that's a good way to form policy? Rank anecdotes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the article. He wasn't alone and seems to be part of a pattern in Japan.

[ QUOTE ]
There are alot of intelligent and well-informed liberals that don't have to resort to those tactics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, boo hoo. The use of anecdotal evidence is discouraged when it comes out of nowhere, flies to the contrary of established facts, or happens to be unprovable. "Well, I was robbed by a fleet footed black man, so..." is a dumb argument. "Hey, this society is stingy with their welfare plans and, as a result, they've got people starving to death" is not.

[ QUOTE ]
It's a shame that man died. It's also a shame that he wasn't working to support himself, too!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, screw that guy. A minimal percentage of death by starvation is perfectly acceptable in glorious Libertopia.

pvn · #23 10-15-2007, 01:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, screw that guy. A minimal percentage of death by starvation is perfectly acceptable in glorious Libertopia.

[/ QUOTE ]

Standard.

This is basically the same "logic" that looks at something like the Enron debacle, sees problems caused by *partial* deregulation, and concludes that deregulation is a disaster.

vhawk01 · #24 10-15-2007, 01:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you think that's a good way to form policy? Rank anecdotes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the article. He wasn't alone and seems to be part of a pattern in Japan.

[ QUOTE ]
There are alot of intelligent and well-informed liberals that don't have to resort to those tactics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, boo hoo. The use of anecdotal evidence is discouraged when it comes out of nowhere, flies to the contrary of established facts, or happens to be unprovable. "Well, I was robbed by a fleet footed black man, so..." is a dumb argument. "Hey, this society is stingy with their welfare plans and, as a result, they've got people starving to death" is not.

[ QUOTE ]
It's a shame that man died. It's also a shame that he wasn't working to support himself, too!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, screw that guy. A minimal percentage of death by starvation is perfectly acceptable in glorious Libertopia.

[/ QUOTE ]

That article was a great example of the things you anti-AC guys have been talking about, though, wasn't it? I mean, apparently in Japan there isn't a single charitable person to be found. Once you remove welfare, not one single person in Japan cared enough about starving people to help out. They just watched him die. Since this demonstrates, once and for all, that there would be absolutely no charity in an AC world, and that all children would either be abused or left for dead and the invalid and disabled would either be sterilized or eaten, I think we can finally put to rest this whole AC fantasy.

Or maybe this guy just fell through the cracks? There aren't homeless who die in the US, are there? Of course not, since they have places they can go and resources. I'm sure that this guy in Japan scoured the entire country for a place that would shelter and feed him and he was unable to since they cut off welfare.

vhawk01 · #25 10-15-2007, 01:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, screw that guy. A minimal percentage of death by starvation is perfectly acceptable in glorious Libertopia.

[/ QUOTE ]

Standard.

This is basically the same "logic" that looks at something like the Enron debacle, sees problems caused by *partial* deregulation, and concludes that deregulation is a disaster.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its the same logic that should prove, beyond doubt, that statism is evil, since all we need to do is inline a picture of Hitler. I wonder why its less persuasive in that context than in this one?

ConstantineX · #26 10-15-2007, 01:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"Well, I was robbed by a fleet footed black man, so..." is a dumb argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Suppose we are arguing about the IQ and desirability of black people within the United States. Why is this argument dumb? It doesn't seem to fail any of your tests. It is both cogent, established and provable (verified). Why can't I conclude that from the actions of a single black man, black men are undesirable?

[ QUOTE ]

A minimal percentage of death by starvation is perfectly acceptable in glorious Libertopia.

[/ QUOTE ]

You obviously don't care to convince me, since "glorious Libertopia" is both a strawman and has been endlessly eviscerated by pvn and Borodog in the past.

But anyway. If a man's actions lead to a certain outcome, to what extent is society responsible for the result? Starvation instinctively seems abhorrent to many, because it is a basic human need, a primal one, one that civilization should have overcome. I agree with you that there should be an exactly zero percentage of death by starvation. What outcomes should have a non-zero percentage chance of death, that leads to deterrence? Are you suggesting all outcomes should? Do you think that the main problem with welfare in the United States is people not getting enough to eat?

Another question for you: is there an optimal non-zero level of pollution?

vhawk01 · #27 10-15-2007, 01:35 PM

And can I PLEASE point out that it was adanthar who started this AC hijack!?!??! ACers get flamed so hard for this type of thing when it is very often just in response to someone dangling bait. This is a clear example.

iron81 · #28 10-15-2007, 01:49 PM

When people here say that landfilling is "less efficient" than recycling, what they really mean is cheaper. It doesn't account for all of the negative environmental externalities that people here like to pretend don't exist.

Take plastic recycling. People complaining about "peak oil" aren't exactly wrong: oil is likely to become more scarce over time, which will impact our current auto driven economy. It would be nice to think ahead to that day and try to cut our petroleum consumption.

tomdemaine · #29 10-15-2007, 02:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
When people here say that landfilling is "less efficient" than recycling, what they really mean is cheaper. It doesn't account for all of the negative environmental externalities that people here like to pretend don't exist.

Take plastic recycling. People complaining about "peak oil" aren't exactly wrong: oil is likely to become more scarce over time, which will impact our current auto driven economy. It would be nice to think ahead to that day and try to cut our petroleum consumption.

[/ QUOTE ]

But surely when the oil starts to run out we can access the mountains of plastic gold in landfills across the world.

Jamougha · #30 10-15-2007, 02:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Take plastic recycling. People complaining about "peak oil" aren't exactly wrong: oil is likely to become more scarce over time, which will impact our current auto driven economy. It would be nice to think ahead to that day and try to cut our petroleum consumption.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, the problem is that the number of barrels of oil being pumped out of the ground will not change; you just reduce the demand, which depresses the price until people begin using more oil for other things and it balances out.

There are some good arguments for recycling but this isn't one I think.

Recycling paper is just stupid from what I can tell.