3 ms·

> (a) Move to Wyoming and outvote the existing population Pollution and global warming are not a local effects. Therefore it should not be solely their decisio

by the8472 10y ago

> (a) Move to Wyoming and outvote the existing population Pollution and global warming are not a local effects. Therefore it should not be solely their decision. It should be regulated at a national or international level instead since it affects everyone. And well, obama tried but it didn't last. So we should escalate: (e) The international community takes action and imposes trade sanctions on wyoming or america. And if that fails resorts to an invasion.

cloakandswagger 10y ago
>And if that fails resorts to an invasion It always astonishes me when statists are so clear about their violent propensities.
- istjohn 10y ago
  Destroying the earth is violence.
  - cloakandswagger 10y ago
    Let me see if I understand: Industries are destroying the environment, which supports human life, and you want to stop this presumably because human life has some intrinsic value. Your answer to this is to use the force of the state to destroy those industries, and if they resist you will literally kill the people opposing you. Do those lives have less value than others? Or is this a twisted greater good type of thing, where you think climate change is happening so quickly that we should jump to dropping bombs to stop it? (hint: it's not)
    - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
      Really? You've not been paying attention then. Further the risk exists that we cross a tipping point before we even know it. There are sensible arguments for stopping polluting industry now, by any means necessary. Glib rationalization isn't a counter-argument. Science would be, if we had good enough models to know.
    - the8472 10y ago
      Nobody said anything about killing people. I merely proposed an invasion as last escalation step (escalating it to the national level already failed). Of course if it comes to that we will have a clean war where only the worst assets are targeted without taking a human life. It is quite similar in design to clean coal.
- dwaltrip 10y ago
  > statist Using derogatory terms that supposedly describe the vast majority of human makes good-faith discussion much more difficult. I know it can feel good to write, but it's not productive.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
friedman23 10y ago
> (e) The international community takes action and imposes trade sanctions on wyoming or america. And if that fails resorts to an invasion. ha, try that after meeting your 2% military budget requirement for belonging to NATO.
tormeh 10y ago
>invasion Nukes. Have you heard of them?
- the8472 10y ago
  Well, that's an option, but I think reducing the radioactive fallout of coal plants by dropping nukes on them would be counter-productive.
  - tormeh 10y ago
    No, no one can invade the US because it would trigger nuclear war.

by the8472 10y ago

cloakandswagger 10y ago

>And if that fails resorts to an invasion It always astonishes me when statists are so clear about their violent propensities.

istjohn 10y ago
Destroying the earth is violence.
- cloakandswagger 10y ago
  Let me see if I understand: Industries are destroying the environment, which supports human life, and you want to stop this presumably because human life has some intrinsic value. Your answer to this is to use the force of the state to destroy those industries, and if they resist you will literally kill the people opposing you. Do those lives have less value than others? Or is this a twisted greater good type of thing, where you think climate change is happening so quickly that we should jump to dropping bombs to stop it? (hint: it's not)
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    Really? You've not been paying attention then. Further the risk exists that we cross a tipping point before we even know it. There are sensible arguments for stopping polluting industry now, by any means necessary. Glib rationalization isn't a counter-argument. Science would be, if we had good enough models to know.
  - the8472 10y ago
    Nobody said anything about killing people. I merely proposed an invasion as last escalation step (escalating it to the national level already failed). Of course if it comes to that we will have a clean war where only the worst assets are targeted without taking a human life. It is quite similar in design to clean coal.
dwaltrip 10y ago
> statist Using derogatory terms that supposedly describe the vast majority of human makes good-faith discussion much more difficult. I know it can feel good to write, but it's not productive.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

friedman23 10y ago

> (e) The international community takes action and imposes trade sanctions on wyoming or america. And if that fails resorts to an invasion. ha, try that after meeting your 2% military budget requirement for belonging to NATO.

tormeh 10y ago

>invasion Nukes. Have you heard of them?

the8472 10y ago
Well, that's an option, but I think reducing the radioactive fallout of coal plants by dropping nukes on them would be counter-productive.
- tormeh 10y ago
  No, no one can invade the US because it would trigger nuclear war.