4 ms·

So... your okay with Chinese kids with heart defects, kidney and liver cancer. The USA has more enforcement over these kind of things. If toxic pollution is you

So... your okay with Chinese kids with heart defects, kidney and liver cancer. The USA has more enforcement over these kind of things. If toxic pollution is your only concern, yes it is better to have those industries in USA.

omegaworks 8y ago
>So... your okay with Chinese kids with heart defects, kidney and liver cancer. Show me where I said that. Of course not. You seem to be ok with every country that hopes to participate in the technological economy having their own contaminated region. Step back for a second. Think of the earth like a single-unit closed system. Would we rather have 195 regions contaminated with TCE or one/two? Your petty nationalism would force those kids to stay in their country AND have them deal with the toxic waste of their protectionist government-subsidized industry because they'll have no other choice but to. You're also making the argument that somehow we'd have the political will to both institute tariffs that protect the industry AND police those industries when they harm our environment. Guess what buddy, those are contradictory ideals. The USA isn't some magical place where we can defy these incentives. Your assertion that we'd be better at managing waste here is especially fantastical considering the present EPA chairman. Scott Pruitt has undermined the protection of our environment at every opportunity. [1] 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/19/health/epa-toxic-chemicals.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/19/health/epa-toxic-chemical...
- sheepmullet 8y ago
  > Show me where I said that Most Chinese people lack the freedom to live and work where they choose. Most Americans have that freedom. So if it is handled here in the US then not only will there be less pollution but far fewer kids would be impacted.
  - omegaworks 8y ago
    If you really cared about Chinese people you'd let them in when they asked to immigrate here. That's enough conflating the protection of toxic industry with humanitarian concern. Stop pretending. Learn your history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act
    - sheepmullet 8y ago
      > If you really cared about Chinese people you'd let them in when they asked to immigrate here. No I wouldn't. That makes no sense at all. You are the person who brought up kids dying. Either you care 10x more about American kids than Chinese kids or your original argument is garbage. I don't mind if you do care 10x more about American kids - it's a byproduct of our nationalist culture.
      - omegaworks 8y ago
        Actually OP brought up leaving kids a better world then he inherited. The unnecessary, protectionist subsidization and expansion of toxic waste generating industries leaves ALL kids worse off.
    - abiox 8y ago
      > If you really cared about Chinese people you'd let them in when they asked to immigrate here. this seems to have an a lot packed in. it's not clear how advocating the departure of a minuscule amount of people from china is "helping chinese people" or otherwise demonstrating "care for chinese people". > Stop pretending. Learn your history. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act this seems to be getting really off the rails. this was repealed in the 40s. what's the relevance?
      - omegaworks 8y ago
        It was the first of any American immigration laws to mention any nationality by name. The laws that replaced it subject countries like China to quotas that continue to unfairly restrict migration. These restrictive laws have roots in the same petty nationalism that fuels protectionist subsudies. These laws prevent kids - the kids that you claim to care about - from having a better future elsewhere.
- abiox 8y ago
  > Show me where I said that. it seems like a logical implication, unless you're also entertaining the idea of production ending altogether. > Would we rather have 195 regions contaminated with TCE or one/two? i'm not sure, would 195 be better, or have some advantages? will all of these 'regions' be identical? > Your petty nationalism would force those kids to stay in their country AND have them deal with the toxic waste of their protectionist government-subsidized industry because they'll have no other choice but to. and you advocating that china be the location of choice for toxic waste will surely result in something different?
  - omegaworks 8y ago
    You’re shielding industrial chip manufacturers by using Chinese kids. Petty nationalism will ruin this world. If every country needs its own silicon manufacturing facilities to participate in the tech economy either you’re advocating cutting most people off from the wealth it generates or your advocating for the propagation of toxic manufacturing to every state. Both positions hurt kids. Hope you can sleep at night.
    - abiox 8y ago
      it seems to be that there's far too much packed into your statements for me to see a "think of the children" expression as anything but a baseless or perhaps even unethical rhetorical appeal to emotion. from what i can discern of your position, i would estimate that your views are harmful. i can sleep fine not agreeing with you.

omegaworks 8y ago

>So... your okay with Chinese kids with heart defects, kidney and liver cancer. Show me where I said that. Of course not. You seem to be ok with every country that hopes to participate in the technological economy having their own contaminated region. Step back for a second. Think of the earth like a single-unit closed system. Would we rather have 195 regions contaminated with TCE or one/two? Your petty nationalism would force those kids to stay in their country AND have them deal with the toxic waste of their protectionist government-subsidized industry because they'll have no other choice but to. You're also making the argument that somehow we'd have the political will to both institute tariffs that protect the industry AND police those industries when they harm our environment. Guess what buddy, those are contradictory ideals. The USA isn't some magical place where we can defy these incentives. Your assertion that we'd be better at managing waste here is especially fantastical considering the present EPA chairman. Scott Pruitt has undermined the protection of our environment at every opportunity. [1] 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/19/health/epa-toxic-chemicals.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/19/health/epa-toxic-chemical...

sheepmullet 8y ago
> Show me where I said that Most Chinese people lack the freedom to live and work where they choose. Most Americans have that freedom. So if it is handled here in the US then not only will there be less pollution but far fewer kids would be impacted.
- omegaworks 8y ago
  If you really cared about Chinese people you'd let them in when they asked to immigrate here. That's enough conflating the protection of toxic industry with humanitarian concern. Stop pretending. Learn your history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act
  - sheepmullet 8y ago
    > If you really cared about Chinese people you'd let them in when they asked to immigrate here. No I wouldn't. That makes no sense at all. You are the person who brought up kids dying. Either you care 10x more about American kids than Chinese kids or your original argument is garbage. I don't mind if you do care 10x more about American kids - it's a byproduct of our nationalist culture.
    - omegaworks 8y ago
      Actually OP brought up leaving kids a better world then he inherited. The unnecessary, protectionist subsidization and expansion of toxic waste generating industries leaves ALL kids worse off.
  - abiox 8y ago
    > If you really cared about Chinese people you'd let them in when they asked to immigrate here. this seems to have an a lot packed in. it's not clear how advocating the departure of a minuscule amount of people from china is "helping chinese people" or otherwise demonstrating "care for chinese people". > Stop pretending. Learn your history. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act this seems to be getting really off the rails. this was repealed in the 40s. what's the relevance?
    - omegaworks 8y ago
      It was the first of any American immigration laws to mention any nationality by name. The laws that replaced it subject countries like China to quotas that continue to unfairly restrict migration. These restrictive laws have roots in the same petty nationalism that fuels protectionist subsudies. These laws prevent kids - the kids that you claim to care about - from having a better future elsewhere.
abiox 8y ago
> Show me where I said that. it seems like a logical implication, unless you're also entertaining the idea of production ending altogether. > Would we rather have 195 regions contaminated with TCE or one/two? i'm not sure, would 195 be better, or have some advantages? will all of these 'regions' be identical? > Your petty nationalism would force those kids to stay in their country AND have them deal with the toxic waste of their protectionist government-subsidized industry because they'll have no other choice but to. and you advocating that china be the location of choice for toxic waste will surely result in something different?
- omegaworks 8y ago
  You’re shielding industrial chip manufacturers by using Chinese kids. Petty nationalism will ruin this world. If every country needs its own silicon manufacturing facilities to participate in the tech economy either you’re advocating cutting most people off from the wealth it generates or your advocating for the propagation of toxic manufacturing to every state. Both positions hurt kids. Hope you can sleep at night.
  - abiox 8y ago
    it seems to be that there's far too much packed into your statements for me to see a "think of the children" expression as anything but a baseless or perhaps even unethical rhetorical appeal to emotion. from what i can discern of your position, i would estimate that your views are harmful. i can sleep fine not agreeing with you.