5 ms·
All you've done here is defined something to be "wasteful" if it has no positive value already, so by definition banning it is not a negative. The problem is th
by throwawaylinux 5y ago
All you've done here is defined something to be "wasteful" if it has no positive value already, so by definition banning it is not a negative. The problem is that you haven't managed to argue why straws fall into that category.
If people are using them, then almost by definition people are finding value from them, so you have to be more careful than that (not to mention the administrative cost of the ban, but let's ignore that here).
Straws are a small enough thing that it's easy to be mindlessly dismissive by saying "bring your own", but that does not actually advance your side of the argument at all. You can see how absurd that argument is when applying it to other things -- why not ban wasteful drink bottles and cans? Just bring your own cup or bottle from home. Or ban the wasteful automobile, just walk or ride or catch a bus if you want to go somewhere.
Or looking at it another way -- straws are such a minuscule part of the plastic pollution problem that banning them really doesn't matter right? If you can handwave away their small inconsequential value, then I can handwave away their small inconsequential impact.
- neolog 5y ago> defined something to be "wasteful" if it has no positive value already, so by definition banning it is not a negative not "by definition" really
- throwawaylinux 5y agoYes really, by qmmmur's definition.
- neolog 5y agoBanning something is different from it not existing.
- qmmmur 5y agoI mean yeah. In totally against banning single use cups and am totally pro public transport lol.
- throwawaylinux 5y agoYou didn't understand what I wrote.
- qmmmur 5y agoI don't think you understand what you wrote. What specifically is your argument? That we shouldn't ban things because people use them and therefore find value? What does value even mean? You know there are countries with unpottablr water and you've decided to die on a hill about people finding value in plastic waste. Strange
- throwawaylinux 5y agoMy argument is specifically that you can't justify banning something simply because you personally define it as "wasteful" and assert it has no value in your opinion.
- qmmmur 5y agoA large group of people have determined that it is wasteful and have therefore pushed to change it. I'm not a "lone thinker" in this regard. I can't imagine a world view in which you deem the disposal of straws, used entirely to suck liquids inside of probably an hour window, is not an easy problem to solve. I would also argue that such seemingly trivial changes are symptomatic of increasing reflection and movement towards the reduction of plastic, rather than as you paint it, some kind of virtue signalling exercise intended to piss off other people. At the end of the day, most people are not in control of global supply chains or have extenuating circumstances that inhibit their ability to contribute to the reduction of plastic waste beyond mitigating what they do and dont chuck out.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- throwawaylinux 5y ago