You're making a terrible argument.
How does it affect you if someone else wants to use an old-school toilet?
Rand Paul OWNS Energy Committee, leaves woman speechless.
- Thread starter dreamache
- Start date
You're making a terrible argument.
How does it affect you if someone else wants to use an old-school toilet?
We could say that the abortion could be of the fetus that grows up to be the person who cures cancer, and so affects everyone. Obvious nonsense.
Having a child means one more mouth to feed in the world, by your argument, people should have to get permission to have children or be forced to have abortions if someone else decides the child must die.
Seriously bro, think this stuff through before you post it.
That said, you're completely side-stepping my argument.
1. Who owns you? If you own you, then it's your choice to make.
2. Even if my actions affect others, that doesn't mean everyone can tell me how to act. If that was the case, none of us could self-direct ourselves, and we would spend our time directing others. It would be a completely irrational society where you tell me what to do, and I tell FTC Hater what to do, and he tells you what to do.
3. Who is so wise, intelligent and moral, that they know all the answers? The answer is no one. The notion of such a thing is called a "fatal conceit".
4. I assume you support democracy. How can people be intelligent enough to pick their leaders, who effect almost EVERYTHING, and not intelligent enough to pick their light bulbs? Do you see the cognitive dissonance here?
You're not smarter than me when it comes to my affairs, because in my life, I have one thing you do not. My own skin in my game. Likewise, you know better for your life, because you have your own ass on the line.
Consequences are the natural regulator of all behavior in nature. It is not biased, can't be bribed and operates blindly as justice should. Men controlling other men is hell on earth. Every single goddamn time.
The majority
Why's murder wrong?
Do Americans have a chance to vote yes or no on the energy policies that this committee has proposed?
Actually abortion affects possibly an exponential amount of people, in perpetuity. If Sally is never born, she never becomes X profession, she never has X kids, those kids never become X professionals/politicians/people who cure cancer, or whatever possibility you want to make up.
I think you need to go back to the drawing board to understand RP could have substituted ANY choice that they openly support, and his argument would still stand. He is pointing out that they are hypocrites regarding personal choice and that their hypocrisy is negatively affecting millions of people and businesses financially now and in the future.
On top of that, all those new "environmentally" friendly light bulbs, the ones that are supposed to save energy, take a look at the box and it tells you not to throw them out in your regular garbage. Why? Because they are toxic and can/will harm the environment if you do.
What about the new toilets? Oh, it gets plugged and you have to call a plumber to come by to fix it. How did he get there? He drove, wasting more energy. How many times did you flush it to try to make it go down? How many more times did the plumber flush it to make sure it is working?
Financial and environmental aspects aside, a plugged toilet is fucking horrible and frustrating. Glad I live in Canada.
Last edited:
Are you sure about this?
Eh... not trying to pick a fight here, so I'll just say that I disagree with you
Oh, I don't know. Merely saving a thousand gallons per year per toilet wouldn't change anything!
I don't think they realize that your initial issue was with the argument presented, not the premise of the idea.
Or if Hitler's mother had an abortion, she could have saved millions of people. We have no way of telling how an abortion could affect society - it's just speculation. A moot point.
I agree with you on the light bulbs and toilets.
If said consumer does not wish to "merely saving a thousand gallons per year per toilet!", how does it affect YOU?
Oh, my apologies. The simplicities of your argument doesn't allow you to see how the lack of water conservation could harm any one single person.
I think you're right. Plus, I'm not really giving them a better explanation.
Time to go look at some porn of my choosing.
Cheers everyone...
Oh, no need to apologize. The simplicity of your argument doesn't allow you to see how water conservation, just like the regulation of any other environmental effect of any other consumer purchase should be VOLUNTARY and not MANDATORY.
Idiot.
Ah, yes, because it's voluntary to have freshwater, right?
Learn about "water stress", Turbo. Here, I'll hold your hand in helping: Water stress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Clearly, you're arguing on nothing but ignorance.
It's easy to insult and demean people on the internet.
This is why I don't get involved in these threads. I'm also out and going to go buy a few thousand old lightbulbs because I love that tinged yellow glow.
I tried to help you understand, but you still didn't get it. I'm only willing to help so much.
Oh, I get it.
The moment a resource approaches scarcity, instead of pursuing creative ways to solve the problem that preserve individual freedom, we control, stifle and restrict.
Don't innovate, regulate!
We've been innovating, but we cannot make years of progress in a month. Desalination is one current source of freshwater, but it's not viable on a large scale because of how costly the technology is right now.
I take it you don't live in Florida, do you?