Do you have the right to pollute?
 

Does your answer apply to everyone equally?

Define pollute.

I didn't realize that was going to be hard to understand, and this wasn't intended to be about semantics. Along the lines of: a : to make physically impure or unclean : befoul, dirty b : to contaminate (an environment) especially with man-made waste and 1. to make foul or unclean, especially with harmful chemical or waste products; dirty: to pollute the air with smoke. and Pollution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Given the byproducts of the human body's metabolic functions, if an individual has a right to live, he has a right to pollute.

Question answered. Moderator, please close this thread.

You speak of things which are the conventional components of ecosystems, the question goes beyond.

Only if you believe in special creation.

After buffalo wings and Mexican food I move right past a right to downwind Manifest Destiny!:D

Define; "you?"

LOL.

Do you have a personal responsibility to clean up after yourself, or is that somebody else's job to look after you?


Define 'right'


.

Ill have to fly my jet to a $35000 a plate dinner to discuss this with my "peers". BRBLOL.

Chill out Particle Man..........you refer to spraying your underarm deodorant, farting or industrial smokestacks?

Cattle emit a zillion tons of so-called greenhouse gas every year. Should the world's population become vegans ? The 6 billion plus humans on the planet create a great deal of waste by their collective #1 and #2. Should we start reducing our own numbers to reduce these wastes? Human's emit CO2, which is supposedly a pollution. The list goes on and on. However, one giant volacano blast emits more greenhouse gas than all us humans combined and then some. Should we invest in a giant cork ?

Mr. INSIDEOUS, I'm surprised at you. We need merely to go by what the constitution says on this matter. After all, the framers were not lightweights.

Particle man???? And what is the keyboard shortcut for the rant gif?

Who you callin's Mr???? :P The framers had no idea about modern pollution.

Oh boy, and a dinosaur killing size asteroid hits, it's all null and void anyway, so what's the worry? Mega volcanoes are not common. If one came along 10,000 years from now, that would be soon.

Domestic cattle eat weird food that their digestive systems were not well designed to deal with. Plus there are at least double the number of domestic cattle in the US than buffalo at their peak.

There are simply too many people on our planet, the only good one we're likely to ever people, and no easy answer for bringing those numbers down.

OK, ma'am, but the framers are apparently sufficiently wise from their graves to instruct that right to peaceably assemble on a bedroom community street at 4 am by people who don't live there is fine and dandy and must be allowed, no questions asked?

Do you have the right to pollute?
 

How very rosicrucian of you. If only we could erect some guide stones on the side of some country road.

Not to worry, Georgey Soros and his progressive bunch want to thin the herd out bigtime in the interest of sustainability.

If by that you mean a young couple walking down a main thoroughfare?

C'mon, you know what I'm talking about: the shooting of officer German and the teenagers in FL.

It's been said that man is the only animal that soils it's own nest. I don't know that that's completely true. Man may just do it better.

Oh boy. If only cute and cryptic insults covered for the fact of the matter that I referred to. Algore, bless his little heart, referenced only one of the inconvenient truths we face, if indeed the AGW is real and eventually provable, that is.

In the last 200, especially last 100 years, we've blown through large portions of the natural capital this earth once had in abundance. Anyone who denies that is in uhh, major denial about the general unsustainability of our current way of life, captain.

Yes, that's true to some extent but anyone who believes that totally has never had to deal with rats or squirrels, for starters.

But your point is valid. Unfortunately, the sheer magnitude of our impact can be seen in the soiling of the oceans, certainly a part of our greater 'nest.'

There was a large minority of framers who thought teh franchise should only extend to property owners. The theory being that property owners have the greatest stake in good government.

I don't agree with that philosophy, BTW.

However, it does seem unfair to me that non-property owners have an equal vote concerning property taxes.

But that's the rule so that's how we work.

They pay those taxes in their rent.

Do you mean that tax burdens on the vendor are passed through to the consumer?

Who gets to decide which five billion need to go for the greater good. I would guarantee none on the list will be politicians, from any country. As far as CO2 being a pollutant that is not true, as most plant life takes in CO2 and emits O2, and could not survive without it, and we could not survive W/O 02. As far as someone developing a giant cork I think a whole lot of little corks in the correct place, namely politicians would be a great start.

My Koch Bros will kick your Soros' butt!

Me.

next question?

They being renters what do you mean? Renters do not pay taxes in their rent, as no tax lawyer would ever go to court saying his client did not pay his taxes due because his renters failed to pay. Or maybe a fool would try it but that would not go to far.

Name them please.

Tie it to the lottery. You win and lose. Have to alter the odds a little.

I meant what I said.

Which I thought was that renters are paying taxes through their rent. That is wrong, period. Show me one case where a renter that skips gets charged with tax evasion.

LOL

I'm wondering if anyone here or elsewhere would volunteer to liquidate themselves - since many believe it's such a great idea for the sustainability and welfare of others?

I will of course, query the confluence owl guts hanging on a fence and string theory.

Trust me.

I selflessly volunteer myself to make those decisions.

Would that start with everyone on BW. I guess not as that as I read here is all you. Or at least four or five.

Since it's my decision, I believe it behooves me to fully analyze the long-term (infinite...) ramifications.

I think the large minority was right, no vested interest in the system no say.

That theory is the reason we have a house and senate, in which the senators (originally elected by state legislatures)represented the entrenched establishment, landed gentry, merchants, etc while the house represented the common man.

We have changed that concept so that we have what are essentially two houses that represent the same constituency as both now are popularly elected.

The senate is an anachronism. Why does WY have an equal number of senators as compared to Florida?

I'd say more like Triangle Man....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNT8SMlqLJA&feature=kp

So lessee, landlords would turn a profit but because they CANNOT INCLUDE THE COST OF TAXES IN RENTAL FEES they're always in the red? Dude, that's the saddest thing I've ever heard.

Good Lord this is a tired red herring. One can note that the number of peoples on earth is more than the earth can reasonably sustain w/o advocating some soylent green solution.

I think the bottom line is that if we don't reduce numbers through lower birth rates, numbers will be reduced for us by famine, pestilence, or warfare, eventually. Every other sort of fauna has natural limits on the numbers they can expand to. Either predators or famine will lessen an excess.

We've used our big brains to (temporarily) get around that. The question is, can we now use our big brains to somehow fit within limits and still be happy as clams.

And no, I don't know who will set the limits or how that could be arrived at. It would be an approximation. My guess is that it will not happen, and that other factors will limit the global numbers of humans.

EXPLAIN YOURSELF
 

What exactly do you mean by "pollute"? Are we talking about your farts or nuclear waste or something in between? This is isn't something that can be answered with a YES or NO answer. Its a matter of degree.

CO2 is not pollution, it's plant food. CO2 is close to the lowest levels it's been in the past 250 million years. It's just above the minimum 200ppm required to sustain vegetation. Global warming has nearly stopped for the past 17 years, yet the CO2 continues to rise. CO2 has very little to do with the planet's natural warming cycles.

Exactly true. Overpopulation is the biggest threat to the planet that humans pose. It's the toxic pollution that human activities release that's causing the problems, not the CO2. CO2 protests are a red herring distraction, paid for by the polluters, because polluting is very profitable, and sheeple are easily hoodwinked and distracted from the real problems.