Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Of course, the greatest argument against Kyoto is simply that the U.S. doesn't need an international treaty to fix its problems, and therefore we are better off doing it on our own.

    I'm not sure if I read that right.

    Are you suggesting that the U.S. can solve the world's pollution problems all by itself, so why bother with getting others involved?
    • Are you suggesting that the U.S. can solve the world's pollution problems all by itself

      No, I thought it was clear "the U.S. ... fix its problems" referred to the U.S. pollution problems. Each nation can deal with their own pollution problems.
      • Each nation can deal with their own pollution problems.
        So you're saying pollution doesn't cross borders? If I dump toxic waste in the Rio Grande, it will know to stop at the Mexican border? If we release smoke into the atmosphere, it will know not to go over the ocean?

        Pollution is not a local problem, and shouldn't be treated like one. I know this won't change your mind because "you're cool like that", but your argument is becoming nonsensical.

        • So you're saying pollution doesn't cross borders?

          No, I said nothing of the sort.

          your argument is becoming nonsensical.

          No, it isn't. Rather, you don't understand it, so it seems nonsensical.

          Of course pollution can be a problem that crosses borders. So too with many things, such as the economy. If the U.S. has to have certain pollution standards for Mexico's sake, does Mexico have to have a certain economic standard of living for the U.S.' sake?

          Pollution is not a local problem, and shouldn't be treated like one.

          What does that mean? The U.S. should follow some international agreement to do something it doesn't want to do? If so, then how could that treaty or law ever be ratified, if it is not something we want to do? And if we want to do it, why do we need an international agreement?

          Or maybe you think it should be imposed on the U.S. against its will. How do you propose this should happen? This would be a direct assault on the very notion of democracy.

          Kyoto was a terrible idea. If the U.S. citizens want to cut down on pollution, they can vote for laws and politicians who would make laws that will cut down on pollution. If they do not want to cut down on pollution, then the principle of democracy says that no such cuts should happen. And if some other country doesn't like it, it is their right to introduce sanctions against us or attempt to come to a common agreement where we would get something in exchange for a change in our behavior.

          This is how the real world works, but it not how Kyoto works, which is why it never had a chance of passage. And don't blame Bush for it not passing: the Senate never would have passed it, not under Clinton, not under Bush, not when the Democrats had a majority in the Senate, not when the Republicans had a majority.

          If you want to blame someone, blame the people of the U.S. who don't want such terribly drastic cuts that would seriously hurt our economy.
          • What does that mean? The U.S. should follow some international agreement to do something it doesn't want to do? If so, then how could that treaty or law ever be ratified, if it is not something we want to do? And if we want to do it, why do we need an international agreement?

            Agreements, be it between people or nations, are all about not doing what one wants to do. Compromises. Living together. My freedom ends where my neighbour's begins. (And this is how the construction of the European Union happened.) T

            • This selfish, arrogant, egoist, asocial statement "We're the US, we do only what we want to do" is precisely the root cause of the raising anti-US hate everywhere in the world since the Republicans took over this country.

              That's ridiculous. Every country always does only what it wants to do, unless it is forced to do otherwise, or gets something in return. The U.S. is no different.
              • Every country always does only what it wants to do, unless it is forced to do otherwise, or gets something in return.

                You're confusing countries with corporations or sociopaths. Maybe that's due to this scary right-wing meme, "running the country like a business".

                • You're confusing

                  Not remotely. In fact, it's true of all organizations and all people, including yourself. You never do what you don't want to do.

                  If you could offer a counterexample, please feel free.

                  Perhaps you're thinking of charity. But that's a poor example, since the U.S. is the most charitable nation on Earth. And it's a poor example also because people only give charity if they WANT to give charity.
                  • You never do what you don't want to do.

                    If you could offer a counterexample, please feel free.


                    Ever been in the military?

                    Ever kill someone?

                    Just because something is the best course of action*, doesn't mean you actually want to do it. What you wanted was the outcome, and many other ways of achieving it would have been preferrable.

                    * As defined by the person that survived the ordeal.
                    • Just because something is the best course of action, doesn't mean you actually want to do it.

                      I don't mean "want" in some emotional sense, relating to "desire" or somesuch. Realize the context: we are relating to the acts of a national government. I am using it in the utilitarian sense, where is it nearly synonymous with "will."

                      So if you do it, then yes, it does mean you want to do it, you have a will to do it. If I intentionally killed someone, it would be because I wanted to.

                      The point is that everyt
          • Hang on a minute...

            Being a democracy sometimes means doing what people and business don't want.

            Everybody else managed to pass Carbon laws and targets despite the 'huge economic harm'.

            Also the developing nations pollution is negligable in comparison to the United States - even China and Russia Pollute less than the united states.

            Finally what with the US claiming to be the last superpower and guardian of freedom, etc self-policing, etc the magnaminous thing to do would be to sign up.. but no it ha
            --

            @JAPH = qw(Hacker Perl Another Just);
            print reverse @JAPH;
            • > Finally you can't blame the voters - Washington
              > and particularly Bush and the Republicans have
              > such strong links with the oil industry and other
              > major pollutors that even if the american people
              > asked for green laws they would never get them.

              Blame the voters. They voted for Bush(well 52% of
              60% of them or whatever it was) and they deserve
              the blame for whatever he does.
            • Everybody else managed to pass Carbon laws and targets despite the 'huge economic harm'.

              What do you mean "everyone else"? Are you implying the U.S. has no such laws and targets? If so, you should go read a book, then come back and discuss.

              Or do you mean all the other nations signed onto Kyoto? Well, you'd be wrong there, too. Several other nations have not ratified it, including Australia.

              Also the developing nations pollution is negligable in comparison to the United States - even China and Russia
          • >> your argument is becoming nonsensical.
            > No, it isn't. Rather, you don't understand it,
            > so it seems nonsensical.

            If I can't understand your argument it is either because you aren't explaining it well or it is nonsense. This is entirely independent of whether I agree with your argument.

            > Or maybe you think it should be imposed on the
            > U.S. against its will. How do you propose this
            > should happen? This would be a direct assault on
            > the very notion of democracy.

            And this

            • If I can't understand your argument it is either because you aren't explaining it well or it is nonsense.

              No, there are other options, including your lack of ability to understand. I wasn't blaming him for not understanding it. It's a truism that miscommunication could be the fault of the sender, the receiver, or a combination of both. However, I would hasten to add that what I was describing was not new or innovative, is a very common and pervasive view, and that if one don't understand it -- which was