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 tr
          • >> 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 clearly the case -- it certainly largely falls on the receiver.

              Look back. I simply noted that each nation can take care of its own problems. For someone to take from this that I meant pollution does not cross borders is a ridiuclous leap of logic, unless one is unfamiliar with the concepts I was describing.

              And this comes from a Bush supporter!

              I defy you to actually provide any evidence whatsoever that Bush has assaulted the notion of democracy. I am confident you can do no more than resort to ridiculous ad hominem, and not back it up with substance.