Re:The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroyi...
by mistermann on Sunday February 19, 2017 @12:16PM
(#13680697)
> You can be a climate-change denier all you want, but once that starts affecting public policy, that's a problem, because, for example, eviscerating the EPA will have far-reaching, long-term, negative effects on life on our planet.
This goes both ways though. I'm far from an expert on the subject, but I've read very compelling arguments from people whose livelihood are significantly affected by EPA regulations that have missed the mark, or are enforced unfairly.
A perfectly legitimate case can be made to modify some EPA regulations, but when that reasonable position is characterized as "eviscerating the EPA", well then we have another problem, because then both sides are not in a compromising mood, and that is what we need to accomplish anything.
Re:The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroyi...
by kelnos on Friday February 24, 2017 @01:59PM
(#13726546)
> A perfectly legitimate case can be made to modify some EPA regulations, but when that reasonable position is characterized as "eviscerating the EPA", well then we have another problem
Terminating the EPA entirely (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/861) is not a "reasonable position".
That's where I (personally) draw the line on everything: do literally whatever the hell you want, as long as you aren't harming anyone else in the process. Obviously there are nuances, and sometimes causing some harm in the pursuit of the greater good is acceptable, but I think this principle is a sound starting point.
And that's the thing. You can be a climate-change denier all you want, but once that starts affecting public policy, that's a problem, because, for example, eviscerating the EPA will have far-reaching, long-term, negative effects on life on our planet.