🚀 go-pugleaf

Walt Horning <whorning@pipeline.com> wrote in message news:<4g4slt47l6m44lj8it6js1io94ao3etfn3@4ax.com>...
> Environmentalists are mentally ill:
> 
>  - they get a law passed to save gas by forcing car-makers to make
>    smaller, less safe cars causing more highway deaths
> 
>       Burning less oil is more important than human lives?

Conveniently ignorning the fact that higher traffic density is
correlated
with higher road mortality.


> 
>  - they get a law passed to save endangered fish along some rivers and
>    the farmers cannot get water and are the ones now "endangered"
> 
>       Fish are more important than humans? 
> 
>       Its "OK" for the farmers to die instead?

Precisely how many farmers have died? Earlier agricultural tribes used
to walk to other sources of water if theirs ran dry. Fish can't do
this though.


> 
>  - they get a laws passed to make it twice as expensive to produce
>    electricity in California and then cannot figure out how come they
>    cannot get any power or have to pay too much
> 
>       Too many regulations are more important than humans?

Perhaps we'd better cut back on some them. Where shall we start?

> 
>  - they do not want oil drilling in certain areas but ignore the fact
>    that if there is a shortage of heating oil, little babies could
>    freeze to death
> 
>       Are a few Caribou are more important that babies?

How many little cutie babies have died due to a lack of oil?
Thankfully for
babies, their parents are able to transport them to just about any
other
part of the world and all their needs would be catered for because
there's
no shortage of human habitat is there. After all, it's all fucking
ours
anywayz.


>  
>  - they interfere with military target practice on deserted islands
>    and ignore the need for self-defense or a military force for
>    problems like Iraq
> 
>       Are a few birds more important than national security?

I guess this is a rhetorical question.


> 
>  - they have always protested nuclear weapons, but only with weapons
>    of mass destruction is there a defense against more "Hitlers" in
>    this world
> 
>       Are a few more holocausts what these mentally ill people want?

In case it has escaped your attention, the decomissioning of nuclear
weapons
led eventually the the end of the cold war. Perhaps a few holocausts
have
already been avoided.

> 
>       "The bomb" saved hundreds of thousands of US soldiers' lives
>       when Japan surrendered. (Granted, they could have bombed
>       military targets or some less populated area for an effective
>       demonstration to get them to surrender.)
> 
>  - they moan and groan about CO2 emission, when in fact more CO2 means
>    more green plants to counter the effect of CO2 and bring the amount
>    of CO2 back in "balance".
> 
>       Are the deaths of millions of starving people worth it when
>       world economies fail due to excessive regulation?

I think you'll find that though people often trumpet the success of
neoliberal capitalism, it wouldn't be anywhere near as efficent
without
strict market regulations and international trade agreements.
Regulation is
necessary to prevent the development of monopolies.


> 
> These people may mean well, but I can only conclude they are mentally
> ill when they cannot see the harm they are doing. Some regulation is
> needed, that is for sure, but these people are no longer sensible, but
> fanatics.

Do you think all environmentalists are fanatical, or just the
fanatical ones?
Me, I'm just worried and concerned. Polorization of opinion is
necessary to
create any change so I applaud their efforts. There are real issues
beneath
some of the hysteria you distain, and I recommend you spend some time 
studying them.

-pantzcat.