|
The latest ban-a-thon (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| loca |
| quote: | Originally posted by 8Wonders
They plan on cutting the use of plastic bags by 50% by 2012, for environemntally friendly reasons obviously. I don't see a problem with it, they are simply replacing plastic bags with a more eco friendly alternative, one that doesn't take 100 years to biodegrade.
I don't see anything wrong with it, it should be encouraged.
Oh and this is not a city specific 'ban', its country wide. Many countries have already stopped using plastic bags altogether, so this is a good step forward. |
+ 1
(P.S. Olga misses you) |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
my goal is not to find an alternative. My goal is to be allowed to make my own choice on which product i wish to use.
I think the initial post made that quite clear.
Funny thought i just had... most of the people here who want plastic bag bans seem to be against the street racing bill. Clearly one is more dangerous than the other.
I dont support the street racing bill as it is written either by the way.
Just funny how some people think though.... talk about inconsistant. |
right. so I should be allowed to choose to use PCP, asbestos and lead in whatever the I want?
give me a break...
you seem to be stuck on what is commonly referred to as "rule worship" in the legal and philosophical spheres. it's rigid, inflexible and does not work because it's extremely rare to have a principle or law that can cover ALL scenarios without exception (those would be 'first principles' and municipal bylaws are certainly NOT on the level of first principles).
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
ah but isnt this exactly the premise that has been argued against me in this thread when i was called inconsitant?
And you cant pick and choose because once you set precedent, others can use the same precedent to argue successfully against things that you enjoy. This is why its important to protect EVERYONE's rights. Even for activities that you may not necissarily enjoy. |
WRONG. others can *try* to use another decision and claim 'precedent', but it's far from a secure position. just because someone can try, doesn't invalidate the previous decision. i.e. if street racing is deemed to be justifiably 'banned', it does not follow that it's justifiable to ban plastic bags. that's completely illogical.
how the does it follow that if the gov't can legislate against street racing that they can thus do so against plastic bags? that makes NO sense at all.
you clearly need a lesson in how precedent works in the field of law. if the gov't, a lawyer, whoever tried to use the street racing scenario to justify being allowed to take action on plastic bags, they wouldn't even make it to court!
** the main issue I take with silly threads like this one is that you don't say much at all in the first post. it's just a whine about how something is dumb or a "what next!" remark. how about posting some more info...like WHY you have a problem with something and what alternative exists. i.e. do you think the gov't should not be allowed to legislate in this area and, if so, why not? if so, what possible alternatives could be explored in lieu of a ban? or is it about the specific issue itself where you might say that plastic is better than paper and, if so, why it's better. *
otherwise...it sound like whining. |
|
|
| Kytracid |
^^
IT IS whining! Something Jayx1 excels at.
It's always the same patter. The Govt treats us like childern, woe unto us if we don't revolt against the minions of tyranny. What's become of this great country *wah wah wah*.
Imagine what this man is going to be like when he's 70?
Keep this level of juvenile ranting up and I'm almost sure you grandkids are going to chuck you down a flight of stairs jay. Plastic bags...honestly, you're going to whine about the governments decision to take away your plastic bags!!!???
Do us all a favor. Put a plastic bag over your face. Seal it tightly. And just breathe... |
|
|
| smuncky |
you think we have it bad jay?
Link to article
Atlanta to ban baggy pants?
Proposed amendment to city laws would outlaw pants that reveal boxer shorts or thongs. Bra straps would be out, too
ATLANTA
Associated Press
August 24, 2007 at 1:35 AM EDT
Baggy pants that show boxer shorts or thongs would be illegal under a proposed amendment to Atlanta's indecency laws.
The amendment, sponsored by city councilman C.T. Martin, states that sagging pants are an “epidemic” that is becoming a “major concern” around the United States.
“Little children see it and want to adopt it, thinking it's the in thing,” Mr. Martin said Wednesday. “I don't want young people thinking that half-dressing is the way to go. I want them to think about their future.”
The proposed ordinance would also bar women from showing the strap of a thong beneath their pants. They would also be prohibited from wearing jogging bras in public or show a bra strap, said Debbie Seagraves, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia.
The proposed ordinance states that “the indecent exposure of his or her undergarments” would be unlawful in a public place. It would go in the same portion of the city code that outlaws sex in public and the exposure or fondling of genitals.
The penalty would be a fine in an amount to be determined, Mr. Martin said.
But Ms. Seagraves said any legislation that creates a dress code would not survive a court challenge. She said the law could not be enforced in a non-discriminatory way because it targets something that came out of the black youth culture.
“This is a racial profiling bill that promotes and establishes a framework for an additional type of racial profiling,” Ms. Seagraves said.
Mr. Martin, who is black, said he plans to hold public hearings and vet the proposal through churches, civil-rights groups and neighbourhood organizations. The proposal will get its first public airing next Tuesday in the city council's public safety committee.
“The purpose of the paper is to generate some conversation to see if we can find a solution,” Mr. Martin said. “It will be like all the discussions we've had around the value of the hip-hop culture. We know there are First Amendment issues … and some will say I'm just trying to put young black men in jail, but it's going to be fines.”
Makeda Johnson, an Atlanta mother of a 14-year-old girl, said she is glad Mr. Martin introduced the proposal. She does not want to see a law against clothing, but said she thinks teenagers are sending a message with a way of dressing that is based in jailhouse behaviour.
Atlanta would not be the first city to take on sagging pants. Earlier this year, the town council in Delcambre, La., passed an ordinance that carries a fine of up to $500 or six months in jail for exposing underwear in public. Several other municipalities and parish governments in Louisiana have enacted similar laws in recent months. |
|
|
| Omega_M |
| Looks like this drive resulted in the permanent banning of some members of the COR. |
|
|
| phlog |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
do you drive a car? |
I'm not one to preach about environmental issues, but comparing driving a car to using plastic bags is rediculous.
For many people there are no adequate alternatives to driving a car(hybrid technology among others, just isn't there yet). Whereas sacrificing the small convienience of using retarded quantities of plastic bags for something more environmentally sound, would be marginal. |
|
|
| Zentac_75 |
| quote: | Originally posted by phlog
I'm not one to preach about environmental issues, but comparing driving a car to using plastic bags is rediculous.
For many people there are no adequate alternatives to driving a car(hybrid technology among others, just isn't there yet). Whereas sacrificing the small convienience of using retarded quantities of plastic bags for something more environmentally sound, would be marginal. |
I'm glad others see things the same way I do. |
|
|
| Jem_hadar |
What BULL.... jesus christ if that pants/underwear/bra law ever gets passed.
. |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by activate
while I've heard nothing about this 'ban', I think it's safe to assume that it's some sort of legislation to stop stores from using them. Force them to use some sort of a reusable alternative with a longer lifespan then a cheap plastic bag that ends up in the garbage right away or after a couple of uses.
I see nothing wrong with that. Unfortunately we're a society of idiots who don't seem to fully understand how we're ing up our planet. If we don't change our ways we're all going to be ed... we've already shown that we can't do it on our own, so if a few changes need to be forced on us, so be it. |
+1
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
You guys may want some big entity to make decisions for you. But I have a mind of my own. If i decide to use plastic its my decision. If i decide not to, that is also my decision.
This nonsense just wont stop. I am always afraid to ask... whats next?
Who would have ever thought that lightbulbs and plastic bags would be on the ban list?
Wow... what an age we live in :rolleyes: |
You make it sound like you have a God given right to use plastic and certain types of light bulbs. News flash... you don't. You have been given the privilege to use these things, and that privilege was given to you by the government who allowed these companies to sell/give them to you.
Now the government is wising up and realizing that something as small as plastic bags is causing us a big problem that will need to be dealt with in the long run.
I don't understand why you are so opposed to damage control being done when it has the smallest, if any, affect on the way your life is going to be.
You are going to be the same guy, who in 20 years when has hit the fan and we are in a garbage crisis, will be saying "why didn't they think ahead and do something back when the realized it was a problem?"
| quote: | Originally posted by Jem_hadar
I dunno, I think the whole point being made by Jay is being missed here.
He's not saying that stopping the use of plastic bags is not a good idea.
He's just saying that here is MORE regulation by the government being forced upon us. WE HAVE NO CHOICE.
He's saying we're adults, if we or companies want to not use plastic bags or plastic in packaging, that's a call we each (including the corporations) should make because we want to be environmentally friendly. He's saying that it sholdnt be something forced on us...
And to a large part, he's saying this (*I think*) because of the slippery slope it creates... OK, we banned this, its generally a healthy good choice for something (in this case, the environment)... but now that we did/banned this, Heck! why stop there? now lets decide to ban this too, and this, and that...
And now everything we once had a choice in is being restricted or out-rightly banned, and we no longer have even that choice. |
I understand what the point is... but the argument is ridiculous.
When they start banning things that really have no reason to be banned, then go nuts and get up in arms about it. We have a right to challenge the government and the decisions they make. However, getting angry about the government trying to enforce a healthier, more economically friendly country, is in my opinion, not something people should be getting so uptight about.
Again, it comes down to the fact that people don't have a "right" to use plastic bags, or smoke indoors, or use a certain light bulb. If the government has to enforce certain things for the greater good because the general population is too lazy/stupid/selfish to make the decision on their own (which has proven to be the case,) then so be it.
Why aren't any of you flipping over the "ban" to murder people? Is it your right to make a decision of whether you should be able to kill someone too? You and all the other grown adults can make up their own minds about who should be dead or not.... right?
P.S. I know that isn't comparable, but still the same premise. |
|
|
| VERTiG0 |
LETS BAN HORSES
Why?
neighing. |
|
|
|
|
