jlamour wrote:

Sock OR Muffin? wrote:

jlamour wrote: But she thinks it's bad for the environment? What an idiot. That kind of stupidity is a turn off.

Please explain why washing less chemicals down the drain is a bad thing. Seriously.

Or are you just angry cause she's some big movie star and all she can think to do is wash her hair less? Cause that IS pretty lame.

We have water purification plants.

More to the point, everything you wash down your drian is a chemical. Most shampoos aren't going to cause any harm to the water supply at all.

jlamour wrote:

Colonel Panic wrote:I've decided I'm not going to drink Red Bull until there's unequivocal peace in the Middle East. Don't push me, I'm not playing around!

I'm not going to walk anymore because that makes me sweat and get all dirty and have to take a shower and wash all of these chemicals down the drain and harm the environment even though we have water purification plants but they're only for humans not for the poor little fishy wishy that swim in the river and we catch and eat thus nixing the whole purification process that was supposed to keep myself free of the chemicals I sweat while walking fuck it I'll just become a vegetarian.

I read the whole article:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22201138-5006023,00.html

I don't have a problem with her, as a celebrity making a responsible decision that might influence others to conserve water. what's the big deal? how is this bad?

I don't get why everyone seems so threatened by a celebrity vocalizing a lifestyle change that, although individually insignificant, could actually help if many people followed cue.

fucking criticize some hip-hop star for encouraging the purchase of gas-guzzling Cadillac Escalades, not this.

Justin from Queens wrote:Let's see. You compare environmentalism to a Nazi truism. What's the conclusion here? That people making personal consumer choices has no environmental impact? That some fascist force is using 'save the planet' as a guise for world domination? That you don't know what you're talking about?

I made the point in another thread that the only goal of the environmentalist movement is to dismantle the industrial revolution. The movement works to strip away property rights. It's one thing if the person pollutes and destroys someone else's property. That's criminal and I'm not against punishing this but this is not what the env mvmnt is for. They are for shifting power from the individual to the state regarding how a business operates. Nazism was facism. I don't think I have to explain this point, I hope not. Fascism exalts the will of the collective over the will of the individual.

Don't be so short-sighted to label me as a [right-wing] conservative. I'm not trying to conserve any current state of this insipid culture and government.

Rick Reuben wrote:

jlamour wrote: Fascism exalts the will of the collective over the will of the individual.

It is socialism that exalts the will of the collective, not fascism. Fascism is corporate-state synthesis. What are you, some Randian?

I swear I did not copy this. Socialism is a form of fascism. Randian? Is that all the better you can come up with? I've had to lecture people before on the weakness of ad hominem and it gets tiresome. Elevate your rhetoric.

jlamour wrote:

Justin from Queens wrote:Let's see. You compare environmentalism to a Nazi truism. What's the conclusion here? That people making personal consumer choices has no environmental impact? That some fascist force is using 'save the planet' as a guise for world domination? That you don't know what you're talking about?

I made the point in another thread that the only goal of the environmentalist movement is to dismantle the industrial revolution. The movement works to strip away property rights. It's one thing if the person pollutes and destroys someone else's property. That's criminal and I'm not against punishing this but this is not what the env mvmnt is for. They are for shifting power from the individual to the state regarding how a business operates. Nazism was facism. I don't think I have to explain this point, I hope not. Fascism exalts the will of the collective over the will of the individual.

Don't be so short-sighted to label me as a [right-wing] conservative. I'm not trying to conserve any current state of this insipid culture and government.

I think that assigning a group goal to a movement that is made up of so many different groups and motivations is a mistake similar to sayign that killing animals for mink coats is fine because PETA is a bunch of psychos.

Much of the environmental movement exists simply to preserve the environment, which we all happen to share. Trying to address issues of shared risk by allowing abuse under the guise of corporate freedom isn't promoting individual rights, it's undermining them by treating the corporation as the indivuidal...a fundamental tenet of bullshit modern right wing politics.

Dismantling property rights is a red herring...there's no individual property rights to air, animal sepcies and water.

Furthermore, why defend the industrial revolution? You want more child labor, carcinogens in the air, black lung, unregulated labor abuses?

jlamour wrote:

Rick Reuben wrote:

jlamour wrote: Fascism exalts the will of the collective over the will of the individual.

It is socialism that exalts the will of the collective, not fascism. Fascism is corporate-state synthesis. What are you, some Randian?

I swear I did not copy this. Socialism is a form of fascism. Randian? Is that all the better you can come up with? I've had to lecture people before on the weakness of ad hominem and it gets tiresome. Elevate your rhetoric.

That link doesn't support your assertion that socialism is fascist.

bigc wrote:I think that assigning a group goal to a movement that is made up of so many different groups and motivations is a mistake similar to sayign that killing animals for mink coats is fine because PETA is a bunch of psychos.

I don't like mink coats. They're gaudy, but if someone wants to wear one I can't stop them. It's outside of my scope of legal activity. I'm against anyone who claims any animal besides a human has rights. They don't know what rights are. Rights only apply to an animal that uses reason, not instinct, as a means of survival.

bigc wrote:Much of the environmental movement exists simply to preserve the environment, which we all happen to share. Dismantling property rights is a red herring...there's no individual property rights to air, animal sepcies and water.

These statements demonstrate a lack of understanding of the concept of property rights.

bigc wrote:Furthermore, why defend the industrial revolution? You want more child labor, carcinogens in the air, black lung, unregulated labor abuses?

Because we're still living in the thick of it. Labor abuses? Lay your examples out and I'll destroy them. Please clarify your points on allowing corporations to act as individuals. Again, it's too easy to label me as right-wing when I'm really not. Attack me with ideas, not labels.

Just curious, are you referring to labor abuses within the U.S. or the whole world?

Rick Reuben wrote:

jlamour wrote: Socialism is a form of fascism.

No, it isn't. They are distinct systems. Fascism is a form of extreme right-wing ideology that celebrates the nation or the race as an organic community transcending all other loyalties. Mussolini called fascism the opposite of Marxist socialism.

I understand your point. I refuse to make this distinction because they are political systems that share a nihilist standard.