I wonder how much different/cooler this thread would be if she said she was going to only piss in her backyard from now on...

Sock OR Muffin? wrote:I wonder how much different/cooler this thread would be if she said she was going to only piss in her backyard from now on...

no, that's mandroid you are thinking of


Poon Wash is a good name for either a band or a record label

Sock OR Muffin? wrote:I wonder how much different/cooler this thread would be if she said she was going to only piss in her backyard from now on...

Howe about if she washed her children's hair with the piss that was created after drinking her used Poon Wash?

It's a zero discharge system.

I would see a band called Zero Discharge System.

Or Poon Wash for that matter.

jlamour wrote: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.

So, the expressed and evident goal of the environmental movement, preserving and protecting the unique and irreplaceable elements of the environment -- an environment on which all life depends -- is just some kind of cover for a nonsensical anti-industrial agenda? You sound like my dad, who was convinced that rock concerts were only convened as cover for drug deals. That is, full of ignorant fantasy impervious to logic.

The movement works to strip away property rights.

Oh, I get it. Ownership of property is more important to you than life itself. It makes sense then that you would value short-term concerns of the current property owner over the eons-long maintenance of an irreplaceable resource that ought to be shared by everything that will ever live on the planet.

The property owner can sell or abandon his property and walk away. Damage done to the environment is permanent. There used to be mountains in West Virginia where now there are mineral flats. Mountains gone forever, because somebody "owned" them for a little while.

I love how originally pointless threads like these sometimes evolve...what was some worthless bullshit about some empty-headed celebrity is now about fascism vs. socialism/the environment.

Good stuff!

Minotaur029 wrote:I love how originally pointless threads like these sometimes evolve...what was some worthless bullshit about some empty-headed celebrity is now about fascism vs. socialism/the environment.

Good stuff!

Plus I slipped in the term 'Poon Wash' several times

steve wrote:

jlamour wrote: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.

So, the expressed and evident goal of the environmental movement, preserving and protecting the unique and irreplaceable elements of the environment -- an environment on which all life depends -- is just some kind of cover for a nonsensical anti-industrial agenda? You sound like my dad, who was convinced that rock concerts were only convened as cover for drug deals. That is, full of ignorant fantasy impervious to logic.

That's funny. I don't think that about rock concerts. I don't think env mvmnt is anti-industrial, it's anti-human.

steve wrote:

jlamour wrote:The movement works to strip away property rights.

Oh, I get it. Ownership of property is more important to you than life itself. It makes sense then that you would value short-term concerns of the current property owner over the eons-long maintenance of an irreplaceable resource that ought to be shared by everything that will ever live on the planet.

I'm saying human life itself depends on property rights.

The property owner can sell or abandon his property and walk away. Damage done to the environment is permanent. There used to be mountains in West Virginia where now there are mineral flats. Mountains gone forever, because somebody "owned" them for a little while.

And used the these resources to build your guitars and studio, your livelihood, your past, present, and future.

BTW I'm not trolling. I'm just trying to link or demonstrate the causality between an irrational idea (environmentalism) to irrational behavior from Blanchett. There is no dichotomy between the ideal and the actual. The latter is an outcome of the former.

jlamour wrote:

steve wrote:

jlamour wrote: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.

So, the expressed and evident goal of the environmental movement, preserving and protecting the unique and irreplaceable elements of the environment -- an environment on which all life depends -- is just some kind of cover for a nonsensical anti-industrial agenda? You sound like my dad, who was convinced that rock concerts were only convened as cover for drug deals. That is, full of ignorant fantasy impervious to logic.

That's funny. I don't think that about rock concerts. I don't think env mvmnt is anti-industrial, it's anti-human.

steve wrote:

jlamour wrote:The movement works to strip away property rights.

Oh, I get it. Ownership of property is more important to you than life itself. It makes sense then that you would value short-term concerns of the current property owner over the eons-long maintenance of an irreplaceable resource that ought to be shared by everything that will ever live on the planet.

I'm saying human life itself depends on property rights.

The property owner can sell or abandon his property and walk away. Damage done to the environment is permanent. There used to be mountains in West Virginia where now there are mineral flats. Mountains gone forever, because somebody "owned" them for a little while.

And used the these resources to build your guitars and studio, your livelihood, your past, present, and future.

BTW I'm not trolling. I'm just trying to link or demonstrate the causality between an irrational idea (environmentalism) to irrational behavior from Blanchett. There is no dichotomy between the ideal and the actual. The latter is an outcome of the former.

Now you're just not making any sense at all. You're saying that the efforts to keep the planet livable for human beings are anti-human, and that the decimation of our natural resources provides us with things we can use...after the human race is no longer able to occupy the planet?

Saving natural beauty, resources and the planet, as well as curbing pollution, is quite rational. Sacrificing those things at the feet of profit is what's irrational.

jlamour wrote:I'm saying human life itself depends on property rights.

What?!

This statement causes me to use interrobangs.