Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Libertarians R Stupid #2 - Water

malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 3:18:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
From: http://en.wikipedia.org...

At least 13 fires have been reported on the Cuyahoga River, the first occurring in 1868.[12] The largest river fire in 1952 caused over $1 million in damage to boats and a riverfront office building.[13] Fires erupted on the river several more times before June 22, 1969, when a river fire captured the attention of Time magazine, which described the Cuyahoga as the river that "oozes rather than flows" and in which a person "does not drown but decays".[14]
A view of the river from the Ohio and Erie Canal Tow-Path Trail

The 1969 Cuyahoga River fire helped spur an avalanche of water pollution control activities, resulting in the Clean Water Act, Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, and the creation of the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). As a result, large point sources of pollution on the Cuyahoga have received significant attention from the OEPA in recent decades. These events are referred to in Randy Newman's 1972 song "Burn On", R.E.M.'s 1986 song "Cuyahoga", and Adam Again's 1992 song "River on Fire". Great Lakes Brewing Company of Cleveland, Ohio named their Burning River Pale Ale after the event. During the Gulf oil spill of May 2010, New York Times economist and Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman referred to the Cuyahoga fire as the start of "environmentalism".[15]

Water quality has improved and, partially in recognition of this improvement, the Cuyahoga River was designated as one of 14 American Heritage Rivers in 1998.[16] Despite these efforts, pollution continues to exist in the Cuyahoga River due to other sources of pollution, including urban runoff, nonpoint source problems, combined sewer overflows,[17] and stagnation due to water impounded by dams. For this reason, the Environmental Protection Agency classified portions of the Cuyahoga River watershed as one of 43 Great Lakes Areas of Concern. The most polluted portions of the river now generally meet established aquatic life water quality standards except near dam impoundments. The reasons for not meeting standards near the dam pools are habitat and fish passage issues rather than water quality. River reaches that were once devoid of fish now support 44 species. The most recent survey in 2008 revealed the two most common species in the river were hogsuckers and spotfin shiners, both moderately sensitive to water quality. Habitat issues within the 5.6 miles (9.0 km) navigation channel still preclude a robust fishery in that reach. Recreation water quality standards (using bacteria as indicators) are generally met during dry weather conditions, but are often exceeded during significant rains due to nonpoint sources and combined sewer overflows.


What will Libertarians drink in their magical Free Market Society? Not water. Total Economic Costs, because of how difficult they are to calculate, are ignored without regulation, and regulations are bad, right?

On the plus side, a river fire provides a robust source of heat for those with riverfront property...not that anyone would acquire this real estate on such a polluted river.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 5:58:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Let me get this straight...

The river was grossly polluted.
There was a bunch of damage due to river fires.
The government introduced regulations.
The river's water quality improved.
Therefore, without Government regulation there would be no drinkable water?

What you fail to show is how the river got polluted in the first place. Was the river privately owned, polluted and then seized by the Government?
As far as I can tell from this source... http://www.grc.nasa.gov... ...the river was never privately owned and the two main sources of the problem were...
1) Population: raw sewerage being dumped from nearby Cleveland.
2) Industry: the Government (who controlled the land) had no rules on what could be dumped in the river.

What I see here is a fatal misconception you have about the very thing you're talking about. If something is privately owned, it doesn't magically become unregulated. It's privately regulated. If someone owns some piece of land or water, they can choose to regulate it as they wish. In order for your free market waterless apocalypse to happen, every single drop of water would have to be owned by fvcking morons (like the organisation who owned and continue to own the Cuyahoga River.)
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 5:59:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Again, and let me stress this point:
GOVERNMENT REGULATION IS BAD, NOT REGULATION IN GENERAL.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 6:01:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I've always thought that things like this are propped up by limited liability. If the person making the decision to, for example, pollute a river to that degree will not personally face the full brunt of a lawsuit demanding recompense for lost property and destroyed property values, then what reason do they have to take into account the unjust harm caused by an action? They can just float away on their golden parachute if the excrement ever strikes the ventilation apparatus. Just look at the BP oil spill. The regulations didn't work (obviously), the people who caused it are still living the high life, and the people affected by it are still suffering. That's not a very good system in my book.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 6:29:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 5:58:15 PM, tvellalott wrote:
Let me get this straight...

The river was grossly polluted.
There was a bunch of damage due to river fires.
The government introduced regulations.
The river's water quality improved.
Therefore, without Government regulation there would be no drinkable water?

What you fail to show is how the river got polluted in the first place. Was the river privately owned, polluted and then seized by the Government?
As far as I can tell from this source... http://www.grc.nasa.gov... ...the river was never privately owned and the two main sources of the problem were...
1) Population: raw sewerage being dumped from nearby Cleveland.
2) Industry: the Government (who controlled the land) had no rules on what could be dumped in the river.

What I see here is a fatal misconception you have about the very thing you're talking about. If something is privately owned, it doesn't magically become unregulated. It's privately regulated. If someone owns some piece of land or water, they can choose to regulate it as they wish. In order for your free market waterless apocalypse to happen, every single drop of water would have to be owned by fvcking morons (like the organisation who owned and continue to own the Cuyahoga River.)

A. How does one own a river?

B. Rivers flow into lakes. Can I own a river without also owning the lake it flows into?

C. What causes the greatest amount of pollution to the river today? source point or non-source point pollution?

D. Why are government regulations bad and none others?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 6:33:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 6:29:38 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/14/2013 5:58:15 PM, tvellalott wrote:
Let me get this straight...

The river was grossly polluted.
There was a bunch of damage due to river fires.
The government introduced regulations.
The river's water quality improved.
Therefore, without Government regulation there would be no drinkable water?

What you fail to show is how the river got polluted in the first place. Was the river privately owned, polluted and then seized by the Government?
As far as I can tell from this source... http://www.grc.nasa.gov... ...the river was never privately owned and the two main sources of the problem were...
1) Population: raw sewerage being dumped from nearby Cleveland.
2) Industry: the Government (who controlled the land) had no rules on what could be dumped in the river.

What I see here is a fatal misconception you have about the very thing you're talking about. If something is privately owned, it doesn't magically become unregulated. It's privately regulated. If someone owns some piece of land or water, they can choose to regulate it as they wish. In order for your free market waterless apocalypse to happen, every single drop of water would have to be owned by fvcking morons (like the organisation who owned and continue to own the Cuyahoga River.)

A. How does one own a river?

They kill the native people and claim it.

B. Rivers flow into lakes. Can I own a river without also owning the lake it flows into?

I have no idea. If the AnCap revolution were to happen, these sorts of things would be handled by people much more intelligent and knowledge-specific than I.

C. What causes the greatest amount of pollution to the river today? source point or non-source point pollution?

I have no idea, but I'm sure this is an irrelevant question.

D. Why are government regulations bad and none others?

Because the Government are self-interested arseholes working not in the interest of the people but in the interest of the corporations who fund their campaigns and the banks that control the federal reserve.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 6:35:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 6:33:47 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 2/14/2013 6:29:38 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/14/2013 5:58:15 PM, tvellalott wrote:
Let me get this straight...

The river was grossly polluted.
There was a bunch of damage due to river fires.
The government introduced regulations.
The river's water quality improved.
Therefore, without Government regulation there would be no drinkable water?

What you fail to show is how the river got polluted in the first place. Was the river privately owned, polluted and then seized by the Government?
As far as I can tell from this source... http://www.grc.nasa.gov... ...the river was never privately owned and the two main sources of the problem were...
1) Population: raw sewerage being dumped from nearby Cleveland.
2) Industry: the Government (who controlled the land) had no rules on what could be dumped in the river.

What I see here is a fatal misconception you have about the very thing you're talking about. If something is privately owned, it doesn't magically become unregulated. It's privately regulated. If someone owns some piece of land or water, they can choose to regulate it as they wish. In order for your free market waterless apocalypse to happen, every single drop of water would have to be owned by fvcking morons (like the organisation who owned and continue to own the Cuyahoga River.)

A. How does one own a river?

They kill the native people and claim it.

B. Rivers flow into lakes. Can I own a river without also owning the lake it flows into?

I have no idea. If the AnCap revolution were to happen, these sorts of things would be handled by people much more intelligent and knowledge-specific than I.

C. What causes the greatest amount of pollution to the river today? source point or non-source point pollution?

I have no idea, but I'm sure this is an irrelevant question.

D. Why are government regulations bad and none others?

Because the Government are self-interested arseholes working not in the interest of the people but in the interest of the corporations who fund their campaigns and the banks that control the federal reserve.

I'm sure you're an idiot. Please don't post in my threads unless you intend to formally debate me.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 6:38:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 6:35:29 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
I'm sure you're an idiot. Please don't post in my threads unless you intend to formally debate me.

I'll post wherever I like, thanks.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 7:01:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 6:38:36 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 2/14/2013 6:35:29 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
I'm sure you're an idiot. Please don't post in my threads unless you intend to formally debate me.

I'll post wherever I like, thanks.

Says the hopeless retard...
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 7:07:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well, I've finished cutting myself now to distract me from the pain of your witty and original ad hominems and I've decided that I would like to debate you.

Since you're so confident, how about you go Pro and take the burden of proof on the following resolution:
"Reduced government environmental regulation would have a direct correlation with pollution levels."

Go.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 7:11:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 7:07:07 PM, tvellalott wrote:
Well, I've finished cutting myself now to distract me from the pain of your witty and original ad hominems and I've decided that I would like to debate you.

Since you're so confident, how about you go Pro and take the burden of proof on the following resolution:
"Reduced government environmental regulation would have a direct correlation with pollution levels."

Go.

too limiting - "...will lead to higher pollution levels..."
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 7:16:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 7:11:15 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/14/2013 7:07:07 PM, tvellalott wrote:
Well, I've finished cutting myself now to distract me from the pain of your witty and original ad hominems and I've decided that I would like to debate you.

Since you're so confident, how about you go Pro and take the burden of proof on the following resolution:
"Reduced government environmental regulation would have a direct correlation with pollution levels."

Go.

too limiting - "...will lead to higher pollution levels..."

Why is it too limiting?
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 8:27:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 7:11:15 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/14/2013 7:07:07 PM, tvellalott wrote:
Well, I've finished cutting myself now to distract me from the pain of your witty and original ad hominems and I've decided that I would like to debate you.

Since you're so confident, how about you go Pro and take the burden of proof on the following resolution:
"Reduced government environmental regulation would have a direct correlation with pollution levels."

Go.

too limiting - "...will lead to higher pollution levels..."

Quit being a wuss.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 8:40:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 7:16:01 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 2/14/2013 7:11:15 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/14/2013 7:07:07 PM, tvellalott wrote:
Well, I've finished cutting myself now to distract me from the pain of your witty and original ad hominems and I've decided that I would like to debate you.

Since you're so confident, how about you go Pro and take the burden of proof on the following resolution:
"Reduced government environmental regulation would have a direct correlation with pollution levels."

Go.

too limiting - "...will lead to higher pollution levels..."

Why is it too limiting?

Correlation takes more effort to definitively prove than I am willing to set forth. "It will increase" is what I'm willing to tackle at this time. I'm done losing debates here due to the initial set-up.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 8:41:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 8:27:38 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 2/14/2013 7:11:15 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/14/2013 7:07:07 PM, tvellalott wrote:
Well, I've finished cutting myself now to distract me from the pain of your witty and original ad hominems and I've decided that I would like to debate you.

Since you're so confident, how about you go Pro and take the burden of proof on the following resolution:
"Reduced government environmental regulation would have a direct correlation with pollution levels."

Go.

too limiting - "...will lead to higher pollution levels..."

Quit being a wuss.

blow me
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 8:46:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If you take the burden of proof, I'll accept your resolution "In the absence of governmental environmental regulations, industries will not self-regulate and more pollution will occur."

The reason I insist upon this is because you're making the assertion, not me. I'm sure you can understand that.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 12:23:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
That reminds me how more trees die on federal owned land from fire than trees planted resposibly without overgrowth and spaced for optimal growth on privately owned tree farms.

Of course the tree-huggers would never admit the guvment are actually the ones letting the trees burn uselessly in choked unregulated forests, and that the ebil private lumber industry actually encourages fire monitored, fast tree growing, flourishing tracts.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 5:01:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 12:23:54 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
That reminds me how more trees die on federal owned land from fire than trees planted resposibly without overgrowth and spaced for optimal growth on privately owned tree farms.

Of course the tree-huggers would never admit the guvment are actually the ones letting the trees burn uselessly in choked unregulated forests, and that the ebil private lumber industry actually encourages fire monitored, fast tree growing, flourishing tracts.

This. The 'forest fires are bad mmmkay' line is so scientifically illiterate that it's inconceivable to me that some people still push it. Forest fires are ecologically devastating when somebody prevents them from naturally occurring for a very long period of time. They are not, in themselves, a travesty; in some areas they're even an ecological necessity.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 12:27:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 5:01:40 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/15/2013 12:23:54 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
That reminds me how more trees die on federal owned land from fire than trees planted resposibly without overgrowth and spaced for optimal growth on privately owned tree farms.

Of course the tree-huggers would never admit the guvment are actually the ones letting the trees burn uselessly in choked unregulated forests, and that the ebil private lumber industry actually encourages fire monitored, fast tree growing, flourishing tracts.

This. The 'forest fires are bad mmmkay' line is so scientifically illiterate that it's inconceivable to me that some people still push it. Forest fires are ecologically devastating when somebody prevents them from naturally occurring for a very long period of time. They are not, in themselves, a travesty; in some areas they're even an ecological necessity.

Hey, that's what I was gonna say...

River fires, on the other hand...not so much.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 12:29:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
^^but, then again, the title of e thread is "Libertarians R Stupid", and they love to continue proving it with each successive post they make.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 12:46:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 12:29:28 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
^^but, then again, the title of e thread is "Libertarians R Stupid", and they love to continue proving it with each successive post they make.

I'd find a place to put my carbon footprint, but I am too busy watching the forest burn for the good of the planet.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 1:37:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 12:46:08 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/16/2013 12:29:28 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
^^but, then again, the title of e thread is "Libertarians R Stupid", and they love to continue proving it with each successive post they make.

I'd find a place to put my carbon footprint, but I am too busy watching the forest burn for the good of the planet.

Historically, when fires from natural or other causes began, efforts were made to control them as quickly as possible. That has changed somewhat as more has been learned about the role of fire within forest ecosystems. Forests in which fires are regularly suppressed can burn much hotter and more dangerously when a fire finally does break out. With suppression, large amounts of underbrush accumulate on the forest floor, certain tree species cannot regenerate (oak and pine, for example, need fire to crack their seeds), and trees that do flourish become densely packed. Within this forest structure, the number of fires continues to increase, getting larger and gaining in intensity. This has become increasingly dangerous as urban and suburban areas encroach on forested spaces.

These realities have brought about a greater sense of the importance of understanding how forests should be managed to ensure health and sustainability. Current practices use a combination of containment measures in an attempt to balance the importance of periodic fires to ecosystem health and the danger of uncontrolled burns to human communities.


http://www.enviroliteracy.org...

Just be careful to not keep jamming your carbon footprint in your mouth. It can't taste good.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 4:08:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Controlled burning of forests can be a controversial issue. Groups that value different elements of ecosystems can differ on the desirability of controlled burns.
Bam! that footprint loves that fiyah!
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 4:34:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 4:08:07 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Controlled burning of forests can be a controversial issue. Groups that value different elements of ecosystems can differ on the desirability of controlled burns.
Bam! that footprint loves that fiyah!

Yes, there are the stupid groups and the scientists. I though you Libertarians were into science:

We all recognize Smoky the Bear and his message: Only You Can Prevent Forest Fires. Smoky"s message is very important " we don"t want to start fires in the forests. But that doesn"t mean that all fires are bad. Many times fires are started by lightning or the Forest Service might even start fires. Those fires serve a very important purpose.

Bears love huckleberries, and one of the best places for huckleberries to grow is in areas burned by forest fires. Huckleberries like lots of sunshine, so they won"t grow where there are lots of trees. When a fire comes through, it will burn off the huckleberry bush by, if the fire isn"t too hot, the bush will regrow from its roots. All the ashes around serve as fertilizer and make the new bushes grow even better than before. If you are looking for bears " go to areas that burned down a few years ago. That"s where the bears go!

Fires open up forests so that sunshine can get through, which encourages plants to grow. The ash from the burned trees and bushes serves as fertilizer to makeplants grow better. Certain shrubs and grasses start growing very quickly after a fire " and that"s where the elk go. Elk rely on those shrubs and grasses in the winter, so the fire actually help the elk.

Antelope also benefit from wildfires. Antelope live on prairies, open grasslands with few shrubs. When a fire comes through, it burns out shrubs and young trees that had grown in the grasslands. The native bunchgrasses and wildflowers grow fast after a fire, which gives the antelope plenty of food to eat.

More than forty kinds of insects make a beeline to forest fires. They can burrow into the fire-softened wood easily. Birds come to the burned areas seeking the insects.

Many animals depend on fires in one way or another. They have figured out that forest fires mean food! But that"s all after the fire. What do animals do during the fire itself? Most animals have a very keen sense of smell and simply walk away from fires before they even get near. Although some animals do get caught in fires, most do not.

In short " fires are good for animals in the long run.


From: http://familyonbikes.org...

Wanna debate it?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 8:51:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 4:34:24 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/16/2013 4:08:07 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Controlled burning of forests can be a controversial issue. Groups that value different elements of ecosystems can differ on the desirability of controlled burns.
Bam! that footprint loves that fiyah!

Yes, there are the stupid groups and the scientists. I though you Libertarians were into science:

We all recognize Smoky the Bear and his message: Only You Can Prevent Forest Fires. Smoky"s message is very important " we don"t want to start fires in the forests. But that doesn"t mean that all fires are bad. Many times fires are started by lightning or the Forest Service might even start fires. Those fires serve a very important purpose.

Bears love huckleberries, and one of the best places for huckleberries to grow is in areas burned by forest fires. Huckleberries like lots of sunshine, so they won"t grow where there are lots of trees. When a fire comes through, it will burn off the huckleberry bush by, if the fire isn"t too hot, the bush will regrow from its roots. All the ashes around serve as fertilizer and make the new bushes grow even better than before. If you are looking for bears " go to areas that burned down a few years ago. That"s where the bears go!

Fires open up forests so that sunshine can get through, which encourages plants to grow. The ash from the burned trees and bushes serves as fertilizer to makeplants grow better. Certain shrubs and grasses start growing very quickly after a fire " and that"s where the elk go. Elk rely on those shrubs and grasses in the winter, so the fire actually help the elk.

Antelope also benefit from wildfires. Antelope live on prairies, open grasslands with few shrubs. When a fire comes through, it burns out shrubs and young trees that had grown in the grasslands. The native bunchgrasses and wildflowers grow fast after a fire, which gives the antelope plenty of food to eat.

More than forty kinds of insects make a beeline to forest fires. They can burrow into the fire-softened wood easily. Birds come to the burned areas seeking the insects.

Many animals depend on fires in one way or another. They have figured out that forest fires mean food! But that"s all after the fire. What do animals do during the fire itself? Most animals have a very keen sense of smell and simply walk away from fires before they even get near. Although some animals do get caught in fires, most do not.

In short " fires are good for animals in the long run.


From: http://familyonbikes.org...

Wanna debate it?

Debate what? You and my big ole carbon footprint both agree that burnin up da forist bees good for making sure Bambi and Thumper gets their wild forist to live in, burn planet burn!
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 8:56:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 8:51:46 AM, Greyparrot wrote:

Debate what? You and my big ole carbon footprint both agree that burnin up da forist bees good for making sure Bambi and Thumper gets their wild forist to live in, burn planet burn!

Me no thinks you make the same argument as the environmentalists.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 11:04:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 10:45:18 PM, Sesamestreetatheist wrote:


Shame on a nigga who try to dodge debates on a nigga
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...