Comments on: Green Laws. Constitutionality. Does it all matter? http://www.inurface.org/2008/08/green-laws-constitutionality-does-it-all-matter/ Beating the Crap out of Information with Intelligent, Open, and Honest Discussion Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:28:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Louis J. Swingrover http://www.inurface.org/2008/08/green-laws-constitutionality-does-it-all-matter/#comment-9 Louis J. Swingrover Sat, 30 Aug 2008 01:12:48 +0000 http://www.actuation.com/?p=21#comment-9 that hyperlink is to http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html that hyperlink is to http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

]]> By: Louis J. Swingrover http://www.inurface.org/2008/08/green-laws-constitutionality-does-it-all-matter/#comment-8 Louis J. Swingrover Sat, 30 Aug 2008 01:11:41 +0000 http://www.actuation.com/?p=21#comment-8 Fallacy #1: Your argument assumes green laws do NOT make life safer. If they did, you say, you would be willing to foot the bill. Instead you call green practices matters of preference. The fact of the matter is that green laws based on sound science can make life a crucially safer. I am willing to argue for this claim if need be. Let me know. Fallacy #2: You say “If I am required to install double paned windows what stops lawmakers from slipping a little farther into “Buy one of those Toyota Prius”". Please cf. Slippery Slope. Let me know if you have any questions. The reason we have to enforce these practices on other people is twofold: 1. We share the environment. If you want to poison your immediate environment in a way that doesn’t violate my right to life, go ahead. 2. Green laws based on sound science may be more than life safening, they may be life-saving. You yourself admit the benefit of enforcing speed limits! Why not pollution limits? Fallacy #1: Your argument assumes green laws do NOT make life safer. If they did, you say, you would be willing to foot the bill. Instead you call green practices matters of preference.

The fact of the matter is that green laws based on sound science can make life a crucially safer. I am willing to argue for this claim if need be. Let me know.

Fallacy #2: You say “If I am required to install double paned windows what stops lawmakers from slipping a little farther into “Buy one of those Toyota Prius””. Please cf. Slippery Slope. Let me know if you have any questions.

The reason we have to enforce these practices on other people is twofold:

1. We share the environment. If you want to poison your immediate environment in a way that doesn’t violate my right to life, go ahead.

2. Green laws based on sound science may be more than life safening, they may be life-saving. You yourself admit the benefit of enforcing speed limits! Why not pollution limits?

]]>