Regulations that politicians pass after pressure from environmental groups that disagree with cleaner, safer technologies based on their beliefs.
If you ever manage to have a rational discussion with an environmentalist (extremely hard because they almost always turn to name-calling, change the subject, or other childish behaviors), you will discover that the root of their reasoning revolves around a belief rather than logic.
(On a side note, I find this humorous because almost all environmentalists I've met are atheists, and atheists claim they don't believe in a god because of logic than a belief. Thus I've concluded, people will almost always rationalize whatever they want to make themselves feel good.)
(People generally want the same thing - to be happy, safe, free, etc. Even people with extremely opposing viewpoints. Instead of discovering the real reason, they go with "well they're just a Democrat/Republican/religious/atheist/whatever" - the reason is usually much simpler/basic, it's just that most people don't want to the take the time to work to discover the root difference. Every Republican and Democrat I know both want everyone to be healthy, wealthy, and safe. Every atheist and religious person I know wants peace, goodwill, and to feel good about themselves. Every tree-hugger and gas-guzzler I know wants cleaner air, cleaner water, and not to kill polar bears. They all just disagree on how to get there.)
Do you have anything serious to add? If you want me to answer any questions, you have to show that you want a serious discussion. Just posting a cute question alone won't suffice. Doing so is a tactic to distract opponents which is pretty disingenuous.
> If you ever manage to have a rational discussion with an environmentalist (extremely hard ...
>Do you have anything serious to add? If you want me to answer any questions, you have to show that you want a serious discussion. Just posting a cute question alone won't suffice.
Wow, that is defensive and ignorant - my question was short (or 'cute') because it didn't need extraneous lexicon. I'm simply curious about which environmental regulations are considered harmful so I could research them and educate myself. So no, I wasn't adding anything, but it was a serious question. Conversely, you went off on a huge tangent about atheists, deists, Republicans, and Democrats and still somehow did not answer my question. So I'll assume you don't know.
> Doing so is a tactic to distract opponents which is pretty disingenuous.
Well sailor Casseres, if you want to have a rational discussion without distracting yourself, how about you just genuinely answer the question.
I answered your question in the first line: "Regulations that politicians pass after pressure from environmental groups that disagree with cleaner, safer technologies based on their beliefs." If local communities pass local regulations, that no longer make it profitable to build a plant there, they won't build a plant there. If every community does that where it would be profitable for a plant to be built, the plant doesn't get built. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has renewed operating licenses and existing plants have purchased new reactors, but all of that is just about maintaining the plants that have already been around for decades.
The tangent was not about atheists, deists, Republicans, and Democrats. They were examples of "people with extremely opposing viewpoints."
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm a sailor. In my profile it does mention that I am a mariner. There is a difference in the maritime industry between the two terms. A sailor is an enlisted person or commissioned officer in the Navy. A mariner is not.
> If you ever manage to have a rational discussion with an environmentalist (extremely hard because they almost always turn to name-calling, change the subject, or other childish behaviors), you will discover that the root of their reasoning revolves around a belief rather than logic.
If you ever have a rational discussion with a human (or, for that matter, anything else that has a belief about what should be done), you'll find that -- its not limited to environmentalists. You can't get to a conclusion about what should be done without starting from an a priori belief about the criteria for what should be done, no matter how much logic gets used between the root belief and the conclusion.
If you ever manage to have a rational discussion with an environmentalist (extremely hard because they almost always turn to name-calling, change the subject, or other childish behaviors), you will discover that the root of their reasoning revolves around a belief rather than logic.
(On a side note, I find this humorous because almost all environmentalists I've met are atheists, and atheists claim they don't believe in a god because of logic than a belief. Thus I've concluded, people will almost always rationalize whatever they want to make themselves feel good.)
(People generally want the same thing - to be happy, safe, free, etc. Even people with extremely opposing viewpoints. Instead of discovering the real reason, they go with "well they're just a Democrat/Republican/religious/atheist/whatever" - the reason is usually much simpler/basic, it's just that most people don't want to the take the time to work to discover the root difference. Every Republican and Democrat I know both want everyone to be healthy, wealthy, and safe. Every atheist and religious person I know wants peace, goodwill, and to feel good about themselves. Every tree-hugger and gas-guzzler I know wants cleaner air, cleaner water, and not to kill polar bears. They all just disagree on how to get there.)
Do you have anything serious to add? If you want me to answer any questions, you have to show that you want a serious discussion. Just posting a cute question alone won't suffice. Doing so is a tactic to distract opponents which is pretty disingenuous.