View Single Post
  #18    
Old February 2nd, 2013 (9:28 AM).
twocows's Avatar
twocows twocows is offline
Mostly Benign
  • Gold Tier
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Nature: Lax
Posts: 4,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkie-Dawn View Post
"Putting a ban on polar bear parts will not decrease the amount of polar bear deaths as a result of hunting. Anyone educated in basic economics would know that. It will only make them less available, which will increase demand, increasing the market value for illegal trade. If you really want to stop polar bear hunting, you would have to prosecute the people that hunt them. i.e, Eskimo Natives, who cannot be prosecuted under Canadian law. See, people, there are no good options here."
That's just a problem with "how," then. More specifically, "how do we implement environmental protection laws in a way that actually does some good." Just because your friends aren't able to come up with a good answer doesn't mean there aren't people who can, and it certainly doesn't mean we should just give up on it altogether. While I disagree with some people who suggest going off the deep end with environmental restrictions and such, minimizing our negative impact on the world is still important. It's just that we need to find ways to do it that don't heavily inconvenience people or it's just not going to happen. I think clean energy is a good start.

Quote:
There isn't such thing as good or evil. Just us.
Well, I'm glad that's been settled. Time for my daily routine of raping, stealing, and murdering! I guess since "good" and "evil" are socially defined, that makes them meaningless and means my actions are completely justified. Your friend's an idiot.

And as for priorities, I don't know if your friend knows this, but there are 300 million people in the US alone. Several million of those are involved in politics, either as an activist or as someone associated with some form of political office. There are also plenty of think tanks out there dedicated to coming up with ideas for all sorts of different subjects. We already have more than enough people to saturate the "idea market" for any particular "priority." Throwing more people at a given problem when there are already thousands working on it isn't going to get it solved any faster. We're perfectly capable of coming up with solutions to more than one problem at a time.

There's a difference between "cynicism" and "mindless pessimism."
__________________
8values
Political Simulator
Reply With Quote