IDBillzFan Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Note to progressives: whenever conservatives like myself yell about reducing the size of goverment, this is an example of what we're yelling about. The EPA decided that because milk contains a non-petroleum oil (animal fat), dairy farmers need to spend the time, energy and money to prepare and submit an oil spill prevention plan in the event one of their milk tanks should have some leakage. According to Gayle Miller, legislative director of Sierra Club Michigan Chapter, "Milk is wholesome in a child's body. It is devastating in a waterway. The fact that it's biodegradable is irrelevant if people die as a result of cryptosporidium, beaches close for E. coli and fish are killed." Yes. That's right. A milk spill needs an emergency plan. Because when you spill milk, people die from cryptosporidium. But hey...what could go wrong when the government takes over health care, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 What about all the salt from the tears crying over that spilt milk? In a waterway, that can lead to hypertension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Note to progressives: whenever conservatives like myself yell about reducing the size of goverment, this is an example of what we're yelling about. The EPA decided that because milk contains a non-petroleum oil (animal fat), dairy farmers need to spend the time, energy and money to prepare and submit an oil spill prevention plan in the event one of their milk tanks should have some leakage. According to Gayle Miller, legislative director of Sierra Club Michigan Chapter, "Milk is wholesome in a child's body. It is devastating in a waterway. The fact that it's biodegradable is irrelevant if people die as a result of cryptosporidium, beaches close for E. coli and fish are killed." Yes. That's right. A milk spill needs an emergency plan. Because when you spill milk, people die from cryptosporidium. But hey...what could go wrong when the government takes over health care, right? Yours seems an uninformed, reactionary response. WTF do you know about the environmental effects of a large milk spill? It makes a catchy talking point though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Yours seems an uninformed, reactionary response. But you had no problem jumping right in with yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) Well, there is a point. A lot of things, even benign, naturally-occurring materials, uncontrolled in mass quantity have the potential to cause destruction / disease. Look at wood chips / sawdust. In small quantities, it's harmless and, actually, even beneficial. Gather a large pile, and it is classified as "hazardous waste" b/c there's a serious risk of fire because it generates a lot of heat near the core of the pile. Same principle with grass clippings. I don't know the whole deal with milk's possible problems, but having had some experience with expired jugs in the fridge, in a spill of mass quantities, there's certainly the potential for large-scale bacterial proliferation. Milk, like water, seeks the lowest level and seeps into water systems. With 10,000 - 20,000-gallon tanks, yeah, it might not be a bad idea for farmers and dairy transport companies to have a plan for containment if they spring a leak. Edited February 2, 2011 by UConn James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 But you had no problem jumping right in with yours. My reaction to his ridiculous reaction does not seem as ridiculous to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 My reaction to his ridiculous reaction does not seem as ridiculous to me. But ridiculous none the less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 2, 2011 Author Share Posted February 2, 2011 Yours seems an uninformed, reactionary response. WTF do you know about the environmental effects of a large milk spill? It makes a catchy talking point though. Pay attention, Geno. The issue is not about the environmental effects of a large milk spill, but the environmental effects of the non-petroleum oil found in milk. Which begs the question; what other products contain non-petroleum oil, and what happens if they spill? Does the maker of non-petroleum lip balm have an emergency plan in place in the event there's a problem at their plant? Are people threatened with death because some lip balm may get into the lake? And while we're running around creating regulations for things that rarely ever happen, I have to wonder, what plans do skateboard companies have if a truck carrying skateboards flips over on the highway, and people swerve to avoid them, and get stuck on the skateboards and their cars suddenly start doing a Crooked Grind or an FS540...or maybe even the more dangerous Caballerial!!! What is their plan to stop this from happening?!?!!? Because PEOPLE CAN DIE!!!! Progressive freaks. It's a wonder any of you beat the other hundred million sperm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 What about all the salt from the tears crying over that spilt milk? In a waterway, that can lead to hypertension. Like hot sauce, spilled milk is now considered child abuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Progressive freaks. It's a wonder any of you beat the other hundred million sperm. But they all came from the same nut!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Progressive freaks. It's a wonder any of you beat the other hundred million sperm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Well, there is a point. A lot of things, even benign, naturally-occurring materials, uncontrolled in mass quantity have the potential to cause destruction / disease. Look at wood chips / sawdust. In small quantities, it's harmless and, actually, even beneficial. Gather a large pile, and it is classified as "hazardous waste" b/c there's a serious risk of fire because it generates a lot of heat near the core of the pile. Same principle with grass clippings. I don't know the whole deal with milk's possible problems, but having had some experience with expired jugs in the fridge, in a spill of mass quantities, there's certainly the potential for large-scale bacterial proliferation. Milk, like water, seeks the lowest level and seeps into water systems. With 10,000 - 20,000-gallon tanks, yeah, it might not be a bad idea for farmers and dairy transport companies to have a plan for containment if they spring a leak. If you ever saw the Salmon carcass's rotting in a river after spawning you would not be worrying about a few gallons of milk. There's a reason drinking water has always been chlorinated. Water ALWAYS has bacteria in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 But ridiculous none the less. It's all relative dude. Pay attention, Geno. The issue is not about the environmental effects of a large milk spill, but the environmental effects of the non-petroleum oil found in milk. Which begs the question; what other products contain non-petroleum oil, and what happens if they spill? Does the maker of non-petroleum lip balm have an emergency plan in place in the event there's a problem at their plant? Are people threatened with death because some lip balm may get into the lake? Maybe. If there are significant environmental impacts related to a massive lip balm spill, there should be regulations in place to mitigate that risk. And while we're running around creating regulations for things that rarely ever happen, I have to wonder, what plans do skateboard companies have if a truck carrying skateboards flips over on the highway, and people swerve to avoid them, and get stuck on the skateboards and their cars suddenly start doing a Crooked Grind or an FS540...or maybe even the more dangerous Caballerial!!! What is their plan to stop this from happening?!?!!? Because PEOPLE CAN DIE!!!! Is this a serious argument? Just in case it was...our second logical fallacy of the day is: Reductio Ad Absurdum (Reduction to the Absurd): A form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence. Progressive freaks. It's a wonder any of you beat the other hundred million sperm. You are absolutely deluded by your partisanship. If you ever saw the Salmon carcass's rotting in a river after spawning you would not be worrying about a few gallons of milk. There's a reason drinking water has always been chlorinated. Water ALWAYS has bacteria in it. That's not the point. You're comparing something that is naturally-occurring to a massive milk spill, which is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Just in case it was...our second logical fallacy of the day is: Reductio Ad Absurdum (Reduction to the Absurd): A form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence. Reductio ad absurdum isn't a logical fallacy, it's a recognized, valid form of argument. That's not the point. You're comparing something that is naturally-occurring to a massive milk spill, which is not. Now about the EPA classifying carbon dioxide as a pollutant... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) Reductio ad absurdum isn't a logical fallacy, it's a recognized, valid form of argument. Nerd fight! Depending on how it's used, it seems that Reductio Ad Absurdum can sometimes be co-classified as: Fallacy Of The General Rule: Assuming that something true in general is true in every possible case. Now about the EPA classifying carbon dioxide as a pollutant... If we weren't artificially affecting the amount of carbon dioxide in the environment, you would have a very good point. Edited February 2, 2011 by Gene Frenkle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 If we weren't artificially affecting the amount of carbon dioxide in the environment, you would have a very good point. If the EPA made that distinction, you'd have a very good counter-point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 If the EPA made that distinction, you'd have a very good counter-point. How does one distinguish man-made carbon dioxide from naturally-occurring carbon dioxide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 How does one distinguish man-made carbon dioxide from naturally-occurring carbon dioxide? Climate researchers do it all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Climate researchers do it all the time. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 How does one distinguish man-made carbon dioxide from naturally-occurring carbon dioxide? Ours smells like cheesy-poofs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts