dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
10

Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium Member
join:2005-03-12

Wolfie00 to CanadianRip

Premium Member

to CanadianRip

Re: [Rant] Backyard bonfires/fireplaces idiocy

said by CanadianRip:

Bah nanny state politics.

Let me get this straight, because someone doesn't know how to have a safe open fire?

The stench, smoke, and pollution of burning leaves or most any outdoor fire (leaves are the worst) is reason enough to ban it within city limits. Safety is another issue, potentially even more important out in the country. "Because someone doesn't know how to have a safe fire?" There's no way to know who is competent and who is an idiot. But the mistakes that idiots make -- such as, let's say as a for instance, starting a forest fire and maybe causing the evacuation and destruction of an entire village -- these mistakes affect all of us.

"Nanny state?" No, in the final analysis, the reasonable protection of the common public interest is a central purpose of government.
PX Eliezer704
Premium Member
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River

PX Eliezer704

Premium Member

Right.

I remember the smell of burning leaves too, from when I was a kid. That was about 50 years ago.

Times have changed a bit.

We know that air pollution is bad, that making smoke towards your neighbor is rude, and that not composting your leaves is wasteful.

-------------------------------------------------

Whether the present ecosystem was created by evolution, or by God, or by a combination of both, things have a purpose.

The leaves of summer and fall are excellent fertilizer for the next spring.
»greenliving.nationalgeog ··· 688.html

Burning leaves not only creates pollution, it also is downright cavalier and inefficient.

Mashiki
Balking The Enemy's Plans
join:2002-02-04
Woodstock, ON

1 recommendation

Mashiki to Wolfie00

Member

to Wolfie00
said by Wolfie00:

The stench, smoke, and pollution of burning leaves or most any outdoor fire (leaves are the worst) is reason enough to ban it within city limits. Safety is another issue, potentially even more important out in the country. "Because someone doesn't know how to have a safe fire?" There's no way to know who is competent and who is an idiot. But the mistakes that idiots make -- such as, let's say as a for instance, starting a forest fire and maybe causing the evacuation and destruction of an entire village -- these mistakes affect all of us.

"Nanny state?" No, in the final analysis, the reasonable protection of the common public interest is a central purpose of government.

Typical big city mentality. Stench, peh. Cities stink, and stink terribly. Sure there's a pollution factor, but compared to that lovely oozing haze from all those vehicles, and factories already? Negligible. Safety? Beh. "We have to watch over everyone's shoulder, because they're all small children." Please. That's the definition of a nanny state. If someone makes that large of a screw up you hold them accountable, not everyone.

The common public interest is to hold an individual accountable for their own actions. Not hold the government over everyone's head with a bludgeon saying "Do this, or else."
peterboro (banned)
Avatars are for posers
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON

peterboro (banned)

Member

said by Mashiki:

said by Wolfie00:

The stench, smoke, and pollution of burning leaves or most any outdoor fire (leaves are the worst) is reason enough to ban it within city limits.

Typical big city mentality. Stench, peh. Cities stink, and stink terribly.

+ 1

Like Kilgore said in Apocalypse Now, "I love the smell of napalm in the morning." same goes for burning grass.

milnoc
join:2001-03-05
Ottawa

milnoc to Mashiki

Member

to Mashiki
said by Mashiki:

The common public interest is to hold an individual accountable for their own actions. Not hold the government over everyone's head with a bludgeon saying "Do this, or else."

It's too bad that people are generally stupid and irresponsible by nature, and you can be certain that a person who does cause massive damage and death due to their neglect will NEVER accept responsibility for their actions even after being tried and convicted.

The nanny state approach is a necessary evil to protect the population against their own sheer stupidity.

Mashiki
Balking The Enemy's Plans
join:2002-02-04
Woodstock, ON

Mashiki

Member

said by milnoc:

It's too bad that people are generally stupid and irresponsible by nature, and you can be certain that a person who does cause massive damage and death due to their neglect will NEVER accept responsibility for their actions even after being tried and convicted.

The nanny state approach is a necessary evil to protect the population against their own sheer stupidity.

Couldn't quite follow that. Are you talking about all people, or a person? Because if you're talking about all society as a whole, perhaps we should just give nanny Dalton the keys and toss on bibs for us, and he can come spoon feed us our gruel every day. If a person screws up and badly, you hold them accountable. If someone is driving a car, and hits someone, do you hold all drivers accountable for hitting that person? No. If someone is having a BBQ, and they burn down their house, do you hold everyone with a BBQ responsible for it? Well, again the answer is no.

There is no reason for a nanny state approach, you hold an individual responsible for their actions. Not society responsible for their actions.

You know what nanny states get you? The UK, NYC, and the slippery slope downhill. Hey how's that "noxious weed" act these days. I've noticed a pretty good downward swing in monarch butterflies these days(milkweed is noxious now). Enjoy that nanny state.

milnoc
join:2001-03-05
Ottawa

1 edit

milnoc

Member

said by Mashiki:

Couldn't quite follow that. Are you talking about all people, or a person?

All people. Even the doctors, the scientists, and especially the politicians.
said by Mashiki:

If a person screws up and badly, you hold them accountable. If someone is driving a car, and hits someone, do you hold all drivers accountable for hitting that person? No. If someone is having a BBQ, and they burn down their house, do you hold everyone with a BBQ responsible for it? Well, again the answer is no.

But that's the problem. Accountability is almost pointless after people have already died needlessly. It's especially pointless when the guilty party won't even acknowledge their mistake, or are too poor to compensate the victims.

You have two choices. Punish someone after the fact for a mistake that they've made, or take away the opportunity for them to make that mistake in the first place. That's why society demands that people take the necessary precautions before doing any kind of work, or not do the work at all such as setting fires in an environment where that fire could harm or kill other people in their immediate surroundings, either by burnt ambers starting other fires, or the potentially toxic smoke from the fire seeping into another dwelling, harming and even potentially killing the inhabitants.

Idiocy is something that must absolutely be controlled. In fact, if we haven't done so already through various regulations, there would be many more deaths caused by acts of sheer stupidity than we have now.

urbanriot
Premium Member
join:2004-10-18
Canada

urbanriot to Mashiki

Premium Member

to Mashiki
said by Mashiki:

Typical big city mentality. Stench, peh. Cities stink, and stink terribly. Sure there's a pollution factor, but compared to that lovely oozing haze from all those vehicles, and factories already?

I support in-city banning of leaf burning as, in dense areas, that leave burning smoke can come into your home, especially if you left for the day with a few windows open, and seep into your clothes.

I don't give a shit about the alleged pollution or the smell itself, when the leaves are burned, I care about the dry cleaning bill afterwards. Some dickhead near me in St. Catharines engaged in a large burning of leaves and I had to dry clean a few suits to get the smell out.

In the country? Faraway neighbours can fuck off.

Mashiki
Balking The Enemy's Plans
join:2002-02-04
Woodstock, ON

Mashiki to milnoc

Member

to milnoc
said by milnoc:

But that's the problem. Accountability is almost pointless after people have already died needlessly. It's especially pointless when the guilty party won't even acknowledge their mistake, or are too poor to compensate the victims. ...

So, you're going to be the first one to get your own personal government mandated nannystate supervisor for when you go out driving. After all, you *might* hit someone, and for when you go out shopping. After all, wouldn't want you to overburden the healthcare system. And for when you go for a walk, after all, you might walk into something, or trip, and become a hazard on the roadway. And if you drive to work, we need one for that. Just incase you might hit someone, we'll need someone to watch out and brake, just incase you don't. In all those cases, you're becoming a hazard to people as well, so should we wrap you up into a bubble to protect us from you too?

After all, you could be an idiot. I just don't know, and there's no way to tell. And well, you're hurtling down the road in a death metal machine, and could hit that bus shelter and kill 40 people. It's no different than anything else.

milnoc
join:2001-03-05
Ottawa

1 recommendation

milnoc

Member

said by Mashiki:

So, you're going to be the first one to get your own personal government mandated nannystate supervisor for when you go out driving.

We already have that. It's called license and registration.

And I'm just as susceptible to acts of stupidity as everyone else.

As for licensing walkers, that wouldn't be a bad idea! I frequently walk to work and back, and I'm amazed at how many people truly don't pay attention to where they're walking, especially those with headphones on their heads or cellphones in their hands!

And don't get me started with Montreal cyclists! Sheesh!