• Conservative Americans Protest Enviromental Regulations in a Reasonable Way
    178 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Cheshire_cat;45310814]It would be interesting to see how they would pass emission tests, as most cars fail the test without a catalytic converter installed. Not to mention that it's illegal to drive around without one, but that's much more difficult to notice if you're not a mechanic.[/QUOTE] I live in bum-fuck Illinois surrounded by farms and by even more younger guys with mom or dads credit card that have these big, modified diesels. In Illinois, there isn't really any real emission regulation, and driving without a cat on your truck isn't all uncommon. It's weird to think that in a place like California they would all be screwed.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;45310799]So, since your family owns diesel trucks, you would know that with the current EPA regulations on diesels, that fuel economy has taken a GIANT hit. If I were to go out and buy an older F-250, I could program it and get 20+ mpg. On a new one, you would have to replace the ENTIRE exhaust system and remove all of the EPA bullshit to get close to 20 mpg. The EPA has hurt the diesel community and doesn't care about it's effects on people. So I think these people are legit in their protests against the EPA.[/QUOTE] If you want to change your exhaust to be more efficient for mileage, all the power to you, but changing the exhaust on your truck doesn't automatically cause it to roll coal and billow smoke at every light. If you want to worry about your mileage you're not going to be revving your engine at a dead stop to lay clouds of smoke down on the cars around you, or blasting away from lights. If you cared about your fuel economy you'd have your truck chipped to that, not smoke. It's bullshit to say it's for protesting reasons. That's like gun nuts using the Obama administration as an excuse to buy another AR, even though they would have bought another anyways regardless of who was in office, and then calling that purchase a protest of government encroaching on our second amendment rights. [editline]6th July 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Cheshire_cat;45310814]It would be interesting to see how they would pass emission tests, as most cars fail the test without a catalytic converter installed. Not to mention that it's illegal to drive around without one, but that's much more difficult to notice if you're not a mechanic.[/QUOTE] Here in Indiana we have zero tests for our cars. You can do whatever you want.
[QUOTE=Cheshire_cat;45310814]It would be interesting to see how they would pass emission tests, as most cars fail the test without a catalytic converter installed. Not to mention that it's illegal to drive around without one, but that's much more difficult to notice if you're not a mechanic.[/QUOTE] You do realize that not everywhere has emissions tests right? My old F-150 hasn't had catalytic converters since 2008. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45310842]answer me this are regulations on pollution standards bad by default or just bad because they inconvenience people? and do you agree with this statement;[/QUOTE] I would say regulations on pollution standards are good, but can go too far, like when they actually sacrifice fuel economy. Also, just because YOU and to a degree I want a small carbon footprint doesn't mean that everyone else wants one or should be forced to drive something they don't want to. I mean how retarded is it that our regulations are too strict even for foreign diesels to be imported? That hurts us more than it helps us.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;45310916]You do realize that not everywhere has emissions tests right? My old F-150 hasn't had catalytic converters since 2008. I would say regulations on pollution standards are good, but can go too far, like when they actually sacrifice fuel economy. Also, just because YOU and to a degree I want a small carbon footprint doesn't mean that everyone else wants one or should be forced to drive something they don't want to. I mean how retarded is it that our regulations are too strict even for foreign diesels to be imported? That hurts us more than it helps us.[/QUOTE] Why should people be allowed to have a large imprint on an environment they do not own [editline]6th July 2014[/editline] Should I be able to pump leaded gasoline into the air? Regardless of your answer, think about it. You're saying it's okay to have a large environmental impact without reason, that's just an americans right. Well, if you believe that, then of course it has to be okay to pump leaded gasoline into the air regardless of it's impact on the envrionment
[QUOTE=Chaplin;45309981]i know that there's people who oppose legislation because polluting is often more economic than not, but actually wanting pollution? captain planet is rolling in his grave smh[/QUOTE] Wait when did Captain Planet die? Please tell me this isn't true. Don't ruin my day.
People may be environmental nuts, but like other nuts you don't push them too far.
People who seriously think this is a good idea should be made to actually breath the shit they're spewing into the air.
I think if you're caught with a kit that makes your engine spew out smoke like this, should be punishable by up to 8 years in prison, along with your truck being impounded and destroyed with you being forced to watch it get cubified.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;45310916]You do realize that not everywhere has emissions tests right? My old F-150 hasn't had catalytic converters since 2008. [/QUOTE] That is the kind of shit that people should get massive fines / lose their licences for. Regardless of where you live.
God they're gonna feel like such cunts when we run out of gas and Prius drivers are the new master race
[QUOTE=Antdawg;45311398]That is the kind of shit that people should get massive fines / lose their licences for. Regardless of where you live.[/QUOTE] And why is that?
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;45311537]And why is that?[/QUOTE] You have no right to ruin an environment you do not own
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45311581]You have no right to ruin an environment you do not own[/QUOTE] And you have no right to tell others how to live or what to do. Also, if we have no right to ruin an environment that we do not own, we have no right to expand cities, build houses, or anything else that involves cutting down trees, destroying wildlife, or any modification of mother nature. So if you want to run down that path, you better be pretty knowledgeable on living off of the land in nothing but a leaf to cover your private areas.
There is a difference between building houses (which we kinda need) and driving a vehicle that emits unnecessary amounts of harmful particles and gasses Edit: Also yes we should be able to do if your actions has an impact on others
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;45311614]And you have no right to tell others how to live or what to do.[/QUOTE] Congrats, you've just advocated an anarchistic world, in which it's totes fine to shoot somebody in the face because nobody has any right to tell you how to live or what to do. We absolutely have no right to deliberately impede on someone else's health for no reason, that's fucking bullshit.
[QUOTE=BreenIsALie;45311683]There is a difference between building houses (which we kinda need) and driving a vehicle that emits unnecessary amounts of harmful particles and gasses Edit: Also yes we should be able to do if your actions has an impact on others[/QUOTE] "what we need" is not his argument though. His argument is that we don't have a right to impact an environment we don't own. In that case, say goodbye to all of our technology and everything else because everything has an impact on the environment. [QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;45311712]Congrats, you've just advocated an anarchistic world, in which it's totes fine to shoot somebody in the face because nobody has any right to tell you how to live or what to do. We absolutely have no right to deliberately impede on someone else's health for no reason, that's fucking bullshit.[/QUOTE] So you're saying we SHOULD have a right to force others to live how we want to live? Sweet. In that case, everyone should go buy hunting gear and go hunting and live off of that meat, because livestock farming hurts the environment and hunting is more green. That should be something the EPA implements right now 100%. Do you see how that could cause shit?????
anyone who does this should seriously consider killing themselves. [QUOTE=seano12;45310198]I see nothing wrong with this. It sounds and looks pretty cool, like a modern steam train.[/QUOTE] how are you not banned yet
People who do this shit for the sake of [i]not[/i] supporting the president in office, just to spite the administration or whatever, are fucking assholes.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;45311766]"what we need" is not his argument though. His argument is that we don't have a right to impact an environment we don't own. In that case, say goodbye to all of our technology and everything else because everything has an impact on the environment. So you're saying we SHOULD have a right to force others to live how we want to live? Sweet. In that case, everyone should go buy hunting gear and go hunting and live off of that meat, because livestock farming hurts the environment and hunting is more green. That should be something the EPA implements right now 100%. Do you see how that could cause shit?????[/QUOTE] Should you be allowed to smoke in a family restaurant?
[QUOTE=OvB;45311796]Should you be allowed to smoke in a family restaurant?[/QUOTE] I think the restaurant should make that decision, and the public should decide weather or not they want to eat there.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;45311766] stuff[/QUOTE] Building houses etc. serve a purpose. Kitting your truck out to be as obnoxious as possible serves no purpose other than to be a giant dick.
[QUOTE=EXPLOOOSIONS!;45311818]Building houses etc. serve a purpose. Kitting your truck out to be as obnoxious as possible serves no purpose other than to be a giant dick.[/QUOTE] Except the added power output serves a purpose. But once again, "serving a purpose" wasn't the argument. The argument was that we don't have a right to harm an environment that we don't own. So either we don't have that right and we can go back to the stone age, or we can realize that that's a stupid thing to say and isn't true.
I am 100% completely apathetic to the environment and I think these guys are fucking morons. Stop rolling coal you monumental douchebags. [QUOTE=ElectricSquid;45310055]I don't understand, how fucking dense do you have to be to do this? It's not about politics or the fucking Obama administration, it's about the goddamn planet. God this pisses me off. Enough that I'd want to vandalize one of those fucking cars, I mean holy shit that's [I]stupid.[/I] Sometimes I fucking hate people in this country.[/QUOTE] While I feel the same way about coal rollers as you do, vandalizing their trucks over it is just as stupid as rolling coal is to begin with.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;45311614]And you have no right to tell others how to live or what to do. Also, if we have no right to ruin an environment that we do not own, we have no right to expand cities, build houses, or anything else that involves cutting down trees, destroying wildlife, or any modification of mother nature. So if you want to run down that path, you better be pretty knowledgeable on living off of the land in nothing but a leaf to cover your private areas.[/QUOTE] "Dude stop shitting in that drinking fountain." "FUCK YOU YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO!"
There's no reason to hurt the environment without a clear, worthwhile benefit. Chopping down forests to build cities gives people a place to live. Mining rare minerals to make computers greatly advances our efficiency and lets us communicate globally. Pouring excessive pollutants into the air because "I like how it looks better" or "it saves me 2 mpg" is not a worthwhile benefit.
This stuff looks nasty, and the people doing it seem to be doing it out of spite. What is banning it going to do though? Is it significantly more harmful? And banning it won't make the people doing it suddenly realize what they're doing wrong. They'll likely just respond to with more aggression. Actually changing culture like this takes time, and lashing out aggressively only makes it worse. Angrily responding is partially why we're so politically polarized right now.
[QUOTE=Rubs10;45311952]What is banning it going to do though? Is it significantly more harmful?[/QUOTE] Creating smokescreens on the road is a hazard. This isn't mario kart, you aren't allowed to fuck with the people behind you while driving.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;45311614]And you have no right to tell others how to live or what to do. Also, if we have no right to ruin an environment that we do not own, we have no right to expand cities, build houses, or anything else that involves cutting down trees, destroying wildlife, or any modification of mother nature. So if you want to run down that path, you better be pretty knowledgeable on living off of the land in nothing but a leaf to cover your private areas.[/QUOTE] Uh, what? Do you think that we should be using leaded gasoline, yes or no [editline]6th July 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45310928]Why should people be allowed to have a large imprint on an environment they do not own [editline]6th July 2014[/editline] Should I be able to pump leaded gasoline into the air? Regardless of your answer, think about it. You're saying it's okay to have a large environmental impact without reason, that's just an americans right. Well, if you believe that, then of course it has to be okay to pump leaded gasoline into the air regardless of it's impact on the envrionment[/QUOTE] Hell, just answer this already bud
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;45311865]Except the added power output serves a purpose. But once again, "serving a purpose" wasn't the argument. The argument was that we don't have a right to harm an environment that we don't own. So either we don't have that right and we can go back to the stone age, or we can realize that that's a stupid thing to say and isn't true.[/QUOTE] Except you can build new houses/businesses/roads or whatever and still make it sustainable. You can design new developments to have no or even a positive impact on the environment. On the other hand, not having a catalytic converter on your car to filter out the worst of your engine fumes will never be sustainable, and will never have a benefit to the environment.
They are not doing it out of spite. It's not particularly a long standing cultural anything, only in the last 5 years has it come into favor really. It needs to be cracked down on by law enforcement, call it a hazard to motorists (Which it is if you haven't ever been behind someone rolling coal in traffic) and cite them a hefty fine. Passing legislation for mandatory exhaust inspections doesn't work since they will just go to crooked inspectors and get a false pass. That's what they already do in states like Hawaii. I just think that there needs be a crackdown by police on citing people for it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.