Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Reductio ad absurdum is the technique of reducing an argument or hypothesis to absurdity, by pushing the argument's premises or conclusions to their logical limits and showing how ridiculous the consequences would be, thus disproving or discrediting the argument
What possible public interest is there in making marriage a privilege and granting government (state or federal) the power to regulate marriage?
Why should the government have ANY say in who you can or cannot marry?
I agree, Govt has NO business regulating or even keeping track of marriages. Is there ANY aspect of our lives that Govt has NOT intruded into? I cant think of any.
It maybe more extreme but it makes the point. There is a reason we have regulations. Think about poor countries that have none and when there is an earthquake, much of the city collapses and hundreds die. Compare what happens in CA and Japan. Yes, buildings collapse and people die but not nearly to the same extent.
BTW, you can kill yourself. Nobody is stopping you. Note: I am not encouraging you do so. That is your decision.
It maybe more extreme but it makes the point. There is a reason we have regulations. Think about poor countries that have none and when there is an earthquake, much of the city collapses and hundreds die. Compare what happens in CA and Japan. Yes, buildings collapse and people die but not nearly to the same extent.
BTW, you can kill yourself. Nobody is stopping you. Note: I am not encouraging you do so. That is your decision.
So, those people need to be left out in the rain. Looks like the are doing it with what they have. It is economic, not regulatory. Or was their a regulation and the government came in and tore it all down after the photo?
This isn't the case of some guy using rain barrels to collect the water running of his room. He actually built multiple reservoirs on creeks that flowed across his land. These reservoirs held over 13 MILLION gallons of water, that could no longer flow downstream to his neighbors. He wasn't collecting water, he was destroying all of the ecosystem that no longer had a natural water source.
If anything that man is an example of exactly why we need government regulations. No person's activities on their land should be able to destroy the value of anyone else's privately held lands nor that of those held in the public trust.
Nope, as once full, they over flow into the natural state down stream.
Nope, as once full, they over flow into the natural state down stream.
Not if you put a damn in. As he did. Making larger and larger ones over time, eventually reaching over 20ft in height.
Would you like to debate the change to an ecosystem and hydrology of an area of removing 13 millions of gallons of water?
Or the riparian rights of those downstream? He opens and closes his dams at his whim, potentially damning other people's property. Does someone upstream from Mr. Harrington have the right to completely divert the creek (something Mr. Harrington has done as well) so that he gets no water? Or the fact he was upstream from the town water supply? Does he get to take away the natural water supply of an entire town?
But, it's OK to complain about Trump on here, but not over regulation that's been going on for many, many decades, but mainly since the 1960's? The Feds over regulate too as do state and local governments, and we do take it up with them, and we do vote. Guess only liberal drivel is allowed? Right?
No, not at all. Feel free to post your drivel as well.
Not if you put a damn in. As he did. Making larger and larger ones over time, eventually reaching over 20ft in height.
Would you like to debate the change to an ecosystem and hydrology of an area of removing 13 millions of gallons of water?
Or the riparian rights of those downstream? He opens and closes his dams at his whim, potentially damning other people's property. Does someone upstream from Mr. Harrington have the right to completely divert the creek (something Mr. Harrington has done as well) so that he gets no water?
Just like the LaHood's did to the miners in Pale Rider. We all know how that ended.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
