Reading through the Supreme Court EPA case syllabus

[Mr_Reasonable]

@origami

No, what I mean is, that’s why people were maybe initially impressed by the airtight moralism of your type, but are progressively taking you less and less seriously.

You’re an idiot, but by choice.

Like I said, because that is the only way communism can thrive. Inform yourself, and it’s all over.

how could debating the minutia of a scotus ruling on a website be anything other than a waste of time?

[origami]

Look, our position is this: what is a waste of time is having an opinion on a Supreme Court ruling without even deigning yourself to flip through it.

You are an idiot, a relaying station for some propaganda outlet or another.

100 pages. Less. Simple, straightforward language.

Didn’t you graduate Magna Cum Laude from someplace?

[origami]

What is even more to the point is that not only do you not read it, but you refuse to read it. It is important that you don’t. Communism doesn’t simply include ignorance, it requires it.

[Mr_Reasonable]

i gotta be real with you man just running around calling everyone communist is a little bizarre. no one else calls me a communist

[Mr_Reasonable]

i heard the word “poop deck” about a ship and just spent 20 minutes going down a google search rabbit hole where you scroll down the results and it shows questions that people have asked and there were questions like "how did pirates poop? and “why is my poop so thin?” and i gotta tell you that it felt like a much better use of time than to pour over a scotus decision.

i mean really though, if it’s so important to you, it’s a bit odd that you give up on your position just as soon as someone asks if you’re against clean air.

do some work man. sell your position. i don’t even know what that position is at this point other than that you think this decision somehow owns the commies and that you love clearance thomas.

[Mr_Reasonable]

also just so you know…word is that pirates would wipe their asses with a rag tied to a rope, then throw it in the water off the side of the ship so when the next pirate had to poop they’d have a clean rag again what with the ocean washing off all the poop from the previous pirate. also, if your poop is consistently skinny then you may have some kind of blockage or even cancer so maybe get that checked

[origami]

@Mr Reasonable

i gotta be real with you man just running around calling everyone communist is a little bizarre. no one else calls me a communist

Anything to not read the thing, man, it’s impressive.

And yet dumb commies like you will hold 1000x more strongly to their position, be 1000x more fanatical about it.

@Mr Reasonable

do some work man. sell your position.

My position is that if you espouse an opinion on something you know nothing about because you read a twatter about it, you are an idiot.

So, I think I’m selling that pretty well. I don’t even have to sell it, it sells itself.

I mean look at you. You’re out here talking about thin shit. That is how far you dumb commies will go to avoid spending a single second informing yourselves about these issues you have such strong opinions on.

[origami]

Like if I have a message it’s this: communists don’t need to be convinced, they need to be ignored.

You understand, on a political level. Debating important issues with dumb animals is an actual waste of time.

What the Supreme Court has done is basically that. Pointless to address the objections of mindless idiots with no knowledge and an agenda.

Be rational, be clear, be precise, and the people who matter will understand what you are doing.

I think a good gauge for how well this strategy works will be how Republicans do in November. If they do well, that’s a signal that addressing communists is a mistake of the dumb. Just call them leftist maniacs, which they are, and proceed to make your point. Assume most people are sane, so to speak.

[origami]

This case, this decision, is a monumental victory for clear thinking.

Government agencies have been getting away with murder imposing random communist agendas with no oversight and no democratic approval. Now you have been called out. You can’t just arbitrarily impose, you have to make your case. And good luck with that when you can’t even explain what you don’t like about a simple 100 page paper.

[Mr_Reasonable]

what position am i holding? i just asked a question. also be real about the commie stuff it’s just weird. like in real life do you run around just calling everyone commies? like who even talks like that?

[origami]

Right, that dumb shit is just not gonna fly.

[origami]

Before this dumb digression, this is where we were: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 3#p2880267

@origami

Long quote incoming, bear with me:

The Clean Air Act establishes three main regulatory pro-
grams to control air pollution from stationary sources such
as power plants. Clean Air Amendments of 1970, 84 Stat.
1676, 42 U. S. C. §7401 et seq. One program is the New
Source Performance Standards program of Section 111, at
issue here. The other two are the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) program, set out in Sections
108 through 110 of the Act, 42 U. S. C. §§7408–7410, and
the Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) program, set out in
Section 112, §7412. To understand the place and function
of Section 111 in the statutory scheme, some background on
the other two programs is in order.

The NAAQS program addresses air pollutants that “may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or wel-
fare,” and “the presence of which in the ambient air results
from numerous or diverse mobile or stationary sources.”
§7408(a)(1). After identifying such pollutants, EPA estab-
lishes a NAAQS for each. The NAAQS represents “the max-
imum airborne concentration of [the] pollutant that the
public health can tolerate.” Whitman v. American Trucking
Assns., Inc., 531 U. S. 457, 465 (2001); see §7409(b). EPA,
though, does not choose which sources must reduce their
pollution and by how much to meet the ambient pollution
target. Instead, Section 110 of the Act leaves that task in
the first instance to the States, requiring each “to submit to
[EPA] a plan designed to implement and maintain such
standards within its boundaries.” Train v. Natural Re-
sources Defense Council, Inc., 421 U. S. 60, 65 (1975); §7410.
The second major program governing stationary sources
is the HAP program. The HAP program primarily targets
pollutants, other than those already covered by a NAAQS,
that present “a threat of adverse human health effects,” in-
cluding substances known or anticipated to be “carcino -
genic, mutagenic, teratogenic, neurotoxic,” or otherwise
“acutely or chronically toxic.” §7412(b)(2).

EPA’s regulatory role with respect to these toxic pollu-
tants is different in kind from its role in administering the
NAAQS program. There, EPA is generally limited to deter-
mining the maximum safe amount of covered pollutants in
the air. As to each hazardous pollutant, by contrast, the
Agency must promulgate emissions standards for both new
and existing major sources. §7412(d)(1). Those standards
must “require the maximum degree of reduction in emis-
sions . . . that the [EPA] Administrator, taking into consid-
eration the cost of achieving such emission reduction, and
any non-air quality health and environmental impacts and
energy requirements, determines is achievable . . . through
application of measures, proc esses, methods, systems or
techniques” of emission reduction. §7412(d)(2). In other
words, EPA must directly require all covered sources to re-
duce their emissions to a certain level. And it chooses that
level by determining the “maximum degree of reduction” it
considers “achievable” in practice by using the best existing
technologies and methods. §7412(d)(3).

Thus, in the parlance of environmental law, Section 112
directs the Agency to impose “technology-based standard[s]
for hazardous emissions,” Alaska Dept. of Environmental
Conservation v. EPA, 540 U. S. 461, 485, n. 12 (2004) (em-
phasis added). This sort of “‘technology-based’ approach fo-
cuses upon the control technologies that are available to in-
dustrial entities and requires the agency to . . . ensur[e]
that regulated firms adopt the appropriate cleanup technol-
ogy.” T. McGarity, Media-Q uality, Technology, and Cost-
Benefit Balancing Strategies for Health and Environmen-
tal Regulation, 46 Law & Contemp. Prob. 159, 160 (Summer
1983) (McGarity). (Such “technologies” are not limited to
literal technology, such as scrubbers; “changes in the design
and operation” of the facility, or “in the way that employees
perform their tasks,” are also available options. Id., at 163,
n. 18.)

The third air pollution control scheme is the New Source
Performance Standards program of Section 111. §7411.
That section directs EPA to list “categories of stationary
sources” that it determines “cause, or contribute signifi-
cantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated
to endanger public health or welfare.” §7411(b)(1)(A)

What the justices are doing here is laying out, with specific references, something we all already know but commies operate by pretending like we don’t all already know: the EPA was founded for and is tasked with avoiding pollution in the air that is bad for your health. It was not founded for or tasked with regulating the planet’s atmosphere to avoid some hypothetical future carbon-induced apocalypse. There is a difference between determining what substances are very bad for your health in the air and what can be done to reduce them, and saving the world from climactic change.

Everybody knows this intuitively. Conservatives know it and now and then are brave enough to say it, and communists know it but pretend like they don’t so that they can twist an existing legal organization into something new that they can’t get passed in Congress.

Now, the Supreme Court is brave enough to lay it on paper, and have done us the favour of pointing out the specific regulations and legislations that describe what only a profound ill intention tries to tell us is not the truth.

[Mr_Reasonable]

come on man. you pretend to want to talk about this case, and one question sends you into a page and a half of ad homs and commie bashing that’s wild. just explain yourself whenever you’re ready

[Mr_Reasonable]

so you’re just happy that a regulatory agency has been weakened? that’s it?

[origami]

@Mr Reasonable

come on man. you pretend to want to talk about this case, and one question sends you into a page and a half of ad homs and commie bashing that’s wild. just explain yourself whenever you’re ready

Go cry about it somewhere else.

[origami]

@Mr Reasonable

so you’re just happy that a regulatory agency has been weakened? that’s it?

I can’t even begin with how dumb this quesiton is.

Be honest, you cheated on all your exams.

[origami]

Here’s a challenge for you, quote something from the decision that you don’t like.

[Mr_Reasonable]

that’s 2 questions you’ve refused to answer. i’m not going to read a 100 page scotus decision that idgaf about. especially not when it’s apparent that you’re whole take is simple, “regulashun bad…weakening regulaterz gud”. there isn’t anything stimulating about watching you try and intellectualize such a simplistic view

[Mr_Reasonable]

i expect better out of you than this

[origami]

Except I have quoted extensively and provided ample reasoning.

All you have done is shoot out retarded one-liners that you evidently took from twatter somewhere like a braying sheep.

I’m happy with my position.