So, the EPA Supreme Court case brought into focus the EPA. Elsewhere, we have been deeply offended by communists trying to emit opinions on the case without reading it. Here, we will require no such thing. It is unrelated to the case and specifically to discuss what the role of the EPA is, what it should be, and practical implications of both.
Ok, that is one specific scenario of one specific thing you think the EPA should somehow influence.
Can we get you maybe to flesh out what that implies in terms of what you think the EPA should be involved with, and how?
i think it’s pretty self explanatory no?
You know, at the risk of intellectualizing.
I know in your head you think so, but it really isn’t.
well, if someone does something that ends up damaging the environment such that others suffer as a result of it as in the case of superfund sites, the epa should act in such a way as to resolve the issue.
That’s pretty vague, no?
i think it’s pretty clear. it’s not a very complex idea.
No, it’s very vague.
The EPA is a very large organization with specific powers.
If they operated on the basis of anything remotely that vague, they would cease to exist within days.
Maybe the EPA should regulate second hand smoke by sending hitmen to kill smokers.
That conceivably fits within your definition.
i don’t understand why you’re trying to frame is as being vague that the epa should adminster the cleanup of superfund sites. or why you’re trying to link that to cigarette smoke.
who should hold responsible the parties that caused the environmental damage at superfund sites around the country? or should they be held responsible at all?
Your specific example doesn’t serve as an idea of what the EPA should do. It defines nothing. As per the definition you did offer:
Sending hitmen to kill smokers fits.
i’m sorry, but there is nothing vague about the statement that the epa should administer the cleanup of superfund sites. you can expand and contract definitions by comparing a superfund site to a puff of cigarette smoke, but if you can’t grasp the absurdity of that then you aren’t ready for a real conversation about this
why are you pretending to not know the difference between a superfund site and 2nd hand cigarette smoke?
Of course I know many differences, which is why I brought up the counter example. I am trying to understand what is clear in your head but not clear to me, which is what the EPA’s role should be.
As it stands, all you have given us is this:
i think that’s the answer to the question. what else do you want? do you not think that the epa should administer the cleanup of superfund sites?
Maybe an answer that explains where you think the limit is, because
this easily includes wacking smokers.