murdering_time t1_jcocq3c wrote on March 18, 2023 at 8:55 AM

Reply to comment by nutmeggerking in Levels of carcinogenic chemical near Ohio derailment site far above safe limit by Additional-Force-795

Yeah, you obviously don't want the government looking out for it's citizens health. They should just get cancer and deal with it the old fashioned way, by going into massive amounts of debt!

nutmeggerking t1_jcodtx5 wrote on March 18, 2023 at 9:12 AM

Isn't that what the citizens of Ohio keep insisting on?

I liken it to someone refusing to buy insurance and then pleading for a bailout when disaster strikes.

All those "bad government regulations" were meant to prevent this stuff from happening. You know, the regulations that the right wing has been actively undermining and dismantling for like half a century now. And it's not like it's the politicians that are doing it secretly. It's literally what the average GOP voter wants and calls for: fewer regulations and super low taxes. So here you are: no regulations to stop this from happening, and no welfare safety net to help out if disaster strikes.

They made this bed, it's time they learn from it. Otherwise, these instances will only increase and the red state voters will insist on bailouts while continuing to vote for deregulation. As the conservative adage goes: give a man a fish, yatta yatta, teach a man to appreciate regulations and there might still be healthy fish left for you to catch.

Mydickradiates t1_jcpvwkf wrote on March 18, 2023 at 5:16 PM

that is not the right thing to do from a public health standpoint. It might be the right thing to do from a political standpoint, provided you are on the opposite side. It is not clear what to do from an ethical standpoint, provided that you are on the opposite side. if you had family that was stuck in the area that shared your political opinion would you feel different

ethics can be funny selfish things

nutmeggerking t1_jcq47o4 wrote on March 18, 2023 at 6:12 PM

That makes no sense

Mydickradiates t1_jcq4muk wrote on March 18, 2023 at 6:15 PM

I guess it depends whether I was understanding you right, are you saying don't bother helping these people they made their bed now they can own it and hopefully that induces them to change? Because that would be bad for public health. I feel like if people who thought they shouldn't do anything to help these folks knew some of them they might think different. That's basically what I was saying

nutmeggerking t1_jcq7ufl wrote on March 18, 2023 at 6:37 PM

>Because that would be bad for public health.

I'd make an argument that it would be in the public interest to not bail them out. If you keep voting with the mentality of "I got mine, fuck you" and insist on voting for deregulations and taxes then stick to your principles and don't go running to the government for a bailout.

Maybe they will learn a lesson about why regulations and government are important the next time they decide to vote.

Something Something personal responsibility, something something rugged individualism, something something boot straps.

Mydickradiates t1_jcqwvm9 wrote on March 18, 2023 at 9:37 PM

unfortunately it is an ecosystem and what they do affects you, and I would prefer not to wait on them to learn the hard way or otherwise. but you can't just not help them either, so you're stuck with helping them as a humanitarian need, while acknowledging they would have been a drag either way. I have low confidence they will even learn the hard way. But then we will on top of that have a standard of not helping people as a gov't and that's not good either

so your fantasy remains fantasy I guess