Raider5678

Why did Prohibition fail? It had majority consensus, AND it was made the law. Yet, it ultimately failed and was later repealed. Explain that then. Why did the war on drugs fail? It had majority support, AND it was made the law. Yet, it ultimately failed, and some states have started repealing laws pertaining to it.(I.E. colorado and pot) Explain that then. I'm now of the mind that neither of us can really prove our position. Both of our argument's lie on a position we don't have evidence on. So I'm not going to try and argue this.

More on topic, more evidence law's don't change the culture.

For the first example, you talked about seat belts being legally required. You mention the 60s. Seatbelt wearing wasn't mandatory in the UK for front seat drivers until 1983, and not for everyone in the car until 1989. 20 years is a big difference between your memory of when you apologized for wearing seatbelts, to when it became law. Additionally, you even mentioned bad drivers out there as your excuse for wearing one. I have a suspicion that you weren't one of the only people who thought like that, and that it was a lot more commonplace as the years went on. By the time 1989 came around, enough politicians shared the same viewpoint and it finally became law in 1983/1989. For your second example, you talk about drunk driving and how legislation forced that change. Drunk driving in the UK became illegal in 1966. But, drunk driving deaths hit an all-time high between 1969 and 1975 with over 35% of automobile accidents were due to alcohol. So the legislation in 1966 apparently didn't really deter people for at least 10 years. Then in 1976 anti-drunk driving groups, run by civilians who lost loved ones(I.E. not the government) began massive campaigns against drunk driving. What followed? A massive drop in drunk driving accidents. So in your first example, the cultural change appears to come long prior to the legislation, due to common sense. In your second example, the cultural change appears to come long after the legislation, due to civilian campaigns. In neither of your examples does historical dates and statistics show that legislation changed the culture.

Law very rarely changes the mindset of the people. You can't legislate cultural change, I agree with John on that. Quite often, the law is a result of the cultural change, not the other way around. We outlawed slavery, it existed in other forms for years afterward. We outlawed racist laws, racism still exists. We outlawed gender discrimination, it still exists. Outlawing it means that legal obstacles are no longer there(Or are now there) to prevent(or encourage) a particular action on the legislative side of things. Cultural obstacles is a different thing because that requires a change of mindset, not law.

You can only shoot one gun at a time.

Exactly.

Ultimately this statement is true. Now keeping the guns out of the hands of people who do is the key. Also known as gun control.

IMO the American people aren't like a courtroom. Doesn't work like that. In court, if evidence(DNC emails) is obtained illegally(through hacking), that evidence is to be thrown out and can't be used. However, since American people don't simply ignore evidence against the DNC simply because Russians hacked it, they meddled in the elections. My very honest opinion, if you want it, is that the best way to avoid being ambushed is to not be pulling BS like that in the first place. If the DNC hadn't been lying to people in the first place, covering things up, and rigging the democratic nomination regardless of how votes went, the emails wouldn't have caused anywhere near as much damage. The horrible crime the Russian hackers did was publish nearly 20,000 emails. On top of that, the DNC had ANOTHER opportunity to fix it. They could have said something like "We're doing an internal review. People were caught lying to voters, people were caught hiding things, people were caught rigging the elections, these same people will be investigated and probably fired. We, as the Democratic National Convention, do not tolerate corruption and will take all actions possible to get rid of it in our party." And then they could have followed through with it. https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/26/us/2016-presidential-campaign-hacking-fast-facts/index.html (unless CNN is controlled by Russian hackers and so are all the sources they've listed, the information I've posted here is in that link) And this link outlines some of the things the emails say. Racist things(Skip to the last one on the page for that one), corruption, trying to rig the primaries, etc. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37639370

Or RCS.

I don't even use it for that TBH.

I get what you're saying, but I feel that offering people money(Okay, to be fair, tax credits are basically that) to not pollute stuff as much is not going to be enough. Isn't that essentially what I proposed? Giving people money to research what the governments wants you to? I mean, yes, it's very much worded differently, but the concept is mostly the same is it not? Fair enough. Obviously, however, I have stated I have no intention of getting rid of other steps we're already taking.

As long as it's more accurate then WebMD. According to them, I'm pregnant, and I'm suffering from advanced testicular cancer as well.

Form a hypothesis that can be tested. Form an experiment that can then test the hypothesis, can be replicated easily and is measurable. Perform the experiment. Compare the results with the hypothesis. What is your hypothesis here?

And how would we do that?

Reminds me of the most offensive joke in history. It's about one of the worst times in human history.

I read your point on seawater and explained why it didn't relate. Where did you catch me with my pants down? I'll be honest, I'm just gonna ignore your posts in this thread from this point on. So I guess that'd be me.

I don't follow. Where did I singularly dismiss potential consequences as affronts to me personally? Check more often. https://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/pdf/t1p01p1.pdf

We're already trying to reduce and cease dependency on fossil fuels. So, that'd be inside of the "what we're already doing" category. Fair enough. I do owe you an apology, as I was wrong.

No, I very clearly said we shouldn't stop what we were already doing, but that we needed additional steps to be taken. Gas light much?

You took what I said out of context. So no. I said it didn't mean anything because what I did would not impact the amount of ocean acidification in a negative way.

So, removing Co2 from the atmosphere is worse than doing nothing because? Ocean acidification happens, we all know that, but it's not like it's going to make it worse to remove Co2 from the atmosphere. I remember that now.

I'm confused now. Who buries their grass?

More carbon to the roots would mean less carbon being released when the grass is cut though right? Which number was conservative? They call it a leaf. I mean, I understand now that it's bacteria, but that threw me way off.

Where did I say it didn't mean anything? Additionally, ocean acidification from carbon dioxide happens even without plants, due to the large surface area of the ocean absorbing Co2. This will happen with or without me doing anything, so I fail to see how it's relevant nor why it means I'm in over my head.

Okay, grass growing has carbon in it correct? Due to how decomposing plants work, the carbon will be released back into the atmosphere everytime it's cut right? If the GE grass is more efficient at releasing excess co2 back into the soil as SOC(Soil Organic Carbon), then not as much carbon would be in the grass when it's cut. Since less carbon is in the cut grass, when it does decompose less carbon will be released. Every time you cut your grass, the additional amount of carbon that would have been released wouldn't be there. Over time, that amount adds up, albeit in small amounts. If I'm completely wrong then I am, however, I keep googling it and reading stuff that says this is what can happen, and if it can happen the GE can make it more efficient.