Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

bostonbananarama t1_j5wafcv wrote

Reply to comment by -Horatio_Alger_Jr- in Mattress recycling and the personal responsibility argument in climate change by cowboy_dude_6

You bought the house, you used the house, why should I have to pay the people who put it out when it's on fire?

It's the same argument. What makes one "right" and one "wrong"? It's just a question where you draw the line.

28

-Horatio_Alger_Jr- t1_j5wglvz wrote

This is a stupid argument. That fire puts others in danger.

My house leaks water. That water creates black mold. Should the public have to pay to have that drywall removed and disposed of?

−17

bostonbananarama t1_j5wjxbq wrote

Presumably mattress disposal was prohibited based on its dangers to the environment, which we all share. So a community could choose to use public funds to fund their recycling.

Would you prefer an analogy regarding a public park? We all pay for it because it is there for the benefit of us all. And, while some narrow-minded individuals could say, "I have a yard at my house, why should I pay for that", it still isn't a good argument against it.

11

-Horatio_Alger_Jr- t1_j5wmlza wrote

Black mold is a danger to the environment. The public should have to pay to get that removed from my private property. No?

−2

bostonbananarama t1_j5wo2xz wrote

> Black mold is a danger to the environment.

Is it? Seems naturally occurring to me, and only dangerous to people who enter your home. In other words, not a public benefit. But in the end, it's all where we, as society, decide to draw the line.

6

CertifiedBlackGuy t1_j5wqhex wrote

If your homeowner insurance covers it, then yes, the public is paying for that drywall to be removed and disposed of.

That's all public services really are, insurance but through the government.

7