Can Anyone Explain How Defecation Laws Make Any Sense?

[Rick]

Jim I'm not making light of your position.

I was just trying to show that unlike "Public Nudity" there is a clear federal standard concerning human excrement.

I searched High and Low there is NO uniform standard and as far as I can tell no federal standard at all concerning public nudity (there have been rulings by district and supreme courts but they generally don't involve folks walking around nekked). You however may be more successful.

I kinda VIEW public nudity by the same rule of thumb applied to spandex (especially in the event I might be EXPOSED to the nekked them self) ---it's a privileged not a right...

[Guinevere]

Jim I'm not making light of your position.

I was just trying to show that unlike "Public Nudity" there is a clear federal standard concerning human excrement.

No, there isn't, not in the context in which the question was presented. Humans themselves are not regulated under the CWA. Their waste is, if discharged into a regulated system. But if you crap on the sidewalk, the environmental police aren't going to come after you, nor is EPA (although the local police might, because crapping on the sidewalk is more likely a violation of state and local health codes, and I could probably make a case that its a violation of some zoning laws, too).

Oh, and in fact, most of the regulation of sewage, sewerage, water, and waste water is delegated to the states, so long as they have a program that meets the minimum standards. But then each state can devise their own, more stringent regulations.

[Rick]

ATUs are septic systems -- they provide treatment of the discharge before it gets to the final destination (and according to EPA, its secondary treatment). So, more like the small intestine, than like a point source.

And the source is as important as the discharge -- both determine whether there is coverage under the Act and regs, or not.

OK you and I are working under different definitions of point and nonpoint.

What is a point source?

The term point source is also defined very broadly in the Clean Water Act. It means any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, such as a pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, discrete fissure, or container. It also includes vessels or other floating craft from which pollutants are or may be discharged. By law, the term "point source" also includes concentrated animal feeding operations, which are places where animals are confined and fed. By law, agricultural stormwater discharges and return flows from irrigated agriculture are not "point sources".

Nonpoint is simply that, diffuse

ATUs are in this sense are indeed septic systems, when municipalities use them they refer to them as "Activated Sludge" Units or some such. For all intents and purposes they do the same thing and if I am correct are subject to the same discharge parameters...

[Rick]

OK then Jim take a right and go to the animal friendly park and take a Doogie Howser on the ground.

The lawyers have spoken...

[Guinevere]

(although the local police might, because crapping on the sidewalk is more likely a violation of state and local health codes, and I could probably make a case that its a violation of some zoning laws, too)

[Rick]

That's why I suggested the park...

[Rick]

Jim I'm gonna highjack yer thread as long as Guin will answer questions.

I guess i used the wrong words for starts. I wrote "Federal Standard" in conjunction with LJ little experience
perhaps I should have used the "Federal Regulation".

Now when it comes to municipality and the assumption (especially if they have an NPDES permit) is that they provide for the elimination of human excrement. All points of discharge have to be accounted for, am I correct? So say if a manhole overflows they are in principle in violation of their permit. If that is true (I await your response) then if that same municipality allows LJ to violate their sidewalk would not still be in violation?

Now back to the reason for the post, CFR 40 (that anyone can be equal to or more stringent than) comes as close to covering what LJ is on about that I could find. Is there anything even close to a "Federal Regulation" concerning people walking around nekked?

If there is please show me, I can't find any...

[Andrew D]

Whatever the applicability or inapplicability of federal regulations may be, about which I know virtually nothing, the real-world differences between walking naked on a public sidewalk and taking a dump on a public sidewalk are obvious.

[Rick]

Whatever the applicability or inapplicability of federal regulations may be, about which I know virtually nothing, the real-world differences between walking naked on a public sidewalk and taking a dump on a public sidewalk are obvious.

I do understand that, really...

[oldr_n_wsr]

Now I have to go.

[Lord Jim]

Whatever the applicability or inapplicability of federal regulations may be, about which I know virtually nothing, the real-world differences between walking naked on a public sidewalk and taking a dump on a public sidewalk are obvious.

I do understand that, really...

The reason Andrew congratulated you on not reading the beginning of this thread is that he knows full well that in the first few posts, the public health differences were addressed in this hypothetical; but he is too intellectually dishonest to admit this... so he keeps repeating that they haven't been hoping too once again to drown out the facts through the sheer repetition of his lie.

It is this bareassed (no pun intended) intellectual dishonesty, which he also exhibited in the suborning perjury discussion that has led me to decide that I will no longer engage in discussions with him or read what he says unless it is quoted by someone else. This does not of course mean that I won't comment when I see that he's up to what have become his usual tricks, or posting something particularly asinine....putting him on ignore is something I did for my convenience, not for his. It was to avoid getting into draining and pointless back and forths with a person willing to stoop to any level of intellectual dishonesty. Not to give the person engaging in those Team Troll tactics a free pass on his behavior.

Jim I'm not making light of your position.

That's quite alright Keld....

I'm making light of my position on this...

The purpose of this thread was to satirize the idiocy of Andrew's public nudity thread. Arrogant, self-absorbed, egomaniac that he is, he sneers and treats with venomous contempt concepts like accepted social norms or civil comportment. He has some sort of mental issue with this, but in classic Andrew style he wants to pretend that folks who don't care to have his butt hole or shlong paraded in front of their faces in public places any time he has a hankering to parade them are the ones who have the "problem"...

So I started this thread to push his I should be able to do anything I want in public, any time I want, anywhere I want, and fuck anybody who objects position to it's logical conclusion. And once you account for the public health issue, (which as I pointed out was addressed at the beginning of this thread) the arguments for public nudity and shitting in public are exactly the same.. This is why, (as I also pointed out) you can take practically any post Andrew has put up arguing for his naked butt parade rights, and drop them in this thread and they fit perfectly.

Andrew knows this, but he doesn't like having his arguments shown up for what they are in this fashion, so he has to keep pretending that the health issue hasn't been addressed. In fact he has to pretend that it can't be addressed. He has to do this, because the alternatives would be to either acknowledge that the arguments are the same and agree that people should have the right to shit in public, (which he doesn't want to do because he knows that will make him look like a kook) or to admit that yes, there are some limits where the standards of social norms and civil comportment should be respected, and he doesn't want to do that either.

As has become his habit, whenever he is confronted with intellectually honest courses of action that would require him to modify his assertions or admit to some error, and an intellectually dishonest course of action that enables him to continue to delude himself about the absolute correctness of his position, he will invariably select the latter.

It's just not worth the time to try and engage in discussion with someone who behaves this way. If you just have to keep correcting the record over and over again, you can't make any progress. He really has no interest in discussion anyway; all he wants to do is browbeat people with his tactics until they are worn down to the point that they shut up. I'm not going to shut up about what he's doing so long as he continues to do it; but I'm alsonot going to drawn into a pointless back and forth with person who uses the kind of tactics he does. I'm not going to be distracted or worn down by the lies, diversions, attempts to change the subject, attempts to throw on the defensive, etc., etc., etc.,

[Andrew D]

The reason Andrew congratulated you on not reading the beginning of this thread ....

So much for the claim not to be reading my postings.

A simple, factual claim.

All the credibility of that guy from Nigeria who needs your help recovering funds from his government.

All the credibility of a guy who tries to bamboozle people into thinking that there is on the internet such a thing as a "free cash machine".

Oh, wait ....

[Andrew D]

he knows full well that in the first few posts, the public health differences were addressed in this hypothetical ....

Really?

I have repeatedly pointed out that there is no practicable way to ensure that one's cleanup will be adequate. (Ever notice the smears left behind by poop scoopers?)

I have repeatedly pointed out that there is no practicable way to ensure that whatever chemical(s) one uses for one's cleanup will be environmentally sound.

I have repeatedly pointed out that neither of those considerations is germane to the issue of simply walking down the street naked.

Those were addressed in "the first few posts"?

Really?

Read the first few postings for yourself, and draw your own conclusions.

[Sean]

I have repeatedly pointed out that neither of those considerations is germane to the issue of simply walking down the street naked.

To be fair Andrew, I don't think that the "Because I said so!" argument holds too much water...

[Andrew D]

It is this bareassed (no pun intended) intellectual dishonesty, which he also exhibited in the suborning perjury discussion ....

Really?

Then why does this:

First, the leap from this:

It bears noting that prosecutors rarely need to fabricate evidence. Most of the time, the police have done that for them. All they need to do is assume the truth of what the police say and present it as true.

But over time, most prosecutors become more and more jaded about the veracity of police testimony. That does not mean that they are actually suborning perjury; after all, they are not percipient witnesses to the underlying facts. It means that they have doubts about the truth of what the police claim, but nonetheless, they ask the court or the jury to believe that testimony.

"The court" is an important point. Most police perjury is not directed at juries. Most of it is directed at courts. The police are aware of the exclusionary rule, and they hate it. So they lie, not necessarily about the evidence itself, but about how they obtained it. They know perfectly well what their affidavits have to say to survive Fourth-Amendment challenges, so that is what they say. True? False? A consideration relevant only to tactics.

It is still true that in those instances where subornation of perjury is necessary to obtain a conviction, most prosecutors will do it. And they won't think of themselves as "lying scumbags." They are convinced that the defendant is guilty -- and they are often quite right about that -- and they conclude that a little subornation of perjury is worth it to get some creep of the streets before he rapes and murders another victim.

to this:

He makes an assertion he doesn't back up, gets called on it, and rather than either support the assertion, (an admittedly tall order when the assertion is that "most" prosecutors in this country suborn perjury) or retract or amend it, he instead tries to change the subject by erecting a complete straw man and trying to throw the person who called him on his ass gas on the defensive.

cannot be made by honest, rational means.

It simply cannot be done.

Fervently, desperately, flailingly as one might wish that it could be done by honest, rational means -- or even by what one might wish to mock up as honest, rational means -- it cannot be done.

Stand totally unrefuted?

Draw your own conclusions.

[Andrew D]

I have repeatedly pointed out that neither of those considerations is germane to the issue of simply walking down the street naked.

To be fair Andrew, I don't think that the "Because I said so!" argument holds too much water...

You are quite right, Sean.

"Because I said so!" is the whole of Lord Jim's "argument," and it holds very little water.

[Lord Jim]

To be fair Andrew, I don't think that the "Because I said so!" argument holds too much water...

Oh, don't tell him that Sean....

"Because I say so!" has become the number one go-to tool in his tool box...

Asking him to go without it would be like telling a plumber he couldn't use his wrench....

[Andrew D]

So I started this thread to push his I should be able to do anything I want in public, any time I want, anywhere I want, and fuck anybody who objects position to it's [sic] logical conclusion.

If that were my position, I would not have repeatedly acknowledged that there ought to be limits on public nudity. Limits based on rational considerations, not just on some people's aesthetic preferences.

I would not have said, for example, that prohibiting nudity in supermarkets is perfectly sensible, because we do not want people farting on the vegetables. Etc.

But I did say those things. And they are easy to find.

Lord Jim has not pushed my argument to "it's" logical conclusion. To do that, he would have had to start with my argument.

But he couldn't do that, and he knew it. So he concocted an argument and claimed that it was mine.

Read what I have written.

Draw your own conclusions.

[Andrew D]

Need I go on?

I could. Just Lord Jim's tirade by itself provides ample opportunities for further evisceration.

And the things to which it refers open whole universes in which he can dismember himself with only a little coaching from me. His constant twisting of what I wrote into what I did not write, his purely hypocritical approach to all matters concerning the burden of proof in argument and the production of evidence, etc. ...

There is grist for the mill here that could easily fill dozens of postings.

But is it really necessary?

The bottom line is simple: This thread exists because Lord Jim cannot refute what I have actually written. Not his bullshit revisions of what I have written -- and you may have noticed that respected posters here have remarked his misstatements of what I have written -- but what I have actually written.

If he really wants me to continue burying him in his own excrement in front of everyone here, I can do that. It requires about as much effort as does tapping a cigarette on the edge of an ashtray. (And, although I am not proud to say it, I must admit that it is rather fun.)

But is that really the best use of our time?

[Sean]

I have repeatedly pointed out that neither of those considerations is germane to the issue of simply walking down the street naked.

To be fair Andrew, I don't think that the "Because I said so!" argument holds too much water...

You are quite right, Sean.

"Because I said so!" is the whole of Lord Jim's "argument," and it holds very little water.

You know what Andrew, I really don't like my words to you to be twisted by you and aimed at another poster. Have the grace to acknowledge what I wrote to YOU. It had nothing to do with Jim.