|
Rated PG-34 posted:The protesters don't want the pipeline anywhere not just not in their backyard. I don't think that that is true, but even if it were, the protestors should know that a lot of things that they like are heavily dependent on having oil infrastructure and the resultant cheap and plentiful oil. Because we currently do not have a low cost technology to replace oil, shipping fresh fruits and vegetables into the ghettos of Detroit in the middle of winter would become even less practical when oil is no longer cheap and plentiful. Bus fares/passes and car operation/maintenance costs for everybody, including poor people, will increase. Poor people often have to commute a lot and spend a good amount of money on transportation because NIMBYs block real estate development/transportation development and jack up rents in convenient residential neighborhoods in the interests of protecting property values. The cost of consumer goods will increase. Wealthy people could handle it just fine, but poorer people will struggle.
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 15:10 |
|
|
twodot posted:I suppose you have some accreditation naming you speaker of all protesters? Protesters on numerous occasion have made it clear that they don't want the pipeline to be built period.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
We'd have to pretend that this oil pipeline is 'necessary', instead of rather what it actually is: a pure profit scheme. The failure of the construction of this pipeline would not suddenly result in a world shattering end of civilization. This pipe is so that a multi-billion dollar company can dump more raw product into an already saturated market.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:I hope they don't own cars. Wow, nothing gets past this guy
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
Hey now. I just hope you guys resolve this issue without anyone being hurt, and that you can someday be less reliant on supporting terror states for your oil.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:Protesters on numerous occasion have made it clear that they don't want the pipeline to be built period. Similarly "the pipeline" is a nonsense phrase. DAPL has had by my count at least three major revisions and hundreds of minor revisions. Is "the pipeline" the current and any previous revision of the plan? Any possible future revision of the plan? Any possible pipeline plan made by Dakota Access? Any pipeline that connects the Bakken oil fields to Patoka? Any pipeline anywhere in the world? This may look like an argument through absurdity, but it's not my intention, because almost all of these definitions of "the pipeline" is still being NIMBYs. The only way to not be a NIMBY and oppose an oil pipeline construction near you is to oppose all oil pipeline construction, and "the pipeline" doesn't clearly communicate that or really anything at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Trudeau just approved two pipelines in Canada and the native population is also against those pipelines. No more pipelines.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:you can someday be less reliant on supporting terror states for your oil. Wow, I totally forgot about this side effect of opposing oil infrastructure in the US . . . Hopefully this comment elicits a response instead of just being ignored.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Wow, I totally forgot about this side effect of opposing oil infrastructure in the US . . . Hopefully this comment elicits a response instead of just being ignored. Good point, we should probably move away from fossil fuels in general as opposed to this singular case
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Good point, we should probably move away from fossil fuels in general as opposed to this singular case If it happens, it will be painful for the poor in the US. I doubt that the rich are going to totally subsidize the cost of the more expensive replacement technology . . .
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
twodot posted:You've got a grammatical problem here that I earnestly want to help you with. You've several times used "the" to refer to properties of amorphous things, and that just doesn't work. "The protesters don't want the pipeline anywhere not just not in their backyard." doesn't make any sense. Sure some protesters don't want that, but others are specifically concerned about water safety, others are specifically concerned about cultural sites, others have any combinations of those and other concerns, so you can only say "The protesters don't want X" if they're speaking with a unified voice, which just isn't the case. Also "numerous" is just cheap rhetoric, you either have figures or you're talking out your rear end. can you name a single popular movement in history that was 100% homogeneous and uniform in the participants' actions, rhetoric, motivations and stakes, so much so that a single broad statement could be accurately applied down to each individual participant? otherwise you're just doing a really dumb semantics thing
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:If it happens, it will be painful for the poor in the US. I doubt that the rich are going to subsidize the cost of the more expensive replacement technology . . . The poor get hosed in America regardless. The rich don't have to subsidize poo poo, just tax them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
and what the hell is up with all of this nimby poo poo? isn't it more feasible to protest the pipeline in your backyard as a means to protest all pipelines, rather than making pit stops at each individual pipeline you oppose saying "yeah, and i hate this one too!" why is the bar being set so goddamn high for someone to legitimately CARE about something?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
albany academy posted:can you name a single popular movement in history that was 100% homogeneous and uniform in the participants' actions, rhetoric, motivations and stakes, so much so that a single broad statement could be accurately applied down to each individual participant? otherwise you're just doing a really dumb semantics thing albany academy posted:and what the hell is up with all of this nimby poo poo? isn't it more feasible to protest the pipeline in your backyard as a means to protest all pipelines, rather than making pit stops at each individual pipeline you oppose saying "yeah, and i hate this one too!" why is the bar being set so goddamn high for someone to legitimately CARE about something? silence_kit posted:If it happens, it will be painful for the poor in the US. I doubt that the rich are going to totally subsidize the cost of the more expensive replacement technology . . .
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
All pipelines of any significance have to cross water at some point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
albany academy posted:and what the hell is up with all of this nimby poo poo? isn't it more feasible to protest the pipeline in your backyard as a means to protest all pipelines, rather than making pit stops at each individual pipeline you oppose saying "yeah, and i hate this one too!" why is the bar being set so goddamn high for someone to legitimately CARE about something? You are arguing with people who seem entirEly incapable of parsing human motivation, and who are choosing to frame every argument as absurd black and white issues because it better suits their authoritarian legalism. The bar is being set high to make it easier for them to declare any protest illegitimate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
twodot posted:Similarly "the pipeline" is a nonsense phrase. DAPL has had by my count at least three major revisions and hundreds of minor revisions. Is "the pipeline" the current and any previous revision of the plan? Any possible future revision of the plan? Any possible pipeline plan made by Dakota Access? Any pipeline that connects the Bakken oil fields to Patoka? Any pipeline anywhere in the world? This may look like an argument through absurdity, but it's not my intention, because almost all of these definitions of "the pipeline" is still being NIMBYs. The only way to not be a NIMBY and oppose an oil pipeline construction near you is to oppose all oil pipeline construction, and "the pipeline" doesn't clearly communicate that or really anything at all. Idk what your intention is but I will say this is exactly a rhetorical technique used to stifle and befuddle political opponents  Obv you're not trying to do that right now but just sayin'I think it is pretty clear to me, they want the pipeline the gently caress away from their drinking water and from the lands seized from them in violation of the Treaty of Ft. Laramie and nitpicking about which specific revision of the pipeline plan they like or dislike is kind of pointless because the company has already shown they will just build and ask for permission and/or pay fines later. Liquid Communism posted:The bar is being set high to make it easier for them to declare any protest illegitimate. Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Holy poo poo, I think we have a new contender for Blowfish's crown. -Achievable without abolishing the right to choose your own counsel -Achievable without abolishing private or for-profit legal practice -Does not simply re-create for profit legal practice at one remove -Is not based on trying to equalize expenditures by each party to a legal action (because it is not workable, and probably isn't constitutional) -Is not trivially exploitable by either vexatious litigants or those who would extract wealth from the system Raerlynn posted:Unjust - adj. CommieGIR posted:I always love how Dead Reckoning's counter arguments can usually be summed up by "Don't love it? Leave it"
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:I hope they don't own cars. And even then, while GAS PRICES is a contributor to rural hardship, I don't it's the most pressing concern for a place where the unemployment rate is 79% compared to north dakota's 3% unemployment rate, or a poverty rate around 40% "Cheap gas prices!" as some trickle down argument for working over any people opposed to nationalist supply side economics doesn't work in the face of a history of basic supply shortages in first nations. Rodatose fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:You are arguing with people who seem entirEly incapable of parsing human motivation, and who are choosing to frame every argument as absurd black and white issues because it better suits their authoritarian legalism. The bar is being set high to make it easier for them to declare any protest illegitimate. No not really, this is just being used as a strawman to avoid engaging the issue with any sort of specificity or nuance greater than "oil and/or colonialism is bad therefore my team is good and everything they do good, the other team is bad and anything they do to stop my team is evil" The law is by no means the arbiter of morality, but since most of human history past say... the enlightenment we have been trying to make it as just and moral as possible, and because since it is what allows us to jam 300+ million people into this country and resolve the resultant conflicts peacefully; it is a good starting point. You and others have been repeatedly asked what law or judicial process here was unjust or conducted unjustly. You and others have repeatedly failed to make any sort of consistent argument to that effect. Breaking the law is a just act when the law or it's execution is unjust, not when you just don't like it. "I don't like oil" is not an excuse to just carte blanche violate the property rights of others, they too deserve to be protected by the law, to be able to seek to have their conflicts fairly adjudicated by the judicial system, and their right to due process of law protected by having those proceedings enforced by the police. Legal does not mean moral is a good observation but it is not an argument. In this thread it is being used as a cop-out to avoid citing specific grievances and therefore to avoid having to defend an argument instead of vague platitudes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:I think it is pretty clear to me, they want the pipeline the gently caress away from their drinking water and from the lands seized from them in violation of the Treaty of Ft. Laramie and nitpicking about which specific revision of the pipeline plan they like or dislike is kind of pointless because the company has already shown they will just build and ask for permission and/or pay fines later.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:No not really, this is just being used as a strawman to avoid engaging the issue with any sort of specificity or nuance greater than "oil and/or colonialism is bad therefore my team is good and everything they do good, the other team is bad and anything they do to stop my team is evil" I think it's been flatly stated, only to be laughed off several times, that the unjust point of law here is the gunpoint renegotiation of the 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie and the continual inroads against Native lands since. An attempt to buy off this guilt was made, but refused by the people in question, and rightly so given that $1.8 billion is one hell of a lowball figure for just the quantity of land seized, not to mention the ~10% of the world's gold supply over 125 years that was pulled out of the area. That said, you must have a deeply sheltered perspective on law if you believe that it has become remotely just and moral in all points since the late 1700's. Hell, we can easily point to new laws passed in the last few years in America alone that are neither moral nor just.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:No not really, this is just being used as a strawman to avoid engaging the issue with any sort of specificity or nuance greater than "oil and/or colonialism is bad therefore my team is good and everything they do good, the other team is bad and anything they do to stop my team is evil" I think this is a fundamental disconnect. That corporate interest and the general public are weighted the same in the eyes of the law is technically true, if you ignore the fact that the law itself is biased towards corporate interest. So they are equal, except realistically they're not. That's why the "but it's the law" argument is met with such resistance, yet those propagating the argument fail to reach a common ground or understanding and instead reach for outright dismissal simply because the grievances themselves exist outside of that rigid framework. The system protects those that created it, masters house will never dismantle masters tools, etc Like "water protector" is a specific thing if you insist that it can only represent the exact words used - which is a ridiculous hill to die on, unless you're a member of the Labour party and pissed that your colleagues aren't all bricklayers or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Threads like this make me wish wind farms didn't kill birds and stuff, so I could be all "Yeah you're right no pipelines, that's a lovely long-term investment, just build wind farms instead". drat it
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:I think it's been flatly stated, only to be laughed off several times, that the unjust point of law here is the gunpoint renegotiation of the 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie and the continual inroads against Native lands since. An attempt to buy off this guilt was made, but refused by the people in question, and rightly so given that $1.8 billion is one hell of a lowball figure for just the quantity of land seized, not to mention the ~10% of the world's gold supply over 125 years that was pulled out of the area. The only reason that the 1851 treaty comes up is that the pipeline is outside the 1868 borders, which leaves those arguing for native sovereignty in an awkward position. I have a hard time taking cries of moral outrage seriously when those expressing them are wrong about the basic facts in question. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Poland Spring posted:Threads like this make me wish wind farms didn't kill birds and stuff, so I could be all "Yeah you're right no pipelines, that's a lovely long-term investment, just build wind farms instead". drat it If you agree that pesticides have killed more birds than windmills or windows combined, welp why don't we boycott large scale agriculture? How about logging? Ever hear of the spotted owl? The birds are already dying every time a field gets turned into a new suburban development project, or someone leaves a six pack ringer on the beach. What about housecats? Feral housecats? The big movement nowadays is to spay or neuter strays and release them again - that's not saving any birds. http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/wind-turbine-kill-birds.htm Also if anybody likes heights and playing with bigass turbines, wind technician was the largest-growth job in the US according to the BLS' 2015 report - up by 108 percent. https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bls.gov%2Fnews.release%2Fpdf%2Fecopro.pdf coyo7e fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Poland Spring posted:Threads like this make me wish wind farms didn't kill birds and stuff, so I could be all "Yeah you're right no pipelines, that's a lovely long-term investment, just build wind farms instead". drat it 100 million to 1 billion birds are killed by striking buildings every year, but no one is recommending getting rid of buildings also the "winds kill birds" talking point was popularized by people who don't actually want to follow recommendations made by bird advocacy groups like the audubon society. The usual suspects bemoaning wind farms' bird deaths neglect to mention that coal and oil power are responsible for far more bird deaths. Here's one comparison; and this says fossil fuel power stations kill about 35x more birds per GWh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Yeah I didn't want to even mention pollution - the whole "canary in a coal mine" thing is an adage for a reason - birds are more susceptible to bad air than people
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
Oh well gently caress 'em let's just put up a bunch of windmills and ditch this pipeline that we aren't even gonna get to use the oil from, bam
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
Poland Spring posted:Oh well gently caress 'em let's just put up a bunch of windmills and ditch this pipeline that we aren't even gonna get to use the oil from, bam https://www.boem.gov/Ocean-Wave-Energy/ My personal suspicion is that, as was mentioned in this thread (or maybe the LWM thread) that progressives tend to like aesthetics, that a lot of these things are going to look rad as hell once they begin to become more commonplace - essentially a free-standing art sculpture on top of the ocean, generating energy for the local grid. There's absolutely no reason to make them look like a goddamned oil derrick, and smoother lines would probably stand up better to stresses from storms and poo poo. coyo7e fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
a million dead pigeons on the pavement next to trump tower don't matter a hundred thousand dead endangered woodpeckers on a hill matter for that matter a hundred miles of coastline or river catchment matter i wonder how many bad arguments about pipelines going over rivers this last one will provoke
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:53
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:a million dead pigeons on the pavement next to trump tower don't matter poo poo we better alert the bureaucrat bureau so they can swoop in and save those poor birds so they can die from exhaust fumes
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:That said, you must have a deeply sheltered perspective on law if you believe that it has become remotely just and moral in all points since the late 1700's. Hell, we can easily point to new laws passed in the last few years in America alone that are neither moral nor just. This is either a tremendous display of illiteracy or a tremendous display of bad faith argumentation, that is not remotely what I said. Also if the hill you want to die on is that this is all unjust because the 1968 Treaty was illegitimate because it was coerced then yes there is our disagreement, because that's dumb as hell. Seriously you think any land ceding treaty from the 19th century is invalid if it involved coercion, or gently caress I'll even say straight out conquest? Did you even think for one second the implications of that stance beyond getting your way on this issue?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
Poland Spring posted:poo poo we better alert the bureaucrat bureau so they can swoop in and save those poor birds so they can die from exhaust fumes As always, the answer lies in the power of the mighty atom. Jarmak posted:This is either a tremendous display of illiteracy or a tremendous display of bad faith argumentation, that is not remotely what I said. Return Poland to Russia please, shitlord.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
http://homebrave.com/home-of-the-brave//standing-rock-part-two Some interesting audio recordings and more background about the pond-wading dude with the rifle and pickup and ETF credentials, as well as the followup actions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
blowfish posted:a million dead pigeons on the pavement next to trump tower don't matter Getting off topic but pigeons are able to live in cities without dying en masse because they're domesticated from a natural habitat with lots of cliffs. It's migratory birds along major flyways (with coasts being two of the four major ones) that are most at risk. Of course you probably aren't actually sincere about it if you're so anti-nimby and pro-"science is... like... amazeballs ftw, just ftw" blowfish posted:As always, the answer lies in the power of the mighty atom. e: just to make clear I'm not recommending anything based on bird deaths, just pointing out that anyone who brings it up is probably wrongheaded or just repeating poo poo they heard Rodatose fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:e: just to make clear I'm not recommending anything based on bird deaths, just pointing out that anyone who brings it up is probably wrongheaded or just repeating poo poo they heard Also some people who bring it up don't even care about birds and just want a talking point to deal with leftists.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
I care about birds but I heard about it elsewhere so I'm Bad Leftist
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:Getting off topic but pigeons are able to live in cities without dying en masse because they're domesticated from a natural habitat with lots of cliffs. It's migratory birds along major flyways (with coasts being two of the four major ones) that are most at risk. Nowadays I don't even see that number of geese in an entire season. I literally haven't even touched my 12-gauge in 10 years because it's only for shooting geese, and there just aren't enough for me to feel good about killing them for a (ya gotta be honest) moderately tasty bird. I'd rather eat pheasant - they can be sustainably farmed (or simply released into the wild as long as the feral cat population isn't too high) and they taste amazing. Those geese didn't all vanish because they got clotheslined by energy-generating wind-powered turbines. I honestly don't know what happened to all of them but I honestly believe that there's at least 70% less of them than there were in the early 90s here in OR. Also pigeons are rats with feathers (but they're fun to raise and taste good if they don't live off trash)
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 15:10 |
|
|
coyo7e posted:Also pigeons are rats with feathers (but they're fun to raise and taste good if they don't live off trash) Rats make great pets but their lifespan is pretty lame as they usually die after 3 years. Poland Spring posted:I care about birds but I heard about it elsewhere so I'm Bad Leftist No, it just means you care about birbs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 02:43
|
|