|
Jarmak posted: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? Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 03:03 on Dec 1, 2016 |
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 01:39 |
|
|
Buckwheat Sings posted:No, it just means you care about birbs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:yeah that first link had nuclear power killing more birds per GWh than either wind or solar That had me laughing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:One of my favorite examples of "leftwashing" for a specific cause is - visit the audobon society's webpage and look up anything they have there regarding wind turbine energy generation - holy poo poo it's like talking to a vegan about sustainable chicken farming Here's the audubon society's stance just for reference (they strongly support it)
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:yeah that first link had nuclear power killing more birds per GWh than either wind or solar Also it seems that wind energy turbines can reduce bird kill stats by painting the blades (reduces insects being attracted -less prey, less birds getting swiped) among other things, so somebody is actually giving a poo poo about the birds regardless, and if you wanna save the birds I already posted today about what career to move into.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:Here's the audubon society's stance just for reference (they strongly support it) quote:As he watched, a pelican at the flock’s tail end was swiped by a massive turbine blade and “literally ‘erased’ from the air,”
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:What a lovely way to go - just flyin around eating bugs and stuff, see a nice concrete thing to sit on - die from radioactive poisoning? TO be fair - I have no idea how those birds died and would be interested in learning more if anybody cares to look it up. There's not much research on it and the one paper cited in the figure apparently is preliminary and has some questionable methodology including extrapolating from samples at certain sites instead of a controlled study/survey. The numbers given are a very liberal figure and looking into it further it has probably less of an impact on birds than wind so I'll retract my earlier statement. The main impacts are from the mining itself, with tailings ponds and possible forest acidification of habitats where mining or disposal of residual mining materials takes place. The power plants themselves are fine; they're regulated well enough. The mining industry, not so much. quote:As he watched, a pelican at the flock’s tail end was swiped by a massive turbine blade and “literally ‘erased’ from the air,”  Anyway, I think the well-being of people should be more important to people than the well-being of birds. Rodatose fucked around with this message at 04:33 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
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 Wind farms don't kill as many birds as feral cats do. You should bill the wind farms and give money to capture, neuter, and release programs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:Anyway, I think the well-being of people should be more important to people than the well-being of birds. Mitakuye oyasin
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:Wind farms don't kill as many birds as feral cats do. You should bill the wind farms and give money to capture, neuter, and release programs.  Bougie indoor cat promoting eugenics.  But seriously, I am glad to hear the Audubon society supports wind farms. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:You mean the wellbeing of the planet. everything on earth is in a kill or be killed cycle and I'll accept the accidental deaths of birds if it can help slow climate change and reduce energy costs for all No kidding. I love birds too but if we need to gut the WIND FARM BIRD APOCALYPSE, then maybe we should probably kill off night light because it kills far, far more. Or just increase more coalmines.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It's an even dumber hill because the 1868 treaty was not coerced, and the path of the pipeline is outside the Sioux borders under the treaty, so I don't get why people keep bringing it up. Well if we're going by the 1868 treaty how do you handle the fact that the U.S.repeatedly violated the treaty? So the U.S. violates the treaty and ends up giving Sioux some cash for compensation, the Sioux say "no thanks, we assert our sovereignty and demand our land back." (http://lakotadakotanakotanation.org/LEGAL%20-%20ReclaimingtheBlackHills.html) Does this mean that it would be both legal and just for the Sioux to withdraw from the treaty? And in doing so would that not mean that violent opposition to the pipeline is both legal and just? https://ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=42&page=transcript posted:And they, the said Indians, further expressly agree:
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
skeet decorator posted:Well if we're going by the 1868 treaty how do you handle the fact that the U.S.repeatedly violated the treaty? So the U.S. violates the treaty and ends up giving Sioux some cash for compensation, the Sioux say "no thanks, we assert our sovereignty and demand our land back." (http://lakotadakotanakotanation.org/LEGAL%20-%20ReclaimingtheBlackHills.html) Does this mean that it would be both legal and just for the Sioux to withdraw from the treaty? And in doing so would that not mean that violent opposition to the pipeline is both legal and just?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
skeet decorator posted:Well if we're going by the 1868 treaty how do you handle the fact that the U.S.repeatedly violated the treaty? So the U.S. violates the treaty and ends up giving Sioux some cash for compensation, the Sioux say "no thanks, we assert our sovereignty and demand our land back." (http://lakotadakotanakotanation.org/LEGAL%20-%20ReclaimingtheBlackHills.html) Does this mean that it would be both legal and just for the Sioux to withdraw from the treaty? And in doing so would that not mean that violent opposition to the pipeline is both legal and just? If the Sioux wanted to withdraw from the peace treaty and reenter a state of war with the U. S. Army in TYOOL 2016 as an equal sovereign contesting territory, it would certainly make for an exciting end to a year of surprises. As would, say, attempting to enforce the terms of the treaty and expelling all white people in the Black Hills and Powder River territory in the most hilarious irredentist project of our young century.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Again, the pipeline doesn't go through the Black Hills or any other part of the 1868 borders, so I don't see the relevance. If you read the actual treaty it calls for an end to hostilities on "the plains" in general and not specifically within the agreed upon borders of the reservation. The war that the treaty sought to end stretched to places like Montana and Wyoming. I'll agree that it's a dumb idea, but there's no moral or legal reason they should be bound to a treaty the U.S. has repeatedly and unilaterally violated. Dead Reckoning posted:If you're taking the expansive view that all land where the buffalo once roamed belonged to Native Americans, it begs the question of why they should get veto over this particular infrastructure project, and not every other one in the Great Plains. If you're taking the more narrow view that they had an articulated property right, which the Treaty of Ft. Laramie has been cited several times in support of, the land that the pipeline is built on is north of both their historic and current territorial claims. Your position in this thread has been that indigenous protesters have no legal or moral right to block the pipeline using force, and furthermore that it is both just and legal for U.S. to respond with force. Sure the US can legally use force all the want (so can the the Lakota) to put down the protests and they'll win. You're trying to justify that with a legal argument, when the reality of your position is that you think indigenous people don't have the right to forcefully resist colonialism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
skeet decorator posted:If you read the actual treaty it calls for an end to hostilities on "the plains" in general and not specifically within the agreed upon borders of the reservation. The war that the treaty sought to end stretched to places like Montana and Wyoming. I'll agree that it's a dumb idea, but there's no moral or legal reason they should be bound to a treaty the U.S. has repeatedly and unilaterally violated. skeet decorator posted:Your position in this thread has been that indigenous protesters have no legal or moral right to block the pipeline using force, and furthermore that it is both just and legal for U.S. to respond with force. Sure the US can legally use force all the want (so can the the Lakota) to put down the protests and they'll win. You're trying to justify that with a legal argument, when the reality of your position is that you think indigenous people don't have the right to forcefully resist colonialism. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
I've never heard the term leftwashing. What's that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:Wind farms don't kill as many birds as feral cats do. You should bill the wind farms and give money to capture, neuter, and release programs. This is a massive understatement. Wind turbine bird deaths are estimated to number in the hundreds of thousands per year, whereas mortalities caused by cats are estimated in the BILLIONS. It's not just feral cats either; despite myths to the contrary, even well fed housecats will kill wildlife if they are let outside. Also, tnr programs just aren't really effective unfortunately. Cats are incredibly fecund, and the percentage of feral cats that would need to be captured and neutered in order to make significant long term impacts on populations is just unrealistic given the actual resources available. Mitigation funding from wind farms is better spent on habitat restoration and enhancement imo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
Pessimism posted:This is a massive understatement. Wind turbine bird deaths are estimated to number in the hundreds of thousands per year, whereas mortalities caused by cats are estimated in the BILLIONS. It's not just feral cats either; despite myths to the contrary, even well fed housecats will kill wildlife if they are let outside. Pretty good name/post combo here, since tnr efforts work fantastically on a local scale, which is where it matters. All about funding, really.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 09:02
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Don't ascribe positions to me that I have never argued for. I have consistently held that the Standing Rock's have no lawful right to obstruct construction of the pipeline, that the police have the right to use reasonable force to prevent or remove that obstruction, and that the laws supporting this are entirely just and should therefore be obeyed. I find characterization of the pipeline as a colonial project absurd, as (I must note again) it is built on land that was not theirs under the 1868 treaty, nor currently theirs. If they don't have a legal claim to potable water and non-poisoned children, then they should have - if nothing else, then under the UNHR declaration. That's the problem see, it doesn't matter if you call it colonial or illegal or what have you: Building that pipeline is irresponsible, and the legal justifications are clearly rammed through because some wealthy white people want it to be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 09:12
|
|
|
Tias posted:If they don't have a legal claim to potable water and non-poisoned children, then they should have - if nothing else, then under the UNHR declaration. That's the problem see, it doesn't matter if you call it colonial or illegal or what have you: Building that pipeline is irresponsible, and the legal justifications are clearly rammed through because some wealthy white people want it to be. The reservation has a new water treatment plant coming online next year 70 miles downstream of the pipeline (the current intakes are only 20 miles away), which should mitigate the danger to the water supply.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 13:01
|
|
|
So this is related to oil pipelines so I'm just gonna drop this enormous turd in the room: http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/joe-scarborough-donald-trump-exxonmobil-ceo/2016/12/01/id/761712/ http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/exxonmobil-execs-among-trump-cabinet-considerations-822570051572 The current and former heads of Exxon-Mobil are being examined for the position of Secretary of State. Volcott posted:I've never heard the term leftwashing. What's that? coyo7e fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:So this is related to oil pipelines so I'm just gonna drop this enormous turd in the room: Drumpf is bad, fossil fuels are bad, in this instance the protestors have worked hard to make big oil look like the good guys. [/thread]
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 16:31
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Feral Integral posted:Pretty good name/post combo here, since tnr efforts work fantastically on a local scale, which is where it matters. All about funding, really. If you have any studies showing evidence of significant, long term population level effects from tnr programs, I'd be interested in seeing them. None of the analyses I've read show enough of a long term effect that the resources involved wouldn't have made more of a difference spent on habitat enhancement. It was a huge bummer to me because I do a lot of environmental review of large scale residential projects, some of which are proposed near essential habitat areas for endangered songbirds, and I was initially pretty bullish about the potential of having the developers fund tnr programs as mitigation for the foreseeable impacts of homeowners letting their cats outdoors. I've since switched to requesting educational programs and neighborhood ordinances about keeping the cats inside though, in addition to habitat conservation/restoration/enhancement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
Tias posted:If they don't have a legal claim to potable water and non-poisoned children, then they should have - if nothing else, then under the UNHR declaration. That's the problem see, it doesn't matter if you call it colonial or illegal or what have you: Building that pipeline is irresponsible, and the legal justifications are clearly rammed through because some wealthy white people want it to be. Yeah except the pipeline isn't poisoning anyone, gently caress the Lakota didn't even attempt to cite that as an issue when they sued to stop the construction. This is nothing but a bunch of disingenuous bullshit that's been made up to sell the protest to the mainstream because "no more oil infrastructure ever" sells like a snowcone in winter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Don't ascribe positions to me that I have never argued for. I have consistently held that the Standing Rock's have no lawful right to obstruct construction of the pipeline, that the police have the right to use reasonable force to prevent or remove that obstruction, and that the laws supporting this are entirely just and should therefore be obeyed. I find characterization of the pipeline as a colonial project absurd, as (I must note again) it is built on land that was not theirs under the 1868 treaty, nor currently theirs. Define "Reasonable Force" in this context, please. Edit: To be clear, I've only heard the term used in shootings, either police on citizen or in self defense and whether or not lethal force was justified. Not entirely sure how it's defined when we're talking about a peaceful protest (unless there is widespread violence and police are going to the hospital, and I haven't seen it) Shooting Blanks fucked around with this message at 17:46 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yeah except the pipeline isn't poisoning anyone, gently caress the Lakota didn't even attempt to cite that as an issue when they sued to stop the construction. yeah on the other hand they've consistently made that argument to the press from the very start
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
botany posted:yeah on the other hand they've consistently made that argument to the press from the very start Just because you say something consistently to the press does not stop it from being made up, disingenuous, or unsupported by facts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Define "Reasonable Force" in this context, please. Something like "the minimal force necessary to remove the obstruction", I would imagine. Any standard is going to be somewhat subjective. No reasonable standard is going to allow for the protesters to shut the project down just by being intransigent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Just because you say something consistently to the press does not stop it from being made up, disingenuous, or unsupported by facts. http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/pipeline.aspx http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/americas_dangerous_pipelines/ http://www.ecowatch.com/pipeline-spills-2061960029.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
Yeah, throwing out a bunch of links to show that pipeline accidents are a thing that happens doesn't demonstrate that this particular river crossing poses a disproportionate or unreasonable risk that makes it different from any other infrastructure project, or that the company has been wanton or careless in its construction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
botany posted:yeah on the other hand they've consistently made that argument to the press from the very start Wait you mean they've been basing their complaint around one thing in the press and not even mentioning it in court? Why that almost sounds like a Jarmak posted:bunch of disingenuous bullshit that's been made up to sell the protest to the mainstream
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Wait you mean they've been basing their complaint around one thing in the press and not even mentioning it in court? Why that almost sounds like a
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Yeah, throwing out a bunch of links to show that pipeline accidents are a thing that happens doesn't demonstrate that this particular river crossing poses a disproportionate or unreasonable risk that makes it different from any other infrastructure project, or that the company has been wanton or careless in its construction. Only if you get to decide what constitutes reasonable. The Lakota have gotten killed by lying members of the US government since the birth of the states, it is in no way unreasonable to assume that they are under risk from the actions of the DAP companies and the US government, and it's actually pretty insane that you extend the benefit of the doubt to them, given all of recorded historical interaction between the Lakota and the state.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Wait you mean they've been basing their complaint around one thing in the press and not even mentioning it in court? Why that almost sounds like a man i cannot wait to hear your spirited defense of al capone now! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Yeah, throwing out a bunch of links to show that pipeline accidents are a thing that happens doesn't demonstrate that this particular river crossing poses a disproportionate or unreasonable risk that makes it different from any other infrastructure project, or that the company has been wanton or careless in its construction. If people held the view that any level of risk is unreasonable then evidence that accidents happen would be damning. It wouldn't have to be the case that the pipeline represents a disproportionate risk.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
Tias posted:Only if you get to decide what constitutes reasonable. The Lakota have gotten killed by lying members of the US government since the birth of the states, it is in no way unreasonable to assume that they are under risk from the actions of the DAP companies and the US government, and it's actually pretty insane that you extend the benefit of the doubt to them, given all of recorded historical interaction between the Lakota and the state. Actually, it is unreasonable to assume something without evidence. wateroverfire posted:If people held the view that any level of risk is unreasonable then evidence that accidents happen would be damning. It wouldn't have to be the case that the pipeline represents a disproportionate risk. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 18:36 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
twodot posted:I don't think this is inherently unreasonable. It's certainly possible to have multiple reasons to want something, and be aware that certain reasons will play better in certain contexts. Knowing that a certain argument won't win in court doesn't make it necessarily a bad argument. It does if the argument in question would also be your strongest legal argument if it were true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm not the one making the determination though. There already exists a comprehensive assessment regime to determine if a project carries undue risks to the environment and public health. I think you're missing his point. The problem is that the Lakota and the US government have had strained relations, historically. I think we can all agree on that, and the reasons why as they've been mentioned on every single page. His point is that the tribe has (or may believe they have) valid reason to not trust the government, its agents, its legal systems, etc. including the report and the counterparty to their suit. If they do not believe the system is legitimate, what other option do they have?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 01:39 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:It does if the argument in question would also be your strongest legal argument if it were true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 19:12
|
|