|
wow Jarmak, you're a real piece of work aren't you? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 02:24 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:No it's not, and "firefighters start forest fires to stop forest fires so that's just like causing oil spills to stop oil spills" is in contention for the worst dumb reductionist D&D analogy I've ever seen. The protesters blowing up holes in the pipeline could just be an incredible big-balls bet on the pipeline company actually caring enough about oil spill risks to not run the pipeline with the new holes in it. Of course, if you explain it in that way, it kind of undermines all of your earlier statements about how the pipeline company doesn't care about spills and the welfare of the Standing Rock Sioux, so you've got to justify the sabotage in some other convoluted way. It's just more support for the idea that the pipeline protest wasn't actually about the pipeline and the risks it posed to the Standing Rock Sioux itself--it was more about the symbolic meaning attached to it by the protesters. Edit: Jarmak posted:Destruction of property not being violence is only the case if you are using the legalistic definition of the word violence, which you've consistently complained about. Blowing up the pipeline may still technically count as non-violent resistance if you don't blow up humans along with it. I'm not sure. I think Tias may have gotten you there. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Dec 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:
or an understanding of the difference between things that feel and things that don't edit: I'm not committed here to advocating /for/ a sabotage strategy. I'm informing you that I've caught wind of such strategies being entertained by many different independent people. What you do with that information is up to you - but if your response is 'that's dumb, it shouldn't happen, so let's pretend it didn't, ignore it, and pour oil through that pipeline', you're an irresponsible company shill. Uglycat fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Dec 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
You talk like the way a twelve year old does when they're pretending to be in the military, mixed with appeals to spiritualism. It's pretty hard to read as credible. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Blowing up the pipeline may still technically count as non-violent resistance if you don't blow up humans along with it. I'm not sure. I think Tias may have gotten you there. Only in the legalistic sense does violence distinguish between crimes against the person versus crimes against property. In common parlance it used to describe something as being done with destructive force (or to describe something as intense through metaphor). So yes he is correct, in the legal sense, I'm just pointing out the giant loving hypocrisy of him using strict using legal definitions as a moral argument.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:The protesters blowing up holes in the pipeline could just be an incredible big-balls bet on the pipeline company actually caring enough about oil spill risks to not run the pipeline with the new holes in it. Of course, if you explain it in that way, it kind of undermines all of your earlier statements about how the pipeline company doesn't care about spills and the welfare of the Standing Rock Sioux, so you've got to justify the sabotage in some other convoluted way. Or it could be a big balls bet that attacking the pipeline could simply make it too expensive for the pipeline to be built. Which is pretty obviously the goal and does not in any way require that the pipeline company care about the environment. Jarmak posted:No it's not, and "firefighters start forest fires to stop forest fires so that's just like causing oil spills to stop oil spills" is in contention for the worst dumb reductionist D&D analogy I've ever seen. Sure is, it's a facile argument, but I was responding to someone who didn't even make an argument. Like sure, maybe it is counterproductive, but there is historical evidence it works. Using sabotage against infrastructure is like the hallmark colonial resistance. In some cases it failed, in others it was successful. It's almost like you have to consider the context and that you can't just say something is apparently contradictory without making an argument. It worries me that you can recognize my analogy as bullshit yet fully accept the bullshit I was mocking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
I could honestly see the company just saying gently caress it and turning it on. Repairing leaks is cheaper than building a whole new pipeline.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 20:38
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
skeet decorator posted:Or it could be a big balls bet that attacking the pipeline could simply make it too expensive for the pipeline to be built. Which is pretty obviously the goal and does not in any way require that the pipeline company care about the environment. No "your stated moral justification for your actions is the prevention of environmental damage through oil leaks, so deliberately causing oil leaks as a tactic betrays your justification as dishonest" is, actually an argument, and it's not bullshit. Oh and to complete the other thread of this argument when you use property damage as a means to intimidate others into a course of action like you're describing we recognize that as violence even under the legalistic definition.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:No "your stated moral justification for your actions is the prevention of environmental damage through oil leaks, so deliberately causing oil leaks as a tactic betrays your justification as dishonest" is, actually an argument, and it's not bullshit. Sorry bud, that's just a statement. In the real world things like "magnitude" usually have an affect on most people's moral calculus. This is the crucial point you actually have to make the case for: Why do you think the amount of oil leaked from sabotage would be as much or more than the amount of oil that would be leaked over the pipeline's decades long lifespan?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
skeet decorator posted:This is the crucial point you actually have to make the case for: Why do you think the amount of oil leaked from sabotage would be as much or more than the amount of oil that would be leaked over the pipeline's decades long lifespan? LOL if you thought that the protestors actually performed any analysis of the risk of the pipeline endangering the Standing Rock Sioux. If you follow their reasoning, the cities of St. Louis, MO and Memphis, TN are totally negligent in allowing pipelines to cross the Mississippi upstream and any moment now, millions in those cities will die from mass poisoning. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Dec 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:LOL if you thought that the protestors actually performed any analysis of the risk of the pipeline endangering the Standing Rock Sioux. If you follow their reasoning, the cities of St. Louis, MO and Memphis, TN are totally negligent in allowing pipelines to cross the Mississippi upstream and any moment now, millions in those cities will die from mass poisoning. I'm entirely unsure what you're trying to say. You are aware we're discussing a hypothetical right? No one has put forth any concrete plans for sabotage, there's nothing to preform a risk analysis on. I was responding to Jarmark saying quote:your stated moral justification for your actions is the prevention of environmental damage through oil leaks, so deliberately causing oil leaks as a tactic betrays your justification as dishonest. Jarmark is the one claiming sabotage would nullify the Sioux's moral justification. It's on him to show that the risk of oil leaking from any and all forms of sabotage is greater than the risk of oil leaking over the pipeline's lifetime.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
skeet decorator posted:You start by claiming the Sioux have no legal right, ignoring entirely the issue of sovereignty. And no, I'm not saying the permit process should be subject to international law. I'm saying that you don't get to claim that the Sioux didn't act in good faith, while ignoring the fact that every other time they tried to engage the US legal system they got stripped of their land and sovereignty. I'm saying as a sovereign nation they have the right to use force to block the pipeline if they want to. I think I understand why you are confused now. Legal rights as we think of them within a state legal system and customary law as it exists between nations are very different animals. I can understand why you would be confused about this, because in the post World War era, the United States and its allies have tried to shape a world order where disputes between sovereigns are resolved through legalistic processes rather than the state of nature that prevailed before and actually exists below the surface today. The first thing you need to understand is that sovereignty only exists to the extent that other sovereigns recognize it or that you can force them to recognize it. You can't claim to be the highest legal authority if you have no power to enforce your decisions. It isn't a legal right, because it by definition includes the power to decide what the law is. For example, the Peoples' Republic of China and the Republic of China both claim to be the absolute sovereign over the whole of Chinese territory. However, the government on Taiwan has no sovereignty over mainland Chinese territory in any real sense, and the community of nations has more or less come to accept this reality. In a similar sense, native tribes in the United States don't actually have full sovereignty. They don't own the land of their reservations and don't have the right to conduct foreign policy, and generally are bound by U.S. law. We indulge them a certain limited sovereignty in certain areas due to their unique history, but they don't enjoy full sovereignty the way a nation state does. International Law is, as Captain Barbossa said, "more like guidelines", because being sovereign by definition means that there is no higher power to check you if you decide to do something. The only thing stopping you is the force or other sovereigns, and when two sovereigns clash over an issue to the point of force, that's what war is. That's why cannon fire is called the last argument of Kings. If Canada sent the Mounties to seize property in Minnesota pursuant to a Canadian court order, we would have them arrested. Whatever right Canada might assert is limited by the extent of their sovereignty, which stops, for most of the west, at the 49th parallel. Asserting that the protesters have the right as agents of a sovereign entity to use force to impose the will of their sovereign on US soil is a loving crazy argument, because it means that the protesters aren't citizens with due process rights, but enemy combatants. Under LOAC, the army could mow them down with machine guns or expel them without due process. Framing the protest as a military occupation by foreign saboteurs is possibly the worst possible way to frame it. skeet decorator posted:I actually agree with your position that the permitting process was followed in good faith and that the pipeline doesn't pose an environmental threat. I don't agree that we get to say "we followed the rules this time, sorry my indian dudes" while ignoring the litany of unjust outcomes that came before. skeet decorator posted:You then go on to equate the Sioux protesting the pipeline to NIMBYism. I'm saying that this comparison is retarded because not all NIMBYs are indigenous peoples with unresolved peace treaty violations. I'm saying it's possible to respect the wishes of the Sioux in this one instance without ceding all future infrastructure projects to NIMBYs. skeet decorator posted:No, in fact I outright stated when I first brought it up that it would be a terrible idea. My argument has never been that the Sioux should start a war. Merely that it would be legal. Like I said I was indulging your brilliant "it's legal deal with it" argument. skeet decorator posted:Yeah sure, maybe we can use the very obvious distinction I already pointed out. Any sovereign nation with which we've broken a peace treaty should be allowed to wage war (or heck, even non-violently protest) by blocking the construction of our infrastructure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Nice meltdown, whoever gave me this avatar. Criticism from morons is really a sincere form of praise, no? No, I don't mind sabotage of the pipeline. I doubt they will turn it on without checking the integrity, are you really that dense? Uglycat posted:or an understanding of the difference between things that feel and things that don't This. God, you wannabe cops disgust me, do you think the corporations will show any restraint when they want something of yours? E: You literally saw a superiour paramilitary demonize a civilian minority and force them out of their own resources, and then equated the victims fighting back with the nazis during the kristallnacht. Congratulations on being too loving dumb to tie your own shoes 
Tias fucked around with this message at 13:24 on Dec 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 12:20
|
|
|
Tias posted:Nice meltdown, whoever gave me this avatar. Criticism from morons is really a sincere form of praise, no? I don't think they are morons, just people who have a financial interest in corporations not showing restraint. I think you underestimate the number of Americans who have a huge financial interest in keeping the energy industry alive. insert that upton sinclair quote about people being unable to understand a position that conflicts with their livelihood
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
Tias posted:Nice meltdown, whoever gave me this avatar. Criticism from morons is really a sincere form of praise, no? Hahaha is effectronica giving out red texts to people who are anti-pipeline now?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
I can't understand why people are debating whether or not sabotage is a legitimate form of protest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
albany academy posted:I can't understand why people are debating whether or not sabotage is a legitimate form of protest. If your stated goal is to protest a pipeline due to the risks of oil leaks, sabotaging said pipeline is contrary to your stated values. Uglycat posted:I'm not committed here to advocating /for/ a sabotage strategy. I'm informing you that I've caught wind of such strategies being entertained by many different independent people. What you do with that information is up to you - but if your response is 'that's dumb, it shouldn't happen, so let's pretend it didn't, ignore it, and pour oil through that pipeline', you're an irresponsible company shill. It's especially rich that you've walked it back to this weak sauce weaseling from "I'm pretty sure that pipeline is compromised, end to end." Also, tell us more about the NSA vehicle, Uglycat. Tias posted:You literally saw a superiour paramilitary demonize a civilian minority and force them out of their own resources, and then equated the victims fighting back with the nazis during the kristallnacht.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:"Breaking people's property or threatening the same in order to intimidate them into doing what you want is actually bad, but it's OK when vigilantes I agree with do it" is not a terribly impressive argument. Are you really this dumb? It's a proportionate response: People who have murdered your ancestors for loving hundreds of years decide to ram a pipeline through said ancestors graves, using their legal system yields no tangible results, and now they have started shooting your elders - at what point would you push back, oh sage-like legalboner?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
Are there really posters ITT arguing that it would be unethical to sabotage the Once-lers Thneed factory. How did my emotionally distant authoritarian dad find his way to these dead gay forums (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Tias posted:Are you really this dumb? It's a proportionate response: People who have murdered your ancestors for loving hundreds of years decide to ram a pipeline through said ancestors graves, using their legal system yields no tangible results, and now they have started shooting your elders - at what point would you push back, oh sage-like legalboner? Accept none of this is actually true? Not a single shred of evidence of disturbed graves has been found, in fact lots of money, time, and effort has been spent mapping out cultural sites and avoiding them. The other tribes who engaged in the legal process were granted requests for reroutes 140/148 times and the only thing that has been getting shot has been drones (and oh boy if you're talking about rubber bullets that's some awesomely dishonest use of ambiguity). Calibanibal posted:Are there really posters ITT arguing that it would be unethical to sabotage the Once-lers Thneed factory. How did my emotionally distant authoritarian dad find his way to these dead gay forums It turns out that in real life morality is more complicated than Dr. Seuss books.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
remember guys rubber bullets dont count, lol. it's just like fairy dust sprinkled on the protesters, says me, an annoying white man posting on the internet
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
RBC posted:remember guys rubber bullets dont count, lol. it's just like fairy dust sprinkled on the protesters, says me, an annoying white man posting on the internet No when you're saying "they're shooting people" in the context of justifying violent resistance they sure as gently caress don't count. You know this and he knows this, hence leaving it ambiguous: because it sounds ridiculous if you don't. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Tias posted:Are you really this dumb? It's a proportionate response: People who have murdered your ancestors for loving hundreds of years decide to ram a pipeline through said ancestors graves, using their legal system yields no tangible results, and now they have started shooting your elders - at what point would you push back, oh sage-like legalboner? If they'd used the legal system the ACE wouldn't have gotten radio silence for two years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:No when you're saying "they're shooting people" in the context of justifying violent resistance they sure as gently caress don't count. Drop it
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
Edit: deleted, not allowed to talk about it
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
If you wanna relive the "what's the definition of shoot" conversation just click the following quote and read backwards from there Absurd Alhazred posted:Could this derail about whether or not the bullet was bullety enough please cease?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Only in the legalistic sense does violence distinguish between crimes against the person versus crimes against property. In common parlance it used to describe something as being done with destructive force (or to describe something as intense through metaphor). Conceding that vandalism falls under the common definition of violence, there is an immense practical and moral difference between violence inflicted upon property and violence inflicted upon people, and I know you understand the distinction. It's hypocritical of you to criticize others for ambiguous use of language when you yourself are using violence ambiguously, and I've seen you make enough good arguments to know you're capable of better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:Conceding that vandalism falls under the common definition of violence, there is an immense practical and moral difference between violence inflicted upon property and violence inflicted upon people, and I know you understand the distinction. It's hypocritical of you to criticize others for ambiguous use of language when you yourself are using violence ambiguously, and I've seen you make enough good arguments to know you're capable of better. Of course he doesn't. Few in this thread knows what it's like to be targeted by state or corporate violence, and so many assume it's probably not that big of a deal - while like 40% of the global population still lack access to clean drinking water.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:Conceding that vandalism falls under the common definition of violence, there is an immense practical and moral difference between violence inflicted upon property and violence inflicted upon people, and I know you understand the distinction. It's hypocritical of you to criticize others for ambiguous use of language when you yourself are using violence ambiguously, and I've seen you make enough good arguments to know you're capable of better. That distinction gets blurry when you're talking about violence inflicted upon property for the purposes of intimidating people. Which is why even in legal sense if you smash my mailbox because you think it's funny we don't consider it a violent crime but if you smash my mailbox and tell me it'll continue until I leave the neighborhood we do. There's clearly still a distinction but it becomes one more of magnitude rather than kind. But yes, whether we can qualify it as "violence" is somewhat irrelevant, unlawfully destroying people's property in order to intimidate them into doing what you want is wrong regardless of what word you want to use to describe it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:But yes, whether we can qualify it as "violence" is somewhat irrelevant, unlawfully destroying people's property in order to intimidate them into doing what you want is wrong regardless of what word you want to use to describe it. HUMM JASE let's equivocate endlessly about how destroying a loving pipe is a LAWFUL CRIME while the screws try to kill people by hypothermia, that is totally the same thing!  gently caress this thread, I'm taking a break.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:That distinction gets blurry when you're talking about violence inflicted upon property for the purposes of intimidating people. Which is why even in legal sense if you smash my mailbox because you think it's funny we don't consider it a violent crime but if you smash my mailbox and tell me it'll continue until I leave the neighborhood we do. There's clearly still a distinction but it becomes one more of magnitude rather than kind. We agree here in principle, but I don't believe that's an accurate summary of this situation. In this case, the violence against the pipeline directly accomplishes a material goal of preventing the pipeline from being rendered operational, and is being directed from a group that lacks power to one that is considerably more powerful than them. That doesn't seem to fit the meaning of the intimidation described in your example, where a largely symbolic act is being targeted at a vulnerable party. It's going to be difficult to have a nuanced discussion about the specifics of the damage done to the pipeline since as current it exists only as a vague hypothetical.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Accept none of this is actually true? Not a single shred of evidence of disturbed graves has been found, in fact lots of money, time, and effort has been spent mapping out cultural sites and avoiding them. The other tribes who engaged in the legal process were granted requests for reroutes 140/148 times This is basically why the goal of the protests and hypothetical sabotage is Pretty Important and needs to be clear. To be fair, the tribal elders have on multiple occasions requested that the people who are just there to protest against fossil fuels because fossil fuels pipe down and let the tribe take the lead, because that somewhat undermines the tribe's basis for both protests and legal challenge. I'm not at all sure sabotage in this case is a productive enterprise, at which point the ethics debate can stop right then and there. Edit: also I don't think it's too debatable that the police should be as humane as possible in doing their duty. Please do not link me to the inevitable posts upthread where people took the opposite position, I wish to maintain my illusion.  It's possible to believe that property destruction for purpose of intimidation is generally bad, AND excessive force utilization by law enforcement is bad.
Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Dec 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:Conceding that vandalism falls under the common definition of violence, there is an immense practical and moral difference between violence inflicted upon property and violence inflicted upon people, and I know you understand the distinction. It's hypocritical of you to criticize others for ambiguous use of language when you yourself are using violence ambiguously, and I've seen you make enough good arguments to know you're capable of better. Uglycat posted:sabotage is /not/ violence. Voyager I posted:We agree here in principle, but I don't believe that's an accurate summary of this situation. In this case, the violence against the pipeline directly accomplishes a material goal of preventing the pipeline from being rendered operational, and is being directed from a group that lacks power to one that is considerably more powerful than them. That doesn't seem to fit the meaning of the intimidation described in your example, where a largely symbolic act is being targeted at a vulnerable party. I don't know where this idea that threats and violence are somehow different or more justified when used by the weak against the strong came from, but it seems remarkably prevalent in D&D.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:If a state Senator catches a homeless tweaker rooting through his garbage, and said tweaker brandishes a knife and says he'll gut the Senator like a fish if he calls the cops, the disparity in wealth and power between the two parties does not somehow alter the nature of the threat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You're not really up on your international law then. The jus ad bellum framework that is customarily recognized as adjudicating when a state has the right to go to war recognizes a distinction between (among other things) a just cause, proportionality, and the likelihood of success. A belligerent must meet all jus ad bellum criteria for their initiation of a war to be considered just. Starting a futile war (and an irredentist campaign by native tribes would be futile) is by definition unjust because it inflicts all the horror, death, and privatize of war without any realistic chance of creating just ends. Despite what Internet leftists will tell you, the right to futile violent resistance isn't a real thing. I think you have a very biased understanding of this concept. By your logic, there are perhaps two nations on the planet who could justly declare war on the United States, and that's if we stretch and assume the entire Commonwealth would back the UK's play. It's pure might makes right bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'd remind you that this discussion started with the unambiguous assertion that violence against property for the purpose of intimidating people wasn't violence I'm speaking for myself only, so please don't ascribe my statements to other people or combine their arguments with mine to make them appear contradictory or hypocritical. quote:If a state Senator catches a homeless tweaker rooting through his garbage, and said tweaker brandishes a knife and says he'll gut the Senator like a fish if he calls the cops, the disparity in wealth and power between the two parties does not somehow alter the nature of the threat. If we're talking about a simple threat of immediate violence, you're right; power disparities outside the context of two men in an alley don't matter. However, what we were discussing before was using sustained violence and threats of violence to coerce long-term changes in behavior, where social power disparities do matter. The Tweaker can strongarm the Senator not to stop him from leaving, but he's certainly not going to be able to prevent him from calling the police as soon as he's gone and if he comes back the next night he's probably going to get arrested by security.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:We agree here in principle, but I don't believe that's an accurate summary of this situation. In this case, the violence against the pipeline directly accomplishes a material goal of preventing the pipeline from being rendered operational, and is being directed from a group that lacks power to one that is considerably more powerful than them. That doesn't seem to fit the meaning of the intimidation described in your example, where a largely symbolic act is being targeted at a vulnerable party. It's still intimidation even if it's not symbolic of a threat to the person, "I'm gonna break all your poo poo until you leave my neighborhood" is still intimidation even if there's no implicit or explicit threat of personal violence on the target. I'd argue that the more relevant distinction is one action is targeted at an individual who we can empathize with as feeling fear and victimization whereas as the other is targeted at a unsympathetic faceless legal entity. At that point are we really identifying a moral difference between the two acts or are we simply following the very human tendency to rationalize away immoral acts committed against those we don't like (and especially those we don't like that we perceive, real or not, have power over us)? Honest hypothetical, not a rhetorical question. Though at that point we kind of risk crossing the event horizon of disappearing up our rear end talking about what intimidation "really" means. Alternatively I'll suggest that regardless of what I said above there's obviously a point where violent resistance is wholly justified, I don't have a comprehensive theory on exactly where that point is but my basic intuition is somewhere around the point where the mechanisms we have in society for resolving conflicts fairly without violence have failed beyond repair at a systemic level (or at an individual level in very extreme circumstances), and/or the state has been so delegitimized that it no longer carries a societal mandate to wield the monopoly on legitimate violence. This is of course not a binary state, there's proportionality involved. We haven't gotten to the point of even trying to make that argument though, at least with any sort of consistency. If you want to go that route of resistance you need to be able to morally justify 1) why you're right to begin with, 2) how the process was unjust in not giving you your way, and 3) Why 1) & 2) constitute a proportional moral wrong to counteract the moral imperative of the specific law your breaking. No one thus far has made a consistent argument that even gets us past 1), we're just going in circles with variants of "We don't want a pipeline and colonialism is bad.... therefore if you want a pipeline you like colonialism and are also bad". From what I can tell from reading the documents everything has been done as "right" as you possibly can, they spent time and money, much more than they were required to, doing archeological surveys of various proposed routes in order to avoid disrupting cultural sites, they actively engaged with the tribes to avoid routing the pipeline through culturally sensitive areas and overwhelmingly accepted their input when given. And they both faithfully completed environmental impact studies and are using all the latest and best building and drilling techniques in order to make sure the pipeline is as safe as humanly possible. Which is why, combined with the complete refusal to make a moral argument as to what the pipeline is actually doing wrong, I can't help but be led to the conclusion that this is actually at it's heart an "all oil is bad" protest that is trying to gain traction with the general public by disguising itself as an issue of colonialism. edit:I'm bad with typos Jarmak fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Dec 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
It's generally more accurate to think of movements having multifaceted purposes and arguments rather than a black and white reductionist  "it's actually just one thing but it's pretending to be another"And pretty much all of that was some really brilliant strawman poo poo. You're putting a lot of time and effort into painting all arguments to your own as dumb and so goddamn crazy to the point where I am concerned that you genuinely think these are the points being argued. wearing a lampshade fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Dec 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
albany academy posted:It's generally more accurate to think of movements having multifaceted purposes and arguments rather than a black and white reductionist Fair enough, you're not wrong, there are people who legitimately see this as a colonialism issue. Though I do think there are large percentage of people involved (especially among the people cheerleading from the internet) who are using the colonialism arguement cynically. edit: albany academy posted:And pretty much all of that was some really brilliant strawman poo poo. You're putting a lot of time and effort into painting all arguments to your own as dumb and so goddamn crazy to the point where I am concerned that you genuinely think these are the points being argued. 99.9% of that post was not making any sort of rebuttal (as opposed to independent) argument so even if by fiat you were 100% correct about all your opinions I have no loving idea what you think you are calling a strawman except for literally one very detachable sentence (which I standby as an accurate characterization for many of the arguments in this thread). Jarmak fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Dec 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 02:24 |
|
|
I'm honestly amazed people are giving them the time of day, most of this thread seems to be arguing in circles with a few specific people. From what I've observed, they aren't too concerned about making a valid point vs being "right", and are willing to compromise even their own positions to do so. It's a drat shame because I've seen several times people new to the thread, coming in with some valid questions, then getting ignored by everyone as they're too busy arguing over how much brutality is "right" or "just" or whatever word people are arguing the definition of now. Maybe if someone has a lovely argument, instead of giving it validity by replying to it, just move on and find a more constructive way to discuss the issue? People are getting probated by replying to these folks with the unabashed exasperation I'm sure a lot of people are feeling right now. Not to mention any discussion of new elements to the situation is being obfuscated by these pointless arguments, I'd rather read analysis of the latest statements from the Army vs yet another contest to see who can be the most conservative and still be taken seriously.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 22:38
|
|
