|
DeusExMachinima posted:gently caress ethics, how is pipeline sabotage a tactically smart move? If we're going with the Robber Baron reading of the oil company, wouldn't they turn it on either way and just let any possible environmental destruction teach the opposition not to try that sabotage poo poo again? There is no business but the money business. Defending against sabotage costs money. Spending some cash to stamp out a protest here or there is one thing, but if a sustained campaign against an inherently indefensible target makes investing in it less profitable than investing in something else, why not just invest in something else? Most major projects that get built, especially concerning mature industries that do not have young "true believer" visionary type leadership, are basically the result of a cost/benefit analysis done by people who couldn't give less of a poo poo whether they were making a pipeline or a bridge or a dildo factory. I mean people dumped airline stocks after loving 9/11 you think they are going to have principled objections to dumping an oil pipeline that is wasting their money? Also nobody is going to give you money if you intentionally dump oil into the ground after your pipeline breaks, for whatever reason.
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 12:00 |
|
|
Seriously, how long could any business sustain security on a 1700 mile long structure which is still not operating at all, from potentially hundreds or more people armed with like, drills and blowtorches and a will to cause financial loss before risking ecological harm? Perhaps they could build two walls for the length of the pipeline and then defend them with patroling guards. Trump says he's good at building walls. We should just build walls on both sides of every pipeline - it'll bring us closer together as Americans
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:If you can't keep your pipeline safe, and you build it in a location where you are surrounded by populations that have the will to damage it, turning it on can only be described as irresponsible. Humans are natural fauna, and you can't ignore natural fauna when designing a machine that - when it fails to work to spec - can /destroy a good chunk of a continent's ecosystems/. quote:Yes, this is an argument against building pipelines. If spills are inevitable, and spills are unacceptable, then pipelines are unacceptable. edit: coyo7e posted:Seriously, how long could any business sustain security on a 1700 mile long structure which is still not operating at all, from potentially hundreds or more people armed with like, drills and blowtorches and a will to cause financial loss before risking ecological harm?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:If you can't keep your pipeline safe, and you build it in a location where you are surrounded by populations that have the will to damage it, turning it on can only be described as irresponsible. Humans are natural fauna, and you can't ignore natural fauna when designing a machine that - when it fails to work to spec - can /destroy a good chunk of a continent's ecosystems/.  So your argument is that the native protesters are basically animals who have no volition but to follow their destructive natural instincts, like bears or raccoons, and we just have to figure out a way to control for this?If anyone who disagrees with the protesters trotted that out, they'd eat a probation for racism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
"No, YOU'RE THE REAL RACISTS" dead reckoning gurgles, slapping his pseudopods on the keyboard wetly
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook strokes his nodules harder, letting out tinny grunts of pleasure. Soon, soon all those awful dirty savages would be at a government black site where they belonged. Then, then his precious oil would be safe. Safe forever. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted: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. Thanks for the lesson on international law. Now reread my posts and try figure out how that's entirely tangential to my point. My point is that your entire perspective is based on judging the Sioux using the US legal framework, while continually failing to acknowledge that they are still actively being hosed by that system. I only brought up the "conflict between sovereign nations" thing because you only seem to acknowledge lagalistic arguments and I wanted to try and get you to acknowledge the full historical context. I'm asking you to put a modicum of effort into judging the situation from the Sioux's perspective. Let me break this down for you: 1868 - Sioux sign treaty garaunteeing soveriegnty over a certain area 1876 - Sioux are forced to sign of large areas of their land under threat of starvation At this point the Sioux decide their best bet for survival is through engaging the US legal system rather than fighting.However there is no mechanism for doing so. 1923 - After decades of lobbying the Sioux successfully get a special jurisdictional act allowing them to file suit against the US. 1942 - Suit is dismissed 1946 - Sioux file new suit under the newly created Indian Claims commission and lose their first hearing 1958 - After appeal the court is directed to hear new evidence 1980 - Sioux finally get a Supreme Court decision awarding them interest on the value of the land stolen.The Sioux reject this money and continue to press for the land back filing dozens of lawsuits, which they continue to do to this day. . Dead Reckoning posted: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. Yes, it would be really dumb and if the US wanted to they could nuke them from orbit. As I've stated several times now ,we are in agreement that it's a bad idea. Dead Reckoning posted:Actually we can say exactly that if the law is just. If you were wrongly imprisoned, you don't get a lifetime pass on speeding tickets when you get out. Let me try and make your analogy a little more accurate. Suppose you're sentenced to life in prison, after a few decades you win your appeal and are declared innocent. The government awards you some cash for your troubles but won't release you from jail. You spend a few more decades fighting for your release and refusing to accept the cash. The prison cafeteria decides to stop offering a gluten free option. You engage in a non-violent protest and the prison guards response is to subdue you with physical violence. Like, yeah, there's no reason prisons should have to offer a gluten free option. And sure, prisons should be allowed to use physical force against non-compliant prisoners. However, it is super loving obvious that the past injustice permeates the entire situation. If your response is to say "sorry but if we allow your protest than anyone can protest" rather than "it's clear that you still being in jail is a gross violation of your rights and the least we can do is try and respect your wishes while you're still stuck in there" Dead Reckoning posted:So your whole argument is special pleading? Yeah, pretty much. 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 wasn't aware the Sioux nation was a signatory to the Geneva and Hague conventions, how silly of me. But, yes you are correct, might makes right in international law. If they fought and lost the could be found in violation of the LOAC. Most people would see how problematic that is when applied to colonial resistance. But you are at least remarkably consistent (see your position on Palestinian resistance). In the end your fancy legal argument boils down to the US is more powerful and therefore it is just for them to treat the Sioux however they want. Which most human beings can recognize as insanely retarded.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:If you can't keep your pipeline safe, and you build it in a location where you are surrounded by populations that have the will to damage it, turning it on can only be described as irresponsible. Humans are natural fauna, and you can't ignore natural fauna when designing a machine that - when it fails to work to spec - can /destroy a good chunk of a continent's ecosystems/. I make no particular statement about other participants in the argument, but your argument is statistically moronic and borders on strategically moronic. I, personally, am provisionally supportive of the Standing Rock Sioux enterprise to protect their interests, but there is a huge huge difference between "this enterprise has not pursued adequate measures to prevent negative impact" and "this enterprise CANNOT BY DEFINITION pursue adequate measures to prevent negative impact".
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
I dunno, I haven't seen anything to change the fact that ETP and their associated orgs which run these pipelines - cannot or will not ever perform (or pay for) the amount of constant inspection upkeep and maintenance that is actually necessary to make sure such a large structure with such a hugely damaging potential impact, is safe within reasonable bounds. If they, say, had a dedicated inspector for every couple/few dozen/score miles of pipe on ANY of their poo poo, I'd believe they're acting in good faith with the purpose to ensuring that their equipment is safe. Instead I see stats like there will only be like 40 people total with long-term jobs involving the DAPL pipeline after it's finished - because the whole thing is automated with only a skeleton crew of engineers running on it, and nobody inspecting it except for the EPA-oh yeah, about that deregulation stuff, huh funny how that works to ensure that nobody is watching for leaks until someone steps in a puddle on their property and reports it. twodot posted:Perhaps sabotage is justified, but it's also plainly risking ecological harm, it would be just risking a supposedly small harm now compared to an ongoing risk of harm later.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/12/pipeline-spills-176000-gallons-of-crude-into-creek-about-150-miles-from-dakota-access-protest-camp.htmlquote:the "hillside sloughed", which may have caused the rupture. But hey it only leaked about 4200 barrels of oil in the couple hours it took to catch it. And how about those remote sensors? This pipe is only 6 inches in diameter, and this company has 36 reported spills in the last 10 years and hey, I think that batting .300 a month is loving great, don't you? And they totally were above board too http://www.buffalobulletin.com/news/article_89d6a31a-d87d-11e4-ad48-7f56556f81ae.html quote:Almost a decade after Belle Fourche Pipeline Co., a True Oil company, told the Bureau of Land Management it was no longer using a pipeline 44 miles southeast of Buffalo, the pipeline leaked 25,200 gallons of crude oil onto public lands. coyo7e fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Dec 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:Again - it's an unfinished structure - there's no risk of ecological harm unless the company responsible does not perform their due diligence. Basically, it's calling them out on their public statement of being for safety, and their actual practise of not giving a poo poo until they get caught - and then still not giving a poo poo
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
twodot posted:Dakota Access can't ever prove there hasn't been any sabotage since their last inspection
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
Reicere posted:Sure they can, its just that the amount of "extra" manpower they would need to secure the pipeline would cost enough to make the entire project a waste of money.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
twodot posted:People are lazy or lie
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
Reicere posted:Then your aren't paying your security enough. I'm sure 60,000 guards paid well above the professions average, with excellent benefits and no risk of downsizing, could get the job done. Reicere posted:Sure they can, its just that the amount of "extra" manpower they would need to secure the pipeline would cost enough to make the entire project a waste of money.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
I have lots of friends in real life and on facebook who are big about the water protectors. I don't feel I know enough about this issue, however, to get really passionate about it. I can read all kinds of different websites regarding this issue, and get generally very convoluted or subjective viewpoints... and I have. I sincerely come to this 'dead gay comedy forum' to read a whole lot of posts to get a feel for the topic at hand whatever it may be. Opinions, talking points, links to important stories... here in the gut of an internet OG. Lately in these post-elections days though, I just get a ton of back and forth over stuff that doesn't seem that important to the issue. I think at some point the name of the person posting the opinion, and the history they have in the thread, is becoming more important than what they're posting. I mean arguing over definitions is something people would usually just skim over, except that it's "THAT MOTHERFUCKER AGAIN" posting it and I think that's really the issue. I like that we aren't an echo-chamber. Hundreds of posts of people agreeing with each other isn't very interesting. I just feel the conversation is becoming inaccessible not even from a posting perspective but even from a reading perspective. I understand this isn't the most insightful post ever, here to break that mold, but many smart people have basically already said anything I'd say regarding the topic. I also understand this thread isn't the worst offender by far (it must be hell to moderate an internet forum)... Still, maybe we could understand that say, "legal precedent going into the future" is an important thing to consider, EVEN IF THIS VIEWPOINT IS COMING FROM SOMEBODY WE THINK IS AN rear end in a top hat. Or even maybe that "violence against property is still technically violence" isn't a very good argument when you know very well that the people perpetrating it are doing it, at least from their viewpoint, for the very loving future of life on this planet. I don't think my personal opinion on these things is some kind of ground-breaking revelation, hardly... and perhaps this is all just the nature of internet forum post based discussion. I do have a history, though, of talking to people with very different viewpoints and making serious attempts to engage them (sometimes successfully, {take that frank zappa!}). I did come into this topic unsold on what I thought should be done. I do find myself rather despondent reading all this, because if we're willing to argue so fiercely over the most mundane factors of the conversation, then the national political scene that I don't want to accept is really true, and perhaps there is really no hope for working together. I think I'll go to sleep thinking that Something Awful D&D supports people to come in and argue right-wing, devil's advocate talking points JUST TO MAKE THINGS INTERESTING, and the petty back and forths we see are just the result of us being boring people that all agree with each other. *edit* I don't mean to imply that we have to stop all pipelines ever, but I think understanding where somebody's argument is coming from is important and perhaps I apply special meaning to that when it comes to the people who are trying to defend this planet. Because honestly, even if they're wrong sometimes, we're basically furiously loving the only home we have and acting like there's some room for debate when somebody says 'but wait what if we can gently caress it just a little more?' Extremism in environmentalists is very suddenly and recently something I think I might support. I edited it again, and am willing to say that within 20 years, in our dystopian future, I will join the quinoa-rebels in their green crusade BRJurgis fucked around with this message at 03:11 on Dec 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:As of 2011 there were 17k border patrol agents guarding the 2000 mile long US Mexican border. Do you believe every oil pipeline should have triple the security of our southern border despite minimal history of pipeline sabotage? As for the southern border, i'm sure you'll find that many people believe 17k people to be insufficient for a border that is only twice as long as DAPL. So, 40 is probably too small for the pipeline. *3 shifts per day per 100ft of pipeline both exposed and below ground
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
Pipeline spills 176,000 gallons of crude into creek about 150 miles from Dakota Access protest camp
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
RBC posted:Pipeline spills 176,000 gallons of crude into creek about 150 miles from Dakota Access protest camp Came here to post that before discovering this is the worst thread in D&D.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
RBC posted:Pipeline spills 176,000 gallons of crude into creek about 150 miles from Dakota Access protest camp Reicere posted:Actually, Im suggesting 180k people* would be enough to guarantee with almost metaphysical certainty that there hasn't been sabotage, and that there must therefore exist some lower level of monitoring that is suitable to meet any other reasonable standard of certainty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
RBC posted:Pipeline spills 176,000 gallons of crude into creek about 150 miles from Dakota Access protest camp coyo7e fucked around with this message at 05:51 on Dec 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:100 people died today in car accidents. We should not be building any more roads! #NoMoRoads #WalkingIsLife I'd like to hear more about how this is somehow a valid comparison and not you making GBS threads in the bed again
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
Please don't feed the troll
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
hmm yeah, actually, I guess the blue cat aliens from Avatar WERE evil, huh?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
Recoome posted:I'd like to hear more about how this is somehow a valid comparison and not you making GBS threads in the bed again
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 06:53
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Imagine a city proposed widening a road to accommodate increased traffic and an activist cried out, "Thirty-five thousand people die in motor vehicle accidents every year! We should not be encouraging people to drive!" Would you agree with the activist? An oil pipeline somewhere leaking is not an argument against building another oil pipeline any more than a fatal five-car pileup is an argument against building more roads. Ughhh this is still just rephrasing what you said before
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Imagine a city proposed widening a road to accommodate increased traffic and an activist cried out, "Thirty-five thousand people die in motor vehicle accidents every year! We should not be encouraging people to drive!" Would you agree with the activist? An oil pipeline somewhere leaking is not an argument against building another oil pipeline any more than a fatal five-car pileup is an argument against building more roads.  - NOW DO YOU SEE!?!?"The number of people who die in car accidents a day is on the order of thousands. In fact, I think it's pretty close to thirty-five hundred a day. So even his made up defense is based on either incorrect or misleading numbers, because it's more like a million and a half people die in car accidents a year. In the US, it's well over 35,000 annually, nearing 40k. And there's the fact that there are car accident protestors, and they were super duper effective in all kinds of safety measures.. MADD, Ralph Nader, seat belt legislation the world over... coyo7e fucked around with this message at 07:05 on Dec 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 07:02
|
|
|
Actually we shouldn't be encouraging the model of basing life around car culture; it contributes to fossil fuel use, wasted economies of scale from transportation costs, traffic deaths, unsustainable infrastructure costs for a tax base divided locally, etc. Plus plus road widening causes more congestion since more space between things increases people's reliance on cars. There might be an analogy here to stoking fossil fuel reliance
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 07:07
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:Actually we shouldn't be encouraging the model of basing life around car culture; it contributes to fossil fuel use, wasted economies of scale from transportation costs, traffic deaths, unsustainable infrastructure costs for a tax base divided locally, etc. Plus plus road widening causes more congestion since more space between things increases people's reliance on cars.  (I mean seriously, if they aren't slinging on the bus and they pay for their fare, meth dealers are just another customer - should we stop meth dealers from visiting wal mart, or public bathrooms?  )I tried really hard to find the weird-rear end library conspiracy signage via google image search to show it, but couldn't - instead I found this  (note - that the right side of the picture is actually the road which is being expanded - it will cut maybe 3-5 feet off the parking lot of this half-dead old pond-fish-and-plants store and auto garages' parking lot which is inaccessible without crossing at least 4 lanes of traffic on foot, from any side) The funniest part is that a ton of these businesses with these anti-bus signs have had to literally chain them down, cover them with chicken wire and other reinforcement, etc... Because their businesses are literally a few feet away from a bus stop and someone obviously got tired and bored of sitting around waiting for the bus and kicked down the sign. Their "get the facts" page has been like this for literally several years http://www.best-oregon.org/get-the-facts/ "Best" Oregon  https://www.ltd.org/latest-news/airport-connector-service-to-end/ The bus people literally thought up, began, ran, performed a cost-benefit analysis of this route in question because tons of people want to carry their airline luggage over public transit, and then ended it after careful consideration. coyo7e fucked around with this message at 07:43 on Dec 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 07:35
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:The number of people who die in car accidents a day is on the order of thousands. In fact, I think it's pretty close to thirty-five hundred a day. So even his made up defense is based on either incorrect or misleading numbers, because it's more like a million and a half people die in car accidents a year. In the US, it's well over 35,000 annually, nearing 40k. Correct, there are car accident protesters who successfully advocated for safety changes that save lives. An analogous effort for oil pipelines would be protesters lobbying for improved construction techniques, requiring retrofits/inspections of older pipelines or be shut down, etc. Instead we get the Standing Rock Sioux protesting the construction of oil pipelines any distance upstream from their water source for fear of it tainting their precious bodily fluids. Rodatose posted:Actually we shouldn't be encouraging the model of basing life around car culture; it contributes to fossil fuel use, wasted economies of scale from transportation costs, traffic deaths, unsustainable infrastructure costs for a tax base divided locally, etc. Plus plus road widening causes more congestion since more space between things increases people's reliance on cars.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 07:42
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:hmm yeah, actually, I guess the blue cat aliens from Avatar WERE evil, huh? They were space furries. Of course they were evil. Rodatose posted:Actually we shouldn't be encouraging the model of basing life around car culture; it contributes to fossil fuel use, wasted economies of scale from transportation costs, traffic deaths, unsustainable infrastructure costs for a tax base divided locally, etc. Plus plus road widening causes more congestion since more space between things increases people's reliance on cars. The boat has probably left the dock on that one, but if you want to reduce dependency on gasoline then cars are a huge consumer of it unsurprisingly. Power plants in the U.S. are powered by oil products like 1% of the time. So getting electric cars on the market that are actually effective will go a long way towards putting a crimp in oil company profits.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 07:44
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
it's cute how gobbledygook literally starts using more and more pompous verbiage when he has no ground to stand on
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 07:45
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:My hypothetical car accident protester was in the US and only cared about deaths here because those are the only deaths Americans care about. I was working from memory; Dr. Google says it was 38.8k in the US last year, but the precise number of deaths is not any more important than whether 176,000 or 186,000 gallons of oil leaked. Sorry but please could you say, definitively, why the comparison you used was valid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 07:47
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Instead we get the Standing Rock Sioux protesting the construction of oil pipelines any distance upstream from their water source for fear of it tainting their precious bodily fluids.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 07:52
|
|
|
Recoome posted:Sorry but please could you say, definitively, why the comparison you used was valid. "what if bad things were actually good"
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 07:53
|
|
|
Polygynous posted:"what if bad things were actually good" The best justification provided thus far
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
What's your point? The Dakota Access pipeline is going over a river upstream from me and I don't give a gently caress. Glyphosate is a good thing and we should be glad Monsanto developed it and Round-Up Ready plants. BTW, re: the bus route in your town, thanks for a great example of why we should ignore irrational NIMBYs. It's exactly what this thread needed. Recoome posted:Sorry but please could you say, definitively, why the comparison you used was valid. 1. Oil pipeline leaks are bad. 2. An oil pipeline in (place) leaked. 3. Therefore the Dakota Access pipeline should not be built. Here is my analogous argument, somewhat reformulated: 1. Car accidents are bad. 2. There was a car accident yesterday in Sioux City. 3. Therefore we should not widen this road in Boston. Do you get it yet?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 09:15
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:What's your point? The Dakota Access pipeline is going over a river upstream from me and I don't give a gently caress. Hell, man up and pour a cup of glyphosate and drink it first and let us see it - it's been proven safe
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 09:18
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:What's your point? The Dakota Access pipeline is going over a river upstream from me and I don't give a gently caress. Glyphosate is a good thing and we should be glad Monsanto developed it and Round-Up Ready plants. It's funny that you bring up nimbys when the entire reason they moved the pipeline through native lands was because the white people in Bismarck were concerned about drinking water contamination. So uhhh congrats on being downriver, and obtuse?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 09:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 12:00 |
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:I'm not making a very complex argument. Here is the implicit argument someone makes whenever they link to a story about an oil pipeline spill, or a list of pipeline spills. Sorry, what I'm trying to get from you is your hot take on ~why~ this is a valid comparison
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 09:25
|
|