|
stone cold posted: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. Because the ACoE looked at the map and said "uhhh yeah we don't want that poo poo anywhere near a moderately-large population center" and moved it without actually bothering to ask or bring it up to anybody there.
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 09:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:21 |
|
|
coyo7e posted:Unfortunately you're mistaken in this statement. Oh, that's my bad. The car accident comparison is still specious though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 09:41
|
|
|
stone cold posted: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. quote:approximately 11-miles of length would be added to the pipeline route, consisting of roughly 165 additional acres of impact, multiple additional road crossings, waterbody and wetland crossings, etc. In addition to the criteria shown in the tables, due to the proximity to Bismarck, the North Bismarck route alternative crossed through or in close proximity to several wellhead source water protection areas that are identified and avoided in order to protect areas that contribute water to municipal water supply wells. The route was also severely constrained by the North Dakota Public Service Commission’s 500-ft residential buffer requirement at multiple locations. Furthermore, this route alternative crossed other populated PHMSA high consequence areas (HCAs), that are not present on the preferred route. quote:The Standing Rock Sioux say the new supply point is not enough to ease their concerns over the pipeline. The developer behind the pipeline, Energy Transfer Partners LP (ETP.N), has vowed not to reroute the line. coyo7e posted:How many milliliters of pipeline spill fluid per liter of drinking water, is the limit where you won't drink it? Are you willing to pour that much into that much water and then drink it to prove your dedication to its safety? Hell I'll even let you pick the pipeline and fluid. B. It's not safe to chug concentrated glyphosate and that has nothing to do with whether consumers should be afraid of it being used on their crops.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 09:46
|
|
|
stone cold posted:The car accident comparison is still specious though. But hey we're all goons so  is good as long as we all have a chance to learn more truth, imho
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 09:47
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:A. I'm not an expert on safe levels of crude oil contamination. In the event of a leak upstream I'd listen to my water supply company and stop drinking my water if they said it was not safe. If they said it was safe and it wasn't flammable or particularly funny tasting, I'd drink it. e: would you drink the water in Flint Michigan? The providers and gubmint have been saying it's safe for years
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 09:48
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Oh, that's my bad. Yeah, interesting how forums poster Goebbeldygook missed this
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
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 17:26
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:Put up, or shut up. Note: glyphosate is less toxic than alternative herbicides. Nobody cared about it until people started hating Monsanto. If you think glyphosate is literally the worst, you are being a complete idiot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 17:36
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Recoome posted:Sorry, what I'm trying to get from you is your hot take on ~why~ this is a valid comparison Also, it's amazing that coyo7e took a minute to complain about, of all things, NIMBYs blocking a project he was in favor of. BTW, the correct solution to the threat of pipeline sabotage is for the state to use its police power to prevent it and arrest those conspiring to engage in sabotage. Living in a nation of laws means that your security does not exist only insofar as you can pay mercenaries to defend it. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Dec 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:There are actually valid arguments about why we should treat oil pipelines differently from freeways, but no one has actually made them. I made the valid argument that the widening of a freeway actually makes traffic worse due to induced demand from further reliance on cars (and therefore increases likelihood of accidents), then hoped people would be smart enough to put two and two together w/r/t how building more pipelines aren't actually meant to divert other, less safe forms of oil transport (and therefore increase the total frequency of pipeline spills) e: no one has really contested the point that further pipelines aren't meant to actually replace current supply methods. Likewise, widening lanes actually does increase car use, so it'd be valid for someone to protest further road expansion. Gobbledygook's example was an own-goal because it further shows how little they understand of how infrastructure works (their understanding being more obviously=better!) and that since they're wrong, they should rethink their stance; either that or their motivation really comes down to "no rabblerousers in my backyard" (after all, they gushed earlier about how everyone is in need of some "water cannon therapy") Rodatose fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Dec 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Nobody bothered to explain why car accidents are different from oil spills because they're not retarded. But if any retards in here need to have it explained to them, maybe they can go ask on the forum for retards or something. Or ask a kindergarten teacher. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
RBC posted:Nobody bothered to explain why car accidents are different from oil spills because they're not retarded. wowzers
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
honestly I can't tell if that's pro or anti pipeline, but what I can say for certain is that was a pretty sick own
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
Hey look, that thing that everyone said wouldn't happen? It happened: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/12/pipeline-spills-176000-gallons-of-crude-into-creek-about-150-miles-from-dakota-access-protest-camp.html quote:A pipeline leak has spilled tens of thousands of gallons of crude oil into a North Dakota creek roughly two and a half hours from Cannon Ball, where protesters are camped out in opposition to the Dakota Access pipeline.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Hey look, that thing that everyone said wouldn't happen? It happened: People die every day, why don't we just ban living!!!!
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Hey look, that thing that everyone said wouldn't happen? It happened: This sounds like a terrible company running old lines with failing equipment. Not shutting down for hours, let alone not detecting the leak at all, is frankly a huge embarrassment and should be grounds for firing the controller at least. Even if pressure sensors on the line were busted, I don't know how they could have missed that much product going into the line and not ever coming out. In any case, you can't really compare this incident to a potential one on DAPL. Its closer the last major leak an ETP operated line had a few months back in PA. In that case, the line was ruptured due to a pipe being exposed by exceptional flood waters, then having a bridge partially collapse on it. That leak was detected and shut down/isolated in something like 6 minutes. Don't remember how big that was but the environmental impact was deemed negligible. What I'm saying is, if your equipment and your operators aren't crap, leaks don't necessarily always reach that level of impact
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
Ace of Space posted:What I'm saying is, if your equipment and your operators aren't crap, leaks don't necessarily always reach that level of impact Over a long enough timeline, the likelihood of them becoming crap approaches 100%.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
Ace of Space posted:This sounds like a terrible company running old lines with failing equipment. Not shutting down for hours, let alone not detecting the leak at all, is frankly a huge embarrassment and should be grounds for firing the controller at least. Even if pressure sensors on the line were busted, I don't know how they could have missed that much product going into the line and not ever coming out. It's almost as if nearly the entire industry has a history of cutting corners on maintenance and modernization...
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 06:13
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:It's almost as if nearly the entire industry has a history of cutting corners on maintenance and modernization... Oh man. You have no idea. I currently work with an operating program designed in 1986. We've been trying to get a new system operational for EIGHT years. It's a mess and by the time it finally gets rolled out early next year it'll already be obsolete. For the record I support the protesters and think the DAPL line is a gross overreach by a company that is almost just adding lines for the sake of refusing to stop expanding. However, that particular leak is is gonna get a ton of comparisons to DAPL that really aren't warranted. I'm sure there are other leaks you can compare that involve a little incompetence by the personnel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
RBC posted:Nobody bothered to explain why car accidents are different from oil spills because they're not retarded. But I realize I'm explaining the universality of logic and standards of argument in D&D again, which tends to get the same reaction as explaining orbital mechanics to a fish.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:But I realize I'm explaining the universality of logic and standards of argument in D&D again, which tends to get the same reaction as explaining orbital mechanics to a fish. hahahahaha
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The argument he's responding to, which Commie chimed in to make again, is literally "here is a news article about a bad thing happening on a different pipeline. That proves that this pipeline is unsafe and should not be completed." When someone asks why that argument is valid with respect to pipelines but not literally anything else (like roads), "ah but they are different things" is not actually an answer unless you explain why that difference makes the argument applicable to one but not the other. You can't wave your hands and say "the rest of my argument is implicit!" Roads don't spew thousands of gallons of chemical waste into a local enviornment when they don't work properly, hth!
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 07:01
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:It's almost as if nearly the entire industry has a history of cutting corners on maintenance and modernization... https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3789088&pagenumber=42&perpage=40#post467338062
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 07:07
|
|
|
Recoome posted:hahahahaha Feral Integral posted:Roads don't spew thousands of gallons of chemical waste into a local enviornment when they don't work properly, hth!
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
Feral Integral posted:Roads don't spew thousands of gallons of chemical waste into a local enviornment when they don't work properly, hth! I'm also trying to think of what the  for "no one notices the leak for hours and then takes further hours to stop" would be. Maybe the car chase at the end of The Blues Brothers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm kind of amazed that you managed to skip over the part of my post that I italicized specifically so people would understand the important bit, but not really. Dead Reckoning posted:unless you explain why that difference makes the argument applicable to one but not the other. Roads don't spew thousands of gallons of chemical waste into a local enviornment when they don't work properly, hth!
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 10:46
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:But I realize I'm explaining the universality of logic and standards of argument in D&D again, which tends to get the same reaction as explaining orbital mechanics to a fish. Yeah, because the rest of us understand that political and moral situations are not governed by first principles and have to be treated on a case-by-case basis. You keep playing Plato, and frankly you're a bit poo poo at it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 10:50
|
|
|
first principles are cool and good
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
blowfish posted:first principles are cool and good unlike your're posting (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
blowfish posted:first principles are cool and good They're intellectual masturbation actually
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
skeet decorator posted: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.  From literally your first post in this thread you've been arguing that the Sioux have a moral and legal right as a sovereign nation to engage in warfare against the United States. skeet decorator posted: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? 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... 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:The U.S. violated the 1868 treaty repeatedly, why would it not be both just and legal for the Sioux to pick up Cloud's War where it left off (attacking colonialist infrastructure)? An act of war? Most definitely! But I don't see how it would be illegal skeet decorator posted:My argument has never been that the Sioux should start a war. Merely that it would be legal. skeet decorator posted: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. skeet decorator posted: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. skeet decorator posted:Yeah, pretty much. skeet decorator posted: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).  you just can't help yourself. You're spitting out concepts you recognize from LOAC like magic invocations of justice and good without having any grounding as to their actual meaning. The Geneva and Hague conventions (except for a nod in the Hague Conventions to the pacific resolution of disputes between nations) are statutory treaties covering jus in bello concerns like the treatment of prisoners and the prohibition of certain weapons. They have no particular relevance to jus ad bellum analysis, which is customary anyway.If you think my position is "problematic", then you ought to explain why you think it moral and acceptable for belligerents to cause the deaths of their soldiers and those on the other side in pursuit of a war or operation that has no chance of accomplishing a legitimate military objective, as long as they think their cause is good enough. Let me spell it out for you: every belligerent that cares enough to worry about things like moral justification to take up arms thinks their cause is the most just and worthy. Otherwise they wouldn't be putting their lives and fortunes on the line for it. A prohibition that allows self-exemption when you think you've been *really good* and deserve a break from the rules we hold everyone else to is no prohibition at all. skeet decorator posted: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 14, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
Feral Integral posted:Roads don't spew thousands of gallons of chemical waste into a local enviornment when they don't work properly, hth! botany posted:Yeah, because the rest of us understand that political and moral situations are not governed by first principles and have to be treated on a case-by-case basis. You keep playing Plato, and frankly you're a bit poo poo at it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
Your principles are situational since you think it's okay for some people to use violence against a group of people in some situations but it's not okay for those people to use violence (against property) in other situations. If you really had ""principles"" you'd either say all violence all the time or no violence at all !!!!!!!!!    
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:If your principles are entirely situational, then you don't actually have principles. I guess its a good thing nobody said that then
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
botany posted:I guess its a good thing nobody said that then I'm not clear what distinction you're trying to draw between "political and moral situations have to be treated on a case-by-case basis, rather than based on consistent principles" and "my ethics are based on the situation."
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:That doesn't explain why argument by anecdote is applicable to pipelines but not everything else. Pipelines are different than roads, because a failing road infrastructure does not leak contaminants into the local environment the way a failing oil pipeline does. I can keep repeating this until you get it, if you like.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
Principle 0: The Hippie Must Be Punched.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 07:37
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:Principle 0: The Hippie Must Be Punched.  baby steps, we all have to start somewhereDead Reckoning posted:I'm not clear what distinction you're trying to draw between "political and moral situations have to be treated on a case-by-case basis, rather than based on consistent principles" and "my ethics are based on the situation." I think the idea is something like "I have fixed ethical principles but which of them takes precedence depends on which side I like more".
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
Christ. The point is that there's a difference between principles ("Racism is bad. Comedy should punch up, not down. No, Pepsi is not okay.") and proper philosophical first principles which have to be both broadly universally applicable and expressive enough to cover subtleties. Having principles is just another way of saying you have moral convictions. Those are going to vary with context an awful lot. ("I think stealing is wrong, but if I'm starving it might be okay to steal food. I'm also dying of thirst, so maybe Pepsi is okay this once.") The search for first principles leads you to look at an argument like "that other pipeline just leaked massively, this is relevant for the discussion about this pipeline" and discard it because there's no goddamn Euclidean deduction of a value judgment from appropriate first principles to the underlying metaphysical commonality that connects both cases, which is what DR is doing. It's unhelpful, completely removed from normal modes of communication and a very easy way to feel superior towards people who have a strong moral conviction but lack the proper training to trace that conviction back to a consistent set of principles that can serve as an explanatory ethical base. It also seems to be connected to an over-reliance on legal arguments, presumably because at least there you have explicit principles. This is admittedly anecdotal and my personal gut feeling, but every time I listen to people like DR I get the feeling they're just looking for any explicit strong rule set and if in doubt prefer it to context-dependent moral arguments, because at least it's something that they can hang on to, regardless of the imperfections.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:21 |
|
|
It's almost like the pro-authoritarian posters have this weird dialectical thinking going on. It's against the ~law~ so the protesters are ~bad~
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 01:25
|
|