|
Thread deserves some Two Bulls.
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 14:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 17:22 |
|
|
Wow. I had only heard about the Havasupai, who live in and around the Grand Canyon, and thus constituted quite an inconvenience to people wanting a pristine and human-free view of the pretty rocks. Although from what I've read, the really bad days seem to be behind them.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2016 10:38
|
|
|
I was going to go sarcastic in this post, but I got depressed. Obviously, the narrative of "pristine wilderness beauty" is both contrary to history and part of our legacy of genocide. Read the book for such proud moments as the national Sierra Club fighting tooth and nail to keep the Havasupai from getting a single scrap of the land which the Park Service has publicly earmarked for a resort complex.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2016 11:34
|
|
|
I just want them to explain where they think the IEEFA went wrong in their analysis. For those who haven't seen it yet and aren't motivated to ignore its mention, it sets out why, even separate from any position on pipelines in general, this particular one is a scam and already on the verge of failure. If you'd prefer an extreme summary to reading a dozen pages: oil prices are half what they were when it was planned.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 12:43
|
|
|
If you're in favor of a reduction of profit, what's wrong with protests making the venture more costly?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 13:15
|
|
|
blowfish posted:big oil is lovely and terrible given the current state of big oil and the current state of the planet That's what I suspected. I assume you know that a lot of people would rank these the other way around? Why are they (okay, we) wrong? blowfish posted:the more general bad of randoms with very strong opinions being able to shut down infrastructure construction outweighs the specific bad of building an oil pipeline over places There are countries where the peasantry are given no rights which they could use to override the decisions of capital, but I don't think either of us live in one. As far as I can tell, if you're bothered by "randoms with strong opinions," you're bothered by democracy. Which, okay, you aren't the only one in the subforum with that position, but I assume you know how popular democratic principles are with most folks, so...what's the pitch? What's the downside we're missing? What's the tragic consequence of people being able to make things happen or not happen?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
blowfish posted:You are not free to take the law into your own hands unless you are ready to keep getting arrested for it until you either convince broader society to change the law or give up. So you dislike these protestors because you question their commitment to protesting? They haven't broken the law enough?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
Morbus posted:The implication seems to be that this sort of direct action is either counter-productive, illegitimate, or both. It's super weird to me too, but I think there's a lot of people committed to that position. I still remember the first time I met someone who thought it was laughable to make a distinction between "illegal" and "immoral." At least he at least had the excuse of being a teenager from Georgia. Dead Reckoning posted:So if a direct action group started just randomly killing refinery workers to intimidate them into not showing up for work, and it was effective in doing that, you would consider that legitimate? Is this refinery in Syria? 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 08:25
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Allowing protestors to decide what gets built is bad because protestors aren't necessarily right about what to protest. So because sometimes people protest good things, it's also bad when people successfully prevent a bad one via protest. You probably at least vaguely know that over the course of American history, many different protests have succeeded, but our society has yet to be rendered powerless against protests. BEAR GRYLLZ posted:Actually I'm pretty sure it's possible and logically consistent to support people protesting the construction of oil pipelines while also trying to educate and dissuade the people who protest against modern nuclear power plants? He knows nuclear plants are good and pipelines are bad, he just thinks that protestors are much worse. It may a non-sequitur to you and I, but I believe to him it's the central issue at stake here: people agitating the wrong way are beneath contempt, and must be taught a lesson, lest the march of progress grind to a halt.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
My internet connection does not seem up to downloading a file of that size, but I'll keep trying.blowfish posted:Decisions with large scale and long term effects need to be made by competent people, and if necessary through formal processes. Who has decided what constitutes competence and formality, and how did their standards gain such moral weight? I'm worried your answer to the latter part will be something about how things would be bad without some laws, in the same way they'd be bad without some infrastructure, therefore we should be loath to criticize any laws or infrastructure.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
blowfish posted:People who have studied the topic in question sufficiently to make an informed and factual assessment get to make an informed and factual assessment. This is because their findings are not just based on random-rear end opinions but state-of-the-art knowledge and well-tested methods. If the question is "does this project risk harming the environment/drinking water/etc" then you ask environmental engineers and ecologists, not the first person with a really strong opinion you come across. This is consistent what you'd already said, but does not directly answer either of my questions: Doc Hawkins posted:Who has decided what constitutes competence and formality, and how did their standards gain such moral weight?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Bullshit. If these people suddenly ended up in Lakota Sovereign Territory, they wouldn't suddenly lose their American Rights nor their land. Sounds like the plot of a Chuck Tingle book. Pounded in the Pipeline by the Proud Lakota Nation.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
Senator Heitkamp has given a statement on the decision:quote:It’s long past time that a decision is made on the easement going under Lake Oahe. This administration’s delay in taking action -- after I’ve pushed the White House, Army Corps, and other federal agencies for months to make a decision -- means that today’s move doesn’t actually bring finality to the project. The pipeline still remains in limbo. The incoming administration already stated its support for the project and the courts have already stated twice that it appeared the Corps followed the required process in considering the permit. For the next month and a half, nothing about this project will change. For the immediate future, the safety of residents, protesters, law enforcement, and workers remains my top priority as it should for everyone involved. As some of the protesters have become increasingly violent and unlawful, and as North Dakota’s winter has already arrived – with a blizzard raging last week through the area where protesters are located -- I’m hoping now that protesters will act responsibly to avoid endangering their health and safety, and move off of the Corps land north of the Cannonball River. Emphasis mine: "more money for us," and "gently caress you," if not in that order.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:who cares? I think their intention is to have you to admit that it would be bad, and that therefore the world is a better place thanks to past and ongoing oppression of native peoples.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 07:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Unless the natives seized the territory by force and imposed a treaty on the US Government that ensured they'd be able to genocide the white population, then they would have the Mandate of Heaven and the treaties and genocide would be a sound moral basis for the Sioux nation's private property rights. I'm having a hard time believing that he'd really keep consistently to his principles if they became a burden to oil extraction.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 08:13
|
|
|
Looks like Marty Two Bulls' hasn't drawn a victory cartoon yet, but of course, most of his work on the subject looks pretty victorious.  
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
Apparently there's a Lakota story about a "black snake from the north" showing up at the end of the world, and Marty really took to that image.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 11:01
|
|
|
Principle 0: The Hippie Must Be Punched.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2016 07:37
|
|
|
I hear those darn protesters are doing sit-ins at local diners, obstructing law-abiding citizens like us from being able to sit at the counter. I think I'll show them what I think of this behavior by pouring a malt over their head, or perhaps peacefully disperse them with a fire hose. No no, you don't understand: they're trying to stop something from being built. I forget what exactly, but what would we do if nothing could be built? It'd be quite the pickle. Luckily we can non-violently shoot them with rubber bullets for their own safety.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:guys i'm just asking questions but can you prove that this pipeline isn't going to be the one that is perfectly safe forever It's just like the old saying goes: progress depends on people being reasonable.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
LanceHunter posted:This whole "if you don't build it, they won't come" thinking is kind of absurd. So if this pipeline doesn't get built, they're just gonna leave the oil in Montana? As I understand it, that's more likely than it sounds: the market price of oil has plunged since the pipeline was planned, so unless and until it goes back, no one's who isn't locked into a contract (which I guess is no one, now that construction has passed the deadline) has a reason to buy oil from that field.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
Agreed, they should be physically destroying oil infrastructure instead. Silento Boborachi posted:Because we worked together, the Federal Government will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. Which agency? The EPA? Because they might be a little busy being closed.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 17:22 |
|
|
Not at all. For instance, sometimes it prevents the construction of oil infrastructure. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 04:21
|
|