MtnGoat Posted October 23, 2002 Posted October 23, 2002 "he's just providing an admittedly exaggerated example of the typical selfish right wing view of "I'll do whatever the hell I want, regardless of the effect it has on others" " is this like the selfish left wing view, I'll try and legislate whatever I can regardless of the effects it has on others, because I feel I'm helping? Seems worrying about effects on others is really really important...until leftists decide they want to impose all kinds of effects on others, because it makes them feel good. Quote
iain Posted October 23, 2002 Posted October 23, 2002 quote: Originally posted by trask: People can drive any damn thing they want. If you don't like it, tough shit. It's their money, their bag. It's your money when you have to pay higher gas prices, higher energy prices for material production, more restrictive air quality requirements, and the list goes on. People already complain about gas prices when they are spending upwards of $40 a week to commute in an Excursion on heavily subsidized gas. I predict total anarchy if gas goes over $3 a gallon. Quote
Greg_W Posted October 23, 2002 Posted October 23, 2002 quote: Originally posted by iain: quote:Originally posted by trask: People can drive any damn thing they want. If you don't like it, tough shit. It's their money, their bag. It's your money when you have to pay higher gas prices, higher energy prices for material production, more restrictive air quality requirements, and the list goes on. People already complain about gas prices when they are spending upwards of $40 a week to commute in an Excursion on heavily subsidized gas. I predict total anarchy if gas goes over $3 a gallon. I've heard this argument before, Iain, and I don't think so. People understand that when they buy a big truck that it will cost money to drive. Most of us are willing to pay what it costs to drive the vehicles we want and don't complain. I only complain about gas prices because I know they would go down if we would just drill ANWR. Quote
MtnGoat Posted October 23, 2002 Posted October 23, 2002 "People already complain about gas prices when they are spending upwards of $40 a week to commute in an Excursion on heavily subsidized gas." So end the subsidies, and end the limitations on exploration and let the market work out the appropriate price given demand. The market is the best democracy in the world, the one where actions speak and bullshit walks, where each person puts their own choices into expression, or not. I totally agree fuel should not be subsidized, but neither should it be penalized based on the moral views of folks who say they don't like using it. Then don't. [ 10-23-2002, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ] Quote
Cpt.Caveman Posted October 23, 2002 Posted October 23, 2002 quote: Originally posted by Greg W: Can Adamson and I borrow it to make the approach up to Aasgard Pass quicker? Yeah it's got the swimming capability. Just buy your own gas. 20 gallons just to start it up. Mobile bivy too Quote
greenfork Posted October 23, 2002 Posted October 23, 2002 quote: Originally posted by Greg W: These bullshit exaggerated examples ("ridiculous" in Iain's words) add nothing constructive to the discussion. This technique is designed to stump the other side, not encourage interchange. "Typical selfish right wing view..."; nice troll. You may think that being able to make my own decisions about my life is selfish, but I don't. How much of your personal freedom are you willing to subvert? You obviously believe that you should be supporting homeless people and that the government should be our nanny; I, however, do not. Being able to make your own decisions about your life is a good thing, and not selfish. But actually making decisions about your life without regarding the effects on others, or not caring, is selfish. Not understanding the difference between these two things is bad. but left-wingers trying to impose misguided limitations on our freedoms is also bad. Quote
Off_White Posted October 23, 2002 Posted October 23, 2002 quote: Originally posted by Greg W:I only complain about gas prices because I know they would go down if we would just drill ANWR.[/QB]MODERATOR! MODERATOR! Greg's trolling again! I'm telling! Quote
Greg_W Posted October 23, 2002 Posted October 23, 2002 Damn, busted by Off White. Hey, I love your cd, man. I've listened to it like 8 times since Sunday. Great hanging with you at P.G. Spray on, people. Quote
RobBob Posted October 23, 2002 Posted October 23, 2002 I think what pisses most of us off about the environmentalists is that they seek to control others' behavior without doing shit themselves. Authority requires the willingness to take on the associated responsibilities. Quote
allthumbs Posted October 23, 2002 Author Posted October 23, 2002 People that buy gas hogs understand the consequences. The same applies in the yachting world. If you have to ask what it costs to operate, you can't afford it. Simple, huh? Quote
iain Posted October 23, 2002 Posted October 23, 2002 quote: Originally posted by Greg W: I only complain about gas prices because I know they would go down if we would just drill ANWR. So once sucked dry just move onto the next one? That's the rationale of a virus. The successful viruses don't kill off their host quite so quickly. Would you mind drilling the N. Cascades? It's a part of the American Cordillera too, plenty of petro possiblities down there. Bring in the ground-pounders. Quote
Greg_W Posted October 23, 2002 Posted October 23, 2002 quote: Originally posted by greenfork: But actually making decisions about your life without regarding the effects on others, or not caring, is selfish. Not understanding the difference between these two things is bad. but left-wingers trying to impose misguided limitations on our freedoms is also bad. You may exercise your personal freedom and liberty to the extent that it does not infringe the personal freedom and liberty of your neighbor. Very simple. You still never answered my question: HOW MUCH OF YOUR PERSONAL FREEDOM ARE YOU WILLING TO SUBVERT (or sacrifice)? Greg W Quote
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted October 23, 2002 Posted October 23, 2002 "I only complain about gas prices because I know they would go down if we would just drill ANWR." Greg, As a tradly alpine climber and presumably an enthusiast of the wilderness or at least semi-undespoiled natural areas where you like to climb, how do you reconcile your anti-anti-development (not sure if you're actually pro-development), pro-oil extraction, anti-environmentalism standpoint with your enjoyment of the outdoors? At what point would you feel the need to fight development or resource extraction, were it to threaten your favorite areas. Say Exxon found 200 billion barrels worth of oil under the crags at Leavenworth, and you'd never get to climb there again. Would you be happy that gas prices would go down to 85 cents a gallon and let them start drilling, or would you fight like a motherfucker to keep the crags? How about the same situation in your favorite hunting spot, etc? Would you be riled if a new subdivision paved over a choice fishing spot? Just curious as to where you draw the line, as it seems that eventually your politics and your various forms of recreation are at a danger of conflicting eventually. Quote
j_b Posted October 23, 2002 Posted October 23, 2002 quote: People can drive any damn thing they want. If you don't like it, tough shit. It's their money, their bag. of course. I am also for taxation to be proportional to greenhouse gas emissions (something like: emissions^n with n a high number). You all said doing something about global warming was going to be expensive, well you were right! (doing nothing about it will be even more expensive) quote: I totally agree fuel should not be subsidized, but neither should it be penalized based on the moral views of folks who say they don't like using it.Global warming is not a moral view but a reality. Your litany about your god-given right to screw others is tiresome. Quote
MtnGoat Posted October 23, 2002 Posted October 23, 2002 I like it when we're told how bad SUV's are, by folks who then travel by air and then burn kerosene straight into the upper atmosphere for trivial reasons they won't accept from anyone else. It seems that when their reasons for doing so are acceptable, but those of people they don't even know are not. Quote
greenfork Posted October 23, 2002 Posted October 23, 2002 quote: Originally posted by Greg W: [QB You still never answered my question: HOW MUCH OF YOUR PERSONAL FREEDOM ARE YOU WILLING TO SUBVERT (or sacrifice)? Greg W[/QB] ABOUT 22% Quote
Cpt.Caveman Posted October 23, 2002 Posted October 23, 2002 Hey is it true greenpeace spikes trees and does other sorts of pranks similar to it Quote
Greg_W Posted October 23, 2002 Posted October 23, 2002 quote: Originally posted by j_b: Your litany about your god-given right to screw others is tiresome. Now you've proved to me that your a moron in two threads. NEVER has MtnGoat (or I) said that we have a God-given right to screw others. That is YOUR twisted interpretation and selective reading of what we have to say. Did you not read my last post? You may exercise your personal freedom and liberty to the extent that it does not infringe the personal freedom and liberty of your neighbor. Very simple. How is that "screwing others"? If you have a guilt complex because you're a mildly successful white guy and have to compensate by feeling good about giving your money to the government for social programs, fine. But don't project your guilt onto me. [ 10-23-2002, 10:31 AM: Message edited by: Greg W ] Quote
MtnGoat Posted October 23, 2002 Posted October 23, 2002 "As a tradly alpine climber and presumably an enthusiast of the wilderness or at least semi-undespoiled natural areas where you like to climb, how do you reconcile your anti-anti-development (not sure if you're actually pro-development), pro-oil extraction, anti-environmentalism standpoint with your enjoyment of the outdoors?" both can be accomplished. oil is only where it is, and isn't where it isn't. Even if everywhere was open for drilling, only a limited number of places would actually be drilled, and given observation of rational rules for drilling, impacts can be kept low. "Say Exxon found 200 billion barrels worth of oil under the crags at Leavenworth, and you'd never get to climb there again." since side drilling is a modern reality, you could get oil and still climb. Placement of the rigs in one of the side valleys would keep them out of sight to assuage delicate sensibilities and still allow access using side drilling. "Would you be riled if a new subdivision paved over a choice fishing spot?" now they pave water? Quote
RobBob Posted October 23, 2002 Posted October 23, 2002 quote: How about the same situation in your favorite hunting spot, etc? Would you be riled if a new subdivision paved over a choice fishing spot? Dr. Flashdance, this problem will come about mainly because we will have 385 million people in the US within 40 years or so. Perhaps you should reconsider my idea, which you so rudely dismissed weeks ago, for worldwide population control. Quote
Greg_W Posted October 23, 2002 Posted October 23, 2002 quote: Originally posted by Dr Flash Amazing: "I only complain about gas prices because I know they would go down if we would just drill ANWR." Greg, As a tradly alpine climber and presumably an enthusiast of the wilderness or at least semi-undespoiled natural areas where you like to climb, how do you reconcile your anti-anti-development (not sure if you're actually pro-development), pro-oil extraction, anti-environmentalism standpoint with your enjoyment of the outdoors? At what point would you feel the need to fight development or resource extraction, were it to threaten your favorite areas. Say Exxon found 200 billion barrels worth of oil under the crags at Leavenworth, and you'd never get to climb there again. Would you be happy that gas prices would go down to 85 cents a gallon and let them start drilling, or would you fight like a motherfucker to keep the crags? How about the same situation in your favorite hunting spot, etc? Would you be riled if a new subdivision paved over a choice fishing spot? Just curious as to where you draw the line, as it seems that eventually your politics and your various forms of recreation are at a danger of conflicting eventually. Did you see my post to daniel about responsible use and management? The technology is there to extract the oil in a minimum-impact operation, much like the current Alaska pipeline and its related works. Quote
iain Posted October 23, 2002 Posted October 23, 2002 quote: Originally posted by MtnGoat: I like it when we're told how bad SUV's are, by folks who then travel by air and then burn kerosene straight into the upper atmosphere for trivial reasons they won't accept from anyone else. It seems that when their reasons for doing so are acceptable, but those of people they don't even know are not. Not to get into trivial details and I don't really have an opinion about your argument, but airplanes don't line up in a hover 5 abreast and 6x10^100 deep everyday at 7 and 5 for no good reason. With the numbers on the road, it only takes a modest increase in consumption and effulence to cause a real problem, and it gets ridiculous when most of those people don't need a 4x4 monster to get to Fred Meyer, that's all. Quote
allthumbs Posted October 23, 2002 Author Posted October 23, 2002 quote: Originally posted by RobBob: Perhaps you should reconsider my idea, which you so rudely dismissed weeks ago, for worldwide population control. Now that's the best idea ANYONE has come up with. Quote
Greg_W Posted October 23, 2002 Posted October 23, 2002 quote: Originally posted by RobBob: quote: How about the same situation in your favorite hunting spot, etc? Would you be riled if a new subdivision paved over a choice fishing spot? Dr. Flashdance, this problem will come about mainly because we will have 385 million people in the US within 40 years or so. Perhaps you should reconsider my idea, which you so rudely dismissed weeks ago, for worldwide population control. trollin' mofo; you bad. Quote
Cpt.Caveman Posted October 23, 2002 Posted October 23, 2002 I believe the proper name is Dr. Fleshdunce Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.