Line 9

[PIK]

Eco terrorist is a great description. And I hope this government has the balls to go after them ,if they cause any problem what so ever.

[Big Guy]

With Global warming, protests about pipelines, railway oil tankers crashing, carbon footprint agreements et al I can see an easy solution - build more nuclear plants.

This may satisfy those protestors, save building pipelines and allow Canada to easily reach the decarbonisation commitments.

Win, win solution.

[PIK]

We could shut everything down today and it would be 100 yrs before we see change, so lets not cut our own throats with this. Lets be smart and put the emotions away.

[Argus]

Some causes are worth inconveniencing yourself to show your support. Other causes are worth inconveniencing others to show your support.

And laws are meant to put people who break them into prison. Such people are rarely of any value to society. Nor are those who support them.

[ironstone]

A brave and expensive move. I would imagine that somebody chaining themselves to anything on a weekday would keep them from going to work at their regular job and losing a days pay.

I would hazard a guess that many of these protesters don't have real jobs.

[overthere]

I think these brave eco-warriors should burn down the Quebec National Assembly. The swine that occupy it now allow the oil to go to the Montreal House of Horrors refinery that is the destination for this dirty Alberta oil.

The correct feedstock for the refinery is the traditional sources: Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran. Those scum in cowboy hats need to be punished.

Edited December 22, 2015 by overthere

[Big Guy]

...

That's what Robert Lewis Dear decided.

-k

That was a response to my , "Some causes are worth sacrificing your life. Other causes are worth sacrificing (taking) other peoples lives. Yet other causes are worth doing both."

Personally, I give far more credibility to those who inconvenience themselves and sacrifice their own lives rather than bother others. Everybody has a "cause". Most people satisfy their dedication to a cause by using themselves and their own time to try to get others to focus on their personal gripe. I think that when you start bothering others then you are crossing a line. When you start to interfere with what others are doing in their normal lives then you are exhibiting an arrogance that you think you know better than all others and that gives you licence to bother others. You do not have that right.

The argument that I hear from those "activists" when they cause problems for others is that the importance of the cause is greater than the inconvenience that they are imposing on others.

The logic of that thinking is that the end justifies the means.

We all know what happens when you chose to go down that road.

If you have a right to block my road I then have the right to clear you from my road - with whatever means required.

[WestCoastRunner]

And laws are meant to put people who break them into prison. Such people are rarely of any value to society. Nor are those who support them.

So you think Greenpeace is of no value to the world?

[WestCoastRunner]

That was a response to my , "Some causes are worth sacrificing your life. Other causes are worth sacrificing (taking) other peoples lives. Yet other causes are worth doing both."

---SNIP---

If you have a right to block my road I then have the right to clear you from my road - with whatever means required.

Activists inconvenience others in order to draw attention to their cause that would otherwise be ignored. If others weren't inconvenienced they wouldn't give a second thought to the issue.

Edited December 22, 2015 by Charles Anthony
excessive quoting [---SNIP---]

[WestCoastRunner]

We're not really in to vigilante justice in this country.

Then you are not familiar with activism in BC. But this is typical of anyone who lives east of the Rockies.

[segnosaur]

So you think Greenpeace is of no value to the world?

Some people think that not only does greenpeace have no value to the world, their continued existence is actually harmful, not only to the economy, but human lives and the very environment they pretend to be protecting.

Genetically modified food (e.g. golden rice) has the opportunity to save millions of lives, and at the same time reduce pollution. Likewise, nuclear energy is a technology with a smaller ecological footprint (when measured against total production) than most alternatives (as well as a lower death toll). Yet Greenpeace has actively campaigned against those technologies.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/08/26/golden_rice_attack_in_philippines_anti_gmo_activists_lie_about_protest_and.html

[Smallc]

Then you are not familiar with activism in BC. But this is typical of anyone who lives east of the Rockies.

I know how Canadians in general feel about people taking the law into their own hands - especially when it inconveniences them.

Besides, last I checked, Line 9 was in Ontario.

[WestCoastRunner]

I know how Canadians in general feel about people taking the law into their own hands - especially when it inconveniences them.

Besides, last I checked, Line 9 was in Ontario.

If you check back on your response I quoted, you said 'this country'. Last time I checked BC is considered part of Canada, except for those east of the Rockies. I'm so ecstatic that Trudeau has a great history with BC.

[WestCoastRunner]

Some people think that not only does greenpeace have no value to the world, their continued existence is actually harmful, not only to the economy, but human lives and the very environment they pretend to be protecting.

Genetically modified food (e.g. golden rice) has the opportunity to save millions of lives, and at the same time reduce pollution. Likewise, nuclear energy is a technology with a smaller ecological footprint (when measured against total production) than most alternatives (as well as a lower death toll). Yet Greenpeace has actively campaigned against those technologies.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/08/26/golden_rice_attack_in_philippines_anti_gmo_activists_lie_about_protest_and.html

Greenpeace has plenty of accolades from saving rainforests, putting pressure on corporations to adopt Eco friendly practices and now using social media to aid in those goals.

[TimG]

Greenpeace has plenty of accolades from saving rainforests, putting pressure on corporations to adopt Eco friendly practices and now using social media to aid in those goals.

Do you have any evidence that these political correct posturings represent a net positive for the environment and society given the outright harm caused by greenpeace's opposition to rational solutions like GMOs or Nuclear power?

[WestCoastRunner]

Do you have any evidence that these political correct posturings represent a net positive for the environment and society given the outright harm caused by greenpeace's opposition to rational solutions like GMOs or Nuclear power?

Such buzzwords you use Tim, political correct posturings, net positive.

Here are a few positives. You can decide if they are good for the environment:

L'oreal commits to end role in deforestation

Nestle ends purchasing of palm oil from rain forests

Barbie drops rain forest packing

South Korea ends scientific whaling plans

I can go on if you want.

[Smallc]

If you check back on your response I quoted, you said 'this country'. Last time I checked BC is considered part of Canada, except for those east of the Rockies. I'm so ecstatic that Trudeau has a great history with BC.

Last time I checked, BC was not the entire country. Most people in BC agree with what I'm saying. How do I know? Because they're busy living their lives.

[TimG]

L'oreal commits to end role in deforestation

Nestle ends purchasing of palm oil from rain forests

Barbie drops rain forest packing

South Korea ends scientific whaling plans

A few questions:

1) What does l'oreal do instead and why is it better?

2) What does Nestle use instead of palm oil and why is it better?

3) Not even sure what that means.

4) What does stopping sustainable whaling have to do with helping the environment?

The point you are missing is greenpeace cares only about grandiose projects that get donors to shell out cash. They don't really care if their projects are helpful in the long term or if their activism results in even more harm in the long term.

Edited December 22, 2015 by TimG

[Argus]

Activists inconvenience others in order to draw attention to their cause that would otherwise be ignored. If others weren't inconvenienced they wouldn't give a second thought to the issue.

What right do you have to inconvenience me in the name of your pet cause?

[overthere]

Some posters here are just not filled with revolutionary fervour.

[eyeball]

.

Edited December 22, 2015 by eyeball

[eyeball]

What right do you have to inconvenience me in the name of your pet cause?

I doubt activists would frame it as a right but more a duty to cause inconvenience. Trying to overcome a sense of moral duty with the sort of legal definitional rigidity that is more appropriate in the case of physical assault against someone just won't work. It's just anti-activist fervour, of a rather ridiculous sort that thinks little of slapping the label terrorism on activism.

If an activist does claim they have a right assume it's the same sort of misplaced rhetorical fervour at work.

Edited December 22, 2015 by eyeball

[WestCoastRunner]

What right do you have to inconvenience me in the name of your pet cause?

You seem to have no idea what activists have stood up for to protect our planet. Grow a pair argus and find out.

[WestCoastRunner]

Last time I checked, BC was not the entire country. Most people in BC agree with what I'm saying. How do I know? Because they're busy living their lives.

I will let this speak for itself.

[WestCoastRunner]

A few questions:

1) What does l'oreal do instead and why is it better?

2) What does Nestle use instead of palm oil and why is it better?

3) Not even sure what that means.

4) What does stopping sustainable whaling have to do with helping the environment?.

You can decide for yourself. Do your own research.