Line 9

[GostHacked]

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.

3-Mile Island, Cherbnobyl, Fukushima .. yes very green. If you ignore the radiation.

[TimG]

You can decide for yourself. Do your own research.

IOW, you are admitting the 'benefits' provided by greenpeace are not some absolute truth but a subjective question that depends on whether one shares the eco-religion propagated by greenpeace.

[GostHacked]

yeaaaah, and Robert Lewis Dear was pretty sure that Planned Parenthood wasn't on the up and up either. You guys just like the eco-warrior cause better than the pro-life warrior cause.

The rule of law is a pretty big deal for me.

-k

Turns out Planned Parenthood was not on the up and up. The rule of law might be a big deal, but the application of the law seems to be inconsistent.

[WestCoastRunner]

IOW, you are admitting the 'benefits' provided by greenpeace are not some absolute truth but a subjective question that depends on whether one shares the eco-religion propagated by greenpeace.

No. I'm not interested in engaging with you.

[WestCoastRunner]

Turns out Planned Parenthood was not on the up and up. The rule of law might be a big deal, but the application of the law seems to be inconsistent.

What do you mean?

[GostHacked]

What do you mean?

Only because you asked. But that could be for another thread. https://www.yahoo.com/health/catching-up-on-the-planned-parenthood-controversy-184348775.html

[TimG]

No. I'm not interested in engaging with you.

Because you realize that some people simply do not share your view of the world and it is makes it impossible to present an argument if someone is not willing to accept your myths as "truth".

[GostHacked]

Because you realize that some people simply do not share your view of the world and it is makes it impossible to present an argument if someone is not willing to accept your myths as "truth".

I believe this can be applied to you and well,,, all of us here.

[WestCoastRunner]

Because you realize that some people simply do not share your view of the world and it is makes it impossible to present an argument if someone is not willing to accept your myths as "truth".

Nice spin. But as I have suggested, I presented some accomplishments to date. It is up to the reader to determine if they satisfy their requirements for a safe planet. It's not up to you or me to decide for them.

[TimG]

I believe this can be applied to you and well,,, all of us here.

Except I am willing to acknowledge the nature of my beliefs and talk about solutions that take into account that people have fundamentally different values that should be accommodated. However, this solutions will not make people who insist on imposing their values on everyone else happy.

[GostHacked]

Except I am willing to acknowledge the nature of my beliefs and talk about solutions that take into account that people have fundamentally different values that should be accommodated. However, this solutions will not make people who insist on imposing their values on everyone else happy.

Your posting history in my view seems to counter what you are putting forth here.

[TimG]

requirements for a safe planet.

"safe planet"? That is like saying "jesus is lord". It is a statement that has no meaning outside of your religion. What really matters is whether the benefits of action outweigh the harms. The trouble is you cannot make that assessment unless one knows what the harms are.

[WestCoastRunner]

Except I am willing to acknowledge the nature of my beliefs and talk about solutions that take into account that people have fundamentally different values that should be accommodated. However, this solutions will not make people who insist on imposing their values on everyone else happy.

I am not imposing values. I am sharing information. It's up to every citizen of the world to decide what they are willing to throw their weight behind.

[GostHacked]

"safe planet"? That is like saying "jesus is lord". It is a statement that has no meaning outside of your religion. What really matters is whether the benefits of action outweigh the harms. The trouble is you cannot make that assessment unless one knows what the harms are.

Pollution, war, poverty, malnutrition, human rights, inequality,... just to name a few.

[TimG]

Your posting history in my view seems to counter what you are putting forth here.

Posts where I try to make it clear to people wedded to their "myths" that not everyone accepts these myths as truths? It is a mistake to presume an argument put forward on discussion forum represents the sum total of a individuals thoughts on the topic.

[WestCoastRunner]

"safe planet"? That is like saying "jesus is lord". It is a statement that has no meaning outside of your religion. What really matters is whether the benefits of action outweigh the harms. The trouble is you cannot make that assessment unless one knows what the harms are.

Everyone has their benchmark for a safe planet. I can't assume to guess the benchmark for someone who has no children, or someone who is focussed on short term monetary gain.

[TimG]

Pollution, war, poverty, malnutrition, human rights, inequality,... just to name a few.

And how does ending a sustainable harvest of whale populations that are not endangered help ameliorate any of those issues? If anything the reduction in economic activity would make those issues worse.

[WestCoastRunner]

And how does ending a sustainable harvest of whale populations that are not endangered help ameliorate any of those issues? If anything the reduction in economic activity would make those issues worse.

That is your opinion. For others, it's why kill living mammals? to what purpose? Reduction in economic activity?

Edited December 23, 2015 by WestCoastRunner

[TimG]

Everyone has their benchmark for a safe planet. I can't assume to guess the benchmark for someone who has no children, or someone who is focussed on short term monetary gain.

More myths and assumptions. Just because someone does not believe in your myths that does not mean they don't have children or do not care about the long term. The fact that you assume such things is one of the psychological walls you put up to protect your myths from information that undermines them.

[GostHacked]

And how does ending a sustainable harvest of whale populations that are not endangered help ameliorate any of those issues? If anything the reduction in economic activity would make those issues worse.

Define 'sustainable' ? Which whale population are you referring to?

[TimG]

That is your opinion. For others, it's why kill living mammals? to what purpose? Reduction in economic activity?

We kill living mammals all of the time on a large scale. The environmentalist obsession with charismatic mega-fauna is one of the more irrational aspects of the religion.

[TimG]

Define 'sustainable' ? Which whale population are you referring to?

The South Koreans were harvesting Minke Whales which are the healthiest whale population and is considered stable.

BTW: the person most responsible for 'saving the whales' is John D. Rockefeller

http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2010/11/05/the-man-who-saved-the-whales/

Through Rockefeller’s work, kerosene became both cheaper and safer to use than whale oil, and quickly began to replace it in the marketplace. By 1890 the American whaling fleet had already dropped from a peak of 735 ships to just 200, and was still falling, in large part due to low cost kerosene produced by Rockefeller’s Standard Oil.

Edited December 23, 2015 by TimG

[Ike Softner]

Apparently, we don't need any oil any more.

Of course we need oil. Always will as far as I'm concerned. I change my own oil and discard the oil wherever I want. Oil is natural and used oil should be returned to nature where it can purify and form clean oil that can be enjoyed by future generations.

[bush_cheney2004]

Like all the animals that are "harvested", oil was put on the earth by God for use by mankind. Eco-terrorists should read Genesis 1:26:

...God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

Thanks God...you rock !!!

[Big Guy]

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 makes an activist think that their cause is more important than what I am doing when they inconvenience those who do not support them?

There are a number of "causes" that are in play in this world at this time:

Rather than trying to identify all these causes in some manner, I feel that just identifying "causes" by the ribbons that indicate one supporting them may be a base for comparison:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awareness_ribbons

There are over 200 causes listed there that those involved feel that others should be made "aware of". I would suggest that the proponents of each feel that theirs is more important than others - if they did not feel that way then they would support the more important cause.

What makes your cause more important than others causes? Are you not "aware" of these other causes and require someone to inconvenience you to pay attention?

I do not need someone "drawing my attention" to some cause that is important to them.

My personal reaction, when someone inconveniences me to try to bring my "attention" to what THEY think is important is to go out of my way to sabotage their effort and to cause a lot of "inconvenience" to the organizers of the protest.

Did you know that a yellow ribbon indicates an awareness for "A symbol of mourning the victims of South Korea's Sewol Ferry (see South Korea Sewol Sinking). This may mean nothing to you but it sure is important to the families and loved ones who died on the Ferry. Is this "awareness" less important than your personal cause?