Well, protesting about oil/petrol while 100% of the time you benefit from it(even go so far as to use products with petrol on it to protest petrol)... is quite hypocritical.. in my book.   The pictures above is from 7 months ago and taken from this site. http://www.cfact.org/2015/08/14/californians-roll-96-million-plastic-balls-into-reservoir/ |
| what they mean is the burning of oil for energy which contribute to the worsening carbon dioxide emission that is causing global warming/climate change plastics has not really affected the climate yet eventhough plastics are made from oil as those pics said |
j0x said: plastics has not really affected the climate yet eventhough plastics are made from oil as those pics said Oh... many people wants to ban plastics too. |
CapitalistGod said: Oh... many people wants to ban plastics too. Never heard of that. They just want BPA out of plastic and have more environmentally friendly plastics which is something that already exists. |
| Those evil people who want us to stop depleting our recourses before its too late. These images make me angry, ofcourse they're not going to spend a ridiculous amount out of pocket to get non-petroleum kayaks. They're not rich like the fucking oil barens who probably released these propaganda images. Did you get these from FOX news OP? |
 |
| They probably got to them protests in their cars too. I bet hardly any walked or cycled. They're part time eco warriors. Protest something on the weekend so they feel better about themselves or morally superior then go right back to driving to their office job every day, using petrol, air con and lots of other things that damage the environment. I say you either go all in on these types of things or you're a hypocrite. |
 |
NasalShark said: Those evil people who want us to stop depleting our recourses before its too late. These images make me angry, ofcourse they're not going to spend a ridiculous amount out of pocket to get non-petroleum kayaks. They're not rich like the fucking oil barens who probably released these propaganda images. Did you get these from FOX news OP? The fact is that they're benefiting from it. Also, this is not from Fox News... There's a link in the OP...it's from CFACT. As for the "depleted" resources... How many times I've read that. People have been saying that line many times in the past and yet the resource has not been depleted. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/19/great-moments-in-failed-predictions/ |
| Surprised there isn't one about 'eating meat is wrong' while said person is wearing leather. =P I think jox pretty much summed up the issue here though. People aren't really suggesting we just outright drop fossil fuels right this very minute, but instead work towards moving forward with clean energy options and being less reliant on fossil fuels. Continuing exploration drilling in the arctic is not progress towards such a goal, as well as it contains very real risks of oil spills as has been shown in the past. I don't see how protesting such a thing is either ironic or hypocritical. |
| About Fossil Fuels: Recommended read: http://www.moralcaseforfossilfuels.com/ Or any article written by Alex Epstein of the Center of Industrial Progress and the Ayn Rand Institute. |
CapitalistGod said: About Fossil Fuels: Recommended read: http://www.moralcaseforfossilfuels.com/ Or any article written by Alex Epstein of the Center of Industrial Progress and the Ayn Rand Institute. I don't know where you've been the last 20 years but I can't swallow this obvious manipulation to diffuse the very real fact that fossil fuels will run out. Oil prices are rising OP and it aint because they're in abundance. Also that "failled predictions" link you posted earlier, all of the predictions it took were prior to 1990. We've actually gotten alot more energy and oil conserving since then and technology has advanced meaning we are not cnsuming as much as previously predicted. And what we do burn is alot cleaner now. And thats THANKS to the anti-oil protesters. However we are still mining it to depletion. We've begun to make a switch and society is slowly progressing away from fossil fuels already, but the booming oil industry creating publications like this are what slows the whole process down. The plastic industry takes up only a small fraction of the petrochemical industry so thats not even a priority right now, we'll still be using plastics for another century probably. Very few people are actually campaigning against plastics (non harmful ones that is) so the hipocrits here are the people making the documents calling them frauds for using them. Open your eyes, you're a puppet to the corporations |
NasalSharkFeb 9, 2016 4:32 AM
|
| ^ There'll be predictions again... and the chances are it'll just be something the examples I linked. The earth is still okay. |
| Sure it's hypocritical, if you're simple minded. The reality is that even if you don't want to live with petroleum products, it's impossible. They entire economy depends on it. Doesn't mean that oil companies are now morally untouchable, nor does i mean that you can't protest the fact no-one is seriously looking for viable alternatives. |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
CapitalistGod said: ^ There'll be predictions again... and the chances are it'll just be something the examples I linked. The earth is still okay. You think that. But then one day when you're curled up in bed, feeling nice and safe you're going to look out your window and you're going to see a gigantic fucking tidal wave. You're going to panic, leave your house and run down to the end of your road, during which the climate will change 50 times. Your skin will melt off thanks to direct exposure to the suns UV and Gamma radiation since the upper atmosphere is GONE. You're then going to collapse because your lungs have been severely poisoned by the pollution you have to breathe every day. And then in your last moments you will think "Why didn't I beleive wise NasalShark". Is that what you want OP? |
|
NasalShark said: CapitalistGod said: ^ There'll be predictions again... and the chances are it'll just be something the examples I linked. The earth is still okay. You think that. But then one day when you're curled up in bed, feeling nice and safe you're going to look out your window and you're going to see a gigantic fucking tidal wave. You're going to panic, leave your house and run down to the end of your road, during which the climate will change 50 times. Your skin will melt off thanks to direct exposure to the suns UV and Gamma radiation since the upper atmosphere is GONE. You're then going to collapse because your lungs have been severely poisoned by the pollution you have to breathe every day. And then in your last moments you will think "Why didn't I beleive wise NasalShark". Is that what you want OP? Fear mongering? You know which people does that? People with Doomsday predictions.. |
CapitalistGod said: Fear mongering? You know which people does that? People with Doomsday predictions.. Its not doomsday for me. I'll be living a good life with the colonies on Mars, romancing sweet martian babes 24/7 while looking down on the pitiful non-beleivers. Good luck on planet Trash. |
|
NasalShark said: CapitalistGod said: Fear mongering? You know which people does that? People with Doomsday predictions.. Its not doomsday for me. I'll be living a good life with the colonies on Mars, romancing sweet martian babes 24/7 while looking down on the pitiful non-beleivers. Good luck on planet Trash. What's my problem is having this fear mongering in the hopes the economic freedom of people involved in the oil business should be severely restricted. That's where the problem lies. |
CapitalistGod said: What's my problem is having this fear mongering in the hopes the economic freedom of people involved in the oil business should be severely restricted. That's where the problem lies. Well I don't know what economic freedom means, but we have to restrict them in some way. Could you imagine what today would be like if we hadn't restricted the industrial aristocrats of the victorian era? And oil business has the massive upper hand when it comes to passing legislation anyway, its not like we're oppressing them they basically own half of our politicians. |
|
NasalShark said: CapitalistGod said: What's my problem is having this fear mongering in the hopes the economic freedom of people involved in the oil business should be severely restricted. That's where the problem lies. Well I don't know what economic freedom means, but we have to restrict them in some way. Could you imagine what today would be like if we hadn't restricted the industrial aristocrats of the victorian era? And oil business has the massive upper hand when it comes to passing legislation anyway, its not like we're oppressing them they basically own half of our politicians. The freedom to make a buck... and the "science" behind this is still highly debatable... So, it's really oppressive to restrict them with this shaky "science". The Oil industry is being forced to "buy" politicians because they're afraid to lose their economic freedom. It's basically the same as someone bribing his way to freedom in a dictatorial society. The men in Washington still holds the power over them. |
Rinshansan said: AnnoKano said: Sure it's hypocritical, if you're simple minded. The reality is that even if you don't want to live with petroleum products, it's impossible. They entire economy depends on it. Doesn't mean that oil companies are now morally untouchable, nor does i mean that you can't protest the fact no-one is seriously looking for viable alternatives. They're basically the same as the PETA members who eat animal meat to me. But I wouldn't really call it simple-minded, just common sense. Is there something wrong with that type of pragmatism? I'm not saying that the protestors are simple minded, I'm saying that accusing people of being hypocritical for protesting the petroleum industry while partaking in a petroleum based economy is simple minded. Nothing short of them making their own clothes, growing all their own food and never using any form of motorised transportation would protect them from accusations of hypocrisy. The fact that we need petroleum for so many things doesn't mean that petroleum companies have carte blanche to behave however they like. One can still be concerned about oil spills while using petroleum based products. In other words the accusation of hypocrisy only makes sense if you look at the issue on the surface level, and falls apart if you think about it more deeply. Hence I said it is simple minded. |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
CapitalistGod said: The freedom to make a buck... and the "science" behind this is still highly debatable... So, it's really oppressive to restrict them with this shaky "science". The Oil industry is being forced to "buy" politicians because they're afraid to lose their economic freedom. It's basically the same as someone bribing his way to freedom in a dictatorial society. The men in Washington still holds the power over them. Yeah, I feel so bad for those rich and powerful people who are having their freedom taken away, but also have enough influence to destabilise the middle east. They must be so beaten down. Also, neither of us are from America so I don't know what Washington has to do with us. And I don't know what you mean by shaky science but half a century of research has gone into looking at what the use of fossil fuels is doing to our environment. |
|
| Biofuels are renewable unlike fossil fuels as well as better for the environment. The only problem is production efficiency for size but it is being worked on which wont take too long before its mass producible. So there is no reason to defend the use of current hazardous systems. |
| @CapitalistGod The moral question is of little importance to me. I believe morals themselves are neither inherently true or false but a matter of perspective. However, in this case it doesn't matter. My post was merely a reflection of why the protest occurred in answer to 'are they being hypocritical'. Whether they are morally right or wrong in their protest is of little consequence within that scope. Put spoiler tags on some initial thoughts on Epstein as it got a bit lengthy and is largely written 'off the cuff' as reading some of his stuff, so it's not of the highest quality. =) |
retiring_animeFeb 9, 2016 6:29 AM
More topics from this board
Poll: » If we eat the mermaid's tail, is it cannibalism or is it fish meat?Absurdo_N - 4 hours ago |
21 |
by Absurdo_N
»»
9 minutes ago |
|
» Anyone had a Drought Emergancy declared for their area?vasipi4946 - Apr 19 |
11 |
by deg
»»
17 minutes ago |
|
» Would you ever be interested in going on a blind date?Thy-Veseveia - 4 hours ago |
9 |
by cody
»»
17 minutes ago |
|
» What do yall collect? ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )bevarnow - Jan 25 |
313 |
by Lightskynight
»»
34 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Bluey is the most watched anime in the world nowtsukareru - 5 hours ago |
11 |
by phantom346
»»
43 minutes ago |