Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > Chatter > Hall of Fame


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 09-14-2007, 01:26 PM   #161 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Infinite_Loser's Avatar
 
Location: Lake Mary, FL
*See below*
__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

Last edited by Infinite_Loser; 09-14-2007 at 01:35 PM..
Infinite_Loser is offline  
Old 09-14-2007, 01:29 PM   #162 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Lucifer, the best way to stop protests is twofold: relating to them and false promises. If by some chance this happens again, confront them immediately, feed them a line about how this is 'one of your last shipments' or how your company is 'seeking alternates' by the worker's request or some such garbage. Make them think you're one of them. Then, convince them what they're doing is wasting energy and/or is bad for the environment. Lie if you have to.

If that doesn't work, switch tactics. Stop them from getting on the ship by preventing them from moving forward. If they try to walk up a ladder, be in their way when they get up to the deck and don't move. If, by some chance, they make the mistake of pushing you, they've assaulted you and you defend yourself.
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-14-2007, 01:33 PM   #163 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Infinite_Loser's Avatar
 
Location: Lake Mary, FL
Quote:
Originally Posted by guccilvr
You are sadly mistaken. You can hope that a corporation can't sue you for something.. but big business can do whatever the fuck they want. These expenses have nothing to do with future revenues.. it has to do with the fact that the actions of a certain group of people caused an expense to a company that was otherwise non-existant.
No, corporations can't do 'whatever they want'. They can try, but it doesn't mean they're going to be successful. Expenses are, once again, occurred as a result of normal business operations. You can't sue someone for a cost associated with running your business. That wouldn't make sense. You can say that they 'cost' the business $40K, but I can tell you for a fact that they didn't. Such figures are typically just estimates and are rarely ever accurate.

Quote:
If I cause you to wreck your car and injure yourself, I'm liable for the damages and lost wages because of my actions.. just as these fucks actions caused expenses that would not have otherwise been incurred.
You can sue for 'lost wages', but you won't get it 99/100 simply for the reasons I stated above (This I know, for my mom's a claims adjuster and deals with this kind of stuff every day). You didn't earn your paycheck for the day because you didn't work. It's really simple.

Quote:
It doesn't matter if it's a protest or not. It doesn't matter if it was piracy or not. The fact remains that these people caused an inconvience to the corporation that resulted in a loss and it can be taken to court.
Erm... Duh. That's what a protest is designed to do. Do you think MLK Jr's sit-ins didn't cause a loss of revenue to the companies involved? You think they weren't inconvenient? That's the point of a protest.

Quote:
Even if a court decided they couldn't sue for the expenses of being held in port, they will be able to sue for physical damages.
For trespassing and vandalism? Sure. For piracy and unearned revenues? Not a chance in hell.

Quote:
The fact remains that if these people wanted to be "peacefull" about protesting, they could have simply rode along beside the ship with loud speakers etc protesting and proclaiming their message.. they didn't need to put people in danger and cause vandalism.
Then they should be liable for the vandalism and trespassing. Nothing else. From what I read, the only lives they endangered were their own.
__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

Last edited by Infinite_Loser; 09-14-2007 at 01:36 PM..
Infinite_Loser is offline  
Old 09-14-2007, 02:03 PM   #164 (permalink)
Addict
 
hagatha's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mixedmedia
Welcome to the future of political activism. I'm overwhelmingly disenchanted with the tone of this discussion.



And you know, I hope everyone on this thread will take a moment and think about what their lives and our world might be like right now without the tradition of social and political protest.

And it's highly irrelevant - what you think of this protest in particular. The issues are not yours to pick and choose. What some of you are speaking for are the ideals of political repression and assassination and I think it's pretty ridiculous...to put it nicely.

You know, I was actually thinking about this post. You're right. If it was a whaling ship or a Japanese tuna ship that catches and kills dolphins or PETA breaking into labs and releasing animals, I would say, yeah, go protesters.

Hence, I agree with you stance on this topic, you can't pick and choose, you either accept social/political activism or you don't.
__________________
Thats the last time I trust the strangest people I ever met....H. Simpson
hagatha is offline  
Old 09-14-2007, 02:26 PM   #165 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
I think Hagatha wins the thread. Open, honest, not confrontational (one of my weaknesses).
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-14-2007, 03:14 PM   #166 (permalink)
has all her shots.
 
mixedmedia's Avatar
 
Location: Florida
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
It doesn't matter what your stance on the war was, it was to make a point.

I always found the concept of an 'illegal' war asinine. No war is legal ever. Legality is not something that applies to war.

Much like the idea of a legitimate or illegitimate protest. It was a protest and it was a crime. I'm not sure what an illegitimate protest would entail, they could have blown up the ship and it still would have been a protest, and a crime. The two do not meld.

If you could give me an example of a illegitimate protest maybe we could get some where since criminal activity obviously doesn't make a protest illegitimate in your eyes.
Well perhaps I am putting words in your mouth using the word illegitimate, but I'm too tired right now to go back and see if someone used it and if so, who did.

But the gist of what I am getting at is that there seems to be among some participants of this thread, the presumption that these protestors crossed some 'sacrosanct' boundary by costing this company money. I think that's absurd.
__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce
mixedmedia is offline  
Old 09-14-2007, 03:18 PM   #167 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Some protesting may be illegal, and some wars may be illegitimate, but the idea that protests shouldn't have any costs is so far beyond unreasonable. What if 74% of the public were to protest the war by buying only 50% of the gas they'd normally buy? Would you have the oil company sue the people for lost potential profits? Of course not. You see, just as MM said, that's absurd.
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-14-2007, 05:08 PM   #168 (permalink)
Here
 
World's King's Avatar
 
Location: Denver City Denver
I chalk up Greenpeace with PETA and anyone that would blow up an abortion clinic.


Oh and any other extremest group that goes way outta their way to make other people lives harder. All the while thinking they are making the world a better place. But never getting any closer to a solution to the problems they've chosen to fight for.


Fuckin' morons.
__________________
heavy is the head that wears the crown
World's King is offline  
Old 09-14-2007, 05:14 PM   #169 (permalink)
spudly
 
ubertuber's Avatar
 
Location: Ellay
Sounds like we're conflating illegitimate and illegal. Rereading the replies in this thread, that's where many of the disagreements focus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Some protesting may be illegal, and some wars may be illegitimate, but the idea that protests shouldn't have any costs is so far beyond unreasonable. What if 74% of the public were to protest the war by buying only 50% of the gas they'd normally buy? Would you have the oil company sue the people for lost potential profits? Of course not. You see, just as MM said, that's absurd.
That's not an entirely apt analogy, will. Not buying a product is not the same thing as preventing the company from transporting it in an open area (detaining the ship) and defacing their property, which will require expensive paint and manhours to fix.

Mixed - it's not exactly that I think money trumps conscience, but I do think that the financial penalties should flow both ways. Labeling something a "protest" shouldn't be a license to damage property, break the law, and cause financial havoc without compensation. After all, who's in the position of determining which protests are legitimate. What if it was Exxon protesting Shell's market practices? Do THEY get a pass?

Some of you may blow this off because it looks obvious on the surface, but I'm not so sure that I see anything greater than a difference of degree.
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Last edited by ubertuber; 09-14-2007 at 05:22 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
ubertuber is offline  
Old 09-14-2007, 06:28 PM   #170 (permalink)
has all her shots.
 
mixedmedia's Avatar
 
Location: Florida
I get you, uber, but I have never stated that they should have a pass.

Part of my problem here, as it is often, is that I am thinking in much broader terms than the focus of this thread. But that's just the way I think. And personally, I think that's the only way to really think about this issue. Otherwise it's just bickering about personal tastes... oh yes, and shooting people. Everybody go back and look at the pictures of these and imagine shooting them...here I'll make it easy for you, which ones would you shoot first, these guys?



or maybe her?



Sounds like a bunch of big fucking talk to me.

Personally, I don't give a damn about this protest, but it is the attitude towards protest that has been engendered amongst some posters here that has caused me to, once again, become dispirited about where 'we' are headed in regards to our values and, in this case, our lack of respect for revolutionary perspectives on society and action - especially among young people. It seems more and more that anything anyone does to complain or rock the boat on the level of social activism these days is met with escalating levels of antipathy - whether we are talking about PETA or Greenpeace or racism in America or celebrities in Africa. But at least these folks are passionate about something outside of their own petty little lives (which they are folks! deal with it!) and are putting themselves out on the streets (or the high seas) to try and do something about it. I respect that.

Sorry for my off-topic rant, but I guess I am showing my age. Some days I really love TFP and some days it makes me feel old and out of step. This is one of the latter days.
__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce
mixedmedia is offline  
Old 09-14-2007, 06:37 PM   #171 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
MM, I'm 24 and I completely agree. So you're basically a 24 year old. You can now tell people you're 24, and they'll believe you!
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-14-2007, 06:51 PM   #172 (permalink)
“Wrong is right.”
 
aberkok's Avatar
 
Location: toronto
Quote:
Originally Posted by ubertuber
After all, who's in the position of determining which protests are legitimate. What if it was Exxon protesting Shell's market practices? Do THEY get a pass?

Some of you may blow this off because it looks obvious on the surface, but I'm not so sure that I see anything greater than a difference of degree.
ubertuber, I'm referring to the thread in general (and not your post) when I ask: Where is all the sympathy for these for-profit companies coming from? Now, I'm quite aware that Lucifer works on the ship, but I hardly think that Greenpeace is putting his job in jeopardy. Even so, I'd be happy to put him up should that ever happen, so no worries there.

Another fear we all might have is that if we say it's alright for Greenpeace, it's alright for terrorists. Whatever a "terrorist" is, I think that's a slippery slope argument.

We also might think that if it's alright for Greenpeace to do this, then it's alright for Exxon to do it. Well... I don't see it as a matter of degree. I see a clear line. As far as I know, Greenpeace exists to spread awareness and to educate on the state of the failing environment. Exxon exists to make money. I'd like to think that the forward thinking humanists here would throw their weight behind something in the pursuit of knowledge and saving our asses on this planet.
__________________
!check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com

Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."
aberkok is offline  
Old 09-14-2007, 07:00 PM   #173 (permalink)
Psycho
 
albania's Avatar
 
I don't think that one can successfully argue that there is a systematic and appropriate way in which we should hold a protest. I mean it's supposed to shake things up, and if the cause was truly great enough, I might even support violence(but, I guess we call this civil war no?). The only way one can judge it is using a case by case basis. My problem, if that wasn't clear in my initial post, is not really with the method. It's with what they're protesting. I don't think what they're protesting necessitates these kinds of actions.
albania is offline  
Old 09-14-2007, 07:45 PM   #174 (permalink)
Winter is Coming
 
Frosstbyte's Avatar
 
Location: The North
So not supporting the right of people who believe one thing to trample the rights of other people who believe something else means that I'm a backwards moron who is against all forms of social progress and protest?

There is a DIFFERENCE between the right to gather and speak and protest and protesting which destroys property or trespasses on property or otherwise violates the rights of others. I don't know why you've reduced this conversation to the absurd extreme that free speech should only take place in a desert far away from everything else, because I don't think that anyone is saying that. I have a healthy respect for the environment and the cause for clean energy.

You may respect people who blindly adhere to a cause regardless of their impact on others. I respect people who have respect for other people. These people don't and are so consumed with their misplaced entitlement to be the savior of the world that they're willing to deprive other, random people of their time and money and ability to conduct their lives as they wish. Lucifer's a guy making a living who wanted some well earned free time off his ship. They're so caught up with "sending a message" that they've totally ignored the fact that real, normal people like them want other things out of life, and in fact they relish disrupting these people's lives.

If thinking that it sucks for people to pull that shit with very limited consequences, then I guess I'm exactly what you're describing. I think there are ways to effect change, but I think that what these people did (and any similar action) is not one of them. I guess I'm small, petty and selfish. Sorry for not being more globally minded.

Last edited by Frosstbyte; 09-14-2007 at 07:55 PM..
Frosstbyte is offline  
Old 09-15-2007, 07:49 AM   #175 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Some protesting may be illegal, and some wars may be illegitimate, but the idea that protests shouldn't have any costs is so far beyond unreasonable. What if 74% of the public were to protest the war by buying only 50% of the gas they'd normally buy? Would you have the oil company sue the people for lost potential profits? Of course not. You see, just as MM said, that's absurd.
Because its not against the law at this point not to shop.

Pot, see kettle....

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 09-15-2007, 08:10 AM   #176 (permalink)
I change
 
ARTelevision's Avatar
 
Location: USA
This is a noteworthy thread.

carry on...
__________________
create evolution
ARTelevision is offline  
Old 09-15-2007, 09:44 AM   #177 (permalink)
Sir, I have a plan...
 
debaser's Avatar
 
Location: 38S NC20943324
Lucifer, why didn't you guys just cut the boarding ladders?
__________________

Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.
debaser is offline  
Old 09-15-2007, 09:57 AM   #178 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Ustwo, I don't think you know what strawman means. Strawman isputting fourth a misrepresentation of the other party's argument, and then arguing against this incorrect argument.
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-15-2007, 02:51 PM   #179 (permalink)
Winter is Coming
 
Frosstbyte's Avatar
 
Location: The North
Really?

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To 'set up a straw man' or 'set up a straw man argument' is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

You put forth a misrepresentation of our argument-i.e. the public should be liable to gas companies if they don't buy gas-which is easy to refute and then attributed it to us. How is that not a strawman again?

Last edited by Frosstbyte; 09-15-2007 at 02:56 PM..
Frosstbyte is offline  
Old 09-15-2007, 03:38 PM   #180 (permalink)
Husband of Seamaiden
 
Lucifer's Avatar
 
Location: Nova Scotia
Quote:
Originally Posted by debaser
Lucifer, why didn't you guys just cut the boarding ladders?

'cause we're not stupid, insane or murderers. Read my post again about how easy it is to die by falling off the ladder
__________________
I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls.
- Job 30:29

1123, 6536, 5321
Lucifer is offline  
Old 09-15-2007, 04:20 PM   #181 (permalink)
Sir, I have a plan...
 
debaser's Avatar
 
Location: 38S NC20943324
I was hoping you would have been able to do it prior to someone being on it. I suppose I don't quite understand the time-line of the event...
__________________

Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.
debaser is offline  
Old 09-15-2007, 06:18 PM   #182 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosstbyte
Really?

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To 'set up a straw man' or 'set up a straw man argument' is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

You put forth a misrepresentation of our argument-i.e. the public should be liable to gas companies if they don't buy gas-which is easy to refute and then attributed it to us. How is that not a strawman again?
LOL... where to start?
I was proposing a hypothetical situation that was similar to your proposition. The parallel was speaking to a corporation's right to sue for lost possible or projected earnings because of losses from a protest action. It's not a strawman because I'm not misrepresenting anything.

A strawman would have been to directly address your proposition and misrepresent that.
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-15-2007, 07:32 PM   #183 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
But the problem, willravel, is that you are making an inconsistent comparison, because one action is illegal and the other is legal.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 09-15-2007, 08:16 PM   #184 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
But the problem, willravel, is that you are making an inconsistent comparison, because one action is illegal and the other is legal.
The protesting itself isn't illegal, the loss of profit isn't illegal. Just getting on the boat and tagging it, really.
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-15-2007, 08:45 PM   #185 (permalink)
Sir, I have a plan...
 
debaser's Avatar
 
Location: 38S NC20943324
If the protest consisted solely of illegal acts, I would call it an illegal protest.
__________________

Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.
debaser is offline  
Old 09-15-2007, 09:18 PM   #186 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by debaser
If the protest consisted solely of illegal acts, I would call it an illegal protest.
Solely?
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-15-2007, 09:30 PM   #187 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
The protesting itself isn't illegal, the loss of profit isn't illegal. Just getting on the boat and tagging it, really.
Isn't this the whole point of Lucifer's thread? That they violated the law during their protest by boarding his ship?

A hypothetical dealing with protesters doing absolutely nothing doesn't fit into the realm of the discussion. Had you used a hypothetical in which the protesters vandalized the gas station while breaking into it, then the analogy would be apt. At that point, one could argue that the owners of the gas station could seek damages for the loss of business and the cost of the cleanup.
__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses
JumpinJesus is offline  
Old 09-15-2007, 09:59 PM   #188 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpinJesus
Isn't this the whole point of Lucifer's thread? That they violated the law during their protest by boarding his ship?
I'm still not 100% sure what the thread is supposed to be about. By my understanding, and leaving the threadjacks about nuclear power, how GreenPaece is going to kill you, and what a strawman is (oh man, I've been in all of those...), this whole big thing is about how Lucifer was pissed at the circumstance. I don't blame him for that, of course. He was inconvenienced to say the least.
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 12:18 AM   #189 (permalink)
Winter is Coming
 
Frosstbyte's Avatar
 
Location: The North
I guess that means this thread jumped the shark.
Frosstbyte is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 02:55 AM   #190 (permalink)
has all her shots.
 
mixedmedia's Avatar
 
Location: Florida
I'll say it once again, if your complaint is that this protest broke the law then you are complaining about nothing new. Protests break laws all the time. Sometimes that's even the point.

If your complaint is that this protest interfered with trade then you are complaining about nothing new. Protests interfere with trade all the time. Sometimes that's even the point.

When you argue against this form of protest, you are arguing against a huge chunk of events in the planet's very important history of protest.

If you don't have anything against protest as a form of political action, 'twould be better just to say you don't think this was a very effective protest and leave it at that.
__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce
mixedmedia is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 03:50 AM   #191 (permalink)
Husband of Seamaiden
 
Lucifer's Avatar
 
Location: Nova Scotia
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
I'm still not 100% sure what the thread is supposed to be about. .....this whole big thing is about how Lucifer was pissed at the circumstance. I don't blame him for that, of course. He was inconvenienced to say the least.

NO, NO, NO. This 'whole big thing' as you put it, is cause Lucifer is trying to understand the limits of 'peaceful protest.' They said that they were going to protest us 'peacefully', we said 'okay', and kept on coming. If we'd understood that 'peaceful' in their eyes meant vandalism and trespassing, we'd have gone to MARSEC 3 at that moment, and either stood off shore out of reach of them, or had the whole crew out lining the rails so they couldn't have gotten on board.

And if for anyone who thinks I'm wrong about my predictions of more incidents, here's a link to another site with story and pictures about them blockading and vandalising another ship, this time in the Saguenay River, on the 14th.

http://kleercut.net/en/node/895


And while we are on the subject of Lucifer...I seem to have been lumped in with 'the man' over the course of this thread, just because I was on the ship that was boarded. Just for the record, I support protest as an effective means of change, but I also support the law. For me, 'peaceful' doesn't mean anything that gets the police involved and someone gets arrested. I'm a member of Project Green, an award winning, student-led environmental group here at Memorial University. We have a bike sharing and a ride-sharing program in place, as well as other environmental initiatives. I don't own a car, instead I walk, bike and take public transportation whenever possible. I recycle, which in the city I live in costs me about $14/month, because the city doesn't have a recycling program in place. Instead, each household can put out up to 10 bags of garbage each.

Wil's comment about the 'maple syrup and zinc' trade not being affected by this action is probably the most asinine comment I've ever read in TFP. Did you ever wonder where the road salt for Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, Green Bay, Toledo, Superior, Duluth, Cleveland, Erie and all the little places in between (like Muskegon, home of Iggy Pop) comes from? It comes from Goderich, Ontario, a tiny little town with a very large salt mine. And it comes in all year to American cities on Canadian ships. An average bulk laker can carry 25,000 metric tonnes of cargo, not just coal, but salt, gravel, iron ore, stone, cement and other bulk commodities. In relation, the average dump truck can carry about 20 metric tonnes. So each laker is carrying the equivalent of about 1000 dump trucks. Think about that for a minute! That's 1000 more dump trucks on your highways for every laker that stops running. The great lakes trade is dying already. Each year there are fewer and fewer ships carrying cargo. We can't get crew and officers to work on them. The trucker's lobby in Ottawa and Washington is more powerful than the shipper's lobby. Already, some of our contracts have dried up and gone to the truckers, who can carry year round. Nanticoke generating station (and others like Lambton, Recors, Marysville) burns 5000 tonnes a day (!!) in the summer trying to keep up to the energy demand. When we made the dock finally and could start to unload, they were so desperate for the coal, we fed the burners directly from the dock. I agree the burning of coal is a bad thing (that's why I consistently support governments who promise to stop coal fired generating stations), but I also know that there is nothing in place to replace it yet. Windfarms are springing up all over the Great Lakes from Duluth to Sault Ste Marie to Tobermory, but there aren't enough of them yet. There is an overseas shipping company, the Wagenborg line, that has the contract to bring in the windmills. It would have been nice if an American or Canadian company had that contract instead.
__________________
I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls.
- Job 30:29

1123, 6536, 5321

Last edited by Lucifer; 09-16-2007 at 04:46 AM..
Lucifer is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 07:31 AM   #192 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucifer
...Wil's comment about the 'maple syrup and zinc' trade not being affected by this action is probably the most asinine comment I've ever read in TFP. Did you ever wonder where the road salt for Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, Green Bay, Toledo, Superior, Duluth, Cleveland, Erie and all the little places in between (like Muskegon, home of Iggy Pop) comes from? It comes from Goderich, Ontario, a tiny little town with a very large salt mine. And it comes in all year to American cities on Canadian ships. An average bulk laker can carry 25,000 metric tonnes of cargo, not just coal, but salt, gravel, iron ore, stone, cement and other bulk commodities. In relation, the average dump truck can carry about 20 metric tonnes. So each laker is carrying the equivalent of about 1000 dump trucks. Think about that for a minute! That's 1000 more dump trucks on your highways for every laker that stops running. The great lakes trade is dying already. Each year there are fewer and fewer ships carrying cargo. We can't get crew and officers to work on them. The trucker's lobby in Ottawa and Washington is more powerful than the shipper's lobby. Already, some of our contracts have dried up and gone to the truckers, who can carry year round. Nanticoke generating station (and others like Lambton, Recors, Marysville) burns 5000 tonnes a day (!!) in the summer trying to keep up to the energy demand. When we made the dock finally and could start to unload, they were so desperate for the coal, we fed the burners directly from the dock. I agree the burning of coal is a bad thing (that's why I consistently support governments who promise to stop coal fired generating stations), but I also know that there is nothing in place to replace it yet. Windfarms are springing up all over the Great Lakes from Duluth to Sault Ste Marie to Tobermory, but there aren't enough of them yet. There is an overseas shipping company, the Wagenborg line, that has the contract to bring in the windmills. It would have been nice if an American or Canadian company had that contract instead.
What nearly always happens on the internet is that just about every person who posts in every thread has somehow come to believe that they are expert enough on a topic that they can speak with authority and confidence on any given topic. I can assure you that just about everyone reading this thread did not know anything about your last paragraph, but they'll insist that not only are they an expert on the topic, but they invariably know more than you. I have learned to take on the belief that 99% of people who claim authority on a topic are full of shit and are just hoping they don't get called on it.

These people exist everywhere on the internet. In one thread, they're a doctor, in another, they're an artist, in yet another, they're a race car driver, and in still another, they make the hot dog buns used in ballparks. You name the thread, that's their expertise.

Sorry to hi-jack this thread in yet another direction. Just wanted to add my expert opinion on opinions.
__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses
JumpinJesus is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 08:03 AM   #193 (permalink)
Asshole
 
The_Jazz's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Chicago
Lucifer = The Man?

Seriously, that makes this entire thread worthwhile (not that it wasn't already) and may be the Most Wrong Analogy I've ever seen on TFP.

Anyone who's met Lucifer IRL should realize what a joke that is. If anyone here is The Man in the connotation of Corporate America, I'm certainly on the short list. People that live lives of adventure and travel don't qualify.

Thanks for the chuckle, Lucifer.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
The_Jazz is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 08:13 AM   #194 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
first off, protest actions can occur because corporations have to balance shorter and longer term pressures--like lucifer said earlier in the thread, the shipping company is not suing greepeace because the negative pr such an action would generate outweighs any financial gain to be had from a lawsuit.
so the question of legality is moot.

this double set of constraints (suing to recoup losses engendered by the greenpeace action vs. the publicity that such a suit would generate) are typical. they duplicate the multiple theaters in which a private firm operates: they are simultaneously property-holding fictional persons and public actors whose ability to operate is contingent upon a minimal consent of the people.
any space of production can be transformed into a theater of political action at any time.
meanings in the world are reversible.
the world is not a simple accumulation of objects, like rocks or toasters.


this complexity of constraints is the main reason why analogies between a corporate person and a private individual are false---and these analogies have run riot through this thread.
the main effect of this false analogy is to erase complexity, not make thinking any better.

so a corporation may find itself legally able to act against political activists, but also find itself constrained from doing so.
if you look at how actual political action operates--and dont try to wave it away by the false equation of a corporation and private individual---the multiplicity of constraints a corporation has to balance is self-evident.

and the margins created by this multiplicity of constraints is the margin political actions have exploited from the earliest phase of capitalist development through today.
there is nothing you can do about it.

given that this is a simple empirical feature in the world, its elimination from thinking is an index that the thinking is based on poor foundations.
that these foundations do not appear poor to folk who use them indicates the extent to which politics and intellectual moves are intertwined--from this follows the entire problem that i have with the thread itself, that mm has with the thread, etc. it explains the direction of the criticisms.



the question of the action's legitimacy is demonstrated by the fact of this thread--quite apart from anything in the thread--that this thread is at all concedes the point. and the more arguments unfold, the more obviously legitimate the protest is. the debate itself proves it. no more argument is required. this is the third time i am saying this.



there is a certain "duh" factor in this thread as well: that someone who is in lucifer's position would react as he did to the protest action seems to me a "duh" point. that the greenpeace activists would see the same space (the ship) in entirely different terms is also a "duh" point. it seems to me that at bottom what the thread is really about is which perception of the action is "real" when the obvious fact is that both are, both are legit, both can co-exist, both do co-exist and in most cases--like this thread--they talk past each other.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Last edited by roachboy; 09-16-2007 at 08:16 AM..
roachboy is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 08:23 AM   #195 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucifer
NO, NO, NO.
Don't make me post the chill pill again. I'll do it. I'm loco.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucifer
This 'whole big thing' as you put it, is cause Lucifer is trying to understand the limits of 'peaceful protest.' They said that they were going to protest us 'peacefully', we said 'okay', and kept on coming. If we'd understood that 'peaceful' in their eyes meant vandalism and trespassing, we'd have gone to MARSEC 3 at that moment, and either stood off shore out of reach of them, or had the whole crew out lining the rails so they couldn't have gotten on board.
Peaceful is non-violent. That's how protesters speak. Did they shoot you? Did they strike you? Did they blow a hole in your boat? No? Then they were non-violent. If you get word again, phone the coast guard or whatever policing force has jurisdiction over your location. It's not difficult. If the protesters do something illegal, then they are stopped and arrested.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucifer
And if for anyone who thinks I'm wrong about my predictions of more incidents, here's a link to another site with story and pictures about them blockading and vandalising another ship, this time in the Saguenay River, on the 14th.

http://kleercut.net/en/node/895
I don't recall anyone in this thread saying this wouldn't bring about more protests.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucifer
And while we are on the subject of Lucifer...I seem to have been lumped in with 'the man' over the course of this thread, just because I was on the ship that was boarded. Just for the record, I support protest as an effective means of change, but I also support the law. For me, 'peaceful' doesn't mean anything that gets the police involved and someone gets arrested. I'm a member of Project Green, an award winning, student-led environmental group here at Memorial University. We have a bike sharing and a ride-sharing program in place, as well as other environmental initiatives. I don't own a car, instead I walk, bike and take public transportation whenever possible. I recycle, which in the city I live in costs me about $14/month, because the city doesn't have a recycling program in place. Instead, each household can put out up to 10 bags of garbage each.
Wouldn't that make you a hypocrite for working for the coal industry? I mean if I, an avid anti-war type, were to work for Haliburton or be active in the military... well that would send out a rather mixed signal. I intend no offense, of course, but you have to see how being an environmentalist that ships coal is a bit odd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucifer
Wil's comment about the 'maple syrup and zinc' trade not being affected by this action is probably the most asinine comment I've ever read in TFP.
Well you need to do your homework then. Aside from the joking comment about syrup, playing on an old cliche, zinc is Canada's largest export. Hardly asinine when speaking of shipping, I'd imagine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucifer
Did you ever wonder where the road salt for Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, Green Bay, Toledo, Superior, Duluth, Cleveland, Erie and all the little places in between (like Muskegon, home of Iggy Pop) comes from? It comes from Goderich, Ontario, a tiny little town with a very large salt mine. And it comes in all year to American cities on Canadian ships.
So you're expecting GreenPeace to stop a boat carrying... salt? I wouldn't call that asinine (that'd be rude), but it hardly makes sense. Salt isn't on the GP agenda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucifer
An average bulk laker can carry 25,000 metric tonnes of cargo, not just coal, but salt, gravel, iron ore, stone, cement and other bulk commodities. In relation, the average dump truck can carry about 20 metric tonnes. So each laker is carrying the equivalent of about 1000 dump trucks. Think about that for a minute! That's 1000 more dump trucks on your highways for every laker that stops running. The great lakes trade is dying already. Each year there are fewer and fewer ships carrying cargo. We can't get crew and officers to work on them. The trucker's lobby in Ottawa and Washington is more powerful than the shipper's lobby. Already, some of our contracts have dried up and gone to the truckers, who can carry year round. Nanticoke generating station (and others like Lambton, Recors, Marysville) burns 5000 tonnes a day (!!) in the summer trying to keep up to the energy demand. When we made the dock finally and could start to unload, they were so desperate for the coal, we fed the burners directly from the dock. I agree the burning of coal is a bad thing (that's why I consistently support governments who promise to stop coal fired generating stations), but I also know that there is nothing in place to replace it yet. Windfarms are springing up all over the Great Lakes from Duluth to Sault Ste Marie to Tobermory, but there aren't enough of them yet. There is an overseas shipping company, the Wagenborg line, that has the contract to bring in the windmills. It would have been nice if an American or Canadian company had that contract instead.
Perhaps the shipping companies will ship coal separately after this. That way only one ship gets stopped and the salt can flow. Or maybe, just maybe, they stop shipping coal. Now you see how GreenPeace works? All the salt, gravel, iron, stone, cement etc. will continue because it's still cost effective. The coal, on the other hand, will be less cost effective to ship.
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 09:14 AM   #196 (permalink)
Détente
 
Bossnass's Avatar
 
Location: AWOL in Edmonton
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel

Well you need to do your homework then. Aside from the joking comment about syrup, playing on an old cliche, zinc is Canada's largest export. Hardly asinine when speaking of shipping, I'd imagine.
I've read this thread with interest, my viewpoints have been expressed various times.

I don't like a cherry-picker discussion but this statement really caught my attention, in that it referred to doing homework and stated a falsehood.

Zinc is by no means Canada's largest export. Granted, until recently Canada was the world's largest producer of zinc. China now produces significantly more zinc than Canada, and Australia is pretty much on par.
Bossnass is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 09:38 AM   #197 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucifer
This 'whole big thing' as you put it, is cause Lucifer is trying to understand the limits of 'peaceful protest.' They said that they were going to protest us 'peacefully', we said 'okay', and kept on coming. If we'd understood that 'peaceful' in their eyes meant vandalism and trespassing, we'd have gone to MARSEC 3 at that moment, and either stood off shore out of reach of them, or had the whole crew out lining the rails so they couldn't have gotten on board.
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Peaceful is non-violent. That's how protesters speak. Did they shoot you? Did they strike you? Did they blow a hole in your boat? No? Then they were non-violent. If you get word again, phone the coast guard or whatever policing force has jurisdiction over your location. It's not difficult. If the protesters do something illegal, then they are stopped and arrested.
They were non-violent, yes, but they were not entirely peaceful. "Peaceful" also implies actions that remain in accordance with laws. As a protester, if you break laws, you aren't being peaceful.

Disrupting a legitimate business' rightful activities isn't what I would call peaceful. But I think we've established that protests aren't necessarily supposed to be legal. Not all of we Thoreaus will decide to pay our poll taxes.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 09-16-2007 at 09:48 AM..
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 09:45 AM   #198 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
They were non-violent, yes, but they were not entirely peaceful. "Peaceful" also implies actions that remain in accordance with laws. As a protester, if you break laws, you aren't being peaceful.

Disrupting a legitimate business' rightful activities isn't what I would call peaceful.
It's a semantic exercise. When they, GreenPeace, use peaceful, they specifically mean non-violent. Whether that's your definition or not is your propagative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bossnass
Zinc is by no means Canada's largest export.
Good catch. You're right, it's probably cars that are their largest export. Googling it actually told me that Canada's largest export is trash. Not sure if that's true...
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 09:52 AM   #199 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
It's a semantic exercise. When they, GreenPeace, use peaceful, they specifically mean non-violent. Whether that's your definition or not is your propagative*.
It's more so the prerogative of the courts.


[*Nice Freudian slip, by the by. ]
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 09:54 AM   #200 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
It's a semantic exercise. When they, GreenPeace, use peaceful, they specifically mean non-violent. Whether that's your definition or not is your propagative.
Commandeering another mans property against their will is never peaceful, ever.

The fact that Greenpeace is now controlled by radical nut balls who don't even understand the causes they are 'fighting' for only makes it more absurd.

Shame that the shipping company was so worried about potential bad PR that they let these hoodlums disrupt shipping. I think they overestimate how much people really give a rats ass what Greenpeace does these days. This sort of childish behavior should not be tolerated and they needed a spanking.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
 

Tags
meaning, peaceful, protest


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:10 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360