3 ms·

You’ve recast my argument, which was about a specific lack of legal culpability, as one about climate change and conspiracies: “global warming money,” if it doe

You’ve recast my argument, which was about a specific lack of legal culpability, as one about climate change and conspiracies: “global warming money,” if it does exist, has not paid me any. Pipelines could very well be safer, I don’t have the data in front of me. But that’s irrelevant if when they fail their operators refuse to make the ones whose lives they’ve ruined, whole. East Palestine, Ohio is as good an example as the North Dakota border as far as I’m concerned.

b112 1y ago
There's far more climate change fight than local pollute fight, regardless of your comment. And just because your comment is upstream the tree, doesn't make it the only one upstream. People were discussing "why" more generically. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/anti-pipeline-american-funding-protest-conspiracy-theory-1.4987202 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/anti-pipeline-america... But your response is a bit weird to me. You say it is irrelevant if it is safer? Ok, so there are 4 equal spills vs 2. Regardless of being made whole, if there's 1/2 the spills, and therefore 1/2 the people not harmed, you think that's not better?? Or worth pursuing? This is sort of what I'm talking about. Any improvement is good. But you're saying "screw all those extra people being hurt, and that damage, because it's not perfect in this way". That's folly.
- TimorousBestie 1y ago
  > But your response is a bit weird to me. Probably because you want to discuss politics and climate change conspiracies instead of corporate capture. > You say it is irrelevant if it is safer? Not what I said at all. I said that, pipeline, ship, or truck, no matter which transport method fails, the operator bears in practice very little legal liability. > But you're saying "screw all those extra people being hurt, and that damage, because it's not perfect in this way". Not a direct quote.
  - b112 1y ago
    Not what I said at all. But.. but it is?!: "Pipelines could very well be safer, I don’t have the data in front of me. But that’s irrelevant if when they fail" You said safety was irrelevant. I get you didn't mean that, but that's how the words are written. It's an if... then... logical statement. And if pipelines are safer, you should immediately support them regardless of legal liability shortcomings. Why? Well you say these shortcomings exist regardless of the method. So if you shift transport to a safer method, you now improve safety and there are fewer accidents. How is this not a positive? Do you believe it is better that more people are hurt? Is there some payoff or benefit to having more accidents? You can likely tell I'm baffled. You must view it as a plus, but I dont grok why.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]

b112 1y ago

There's far more climate change fight than local pollute fight, regardless of your comment. And just because your comment is upstream the tree, doesn't make it the only one upstream. People were discussing "why" more generically. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/anti-pipeline-american-funding-protest-conspiracy-theory-1.4987202 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/anti-pipeline-america... But your response is a bit weird to me. You say it is irrelevant if it is safer? Ok, so there are 4 equal spills vs 2. Regardless of being made whole, if there's 1/2 the spills, and therefore 1/2 the people not harmed, you think that's not better?? Or worth pursuing? This is sort of what I'm talking about. Any improvement is good. But you're saying "screw all those extra people being hurt, and that damage, because it's not perfect in this way". That's folly.

TimorousBestie 1y ago
> But your response is a bit weird to me. Probably because you want to discuss politics and climate change conspiracies instead of corporate capture. > You say it is irrelevant if it is safer? Not what I said at all. I said that, pipeline, ship, or truck, no matter which transport method fails, the operator bears in practice very little legal liability. > But you're saying "screw all those extra people being hurt, and that damage, because it's not perfect in this way". Not a direct quote.
- b112 1y ago
  Not what I said at all. But.. but it is?!: "Pipelines could very well be safer, I don’t have the data in front of me. But that’s irrelevant if when they fail" You said safety was irrelevant. I get you didn't mean that, but that's how the words are written. It's an if... then... logical statement. And if pipelines are safer, you should immediately support them regardless of legal liability shortcomings. Why? Well you say these shortcomings exist regardless of the method. So if you shift transport to a safer method, you now improve safety and there are fewer accidents. How is this not a positive? Do you believe it is better that more people are hurt? Is there some payoff or benefit to having more accidents? You can likely tell I'm baffled. You must view it as a plus, but I dont grok why.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]