Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

canuckistani

Members
  • Posts

    2,769
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by canuckistani

  1. *sigh* that was a metaphor. Neither ships are likely to go kerblooey. Thats the whole point. Your argument against it is LITERALLY, MATHEMATICALLY as assinine as saying lets shut down YVR because one day a plane will crash into Burns Bog and kill one of the most ecologically diverse biospheres in the west coast. Get it yet ?
  2. yep. These indoctrinated fools think that an infinitessimally small chance of a tanker spill is way, way worse than an infinitessimally small chance of an LNG explosion that'd wipe out lion's gate bridge. My experience with the anti-pipeline camp is that 99% of them are science-iliterates, who do not know science. All they know, is pop science, like morons.
  3. You didn't choose to be born either. So the whole concept of 'natural act, i participate in ONLY what i choose, else its oppression' is a false dichotomy. By that logic, your entire existence is oppression, since you had zero choice in it. And there is nothing disingenous about collective need > individual need. If your house happened to sit on the only uranium deposit in the world and the US needed to make a nuke to end WWII (Assuming you are American), it is in everyone's interest - including yours - to have your house demolished and the uranium mined. Period. There is no indoctrination. As i said, i can prove, via math, that a taxation society is more efficient at all but the top 5% level of resource hogging, in resource management and distribution. This is pure math, bud - the same reason why ultimately the economic ideals of libertarians fail. Nope, that is true for you, not me. As i said, i can prove it via math that a taxation system is superior. Period. You are the one speaking from indoctrinated false dichotomies. If having obligations is being a slave, i am A-ok with having obligations. Being part of a society involves obligations that one does not get to opt out of. Period. There is no injustice in the concept of collective taxation. You and libertarians are the ones who operate on a BELIEF SYSTEM that you have some hocus pocus natural rights to opt out of everything. As i pointed out, your entire existence is contradicted by the notion of 'ultimate free will' because your existence itself does not involve your free will to begin with. No, it doesn't take root, because i can prove that collective services such as infrastructure, justice system, police system, military, etc. ALL work better via collective tax model, than ' by donation only' model. Again, this is pure and simple math. The only indoctrination, is from those who believe that they have the ultimate right to free will, when its a fact that nobody consents to being born in the first place. Your life begins without your choice. Period. Ergo, there is no ultimate free will. There is no basic truth to what garbage you are peddling. The libertarian nonsense rests on ignoring the basic truth that life begins without choice - for any species that we know of. Ergo, ultimate free will does not exist. There are no inconsistencies. My POV is simply based on the mathematical reality that collective services work better via a collective tax system than by donation. This can be mathematically proven. Further, i challenge the notion of 'ultimate and total free will' on the simple basis that no-one's life began with their choice, so our entire basis of existence is not via free will. The only inconsistency, is from the idiots who peddle libertarian nonsense, as a thin veneer for their greed ( i dont wanna pay tax!) who ignore this basic truth. Nonsense. Every society that is monetized has a taxation system - always has, always will have. The only exceptions are the 'tiny resource-ultra rich fiefdoms, where there is no freedom or rights, ruled by a king who doles out the collective benefits, aka infrastructure and such', like the oil rich gulf nations. Cheers !
  4. Bull$&!#. Taxation is basic part of social contract. Period. You don't have the right to keep 100% of your earnings if you use ANY public resource, period. There is no such natural right to lack of social financial contract. Again, there is no such natural right. It can be. However, with checks and balances and educated systems, it has also yeilded the pinnacles of species homo sapiens' sum total achievement. I cannot think of any more natural justification to social contract than that. Irrelevant. Giving examples of social contract's failures does not even begin to justify financial anarchism. Strawman argument It has nothing to do with libertarian FAIL on economics. That, is where my beef is with libertarians. Except in this case, i can empirically prove, with mathematics, that taxation is a superior system of resource distribution and access than individual freebooting. So yes, love it or leave it - we are a society fundamentally based on the merits of taxation. If you don't want to be part of said society, form your on society, because unlike other ideologies, libertarianism can be proven to be a fail system mathematically. You will not get that right, period. There are fundamental obligations to species homo sapiens society. In every single monetized society, taxation is a norm. Just like how you did not consent to being born, this is one of the things about human society, where you don't get to abscond and partake in soceity. BS. What goes against collectivism, is libertarian FAIL in refusing the superior system of collectivized taxation by the administrative body of the land. There are no absolute property rights when it comes to currency and fiscal earnings. Those are subject to taxation. Absolute property rights exist, within reason of national needs framework, if said nation exits and state of emergency exists, etc. Indeed. The libertarian loonies can think what they wish, i suppose.
  5. Not to mention, libertarianism's *CORE* ideology - every person/social unit to themselves and get exactly what they can earn, is an 18th century 'frontier-mentality' nonsense, that is an out-dated and obsolete ideology. Species homo sapiens is a social creature as well as an individual creature. Our societies - historically as well as in modern, present day situations, have decisively shown development, where this element of species homo sapiens is best balanced. Whenever we've had governments who supervised efficient and reasonable tax collection/spending, along with fostering commerce in the civillian sector, we've had immense prosperity, stability, growth within said society. Eg: Rome, Greece, India, China. Not to mention,we live in the 21st century. Technological realities favor collectivism, DECISIVELY so, as a social framework.
  6. I don't make snap judgements, period. Libertarianism is BS of the highest order. The freedom, where you are responsible for EVERYTHING and there is no collectivism, quite literally favors the rich only. Taxation leads to far better social services than every person fending for themselves. Former model gives you Canada, Norway, Japan etc. Latter model gives you Nigeria or Ghana. You don't have to consent to be part of a social contract. Don't like it ? move to where there is nobody living and start your own dystopia.
  7. they'd put someone smarter and more sinister than Trump in charge, since Libertarianism is the most BS ideology i've ever encountered. Not only is it thinly masked elitism that serves only the super-rich, its framework ALWAYS loses to a collective society in every single competitive aspect.
  8. *WE* can heavily invest in renewables while we sell non-renewables, in a market where there are people in desperate need for it. One does not have to oppose the other. Look at Norway - one of the greatest success stories of oil export and a far more ecologically sound track record than Canada. It is a win-win : by selling oil, we can use the profits to fund an accelerated renewables program in places like Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta, etc. First it would require a Norway style nationalization of the oil assets. Trudeau is on the right track - he just needs to nationalize the entire oil industry.
  9. one has nothing to do with the other. If anything, the # of pleasure-cruising in the st. of georgia is far more of a threat to whale welfare, than 1.5 ships per day rumbling along, safer than all the noise-making, gas-guzzling (and by nature, gas spilling, such as from the floating gas-station by stanley park) pleasure crafts. Time to ban the cruise ships.
  10. Such a foolish, NIMBY-isic and ignorant post. Apparently turning bitumen into pellets make it just fine when it spills and gets into the gullets of various creatures to this guy. Some straight-up, irrational fearmongering going on.
  11. straight into a far richer biome than BC and its coastal waters. PS: Bali is a long, long way from Jakarta. Yes, its getting polluted, but seriously, BC has nothing on Bali's natural beauty or biomass or bio-diversity.There...its paradise.
  12. The Asian market is a maybe, its Americas market that our oil heads to. I don't see why this trend would change one way or another. You may not be aware of how the oil industry works, but China/Japan are not our long-term customers. And most likely not rest of Asia, either.
  13. Err, the oil is headed mostly to the US and a tiny % to China. Its not heading to Hecate strait, its heading where most of the oil heads to anyways - due South, to Kaah-leeh-foh-niyuh.
  14. Except NG is dead and its a dumb idea. Why would we put an oil pipeline in pristine nature, instead of just twining one that already exists, in the FILTIHIEST PART OF THE ENTIRE POVINCE- aka, the lower mainland ? We need technology and resources to live the modern life. This generates toxic waste. I'd rather have the toxic stuff confined to the most toxic environment in the entire region (which is lower mainland and the seas surrounding it), than risk pristine nature. That, is my consession to responsible ecology and preservation : keep our $hit to ourselves and leave rest of nature alone.
  15. It is my province and it is part of Canada. It doesn't get the right to choose to block a national project. And if it does, i will vote for a government to remove said right. No, BC is just the whore to the world's rich, who wants to accumulate as much wealth as possible for the tiny % of home-owners, while its children sit outside the 'sex room' and suffer. I am from BC, you twerp. Most BC-ites disagree with you as well. that is a fact. You don't represent most of BC, as this article will show: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/trans-mountain-pipeline-supporters-in-bc-poll-1.4624611
  16. except what you are saying is an act of deliberate sabotage. Maybe we should blow up an oil tanker in the harbor, ruin the coastline and then get it over with - thats the kind of logic you are using.
  17. They used to, in the Exxon Valdez era. Hecate strait is again, a non-issue and can be bypassed as well. PS: Oil tankers don't always sail with all cells full. But it does not matter anymore due to cellular structure of oil storage.
  18. this is just NIMBY nonsense to make Vancouver a millionaire retirement home for the world's rich. no industry = locals suffer. No industry + great scenery = tourism park for the world's rich. No thanks. Most of BC disagrees with you anyways because we don't want to be a millionaire's retirement home province and we know that the science against oil shipping is non-existent to the environmentalists.
  19. Except we already ship oil off our coast, we have done so for decades and it represents no credible risk. You are fear-mongering, plain and simple.
  20. passenger ships are also not 100% safe. Nothing is 100% safe. But oil tankers are the safest ships in business. so no credible reason to oppose the safest of ships in business if we are going to be a port town. Better picket the entire port.
  21. thats like posting a video of an air crash at take-off to picket an airport. All it proves, is that it is not 100% safe - nothing is. Yet another red herring. It ignores the fact that it is amongst the SAFEST sea-borne transport methods, safer than practically anything outside of nuclear subs - and even they have gone kaboom underwater. Want 100% safe ? find a cave and stay there then.
  22. this does not change the fact that oil shipping is safer than passenger transport - both inside and outside Canada.
  23. Equipment investment, determines loathness to lose the 'cargo'- whether its material, human, animal, etc. Coastal passenger ships hitting an island is irrelevant to tankers hitting one - they have far better equipment to guide them in the first place. I can point out the fact that by empiric numbers (ie, sheer volume) or by frequency, tankers suffer far less crashes than passenger transports do - of *all* classes.
  24. Err no. Sorry to break this to you, but passenger ships are not the highest standards of radar telemetry outside of the military. Cargo ships are. This is not about what your morals say, it is simply about equipment. Oil tankers carry the most expensive merchandize day in, day out to their employers. As such, they have the best forecasting equipment outside of the military.
  25. First, no, the chances of Valdez Part-II are exceedingly smaller than it was before (which was exceedingly small to begin with). This is not 1989, neither are ships controlled by analog feedback systems mostly. Furthermore, the world's most precious cargo-carriers *ARE* the oil tankers which ship up to a million barrel of oil usually ( making them worth 100 million dollars in cargo). There is no such thing as zero risk in anything. That is a strawman argument against *any* industrial persuit. The risks are miniscule, those are the facts. Simple. You can say ' unless its 0% risk, its a risk' to any damn industry. Oh look- thats exactly what NIMBY BC-ites have done to drive up their own property values and &^@# over the masses of BC people. High time we elected government that would nix anti-federal politics in the bud.
×
×
  • Create New...