Political Crossfire Forums

[Infinite911911]

Humanity is the cancer of nature. :cry:

Quote: An oil tanker with 360,000 barrels capacity was struck by an ice floe and ran aground while loading oil products at an Alaska refinery on Thursday, causing a spill, a state official and the refining company said.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyid=2006-02-02T191116Z_01_N02299301_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENVIRONMENT-TANKER.xml&rpc=22

[Wolverine]

That is sad....

[Kt]

This is how it is like BEFORE alaska drilling is allowed.

[DarkMerlin]

Well, as bad as it is, let's be honest: there isn't really that much IN Alaska. Be thankful it happened there, rather than off the coast of Florida or something.

[John Galt]

What a waste of good oil. It is sad. Prices may increase a fraction of a penny, and, just like last time, less birds will die from the oil slick than are killed by cats in London every week. One can only hope that global warming is human induced so we can burn more fuel to make sure no ice is left to meddle in human affairs.

[Headrattle]

John Galt wrote: and, just like last time, less birds will die from the oil slick than are killed by cats in London every week.

I love that line! While the facts might be true, it is stupid the compare cats killing pigeons in London to an oil spill destroying the ecology of a coastal area. It is like comparing cats killing rodents in New York to the amount of squirrels dying in a forest fire caused by a fuel truck crash.

Where the hell did you get a talking point like that Galt? I know that you didn’t come up with it on your own.

[Pzatchok]

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/7411662p-7323488c.html

Tanker runs aground in Cook Inlet; some fuel spilled

By MARY PEMBERTON
The Associated Press

Published: February 2, 2006
Last Modified: February 2, 2006 at 07:24 PM
Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

A small amount of fuel spilled into Cook Inlet after an ice floe hit a tanker that was being loaded with petroleum products, pulling it off its mooring and damaging the tanker's fuel arm.

The 575-foot Seabulk Pride was docked Thursday in Nikiski on the Kenai Peninsula when it broke free and ran aground about a half-mile away. Nikiski is 80 miles south of Anchorage.

The Coast Guard said less than 100 gallons of fuel was spilled.

Agency officials said an attempt to re-float the vessel would be made at high tide late Thursday with the rescue vessels on hand, which included three tug boats.

Additional tugs and a spill response barge from Valdez were en route to the site but were not expected until late Friday afternoon.

Petty Officer Steve Harrison of the Coast Guard command center in Juneau said the agency received the report at about 6 a.m.

The Seabulk Pride was struck by an ice floe and broke free from its moorings at 5:25 a.m., said Sarah Simpson, a spokeswoman for Tesoro in San Antonio. Tesoro has a refinery in Nikiski. The double-hulled tanker was being loaded with product when the incident occurred, she said.

"A large piece of ice floating in the channel – from what they tell me it was traveling pretty fast – struck the vessel," Simpson said.

The Coast Guard said the tanker was carrying several kinds of petroleum products, including 94,951 barrels of a thick residual oil similar in consistency to asphalt that was not processed at the Tesoro refinery. It also carried bunker oil, gasoline, heavy gasoline oil and diesel fuel. In total, the Seabulk Pride was carrying about 116,225 barrels of product, or 4.9 million gallons, when it broke free.

About five 42-gallon barrels of product was spilled, said Coast Guard Petty Officer Eric Chandler. About 125 gallons spilled on the ship and were contained. An estimated 75 gallons ended up in Cook Inlet. It was not immediately known which product spilled.

Chandler said there was some damage to the tanker's fuel arm, but otherwise the tanker appeared to be OK. There were 34 people on board the tanker at the time of the accident, including two pilots. There were no reported injuries.

"At this time, we still don't have any reports of damage or leaking in the hole," he said.

Simpson said the fueling was stopped when the tanker was hit by the ice and moved off its mooring. She said helicopters were flying over the area to assess how much fuel was in the water. The tanker's owner told Tesoro that the ship's cargo tanks were not breached, she said.

Harrison said the tanker drifted and made a soft landing.

"The tanker is aground on silt," Harrison said, adding that that was "a good thing."

The tanker came to rest about a half-mile north of the dock, Simpson said.

According to the company's Web site, the Seabulk Pride is a double-hulled petroleum tanker with a carrying capacity of 342,000 barrels of oil. It is owned by Seabulk Tankers, Inc., of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

Simpson said when Tesoro was notified of the problem it activated the unified command system, in which company employees, the Coast Guard and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation work together to plan and execute a recovery.

The incident is unlike the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, which occurred in a more remote area in Prince William Sound. The Exxon Valdez, unlike the Seabulk Pride, was carrying raw crude oil when it ran aground on a chartered reef, spilling 11 million gallons.


I've seen less spilled at cook outs.

[John Galt]

Headrattle wrote: John Galt wrote: and, just like last time, less birds will die from the oil slick than are killed by cats in London every week.

I love that line! While the facts might be true, it is stupid the compare cats killing pigeons in London to an oil spill destroying the ecology of a coastal area. It is like comparing cats killing rodents in New York to the amount of squirrels dying in a forest fire caused by a fuel truck crash.

Where the hell did you get a talking point like that Galt? I know that you didn’t come up with it on your own.

It was in Maxim magazine. Or Stuff. Can't recall. I clearly read them for the articles. The cover had some chick on it and in the corner had a bunch of loggers logging and some line about how we shouldn't give a damn about half the stuff people care about because the truth is -- it's all lies!

More birds are killed in England every day flying into windows as well then were killed by the Exxon aldez.

I got another good line yesterday, from a bumper sticker (so it HAS to be good):

Don't like logging? Use plastic toliet paper.



In any event the ecology in the area was hurt but it wasnot destroyed. It was a lot larger -- 11 million gallons of oil -- and did indeed do damage but the point in my little point above about birds in London and cats is that, in the large scheme of things, it did not do that much damage. Cats kill more birds in a week...

[thorn]

John Galt wrote: In any event the ecology in the area was hurt but it wasnot destroyed. It was a lot larger -- 11 million gallons of oil -- and did indeed do damage but the point in my little point above about birds in London and cats is that, in the large scheme of things, it did not do that much damage. Cats kill more birds in a week...
Is it natural for a cat to hunt a bird?
Is it natural for humans to transport and use oil? Do you eat petroleum?

[John Galt]

thorn wrote: John Galt wrote: In any event the ecology in the area was hurt but it wasnot destroyed. It was a lot larger -- 11 million gallons of oil -- and did indeed do damage but the point in my little point above about birds in London and cats is that, in the large scheme of things, it did not do that much damage. Cats kill more birds in a week...
Is it natural for a cat to hunt a bird?
Is it natural for humans to transport and use oil? Do you eat petroleum?

Our capacity to reason is our nature, so yes, it is just as natural for humans to transport and use oil as a cat stalks his songbird prey in London. To say it is unnatural would be to say that our capacity to reason is unnatural and that we should go living in caves again. Anti-man enviornmentalists who think that the amoral unreasoning world is better than the reasoning world show their head again. They want to bring everyone down to their their level which is without reason. I will not comply.

[Infinite911911]

John Galt wrote: thorn wrote: John Galt wrote: In any event the ecology in the area was hurt but it wasnot destroyed. It was a lot larger -- 11 million gallons of oil -- and did indeed do damage but the point in my little point above about birds in London and cats is that, in the large scheme of things, it did not do that much damage. Cats kill more birds in a week...
Is it natural for a cat to hunt a bird?
Is it natural for humans to transport and use oil? Do you eat petroleum?

Our capacity to reason is our nature, so yes, it is just as natural for humans to transport and use oil as a cat stalks his songbird prey in London. To say it is unnatural would be to say that our capacity to reason is unnatural and that we should go living in caves again. Anti-man enviornmentalists who think that the amoral unreasoning world is better than the reasoning world show their head again. They want to bring everyone down to their their level which is without reason. I will not comply.


:blah:

If it was up to Mr. John Galt the world would be a polluted, toxic waste dump with no animals alive, including Humans. Yea, we're anti-Human. :roll:

[John Galt]

Infinite911911 wrote: John Galt wrote: thorn wrote: John Galt wrote: In any event the ecology in the area was hurt but it wasnot destroyed. It was a lot larger -- 11 million gallons of oil -- and did indeed do damage but the point in my little point above about birds in London and cats is that, in the large scheme of things, it did not do that much damage. Cats kill more birds in a week...
Is it natural for a cat to hunt a bird?
Is it natural for humans to transport and use oil? Do you eat petroleum?

Our capacity to reason is our nature, so yes, it is just as natural for humans to transport and use oil as a cat stalks his songbird prey in London. To say it is unnatural would be to say that our capacity to reason is unnatural and that we should go living in caves again. Anti-man enviornmentalists who think that the amoral unreasoning world is better than the reasoning world show their head again. They want to bring everyone down to their their level which is without reason. I will not comply.


:blah:

If it was up to Mr. John Galt the world would be a polluted, toxic waste dump with no animals alive, including Humans. Yea, we're anti-Human. :roll:

No it would not be a "polluted toxic waste dump." It isn't now, and frankly none of it is "thanks" to any enviornmentalists. As technology progresses we become more efficent and the enviornment is consequently cleaner. Furthermore if someone polluted YOUR property you should have a right to sue them but thanks to enviornmentalists who push for heavy regulation of buisnesses, you don't, as polluters are fined by the government instead of taken to court and restitution paid out.

Again, enviornmentalists are anti-man because they are anti-reason. You called human beings a CANCER on this earth. No, enviornmentalist are a scourge on this earth; collectivists through and through who want to destroy all that man has accomplished. They fill people's heads with lies day in and day out and get them to believe outlandish theories. They have made a mockery of the concept of rights by trying to "give" them to animals. Such a sick and twisted view of mankind needs to be done away with. Thankfully most people are reasonable and do not listen to this monkeybuinsess.

[thorn]

John Galt wrote: Our capacity to reason is our nature, so yes, it is just as natural for humans to transport and use oil as a cat stalks his songbird prey in London. To say it is unnatural would be to say that our capacity to reason is unnatural and that we should go living in caves again. Anti-man enviornmentalists who think that the amoral unreasoning world is better than the reasoning world show their head again. They want to bring everyone down to their their level which is without reason. I will not comply.

Dear John.

Firstly, you ramble on about the number of birds being killed by the oil spill and compare it to the number of birds being eaten by cats. I don't give a single s**t about the cats eating birds, because it is what cats do, they can't help it.
However I do give a s**t about human interference in nature, because I am a human being living in it. You yourself call yourself a biologist, so you should know that a human being as a biological entity needs a working biosphere in order to survive. A biosphere contains more than one organism, and you should know that even the smallest change in the biosphere can have an impact on all organisms dependent on this biosphere. The impact can be huge or neglectable, and can include human beings (incl. you) or not. But it is there. Reason should be able to tell you this, and reason should also be able to tell you that reasoning is a means to our survival, not the reason for it.
being able to reason gives i.e. me a very good understanding of how we as human beings impact our biosphere and in order for every single one or as many as possible of ourselves to survive we have to take care for our own actions. And we can help it. This concept is called responsibility, and is directly connected to us being moral creatures.

Secondly, some people want to live on a planet where they can enjoy nature and her beauty to the fullest. For this they need nature. Now let's say some other people want to live warm and cozy. for this they need a fuel. For both people this constitutes their personal pursuit of happiness, I think we can agree on that from their individual bases (although I know that for you only your own individual wish constitutes your way of thinking).

Nice and dandy. Now, I for one am a person who prefers both enjoying nature's beauty AND living warm and cozy. Therefore I see that there is a need for transporting fuel over distances and see the potential danger in that, which should both be reasonable. Now I reasonably also like to enjoy nature and also see that this interferes with my wish to be warm and cozy. So what do I do? I try to find a way that helps me to fulfil both wishes, and to minimize the risk for nature/our biosphere AND me freezing. I compromise, that's what reason dictates me. And therefore also everyone else has to compromise, this comes from us living in a society.

of course this last sentence runs against everything you believe in, but this is not John Galt's personal wonderworld, but reality. and in reality you are just a little kid stomping his foot on the ground and chanting "you are anti-man", while you yourself are truly anti-man, by refusing everyone else their own right to health, happiness and the freedom to enjoy his life, and by refusing to use what nature gave you: your capacity to reason.

Kind regards,
thorn

[DarkMerlin]

John Galt wrote: Infinite911911 wrote: John Galt wrote: thorn wrote: John Galt wrote: In any event the ecology in the area was hurt but it wasnot destroyed. It was a lot larger -- 11 million gallons of oil -- and did indeed do damage but the point in my little point above about birds in London and cats is that, in the large scheme of things, it did not do that much damage. Cats kill more birds in a week...
Is it natural for a cat to hunt a bird?
Is it natural for humans to transport and use oil? Do you eat petroleum?

Our capacity to reason is our nature, so yes, it is just as natural for humans to transport and use oil as a cat stalks his songbird prey in London. To say it is unnatural would be to say that our capacity to reason is unnatural and that we should go living in caves again. Anti-man enviornmentalists who think that the amoral unreasoning world is better than the reasoning world show their head again. They want to bring everyone down to their their level which is without reason. I will not comply.


:blah:

If it was up to Mr. John Galt the world would be a polluted, toxic waste dump with no animals alive, including Humans. Yea, we're anti-Human. :roll:

No it would not be a "polluted toxic waste dump." It isn't now, and frankly none of it is "thanks" to any enviornmentalists. As technology progresses we become more efficent and the enviornment is consequently cleaner. Furthermore if someone polluted YOUR property you should have a right to sue them but thanks to enviornmentalists who push for heavy regulation of buisnesses, you don't, as polluters are fined by the government instead of taken to court and restitution paid out.

Again, enviornmentalists are anti-man because they are anti-reason. You called human beings a CANCER on this earth. No, enviornmentalist are a scourge on this earth; collectivists through and through who want to destroy all that man has accomplished. They fill people's heads with lies day in and day out and get them to believe outlandish theories. They have made a mockery of the concept of rights by trying to "give" them to animals. Such a sick and twisted view of mankind needs to be done away with. Thankfully most people are reasonable and do not listen to this monkeybuinsess.

So, Johnny, I'm wondering: can you get through an argument without using the terms "anti-man" or "anti-reason"?

[Demonic Spoon]

Quote: You yourself call yourself a biologist, so you should know that a human being as a biological entity needs a working biosphere in order to survive.

s**t, I'm a 14 year old highschool student and I know that.

Galt, we are slaves to nature. It's just how it is. We rely on it for pretty much everything from food to medicine. We cannot live like you (and I) want to without it. You say environmentalists wish to put us back in caves, but if the biosphere is annihilated, that's exactly where we'll be.

[micfranklin]

Infinite911911 wrote: Humanity is the cancer of nature. :cry:

Quote: An oil tanker with 360,000 barrels capacity was struck by an ice floe and ran aground while loading oil products at an Alaska refinery on Thursday, causing a spill, a state official and the refining company said.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyid=2006-02-02T191116Z_01_N02299301_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENVIRONMENT-TANKER.xml&rpc=22

Oil has become a curse on both man and nature. Why won't people learn from their mistakes in the past, do they think that if something happens then it's not going to do anything.

I don't think we should be shipping oil to or from Alaska anymore.

[Demonic Spoon]

Yes, lets let the Alaskan economy become stagnant. Hell, we might as well abandon alaska.

[John Galt]

DarkMerlin wrote: John Galt wrote: Infinite911911 wrote: John Galt wrote: thorn wrote: John Galt wrote: In any event the ecology in the area was hurt but it wasnot destroyed. It was a lot larger -- 11 million gallons of oil -- and did indeed do damage but the point in my little point above about birds in London and cats is that, in the large scheme of things, it did not do that much damage. Cats kill more birds in a week...
Is it natural for a cat to hunt a bird?
Is it natural for humans to transport and use oil? Do you eat petroleum?

Our capacity to reason is our nature, so yes, it is just as natural for humans to transport and use oil as a cat stalks his songbird prey in London. To say it is unnatural would be to say that our capacity to reason is unnatural and that we should go living in caves again. Anti-man enviornmentalists who think that the amoral unreasoning world is better than the reasoning world show their head again. They want to bring everyone down to their their level which is without reason. I will not comply.


:blah:

If it was up to Mr. John Galt the world would be a polluted, toxic waste dump with no animals alive, including Humans. Yea, we're anti-Human. :roll:

No it would not be a "polluted toxic waste dump." It isn't now, and frankly none of it is "thanks" to any enviornmentalists. As technology progresses we become more efficent and the enviornment is consequently cleaner. Furthermore if someone polluted YOUR property you should have a right to sue them but thanks to enviornmentalists who push for heavy regulation of buisnesses, you don't, as polluters are fined by the government instead of taken to court and restitution paid out.

Again, enviornmentalists are anti-man because they are anti-reason. You called human beings a CANCER on this earth. No, enviornmentalist are a scourge on this earth; collectivists through and through who want to destroy all that man has accomplished. They fill people's heads with lies day in and day out and get them to believe outlandish theories. They have made a mockery of the concept of rights by trying to "give" them to animals. Such a sick and twisted view of mankind needs to be done away with. Thankfully most people are reasonable and do not listen to this monkeybuinsess.

So, Johnny, I'm wondering: can you get through an argument without using the terms "anti-man" or "anti-reason"?

Of course, unless the argument involves something about collectivists. I cannot just blink the fact that they are objectivley anti-reason and consequently anti-man.

[John Galt]

thorn wrote: John Galt wrote: Our capacity to reason is our nature, so yes, it is just as natural for humans to transport and use oil as a cat stalks his songbird prey in London. To say it is unnatural would be to say that our capacity to reason is unnatural and that we should go living in caves again. Anti-man enviornmentalists who think that the amoral unreasoning world is better than the reasoning world show their head again. They want to bring everyone down to their their level which is without reason. I will not comply.

Dear John.

Firstly, you ramble on about the number of birds being killed by the oil spill and compare it to the number of birds being eaten by cats. I don't give a single s**t about the cats eating birds, because it is what cats do, they can't help it.
However I do give a s**t about human interference in nature, because I am a human being living in it. You yourself call yourself a biologist, so you should know that a human being as a biological entity needs a working biosphere in order to survive. A biosphere contains more than one organism, and you should know that even the smallest change in the biosphere can have an impact on all organisms dependent on this biosphere. The impact can be huge or neglectable, and can include human beings (incl. you) or not. But it is there. Reason should be able to tell you this, and reason should also be able to tell you that reasoning is a means to our survival, not the reason for it.
being able to reason gives i.e. me a very good understanding of how we as human beings impact our biosphere and in order for every single one or as many as possible of ourselves to survive we have to take care for our own actions. And we can help it. This concept is called responsibility, and is directly connected to us being moral creatures.

Use of oil by man is natural though. How could it not be? Therefore for allyour ramblings baouthow great nature is, why not let the nature of man run its course?

Quote: Secondly, some people want to live on a planet where they can enjoy nature and her beauty to the fullest. For this they need nature. Now let's say some other people want to live warm and cozy. for this they need a fuel. For both people this constitutes their personal pursuit of happiness, I think we can agree on that from their individual bases (although I know that for you only your own individual wish constitutes your way of thinking).

Agreed! Let whomever has the most money to pay for this win out the day. So long as there is no government force involved (and remember I have a ery deep problem with the entire idea of public property and think it should be sold to pay off the debts of the various nations but especially the one that affects me: the US debt) then I am okay with whatever the outcome is. Drilling in alaska/tourist haven/pristine barren tundra. I don't particuallry care. But let the market work.

Quote: Nice and dandy. Now, I for one am a person who prefers both enjoying nature's beauty AND living warm and cozy. Therefore I see that there is a need for transporting fuel over distances and see the potential danger in that, which should both be reasonable. Now I reasonably also like to enjoy nature and also see that this interferes with my wish to be warm and cozy. So what do I do? I try to find a way that helps me to fulfil both wishes, and to minimize the risk for nature/our biosphere AND me freezing. I compromise, that's what reason dictates me. And therefore also everyone else has to compromise, this comes from us living in a society.

We don't have to comprimise. Believers in the church of enviornmentalism constantly say how things are "irrevocable" if we "destroy" them. Well, NOT having that parking lot, or that cheaper oil, or that nice new road are equally irreovocable. How could it not be? By not having these things now something that someone could have wanted is lost forever, and they are irrevocably damaged by having to pay high oil prices or not being able to drive to a sales pitch or whatever -- it really doesn't matter -- and thus the only way out of this is to allow the people to speakwith their wallets. I like nature. I like say, oh I don't know, muskrats. I might pay 20 bucks to see muskrats continue to live. But if someone asked for more than that, well... I don't like them that much. I like gasoline a lot more. Actually a muskrat once attacked me. I take that back, I wouldn't pay to see muskrats keep on living, I don't care. But you get my point: I can use my wallet to pay for the things I like. I don't ask other people with guns to doit for me, as collectivists are prone to do.

Quote: of course this last sentence runs against everything you believe in, but this is not John Galt's personal wonderworld, but reality. and in reality you are just a little kid stomping his foot on the ground and chanting "you are anti-man", while you yourself are truly anti-man, by refusing everyone else their own right to health, happiness and the freedom to enjoy his life, and by refusing to use what nature gave you: your capacity to reason.

:lol: No, you're telling me I need to SACRIFICE? What is the definition of sacrifice? It is ALWAYS giving up a good for the sake of evil. Sacrifice is never a good thing. But you religious types always demand more and more of it, whether it be for "God" or for "the poor" or for"global warming;"

Do it yourself.

I do not ask anything of anyone else other than to let me live the way I want to. You ask everyone else to help YOU live the way YOU want to. It is revolting. And just because collectivists have inflitrated our society and have breathed lies into people's ears about how we need to sacrifice it does not mean it is objectivley correct. It is against reason to give up good for evil as it goes against man's fountainhead of rights: his right to life. It is unreasonable for a man to burn his own house down, or shove a fork in his eye, or do give up money to someone else who has not earned it and did not allow himself the enjoy the fruits of his own labor, as it goes against your right to your own life. Now -- you may feel good when you burn your house down, or shove a fork in your eye, or give money to people undeserving of it, but that does not give YOU the right to tell ME how I should feel about this. That does not mean that YOU are objectivley correct. It does not mean that such actions are reasonable. It does not mean that anyone else should follow in your footsteps. That's your life. Want to waste your money -- go right ahead, I don't care. But no one but me has the right to my property.

Back tothe issue at hand, the religious zealotry that is prevalent throughout the enviornmentalist camp wants to tell everyone else what to do. They bully the government into raising taxes on gasoline. They bully the government into enacting pollution legislation. They bully the government into protecting endangered slugs. The government pays through all of this through me. It isn't right in the least. It is evil through and through.

They should pay for it themselves if they care so much about it.

[John Galt]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Quote: You yourself call yourself a biologist, so you should know that a human being as a biological entity needs a working biosphere in order to survive.

s**t, I'm a 14 year old highschool student and I know that.

Galt, we are slaves to nature. It's just how it is. We rely on it for pretty much everything from food to medicine. We cannot live like you (and I) want to without it. You say environmentalists wish to put us back in caves, but if the biosphere is annihilated, that's exactly where we'll be.

There is no reason to believe the biosphere will be harmed in any waythat affects me or my progeny for hundreds of years. So I don't particuallary care about the above argument as I know whatever actions man may take today or for the forseable future nothing will change the status quo. Now, nature itself could destroy much of nature and much of mankind, but there's really nothing we can do about calderas.