Why are so-called "progressives" and "liberals" so deferential to religious nonsense by Indians?

[Derec]

It is more than ironic that Derec feels his religious preferences should be viewed with deference while those of the Lakota Indians should not.

I have no religion. The basic facts of petroleum geology and economics are not tenets of a religion.

 

[Derec]

Pipelines attract Ayn Rand fans who remember the stirring imagery of Hank Reardon's steel mill filling the night sky with the sounds, smell, and glow of industry,

Not an Ayn Rand fan and I do not even know which of her books Hank Reardon is from, but industry is necessary for the modern world. Look around you. Most of the stuff you see around you and use on a daily basis are products of industry. Most if not all of it is linked with oil in some way. It is simply idiotic to oppose oil development in general, and that includes pipelines.

and want to live in a place where they can experience it themselves.

There are no oil pipelines running close-by here but there is a major product pipeline that has a terminal a few miles from here. Pipelines are inevitable products of an oil economy. There will come a day when oil is no longer a needed or even viable on a large scale. But that day is not even close. Thus, we need pipelines. And some areas will be closer to them than others. That's just life.

 

[Derec]

If pipelines are so good, I propose we run them through golf courses, upscale shopping districts and gated communities.

Do you propose we run pipelines through these areas just to spite "rich people" or do you think there is something to be gained by it? In general, it costs more to route a pipeline though a heavily built up area so that is to be avoided if possible.

Being so good for so many reasons they most certainly will improve the property values and overall quality of life for the affluent people who frequent such places.

These pipelines are generally underground. And the benefits of the pipeline are that they provide cheap and safe way to bring oil from point A to point B. Are you being purposely obtuse here?

What exactly were all those really good reasons again?

You like to be able to fill up your tank with gasoline, right? Well, that gasoline starts as crude oil that is pumped through pipelines to the refineries. The finished product is then sent through a product pipeline to a regional distribution center and then sent to your local gas station.

 

[laughing dog]

It is more than ironic that Derec feels his religious preferences should be viewed with deference while those of the Lakota Indians should not.

I have no religion.

You are deluding yourself.

The basic facts of petroleum geology and economics are not tenets of a religion.

That is a religious statement. The facts of petroleum geology have nothing to do with the appropriateness of a pipeline or the use of petroleum. And without specifying what "facts of economics" you mean, your claim is equivalent to saying "Cuz my god says so."

 

[Derec]

In case you haven't noticed, a growing number of vehicles do not even have gas tanks. Maybe he drives a Tesla.

Actually I like Teslas and electric cars in general. But the fact is that electric cars are still a very small percentage of all cars on the roads in the US. And there are no electric 18 wheelers that bring goods to your local stores either.
The oil age is on its way out, for sure, but it's going to take decades. In the meantime, we will need oil. And pipelines.

 

[Derec]

You are deluding yourself.

On the contrary.

That is a religious statement. The facts of petroleum geology have nothing to do with the appropriateness of a pipeline or the use of petroleum. And without specifying what "facts of economics" you mean, your claim is equivalent to saying "Cuz my god says so."

No, the facts are the facts whether you accept them or not. As Philip K. Dick said, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away." Our need for petroleum is part of reality since you can't just wish it away. Unlike giant black snakes.

 

[Derec]

No self respecting oil exec is going to advocate leaving one drop of it in the ground.

Actually a great many drops will stay in the ground. No self-respecting oil exec is going to advocate bringing up oil that can't be produced economically. See oil in place.

 

[laughing dog]

No, the facts are the facts whether you accept them or not. As Philip K. Dick said, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away." Our need for petroleum is part of reality since you can't just wish it away. Unlike giant black snakes.

Preaching your religion does not help you case. "Need" for oil is a subjective view, and there is nothing in that need that necessitates pipelines.

Your religious views deserve no more or less respect than those of the Lakotas. And their religious views deserve no more or less respect than yours. That is my point.

 

[Derec]

How 'bout maybe just leave that dirty shit in the ground?

In case you haven't noticed, the world is running out of easily accessible conventional oil. Thus an increasing percentage in the future will be things like fracking (conventional oil that is difficult to get) or things like oil sands. World uses about 90 million barrels every day, that's almost 33 billion barrels annually, and how do you propose that demand be fulfilled?
The fact is that without shale oil prices would be much higher today and US production much lower.

- - - Updated - - -

reaching your religion does not help you case. "Need" for oil is a subjective view, and there is nothing in that need that necessitates pipelines.
Your religious views deserve no more or less respect than those of the Lakotas. And their religious views deserve no more or less respect than yours. That is my point.

Your inability to understand the meaning of common words like "religion" is not helping your case.

 

[Elixir]

Your religious views deserve no more or less respect than those of the Lakotas.

"Deserve"? There is no rational reason of which I am aware for elevating one religion over another (an inconvenient reality that doesn't go away even if Derec stops believing it), but I'd refrain from opining on what's "deserved", as that just muddies the water.
OTOH, if forced to arbitrate which religion "deserves" respect, I think I'd go with the snake.

 

[Derec]

Native Americans are fully part of America.

I wish they were.

Additionally, native American reservations are similar to a state within the federal govt, which is largely why states can't tell them that they can't have gambling.

Actually the reason they can have monopoly gambling is a misguided federal law. Also, Indian reservations are still part of the state they reside in, which is why the states build their roads, schools etc. but they are exempt from many taxes. That is bullshit.

And most state have at least one form of gambling, so it isn't about "gambling", it is about regulation of gambling. So reservations, as a quasi-state get to regulate gambling as they see fit.

Why should reservations get to be "quasi-state"? Are any other US citizens able to form "quasi-states"? They can not. Thus Indians are given special rights based on their ethnicity, and I think that is wrong. And note, the real state is still responsible for all infrastructure of the "quasi-state", yet being a citizen of the "quasi-state" exempts you from many taxes and laws of the real state.
I say, remove special legal status from reservations and the states should treat them as they would any county or municipality (reservations are really not big enough to warrant statehood). If a state law allows individual counties to legalize casino gambling, fine. But that should be open to all counties within the state, not just to Indians.

Derec, show me a state that doesn't have a lottery, general gambling, or dog/horse race gambling? Then, I'd say a state might have an argument against a reservation in their state having casinos.

The point is not gambling, but monopoly on gambling. In many states, only Indian tribes can own and operate casinos. And many of these casinos are not even on Indian/reservation land because those are too remote. So states allow them to build casinos elsewhere, but prohibit all other citizens from building casinos. That kind of discrimination is not defensible.

 

[laughing dog]

Your inability to understand the meaning of common words like "religion" is not helping your case.

Spoken like a true YECer.

 

[Derec]

Interesting idea. And you would support their bid for independence, including sovereign land that American citizens need a passport to enter, if they want to let you in at all, etc?

I would not support their bid for independence, but I think they should have the right to seek it. I would think it would be a bad idea, as they would suddenly have to start paying for everything that has hitherto been provided to them by US and state governments.

You'd be cool with them forming their own militaries, etc? That wouldn't be a problem for you? How much of their traditional lands would you give back to them?

Whatever the lands they have now. Why should we give them any more than that?

Would you close down euro cities to do it?

What do cities in Europe have to do with it?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Your inability to understand the meaning of common words like "religion" is not helping your case.

Rejecting a single pipeline because of fracking in their neighborhood is not equivalent to rejecting ALL pipelines. And rejecting ALL pipelines through every neighborhood is not equivalent to rejection of oil. And wanting to minimize oil or diversifying energy resources or moving money to support greener technologies is not equivalent to being an eco-mentalist, a pipeline-hater or whatever other feces-flinging term you want to make up. On the other hand, people who cannot see degrees of options but instead reduce other people around them to players in their own single-variable fundamentalist orthodoxy are indeed living in a religious fairy tale land.

 

[Derec]

Spoken like a true YECer.

You know, if you have nothing sensible to contribute just shut up.
Your kindergarten-level taunts are getting tiresome.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I don't know, why are conservatives so deferential to authoritarian nonsense?

 

[laughing dog]

You know, if you have nothing sensible to contribute just shut up.

10,000 irony meters just blew up.

Your kindergarten-level taunts are getting tiresome.

Chill out snowflake, no one is taunting you. I am trying to expand your extremely restricted view of the world and religion. Don succinctly pointed out your fundamentalist-like rigid thinking about oil. Add in your denigration of people who disagree with you, and your posts and position resemble a YECer's in its irrational adherence to belief over fact.

 

[Derec]

Rejecting a single pipeline because of fracking in their neighborhood is not equivalent to rejecting ALL pipelines.

But Indians are opposed to all pipelines. This is not a single pipeline they are opposing. Indians have been opposing Keystone XL, Sandpiper pipeline, Northern Gateway pipeline etc.

And rejecting ALL pipelines through every neighborhood is not equivalent to rejection of oil.

It is for all intents and purposes. It's like saying I support arts but am against any galleries or museums being built in my town.

And wanting to minimize oil or diversifying energy resources or moving money to support greener technologies is not equivalent to being an eco-mentalist, a pipeline-hater or whatever other feces-flinging term you want to make up. On the other hand, people who cannot see degrees of options but instead reduce other people around them to players in their own single-variable fundamentalist orthodoxy are indeed living in a religious fairy tale land.

Diversifying energy is fine. I support it as well. But ecomentalists I decry here are opposed to any oil developments. That is just not a sensible position as we still need oil and will need oil for decades to come.

- - - Updated - - -

10,000 irony meters just blew up.

That's because you are incapable of properly calibrating them. Otherwise they'd go off every time you speak.

I am trying to expand your extremely restricted view of the world and religion.

Calling non-religions religions is just as silly as calling non-snowflakes snowflakes.
And yes, the intellectual content of your contribution to this thread can be compared unfavorably to an average kindergarten taunt.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh for fucks sake....I didn't bother to watch the video, as I figured there could easily be a few loose native American nuts. So we are simply within the feverish dreamy mind of Derec....sigh....

How about you watch the video for yourself.

 

[Derec]

Bring it up with colonials and the Supreme Court. Liberals have nothing to do with this.

Of course they do. It is so-called liberals who most support giving certain minorities special rights.
Not to say that SCOTUS is not very cowardly and unconstitutional on these manners, but many on the SCOTUS are "liberals", so there.

What you think doesn't matter. The Supreme Court has ruled again and again on these matters.

And SCOTUS cannot be wrong?

 

[laughing dog]

....meltdown....

Snowflakes cannot afford meltdowns, so chill out now.