Bush calls for Offshore drilling

[SirNitram]

But the regulation isn't being enacted, it's being ignored. You're now willfully changing the topic from where it began because you apparently can't substantiate it beyond your opinions, which are subjective, and I've already rejected those standards.

By the by, I meant nothing to do with oil prices when I mentioned those suffering. I meant those under the poverty level in general. Government time is not divided into 'Oil time', 'Iraq time', etc, so you could even spend the time trying to hammer through the new GI Bill. The desperation was a response to your strawmen and calling me insane for not accepting what you now admit is a subjective standard.

[Surlethe]

When time is of the essence, how is it a strawman to say that the oil will start flowing too late to make a significant difference?

For a board that seems devoted to logical thinking, this is an astounding lapse in judgement, considering that it's a popular pasttime here to pillory the executives of major car companies for thinking that gas prices would remain eternally cheap and thus SUVs would sell forever.

Lets say that the projections of no oil in appreciable quantities until 2030 from offshore fields are true....wouldn't time frame be right when the Peakoilpocalypse is happening?

And wouldn't it be great to have that source of oil ready as the Peakoilpocalypse is happening?

What, you think that it will?

Don't strawman me.

That's the most common strawman of the entire oil exploration debate in the US -- people love to bring up the fact that it will only produce "x" amount of oil, whereas we consume "y" amount of oil; therefore we shouldn't try drilling (and thus not disturb the precious arctic tundra wasteland and caribou).

Oh, I see what you were saying. My bad. I think the term you're looking for is "non-sequitur", not "strawman" -- you are right: it does not follow immediately that simply because the oil will not forestall the peakoilpocalypse or meet demand for any significant portion of time, we shouldn't drill there. What I would question is whether the resources devoted to exploring those places for oil would be better used elsewhere; it would seem that the oil companies agree, since they haven't done any exploratory drilling on the land they've already got leased.

[Master of Ossus]

But the regulation isn't being enacted, it's being ignored. You're now willfully changing the topic from where it began because you apparently can't substantiate it beyond your opinions, which are subjective, and I've already rejected those standards.

Yes, indeed. My argument relies on it being a subjectively good thing to help various segments of society. If you disagree with that, then by all means disagree with my conclusion.

By the by, I meant nothing to do with oil prices when I mentioned those suffering. I meant those under the poverty level in general. Government time is not divided into 'Oil time', 'Iraq time', etc, so you could even spend the time trying to hammer through the new GI Bill.

Ummm... yeah, it is. The government has already decided that oil prices are a fundamentally more important use of its time than many, many other causes. Given that they've already allocated this (and given the fact that a floor debate is almost certainly going to be needed to decide on the issue), they may as well pass the legislation since it does not take more legislative time to pass a bill that's going to the floor than to reject it. The very fact that you rely on legislative attention as being the primary cost of a bill that is worth hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue is indicative of the weakness of your position.

The desperation was a response to your strawmen and calling me insane for not accepting what you now admit is a subjective standard.

I call you insane for deciding that some segments of society are unworthy of government support, yes. I suppose that you're right in that this is a value judgment on my part, but really what do you think that the government exists in order to do? Mindlessly prevent American companies from entering into profitable ventures if they become too successful?

[SirNitram]

Stop the strawmen, seriously. The segment defined by the oil companies have been getting government aid for years. They will somehow manage not getting yet another item on their wish list checked off. This is rather different than, say, the segment without health insurance, which you remain silent on. They obviously don't deserve it, otherwise you'd be just as tenacious about it.

[Surlethe]

Since Master Of Ossus is busy being incredulous someone would ask him for evidence, believing such insane, I'll post a relevent article: Link

<snip>

Justification isn't there. Big surprise. Big surprise. I'm happy to wait for testing. Maybe the equipment to make the rigs will be availiable after it's done.

That article is nearly nineteen years old. Is there anything more up-to-date?

[Master of Ossus]

Stop the strawmen, seriously. The segment defined by the oil companies have been getting government aid for years. They will somehow manage not getting yet another item on their wish list checked off. This is rather different than, say, the segment without health insurance, which you remain silent on. They obviously don't deserve it, otherwise you'd be just as tenacious about it.

Please. Health insurance has clear costs as well as benefits (and, yes, I'm talking about costs beyond the "legislative time required to enact a bill" ), and is moreover a red herring in the thread, which is about oil drilling. And it's not as if people without health care don't benefit from having a government, either. So why shouldn't the government help some people even more than they already have? You have presented no philosophical reasoning behind your argument that the government simply shouldn't help certain parts of society (e.g., your subjective view of the world--which is in gross contradiction with any sort of morality with which I am familiar).

[SirNitram]

Please. Health insurance has clear costs as well as benefits (and, yes, I'm talking about costs beyond the "legislative time required to enact a bill" ), and is moreover a red herring in the thread, which is about oil drilling. And it's not as if people without health care don't benefit from having a government, either. So why shouldn't the government help some people even more than they already have? You have presented no philosophical reasoning behind your argument that the government simply shouldn't help certain parts of society (e.g., your subjective view of the world--which is in gross contradiction with any sort of morality with which I am familiar).

It's not a red herring since you are obsessing over 'Helping one segment over society' as an inherent good, ignoring all the help they've already received no one else has. You are blatantly dishonest in this, and frankly I'm unsurprised your position dissolved to that given your raving that I was 'insane' for not agreeing with your subjective view that doing nothing to a company's profit was 'HARMING THE COMPANY'. Your own words.

[SirNitram]

Since Master Of Ossus is busy being incredulous someone would ask him for evidence, believing such insane, I'll post a relevent article: Link

<snip>

Justification isn't there. Big surprise. Big surprise. I'm happy to wait for testing. Maybe the equipment to make the rigs will be availiable after it's done.

That article is nearly nineteen years old. Is there anything more up-to-date?

All the recent reports are just noting how many leases are standing idle, and stuff about the spills from Katrina.

[Master of Ossus]

It's not a red herring since you are obsessing over 'Helping one segment over society' as an inherent good, ignoring all the help they've already received no one else has.

And precisely how does this invalidate the argument that you should help segments of society when you can? My position is irrespective of any past benefits that this segment of society has received. Frankly, your inability to recognize this is insane.

You are blatantly dishonest in this, and frankly I'm unsurprised your position dissolved to that given your raving that I was 'insane' for not agreeing with your subjective view that doing nothing to a company's profit was 'HARMING THE COMPANY'. Your own words.

Which has nothing to do with the moral statement that we should help segments of society when we can--you know, my "subjective" and moralistic view of what actions the government is supposed to undertake. Frankly, preventing them from leasing and using the area that they have leased is harming the various companies, but since you insist that this is just not providing them with a further benefit, I have to ask why we shouldn't. What do their past successes or government grants have to do with whether or not we should help them more, going forward?

[SirNitram]

It's not a red herring since you are obsessing over 'Helping one segment over society' as an inherent good, ignoring all the help they've already received no one else has.

And precisely how does this invalidate the argument that you should help segments of society when you can? My position is irrespective of any past benefits that this segment of society has received. Frankly, your inability to recognize this is insane.

I recignize this position of yours, so once again we have you simply being dishonest about your position. My problem is that they've been given plenty of handouts, why give more to them? You insist on viewing it as an isolated event, a nonsensical position.

You are blatantly dishonest in this, and frankly I'm unsurprised your position dissolved to that given your raving that I was 'insane' for not agreeing with your subjective view that doing nothing to a company's profit was 'HARMING THE COMPANY'. Your own words.

Which has nothing to do with the moral statement that we should help segments of society when we can--you know, my "subjective" and moralistic view of what actions the government is supposed to undertake. Frankly, preventing them from leasing and using the area that they have leased is harming the various companies, but since you insist that this is just not providing them with a further benefit, I have to ask why we shouldn't. What do their past successes or government grants have to do with whether or not we should help them more, going forward?

You have never, ever shown the harm that supposedly comes from this. You just keep insisting not affecting their profit up or down is harm, but you never, ever justified it, so don't be surprised when I yet again ignore this peice of trite bullshit peddled as something resembling a fact because you keep it in bad light.

[Surlethe]

All the recent reports are just noting how many leases are standing idle, and stuff about the spills from Katrina.

Ah. It's interesting that there seem to have been no studies recently. In any case, the drilling will just be exploratory for several years: plenty of time to conduct studies of environmental harm, right?

My problem is that they've been given plenty of handouts, why give more to them? You insist on viewing it as an isolated event, a nonsensical position.

Assuming that there are no negative side effects to the actual drilling, etc., this situation seems to be like one where a big pile of hundred-dollar bills either goes to a billionaire or gets burned. On the one hand, the millionaire doesn't need them; on the other hand, it seems rather childish to insist that they be burned just because the millionaire doesn't need them.

[SirNitram]

All the recent reports are just noting how many leases are standing idle, and stuff about the spills from Katrina.

Ah. It's interesting that there seem to have been no studies recently. In any case, the drilling will just be exploratory for several years: plenty of time to conduct studies of environmental harm, right?

Yea. And the drilling machinery was noted to be on backorder anyway, so like I said, I'm happy to wait.

My problem is that they've been given plenty of handouts, why give more to them? You insist on viewing it as an isolated event, a nonsensical position.

Assuming that there are no negative side effects to the actual drilling, etc., this situation seems to be like one where a big pile of hundred-dollar bills either goes to a billionaire or gets burned. On the one hand, the millionaire doesn't need them; on the other hand, it seems rather childish to insist that they be burned just because the millionaire doesn't need them.

How are they 'burned'? Where is this 'harm'? No one seems to identify it.

Of course, this exists where there are no negative effects to offshore drilling. As opposed to increasing the chances of oil slicks visible from space with the next big hurricane, like when Katrina rolled through.

[Surlethe]

Yea. And the drilling machinery was noted to be on backorder anyway, so like I said, I'm happy to wait.

Well, yes. The drilling machinery is on a five-year backorder (perhaps that is why oil companies haven't yet done exploratory drilling on the land they already have?), the exploratory drilling will take years; whether you're happy or unhappy to wait, you'll be waiting.

My problem is that they've been given plenty of handouts, why give more to them? You insist on viewing it as an isolated event, a nonsensical position.

Assuming that there are no negative side effects to the actual drilling, etc., this situation seems to be like one where a big pile of hundred-dollar bills either goes to a billionaire or gets burned. On the one hand, the millionaire doesn't need them; on the other hand, it seems rather childish to insist that they be burned just because the millionaire doesn't need them.

How are they 'burned'? Where is this 'harm'? No one seems to identify it.

If the government holds the land and doesn't lease it, nobody gets anything. If the government does lease it, oil companies get money. Burning the money in the analogy is the case where nobody gets anything. It's not a matter of harm so much as it is a matter of opportunity denial.

Of course, this exists where there are no negative effects to offshore drilling. As opposed to increasing the chances of oil slicks visible from space with the next big hurricane, like when Katrina rolled through.

Naturally. But since we don't know what the negative effects might be, we might as well hammer out a best-case scenario.

[SirNitram]

We don't know what the effects would be? There's hardly a shortage of offshore drilling, we can go and look.

[Surlethe]

We don't know what the effects would be? There's hardly a shortage of offshore drilling, we can go and look.

Touche'. Doesn't it still need to be done systematically, though?

[SirNitram]

We don't know what the effects would be? There's hardly a shortage of offshore drilling, we can go and look.

Touche'. Doesn't it still need to be done systematically, though?

Yes, hence any study requires waiting, which I said I'm good with. I just think it's silly to assume 'best case', when we've seen hurricanes are getting worse, and said hurricanes cause serious problems with offshore production, both the production and enviromentally. We don't make most laws assuming 'best case'. Best case in homicide is it's always suicide or self-defense. But we don't write laws for it that way because we know better. Nor should leases on the remaining 21% of offshore oil be opened up. Because as I posted in another thread, most of it is up for grabs now.

[Master of Ossus]

I recignize this position of yours, so once again we have you simply being dishonest about your position. My problem is that they've been given plenty of handouts, why give more to them? You insist on viewing it as an isolated event, a nonsensical position.

I think we should look at it as a "going forward" issue. Do you disagree with this?

Moreover, even in the context of past handouts, this does not change the decision calculus. So what if we've already given someone something? Why not give them more if it hurts no one to do so?

You have never, ever shown the harm that supposedly comes from this.

You're the one who has to prove harm, since you're the only one claiming it. Thus far, you dishonestly posted a two-decades old study that wasn't conclusive and crowed that it proved that we shouldn't do it.

You just keep insisting not affecting their profit up or down is harm, but you never, ever justified it, so don't be surprised when I yet again ignore this peice of trite bullshit peddled as something resembling a fact because you keep it in bad light.

Oh, is that what you're talking about. As I said, it's a libertarian view of what harm is: if you want to do something and I stop you from doing it, I am harming you if only by narrowing your field of future choices. I have a burden to show that I have reasonable cause for stopping you from doing whatever it is you're doing (e.g., it would hurt other people).

But forget the harm aspect: why not allow someone to gain a benefit if it harms no one? You have no answer for this point, other than to incessantly regurgitate the statement that we've already given the oil companies things, as if this somehow refutes my reasoning (which in no way relies on the oil companies having received nothing in the past).