Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Lethal force is justified against #NoDAPL

ApostateAbe
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2016 3:49:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I am repeating here my opening argument of an official debate: "Lethal force against the Dakota Access Pipeline protesters would be justified."

"Our agreement as citizens to obey the law to maintain our social order is sometimes described as an essential part of the social contract. This means that, in return for the benefits of social order, we agree to live according to certain laws and rules." -- American Bar Association [1]

Suppose thousands of Native Americans and their sympathizers stormed your apartment building and declared the building their own, to do with as they please, because of an ideology that claims the land belongs to them. What should the response be? It is an act of war, and this closely resembles the current actions of the protesters of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL).

The DAPL protesters are persistently breaking laws with their persisting illegal encampments [2], illegal roadblocks [3], threats of violent attacks [4] and actual violent attacks on innocents using IEDs [5]. Like all other national residents, they are not above the law, but they are illegally trespassing and violently agitating with the intent of blocking a legal construction project [6].

Given that the law rules, how can this persisting illegal activity be thwarted? Arrests are not enough, as hundreds of arrests have not prevented illegal agitators continuing to pour in. Crowd control methods, such as water cannons and rubber bullets, are unlikely to prevent the persistent violent harassment of construction workers by thousands of zealots. If the law rules, then the best option is to declare war against the invaders, arrest them all as prisoners of war, and resistance of any sort must be met with strong-to-lethal force.

If the causes of the protesters were good causes, then the proposed solution would be an overreaction. Sometimes, laws are broken for the sake of a greater good. But, the two primary explicit causes of the protesters, being (#1) to protect drinking water from pollution and (#2) to protect claimed "sacred burial sites" from desecration, are both weak and seemingly ad hoc.

Claim #1 is struck down by the rarity of pipeline ruptures. There are currently 2.4 million miles of energy pipelines in the USA [7], and only about 440 pipeline ruptures in the latest 17-year period have been catalogued by Wikipedia [8]. That means, over a 17-year period, there is one rupture for every 5454 miles of pipeline. That's about the arc length from the southern tip of Florida to the westernmost island of Alaska. A much greater threat to clean drinking water seems to be the defecation from thousands of protesters who lack outhouses [9].

Claim #2 also fails, as it failed to convince seven archaeologists of the State Historical Society of North Dakota, who conducted a survey of the land in question and failed to find "evidence of human remains or significant sites" [10].

The most plausible primary motivation of the protesters is mere contempt for both the energy industry and the white colonist rule of law [11].

The proposed solution has an American precedent: the Whiskey Rebellion. An overwhelming armed federal force led by President Washington quashed an illegal violent rebellion against a tax. No lives were lost in quashing the rebellion only because the rebels quickly surrendered in response to that strong hand. Had they fought back, they would have been slain, and justly so. Let history repeat itself.

The list of citations is here:

http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 44,679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2016 7:04:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2016 3:49:41 PM, ApostateAbe wrote:

Your argument is objectively stupid for reasons we will discuss together, below.

I am repeating here my opening argument of an official debate: "Lethal force against the Dakota Access Pipeline protesters would be justified."

We should begin by noting that you are talking about using force that could kill people against people who do not have the means to fight back. Many of the protesters there are veterans, native americans, and young people. Basically, you're talking about making this into an American Tiananmen Square.

"Our agreement as citizens to obey the law to maintain our social order is sometimes described as an essential part of the social contract. This means that, in return for the benefits of social order, we agree to live according to certain laws and rules." -- American Bar Association [1]

So... whenever any law is broken, it's ok to just go out and kill people if you're the government? Absurd.

Suppose thousands of Native Americans and their sympathizers stormed your apartment building and declared the building their own, to do with as they please, because of an ideology that claims the land belongs to them. What should the response be? It is an act of war, and this closely resembles the current actions of the protesters of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL).

That is a preposterously idiotic claim. We shall discuss why. First, the oil interests there do not "live" in the area they want to frack and put a pipeline over; they want to put a pipeline there that will transport oil, the production of which poses a very real and legitimate threat to every person within about four hundred miles of that site. Second, there was no "storming" if any land, building, or other premises. Storming implies the use of force. There was no force used. These are nonviolent protesters. Third, even if a building was stormed, that's not an act of war. It's basic trespassing, punishable at most by a fine. Fourth, you are ignoring the context in which this occurred. Here, there was a very lengthy and nasty legal battle where corporate lawyers went up against people without means and screwed them. It's not like the Indians had someone like me representing them; they had nothing, and got fvcked because of it, despite their very real entitlement to a TRO, among a range of other remedies.

The DAPL protesters are persistently breaking laws with their persisting illegal encampments [2], illegal roadblocks [3], threats of violent attacks [4] and actual violent attacks on innocents using IEDs [5]. Like all other national residents, they are not above the law, but they are illegally trespassing and violently agitating with the intent of blocking a legal construction project [6].

This is an egregious mischaracterization of fact. The protesters are non-violent, and the police, law enforcement, and other "apparatuses" of stat power there have been using outlandishly inapropriate tactics to disperse people who have a very strong and justifiable interest in not having their water supply ruined by fracking.

We know with precision exactly how bad fracking is. It causes earthquakes, poisons water, and the poisoned water gives kids a range of cancers and other health problems while killing off the elderly and weakening even healthy adults. And yet, here you are saying that they should just sit back and take it, or be killed if they resist. You're literally a disgusting person if you believe that.

Given that the law rules, how can this persisting illegal activity be thwarted? Arrests are not enough, as hundreds of arrests have not prevented illegal agitators continuing to pour in. Crowd control methods, such as water cannons and rubber bullets, are unlikely to prevent the persistent violent harassment of construction workers by thousands of zealots. If the law rules, then the best option is to declare war against the invaders, arrest them all as prisoners of war, and resistance of any sort must be met with strong-to-lethal force.

Killing people without guns for the purpose of getting them out of the way of a construction site is disgusting on its face. Regardless of whether their position is justified or not, what you're advocating here is what you would expect from a totalitarian regime.

If the causes of the protesters were good causes, then the proposed solution would be an overreaction. Sometimes, laws are broken for the sake of a greater good. But, the two primary explicit causes of the protesters, being (#1) to protect drinking water from pollution and (#2) to protect claimed "sacred burial sites" from desecration, are both weak and seemingly ad hoc.

There is no greater good to constructing this pipeline.

Claim #1 is struck down by the rarity of pipeline ruptures. There are currently 2.4 million miles of energy pipelines in the USA [7], and only about 440 pipeline ruptures in the latest 17-year period have been catalogued by Wikipedia [8]. That means, over a 17-year period, there is one rupture for every 5454 miles of pipeline. That's about the arc length from the southern tip of Florida to the westernmost island of Alaska. A much greater threat to clean drinking water seems to be the defecation from thousands of protesters who lack outhouses [9].

I am amazed by how incredibly ignorant you are. The pipeline isn't the threat; it's how the oil that will fill it is obtained that's the threat. You don't even understand the science here, and yet are advocating killing people who just want to have clean drinking water.
ApostateAbe
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2016 7:51:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
YYW, some of your objections seem to be based on a fundamental misperception. The fracking would not be done in the area of concern representing by the Standing Rock Sioux (south central North Dakota). The fracking would be done in the Bakken oil region, the beginning point of the pipeline, which is in northwestern North Dakota and northeastern Montana. Fracking has very little do with the objections of Standing Rock. They are much more concerned about a possible pipeline rupture polluting their water. To be fair, a large buffet of unreasonable ad hoc objections underlie their protests, and perhaps fracking is one of them.
YYW
Posts: 44,679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2016 8:21:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2016 7:51:19 PM, ApostateAbe wrote:
YYW, some of your objections seem to be based on a fundamental misperception. The fracking would not be done in the area of concern representing by the Standing Rock Sioux (south central North Dakota).

I am well aware of where the fracking will take place. What you fail to appreciate is water's tendency not to remain in one place, and, particularly, what happens when ground water tables become contaminated, and the extent to which that contamination can and will flow and dissipate throughout the area hundreds of miles beyond the fracking site.

I know you're not a geologist, environmental epidemiologist, or the like. I work with those people all the time specifically for purposes such as this: analyzing and interpreting the environmental harms of certain kinds of commercial activities. This is one of those activities that, if engaged in, will cause irreparable harm to the environment and human wellbeing. The research is out there; you need only avail yourself to find it. But, sticking your head in the ground as you clearly are is not a way to avoid that reality.

Really, though, the bottom line is this: (1) you don't understand what you're talking about and (2) you're advocating killing people who do not have weapons because they're doing something you don't like or understand. This means you're a terrible person. There's no way out of that.
ApostateAbe
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2016 9:32:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I am no geologist, but I likewise work in a field that is related. The belief that fracking would pollute the water hundreds of miles away through a water table is a complete delusion. Fracking has a small risk to local wells, and the only way I can make sense of the belief that drinking water hundreds of miles away would be at risk is with the common false belief that water tables are like large underground lakes. They are not. Water tables are merely layers of earth that is a little more dense with water. Loose oil would not easily flow horizontally within water tables as on the surface of a lake. Nobody seems to believe as you believe that this is about fracking at the source of the pipeline, not even the Standing Rock protesters. Their objections are NOT about the planned EXISTENCE of the pipeline, but it is about the planned LOCATION of it. See the video they have on their website, starting at 1:30.

http://standwithstandingrock.net...
ApostateAbe
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2016 10:50:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
To drive that point home, the US Army Corps denied the pipeline easement, "to explore alternate routes." Upon this news, the criminals declared victory.
Death23
Posts: 1,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2016 12:28:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Stop trying to rationalize your hatred. Why don't you be honest and say you want them to die because you hate them.
Solidarity
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2016 12:43:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
All land should be returned to our Native American brothers and all whites currently living on their land should be arrested.

-Solidarity
ApostateAbe
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2016 1:08:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/5/2016 12:28:27 AM, Death23 wrote:
Stop trying to rationalize your hatred. Why don't you be honest and say you want them to die because you hate them.

No, it wouldn't make any sense to kill them now. They can be arrested, charged, and imprisoned, using their Facebook posts as evidence. I hate them, no doubt about it. They felt free to break the law and damage the American economy, because they believed themselves to be immune from white people's laws. And now they were proven correct on that point.
YYW
Posts: 44,679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2016 3:12:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2016 9:46:16 PM, ApostateAbe wrote:
The primary objection is stated explicitly at 7:40-7:46. Spoiler: it isn't about fracking hundreds of miles away.

You lost. Obama is blocking construction, and the Army Core of Engineers is against it too. Your vacuous, stupid, and abhorrent perspective is now moot.
Death23
Posts: 1,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2016 12:51:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/5/2016 1:08:02 AM, ApostateAbe wrote:
At 12/5/2016 12:28:27 AM, Death23 wrote:
Stop trying to rationalize your hatred. Why don't you be honest and say you want them to die because you hate them.

No, it wouldn't make any sense to kill them now. They can be arrested, charged, and imprisoned, using their Facebook posts as evidence. I hate them, no doubt about it. They felt free to break the law and damage the American economy, because they believed themselves to be immune from white people's laws. And now they were proven correct on that point.

Water is life! Water is life!
Devilry
Posts: 5,099
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2016 2:57:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's a wonder to take a cop-out like that, in the face of actual argumentation, and declare the other person 'vacuous'.

Also interesting however is the readiness to go to war over oil lol. It's like to avail of moral precedent or something. I think you get the same sort of thing with some thought experiments, which would rewrite a situation in order to procure moral standing for some mode of dealing with it. You definitely see it in arguments for abortion. That human plant thought experiment, as a quick example. But I think you can glean it in, like, how in the trolley experiment people are fine pulling a lever but wouldn't ever kill the person with their own hands or whatever also. Interesting! But an American's prerogative I suppose.
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
Cubswin
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2016 3:01:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Lethal force goes both ways,.. it can also be employed against you! You should always ALWAYS want to settle differences peacefully somehow
Devilry
Posts: 5,099
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2016 3:04:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Of course one can hardly agree with you OP, even if the protestors are nothing but deluded. There's definitely something frightening in the thought that a government should go to war against a people over something so trivial.
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
tejretics
Posts: 6,869
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2016 3:37:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2016 3:49:41 PM, ApostateAbe wrote:
The DAPL protesters are persistently breaking laws with their persisting illegal encampments [2], illegal roadblocks [3], threats of violent attacks [4] and actual violent attacks on innocents using IEDs [5]. Like all other national residents, they are not above the law, but they are illegally trespassing and violently agitating with the intent of blocking a legal construction project [6].

The proposed solution has an American precedent: the Whiskey Rebellion. An overwhelming armed federal force led by President Washington quashed an illegal violent rebellion against a tax. No lives were lost in quashing the rebellion only because the rebels quickly surrendered in response to that strong hand. Had they fought back, they would have been slain, and justly so. Let history repeat itself.

Your argument: "Duterte is amazing!"

lol
Just because you're magic doesn't mean you aren't real.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.