Are you boycotting BP?

[No Limit]

It's funny cause you talk all this shit yet here you are atributing things to me that I never said or even suggested.

Did I ever suggest that the people that participate in boycotts or in email campaigns to the FCC think that what they are doing will work 100%? No I haven't so I don't know where in the world you got that from. You are right people were saying that it might work. My point was and still is that it simply won't work, wether you like that or not it's my opinion. I gave you my reasons for that opinion.

Here you are using words such as "the fact is". I guess that makes you a total pompous asshole because you are saying an opinion but are pretending it's a fact? No, that's how you want to present your opinion and that's perfectly ok, I'm not the one bitching. I just find your post a little ironic in that regard.

And no, opinions don't become facts just because someone believes them strong enough, again you attributing something to me that I don't actually believe. The point of posting an opinion in a thread like this is to have those opinions discussed in an honest way, which is exactly what I tried to do. I am not trying to point fingers at Krynn or anyone else, but I wasn't the one ignoring the points people were making and instead throwing out insults. Yet I'm the one that is being called the asshole. Very interesting.

Funny how what works? That Krynn stopped insulting you, and then I started? You mean like you were insulting people in the net neutrality thread, and then flat out denying it? You mean like you're insulting people's intelligence by saying they're in denial, because they haven't responded to your flimsy conjecture to your satisfaction? Yeah, pretty funny lol.

Oh my god, I said someone was in denial. Oh noes. You seem to be the only one that got upset over that, maybe you should grow a ****ing pair. And I didn't consider what you wrote insulting.

Also, go ahead and reread your posts then post back and tell us how your use of "flimsy conjecture" fits in to everything you just bitched about when it comes to me. Again, the irony is striking.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Irony like the fact (FACT) that you didn't address a single one of my examples - the very thing you're accusing everyone else of - and instead choose to feign innocence yet again?

You know what, I'm done trying to get through to you with actual arguments. Instead, an impression:

"WAAAAHH EVERYONE'S OUT TO GET ME!! They all think I'm an asshole but I'm just stating my opinion! It's not my fault they're wrong!! God it's all so ironic, if only they'd actually pay attention and respond to what I'm posting, right after they get their head out of their ass and grow a pair that is, lol!!!!"

Needs a little work but I think I nailed the basics.

 

[No Limit]

Which of your points did I not address?

You said that me saying people were in denial was wrong. I told you to grow a pair.

You said that I assumed that people that participated in these things believed they would work 100%. I called you out on that.

I then pointed out how absolutely hypocritical you are being by using such a phrase as "the fact is" when you were speaking opinion. Or your use of "flimsy conjecture" to dismiss someone's argument as unfounded without actually addressing that argument. Normally there is nothing wrong with arguing like that, but in this case its hypocrisy.

What else did I miss? Let me address the new accusataion you just made so you I have that covered. I don't think anyone here is out to get me, I couldn't give a shit less. The only reason I am pointing out to you any of the prior insults toward me is because you are the one that came out and wanted to add your 2 cents by suggesting I'm some kind of an asshole.

Anything else that you would like to add while you are riding that high horse of yours?

 

[Bad^Hat]

 

[No Limit]

That's a nice picture, but I think in your case Napoleon riding a high horse would have been much more appropriate.

 

[Escaep]

This thread is spewing more junk than the oil spill itself.

 

[No Limit]

For now no junk is flowing in the gulf, lets hope that it actually stays that way:

http://www.examiner.com/x-31031-Pro...-feed-shows-cap-sealed-and-leak-holding-Video

 

[kazsymonds]

I won't boycott BP, accidents happen. It's us that demand fuel at a low price. The blood is on our hands as much as anyone else's.

Where were the governing body(s) in this?

As for stockpiling profits, doesn't happen, not in a listed company.

 

[Yuri]

Ask yourself this: is that malice, or incompetence?

Why is it necessarily broken into only those two categories? They took a calculated risk and lost. It's not ignorance, they were aware of the risks, but they took the gamble anyway. They lost, and 11 people and all the birds ever are dead because of it. It's obviously not malice as that would make no goddamn sense, but who suggested it was? You did, just so you could make a silly joke.

And as I said, boycotts are effective to change a company's policy. 'Policy' as in: deliberate decisions a company makes.

Sure, one purpose of boycotts is to change policies: and people want BP to change it's policy on cutting corners on safety. Maybe BP is already convinced of this. But boycotts are also sometimes meant to destroy a company entirely. Also, boycotts are sometimes a personal stance on morals: I simply don't want to do business with a company directly responsible for such a preventable monolithic environmental tragedy. You're oversimplifying people's intentions.

It's in their interest too to prevent oil spills and to fix this disaster as quickly as possible, and if they haven't, it means they dropped the ball and boycotts are useless against such cock-ups.

Yes, BP screwed up. No, boycotting them to improve their safety standards won't do a fucking thing if losses in the billions haven't already convinced them.

My whole point is that boycotting them is not somehow juvenile or bad. You may be right, they may not make any more shortcuts in safety considering that they lost the gamble and much more than they had saved. Maybe boycotting won't do a difference for that, but maybe it will. Or maybe, even better, BP won't be a company any more. Or the people responsible for the spill will be replaced and held accountable, hopefully criminally. Maybe they will do more than the bear minimum to fix this disaster in an effort to change their PR. Maybe they will present to the public the technology required to fix such an event should it happen again in the future?

Finally, maybe people just don't want to do business with a company responsible for one of the worst environmental disasters of all time? Is that really so goddamn bad? Your point seems tantamount to No Limit's: "It won't do any good, so you're stupid for trying."

You're right, I take the hypocrisy thing back.

Alright, cool. :cheers:




Anyway, No Limit, you're a ****ing troll hell-bent on getting people to waste their time arguing with your ridiculous bullshit. We get it. Congratulations.

 

[No Limit]

I won't boycott BP, accidents happen. It's us that demand fuel at a low price. The blood is on our hands as much as anyone else's.

Where were the governing body(s) in this?

As for stockpiling profits, doesn't happen, not in a listed company.

We weren't the ones that put profits above safety. We didn't take shortcuts that lead to this disaster. So although we are all contributing to the problem by buying oil without demanding higher safety trying to dismiss the role BP's profits had in this is absurd.

And what do you mean stockpiling profits doesn't happen? BP has billions in it's reserves.

Anyway, No Limit, you're a ****ing troll hell-bent on getting people to waste their time arguing with your ridiculous bullshit. We get it. Congratulations.

I don't know if it's that I'm getting old or if it's that some of you are simply getting dumber.

 

[Yuri]

You won't ever stop! Bravo, ****face.

 

[No Limit]

Look up what the word troll means. After you do that reread some of the arguments here. Then if you still don't get it let me know, because that means me getting older has nothing to do with it which is great news for me.

 

[Yuri]

Troll is slang for someone who uses any means possibly to provoke, annoy, berate, or anger people through the internet. This includes baiting people by being abrasive and insulting, and then continually regressing into the ridiculous as they attempt to argue with you.

You're a ****ing troll, it's fairly simple. You started with the slightly-offensive bait:

So BP makes a convenient target here and lets you protest without actually having to do anything.
...
But people are just way too lazy to give a shit. And that goes for anyone boycotting BP too.

And when you got the bite, you sparked a huge argument. You learned from the FCC thread, though, don't be too overly insulting and it won't seem like you're trolling! That way, you can play the victim card: "I'm not being an asshole, everyone else is being mean to me, I'm chill bros" to infuriate people further. Then, accuse people of not responding to your points as you clearly ignore their own, and generally make brash assumptions and vague generalizations about what people say while your point spirals toward inanity, just for the sake of the argument. Eventually, everybody gets too pissed to respond, and you win by default with the last post.

It's effective but not too clever.

 

[No Limit]

So my opinion on the effectiveness of writing to the fcc or of boycotting bp is trolling? Why?

 

[Yuri]

I hope that post was made in jest. Either way, it made me lol.

Back on track, hoorah, apparently it's finally capped. I hope that people aren't too quick to forget about this whole thing just because of this, though. It almost seems like everyone already forgot.

 

[Dr.Demento]

Yes I'm boycotting BP.

I don't believe in bad luck, only carelessness and greed so f**k BP. There are plenty of other conveniently located petrol stations in my area that are decently priced.

I won't boycott BP, accidents happen. It's us that demand fuel at a low price. The blood is on our hands as much as anyone else's.

Where were the governing body(s) in this?

As for stockpiling profits, doesn't happen, not in a listed company.

A little bit of consumer competition is not the cause of carelessness, and besides the Gulf disaster is inexcusable, accident or not.

 

[PvtRyan]

Why is it necessarily broken into only those two categories? They took a calculated risk and lost. It's not ignorance, they were aware of the risks, but they took the gamble anyway. They lost, and 11 people and all the birds ever are dead because of it. It's obviously not malice as that would make no goddamn sense, but who suggested it was? You did, just so you could make a silly joke.

How's making a terrible risk assessment not incompetence? And there really are only two options: it was intentional (malice) or unintentional (accident). Sure, a preventable accident caused by bad decisions, but that goes for every accident that has ever happened.

Sure, one purpose of boycotts is to change policies: and people want BP to change it's policy on cutting corners on safety. Maybe BP is already convinced of this. But boycotts are also sometimes meant to destroy a company entirely. Also, boycotts are sometimes a personal stance on morals: I simply don't want to do business with a company directly responsible for such a preventable monolithic environmental tragedy. You're oversimplifying people's intentions.

My whole point is that boycotting them is not somehow juvenile or bad. You may be right, they may not make any more shortcuts in safety considering that they lost the gamble and much more than they had saved. Maybe boycotting won't do a difference for that, but maybe it will. Or maybe, even better, BP won't be a company any more. Or the people responsible for the spill will be replaced and held accountable, hopefully criminally. Maybe they will do more than the bear minimum to fix this disaster in an effort to change their PR. Maybe they will present to the public the technology required to fix such an event should it happen again in the future?

Finally, maybe people just don't want to do business with a company responsible for one of the worst environmental disasters of all time? Is that really so goddamn bad? Your point seems tantamount to No Limit's: "It won't do any good, so you're stupid for trying."

Considering BP has 80000 employees, I can't say that trying to destroy the company is a very noble cause.

And I'm not saying that boycotting is bad, but that it makes no sense. Either you boycott them before anything happened for neglecting safety if you knew of it (debatable if that was possible here), or after an accident if they continue on the same foot without improving anything. But there's no point in boycotting them right now, other than hurting BP for the sake of hurting them. Boycotting them for moral reasons makes no sense either as it implies that this disaster was a result of BP's morals or lack thereof and thus again implying that it was the result of a conscious decision. I'd say their morals can be summed up as "make as much profit as possible" and that they made the wrong call.

 

[VirusType2]

implying that it was the result of a conscious decision.

They killed people and a damaged a major body of water including nearly everything living thing in it; anything that lives off it was either killed or damaged.. endangered species last refuge, etc., anyone that lives off the water is ruined.. .this was done by willful negligence; ignoring many safety protocols.

An accident? Of course. But it's also 'an accident' when someone is killed because you are drunk driving.

 

[Schall]

I don't have a car, but if I was driving and had a choice between BP and another station, I would choose the other station.

 

[Yuri]

How's making a terrible risk assessment not incompetence? And there really are only two options: it was intentional (malice) or unintentional (accident). Sure, a preventable accident caused by bad decisions, but that goes for every accident that has ever happened.

Considering BP has 80000 employees, I can't say that trying to destroy the company is a very noble cause.

And I'm not saying that boycotting is bad, but that it makes no sense. Either you boycott them before anything happened for neglecting safety if you knew of it (debatable if that was possible here), or after an accident if they continue on the same foot without improving anything. But there's no point in boycotting them right now, other than hurting BP for the sake of hurting them. Boycotting them for moral reasons makes no sense either as it implies that this disaster was a result of BP's morals or lack thereof and thus again implying that it was the result of a conscious decision. I'd say their morals can be summed up as "make as much profit as possible" and that they made the wrong call.

Look, they made an intentional conscience decision to cut corners in safety and the unintentional result was this terrible spill. They weighed the risks and the magnitude of their loss was greater than they expected. In addition, they were not prepared for the aftereffects, and were not responsible enough to have developed the technology required to solve this issue in a timely manner.

This is incompetent, and malicious. It's also bad, evil, tyrannical, immoral, greedy, smelly, annoying, hurtful, harmful, jerk-faced and just plain wrong. I want to see the infrastructure of the company change and the people who made these decisions removed and imprisoned. Until that happens, I'm not buying from BP.

The drunk driving analogy is a good one. It's more difficult to catch a drunk driver who doesn't hurt anyone. But then they crash into a bus filled with orphans and it explodes at the bottom of a cliff. It's not good enough that the driver is in a wheelchair. The ****er still goes to jail.

 

[kazsymonds]

They probably do the minimum required by whoever the governing body is for oil companies.

It's likely there needs to be a shake up in the rules these companies work by.

Apparently there are thousands of similar wells just in the gold of Mexico that are finished with, nobody is checking if they are leaking or not.

Someone needs to re-write the safety book on this shit, and BP needs to pay for all the damage caused.

Everyone needs to stop acting like BP caused 9/11. They openly admitted they ****ed up, they didn't pay a dividend so that they could pay the billions it cost / will cost to put it right which is extremely detrimental to the company in terms of share price.

I don't get what everyone wants here? Should BP be shut down? That would do the world of good for oil prices / economy.

Tyrannical is probably accurate, given the accusations over the release of the Lockerbie bomber.

Incompetent? Probably. Tyrannical? Probably. Negligent? Difficult to prove.