Are you boycotting BP?

[Krynn72]

You guys are idiots. A significant boycott would hurt their wallets, which is the only way they (or other companies) would learn any lesson. If they don't want to lose so much money again, they'll stop being so slack on safety standards and actually keep up with their examinations. Even if your money is going back to another petrol company, as long as its not BP, that company will see BP getting its ass kicked over having shit safety precautions, and will take action to make sure it doesn't happen to them.

 

[No Limit]

No, you're an idiot (thanks for the constructive response).

Your logic boils down to lets reward the companies that have virtually the exact same safety standards as BP did because they've been lucky and haven't had this kind of spill yet. And I have no doubt that when you buy gasoline you have no way of knowing where the oil came from, the way the market is set up I'm sure most of the refineries out there get oil from multiple sources.

 

[Apocalypse89]

Wasn't BP's safety record even before the spill much worse than other oil companies'?

 

[Tyguy]

voted yes but i've never been to a BP station. I saw one last week for the first time and was like "interesting...no one has blown this place up yet..."

 

[PimpinPenguin]

I buy petrol wherever it's cheapest. I can't afford to be picky.

 

[Tyguy]

I buy petrol wherever it's cheapest. I can't afford to be picky.

Why not just toss a few oil soaked birds into a blender for 5 minutes and pour the remains into your gas tank, hitler?

 

[No Limit]

Wasn't BP's safety record even before the spill much worse than other oil companies'?

Yes, it was. But worse is relative. Many of the actual practices that lead to this disaster are done by all the oil companies. BP just happened to be the one to blow.

 

[Yuri]

Well, if by now BP still doesn't get that it's good for business to invest a few million in safety to prevent billions in losses, then your refusal to spend a few measly dollars with them will do diddly squat. Boycotting them to force them to improve their safety is silly as they stand nothing to gain by not improving their safety. It's in their interest as well to make sure this can't happen again, because, get this: they don't like this situation either, even just from a financial standpoint.

I'm calling the boycotters juvenile hypocrites because:

- Juvenile: the boycott is based on nothing but "you hurt me so I will hurt you now". That's juvenile.
- Hypocrisy: didn't you all benefit from the offshore drilling? It's too late to boycott now, should have done that earlier.

It is not juvenile to refuse to do business with a company by holding it responsible for its ongoing terrible decisions. You can reduce it to a juvenile-sounding sentence if you want, but some people don't agree that BP has learned its own lesson. It isn't currently doing nearly enough to fix the problem it caused, neither in clean-up nor capping the well.

I'm not sure why you assume boycotters disagree with offshore drilling. My issue is not with the possibility of off-shore accidents, it is the fact that BP is directly responsible for cutting corners in construction and safety and is doing as little as it possibly can to solve the disaster it created. You're calling people hypocrites by presuming their intentions. If anything is juvenile, it's that.

Yes, it was. But worse is relative. Many of the actual practices that lead to this disaster are done by all the oil companies. BP just happened to be the one to blow.

Then why not use BP to set an example for the changes which should be enforced on all oil companies?

 

[No Limit]

I'm not sure why you assume boycotters disagree with offshore drilling. My issue is not with the possibility of off-shore accidents, it is the fact that BP is directly responsible for cutting corners in construction and safety and is doing as little as it possibly can to solve the disaster it created. You're calling people hypocrites by presuming their intentions. If anything is juvenile, it's that.

Again, what you just said applies to every company drilling in the gulf coast right now. BP just happened to be the one that finally paid the price for what all of them were doing. So BP makes a convenient target here and lets you protest without actually having to do anything.

 

[L3N!N]

Shell isn't affiliated with BP, is it? Because I mostly pump my petrol at Shell.

 

[Krynn72]

No, you're an idiot (thanks for the constructive response).

Your logic boils down to lets reward the companies that have virtually the exact same safety standards as BP did because they've been lucky and haven't had this kind of spill yet. And I have no doubt that when you buy gasoline you have no way of knowing where the oil came from, the way the market is set up I'm sure most of the refineries out there get oil from multiple sources.

Even still, BP makes a lot of money off their BP gas stations. You're tossing it up like their stations are insignificant in their revenue streams. I doubt it. Plus no company is going to see people boycotting BP by buying their brand as evidence that their safety standards are good enough. They're going to see BP reeling and know that their shit is in just as bad a place as BP's was, and they'll take action to remedy it. Execs aren't that stupid that they'll see temporarily increased revenue as evidence that they'll never be in BP's position.

 

[No Limit]

BUt this isn't the first oil spill. We had Exxon Valdez. We had the 1979 spill in the gulf very similar to this one. BP just had a huge leak in Alaska not that long ago.

Yet oil executives kept on snorting coke off MMS regulator's asses and nothing was done about safety. We are using the same technology we had in that 1979 spill.

These oil companies didn't even want a 6 month hold on offshore oil drilling for reviews to be done, so I'm not sure what makes you assume that suddenly they will put safety above profit when there is nothing to even suggest that. As I said, no action will be taken for a couple years so the american people will forget about this disaster. Then long after the well has been shut they will come up with some weak bullshit regulation. As happened in wall street reform. A boycott is a cute idea but the fact is most people already will not buy from BP if its convenient to go elsewhere, this is what happens when you have this kind of a disaster. But before you know it people will forget and we will be back to business as normal. And the oil companies aren't about to dump all those profits in to improving safety because they simply don't have to.

And wall street reform is a great example. Remember the banking collapse and the bail out? People were ready to get their pitch forks out and go after the bankers. 2 years later these same banks are making record profits while absolutely nothing about the system has changed.

 

[Qonfused]

Why not just toss a few oil soaked birds into a blender for 5 minutes and pour the remains into your gas tank, hitler?

Lol'd.

Shell isn't affiliated with BP, is it? Because I mostly pump my petrol at Shell.

So you support the killing of innocent African families?

 

[Krynn72]

BUt this isn't the first oil spill. We had Exxon Valdez. We had the 1979 spill in the gulf very similar to this one. BP just had a huge leak in Alaska not that long ago.

Yet oil executives kept on snorting coke off MMS regulator's asses and nothing was done about safety. We are using the same technology we had in that 1979 spill.

These oil companies didn't even want a 6 month hold on offshore oil drilling for reviews to be done, so I'm not sure what makes you assume that suddenly they will put safety above profit when there is nothing to even suggest that. As I said, no action will be taken for a couple years so the american people will forget about this disaster. Then long after the well has been shut they will come up with some weak bullshit regulation. As happened in wall street reform. A boycott is a cute idea but the fact is most people already will not buy from BP if its convenient to go elsewhere, this is what happens when you have this kind of a disaster. But before you know it people will forget and we will be back to business as normal. And the oil companies aren't about to dump all those profits in to improving safety because they simply don't have to.

And wall street reform is a great example. Remember the banking collapse and the bail out? People were ready to get their pitch forks out and go after the bankers. 2 years later these same banks are making record profits while absolutely nothing about the system has changed.

Oh look at me! I'm No Limit and i'm a miserable defeatist bitch when it comes to anything and everything! I spend my time telling people they're stupid for trying to change things because nothing ever changes in politics or business. I'm so wise and thoughtful.

I'm not going argue with a miserable sod like yourself anymore. How about we just come to an agreement. You **** off and stop telling people their actions are useless, and we'll just assume that you disapprove of everything anybody does.

 

[No Limit]

And to think you actually used to be cool. Have fun fighting the system bro, do me a favor and bookmark this thread so we can look at it in a year or so.

 

[Krynn72]

I'm still wicked cool bro. This is why you like me. This is why everybody likes me. The only difference is now I'm being an ass to you

Whats bookmarking going to accomplish? To see how much change has happened in a year? I didn't say anything about this working. I said from the beginning that a significant boycott could very well work. We're far from that right now.

 

[Yuri]

I like you Krynn, even more after being an ass to No Limit. :thumbs:

 

[No Limit]

The unofficial boycott and the money BP is currently losing is significant, BP might actually not survive this. Does shell not know this? Does Exxon Mobil not know this? Of course they do. But yet here they are again putting profits over safety by not supporting a short term momentarium to review the safety of these rigs.

My point with the bookmarking is that eventhough you don't like my "defeatist attitude" the fact is that I will be proven right. And that sucks, it really does. But people are just way too lazy to give a shit. And that goes for anyone boycotting BP too. If you wanted to do a truly effective boycott you would refuse to buy anymore oil until the safety of the rigs were improved as this is an industry wide problem that is not isolated to BP. I don't care how many dead birds covered in oil I see, I'm not about to give up my car, are you?

 

[Yuri]

At the end of the day, you think you're better than people who do small, ineffectual things because you do nothing, right?

 

[No Limit]

I'm simply willing to face reality, having that opinion doesn't mean I think I'm better than you or anyone else. It's an opinion I have that seems to be extremely unpopular wiht most of you. And wether it's this opinon about boycotting BP or my opinion about emailing the FCC I am called everything from an idiot to a pathetic son of a bitch. But when it comes to the actual content of what I'm saying none of you have an answer. So like I said, let's revisit this in a year or two so I can rub this shit in all of your faces.

 

[Yuri]

My statement above was completely true, then. You didn't understand in the Net Neutrality thread and you won't understand now, but the reason people get annoyed with you is because you DO think you're better, you're extremely demeaning and insulting, and there just isn't any reason to act this way towards people because their efforts might not work. What is the harm in doing something probably ineffectual? There is none, you just want to feel superior. It's really ****ing annoying.

 

[No Limit]

I'm insulting? Let's see, I've been called an idiot, a pathetic SOB, told to **** off, and that's just this one thread. Yet I've remained calm through all that trying to make the simple point that if you don't boycott all oil you really aren't really doing shit. You're doing the absolutely most convenient thing you can. I never called anyone names during that I was simply telling you my opinion on the matter. An opinion nobody really refuted.

And I'm not bothered by any of that, it's the internet, I don't care that you guys get your panties in a bunch about what I say. I just find it funny you would call me the asshole.

 

[Raziaar]

I'm insulting? Let's see, I've been called an idiot, a pathetic SOB, told to **** off, and that's just this one thread. Yet I've remained calm through all that trying to make the simple point that if you don't boycott all oil you really aren't really doing shit. You're doing the absolutely most convenient thing you can. I never called anyone names during that I was simply telling you my opinion on the matter. An opinion nobody really refuted.

And I'm not bothered by any of that, it's the internet, I don't care that you guys get your panties in a bunch about what I say. I just find it funny you would call me the asshole.

You don't think those things said were maybe due to peoples strong reactions to you based on your past attitude in other threads, both the net neutrality thread and others in the past?

Like Erestheux said, you always come off as attempting to prove you're better than everybody, and also like he said, it rubs people the wrong way.

If you weren't such a dick all the time, then nobody would being a dick right back at you. Stop to think about that for a moment. There is a root cause to the reactions people have towards you.

 

[Mogi67]

If you're going to act like you really give a damn about the environment, then boycott any companies which have offshore drilling operations.

 

[Krynn72]

Well first off, I'm the only one who called anybody names. And bitch, thats just how I talk. And secondly, your opinion has been refuted by other opinions. Once you come back with those hard to get facts, maybe we'll start refuting with other facts. You have presented no legitimate evidence to back up your opinions that other oil companies wont learn any lesson from BP's asskicking. As it stands, you're just bemoaning that everything people due is futile, and its getting really irritating. To me at least.

 

[No Limit]

You don't think those things said were maybe due to peoples strong reactions to you based on your past attitude in other threads, both the net neutrality thread and others in the past?

Like Erestheux said, you always come off as attempting to prove you're better than everybody, and also like he said, it rubs people the wrong way.

If you weren't such a dick all the time, then nobody would being a dick right back at you. Stop to think about that for a moment. There is a root cause to the reactions people have towards you.

Raz, look, I love you buddy. But get your head out of your ass. I was speaking my mind, it's called an opinion. Nobody addressed that opinion, they were rubbed the wrong way because it went against people's denial. It has nothing to do with me thinking I'm better than anyone here (if you have an opinion contrary to most other people does that mean you think you are better than everyone else?). As I pointed out I'm not about to give up my car no matter how many dead birds wash up on the shore of Florida. I'm just pointing out that none of you are about to do that either and pretending that a boycott of BP is going to change the system in any way is absolutely absurd (and I gave you plenty of reasons why that is, reasons that were totally ignored).

Well first off, I'm the only one who called anybody names. And bitch, thats just how I talk. And secondly, your opinion has been refuted by other opinions. Once you come back with those hard to get facts, maybe we'll start refuting with other facts. You have presented no legitimate evidence to back up your opinions that other oil companies wont learn any lesson from BP's asskicking. As it stands, you're just bemoaning that everything people due is futile, and its getting really irritating. To me at least.

As you can see above I pointed out to you that the oil companies won't even stop drilling in the gulf for 6 months to make sure their operations are safe when we know these things aren't safe. A clear case of them putting profit above safety after this disaster. So I wanted to know why you were making the assumption they would do the right thing eventhough they arent doing the right thing now with BP on the verge of bankruptcy. I didn't get an answer.

 

[VirusType2]

BP has a horrible safety record. Investigations reveal they took shortcuts on current safety regulations, which caused the explosion.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source...eqgATg1ODJCQAAAKoEBU_QRWEz&fp=36ec6be010d257f

 

[Krynn72]

As you can see above I pointed out to you that the oil companies won't even stop drilling in the gulf for 6 months to make sure their operations are safe when we know these things aren't safe. A clear case of them putting profit above safety after this disaster. So I wanted to know why you were making the assumption they would do the right thing eventhough they arent doing the right thing now with BP on the verge of bankruptcy. I didn't get an answer.

You know why they won't stop drilling for that long? Its bad business. You know why I think they will revamp their security measures. Its good business. They want to make money. Stopping drilling won't do that. But they're seeing what poor security measures can cost them. It would be a bad business decision to not improve their shitty measures. Just because they don't want the feds all over their business and getting in the way of them making money doesn't mean they aren't going to improve their shit.

 

[No Limit]

BP has a horrible safety record. Investigations reveal they took shortcuts on current safety regulations, which caused the explosion.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source...eqgATg1ODJCQAAAKoEBU_QRWEz&fp=36ec6be010d257f

I can't find the link now but there was a study released not too long ago that shows hundreds of rigs in the Gulf Coast with faulty blow out preventers. We can also look at the flawed spill response plans that were pretty much identical across all oil drilling companies. We can also look at the fact all these different companies were bribing MMS. So this isn't isolated to BP eventhough they were one of the worst offenders out there.

 

[No Limit]

You know why they won't stop drilling for that long? Its bad business. You know why I think they will revamp their security measures. Its good business. They want to make money. Stopping drilling won't do that. But they're seeing what poor security measures can cost them. It would be a bad business decision to not improve their shitty measures. Just because they don't want the feds all over their business and getting in the way of them making money doesn't mean they aren't going to improve their shit.

You are absolutely right. Stopping drilling for a few months to make sure such things such as blow out preventers are working correctly on all these rigs is bad business. It's all about a risk to benefit analysis eventhough these companies are sitting on billions of dollars of stockpiled revenue. **** the safety of the Gulf, they need to make money.

So I don't see how you are assuming that dedicating billions of dollars on their part to safety is good business practice if we just really stick it to BP? BP is ****ed with or without your boycott. This kind of oil spill hasn't happen in 30 years. Before this spill nobody even knew of the spill in 1979. And 30 years from now nobody will remember this spill. That's the type of risk to benefit analysis these drilling companies will do, and they will put short term profits above long term enviromental damage as they have always done.

So my point goes back to this. Singling out BP is not effective. If you want to make a difference boycott as much oil as possible. But you and I know that will never happen. You can call me a pathetic defeatist, an idiot, or anything else you'd like. But you really can't deny that, can you? Because I'm not about to give up my car and I know you aren't about to either.

 

[PvtRyan]

It is not juvenile to refuse to do business with a company by holding it responsible for its ongoing terrible decisions. You can reduce it to a juvenile-sounding sentence if you want, but some people don't agree that BP has learned its own lesson. It isn't currently doing nearly enough to fix the problem it caused, neither in clean-up nor capping the well.

Ask yourself this: is that malice, or incompetence? If it's malice, then BP has a motive for not being more effective in fixing the spill, it must be deliberately fucking things up. Tell me then: what is the motive of a profit-based business to intentionally neglect spending a few millions on safety measures that would have prevented this disaster, or some more millions to be more effective in the fixing of the disaster, in order to save many billions further down the line? What kind of Marvel-universe evil is this? It makes no goddamn sense.

And as I said, boycotts are effective to change a company's policy. 'Policy' as in: deliberate decisions a company makes. And unless BP lives in Opposite Land, causing oil spills is not part of a good business plan (or is that 'not not' in Opposite Land?).

Again, think Hanlon's Razor, this is easily explained by incompetence (relatively speaking, it really is a complex situation to handle) and since malice is really counter-intuitive here, it must be incompetence. 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.

I'm not sure why you assume boycotters disagree with offshore drilling. My issue is not with the possibility of off-shore accidents, it is the fact that BP is directly responsible for cutting corners in construction and safety and is doing as little as it possibly can to solve the disaster it created. You're calling people hypocrites by presuming their intentions. If anything is juvenile, it's that.

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

 

[Raziaar]

Raz, look, I love you buddy. But get your head out of your ass. I was speaking my mind, it's called an opinion. Nobody addressed that opinion, they were rubbed the wrong way because it went against people's denial. It has nothing to do with me thinking I'm better than anyone here (if you have an opinion contrary to most other people does that mean you think you are better than everyone else?). As I pointed out I'm not about to give up my car no matter how many dead birds wash up on the shore of Florida. I'm just pointing out that none of you are about to do that either and pretending that a boycott of BP is going to change the system in any way is absolutely absurd (and I gave you plenty of reasons why that is, reasons that were totally ignored).

Sorry, I don't have my head up my ass.

If you notice, I'm not participating in this thread much and I'm not commenting on what you said in here, merely on how you act. And that is that you behave as if you're better than everybody and everybody else is a beneath you because they differ from your world views.

The Net Neutrality thread speaks for itself, really.

 

[Krynn72]

You are absolutely right. Stopping drilling for a few months to make sure such things such as blow out preventers are working correctly on all these rigs is bad business. It's all about a risk to benefit analysis eventhough these companies are sitting on billions of dollars of stockpiled revenue. **** the safety of the Gulf, they need to make money.

How do you know that stopping drilling for months is actually required in order to test their saftey measures. Is it impossible to do such tests while still being productive? I doubt it. There is no way you or I know for sure, of course, so we must agree to disagree.

So I don't see how you are assuming that dedicating billions of dollars on their part to safety is good business practice if we just really stick it to BP? BP is ****ed with or without your boycott. This kind of oil spill hasn't happen in 30 years. Before this spill nobody even knew of the spill in 1979. And 30 years from now nobody will remember this spill. That's the type of risk to benefit analysis these drilling companies will do, and they will put short term profits above long term enviromental damage as they have always done.

This is all conjecture. A spill of this magnitude hasn't ever been seen before, nor has it happened to such a populated location. Thats like saying "Nobody remembers the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, nobody will remember 9/11"

So my point goes back to this. Singling out BP is not effective. If you want to make a difference boycott as much oil as possible. But you and I know that will never happen. You can call me a pathetic defeatist, an idiot, or anything else you'd like. But you really can't deny that, can you? Because I'm not about to give up my car and I know you aren't about to either.

I think singling out BP will be more effective than you give it credit. I'm not calling you names because you're a defeatist. I'm calling you names because you're going around telling everyone that their actions are meaningless. Which they are not. And its people like you who promote apathy that cause others to not bother, thereby validating your defeatist claims. You make the situation worse with that attitude, and going out and promoting it only increases the negative impact of it. At least some people are trying to improve the situation, and I don't give a shit if you agree with them or not, but I'm sick of you and your ilk making things worse, be it intentional or not. If people are trying to do something to help and you think its ineffective, do the world a favor and keep those thoughts to yourself.

Ask yourself this: is that malice, or incompetence? If it's malice, then BP has a motive for not being more effective in fixing the spill, it must be deliberately fucking things up. Tell me then: what is the motive of a profit-based business to intentionally neglect spending a few millions on safety measures that would have prevented this disaster, or some more millions to be more effective in the fixing of the disaster, in order to save many billions further down the line? What kind of Marvel-universe evil is this? It makes no goddamn sense.

Its called wishful thinking. They thought they could line their wallets with that extra cash and not pay for it down the line. Its the same reason people speed. They can get someplace a minute or two faster, and they don't think they'll get caught or end up in an accident. Is it a good financial move? No. Are they to incompetent to realize the potential cost of it? No again. Its not until a huge accident happens that people start to slow down and actually adjust their behavior to avoid the cost of such irrational decisions. Perhaps its not malice, but neither is it incompetence. They knew the cost, they just chose to hope it wouldn't happen and that they could get that tiny bit richer.

And as I said, boycotts are effective to change a company's policy. 'Policy' as in: deliberate decisions a company makes. And unless BP lives in Opposite Land, causing oil spills is not part of a good business plan (or is that 'not not' in Opposite Land?).

He already addressed this. Stop being condescending using your example. He has already made it clear which of BP's lax policies boycotters want addressed.

I think people want a lot of changes of policy in BP. What policies could they change?
The "cutting corners on construction and safety" policy, which led to a preventable accident.
The "absolutely no workable contingency plan" policy, which is why this is still an issue.
The "hire a bunch of spill workers to look good for the President the day of his visit" policy, which is just ****ing awful.

Again, think Hanlon's Razor, this is easily explained by incompetence (relatively speaking, it really is a complex situation to handle) and since malice is really counter-intuitive here, it must be incompetence. 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.

This brings us back to my first point. I don't agree that it was incompetence. It was a deliberate decision that may not have been malicious in intent, but a conscious, thought out decision that weighed risk versus cost and they decided to take the risk.

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.

How can you presume to know what dollar amount will solidify the concept of safety in their minds? I say we overkill to be safe. Even if it runs BP into the ground, it will be a symbol of the free market's stance on the situation, and one that other companies would not be able to ignore.



EDIT: Holy god damn. Sorry for the wall-o-text.

 

[No Limit]

I wont do a quote to quote if you don't mind but I'll address everything line by line.

I guess these tests could be done while the rig is operating, I don't know for sure. But these types of tests take a long time to do I would assume. Having these rigs operate before they can be tested is not safe by any stretch of the imagination. And this isn't just about testing the rigs. They need to review hundreds of thousands of documents that the MMS approved as we now know (well we've actually known for a while but thats a different discussion) that MMS was extremely corrupt and for all we know none of these rigs were ever properly inspected. Yet oil companies don't want to stop any operation for these reviews to take place, they want to operate even before any of these reviews will begin. That's not safe, it's extremely dangerous. But they are going to gamble with our enviroment for their profits because as you said it's bad business to do otherwise.

No a spill of this magnitued hasn't happened. But spills with almost exactly the same cirumstances did happen. And we are using the same technology now that we used then (1979). So what makes you think it will be different now? Because a spill this big has never happened before? When the oil spill in 1979 happened nobody had ever seen a spill that big before either. It didn't change anything.

You keep repeating I am wrong when I say singling out BP isn't effective but for the most part you keep ignoring the reason for why I say its not effective. To be fair you did finally address this above which I just responded to. All these oil companies take short cuts, they all put profit above safety. Any BP boycott you participate in won't change the fact that people are already boycotting BP if that boycott doesn't inconviniance them. And as a result BP might not survive this. Yet I don't see the other oil companies coming out and doing anything significant to improve safety.

Like I said, what I think would be extremely effective is if americans actually participated in a significant boycotted of all oil. But you and me and the rest of this country is way too lazy to do something like that.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Raz, look, I love you buddy. But get your head out of your ass. I was speaking my mind, it's called an opinion. Nobody addressed that opinion, they were rubbed the wrong way because it went against people's denial.

Hahaha, wow dude.

Just wow.

I had a shitload of your posts lined in other tabs and I was all ready to go to quotetown with them, but this is the only quote I need.

Read back what you wrote there. Really read it. Because if you manage to truly penetrate the meaning of what you just said, you will finally understand why people are so keen to hate on your shit.

"Raz, look, I love you buddy. But get your head out of your ass."

Good job being the only one in this thread "staying calm," bro. Must... not... care... about things... on internet.....

"I was speaking my mind, it's called an opinion."

Okay, let me make this clear: at no point, in here or in the FCC thread, have you ever given any indication that your posts have been purely opinion-based. You have always defended your view to the letter as though it was foregone fact. You can't claim something to be an absolute truth and then accuse people of attacking your personal views when they try to debunk it or offer conflicting ones. It doesn't work both ways, dude.

"Nobody addressed that opinion"

Yeah they ****ing did. Stop talking like you're presenting conclusive facts, or that the burden of truth is on everyone else simply because you keep saying so. You're the one with the opposing view, it's your responsibility to come forward with a compelling argument. You have yet to do so.

"... they were rubbed the wrong way because it went against people's denial."

And here we come to the piece de resistance. Examine this (partial) sentence for a moment. Just try and soak in what you're actually saying here. Setting aside for a moment the underlying message of "everyone's just out to get me!", let's really examine the meat of this statement.

People disagree with your opinion (as you yourself have just called it), so your mental response is to assume they're just in denial? What is wrong with you, dude? You just called everyone in this thread a liar because they hold different views to you... right after you defend your own views as mere opinion?

I... just... ****ing wow.

This is why people are fed up with your bullshit. You can't just post this way and then act like everyone is out to get you when they inevitably disagree. Just because your opinion is unpopular doesn't make it "realistic." Just because you're playing devil's advocate doesn't give you the right of way to say or imply whatever you want, and then feign innocence when people are rightfully offended. And just because you think you're trying to "help" people, doesn't mean they have to smile and take it.

Christ.

 

[No Limit]

Lol, that's a long post. A post in which you didn't address any of my actual positions (you say others did, no they didn't until recently, all they did was get their panties in a bunch about I said without actually addressing any of it). All you said in that long rant was just that I believe in what I believe way too strongly (apparently if you dont specify what you are saying is opinion at the beginning of all your posts you're an asshole). Let me go grab some of your posts, if you didn't specifically specify that what you were saying was opinion then you are a pompous asshole, deal?

The fact is now that Krynn stopped calling me an idiot, an asshole, and a retarded person here we are having an actual discussion. Funny how that works, huh?

 

[Qonfused]

You completely missed the point.

 

[L3N!N]

Lol'd.



So you support the killing of innocent African families?

What the ****?

Who doesn't?

 

[No Limit]

You completely missed the point.

Yeah, apparently.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Lol, that's a long post. A post in which you didn't address any of my actual positions (you say others did, no they didn't until recently, all they did was get their panties in a bunch about I said without actually addressing any of it). All you said in that long rant was just that I believe in what I believe way too strongly (apparently if you dont specify what you are saying is opinion at the beginning of all your posts you're an asshole). Let me go grab some of your posts, if you didn't specifically specify that what you were saying was opinion then you are a pompous asshole, deal?

The fact is now that Krynn stopped calling me an idiot, an asshole, and a retarded person here we are having an actual discussion. Funny how that works, huh?

You're incredible. You expect people to open their minds to your views when yours is a ****ing sieve.

At no point in my post did I attempt to directly address the issue in this thread. Yeah, it's off-topic, but to hell with it, I just wanted to call you on your bullshit. I was honestly considering including a disclaimer at the end of my post to the effect of "any attempts to link this back to the boycott issue will be met with extreme derision," but I thought, nah, too incendiary. He's not that dense.

Welp.

Opinions don't become fact because someone believes in them strongly enough. I'm sorry, but this is how you're coming across. I get that people shouldn't have to specify they're posting an opinion, but by the same token not everything should be immediately taken as opinion simply because the poster hasn't stated otherwise. This is the internet: you have to judge a statement, and by extension the author's intent, based purely on it's content. The clear implication with most of your posts is, "this is the way it works, I'm just being realistic and you're all in denial because you want to feel like you're changing something when you're not." To turn around and say this is just an opinion does not dispel the obvious intent of these posts, and you are not immune to criticism just because no one has proven you wrong (again, burden of proof nonsense... what is this, a religious debate?).

You also seem to be harboring the thought that anyone in support of these boycotts (or the email writing in the net neutrality thread) is 100% certain these measures will succeed. This is made pretty clear by posts where you say something like, "check back in a year, if this hasn't worked then I was right all along." Again, you're grossly misinterpreting the issue here: nobody is doing this because they know it's going to work (just as you seem to know it won't), they're doing it because it might. Deflecting the issue by telling people to boycott oil altogether (an impossible feat, as you yourself admit) does nothing to address this simple fact. You simply don't seem to understand, or even want to understand where people are coming from, and this is incredibly frustrating when you continue to insist that nobody understands your position.

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.