Senate Approves Oil Drilling in ANWR

[michaeledward]

Mine are far simpler, and yet the answers seem to have eluded certain posters. Also, it bears some repeating, your questions were nothing substitutes for an answer to my questions. I asked mine first. Quid pro quo.

I hate to have to do this to you ....

11-10-2005 4:29 PM - michaeledward
How large is 'pretty large'?

11-10-2005 5:38 PM - michaeledward
How much oil does the United States consume in a year?

11-10-2005 8:38 PM - michaeledward
Gee ... I hate to have to answer my own question ...

11-10-2005 8:46 PM - sgtmac_46
someone tell me... What's in Anwar again?

11-10-2005 8:59 PM - michaeledard
how much oils is there in, say Afghanistan and Iraq?

11-10-2005 11:02 PM - sgtmac_46
You tell me.
​

Your Honor, I could go on, but it would be too painful. I ask you to direct the witness to answer, as his prior answer is non-responsive.


P.S. Anyhow, thanks for spreading light.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I hate to have to do this to you ....

11-10-2005 4:29 PM - michaeledward
How large is 'pretty large'?

11-10-2005 5:38 PM - michaeledward
How much oil does the United States consume in a year?

11-10-2005 8:38 PM - michaeledward
Gee ... I hate to have to answer my own question ...

11-10-2005 8:46 PM - sgtmac_46
someone tell me... What's in Anwar again?

11-10-2005 8:59 PM - michaeledard
how much oils is there in, say Afghanistan and Iraq?

11-10-2005 11:02 PM - sgtmac_46
You tell me.

​

Your Honor, I could go on, but it would be too painful. I ask you to direct the witness to answer, as his prior answer is non-responsive.


P.S. Anyhow, thanks for spreading light.

Oh, I see, you want to pretend you were talking to me when you asked "How large is pretty large?" and "How much oil does the US produce in 1 year?" The first sounds like a rhetorical question, and neither was directed toward me, as they were in responses to someone elses statements (7starmantis and Tgace respectively.) They weren't directed to me, so it's not my role to answer them.

Nice spin, though. I asked UpNorth a direct question, but, again, that would require you to pay attention.

Your Honor, I would request that you require the witness to stick to the facts as they actually occurred.

 

[Makalakumu]

Emotional hogwash. Our country made a committment to its citizens as well, is that important to you? Or would you ignore that?

7sm

Nope. Just a difference in values. I guess, when I say that I'm going to save something for my kids that important, I mean it. And I'm not going to sell it for cheap gas. But hey, each to his or her own. I think its a cheap reason to break ones word especially when there are so many other options. Its the slightest excuse.

 

[Makalakumu]

I am impressed by your shear refusal to answer the question asked and the lengths to which you will go to avoid answering two simple questions with a fact based answer. :shrug: Could it be that you don't have an answer that doesn't involve emotional tripe and vague innuendo?

Since when did commitment, principle, and honor become "emotional tripe"?

 

[sgtmac_46]

Since when did commitment, principle, and honor become "emotional tripe"?

When you started answering concrete, fact based questions with abstract "non-answers". For example, if I ask you what is in Anwar that is going to be damaged by oil production and you say "Something wonderful" that's not really an answer.

What's more, "committment, principle and honor" have absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not to drill in Anwar. It's a PURE appeal to emotion.

 

[Makalakumu]

Facts supporting the exploration of ANWR...

1). Only 8% of ANWR would be opened to exploration. If oil is found, less than 2000 acres would be needed, thats less than .5% of ANWR. If we even went so far as to say that 2000 acres would be completely destroyed (which it wouldn't by far) thats one half of one percent of ANWR....a small price to pay for our citizens, no?

2)Revenue to the state and federal treasury. Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes. Estimates on bonus bids for ANWR by the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Interior for the first 5 years after Congressional approval are 4.2 billion dollars.

3) Jobs To Be Created Between 250,000 and 735,000 ANWR jobs are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain.

Thats simply 3 reasons to open this small piece of ANWR up for exploration. Is everyone aware that the area of ANWR to even be considered for exploration of oil is 8%. That leaves 92% completely closed. (anwr.org)

7sm

Those are all reasons to do this, but we just don't have to go there. Our little problem of slightly more expensive gasoline isn't going to be affected very much by opening it and this solution, wouldn't last very long.

Lots of things are good for the economy. Lots of things would pump tons of money into it. The amount of money here is large, yet, when one compares it to our GDP, it isn't even a drop in the bucket. Surely this pittance is not worth breaking our comittment to wilderness?

My biggest worry with this is precedent. I feel that by opening ANWR, we are setting a precedent that says that opening wilderness for the slightest excuse is okay. And it really is the slightest excuse btw. We have piles of money under lots of protected land. And some of these piles are far larger then the one under ANWR. Yellowstone National Park, for instance, has a huge amount of natural gas under it. Where does it stop? I don't think it will.

Any comittment requires sacrifice. If every American shaved one mpg off their top driving speed, we'd conserve enough to save ANWR in a couple of years. Slightest excuse indeed.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Those are all reasons to do this, but we just don't have to go there. Our little problem of slightly more expensive gasoline isn't going to be affected very much by opening it and this solution, wouldn't last very long.

Lots of things are good for the economy. Lots of things would pump tons of money into it. The amount of money here is large, yet, when one compares it to our GDP, it isn't even a drop in the bucket. Surely this pittance is not worth breaking our comittment to wilderness?

My biggest worry with this is precedent. I feel that by opening ANWR, we are setting a precedent that says that opening wilderness for the slightest excuse is okay. And it really is the slightest excuse btw. We have piles of money under lots of protected land. And some of these piles are far larger then the one under ANWR. Yellowstone National Park, for instance, has a huge amount of natural gas under it. Where does it stop? I don't think it will.

Any comittment requires sacrifice. If every American shaved one mpg off their top driving speed, we'd conserve enough to save ANWR in a couple of years. Slightest excuse indeed.

I think we're more than capable of taking things on a case by case basis. The whole "precedent"/"Slippery Slope" line of thought is overdone, and I don't think is particularly applicable in this case.

 

[Makalakumu]

When you started answering concrete, fact based questions with abstract "non-answers". For example, if I ask you what is in Anwar that is going to be damaged by oil production and you say "Something wonderful" that's not really an answer.

What's more, "committment, principle and honor" have absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not to drill in Anwar. It's a PURE appeal to emotion.

You asked no such thing. You asked, "What's in ANWR?" and "What is ANWR?" Comittment, principle and honor have everything to do with the answer to those questions. ANWR is something we valued. Wilderness is something we valued. Oh yeah, there is also a little oil in ANWR. Look, you may think that cheaper gas is a good reason to violate our comittment, I don't.

 

[sgtmac_46]

You asked no such thing. You asked, "What's in ANWR?" and "What is ANWR?" Comittment, principle and honor have everything to do with the answer to those questions. ANWR is something we valued. Wilderness is something we valued. Oh yeah, there is also a little oil in ANWR. Look, you may think that cheaper gas is a good reason to violate our comittment, I don't.

"Committment, principle and honor" are in Anwar? Just exactly where would I start looking in Anwar for those things? Rock and snow? Again, appeal to emotion is a fallacy.

"This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples' emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true. More formally, this sort of "reasoning" involves the substitution of various means of producing strong emotions in place of evidence for a claim. If the favorable emotions associated with X influence the person to accept X as true because they "feel good about X," then he has fallen prey to the fallacy. "

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html

 

[Makalakumu]

I think we're more than capable of taking things on a case by case basis. The whole "precedent"/"Slippery Slope" line of thought is overdone, and I don't think is particularly applicable in this case.

You should see some of the writings by people like James Watts and other "sagebrush rebels". They want to take it on a case by case basis, too...in order to open them all up. One of the guiding principles that drives their philosophy is that they believe that the government shouldn't be so bid that in controls this land. They believe that they have every right to everything under the land. And since the inception of the wilderness concept, they have fought it tooth and nail. Will they stop with ANWR? They say they will not.

 

[sgtmac_46]

You should see some of the writings by people like James Watts and other "sagebrush rebels". They want to take it on a case by case basis, too...in order to open them all up. One of the guiding principles that drives their philosophy is that they believe that the government shouldn't be so bid that in controls this land. They believe that they have every right to everything under the land. And since the inception of the wilderness concept, they have fought it tooth and nail. Will they stop with ANWR? They say they will not.

"They" say a lot of things.

 

[Makalakumu]

"Committment, principle and honor" are in Anwar? Just exactly where would I start looking in Anwar for those things? Rock and snow? Again, appeal to emotion is a fallacy.

"This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples' emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true. More formally, this sort of "reasoning" involves the substitution of various means of producing strong emotions in place of evidence for a claim. If the favorable emotions associated with X influence the person to accept X as true because they "feel good about X," then he has fallen prey to the fallacy. "

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html

It doesn't apply. If I was saying drilling in ANWR is evil, then you'd have a case. I'm not saying that. The facts are this...we made a comittment to our children when we put aside this land. We are breaking this comittment for a very slight excuse. Things like comittments and laws are very real things. So are values. So why is it wrong to talk about those things when discussing drilling in ANWR?

I believe that when we tell our children something, we need to follow through.

 

[sgtmac_46]

It doesn't apply. If I was saying drilling in ANWR is evil, then you'd have a case. I'm not saying that. The facts are this...we made a comittment to our children when we put aside this land. We are breaking this comittment for a very slight excuse. Things like comittments and laws are very real things. So are values. So why is it wrong to talk about those things when discussing drilling in ANWR?

I believe that when we tell our children something, we need to follow through.

No, what you are saying is your position is about "Committment, principle and honor". The assumption being that the opposite view is, by proxy, unprincipled and dishonorable. Again, it's a fallacious argument.

One quick question...when's the last time you took your children to Anwr?

 

[Makalakumu]

No, what you are saying is your position is about "Committment, principle and honor". The assumption being that the opposite view is, by proxy, unprincipled and dishonorable.

I've cast this argument as one of giving our word to our children and breaking that vow for the slightest excuse. There is nothing fallacious about that, you just don't like it.

One quick question...when's the last time you took your children to Anwr?

I haven't yet. They are too little. However, we've been to other wilderness areas that are closer. All wilderness areas linked together by our values. I have a question now...

Have you ever brought your children to a wilderness area? If so, why did you go?

 

[michaeledward]

Someone tell me...What's in Anwar again? Don't use vague terms like "Wildlife refuge" either. That's a dodge if I ever heard one. Someone explain to me, in plain english, what's so special about Anwar (other than oil) and WHY is drilling oil going to make it "Not special". If someone could do that, i'd be very greatful.

http://arctic.fws.gov/wildland.htm

 

[sgtmac_46]

http://arctic.fws.gov/wildland.htm

Thank you, michael, that answers part of the question.

Now for the second part...how is drilling on a small portion going to damage the other 19 Million plus acres.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I've cast this argument as one of giving our word to our children and breaking that vow for the slightest excuse. There is nothing fallacious about that, you just don't like it.



I haven't yet. They are too little. However, we've been to other wilderness areas that are closer. All wilderness areas linked together by our values. I have a question now...

Have you ever brought your children to a wilderness area? If so, why did you go?

First of all, what vow did we make to our children to protect Anwr? Second, i've already shown you where your argument was completely an appeal to emotion and fallacious, now you're just spinning.

As for the second questions, we're talking about Anwr, not the nebulous term "wilderness", and you avoided the question so I can assume you've never been to Anwr with your children...As I can assume most people haven't as there aren't even roads in to Anwr.

So, again, you don't have a concrete reason not to drill in Anwr, just a few contrived appeals to emotion. We'll note that for the record.

 

[Makalakumu]

First of all, what vow did we make to our children to protect Anwr? Second, i've already shown you where your argument was completely an appeal to emotion and fallacious, now you're just spinning.

As for the second questions, we're talking about Anwr, not the nebulous term "wilderness", and you avoided the question so I can assume you've never been to Anwr with your children...As I can assume most people haven't as there aren't even roads in to Anwr.

So, again, you don't have a concrete reason not to drill in Anwr, just a few contrived appeals to emotion. We'll note that for the record.

First of all, when I tell my kids something, I mean it. That IS a concrete thing.

Second of all, this is a moral values argument, sgtmac46. Imagine that from a lefty. The term "wilderness" is defined in the 1964 wilderness act. It is not some nebulous bugbear that I'm cooking up. This act and subsequent legislation was the vow that was made to our children. This legistlation was passed as an expression of our values.

You haven't been able to show this argument as an appeal to emotion and you haven't even begun to address my point on values. So I'll ask this question, is breaking our word to our children worth slightly cheaper gas in the tank? The most likely scenario is that ANWR's oil will have no effect on the market, btw.

This comittment requires a sacrifice...a tiny little sacrifice.

 

[Tgace]

Its a gusher!!

 

[sgtmac_46]

First of all, when I tell my kids something, I mean it. That IS a concrete thing.

What you told your kids personally has no bearing on the discussion

Second of all, this is a moral values argument, sgtmac46. Imagine that from a lefty. The term "wilderness" is defined in the 1964 wilderness act. It is not some nebulous bugbear that I'm cooking up. This act and subsequent legislation was the vow that was made to our children. This legistlation was passed as an expression of our values.

What is nebulous is you discussing a topic of specifics, with vague generalizations. Again, how is an unvisited wasteland a gift to our children? Are they to get the warm fuzzies from the sheer knowledge that somewhere there is a wilderness they will never see? Sorry, doesn't float.

You haven't been able to show this argument as an appeal to emotion and you haven't even begun to address my point on values. So I'll ask this question, is breaking our word to our children worth slightly cheaper gas in the tank? The most likely scenario is that ANWR's oil will have no effect on the market, btw.

I haven't shown it...you have. You've done everything but say that god told you it's the right thing to do. Again, your entire argument is based on trying to make this an emotional appeal (It's a promise to our children...It's the "moral" thing). What does morality have one wit to do about whether to drill in a 19 Million acre wasteland? It only does if you're embracing the cult of environmentalism as a religion. Again, it's a fallacious argument.

This comittment requires a sacrifice...a tiny little sacrifice.

Again, i'm curious about what committment you are referring to. You've already acknowledged you've never been to Anwr, aren't likely ever to go there. You've shown no impact that drilling will have on Anwr, and you can't even tell what's really that important in Anwr. You've fallen back on vague appeals to emotion.