As I mentioned, we left the family many anonymous notes. Also, we explained to our friends why it was done, most of my friends know we did it, but those who don't at least know why it was done because word spread through the school in like a day.

How is it warped? Taking a purely neutral stance on the issue, they had a dam up that is stopping the stream, we took it down because we knew it would take an unreasonable amount of time and effort to go through the legal system. As I've stated, they have a HUGE amount of political and economic clout seeing as they create housing for one of the largest growing and one of the most sought after counties in the U.S. I see nothing wrong with taking the matters into my own hands, it is the same outcome, just faster. In the naturally formed pond at the school, water levels were down probably 90% last summer, and most of the fish died. I'm sure thats great for all the rivers ecosystems.. Now, it is back up, water is flowing past, and things are living again. I think its only fair that everyone down stream gets to enjoy their river.
I doubt we'll set up the hydro turbine, but that wasn't the reason why we did it really.

I don't know why everyone thinks we are only going to use force. That just isn't true, it was not a last resort, but it was heavily reasoned out prior to action as it will be in the future.

The thing is, I don't see the actual benefit in doing what you did. Has the fish population increased since?

I don't see any major problem with the fish there dying. I mean, more fish (or algae or whatever was there) would be in the man made pond.
Furthermore, I don't see why we should care so much about a pond. The river being dammed would not have a significant impact on the environment. Reducing carbon outputs and massive species slaughter is great, but a pond?

Finally, you're imposing your greater good onto other people's property (you have yet to address my self-righteousness statement). You're transcending the law to impose your beliefs at the cost of other people's rightfully acquired stuff. A lot of people (like me) don't see a major problem with that dam (see arguments above).

And from a dick cheney's quote: "Theres no such thing as global warming."
What can convince this guy, a book? Non-sense.

Global warming is irrelevant to my points, as what yenku did did not help to stop it.

If you can't see what BeDazed is trying to imply, then just leave already.

It is not your job here to tell people what to do. Don't post if you don't want to debate; you know what your posting provokes. Make yourself clear the first time. Behold, perhaps your favorite fallacy. You seem to believe very strongly in it.

Argumentum ad nauseam


Just because someone said it doesn't make it true.


Why and how do problems occur? What makes the law more inherently correct? The fact that more people may have decided on it?


What is your point? Who decides what laws do, and do not have meaning? Laws are laws. There is no one thing that makes them automatically correct, or superior in ethics. The people making the laws are not necessarily independent and unbiased; they do, in fact, often have goals and means which they are serving.


That is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, allowing yourself to decide what is right independently, and not hinging on other's beliefs to decide your own, is a better way to decide what's truly right and wrong.


There are more medieval tragedies that fall into this category than generic movies. Regardless, you do realize you're basing a major portion of your arguement on 'generic movies', right? Again, this really has nothing to do with what yenku is doing. You are assuming he is like this, or that he will be like this, and that is not the correct. You have no reason to believe these things other than to serve the purposes of the side of the arguement you initially took.


That is not at all their moral. This is a false statement. For one thing, the moral of Star Wars is that it is easier to be on the "dark side", to be evil, but that does not make it right, or better. The truly strong ones, like Luke Skywalker, stay pure, and on the good side.


Because Darth Vader is evil? Wow, great arguement. /sarcasm Maybe you should clarify yourself, again.


Irrelevant.


Assuming he's not a liar and made this all up-- he's already done something.

This is all just a pack of lies and trolling. Don't tell him that his replies are lame, tell him why his replies are lame. I'd appreciate it if you didn't bother posting this in the future. Everyone gets sick of people posting how they don't want people to reply to them, and how they aren't going to reply to others anymore because everything they say is [insert scenario]. Perhaps the bigger problem, is that the person is always lying. No one cares. O rly? You're not going to reply back? That was a lie! Might want to stop doing that. Moving on...


You have yet to prove why it is wrong (well, without the use of a logical fallacy). You have not mentioned the difference between 'laws that just aren't right and what you did', either. Unless this constitutes as explanation for the difference between the two:


(Unless you are refering to something from way earlier in the topic)

*I doubled posted so quotes would work*

Please note: I am avoiding embedded quotes so I can fit more in a post.

Whoa hey, that's exactly what I'm doing. I'll have to work on that, thanks.

Nobody should completely base their beliefs on the law. It is our job to be critical of the government, and thereby the law (to some extent).
However, assuming that YOU are ALWAYS right leads to problems (as I said). There were a lot of people throughout history that thought they were right, and thought themselves above the law. More importantly, they looked internally to decide what is right. Hitler probably thought he was doing the world a favor, improving it.
What you should do is try to obey the law, but take your beliefs into account when called for. However, when you "follow your heart," you won't always end up doing the right thing.
Point is: Complete disregard for the law is a bad thing. That's why vigilantes aren't always so great.

I was using the generic movie as an illustration of one of the problems that can rise out of self righteousness.
The Crusades are a tragic example of this.

Point taken.

Yeah, that is what I meant. By "silly laws" I meant those sorts of humorous laws with no real meaning today. I mentioned this only because I thought someone might reply saying "Oh yeah? Tell me how [insert silly law] is right!"

To clarify on why it is wrong...
The dam was justly and legally acquired. Destroying someone's property is wrong.
There are situations in which it may be justified, but it seems to me that, in yenku's case, there was not sufficient justification.

Revision

Define sufficient justification.

On the other hand, the hog just wanted a pool for himself so he made a DAM on a stream where other people then him shared on a land he didn't own. He took it from them while they are doing for research, he does it for the looks of the view. They had sent him countless anonymous notes telling him to deconstruct it, he did not. He deserved it coming.

Also in any debates, that kind of use of 'you' is a outright disrespect of the opponent- you do not know this? That wasn't even an argument, thats something that cuts your credibility a half.

Give your justification and tell me why it is sufficient.

[citation needed]

[citation needed]

Ignoring notes is not a crime. They are pointless unless the complaint is legitimate. You cannot say:
"I sent you countless notes asking for five bucks. You did nothing. You therefore deserve to have your house burnt down."
The presence of multiple notices is not significant unless the problem itself is.

No, I did not.

Multiple instances of sucky grammar and spelling is something that "cuts your credibility a half."

I think I know what you mean. Like laws that say you can't where jeans on tuesday, and all that other silly stuff.


This is true. I don't think you have put it this way before.


Your first sentence is true, and that can cause problems when used in the connatation you are applying. However, one might say that 99.9% of people (at least in the U.S.) feel themselves above the law. Just about everyone has knowingly broken some law at some point. Still many others break the law by doing illegal drugs which may not be directly harmful to anyone not in the immediate vacinity of that family. Also, note how your second sentence defeats some of the points you made earlier (I agree with it).


Actually, the people were not supposed to have a dam there. They didn't legally acquire it, either. There was some other stuff I forget also. This is all according to thing's yenku has posted in this topic.


If you're refering to the big "YOU", that's not how he was using it. He was using the universal "you"-- a synonym with "one".


English is not Bedazed's first language. I think he does pretty well considering.


For frazz's desire for a citation-- yenku said this in the topic. As for this one:


Not so much.

I think I may agree with that statement since I hold many Buddhist beliefs, but I figure from an objective standpoint that it would benefit more people if the dam was gone. It is as fairly our river as it is theirs. When dams are built, it disrupts the entire stream.. Taking it out is the only way to resolve it and hopefully keep the habitats that DO exist intact.

Nor was I trying to through that effort..

False; it was an illegal dam. Destroying property that exploits a community river does not seem wrong to any objective observer even leaving out the habitats they harmed in the process.

Oh but there was, and if you weren't sure that there was, it would be helpful for both of us if you instead posed me a question about it rather than insults.

This is a very different situation. It doesn't matter whether or not it's a crime to ignore the notes, they had it coming. I gave sufficient warning that this dam was directly affecting many others, and they ignored it. So we felt it would be okay to take action, I have not yet met anyone who disagrees with me on this issue (except for over the internet).

Citation added. By law, we do not own the river. It is public property, as it should be.

We were not using it directly for research however, but it is a great thing to have on campus for studying, for beauty and for the sake of a healthy environment.

frazz, I have already covered many of the things you argue I do wrong. I am trying to be completely patient with you, but its very frustrating because we can argue irrationally sometimes, which is what I feel you may be doing. I have expressed my views of what I am doing from an objective standpoint and there seems to be nothing wrong with what I am doing. I am not an ego-centrist to the degree Hitler was, though I do believe it makes more sense to be compassionate towards the environment. I see that as my most egotistical flaw, if one can call it that.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 6 2007, 4:18 am by yenku.

That last quote wasn't from me. I think you meant to give credit to Bedazed for it.

Alright, this is basically the crux of the argument (I'm ignoring your other little things, because they're based on this, mostly).
So, why is it illegal to dam up a public river? Specifically, what law (be it national, state or local) makes it illegal to build a dam on your property?
Furthermore, what exceptions exist, and how do you know that they did not use these legal avenues?

Read the topic frazz. Just look at all yenku's posts and find where he says it. Or you could wait for him to reply so he can repeat himself. Whichever you prefer.

Fine, I did it for you. Post #59. Although I see yenku is already back in the topic.

You mean public property, not their property. I'm not going to search the law books for you.

The word public is what makes it illegal. This river is supposed to flow through many other places, they cannot make it their own.

So there it is. That's what I get for not reading the topic.

gg

Maybe you shouldn't call yourself an eco-terrorist. Call yourself a person trying to do something for the environment - you sound much less like an asshole.

Here's an overlooked fact. My father pays on average $200 a month for electricity (I'm not sure on the average American figure on that - that's just what he uses with an average house and average appliances). With that, he could have more than sufficient power by installing an $18,000 solar panel set up (and that price will fall every year while electricity goes up). That is to say that after 90 months or seven and a half years, the solar panels will have paid themselves off, and they last for longer than that. Even if you are doing exactly what you're doing because of what you profess to be the why, you are still a very selfish person, looking out for your own self interests and self preservation in the ever so unlikely event that the world ends, and as you are out for yourself, I think we could all return the favor by not giving a damn so long as you don't affect my life. If you're not looking out for my best interests, what reason would I have to support your merry little band of rogues?

Which gives you some god-given right to blow it up! Where have I heard that two wrongs do make a right? Oh yeah, nowhere. You seem to profess that it was public opinion that the dam not be built. True enough, so long as you are telling the truth, which I'm assuming to be the case. But where was the public opinion that something be done about the dam they so illegally built? Where were the hordes of protesters outside City Hall? I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that they were there, hundreds upon hundreds of them. So really, using public opinion is a really shoddy and swiss cheesy argument at best.

I will also paraphrase another argument as the public land argument. You know, I feel compelled to believe that you are extremely hypocritical from the arguments that you have presented. They used the land in whatever the Hell way they wanted to. You used the land in whatever the Hell way you wanted to. Don't they sound similar?

Ultimately, I don't think you're stupid. Misguided, for sure, but not stupid. At the heart of it, I think you're just trying to be a hero. It's very stoic, but foolish. Maybe you're just afraid to believe in democracy. Sure, you can always say it doesn't work (we could argue that in another thread), but if you don't try to make it work, well, you're not helping it, are you?

Have you even read anything Yenku has posted at all??

This wasn't for him, it was for his school and the ecosystem. That's being selfish? I thought being selfish was only caring about YOURSELF, and only YOURSELF. Not others.. And sure in the hell not about the ecosystem.

How is it so bad to destroy an illegal damn that's built on public property? (If its truely public property)

If the individuals bought that small section of land that they built the damn on, then they can legally do it..

Are you sure they just didn't purchase a small amount of land, Yenku?

Private property, but apparently you can't build a dam on a river that flows to public property (???).

That's basically what I said. However, post 59 (I think) has yenku saying that they were told by the police that they shouldn't have built the dam in the first place. Assuming he wasn't just listening to a rumor, the dam was illegit.