Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

northdakotamonitor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 245 posts

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#211

Post by terminalshort »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #200
terminalshort wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice try, but I'm not stupid enough to fall for your deflection. GP did not complain about "greedy corporations." He complained about "greedy corporations destroying our planet." They aren't destroying our planet. You, GP, and I are destroying our planet. But unlike you and GP, I am an adult and I don't try to blame other people for my actions.

Once again, you're making an implicit claim about all the nice things in contemporary civilization (or least the list you gave), in this case that their mere existence is "destroying our planet". But you haven't made that case, and it is far from obvious that it is true. It could be true ... but I'm also to the imagined version of a political & economic system that had still produced portable hand-held network connec…

CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O

Why can't you understand that this is the only thing that matters??

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#212

Post by philwelch »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #82
ttiurani wrote: post #56

For context, a statement from the legal experts who monitored the trial. > It is our collective assessment that the jury verdict against Greenpeace in North Dakota reflects a deeply flawed trial with multiple due process violations that denied Greenpeace the ability to present anything close to a full defense. https://www.trialmonitors.org/statement-of-independent-trial...

As an outsider, why is this a credible institution over the jury and judge?

Surely you can’t be suggesting that a committee of environmental activists might be biased in favor of Greenpeace?

https://www.trialmonitors.org/meet-the-committee

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#213

Post by ericd »

msy wrote: post #198
terminalshort wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is childish to think that anything would have been different if this research was released.

Exactly. I mean look what happened when we worked out CFCs were destroying the ozone layer through rigorous scientific research and public disclosure.

Those were a lot easier to swap out. Oil is the foundation of modern society, CFCs were far from.

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#215

Post by webnrrd2k »

msy wrote: post #198
terminalshort wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is childish to think that anything would have been different if this research was released.

Exactly. I mean look what happened when we worked out CFCs were destroying the ozone layer through rigorous scientific research and public disclosure.

Yes, and cigarettes, asbestos, lead in gasoline, and a few others, too. Clearly there is a place for education and coordinated action among the common people.

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#216

Post by whoknowsidont »

terminalshort wrote: post #194
Schmerika wrote: post #181

[flagged]

> maybe telling some protesters to engage in direct action against a company leaking oil into their water supply Sounds like you put the maybe in the wrong place. The jury found that they did do that. And you have no evidence whatsoever that they leaked any oil into the water supply.

How dishonest or stupid do you have to be to make this comment?

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#217

Post by rolandog »

newsoftheday wrote: post #128
kombine wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The protests involved what activists call “direct action,” which involves trespassing on private property, blockading workers, or damaging equipment in an effort to prevent otherwise lawful activity. For example, activists admitted to setting fire to equipment and pipeline valves in an effort to stop construction Decades and centuries from now our descendants will be dealing with the consequences of the destroyed c…

> "the laws" We live under law or we die under anarchy.

Let's not drape ourselves in lobbyist-ammended laws too fast now; laws are the source code, in a way, of societies. They lay down the things we value, and what we are willing to do to protect them. These last few decades, a corporate coup has taken place, and we find ourselves with goons making probably illegal changes at the behest of billionaires (or at that of the people that are blackmailing them because they're likely in "the files").

So, whose law do you find so precious that you're willing to die in anarchy for?

P.S.: Laws are actually more like new years resolutions for a society; you gotta follow through with eating the rich (enforcement), or else you get a bad case of conventus secretus which may eventually lead to acute homines fascistae

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#218

Post by [deleted] »

bilbo0s wrote: post #96
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an outsider, why is this a credible institution over the jury and judge?

Well, let's not get into this left-right thing because that could go back and forth forever. Especially in the current environment. eg - "As an outsider, why is [the jury and judge] a credible institution over the monitors?" We should all just give the legal experts time to look over the records of what happened, and assess why. From there, a consensus will likely emerge as to what happened during and before the tria…

[deleted]

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#219

Post by sidewndr46 »

laughing_man wrote: post #177
mullingitover wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the point of SLAPP is that it's a frivolous suit The point is to shut people up. Lawyers don't like filing literally frivolous suits, that type of activity gets you disbarred.

In theory, yes. But does that actually happen IRL? I've never heard of a lawyer getting disbarred for the quality of suits he or she is filing. Many years ago in Northern CA we had a lawyer that was basically going around filing suits against everyone she came in contact with as a way to pay the bills. She was eventually declared a "vexatious litigant" and had to get a judge's permission before she could sue anyone i…

how is that any different than a lawsuit. You can file whatever you want, it doesn't mean the judge is going to hear the case

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#220

Post by anon7000 »

terminalshort wrote: post #187
Maarten88 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know the carbon footprint concept was literally created by BP marketing, to place the blame for climate change on society, and distract from all the evil stuff they did to promote more fossil fuel consumption and sabotage climate science. The Climate Town channel on Youtube has lots of video's on this, such as this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1J9LOqiXdpE

The blame is 100% on society, so BP is correct to place it there. If we wanted to reduce our CO2 output to near zero we could do that easily. But it turns out that we would rather have all of our modern conveniences, so this is 100% our fault. Blaming it on oil companies is like a murderer blaming Smith and Wesson.

You’re sadly making this a simpler issue than it actually is. There are countless industries that have used immoral tactics to make more money. That includes tobacco companies (lying about health benefits & consequences to smoking), gambling companies (misleading people about how much money they can expect to make), and, of course, oil companies (lying about how harmful gas is to the environment).

Using gas is not actually necessary to have all our modern conveniences. In fact, it is fucking stupid to rely on continuous resource extraction, deleting our fuel supply to create energy, when we can get it continuously for free from the environment with a minor up-front investment.

It is not 100% our fault. This is only like blaming it on Smith & Wesson if Smith & Wesson had created “pacifist guns” that allegedly solved societal violence, or if Smith & Wesson spent huge amounts of money trying to convince people that guns are not actually dangerous objects.

Post reply on HN