The NIMBY Bastards strike again..

[SirFozzie]

(warning: Foz will do the ranty/ravey bit in this thread. you have been forewarned)

One of the things paralyzing america is the Nimby Brigade. You probably have seen it whereever you are. No matter what it is, a Factory, Nuclear Plant, WalMart, etcetera, the masses will rise up and screech NOT IN MY BACKYARD!

In other words, leave me the fuck alone and go bother other folks. Well, I can understand that in some cases.. but not today's example.

Today, there was a bunch of radio commercials from a group, dedicated to "saving Nantucket Sound" from the inherent danger of.. gasp WINDMILLS! Ok, more like Wind Farms with giant turbines to gather energy from wind power.

Well, these NIMBY Numbnuts aren't gonna have any of that! I mean, these aren't just windmills, they're 300 feet tall each, they're bigger then the Statue of Liberty *gasp!*. And birds! Birds might fly into them! Oh Noes!

Well, it was revealed by the talk radio stations in the area recently discovered that the group paying for these radio commercials, are the rich folks whose view would be affected by the wind turbines. Yup, the NIMBY fuckers are trying to protect their pristine view from their Million Dollar Homes and fancy yachts.

Never mind it'll generate nearly free energy, a thing we could use MORE of.. if it inconveniences them, never mind they have no legal say on the land, well, goddamn it, they have a right to have a beautiful view out their windows!

Fucking yachtheads need to have one of the windturbine blades shoved up their ass.

[heybrad]

You wouldn't try to protect your property value?

[Franklinnoble]

<devil's advocate>
Seriously... if you were filthy rich, and the view from your multi-million dollar mansion was about to get ruined (thus decreasing your property value somewhat), would you behave differently?

I'm really not sure. I probably wouldn't go so far as to buy radio airtime... but I'd be a little bent outta shape if the million-dollar view of the ocean that I paid for was about to get obstructed.

</devil's advocate>

[SirFozzie]

You wouldn't try to protect your property value?

Show me where they have a legal right to a fucking beautiful view out on their front porch.

They care nothing for the sound, they're just upset because it affects them, and are attempting to cast WINDMILLS as a fucking enviromental disaster.

[BrianD]

You wouldn't try to protect your property value?

That was my first thought. These people could be looking at a huge drop in their investments. They may not win with this argument, but it is a worthwhile argument to make. Then again, they would probably get more sympathy if they made this argument and didn't just talk about the danger to birds.

[SirFozzie]

Besides, these things are MULTIPLE MILES out to sea. (just checked a Globe story and it's 5.2 miles out to sea)

[wade moore]

I've always been very mixed on the windmills. Some things I've read suggest that it actually costs more to make energy with these things than what we use for energy now.

[ISiddiqui]

NIMBY people suck. It's partially why we haven't built a refinery in this country in over 20 years. It's also why we have had no nuclear plants for even longer than that.

[Coffee Warlord]

Could be different out to the sea, but I have read reports in the past stating that wind farms on land actually do damage the environment. Causes fairly rapid eroison and whatnot due to the forcibly shifted wind patterns.

[CamEdwards]

You might need to change your sig to include "Ted Kennedy", since he's one of the more vocal opponents of this.

[sovereignstar]

http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/7960/untitled15cv.jpg

[SirFozzie]

You might need to change your sig to include "Ted Kennedy", since he's one of the more vocal opponents of this.

I would, except it's a lyric to a song. The Kennedys mostly suck.. the only reason he's still around because he can tell them since he's been in Congress Umpty-billion years, he can get MA more of the pork.

[Warhammer]

Yeah, what cracks me up about these guys with the windfarms, are the same people that say we need less dependence upon oil for power...

[Pumpy Tudors]

http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/7960/untitled15cv.jpg
This is gold.

[SirFozzie]

Yeah, what cracks me up about these guys with the windfarms, are the same people that say we need less dependence upon oil for power...

And the same folks who gas up their SUV's weekly.

[caspanky]

My favorite NIMBY types are the ones who try to change the area after they by a house and move in. Example: A neighborhood of semi new houses near the airport (which was there LONG before the houses) is trying to get the airport closed down. They are complaining about the noise. Now this is a VERY small rural type airport, that maybe 5 planes use daily. I mean, if you were buying a house, that you know is near an airport, wouldn't you expect to hear a plane occasionally? Apparently these people have the attitude, "i'm gonna by my house near an airport and then try to have the airport shut down" I mean seriously WTF?

[st.cronin]

Not sure if this belongs in this thread or not, but what the hell: Here in Santa Fe, there are several local organizations whose mission supposedly is feeding hungry people. Well, today they had organized a big protest outside of Kentucky Fried Chicken, trying to organize a boycott because of their cruelty to chickens.

[sabotai]

You might need to change your sig to include "Ted Kennedy", since he's one of the more vocal opponents of this.

He, of course, believes in alternative energy and wants windmills built practically everywhere else...just not on Nantucket Sound.

[bronconick]

I can't find the site back, but these things are so far out to sea, combined with the curvature of the horizon, that the "obstructed view" from shore is that each windmill is equivalent to 1/4 the size of the full moon, or a fraction of a percent of the view.

[sabotai]

John Stossel mentioned this in his new book

*looks it up*

"In 2000, a group called Cape Winds proposed to erect 130 windmills in Nantucket Sound, off the coast of Massachusetts. I think the drawings make them look interesting, but - horrors! - they would be visible from the Kennedy family vacation compound in Hyannis Port. Robert Kennedy Jr., high poo-bah of the enviromental zealotry movement, is leading a campaign to ban the windmills from Nantucket Sound. The group he leads, the Waterkeeper Alliance, says it supports wind farms - but Kennedy fights the one near his home. What a hypocrite."

(page 205, if anyone wants to look it up)

[cthomer5000]

FAQ:
http://www.capewind.org/FAQ-Category4-Cape+Wind+Basics-Parent0-myfaq-yes.htm

Visibility Illustrations:
http://www.capewind.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=9&page=1

[dawgfan]

Well, it does mess up the view a bit, so I can understand people being upset about that, but it also is a classic case of NIMBY attitudes where something that most people advocate in principle they oppose in practice because it directly impacts them.

[dawgfan]

NIMBY people suck. It's partially why we haven't built a refinery in this country in over 20 years. It's also why we have had no nuclear plants for even longer than that.
I think the nuclear power issue is as much about the issue of what to do with the spent fuel rods as it is NIMBY's not wanting a power plant nearby for fear of a meltdown or emissions release.

[stevew]

windmills 5 miles out, and if they actually help make energy that helps everyone else, I'd think it would be cool to look and see them. But im not elite, so my opinion doesnt matter to the hypocrites.

[wade moore]

My favorite NIMBY types are the ones who try to change the area after they by a house and move in. Example: A neighborhood of semi new houses near the airport (which was there LONG before the houses) is trying to get the airport closed down. They are complaining about the noise. Now this is a VERY small rural type airport, that maybe 5 planes use daily. I mean, if you were buying a house, that you know is near an airport, wouldn't you expect to hear a plane occasionally? Apparently these people have the attitude, "i'm gonna by my house near an airport and then try to have the airport shut down" I mean seriously WTF?

Mini-threadjack...

One of these airports is almost literally a stones throw from my house (ok, in reality, about .5 mile as a crow flies).

I actually LIKE it being there. I like the calming noise of the propellar engines and seeing the small planes fly around - I would be mad if it ever left.

[caspanky]

There are actually two airports near me that this is happening at. The one that's not as close to me currently (I used to live under the approach path) has airshows a few times a year, and it's great to be outside and see an old B-25 or something buzz your house.

[sabotai]

Visibility Illustrations:
http://www.capewind.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=9&page=1

Oh yeah....that really messes up the view.... (end sarcasm)

[dawgfan]

Oh yeah....that really messes up the view.... (end sarcasm)
It's not that they block the view by any stretch - it's that they change the view. From a purely aesthetic standpoint, I'd agree that a view without the windmills poking up at the horizon line is better than the one with them. The question is whether that change is worth killing a possible green energy boost for the region. I don't think it is, but then again, I didn't pay big money for a view that would be altered by this project.

Summary: I think these people should spend more time thinking about what this project means in terms of benefiting the area and supporting green energy initiatives, but I am sympathetic to the fact that their views would be altered for the worse.

[wade moore]

There are actually two airports near me that this is happening at. The one that's not as close to me currently (I used to live under the approach path) has airshows a few times a year, and it's great to be outside and see an old B-25 or something buzz your house.

Actually, I saw a plane practicing for an upcoming airshow while I was out in the garden this weekend...

But I couldn't begin to tell you what kind they are.

[RendeR]

Fuck their views, its not their property, they have no say in the matter. If they don't like the fact that the world does NOT revolve around their arrogant self absorbed asses, they can sell their million dollar homes and move somewhere else.

Better yet, don't build the windmills at all, simply defray the amount of savings they would have given everyone and tac it onto the rich bastards bills. Let's see how much they cry when their electric bills go from 100.00 a month to 10,000 a month.

I'm thinking I'd love to see that option tried.

[clintl]

NIMBY people suck. It's partially why we haven't built a refinery in this country in over 20 years.

That's not true. A Chevron memo from 1995 recently leaked out stating the oil industry needed to reduce refining capacity in order to improve low profit margins. Since then, the industry has been shutting down refineries that already exist. No refineries have been built because the oil industry hasn't wanted to build any.

[ISiddiqui]

That's not true. A Chevron memo from 1995 recently leaked out stating the oil industry needed to reduce refining capacity in order to improve low profit margins. Since then, the industry has been shutting down refineries that already exist. No refineries have been built because the oil industry hasn't wanted to build any.

Well the fact that the rate of return on refining was under 5% until last year probably did factor into it (you could easily have gotten better return in many other industries). Though one thing I do have to take issue with is that refining in the US has gone UP in the last few years through new technologies allowing refineries to refine more crude than previously.

Also all the environmental permits lead to about a 10 year wait on average before a ground can even be broken on a refinery. In a low ROR industry like refining was, that wasn't a good bet to make. That is where a lot of NIMBY comes in as well.

It's more complicated that the oil companies wanted profits and clamped down on refining. There is a indepedant potential refinery company in Arizona (known for making a 'greener' refinery) who has waited 6 years, including having to move for NIMBY purposes, for EPA permits and is still waiting to break ground.

[MrBigglesworth]

John Stossel mentioned this in his new book

*looks it up*

"In 2000, a group called Cape Winds proposed to erect 130 windmills in Nantucket Sound, off the coast of Massachusetts. I think the drawings make them look interesting, but - horrors! - they would be visible from the Kennedy family vacation compound in Hyannis Port. Robert Kennedy Jr., high poo-bah of the enviromental zealotry movement, is leading a campaign to ban the windmills from Nantucket Sound. The group he leads, the Waterkeeper Alliance, says it supports wind farms - but Kennedy fights the one near his home. What a hypocrite."

(page 205, if anyone wants to look it up)
That doesn't necessarily make him a hypocrite. "You are in favor of prisons? But you oppose them building one next door to your house! HYPOCRITE!"

[Mustang]

It's a proven fact that building more Windmills increases the Dutch population so, who can blame them....




:D

[MrBigglesworth]

There are two things I hate in this world: people who are intolerant of other peoples' cultures, and the Dutch.

[caspanky]

Actually, I saw a plane practicing for an upcoming airshow while I was out in the garden this weekend...

But I couldn't begin to tell you what kind they are.

Well, there is that other thread on here, that has people identifying planes. Post a pic in it and someone will know. :)

[clintl]

There is a indepedant potential refinery company in Arizona (known for making a 'greener' refinery) who has waited 6 years, including having to move for NIMBY purposes, for EPA permits and is still waiting to break ground.

As for the NIMBYism with regard to refineries, I have driven through the Martinez-Benicia, CA, area, where most of the Northern California refineries are located, and it doesn't smell very good. So I don't blame anyone for not wanting a refinery in their back yard. They should never be built near residential areas.

[sabotai]

That doesn't necessarily make him a hypocrite. "You are in favor of prisons? But you oppose them building one next door to your house! HYPOCRITE!"
The windmill farm isn't being built right next door to his house. (Not to mention the multiple additional reasons to not want a prison near your house, least of which is the asthetic effect.)

[MrBigglesworth]

The windmill farm isn't being built right next door to his house. (Not to mention the multiple additional reasons to not want a prison near your house, least of which is the asthetic effect.)
I can come up with a million other examples. People love cellphones, but don't want ugly cell phone towers in obvious places. Like it or not, it IS a better view without the towers there. Maybe Nantucket is the best place in the world for them, I don't know. If they bring the most benefit there then maybe they should be placed there.

[Warhammer]

As for the NIMBYism with regard to refineries, I have driven through the Martinez-Benicia, CA, area, where most of the Northern California refineries are located, and it doesn't smell very good. So I don't blame anyone for not wanting a refinery in their back yard. They should never be built near residential areas.

Shows how long I've been in my business, I enjoy the smell of refineries. Now protein rendering plants? No thank you!

[sabotai]

People love cellphones, but don't want ugly cell phone towers in obvious places.
And I would call them hypocrites if they protested the building of a cell phone tower that dotted the horizon from several miles away.

Like it or not, it IS a better view without the towers there.
Opinion, not fact.

Maybe Nantucket is the best place in the world for them, I don't know. If they bring the most benefit there then maybe they should be placed there.
A decision that should not be left up to you or the hypocrites like Kennedy. It is a decision for the land owners, even if it would be a terrible place for them and even if it absolutely destroyed neighboring land value.

[clintl]

A decision that should not be left up to you or the hypocrites like Kennedy. It is a decision for the land owners, even if it would be a terrible place for them and even if it absolutely destroyed neighboring land value.

I don't agree with that. I don't believe people have an absolute right to use their property in ways that causes harm to other people and their properties, and that one of the proper roles for government is to set policies that provide balance between the rights and interests of private citizens when they are in conflict. That's partly what zoning ordinances are supposed to do.

[SirFozzie]

well, the latest twist, is Kennedy has basically convinced the senators to pass a bill that would allow the Massachusetts Governor to forbid the building of the generators EVEN IF THEY GOT ALL FEDERAL PERMITS REQUIRED!

Does the state of MA own the land 5.2 miles out?

[sabotai]

I don't agree with that. I don't believe people have an absolute right to use their property in ways that causes harm to other people and their properties

Harm to the people and their property?

If we're talking actual damages (which I wasn't), then I agree. If we're just talking about the possibility of land value going down, I don't agree. You have no guarentee that land you buy will not go down in value over time, nor do you have a right to make sure no one is able to do anything that decreases it. Can you even imagine what it would be like if no one was allowed to do anything that could potentially hurt someone else's land value?

[sovereignstar]

Harm to the people and their property?

If we're talking actual damages (which I wasn't), then I agree. If we're just talking about the possibility of land value going down, I don't agree. You have no guarentee that land you buy will not go down in value over time, nor do you have a right to make sure no one is able to do anything that decreases it. Can you even imagine what it would be like if no one was allowed to do anything that could potentially hurt someone else's land value?

Do you happen to live in a trailer park?

[sabotai]

Do you happen to live in a trailer park?

:confused:

I don't understand why you would ask this.

[George]

Unfortunately, in my job, I often have to deal with NIMBYs. I also have to deal with BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) and CAVE people (Citizens against virtually Everything).

[st.cronin]

Unfortunately, in my job, I often have to deal with NIMBYs. I also have to deal with BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) and CAVE people (Citizens against virtually Everything).

We have a lot of those in Santa Fe. There is a story, which I believe, that somebody bought a house on a dirt road, and wanted to tear down the chicken coop in the back yard. When his neighbors found out, they had it declared an "historic landmark."

[clintl]

Harm to the people and their property?

If we're talking actual damages (which I wasn't), then I agree. If we're just talking about the possibility of land value going down, I don't agree. You have no guarentee that land you buy will not go down in value over time, nor do you have a right to make sure no one is able to do anything that decreases it. Can you even imagine what it would be like if no one was allowed to do anything that could potentially hurt someone else's land value?

I believe that government has a duty to implement zoning ordinances that prevent new development from destroying the property values of others. If government doesn't do that, the result is blight, decay, and the eventual death of the community.

[sabotai]

I believe that government has a duty to implement zoning ordinances that prevent new development from destroying the property values of others. If government doesn't do that, the result is blight, decay, and the eventual death of the community.

I absolutely disagree that it would lead to that.

Agree to disagree I guess (as long as we don't end up living near each other. If we do, it's war. ;) )

[MrBigglesworth]

Harm to the people and their property?

If we're talking actual damages (which I wasn't), then I agree. If we're just talking about the possibility of land value going down, I don't agree. You have no guarentee that land you buy will not go down in value over time, nor do you have a right to make sure no one is able to do anything that decreases it. Can you even imagine what it would be like if no one was allowed to do anything that could potentially hurt someone else's land value?
I agree that nobody has a 'right' to not allow anyone to do anything that decreases your property value, but don't you agree that someone has a right to petition the government to not allow something that perhaps would not be in the public good? Isn't that the basic purpose of government?

[MrBigglesworth]

Opinion, not fact.
If it weren't fact, then why is this an issue at all? Maybe you like windmills, I don't know, but a vast majority of people would rather look at the open ocean.

[sabotai]

If it weren't fact, then why is this an issue at all?

Let me get this straight. You are saying what is or is not aesthetically pleasing is a fact, not an opinion?

[st.cronin]

Whether the change to the view is aesthetically pleasing or not is, shall we say, opinion. Whether or not the view has changed is apparently a fact.

[sabotai]

I agree that nobody has a 'right' to not allow anyone to do anything that decreases your property value, but don't you agree that someone has a right to petition the government to not allow something that perhaps would not be in the public good?

No. I'd say they have the right to talk to the land owners and discuss the issue with them. They have a right to ask the public to speak up to try to get the land owners to change their minds. They have a right to publish newspaper/magazine/TV ads out the whazoo (sp?) against what the land owners want to do.

Petitioning the government always strikes me as "We know only a few people really care or agree with us, so we want people with lots of guns to force others to do what we want."

If building a bunch of windmills out on an island is against the public good, I would think (and I should know better considering how wonderful our government is) that they would not give the builders the permits to build the windmills.

If Robert Kennedy Jr and his band of enviro-crites (I just coined that word. I also copyright it. TM, bitches) want to plead their case to the people who issue the permits...ok, fine. That would be, considering our system, acceptable. Plead your case to the permit issuers on why you think the windmills should not be built.

But he goes right over their heads, essencially, and gets laws passed that says the governor can not allow something to be built, even if all permits have been issued and it's all clear to go. That's, flat out, bullshit.

[MrBigglesworth]

Let me get this straight. You are saying what is or is not aesthetically pleasing is a fact, not an opinion?
It's as much an opinion as "shit smells bad" is an opinion.

[sabotai]

It's as much an opinion as "shit smells bad" is an opinion.

Flies seem to like it. :D

[MrBigglesworth]

No. I'd say they have the right to talk to the land owners and discuss the issue with them. They have a right to ask the public to speak up to try to get the land owners to change their minds. They have a right to publish newspaper/magazine/TV ads out the whazoo (sp?) against what the land owners want to do.

Petitioning the government always strikes me as "We know only a few people really care or agree with us, so we want people with lots of guns to force others to do what we want."

If building a bunch of windmills out on an island is against the public good, I would think (and I should know better considering how wonderful our government is) that they would not give the builders the permits to build the windmills.

If Robert Kennedy Jr and his band of enviro-crites (I just coined that word. I also copyright it. TM, bitches) want to plead their case to the people who issue the permits...ok, fine. That would be, considering our system, acceptable. Plead your case to the permit issuers on why you think the windmills should not be built.

But he goes right over their heads, essencially, and gets laws passed that says the governor can not allow something to be built, even if all permits have been issued and it's all clear to go. That's, flat out, bullshit.
You contradict yourself. You say he should go to the landowner, not get laws passed to say that the governor can act to not allow it. However, the windmills are being put in the middle of Nantucket Sound, and private property rights for large bodies of water end at the water line. Therefore, Nantucket Sound is owned by the state. So, in effect, by passing a law they DID go to the landowners.

[sabotai]

You contradict yourself. You say he should go to the landowner, not get laws passed to say that the governor can act to not allow it. However, the windmills are being put in the middle of Nantucket Sound, and private property rights for large bodies of water end at the water line. Therefore, Nantucket Sound is owned by the state. So, in effect, by passing a law they DID go to the landowners.

I didn't know that the land is owned by the state. My general point still stands (contradiction free).

[sabotai]

Dola,

The state owns the land, but the federal government is voting to kill the project. An amendment was attached to a Coast Guard spending bill. So if the Coast Guard spending bill gets passed, the project gets killed. So yeah, "they" are going over the heads of the landowners (the state).

Ha ha, no contradiction at all. :p

[Axxon]

If it weren't fact, then why is this an issue at all? Maybe you like windmills, I don't know, but a vast majority of people would rather look at the open ocean.

Well, that still makes it opinion though right? Just because it's a majority opinion doesn't make the opinion fact, right?

Please say right or explain exactly how the square earth suddenly became round because for centuries that was the majority opinion.

[Axxon]

Whether the change to the view is aesthetically pleasing or not is, shall we say, opinion. Whether or not the view has changed is apparently a fact.

Yep, and a cloudy day changes the view. We should outlaw those too. And birds. Bastards change my view all the time. Kill them all.

Hey, I'm not picking at you, we agree here but this is where that straw man leads to.

Laughable that some would try and defend this. :)

[Axxon]

It's as much an opinion as "shit smells bad" is an opinion.

So, it's an opinion then. Thanks for finally coming to your senses.

[MrBigglesworth]

Well, that still makes it opinion though right? Just because it's a majority opinion doesn't make the opinion fact, right?

Please say right or explain exactly how the square earth suddenly became round because for centuries that was the majority opinion.
This is a textbook example of a semantic argument to distract from the point. It is non-sensical to argue that the windmills wouldn't effect the view because it's just an "opinion" that it looks bad.

[WVUFAN]

This is a textbook example of a semantic argument to distract from the point. It is non-sensical to argue that the windmills wouldn't effect the view because it's just an "opinion" that it looks bad.

From viewing those pictures, the view ISN'T obstructed in any meaningful manner. That's an opinion. To say that the view is obstructed isn't the question, it's the level that it is, and whether a person's "right" to a good view overshadows the "right" of the rest of the area to less expensive and enviromentally safer energy.

Personally, I believe the Kennedy's aren't entitled to a damn thing in this case. Of course, like one's perspective on what is "obstructive" or not, that is just an opinion.

[Axxon]

This is a textbook example of a semantic argument to distract from the point. It is non-sensical to argue that the windmills wouldn't effect the view because it's just an "opinion" that it looks bad.

Well,

1. Windmills won't effect the views but they do affect the views

2. whether that effect would be that it looks bad is simply an opinion. You generally are still arguing the fact that they are visible is a bad thing and that my friend is merely an opinion which is what I've been saying.

I never said that they wouldn't have an effect. Never. I simply said it was an opinion that that effect would be bad. No semantics involved though you did make quite the leap in trying to twist my words from the effect being bad to it having no effect. That's dishonest debate.

[Axxon]

Dola, your post which led to sabotai's quote which led to you saying it's a fact, which led to my post, phew. :)


Like it or not, it IS a better view without the towers there.


This clearly seems to state that the effect on the view is bad, not that there is or isn't an effect which is what you tried to argue with me.

[Axxon]

From viewing those pictures, the view ISN'T obstructed in any meaningful manner. That's an opinion. To say that the view is obstructed isn't the question, it's the level that it is, and whether a person's "right" to a good view overshadows the "right" of the rest of the area to less expensive and enviromentally safer energy.

Personally, I believe the Kennedy's aren't entitled to a damn thing in this case. Of course, like one's perspective on what is "obstructive" or not, that is just an opinion.

Please, you're just arguing textbook semantics. ;)

[MrBigglesworth]

To say that the view is obstructed isn't the question, it's the level that it is, and whether a person's "right" to a good view overshadows the "right" of the rest of the area to less expensive and enviromentally safer energy.
Yes, I know. That is what I am saying, but sabotai and apparently Axxon are trying to declare that it being a bad view can't be used as an argument to not have them there because it is just an opinion.

[MrBigglesworth]

I never said that they wouldn't have an effect. Never. I simply said it was an opinion that that effect would be bad. No semantics involved though you did make quite the leap in trying to twist my words from the effect being bad to it having no effect. That's dishonest debate.
:rolleyes: Obviously when I was talking about it not having an effect, I was talking about it not having a bad effect, which is what sabotai was talking about. And you, apparently, and it's just a non-sensical argument because everyone with property there is against it because of its negative effect on the view.

[Axxon]

Yes, I know. That is what I am saying, but sabotai and apparently Axxon are trying to declare that it being a bad view can't be used as an argument to not have them there because it is just an opinion.

Damn, how did you make this huge leap of nonsense?

Here's my post


Well, that still makes it opinion though right? Just because it's a majority opinion doesn't make the opinion fact, right?

Please say right or explain exactly how the square earth suddenly became round because for centuries that was the majority opinion.

How do you get any idea that I said that a flawed argument can't be used to defend a position out of that ? I assuredly pointed out that the logic was flawed which it is. I never said you couldn't use it. I didn't state an opinion on the whole windmill issue in fact.

Use whatever argument you want to prove your point. Argue that the windmills shouldn't be there because it's a fact that they cause cancer or that it's a fact that they are translucent. Doesn't matter one bit to me.

None of these are facts either.

I couldn't give a flip but you won't convince anyone who cares to think about what they believe if your logic is totally flawed.

But hey, you play to your audience. Being right isn't important. Convincing people to buy your point is. Knock yourself out.

I do like the evolution of the desperate mind though. Oh, crap, I was proven wrong on a relatively minor point but instead of admitting it and moving on I'm going to just change the argument and dig a deeper hole by stating another misstatement. Hopefully they'll have pity on me and move on before I hit China.

Keep spinning and soon no one will even remember which side of the windmill argument you're even on.

[Axxon]

:rolleyes: Obviously when I was talking about it not having an effect, I was talking about it not having a bad effect, which is what sabotai was talking about. And you, apparently, and it's just a non-sensical argument because everyone with property there is against it because of its negative effect on the view.

:rolleyes: Do you remember saying this?


Like it or not, it IS a better view without the towers there.


Didn't you also say

If it weren't fact, then why is this an issue at all? Maybe you like windmills, I don't know, but a vast majority of people would rather look at the open ocean.

Thus directly saying yet again that it's a fact because the majority of people believe it? Yep, you sure did.

Did I not state that majority opinion does not make something a fact? Yep, sure did.


Do you remember my next answer?


Well, that still makes it opinion though right? Just because it's a majority opinion doesn't make the opinion fact, right?


See, my point isn't that hard to see. I'm not discussing the windmill issue because your argument is so offbase it has distracted me from the issue trying to get past your stunningly ignorant position that majority opinion = fact.

Now, you just said that you didn't think it had a bad effect. That's just plain bizarre.

You go on to say

it's just a non-sensical argument because everyone with property there is against it because of its negative effect on the view.

Which still doesn't make it a fact it merely makes it their opinion which is all I was saying. Damn, it's not that hard to follow.

[WVUFAN]

Yes, I know. That is what I am saying, but sabotai and apparently Axxon are trying to declare that it being a bad view can't be used as an argument to not have them there because it is just an opinion.

And you're right (I can't believe I'm saying that), of course it can be used as an argument. One can argue that primary reason why someone would buy expensive property in that area is the view and scenery. They can argue that their investment (property) has been devalued because of this development.

I don't agree with that argument, but then again, I didn't spend millions of dollars buying that property, so I wouldn't have that same perspective as they do.

[sabotai]

Yes, I know. That is what I am saying, but sabotai and apparently Axxon are trying to declare that it being a bad view can't be used as an argument to not have them there because it is just an opinion.

I was not saying that. You read into things too much (like a few other people that I've given up on having a real conversation with. After this and plenty of other examples of various traits, I think you'll join that list).

I was merely pointing out something that you stated as a fact was really just an opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

[dawgfan]

When speaking of aesthetics, you are talking about opinion. What is garbage for some is gold for others.

That said, how many people here honestly feel like the addition of those windmills wouldn't detract from the view?

[wade moore]

When speaking of aesthetics, you are talking about opinion. What is garbage for some is gold for others.

That said, how many people here honestly feel like the addition of those windmills wouldn't detract from the view?

*raises hand*

[st.cronin]

Yep, and a cloudy day changes the view. We should outlaw those too. And birds. Bastards change my view all the time. Kill them all.

Hey, I'm not picking at you, we agree here but this is where that straw man leads to.

Laughable that some would try and defend this. :)

I was not taking sides, just pointing out that the folks arguing are not talking about the same thing, so there's little hope of any sort of resolution.

My side is that I think wind power in general is a crappy idea, but that part of the country has a very high percentage of dickheads living there, so fuck em.

[dawgfan]

*raises hand*
Maybe I'd get used to it over time, but for me theres a big difference between natural objects off the coast or at the horizon line and static, man-made objects. If there were windmills like these off the Pacific coastline in my parent's view of the ocean, I think it would detract from my opinion of the view. I'd appreciate what they meant and the benefit they were providing, but I'd still think the view was better before they were there, but maybe that would change over time.

Part of it is the look of the windmills - for example, I didn't have any issue with the water intake islands off the Chicago lakefront - they were interesting to look at. These windmills on the other hand just aren't visually interesting to me on the ocean horizon line. Funny thing is, I'm not sure I'm as bothered seeing them on land.

[dawgfan]

My side is that I think wind power in general is a crappy idea...
Why is that?

[MrBigglesworth]

Axxon, are you serious? Are you really writing thousand word essays on a stupid semantic argument that changes nothing about the argument? Is it a slow day in Phoenix or something? Get a life, man. For your own good.

[MrBigglesworth]

I was not saying that. You read into things too much (like a few other people that I've given up on having a real conversation with. After this and plenty of other examples of various traits, I think you'll join that list).

I was merely pointing out something that you stated as a fact was really just an opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.
So I was to assume that your statement had no point germane to our discussion, and to assume that what you said actually had a point is a sin worthy of declaring me unable to have a discussion with? Fair enough.

[sabotai]

So I was to assume that your statement had no point germane to our discussion

What I said did have a point. There is a huge difference between debating something on fact, and debating something on opinion. You can make an argument against something by saying it doesn't look good to you (which I'm sure is a topic of constant debate among people like architects and artists). But at the end of the day, you're still just debating tastes.

But that's not what you did. You stated it as an absolute truth (and tried to argue it as such because the majority of people hold the same opinion. Basically trying to state it was fact because most people held that opinion). What makes you not worth my time anymore is that you do not understand the fundamental difference between a fact and an opinion (plus many other things).

[Axxon]

*raises hand*

Me too, and I know a woman who loves them and lighthouses and she has paintings, statues, postcards etc of both all over her house.

My argument is that just because you believe something doesn't mean everyone does. THat's why it's an opinion. :)

[Axxon]

Axxon, are you serious? Are you really writing thousand word essays on a stupid semantic argument that changes nothing about the argument? Is it a slow day in Phoenix or something? Get a life, man. For your own good.

Got it. You're wrong, you know you're wrong but you're too stubborn to admit you're wrong but since you're out of arguments you pull the get a life card.

[MrBigglesworth]

What I said did have a point. There is a huge difference between debating something on fact, and debating something on opinion. You can make an argument against something by saying it doesn't look good to you (which I'm sure is a topic of constant debate among people like architects and artists). But at the end of the day, you're still just debating tastes.

But that's not what you did. You stated it as an absolute truth (and tried to argue it as such because the majority of people hold the same opinion. Basically trying to state it was fact because most people held that opinion). What makes you not worth my time anymore is that you do not understand the fundamental difference between a fact and an opinion (plus many other things).
So I did read into it correctly, even though you said that I didn't. Odd.

So are you trying to say that they are lying about it effecting their view in a negative manner? Is there some other reason they don't want to have the windfarm there that they are covering up? What exactly is your argument behind making absolutely sure that it is termed an opinion?

[MrBigglesworth]

Got it. You're wrong, you know you're wrong but you're too stubborn to admit you're wrong but since you're out of arguments you pull the get a life card.
That's opinion, not fact.

[Axxon]

What I said did have a point. There is a huge difference between debating something on fact, and debating something on opinion. You can make an argument against something by saying it doesn't look good to you (which I'm sure is a topic of constant debate among people like architects and artists). But at the end of the day, you're still just debating tastes.

But that's not what you did. You stated it as an absolute truth (and tried to argue it as such because the majority of people hold the same opinion. Basically trying to state it was fact because most people held that opinion). What makes you not worth my time anymore is that you do not understand the fundamental difference between a fact and an opinion (plus many other things).

He understand's but won't admit it. You're banging your head against a wall. Me, I find it amusing but you may want to consider that you're not discussing this with an honest debater at this point.

[Axxon]

That's opinion, not fact.

Every bit except the you're wrong part certainly is opinon. See, you're starting to learn how it works already. It isn't hard.

[MrBigglesworth]

Every bit except the you're wrong part certainly is opinon. See, you're starting to learn how it works already. It isn't hard.
Axxon, did I inadvertantly sleep with your wife? I don't understand where this hatred is coming from. You're going on a dozen posts now filled with personal attacks arguing about whether a statement of preference that a vast majority of people agree with can be reasonably termed a 'fact', about whether "it's a better view" and "most everyone on the planet thinks it's a better view" are nuanced statements that have a definite impact on the argument, where the former is a lie and the latter is unmistakable. This is just classic semantics, and I don't understand where the bile is coming from.

[Axxon]

Axxon, did I inadvertantly sleep with your wife? I don't understand where this hatred is coming from. You're going on a dozen posts now filled with personal attacks arguing about whether a statement of preference that a vast majority of people agree with can be reasonably termed a 'fact', about whether "it's a better view" and "most everyone on the planet thinks it's a better view" are nuanced statements that have a definite impact on the argument, where the former is a lie and the latter is unmistakable. This is just classic semantics, and I don't understand where the bile is coming from.

Trust me, it's not bile. It's bemusement at this point. You said I've had dozens of posts attacking you too and I've read my posts and the worst I've done is say you are stubborn and once I said your argument was the product of a desparate mind which is an opinion and if it = dozens of posts of personal attacks I must say, I'm stunned.

Could you kindly point out any attacks other than the extremely weak examples above which I'll gladly retract if you wish.

[MrBigglesworth]

Trust me, it's not bile. It's bemusement at this point. You said I've had dozens of posts attacking you too and I've read my posts and the worst I've done is say you are stubborn and once I said your argument was the product of a desparate mind which is an opinion and if it = dozens of posts of personal attacks I must say, I'm stunned.

Could you kindly point out any attacks other than the extremely weak examples above which I'll gladly retract if you wish.
Your last twelve posts in this thread have either 1) a personal attack ("dishonest", "desperate", etc) 2) sarcasm ("Please, you're just arguing textbook semantics") 3) condescension ("Damn, it's not that hard to follow") and/or 3) creation and knocking down of a straw man (like in the post I quote here, where you make up that I have accused you of "dozens" of posts, when my quote was, "going on a dozen", and in fact I count 13 posts including your last, so I was actually underestimating the number).

I'm just curious as to where that stuff comes from arguing the semnatic difference between "it's a better view" and "most everyone on the planet thinks it's a better view" and whether it is appropriate to label it a fact. And in the course of doing so, you implicitly agreed with someone (WVUFAN) that agreed with me, and mocked me for NOT agreeing with him. Where is this coming from? Any idea? Did I kick your dog?

And I've ignored your numerous non sequiturs and apparent lack of basic knowledge of the arguments being presented, so it's not like you have any reason to get into a stupid argument with me. I'm just confused by the whole affair. It seems like you are trying to argue against my point (like in your post to st. cronin), but whether or not it's termed as an opinion or fact that the view gets worse has absolutely no bearing on the point. You can call it pumpkin pie and the logic would remain: the people don't like the changes that the windmills make, so they have a right to argue against them.

[Axxon]

Your last twelve posts in this thread have either 1) a personal attack ("dishonest", "desperate", etc) 2) sarcasm ("Please, you're just arguing textbook semantics") 3) condescension ("Damn, it's not that hard to follow") and/or 3) creation and knocking down of a straw man (like in the post I quote here, where you make up that I have accused you of "dozens" of posts, when my quote was, "going on a dozen", and in fact I count 13 posts including your last, so I was actually underestimating the number).

I'm just curious as to where that stuff comes from arguing the semnatic difference between "it's a better view" and "most everyone on the planet thinks it's a better view" and whether it is appropriate to label it a fact. And in the course of doing so, you implicitly agreed with someone (WVUFAN) that agreed with me, and mocked me for NOT agreeing with him. Where is this coming from? Any idea? Did I kick your dog?

And I've ignored your numerous non sequiturs and apparent lack of basic knowledge of the arguments being presented, so it's not like you have any reason to get into a stupid argument with me. I'm just confused by the whole affair. It seems like you are trying to argue against my point (like in your post to st. cronin), but whether or not it's termed as an opinion or fact that the view gets worse has absolutely no bearing on the point. You can call it pumpkin pie and the logic would remain: the people don't like the changes that the windmills make, so they have a right to argue against them.


Honestly, I haven't been all over the place with my point. I've been exceedingly exact and precise in what I'm pointing out. I wasn't and haven't been discussing what you are arguing. I can't. I haven't had the time to research the issue so wouldn't feel comfortable doing that.

I also have been very careful to attack your statements not you, the two examples I stated aside. I do sincerely apologize if you took that the wrong way.

The reason I pursue it is the same reason I pick a sore. It irritates me. That's all. A simple, you know, I know it's not a fact and I misspoke would have stopped it but you never did that. You started with sabs and then with me and called it a fact and it isn't. That rubs me the wrong way, especially when it's someone who presents some valid thoughts. IMHO, those who have something to say really need to say it right. That's why I continue to pick.

From this perspective it's crystal clear why I agreed with WVUFAN

( bolding mine )

From viewing those pictures, the view ISN'T obstructed in any meaningful manner. That's an opinion. To say that the view is obstructed isn't the question, it's the level that it is, and whether a person's "right" to a good view overshadows the "right" of the rest of the area to less expensive and enviromentally safer energy.

Personally, I believe the Kennedy's aren't entitled to a damn thing in this case. Of course, like one's perspective on what is "obstructive" or not, that is just an opinion.


So, he is stating what you should have been stating, have been coming around to stating but never willing to come out and state with me thus me calling you stubborn. Hey, this all started with you saying sabs was incorrect, remember and he was saying the same thing I was.

Also, I agree that WVUFAN nicely stated the premise of the real debate and again, it's not an issue I'm informed enough about to debate. The whole fact vs opinion thing is.

Again, the clearer you can make your point the more effective the point becomes.

[AlexB]

My favorite NIMBY types are the ones who try to change the area after they by a house and move in. Example: A neighborhood of semi new houses near the airport (which was there LONG before the houses) is trying to get the airport closed down. They are complaining about the noise. Now this is a VERY small rural type airport, that maybe 5 planes use daily. I mean, if you were buying a house, that you know is near an airport, wouldn't you expect to hear a plane occasionally? Apparently these people have the attitude, "i'm gonna by my house near an airport and then try to have the airport shut down" I mean seriously WTF?

This happens so often you would not believe - in my line of work I come across a lot of people who buy properties backing onto schools/sports clubs/cricket clubs who then complain about the noise that is made by the organisation that has been there 100 years plus.

Most people are basically dickheads.

[dawgfan]

My argument is that just because you believe something doesn't mean everyone does. THat's why it's an opinion. :)
I never claimed differently, which is why I agreed that aesthetic judgements are opinions. I'm honestly curious how many people think that the addition of those windmills doesn't negatively impact the view from the shore.

[Axxon]

I never claimed differently, which is why I agreed that aesthetic judgements are opinions. I'm honestly curious how many people think that the addition of those windmills doesn't negatively impact the view from the shore.

Oh, I never said you did. I did say that honestly I like windmills and it wouldn't impact my view one bit. I know another who I can say the same thing about. Now, would it negatively impact land value I can't say but intuitively I'd say that it's likely that it would.

[st.cronin]

Why is that?

Wind power has horrific enviromental consequences, much more visible and devastating than the dirtiest coal plants. And it has the same reliability issues that solar power does.