Long Islanders suffer from NIMBY syndrome

[Hailstorm]

I don't see why not... but I doubt anyone would think of that because it seems too obvious. And I don't think it would appease the NIMBies any... I think they just like to complain.

 

@ Hailstorm - I don't give a crap what it costs for beachfront property. The place where they're putting the windmills does not belong to them... and unless a vote passes against putting the windmills up' date=' they should go up. If these people "need" an uninterupted view of the water, to the point where they are willing to sacrifice the environmental integrity of the earth, then they can move anywhere they want... preferably to hell.[/quote']

 

I know you don't give a crap what it costs for beachfront property, because you wouldn't be the one losing it. Before you get on your "enviromental integrity of the earth" bandwagon there are a whole lot of OTHER things that can be done. If everything humanly possible to "preserve the earth" or whatever nonesense you want to call it was already done, then perhaps I'd agree with you. You don't own the "space" above your house, would you like it if the FAA decided to install a large tarp to fully surround your house? Hell, we can make it out of tinfoil and you wont even have to worry about "wasting" energy heating.

[ecoli]

I know you don't give a crap what it costs for beachfront property, because you wouldn't be the one losing it. Before you get on your "enviromental integrity of the earth" bandwagon there are a whole lot of OTHER things that can be done. If everything humanly possible to "preserve the earth" or whatever nonesense you want to call it was already done, then perhaps I'd agree with you. You don't own the "space" above your house, would you like it if the FAA decided to install a large tarp to fully surround your house? Hell, we can make it out of tinfoil and you wont even have to worry about "wasting" energy heating.

 

Did you even read the article? The windmills aren't above their houses, there going to be four miles offshore... and you can hardly see them from the artistic rendering of what the project will look like. Nobody will have to move off of their beach front property, there isn't going to be any emminent domain kicking people out of their homes.

 

It's just a bunch of homeowners blowing around a lot of hot air because they're too uneducated to realize how badly we need alternative energies.

[Mokele]

The problem is the benefit of society versus the benfit of the individual. If the individuals want monetary compensation for any loss of property value, fine, but one cannot let the desires of the few override the good of the many.

 

Would it suck if something like that had to be done near my home? Yes. Would I whine, probably. But that's just because I'm a big bald ape who's fundamentally selfish by nature. Sometimes doing what's right, especially for society as a whole, means overcoming those ape instincts.

 

Mokele

[Hailstorm]

Did you even read the article? The windmills aren't above their houses' date=' there going to be four miles offshore... and you can hardly see them from the artistic rendering of what the project will look like. Nobody will have to move off of their beach front property, there isn't going to be any emminent domain kicking people out of their homes.

 

It's just a bunch of homeowners blowing around a lot of hot air because they're too uneducated to realize how badly we need alternative energies.[/quote']

 

Your argument was that since it wasn't their property anyway, they need to "stfu and deal with it, for the benefit of you."

 

It's just "uneducated" people like you who fail to realize why we need alternative energies that badly. The current state of affairs is simply so far from the "absolute" altruism you're describing.

[ecoli]

Your argument was that since it wasn't their property anyway, they need to "stfu and deal with it, for the benefit of you."

 

Not just me. For the benefit of everyone and the earth.

 

It's just "uneducated" people like you who fail to realize why we need alternative energies that badly[/i']. The current state of affairs is simply so far from the "absolute" altruism you're describing.

 

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool then to speak and remove all doubt."

 

You, sir, have removed all doubt.

[Hailstorm]

Not just me. For the benefit of everyone and the earth.

 

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool then to speak and remove all doubt."

 

You' date=' sir, have removed all doubt.[/quote']

 

Once you have left the confines of your altruistic/communist ideal world, after reality has bitchslapped you across the face... you can let us know what you've learned.

[cosine]

 

 

Once you have left the confines of your altruistic/communist ideal world' date=' after reality has bitchslapped you across the face... you can let us know what you've learned.[/quote']

 

This is not an arguement, its just the rejection of human goodness.

[ecoli]

Once you have left the confines of your altruistic/communist ideal world' date=' after reality has bitchslapped you across the face... you can let us know what you've learned.[/quote']

 

When the oil wells run dry, and it costs $500 bucks to fill up the gas tank, and you have no oil to heat your home, no oil to run your electric generators, then we'll see who is doing the bitch-slapping.

 

You seem to be out of tune with what you wish could happen and reality. If you think that our current oil supplies will support us forever, then you need a reality check. If you don't think that CO2 admissions are adding to Global warming, possibly distrupting weather patterns, the sea level, etc. then you need to stop listening to the Bush administration and get other sources.

 

Also, if you expect ANYONE to agree with you, then you need to stop hiding behind your petty insults. Stop calling me names and come up with evidence to support your opinions. Calling me "uneducated" doesn't change the obvious truth; you're opinions are biased against the truth.

 

What do you think that the world's problems will just go away because capatalism is such a perfect system? We can only push the earth so far.

 

As cosine said, you are not providing an argument so much as trying to argue with me... and you're way off the mark, too.

 

If I thought the world was ideal, then I wouldn't have to be worrying about global warming and gas prices. The people who are fighting the wind turbines wouldn't have to worry about their precious "view" because there would be no need for alternative energy.

 

As it is, these NIMBies are the ones who are living in an idealistic world, as are you. You think that you are not responsible for the world's probelms. You can complain about how clean energy is disrupting your fun, then get in you SUVs and drive to the nearest political office and complain about it.

 

So, hailstorm, I say to you, when you leave the confines of your ideal world, when the cost of oil has caused a depression because of people like you who didn't see any reason to invest in alternative energies, then we are all bitchslapped, and niether of us will have the money nor the energy to turn on our computers and you won't be able to throw insults at me.

[Hailstorm]

This is not an arguement, its just the rejection of human goodness.

 

How many people die of malnourishment every day? Time to stop drinking starbucks, sell your computer, ride your bike to work, and start feeding.

 

 

When the oil wells run dry' date=' and it costs $500 bucks to fill up the gas tank, and you have no oil to heat your home, no oil to run your electric generators, then we'll see who is doing the bitch-slapping.

 

You seem to be out of tune with what you wish could happen and reality. If you think that our current oil supplies will support us forever, then you need a reality check. If you don't think that CO2 admissions are adding to Global warming, possibly distrupting weather patterns, the sea level, etc. then you need to stop listening to the Bush administration and get other sources.

 

Also, if you expect ANYONE to agree with you, then you need to stop hiding behind your petty insults. Stop calling me names and come up with evidence to support your opinions. Calling me "uneducated" doesn't change the obvious truth; you're opinions are biased against the truth.

 

What do you think that the world's problems will just go away because capatalism is such a perfect system? We can only push the earth so far.

 

As cosine said, you are not providing an argument so much as trying to argue with me... and you're way off the mark, too.

 

If I thought the world was ideal, then I wouldn't have to be worrying about global warming and gas prices. The people who are fighting the wind turbines wouldn't have to worry about their precious "view" because there would be no need for alternative energy.

 

As it is, these NIMBies are the ones who are living in an idealistic world, as are you. You think that you are not responsible for the world's probelms. You can complain about how clean energy is disrupting your fun, then get in you SUVs and drive to the nearest political office and complain about it.

 

So, hailstorm, I say to you, when you leave the confines of your ideal world, when the cost of oil has caused a depression because of people like you who didn't see any reason to invest in alternative energies, then we are all bitchslapped, and niether of us will have the money nor the energy to turn on our computers and you won't be able to throw insults at me.[/quote']

 

It's not me that needs proof/evidence.

 

Your arugment is as follows:

 

People have to do/put up with something they don't want

The thing they don't want would very minorly benefit humanity as a whole

The people should "stfu" and "do it"

 

Simply put, your argument does not hold any water.

 

You're not talking about a broadsweeping measure, such as an increased tax on oil-based products. You're talking about forcing an extremely small segment of the population, who are an even smaller part of the problem, to do something so everybody else doesn't have to.

[ecoli]

How many people die of malnourishment every day? Time to stop drinking starbucks, sell your computer, ride your bike to work, and start feeding.

 

How do you know how much money cosine donates to charities, how do you know that he even has a car, he does live in NYC, how do you know that he likes drinking Starbucks. Stop avoiding the issues by these stupid, nasty comments.

 

 

 

 

It's not me that needs proof/evidence.

 

Your arugment is as follows:

 

People have to do/put up with something they don't want

The thing they don't want would very minorly benefit humanity as a whole

The people should "stfu" and "do it"

 

Do you think that there are so many problems in the world that is is unimportant to take care of local ones? "Think Globally' date=' Act Locally"... saving the earth starts at home. Perhaps by doing this, other's will follow suit.

Yes, I do believe these people should stop complaining, because they don't know how good this would be for the earth. Every little bit counts.

 

If I understand your arguments correctly, we shouldn't bother with the windmills, because it wouldn't solve all the world's problems at once.

Well, what happens when we can't afford gas anymore, then these windmills would make that region very lucky indeed. And guess who would get first dibs on that energy... that's right, the very people who are complaining about it now, the local residents.

 

 

Simply put, your argument does not hold any water.

 

You're not talking about a broadsweeping measure, such as an increased tax on oil-based products. You're talking about forcing an extremely small segment of the population, who are an even smaller part of the problem, to do something so everybody else doesn't have to.

 

You're right, I''m not talking about broad sweeping measures... because this is a LOCAL ISSUE. If this thread was about increasing taxes on oil-based products, then I'd be right up there with you, arguing for it.

 

As it is, I'm not going to talk about widespread reform, something that I strongly support, when I'm talking about putting up windmills on Long Island. SOmething that LONG ISland would benefit from.

 

Long Island is a land of consumers, perhaps more here then anywehre else. All our money is consumer-oriented, we have virtually no production facilities, save a few vineyards.

 

We consume a lot of oil and petroleum products. If we were able to switch even a small portion of this to alternatice energies, it would save a lot, for the Earth, now and for our pockets, later.

 

So don't start making assumptions that my argument holds any water because I'm not using arguments that are only indirectly related to the issue or the posted article - which I still doubt you have read yet.

[Hailstorm]

So let me get this cleared up, since apparently you have a staff member babysitting you:

 

You think that a certain segment of the general populace should bear the burden for something for the benefit of everybody else.

 

Your argument to support this is: "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"

 

Directly, (without strawmanning) I believe your argument to state that: "The benefit of the many outweigh the desires/rights of the few"

 

since you're directly relating to violating the desires/rights of a certain populace in order to benefit everybody.

 

In other words, you're directly advocating "blind altruism" for the "sake of humanity" on the basis of "human goodness."

 

My counter argument is that: "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few" by and large, does not apply to current human-human interactions.

 

You respond by saying that "we're too uneducated" and slippery sloping your way to the apocalypse.

 

I tell you that you're the "uneducated one," and that you simply do not understand how the world is currently working.

 

You demand "proof/evidence" from me to that the world doesn't operate on blind altruism.

 

I point out that we let huge numbers of people suffer/die every day because it would inconvience us too much to help them. Suggesting that this "human goodness" is a completely bogus idea.

 

You respond with: You only want to apply this locally, because it would just be too damn inconvienient for you to apply it globally.

 

+

 

"Every little thing counts"

 

To which I will respond:

 

You seem to be viewing the installation of the wind mills as the ONLY solution to the problem. I personally believe that there are many other, more attractive solutions which should be ratafied BEFORE you consider forcing the minority population into paying to benefit you. If you banned SUV/Trucks from the general popluation who couldn't demonstrate sufficient need, if you forced people to ride their bikes to work if possible, if you forced factories to adhere to higher standards of emissions (globally, since really we're getting alot of the crap floating over from india/china where the envrioment is by far a secondary concern to feeding the populace), and so forth.

[Martin]

"Think Globally, Act Locally"... saving the earth starts at home...

 

BTW I accidentally came across this in Yahoo news

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051028/sc_afp/taiwanenergy;_ylt=AjBjSr07FfymV.MF7_EgLIgiANEA;_ylu=X3oDMTA4NmhocGZ1BHNlYwMxNzAw

 

Taiwan is another place (like Denmark and Germany) where they are going ahead with windpower and beginning to get a subtantial part of what they need.

[ecoli]

@ hailstorm... I comend you... this is your first semi-rational post in this thread. Up until now, you have been merely straw-manning without any clear goals or providing ideas...though I would still like to see less of it.

 

 

So let me get this cleared up, since apparently you have a staff member babysitting you:

 

As I said before, personal attacks on my opinions are childish and should cease right now. If you post something like this again, I'll report you to a mod.

 

You think that a certain segment of the general populace should bear the burden for something for the benefit of everybody else.

 

First of all, you talk about bearing some heavy burden as if the local populace would have to sacrifice some important thing if the windmills are in place. You do realize that the major thing the homeowners are complaining about is the aesthitics part of the situation. Since you probably still haven't read the article, I'll show you this picture (please actually look at it)

 

http://www.lipower.org/images/cei/pan_jones_lg.jpg

 

 

This is an artistic projection of what the windmills would look like. Does it seem like too heavy a burden to carry?

 

I don't know about you... but I can hardly see the small white windmills on the horizon...

 

Directly' date=' (without strawmanning) I believe your argument to state that: "The benefit of the many outweigh the desires/rights of the few"[/quote']

 

Your almost right. Ususally I would not support "the needs of many support the few" but in this case, I don't see the fact that the citizens of jones beach's need to preserve there view as a need. I view it more as a selfish desire, one ungrounded in actual need. It's more born out of selfishness then anything else.

 

[/quote=hailstorm]since you're directly relating to violating the desires/rights of a certain populace in order to benefit everybody.

 

I don't think you're using the right words... I think violating is kind of harsh... the windmills are 5 miles off shore... hardly their property. Technically the property belongs to all the people, not just the ones who can see it from their houses. If the people want the windmills, then they should go up, despite the few who don't want it... such is the spirit of democracy. If you don't like what the majority wants, you have to put up and shut up.

 

[/quote=Hailstorm]In other words, you're directly advocating "blind altruism" for the "sake of humanity" on the basis of "human goodness."

 

Don't put words in my mouth. That's not even close to what I said. For the sake of the earth, we have to cut fossil fuel consumption. I don't see how you pulled this statement out of you ass.

 

My counter argument is that: "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few" by and large, does not apply to current human-human interactions.

 

Normally, I would agree with you here. But to this specific situation, the "needs" of the few are too self-absorbed to acutally be considered needs.

 

You respond by saying that "we're too uneducated" and slippery sloping your way to the apocalypse.

 

By posting this, you are poving my point perfectly. The fact that you are denying the fact that energy problems will be of "apocalyptal" porpotions shows that you clearly are uneducated about the situation.

 

I tell you that you're the "uneducated one," and that you simply do not understand how the world is currently working.

 

And yet no matter how many times you say this empty drivel, you still don't tell me how you think the world is currently working. I can't even respond to tell you how I think you are wrong, because you simply aren't telling me anything here.

 

I think you either don't understand how the world works, or your position is limited to your situaiton so you do not see how things are.

 

I point out that we let huge numbers of people suffer/die every day because it would inconvience us too much to help them. Suggesting that this "human goodness" is a completely bogus idea.

 

You'll notice that I never once mentioned the word human goodness...

 

and you'll notice that I never mentioned that I though malnutrition was human goodness. You are so far off topic that I hardly know what you're responding to anymore.

While I agree with you that the reason people are starving is that it is too "incovienent," this has little if nothing to do with the windmills on Long Island. Please make relevant posts.

 

 

You respond with: You only want to apply this locally, because it would just be too damn inconvienient for you to apply it globally.

 

It's amuzing how you are putting words in my mouth... you are twisting my meanings and words... probably to avoid addressing the acutal situation... Are you just trying to personally annoy me??

 

Inconvienent is certainly not the right word... its simply impossible, as unfortunate as it may be. The costs to switch completely to windpower overnight would be staggering. The changes to alternative energy needs to happen gradually, on the local level.

 

That is what I meant...

 

You seem to be viewing the installation of the wind mills as the ONLY solution to the problem. I personally believe that there are many other, more attractive solutions which should be ratafied BEFORE you consider forcing the minority population into paying to benefit you. If you banned SUV/Trucks from the general popluation who couldn't demonstrate sufficient need, if you forced people to ride their bikes to work if possible, if you forced factories to adhere to higher standards of emissions (globally, since really we're getting alot of the crap floating over from india/china where the envrioment is by far a secondary concern to feeding the populace), and so forth.

 

WOW, what a hypocritical statement!

First you are blaming me for trying to "take away the rights of the individual for the greater human good" by "forcing" them to so inconvienced to have to look at a windmill five miles away from their homes.

 

Then, you switch completely by suggesting that we take away people's rights to drive SUV's to work, and force them to ride bicycles so humanity can benefit from clean air.

 

That's a turn around I didn't expect. So what, is alternative energies to supply electricity not ok but it is for transportation. Care to explain this hypocrasy?

 

On the other hand... I think you're right. We do need to do more... that windmills are not enough to save the environment. You are right... we do need to make environmentalism a global effort. But it has to start at the local level. Do you think all the countries in the world will be able to turn around over night and be able to completely overhaul the energy system? It doesn't work like that... not even a little bit. We need to act locally, setting up windmills is a good beginning, carpooling to work is a good start... but it isn't, as you say, enough.

 

However, you are suggesting that because you think it won't make a big enough difference in the bigger picture, then its not worth doing. I say you are wrong. It needs to start small. Perhaps other comunities will see what they are doing and follow suit. Martin mentioned a project in Japan... this is what it boils down to. The communities who are using the energy must make an effort to switch.

 

 

 

@Martin... nice find. I'm glad to see someone benefitting from windpower. You see... that's what Long Island could be like.

[Hailstorm]

@ hailstorm... I comend you... this is your first semi-rational post in this thread. Up until now' date=' you have been merely straw-manning without any clear goals or providing ideas...though I would still like to see less of it.

 

 

 

 

As I said before, personal attacks on my opinions are childish and should cease right now. If you post something like this again, I'll report you to a mod.

 

 

 

First of all, you talk about bearing some heavy burden as if the local populace would have to sacrifice some important thing if the windmills are in place. You do realize that the major thing the homeowners are complaining about is the aesthitics part of the situation. Since you probably still haven't read the article, I'll show you this picture (please actually look at it)

 

http://www.lipower.org/images/cei/pan_jones_lg.jpg

 

 

This is an artistic projection of what the windmills would look like. Does it seem like too heavy a burden to carry?

 

I don't know about you... but I can hardly see the small white windmills on the horizon...

 

 

 

Your almost right. Ususally I would not support "the needs of many support the few" but in this case, I don't see the fact that the citizens of jones beach's need to preserve there view as a need. I view it more as a selfish desire, one ungrounded in actual need. It's more born out of selfishness then anything else.

 

since you're directly relating to violating the desires/rights of a certain populace in order to benefit everybody.

 

I don't think you're using the right words... I think violating is kind of harsh... the windmills are 5 miles off shore... hardly their property. Technically the property belongs to all the people, not just the ones who can see it from their houses. If the people want the windmills, then they should go up, despite the few who don't want it... such is the spirit of democracy. If you don't like what the majority wants, you have to put up and shut up.

 

[/quote=Hailstorm']In other words, you're directly advocating "blind altruism" for the "sake of humanity" on the basis of "human goodness."

 

Don't put words in my mouth. That's not even close to what I said. For the sake of the earth, we have to cut fossil fuel consumption. I don't see how you pulled this statement out of you ass.

 

 

 

Normally, I would agree with you here. But to this specific situation, the "needs" of the few are too self-absorbed to acutally be considered needs.

 

 

 

By posting this, you are poving my point perfectly. The fact that you are denying the fact that energy problems will be of "apocalyptal" porpotions shows that you clearly are uneducated about the situation.

 

 

 

And yet no matter how many times you say this empty drivel, you still don't tell me how you think the world is currently working. I can't even respond to tell you how I think you are wrong, because you simply aren't telling me anything here.

 

I think you either don't understand how the world works, or your position is limited to your situaiton so you do not see how things are.

 

 

 

You'll notice that I never once mentioned the word human goodness...

 

and you'll notice that I never mentioned that I though malnutrition was human goodness. You are so far off topic that I hardly know what you're responding to anymore.

While I agree with you that the reason people are starving is that it is too "incovienent," this has little if nothing to do with the windmills on Long Island. Please make relevant posts.

 

 

 

 

It's amuzing how you are putting words in my mouth... you are twisting my meanings and words... probably to avoid addressing the acutal situation... Are you just trying to personally annoy me??

 

Inconvienent is certainly not the right word... its simply impossible, as unfortunate as it may be. The costs to switch completely to windpower overnight would be staggering. The changes to alternative energy needs to happen gradually, on the local level.

 

That is what I meant...

 

 

 

WOW, what a hypocritical statement!

First you are blaming me for trying to "take away the rights of the individual for the greater human good" by "forcing" them to so inconvienced to have to look at a windmill five miles away from their homes.

 

Then, you switch completely by suggesting that we take away people's rights to drive SUV's to work, and force them to ride bicycles so humanity can benefit from clean air.

 

That's a turn around I didn't expect. So what, is alternative energies to supply electricity not ok but it is for transportation. Care to explain this hypocrasy?

 

On the other hand... I think you're right. We do need to do more... that windmills are not enough to save the environment. You are right... we do need to make environmentalism a global effort. But it has to start at the local level. Do you think all the countries in the world will be able to turn around over night and be able to completely overhaul the energy system? It doesn't work like that... not even a little bit. We need to act locally, setting up windmills is a good beginning, carpooling to work is a good start... but it isn't, as you say, enough.

 

However, you are suggesting that because you think it won't make a big enough difference in the bigger picture, then its not worth doing. I say you are wrong. It needs to start small. Perhaps other comunities will see what they are doing and follow suit. Martin mentioned a project in Japan... this is what it boils down to. The communities who are using the energy must make an effort to switch.

 

 

 

@Martin... nice find. I'm glad to see someone benefitting from windpower. You see... that's what Long Island could be like.

 

 

In regards to your "blatant attacks on my personal opinion" I would kindly refer you to the post which you blanket-labeled everybody who disagreed with you "uneducated." No further explanation is required here.

 

So, how this is going to have to work (to put the straw man crap to rest) is that you're going to have to state DIRECTLY in a point-by-point (bulleted style) stating:

 

What the problem is:

 

IE: Alternative energy

 

What you propose to do about it:

 

IE: Install windmills

 

Who is going to be negatively affected by your solution:

 

IE: The residents

 

Who is going to be positively affected by your solution:

 

IE: Everybody in the immediate area without an ocean view

 

Why you feel that you should be able to violate the rights of the ocean view owners*:

* First note that our interpretations of the "eye sore" are very different. Be aware that I live on the ocean. While this is relative to an extent, there are still emotional/financal hardships which are being DIRECTLY levied on the "beach owners" (the majority of the benefit would go to others). If per say, you wanted to give the beach owners partial ownership of the created power (IE: They can sell it) your argument would have some more validity, although this would still require their (near) complete cooperation. You also state that "it's not technically their property" which is also bogus. The property was bought with full intentions of an uninterrupted view of the water, as has been the custom for hundreds of years. My point with placing a tarp over/around your house is that you don't "technically" own the sky, nor any of the surrounding land. Therefore, the government should be able to put a tarp over your house if it benefited somebody else (your neighbor next door wants to divert the water to a vegetable garden so they can feed homeless people).

 

Now we're going to use a currency that I'm defining as "inconvienence units" which have a value relating to the "inconvienence" they cause to somebody, whether financial or otherwise.

 

Now state, why, being NUMEROUS other projects that we could embark on to "save the world" which would have vastly more efficient "inconvienence unit":benefit ratio that should arguably be done first (no suburban humvees/people on wellfare if they drive have to drive econo/hybrid vehicles and so on). We could also reduce the emissions from various factories/plants both at home and around the globe (again, in india/china/south america/africa the profit margin>>>enviromental impact because people would rather eat than breath clean air).

 

Additionally, please review my previous post, and restate anything that I may have interpreted from you DIRECTLY IN YOUR OWN WORDS/Or state if you simply disagree, or under X circumstance ect.

 

Also, please note that the "human goodness" wasn't directly related to you, but it was previously brought up in the post. You seem to be embracing the idea.

 

Finally, your paragraph on my "hipocrasy" was both wholly misinterpreted and incredibly pathetic of you. I stated that the way that you are "defending your actions" could also be applied to force other segments of the general populace to experiance "inconvience units" in order to benefit other people. Please note that this is a slightly different argument because it gets into the sticky area of fairness, in that the people who are driving SUVs/Trucks without reason are a direct cause of the problem, and therefore instituting penalties against them as a result of their causing the problem is not as "unfair" as penalizing the residents of long island (or those with waterfront).

[ecoli]

In regards to your "blatant attacks on my personal opinion" I would kindly refer you to the post which you blanket-labeled everybody who disagreed with you "uneducated." No further explanation is required here.

 

I think you'll notice that I did not' date=' in fact, do this. I said that there are uneducated because they didn't understand the current situation with energy and fuel costs. If they do understand and simply don't care, then thats a completely different situation.

 

Why you feel that you should be able to violate the rights of the ocean view owners*:

* First note that our interpretations of the "eye sore" are very different. Be aware that I live on the ocean. While this is relative to an extent, there are still emotional/financal hardships which are being DIRECTLY levied on the "beach owners" (the majority of the benefit would go to others).

 

I still can't imagine what you think an eye-sore is... ask again, did you or did you not see the picture of the windmills?

 

If per say' date=' you wanted to give the beach owners partial ownership of the created power (IE: They can sell it) your argument would have some more validity, although this would still require their (near) complete cooperation. You also state that "it's not technically their property" which is also bogus. The property was bought with full intentions of an uninterrupted view of the water, as has been the custom for hundreds of years. My point with placing a tarp over/around your house is that you don't "technically" own the sky, nor any of the surrounding land. Therefore, the government should be able to put a tarp over your house if it benefited somebody else (your neighbor next door wants to divert the water to a vegetable garden so they can feed homeless people).

 

Again, I don't think you saw the picture. The tiny windmills you can barely see is a far cry from wrapping a tarp around their houses. You're analogy doesn't work at all. You are trying to overblow an analogy to take apart my sensible argument... guess what; it's not working.

 

Now state, why, being NUMEROUS other projects that we could embark on to "save the world" which would have vastly more efficient "inconvienence unit":benefit ratio that should arguably be done first (no suburban humvees/people on wellfare if they drive have to drive econo/hybrid vehicles and so on). We could also reduce the emissions from various factories/plants both at home and around the globe (again, in india/china/south america/africa the profit margin>>>enviromental impact because people would rather eat than breath clean air).

 

Once again, I believe these are sensable actions... but ignoring the great potential for windmills is not.

 

Additionally, please review my previous post, and restate anything that I may have interpreted from you DIRECTLY IN YOUR OWN WORDS/Or state if you simply disagree, or under X circumstance ect.

 

Virtually everytime you put words in my mouth, when you say something along the lines of... "this is what you are saying" you are twisting my words, and turn them into something I never meant.

 

 

Finally, your paragraph on my "hipocrasy" was both wholly misinterpreted and incredibly pathetic of you.

 

If I misinterpreted your post then I apologize. There is no reason for you to call me pathetic. As I said, name-calling is not appreciated.

 

I stated that the way that you are "defending your actions" could also be applied to force other segments of the general populace to experiance "inconvience units" in order to benefit other people. Please note that this is a slightly different argument because it gets into the sticky area of fairness, in that the people who are driving SUVs/Trucks without reason are a direct cause of the problem, and therefore instituting penalties against them as a result of their causing the problem is not as "unfair" as penalizing the residents of long island (or those with waterfront).

 

Well, now I understand that you were being ironic... try to be clearer next time.

 

Also, I don't understand why the people who live on the beachfront should see the windmills as being a penalty. It is not costing too much extra, and eventually it'll wind up saving money. I understand that you think they are getting a raw deal... they are the only ones that really have to sacrifice anything. But, I also see a case of relativism. What I consider a sacrifice is apparently far more terrible then what these beach owners think is a sacrifice. They are unwilling to sacrifice a tiny portion of their view for the benefit of the earth and their less rich, non-beach owning neighbors.

[Hailstorm]

 

Virtually everytime you put words in my mouth' date=' when you say something along the lines of... "this is what you are saying" you are twisting my words, and turn them into something I never meant.

 

Also, I don't understand why the people who live on the beachfront should see the windmills as being a penalty. It is not costing too much extra, and eventually it'll wind up saving money. I understand that you think they are getting a raw deal... they are the only ones that really have to sacrifice anything. But, I also see a case of relativism. What I consider a sacrifice is apparently far more terrible then what these beach owners think is a sacrifice. They are unwilling to sacrifice a tiny portion of their view for the benefit of the earth and their less rich, non-beach owning neighbors.[/quote']

 

With regards to me putting words in your mouth: that's why I specifically asked you to state things, in a point-by-point bases IN YOUR OWN WORDS, so I don't have to "interpret" your rants. If you don't post your opinions in a clear, concise manner I HAVE TO INTERPRET THEM. To which you later scream "straw-man," which is completely unfair.

 

Again, your interpretation of the view is completely relative. You think it's "no big deal" and I think it looks like absolute crap. My "tarp analogy" was just fine. You're justification for taking away a moderately large number of people's views is "well... it's not technically their property." Well, wouldn't you be willing to deal with a little less sunlight to feed hungry/starving people? It seems like a pretty small inconvience relative to the benefit (to me).

[ecoli]

With regards to me putting words in your mouth: that's why I specifically asked you to state things, in a point-by-point bases IN YOUR OWN WORDS, so I don't have to "interpret" your rants. If you don't post your opinions in a clear, concise manner I HAVE TO INTERPRET THEM. To which you later scream "straw-man," which is completely unfair.

 

I don't believe my posts are unclear... I believe you are interpreting them with the pure intention to twist my words... However, I will try to be more clear.

 

Again, your interpretation of the view is completely relative.

 

As is yours...

 

You think it's "no big deal" and I think it looks like absolute crap.

 

Difference of opinion based on difference experiances/backgrounds, etc. It's unaviodable, I suppose. However, I have tried to see where you are coming from with your posts. I have conceided that the way the residence of Jones Beach are looking at the situation is far different then mine. you have made no attempt to do this, however. Part of debating is trying to see both angles and then make an opinion. I have done this... you have not.

 

My "tarp analogy" was just fine. You're justification for taking away a moderately large number of people's views is "well... it's not technically their property." Well, wouldn't you be willing to deal with a little less sunlight to feed hungry/starving people? It seems like a pretty small inconvience relative to the benefit (to me).

 

This analogy does not work for several reasons.

 

1) there is a huge difference is scale. Wrapping a tarp around my house is far more obstuctive then the windmills would be. You're talking about completely blocking out the sun... I am talking about tiny white things in the distant horizon... http://www.lipower.org/images/cei/pan_jones_lg.jpg look at the picture, I ask for the third time.

 

2) How would wrapping a tarp around my house help feed hungy people? I'm still not sure how you got to that one.

 

3) If I felt that wrapping a tarp around my house would actually help... then I would consider it. However, I can't see how it would.

 

4) The view would not be taking away. Yes, if you don't like seeing white windmills then I would feel bad for you. However, next to my house, I have a noisy buissness with loud trucks moving aroaund all the time... I find it annoying... but can I do anything about it? No, I cannot, and even if I could, I still recognize that buissnisses right to make noise before 11 pm... which is official curfew for loud noises around here, IIRC...

 

Its still a case of relativism. However, if the residence of Jones beach are that distressed over having to see the windmills, then I feel sorry for them.

[Hailstorm]

I don't believe my posts are unclear... I believe you are interpreting them with the pure intention to twist my words... However' date=' I will try to be more clear.

 

 

 

As is yours...

 

 

 

Difference of opinion based on difference experiances/backgrounds, etc. It's unaviodable, I suppose. However, I have tried to see where you are coming from with your posts. I have conceided that the way the residence of Jones Beach are looking at the situation is far different then mine. you have made no attempt to do this, however. Part of debating is trying to see both angles and then make an opinion. I have done this... you have not.

 

 

 

This analogy does not work for several reasons.

 

1) there is a huge difference is scale. Wrapping a tarp around my house is far more obstuctive then the windmills would be. You're talking about completely blocking out the sun... I am talking about tiny white things in the distant horizon... http://www.lipower.org/images/cei/pan_jones_lg.jpg look at the picture, I ask for the third time.

 

2) How would wrapping a tarp around my house help feed hungy people? I'm still not sure how you got to that one.

 

3) If I felt that wrapping a tarp around my house would actually help... then I would consider it. However, I can't see how it would.

 

4) The view would not be taking away. Yes, if you don't like seeing white windmills then I would feel bad for you. However, next to my house, I have a noisy buissness with loud trucks moving aroaund all the time... I find it annoying... but can I do anything about it? No, I cannot, and even if I could, I still recognize that buissnisses right to make noise before 11 pm... which is official curfew for loud noises around here, IIRC...

 

Its still a case of relativism. However, if the residence of Jones beach are that distressed over having to see the windmills, then I feel sorry for them.

 

You can disagree with me all you want, people pay hundreds of thousands->millions of dollars (more than an equivilent) for quality ocean-view lots.

 

The windmills look like absolute crap, and do nothing whatsoever to foster what is desired in an ocean view lot.

 

Until you're actually willing to post out your argument in a point by point fashion, which I've asked you NUMEROUS TIMES. I don't see the point in wasting my time with you.

[ecoli]

You can disagree with me all you want, people pay hundreds of thousands->millions of dollars (more than an equivilent) for quality ocean-view lots.

 

yes they do... which is why it's stinks for them that the only place that the windmill project would work is offshore.

 

The windmills look like absolute crap, and do nothing whatsoever to foster what is desired in an ocean view lot.

 

That's a matter of opinion... and the language is unappreciated.

 

Until you're actually willing to post out your argument in a point by point fashion, which I've asked you NUMEROUS TIMES. I don't see the point in wasting my time with you.

 

Actually I've been doing that throughout the entire thread, with the excpetion of the last couple of posts. I stopped doing it because you stopped making post that are worthwhile to respond to. This has been the worst debate I've ever been in, and believe me that I have been wasting my time with you.

 

All off you posts have been more involved with attacking me rather then debating the issue. You have been irrational throughout the entire debate, refusing to even consider any of my ideas. I have conceided numerous points to you, have you given me this courtesy? No, you have not.

 

Indeed, I agree that this issue will change significantly depending on where you are coming from... you have not accepted that fact, you do not see where I am coming from. Frankly, given that most of posts have been less then courteous.

[Hailstorm]

If you consider your rants and how you "quite frankly don't care" a debate perhaps you should...

 

forget it.

 

You've never clearly stated any argument other than "Boo-hoo I want cheaper electricity and you should have to look at stupid windmills."

 

I've more than accepted the fact that the issue changes significantly depending on what side you view it from. If you're unaffected by the negatives of a proposal, but you stand to benefit from the positives of course you support it. If you're getting screwed out of hundreds of thousands of dollars just for the hell of it, then you probably care. This is the whole concept behind NIMBY, everybody wants to benefit from something (a landfill for instance) but nobody actually wants the landfill near them.

 

Ohh, and for the record: Where exactly was I being irrational?

[ecoli]

If you consider your rants and how you "quite frankly don't care" a debate perhaps you should...

 

forget it.

 

Yes... I think this will be my last post in this thread.

 

You've never clearly stated any argument other than "Boo-hoo I want cheaper electricity and you should have to look at stupid windmills."

 

Then I guess you didn't read any of my posts... I'm not about to repeat my arguments now just because you didn't get them.

 

I've more than accepted the fact that the issue changes significantly depending on what side you view it from.

 

That's good

 

If you're unaffected by the negatives of a proposal' date=' but you stand to benefit from the positives of course you support it.[/quote']

 

by definition

 

If you're getting screwed out of hundreds of thousands of dollars just for the hell of it, then you probably care. This is the whole concept behind NIMBY, everybody wants to benefit from something (a landfill for instance) but nobody actually wants the landfill near them.

 

Yes... but in this case, who is getting screwed out of hundreds of thousands of dollars??

 

Ohh, and for the record: Where exactly was I being irrational?

 

here is one example

 

So let me get this cleared up' date=' since apparently you have a staff member babysitting you:

You think that a certain segment of the general populace should bear the burden for something for the benefit of everybody else.[/quote']

 

I never said that... doesn't make any sense, esp. about the part about being babysat by a staffmember--- what the hell does that mean, anyway?

[Mokele]

You've never clearly stated any argument other than "Boo-hoo I want cheaper electricity and you should have to look at stupid windmills."

 

He has repeatedly done so, but you've simple failed to notice.

 

I've more than accepted the fact that the issue changes significantly depending on what side you view it from. If you're unaffected by the negatives of a proposal, but you stand to benefit from the positives of course you support it. If you're getting screwed out of hundreds of thousands of dollars just for the hell of it, then you probably care. This is the whole concept behind NIMBY, everybody wants to benefit from something (a landfill for instance) but nobody actually wants the landfill near them.

 

And the only reason this one is garnering any attention is that it must be located in a postion that's trivially inconvenient for rich people. If this was a landfill, it would simple be placed in the poorest part of town, without any real consideration. I would also like to note that I have never heard of any such objections to offshore oil rigs and drilling platforms. Guess it all boil down to who can afford the most expensive lawyers, as usual.

 

As ecoli pointed out, the windmills would be barely visible even on a clear day. On most days, they simply would not be visible due to haze.

 

On top of that, beachfront property is inherently temporary in value, and the failure of the owners to realize or accept that is their own fault. You buy beachfront homes at the risk that erosion, storms, hurricanes or somesuch won't render it worthless/destroyed. A trivial decrease in the quality if view is *nothing* compared to the damage mere circumstance can inflict on such proprety.

 

If you purchase a property for "the view", it *must* be understood that "the view" is *not* part of the property, nor do you have any right to it. Yes, it sucks, but that's life, and sometimes the cards don't fall the way you want them too. If I bought a nice bit of property overlooking some woodland, and later that some woodland was built over, yes, I'd be disappointed, but I'd also realize that I didn't *own* that woodlands; the company that bought it did. In this case, it's the ocean (which is technically under government control rather than private property), but the principle is no different. Do we absolutely need that wind power more than anything else? No, but neither does the hypothetical developer in my scenario above *need* to buy and build on the woodlands I have a view of.

 

Sometimes shit happens. Get over it.

 

Mokele

[ecoli]

thanks Mokele, you state it far better then I could.

[Bio-Hazard]

.. Time To Invest! <-- INTERESTING FORUM FEATURE TAKES AWAY CAPS!!

[Sisyphus]

I know this has been said, but I think it should be stressed how completely relative the "ugliness" of these windmills would be. If you look at places where wind farms like this already exist, like (I believe) in Denmark, they're not at all considered eyesores by the people living there. They're practically tourist attractions. People sail out to them for picnics. I myself grew up less than a mile from some of the biggest smokestacks in the northeastern U.S. (Northport, Long Island), which are far uglier and far more obtrusive, but to the natives are seen as no more than a familiar landmark, even for those homeowners whose water views feature the stacks prominently. I really believe that if these things were actually put up, the complaining would disappear within a few years, and any ultimate effect on property values would be minimal.