If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Vancouver Sun)   Energy company says oil spills are good for the economy because they create jobs. No, seriously, they said that   (vancouversun.com) divider line 37
    More: Fail, Kinder Morgan, Multnomah County Sheriff, water body, energy industry, oil spills  
•       •       •

2624 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 May 2014 at 2:50 AM (12 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



37 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-05-05 07:41:35 PM
I think someone's crying wolf over broken windows...
 
2014-05-05 07:47:38 PM
And I see the broken window fallacy is already covered.
 
2014-05-05 08:06:55 PM
It's not ALL about the jobs, idiots.  Not poisoning the land/air/water is pretty important as well.
 
2014-05-05 08:34:50 PM

kronicfeld: And I see the broken window fallacy is already covered.


There's no reason to believe that the energy company was guilty of the broken window fallacy, though. That's just subby's delusion. The broken window fallacy is about the net effect of damaging something.
 
2014-05-05 10:00:37 PM
And Adolf Hitler brought Germany the Autobahn

/DARWIN'D
 
2014-05-06 12:15:54 AM
Smoking is good for the economy because it creates jobs for oncologists and pharmacists.
 
2014-05-06 01:35:24 AM
Murdering oil company execs is good for the economy because it creates jobs for cops, prosecutors, defense lawyers, coroners, and life insurance agents.
 
2014-05-06 01:35:50 AM

Notabunny: Smoking is good for the economy because it creates jobs for oncologists and pharmacists.


AND cuts retirement costs!
 
2014-05-06 01:37:19 AM

itcamefromschenectady: kronicfeld: And I see the broken window fallacy is already covered.

There's no reason to believe that the energy company was guilty of the broken window fallacy, though. That's just subby's delusion. The broken window fallacy is about the net effect of damaging something.


I'm confused. What's delusional about the headline?
 
2014-05-06 02:56:12 AM
Except often little is done to clean up an oil spill, only to sweep it under a rug.
 
2014-05-06 02:56:16 AM

fusillade762: itcamefromschenectady: kronicfeld: And I see the broken window fallacy is already covered.

There's no reason to believe that the energy company was guilty of the broken window fallacy, though. That's just subby's delusion. The broken window fallacy is about the net effect of damaging something.

I'm confused. What's delusional about the headline?


It calls into question our lords and masters the oil execs and companies.
 
2014-05-06 03:05:06 AM
www.thesnipenews.com
 
2014-05-06 03:05:27 AM
Yet another reason I'd be willing to spend more money for renewable energy: because oil companies are bastards.
 
2014-05-06 03:09:58 AM

itcamefromschenectady: kronicfeld: And I see the broken window fallacy is already covered.

There's no reason to believe that the energy company was guilty of the broken window fallacy, though.


The energy company can't be guilty of the broken window fallacy because in the original formulation the broken window fallacy is ascribed to the onlookers, not to the window breaker and window fixer. To the breaker and the fixer the broken window is simply a fact of life, they need not justify it--it is the crowd that must offer the justification.

The fallacy itself is just a permutation on the moral axiom that "one may not do evil so that good may result" and the resulting interminable debates that follow from it.
 
2014-05-06 03:14:50 AM

MrBallou: Murdering oil company execs is good for the economy because it creates jobs for cops, prosecutors, defense lawyers, coroners, and life insurance agents.


That is true, but there should be a negative side and I just can't think of what it is.
 
2014-05-06 03:25:31 AM
If anyone read the article, (I know its Fark) and what the spokesman said about federal requirements to pursue both negative and positive outcomes of spills, then I have no problem with this response.
 
2014-05-06 03:36:58 AM

worlddan: itcamefromschenectady: kronicfeld: And I see the broken window fallacy is already covered.

There's no reason to believe that the energy company was guilty of the broken window fallacy, though.

The energy company can't be guilty of the broken window fallacy because in the original formulation the broken window fallacy is ascribed to the onlookers, not to the window breaker and window fixer. To the breaker and the fixer the broken window is simply a fact of life, they need not justify it--it is the crowd that must offer the justification.

The fallacy itself is just a permutation on the moral axiom that "one may not do evil so that good may result" and the resulting interminable debates that follow from it.


I think you got something wrong in your interpretation. In the broken window fallacy the ONLY beneficiary is the guy repairing the window. Everyone else gets screwed. The victim of the window is now poorer and will have fewer resources to invest in the services of your "onlookers" who in turn become secondary victims as a result.
 
2014-05-06 03:39:43 AM
So basically this guy's argument...

scifiinterfaces.files.wordpress.com

/choke on a dick (not on a cherry)
//hopefully no priests to save your ass
///he is technically correct as long as the disaster isn't *that* bad and insurance pays for all the damages plus some*


*which doesn't always happen so therefore my first slashie stands, choke on it!
 
2014-05-06 03:40:57 AM

fusillade762: Notabunny: Smoking is good for the economy because it creates jobs for oncologists and pharmacists.

AND cuts retirement costs!


You know it's true because Phillip Morris did a study about it.
 
2014-05-06 04:27:30 AM

Smoking GNU: fusillade762: itcamefromschenectady: kronicfeld: And I see the broken window fallacy is already covered.

There's no reason to believe that the energy company was guilty of the broken window fallacy, though. That's just subby's delusion. The broken window fallacy is about the net effect of damaging something.

I'm confused. What's delusional about the headline?

It calls into question our lords and masters the oil execs and companies.


Yup.

These guys are so secure, they trolling us now.
 
2014-05-06 05:08:20 AM
Too bad those jobs are created to restore the status quo rather than to produce new things. If only we didn't have oil spills to clean up, think what wonderful things we could do with that manpower!
 
2014-05-06 05:35:12 AM
By KM's logic, 3-Mile Island, Chernobyl, Exxon-Valdez & the BP Gulf spill were great for the economy. At the time. For the locals. Totally.
 
2014-05-06 05:42:08 AM
Oil slicks give sea birds shiny coats!
 
2014-05-06 06:13:36 AM

The more you eat the more you fart: Yet another reason I'd be willing to spend more money for renewable energy: because oil companies are bastards.


I agree, but when the pendulum swings we'll have to deal with more bastards who build solar panels and batteries.
 
2014-05-06 06:20:26 AM

Notabunny: Smoking is good for the economy because it creates jobs for oncologists and pharmacists.


Divorce is also good as it adds to demand for lawyers and more housing.
 
2014-05-06 06:52:15 AM
/ Came for Zorg
// Left happi
 
2014-05-06 07:07:22 AM
That's almost as dumb as someone in the govt talking how good it is that so many people are out if work, because those people can now start their own businesses.
 
2014-05-06 07:55:17 AM
I mean it is the only argument they have. What would you expect?
 
2014-05-06 09:48:35 AM
 
2014-05-06 09:57:39 AM

jtown:


Zorg is Number One capitalist

// Don't ask about the little red button
 
2014-05-06 10:24:22 AM
This is what politicians shouting "JORBS JORBS JORBS" back and forth at each other as the beginning, middle, and end of their political platforms gets you.
 
2014-05-06 10:59:16 AM

jigger: [graphics8.nytimes.com image 190x240] 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/30/disaster-relief-economic s/


Krugman likes his broken windows.


Came exactly for what I wanted. Krugman would agree with this statement. Damage means repairs which means jobs if you think destruction of currently existing wealth is good

Somewhat amusing when the broken window fallacy is covered when it comes to oil companies but when the king of economics speaks there's nothing but crickets from most of the media. Though the WSJ editorial board does enjoy blasting Krugman any chance they get
 
2014-05-06 11:05:49 AM

The more you eat the more you fart: Yet another reason I'd be willing to spend more money for renewable energy: because oil companies are bastards.


If you don't think renewable energy companies sucking at the teat of federal subsidies aren't just as crooked I have some beachfront property in Arizona I can sell you on the cheap. If you're getting guaranteed dollars why bother with all the trouble of improving the price or quality of your product?
 
2014-05-06 12:02:02 PM
The Earth is organic
Organic matter that produced oil is organic
Oil is organic
Aren't you organic?
 
2014-05-06 12:23:14 PM
Cigarettes are good for the economy. Look at all the people employed making them and treating the illnesses cause by them.

Hell, if we had roving squads of thugs breaking people's legs, imagine the boon for doctors and hospitals!
 
2014-05-06 01:27:02 PM

jigger: [graphics8.nytimes.com image 190x240] 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/30/disaster-relief-economic s/


Krugman likes his broken windows.


img.fark.net
 
2014-05-07 11:13:07 AM
I did make a killing from my "biatch-Slap a BP Executive" booth at the Louisiana State Fair a few years ago. It's portable, and I can easily repaint the sign. So yeah, it would be good for me.
 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report