On Frogs, Land, and Government
-
@blakeyrat said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
Wow, it's like you got the point of my post and yet simultaneously didn't get the point of my post.
I thought the point of your post was to whaargarbl so the conversation was all about you. Isn't that how it usually works?
-
@Jaloopa said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
@HardwareGeek said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
your property becomes endangered species habitat. It likely will become illegal to do things like walk along your creek, because you might step on an endangered frog
Because protecting endangered animals is an evil, horrible thing to do. Let the free hand of the open market determine which animals survive, any species that goes extinct just wasn't trying hard enough and was relying on government handouts!
Protecting endangered animals should take a side stage to protecting human life. Yet there are idiots like these who want to put:
aesthetic, scenic, fish & wildlife habitat, fishing, recreational, and preservational beneficial uses
in front of
water supply storage for remote cities and replaceable electric power production
... by draining the 117 billion gallon water reservoir which is the primary water source for the entire San Francisco bay area, and by tearing down the O'Shaughnessy Dam, which produces 976 gigawatt-hours annually of renewable hydroelectric energy -- about 15% the electrical energy used by the city of San Francisco, and about 0.37% the electrical energy used in whole state of CA. Oh, and in the middle of a huge fucking drought.
So pardon me for assuming that a bunch of stupid frogs would probably be placed ahead of human interests if they were actually found on someone's property.
-
@PJH said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
Not that I'm nit-picking, but I'm fairly certain the one thing they didn't actually want to do was hunt the frogs..
The last time the government wanted to count the numbers of a species, Southern California lost half[1] its drinking water, which the government decided to dump into the ocean.
[1] @Blakeyrat, feel free to whaaargarbl about how it was 47.632% and not "half". But do it in another topic.
-
@anotherusername OK. Is that what was happening here, or was it someone asking to look at some frogs?
-
@anotherusername said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
Oh, and in the middle of a huge fucking drought.
Don't forget dumping a bunch of what's left of the drinking water in the bay to "save" a bait fish.
-
@Jaloopa who knows, but I wouldn't want to volunteer my property to find out.
-
@FrostCat I was actually googling that one, but I found the other one I posted instead.
-
@Jaloopa said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
Is that what was happening here, or was it someone asking to look at some frogs?
If you owned land, would you be willing to take the change that person would come back in six months and claim your land was now a protected wetland, and you couldn't build anything on it (or perhaps couldn't even go on parts of it?) Because that is a thing that actually happens. Good luck selling that land, too--nobody's going to be willing to buy it.
-
@Jaloopa said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
@anotherusername OK. Is that what was happening here, or was it someone asking to look at some frogs?
FTFA:
Your cooperation will be greatly appreciated and will help contribute to the conservation of this important species
I find it difficult to envisage anything other that some form of eminent domain happening if said frogs were discovered.
They aren't just "asking to look at some frogs."
-
@blakeyrat said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
just doing their job
that's never an excuse. don't work for evil organizations
-
I would like to register a complaint to the management that my suggestion for thread title, which was much funnier than what we got, was ignored.
-
@FrostCat said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
If you owned land, would you be willing to take the change that person would come back in six months and claim your land was now a protected wetland, and you couldn't build anything on it (or perhaps couldn't even go on parts of it?)
No, I think I need to kill all the frogs as an example and build a skyscraper
-
@FrostCat said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
I would like to register a complaint to the management that my suggestion for thread title, which was much funnier than what we got, was ignored.
That'll be a $5 registration fee to be allowed to register a complaint, another $15 for the paper complaint form and another $35 form submission surcharge....
You may expedite your complaint by paying a further $50
bribefee...
-
-
@FrostCat said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
If you owned land, would you be willing to take the change that person would come back in six months and claim your land was now a protected wetland, and you couldn't build anything on it (or perhaps couldn't even go on parts of it?)
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about!
Isn't that how it works?
-
How many frog counters does it take to change a lightbulb?
That's not funny.
Why are you being a dick? Just change your own lightbulb.
-
@blek said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
What the hell, the reply wasn't even dickish. It wasn't abuse, it wasn't like screaming at a retail employee or a telemarketer - it was just saying "no" in an elaborate way and pointing out ridiculous demands from government agencies.
Yes. And do you also make "fun" of the cashier for 20 minutes when the director of the bank declined your loan? Of course it was being a dick.
-
@Rhywden Just not a very big one.
-
@flabdablet said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
@Rhywden Just not a very big one.
Oh, just being a "normal" dick makes it completely a-okay, then. Good job.
-
@Rhywden said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
Yes. And do you also make "fun" of the cashier for 20 minutes when the director of the bank declined your loan? Of course it was being a dick.
LOL, I love how you object to people pointing out your lack of a sense of humor while arguing about the manners of a joke.
-
@boomzilla said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
@Rhywden said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
Yes. And do you also make "fun" of the cashier for 20 minutes when the director of the bank declined your loan? Of course it was being a dick.
LOL, I love how you object to people pointing out your lack of a sense of humor while arguing about the manners of a joke.
Yes, we know that you also love dwarf-tossing and think that people trying to catch greased pigs is the epitome of fine humor.
Also, the "Germans have no humour" trope again? Boooooring. Seems that you're a somewhat scratched record.
-
@blek The part that's throwing me is: How is "can I walk along your creek and count frogs?" a, and I quote, "ridiculous demand"? It's neither ridiculous, nor a demand.
-
@blakeyrat said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
@blek The part that's throwing me is: How is "can I walk along your creek and count frogs?" a, and I quote, "ridiculous demand"? It's neither ridiculous, nor a demand.
They are thinking that anything anyone from any kind of governmental institution asks for automatically carries some nefarious purpose.
-
@Rhywden said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
Also, the "Germans have no humour" trope again? Boooooring. Seems that you're a somewhat scratched record.
I was referring to the Germans who responded in the thread. And you keep confirming it!
That aside, I agree, your posting on this subject is very boring.
-
@PJH said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
They aren't just "asking to look at some frogs."
If you subtract the insane conspiracy theories, yes. Yes they are.
-
@boomzilla said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
@Rhywden said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
Also, the "Germans have no humour" trope again? Boooooring. Seems that you're a somewhat scratched record.
I was referring to the Germans who responded in the thread. And you keep confirming it!
That aside, I agree, your posting on this subject is very boring.
You obviously never evolved beyond kindergarten-level. Oh well, nothing new here. Little bit of advice: Try being funny. I'll tell you when you managed to do so - maybe you'll achieve that feat inside this millenium.
-
@blakeyrat said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
@PJH said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
They aren't just "asking to look at some frogs."
If you subtract the insane conspiracy theories, yes. Yes they are.
I don't understand this "conspiracy theory" stuff of yours here. Did you get that telepathically or something?
-
@blakeyrat said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
they could vote someone else into office who's running on a platform of reducing fees
You found one!!!
Good Lor, where are they?
@blakeyrat said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
Because I think that would be me being a dick.
Is it at all a possibility that:
- He didn't actually send the letter, and this was just comedic for the audience.
- He did send the letter, but the person that used it has a sense of humor and appreciated it.
@blakeyrat said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
Actually I kind of want to hear your insane Libertarian conspiracy theory about the government employee who came along to count frogs and... then something bad happened? I guess?
None of that is necessary.
No one has to explain to the government why they don't want people on their property.
I see people don't quite understand how these rights things work.
@blakeyrat said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
So if a Girl Scout came to my door and wanted to sell cookies
They wouldn't charge you for the packaging, the moment of communication, liability for the sidewalk, a license for purchasing more than one box, etc.
They'd just sell you cookies.
@blakeyrat said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
ENTIRE PROPERTY EXPLODES
Or, the guberment guy gets hurt on his property, and the government decides it was because the land owner wasn't following some arbitrary regulation.
It's like you haven't seen all those videos of random checkpoints, and cops taking cash from people because someone could hypothetically buy weed with it.
@asdf said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
Yeah, people who voted for the current government (or worse, didn't vote)
There's a third group missing from that list.
The people who voted for not the current government.
@AyGeePlus said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
Even if it was specifically the fish licence guys asking, it's still stupid. It's like they don't even understand why there are fishing rules at all.
There's a reason for arbitrary limits?
I understand the fish count limit for population conservation, and making the boat safe to the environment. But the amount of stupid arbitrary fees is ridiculous. I already pay taxes for your stupid group to exist. I shouldn't have to pay handling fees for a license. My taxes already paid the handling fees. Can you not pay your employees?
-
@Rhywden said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
You obviously never evolved beyond kindergarten-level. Oh well, nothing new here. Little bit of advice: Try being funny. I'll tell you when you managed to do so - maybe you'll achieve that feat inside this millenium.
Yeah, I probably should give up on trying to make Germans laugh. I'll leave it to the experts.
-
@xaade said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
No one has to explain to the government why they don't want people on their property.
I never claimed otherwise.
They could have simply politely declined without being a dick, is all I said.
-
@boomzilla The Fawlty Tower episode would have been a better fit.
-
@boomzilla And there's the random embedded video.
Apparently, you lost.
-
-
@boomzilla said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
@asdf said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Have you considered the possibility that it's simply not funny?
Having read it, I can confirm that it is funny.
@asdf said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Yeah, people who voted for the current government (or worse, didn't vote) and then bitch about its policies are the worst. Read the fucking election programs, you idiots!
No one votes for executive agencies. Not even Congress (or state legislatures). They get some vague directions from statutes and go from there. Civil servant protections pretty much ensure those guys are insulated from getting cleaned up by elected officials.
The sitcom, "Yes, Minister" is a masterful illustration of this principle.
-
@blakeyrat said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
And hey, here's a thought: the dickwads who wrote this letter? They voted for the government currently in place. So maybe if they think there's too many fees, they could vote someone else into office who's running on a platform of reducing fees.
2 people have the ability to elect whoever they want, regardless of the other voters? Is this some kind of newfangled democracy thing?
-
@Rhywden said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
@blek said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
What the hell, the reply wasn't even dickish. It wasn't abuse, it wasn't like screaming at a retail employee or a telemarketer - it was just saying "no" in an elaborate way and pointing out ridiculous demands from government agencies.
Yes. And do you also make "fun" of the cashier for 20 minutes when the director of the bank declined your loan? Of course it was being a dick.
No I don't, and neither did whoever sent the letter. For one, I skimmed it in 30 seconds (did it seriously take you 20 minutes to read the page?), and more importantly, it's a god damned letter, you can stop reading any time you want, unlike a cashier who can't just get up and walk away from a screaming idiot customer.
@blakeyrat said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
@blek The part that's throwing me is: How is "can I walk along your creek and count frogs?" a, and I quote, "ridiculous demand"? It's neither ridiculous, nor a demand.
I'm not familiar with US government agencies myself, but if I had to take a wild guess, I'd say that the response is referencing other ridiculous demands that the government agency typically makes. Not necessarily the exact same request which it replies to, but other behaviors that agency is known for. Does that make sense?
-
Dealing with it in Louisiana is bad enough, and Louisiana is known for being friendly to hunting/fishing. I can hardly imagine the shit people go through with more liberal states, just to do what they want with their own property.
-
@blek said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
Does that make sense?
Only if you have
telepathyexperience in the human world.
-
@chozang said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
The sitcom, "Yes, Minister" is a masterful illustration of this principle.
That was a documentary.
-
@antiquarian Yeah, I was going to point that out too but then I forgot. How does @blakeyrat know who these people voted for? Myself, I live in a country with a representative democracy, I vote every time, and I have never in my life been represented. My votes have never mattered even a little bit, the people I voted for have never won a single seat in whatever the election was for.
No, wait, that's wrong, one time the party I voted for actually got a single seat in the European Parliament. Out of 751. Wooo!
Either way, the "you voted for them" point is retarded. And it's double retarded because somehow I really doubt that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is staffed by elected representatives, wtf.
-
@Rhywden said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
you also love dwarf-tossing
Sometimes the dwarf wants to be tossed.
-
@blek said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
Either way, the "you voted for them" point is retarded. And it's double retarded because somehow I really doubt that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is staffed by elected representatives, wtf.
It's triple retarded because even if the people you vote for get elected, there's no guarantee they will do what they promised in order to get you to vote for them (and the smart money's on the opposite).
-
@blakeyrat said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
@PJH said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
They aren't just "asking to look at some frogs."
If you subtract the insane conspiracy theories, yes. Yes they are.
What conspiracy theories? The actual situation (quoted from the article, from the letter from the government department) was presented and you've blatantly ignored it in order to deliberately present it as unnamed 'conspiracy theories' to further your own apparent theory that every theory, that isn't yours, is a conspiracy.
Was that a satisfactory response to your deliberate trolling attempt?
-
@PJH Saying the government is going to steal all your land because someone wants to look for frogs is either extreme paranoia or a conspiracy theory.
-
@blakeyrat said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
Saying the government is going to steal all your land because someone wants to
look forprotect some endangered frogs iseither extreme paranoia or a conspiracy theorynot at all paranoid because that's something that has actually happened in this country.FTFY.
I mean, no, there's no guarantee they'll find some endangered frogs, if you let them look for frogs. But given that it has actually happened, why risk letting them even look?
-
@blakeyrat said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
@PJH Saying the government is going to steal all your land because someone wants to look for frogs is either extreme paranoia or a conspiracy theory.
Indeed, which is why that is exactly not what I said. It appears, however, to be either
- what you thought I said or
- what you wish I said
To be clear:
- I didn't say they'd steal all your land
- I didn't say they'd do (whatever they would do) because "someone" wants to look for frogs
For someone who complains vociferously about people not reading his posts, you're doing a very, very, bad job of reading others'.
You really must try trolling harder. Or learn to practice what you preach if you're not actually trying to troll. One or t'other.
-
@blakeyrat said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
@PJH Saying the government is going to steal all your land because someone wants to look for frogs is either extreme paranoia or a conspiracy theory.
True. Where do you come up with that stuff?
-
@blakeyrat said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
@PJH Saying the government is going to steal all your land because someone wants to look for frogs is either extreme paranoia or a conspiracy theory.
No one said anything about "stealing land". Simply that they would place restrictions on how you can use your land in order to protect the habitat of the endangered species that they may find, and that they would provide no recompense for the loss of utility of your private property. This is all something that can, and does, occur under the Endangered Species Act.
https://ballotpedia.org/Private_property_and_the_Endangered_Species_Act
Edit: That onebox sucks …
-
@abarker and nothing good would ever happen to you by letting government people in your land
-
@abarker said in On Frogs, Land, and Government:
restrictions on how you can use your land in order to protect the habitat of the endangered species that they may find, and that they would provide no recompense for the loss of utility of your private property. This is all something that can, and does, occur under the Endangered Species Act.
...while Monsanto, for example, can put restrictions on how you can use your land in order to further their own seed sales, and provide no recompense for the loss of utility of your private property. This is all something that can, and does, occur under intellectual property law.
And Monsanto, unlike the Government, is not accountable to the populace at large in any way whatsoever.