Comment 20362

By GQ (anonymous) | Posted March 26, 2008 at 13:03:25

@Serious

"What in my comments gives you that impression?"

Hmmmmmm, maybe it's when you write "Maclean twists logic again!!!" with three explanation marks or when you write "It isn't the first time Don Maclean twists things. He does it out of ego and for effect." or when you write "He annoys people with his smarminess and holier than thou attitude."

"The votes for Don were for or against the environment."

All I can say is, read what he wrote and take the line "[some councillors] consistently took the anti-environmental position" in the context of what I quoted above. On three major issues that had environmental impacts, the councillors in question all voted consistently for the choice that hurt the environment.

That's what he means when he writes that they "took the anti-environmental position" - they took the position that hurts the environment.

Please explain this to me: how can consistently voting for decisions that hurt the environment *not* be anti-environmental?

It's not enough to say that they were voting based on other considerations. You still have to explain why the councillors believed those considerations were more important than environmental ones, especially on decisions that have major environmental impacts.

No one sets out to destroy the environment (at least I hope they don't). It gets destroyed because people make decisions without caring about the environmental impacts of those decisions. That's what being anti-environmental *is*.

If councillors vote for the option that hurts the environment because they're not thinking about the environment, they're being anti-environmental.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds