The Ugly Canada Thread

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Seems to be these reactions aren't about a direct cause and effect type of logic. They're along the same lines of how people react to things like flag burning, or religious blasphemy or obscenity. It strikes at an extremely emotional level because the person is perceived to be attacking something fundamental to our concept of decency. The symbolism is sacrilege.

There might be an element of that, but clearly it goes beyond offending people's sensibilities when you're willfully poisoning the air around you that others have to breathe.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

It strikes at an extremely emotional level because the person is perceived to be attacking something fundamental to our concept of decency.

Exactly.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by lio45

Exactly.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that this behaviour adversely affects other people. As O-tacular said, it is basically blasting someone with poison. I mean, if the truck driver punched someone you'd fully expect them to get charged with assault... a blast of diesel smoke is harmful too, especially when directed at a child or someone with a health condition. Why wouldn't that be considered worthy of an assault charge? Is there some kind of loophole exception for smoke and chemicals?

People can use truck nuts and put on rebel flag decals and engage in whatever kind of douchey behaviour they want. But their rights end where it starts to harm others.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by esquire

Why wouldn't that be considered worthy of an assault charge? Is there some kind of loophole exception for smoke and chemicals?

I kinda think so... it's legal to smoke in the streets, right? I don't think blowing one's cigarette smoke on or towards somebody else would technically count as assault... of course it would certainly be a totally douchey behavior, but I'm not sure I'd prefer a society in which douchebaggery has been made illegal. We have enough stuff like C-51 as it is.

Your next junkfood meal is probably more likely to give you cancer than a whiff of diesel smoke, anyway.

I mean, I don't care if you personally want to start a crusade against this (maybe start by contacting the Alberta Coal Rollers facebook group feepa linked to -- nearly 10,000 douchebags contacted in one single message) but it's a droplet of water in an ocean.

[Daveography]

Originally Posted by esquire

People can use truck nuts and put on rebel flag decals and engage in whatever kind of douchey behaviour they want. But their rights end where it starts to harm others.

Just another symptom of our terrible attitude when it comes to our cars. Owning one and driving is a right! It's mine, I should be allowed to do what I want with it! Damn the liberals trying to tell me I can't pollute the air and cause respiratory distress to others! WHY DON'T YOU JUST MOVE TO NORTH KOREA YOU COMMUNIST.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Daveography

Just another symptom of our terrible attitude when it comes to our cars. Owning one and driving is a right! It's mine, I should be allowed to do what I want with it! Damn the liberals trying to tell me I can't pollute the air and cause respiratory distress to others! WHY DON'T YOU JUST MOVE TO NORTH KOREA YOU COMMUNIST.

If you mean this for me, I'll remind you that I agree one's rights ends where others' begin, but I'm simply far from sure that mandatory regular emissions testing is a cost effective use of public funds, given that the bunch of vehicles that are on the road naturally keep getting cleaner anyway and most people by far (99.999%+) don't actively modify them to make them pollute more just for kicks.

Here's what IMO would be the optimal way to deal with this (would cost nearly nothing AND get rid of coal rolling)...

Originally Posted by lio45

Personally, I'd just give cops the power to send vehicles to emissions testing, and have broad emissions targets (depending on the model year and vehicle). Anyone who totally fails to be anywhere close to what would normally be expected for that model in terms of emissions (souped up Civic with no cat and muffler, rolling coal Cummins, etc.) gets a warning, and might even be added to a list of targets for further random testing, with escalating penalty amounts for further offenses.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by esquire

The problem with that line of reasoning is that this behaviour adversely affects other people. As O-tacular said, it is basically blasting someone with poison. I mean, if the truck driver punched someone you'd fully expect them to get charged with assault... a blast of diesel smoke is harmful too, especially when directed at a child or someone with a health condition. Why wouldn't that be considered worthy of an assault charge? Is there some kind of loophole exception for smoke and chemicals?
[*]People can use truck nuts and put on rebel flag decals and engage in whatever kind of douchey behaviour they want. But their rights end where it starts to harm others.

To be clear, I wasn't drawing those parallels to dismiss people's feelings. Obviously things like religion and nationalism are arbitrary human constructs and strongly enforcing a sense of reverence toward them is simply cultural conservatism, whereas demanding respect for the environment is a scientifically rooted issue pertaining to the survival and well being of humanity.

That being said, it's still important to recognise when we're reacting emotionally in order to understand and control the reactions. Those pictures made me fire-breathing pissed and I think people doing that are disgusting and should be punished. Symbolism is important and demanding a sense of reverence toward the environment is much more reasonable then demanding it toward human social constructs. But logically, lio could very well be correct in that the net benefit to the environment could come from letting it go and using resources more strategically elsewhere. Things like that are hard to quantify.

[Daveography]

Sure, which is a more reasonable response than how you opened that:

Originally Posted by lio45

You guys are a bit dumb if you're saying this seriously
Maybe in North Korea... (oh yeah, and death penalty for the driver, too, while at it.)

I think there should be a distinction when someone has intentionally modified their vehicle in such a way as to emit more noxious gasses and particulates than it was originally designed and / or to exceed regulations. There's no excuse for that. That's why I say, for those people, no warnings. If you can't act like a responsible citizen (let alone a decent human being) then you should have your vehicle confiscated.

It's not like there isn't precedent for confiscating property where the public is intentionally and needlessly put in danger.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by lio45

I kinda think so... it's legal to smoke in the streets, right? I don't think blowing one's cigarette smoke on or towards somebody else would technically count as assault... of course it would certainly be a totally douchey behavior, but I'm not sure I'd prefer a society in which douchebaggery has been made illegal. We have enough stuff like C-51 as it is.

Your next junkfood meal is probably more likely to give you cancer than a whiff of diesel smoke, anyway.

I mean, I don't care if you personally want to start a crusade against this (maybe start by contacting the Alberta Coal Rollers facebook group feepa linked to -- nearly 10,000 douchebags contacted in one single message) but it's a droplet of water in an ocean.

I was waiting for the second hand smoke analogy. Do you really think it compares to a blast of this? Really?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Daveography

There's no excuse for that. That's why I say, for those people, no warnings.

How about "I bought it like that (and thought it looked cool)"?

Or "I didn't think this was a big deal, China and the oil sands pollute 10000000x more than me... and since we don't have mandatory emissions testing in [this province], I figured this was legal and therefore not too bad"?

Immediately confiscating a recent jacked 4x4 diesel pickup (~$50k) is a penalty that's absolutely out of proportion with the "crime". It's total nonsense.

Forcing those people to meet factory emissions levels, now, yes, that makes sense. Implementing mandatory regular emissions testing might not be a cost-effective use of public dollars if the single objective is to make our air cleaner, though.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

I was waiting for the second hand smoke analogy. Do you really think it compares to a blast of this? Really?

Honestly? Yes, I do think it compares more to a blast of this than a blast of this compares to getting punched in the face. (esquire's analogy.)

If you tell me that I have to pick two of the following three and then we'll flip a coin to see which one of the two I get as my penalty for something, I know I'm removing #3.

1) Whiff of coal roller smoke
2) Whiff of cigarette smoke
3) Fist to the face

[esquire]

^ Easy for an adult to hold their breath avoid the blast. Babies can't. And a baby is susceptible to harm from a big cloud of diesel smoke.

I don't know why you'd want to defend someone intentionally inflicting harm on someone else, or in a best case scenario, just on the environment generally. Because that's what's happening here.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Easy for an adult to hold their breath avoid the blast. Babies can't. And a baby is susceptible to harm from a big cloud of diesel smoke.

I don't know why you'd want to defend someone intentionally inflicting harm on someone else, or in a best case scenario, just on the environment generally. Because that's what's happening here.

I'm opposed to one idea that's been thrown around in this thread that makes C-51 look like a libertarian's dream. (Not that it would have a chance of happening anyway; my opposition is just out of principle, we're discussing something that's pure fiction.)

And (again) I'm FOR making sure cops have enough power to send obvious polluters to at least some kind of emissions testing. With nearly 10,000 self-proclaimed Rolling Coal enthusiasts, Alberta definitely seems like the lowest hanging fruit here. Maybe O-tacular can write his MPP again?

A targeted emissions testing program left to the cops' discretion is IMO a much more realistic way to deal with this than summary confiscations or executions.

P.S. Second hand cigarette smoke is also very harmful for babies, yet cigarettes are still legal...?

[esquire]

^ For what it's worth I agree with you lio. I didn't seriously mean that trucks rolling coal should be seized or that drivers of those vehicles should be shot. I do think that deliberately overriding emissions control systems should be illegal and be dealt with in the same way as illegal/excessive tinting: a warning or a ticket + a date with the police to prove that the situation has been remedied (i.e., emissions control equipment reinstalled and in good working order, or the truck stays off the road).

[Daveography]

Originally Posted by lio45

How about "I bought it like that (and thought it looked cool)"?

Buyer beware. Not an excuse.

Originally Posted by lio45

Or "I didn't think this was a big deal, China and the oil sands pollute 10000000x more than me... and since we don't have mandatory emissions testing in [this province], I figured this was legal and therefore not too bad"?

Do you actually believe this to be a valid argument?

Originally Posted by lio45

Immediately confiscating a recent jacked 4x4 diesel pickup (~$50k) is a penalty that's absolutely out of proportion with the "crime". It's total nonsense.

A slap on the wrist for intentionally flaunting the law (or being willfully ignorant of it, which is not an excuse) isn't going to stop people from breaking the law and won't adjust anyone's behaviour.

If you're caught driving a vehicle that is unroadworthy, that vehicle should be removed from the roads in the name of public safety, full stop. And yes, a vehicle intentionally modified to spew pollution is unroadworthy and unsafe, and if it isn't already a "crime" (nice quotes there btw), it ought to be. There is nothing out of proportion about that.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Daveography

Buyer beware. Not an excuse.

Do you actually believe this to be a valid argument?

I believe both these arguments have a degree of validity, yes, otherwise I wouldn't have used them.

A slap on the wrist for intentionally flaunting the law (or being willfully ignorant of it, which is not an excuse) isn't going to stop people from breaking the law...

People get real tickets from real police corps all the time for shit posted on the internet that they initially got away with... if it's indeed breaking the law, then what are you waiting for to send the link below to the APP? Nearly 10,000 potential criminals (without quotation marks this time, right?) on a silver platter.

Originally Posted by feepa

Sad to say I've seen far too many coal rollers in Alberta. One only needs to spend a few minutes on the Henday to see this.

There's a group on facebook nearly 10K 'proud' called Alberta Coal Rollers https://www.facebook.com/groups/254565168084024/

If you're caught driving a vehicle that is unroadworthy, that vehicle should be...

... turned back into the roadworthy vehicle it previously was before it's allowed to continue to be on the road.

[O-tacular]

This has simply gotten ridiculous Lio. Quit derailing this thread from what it was intended for:

And that is to disgust anyone with good taste. Clearly Rolling Coal should offend anyone who's not a half retarded redneck with a bone to pick against climate change and common decency.

[O-tacular]

While we're talking about rednecks has anyone else seen the Brick commercials for this crap?



http://www.thebrick.com/product/item/fur...ners/camo-rocker-reclining-chair/1642148

It's like Jeff Foxworthy and Duck Dynasty have instilled people with this unwarranted sense of pride and now it has become culturally acceptable for shit like this to be made. A few months ago I actually saw a family of 3 decked out in matching head to toe camo going into Ikea. Wtf?!?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Quit derailing this thread from what it was intended for:

Well, this is an architecture/urbanism forum, so I'm expecting to see ugly buildings in here... if we want to discuss pollution, I know we used to have threads slightly more on topic for that.

(Also, I'll say what I say every time someone on SSP complains about the discussion being off-topic: no one is preventing anyone from doing what the thread is meant for, even through the temporary off-topic discussion that's taking place.)

And that is to disgust anyone with good taste. Clearly Rolling Coal should offend anyone who's not a half retarded redneck with a bone to pick against climate change and common decency.

Pollution offends me.
(Greater pollution offends me more.)
Blatantly anti-freedom ideas also offend me...

And yes, making one's truck into a coal roller is an absolutely ridiculous and backwards thing to do, I've had that opinion for years, said so in my very first post about it, and am not going to change my mind.

On the other hand, I've never seen one in person (though I've been aware of the phenomenon for years)... if there's one place in the country that has a % of douchebags actually high enough to make it need a slight change in laws to address this, it's probably where you live. I wasn't kidding when I said write your MPP about this.

/offtopic, back to camo sofas...

[advance62]

In addition to the glut of disgusting towers in Waterloo, the University of Waterloo decided they wanted their own new residence building.

Here's the render...