Let the Patagonia boycotts begin

[MattB]

Come on though. That's a little short-sighted.

Just a little? It wasn't until I came to the realization that intelligent, rational people can come down on both sides of many issues based on personal perspectives that I learned to respect - if not agree - with folks who have different views on complex topics.

It would certainly be easier to approach life from the perspective that that anyone who doesn't think just like me is stupid - but that is just a symptom of closed-mindedness (aka being one of the vaunted few who truly understand the bigger picture ;-).

 

[2ski]

Bingo!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

[elkduds]

Want to boycott threats to public land? Start w the state of UT.

 

[ben h]

I completely support protecting public lands and good for them for putting their money where their mouth is. I have some of their products and although expensive, it lasts a long time and is high quality. I have a lot more Black diamond stuff, which although is no longer affiliated with Patagonia, but was also founded by Yvon Chouinard and has similar views. You can sign a petition on their website. I haven't actually been to the monument, but a few weeks ago I went canyoneering in Capital Reef which is about 80 miles west and the area is amazing!


This is Bears Ears

 

[5MilesBack]

Come on though. That's a little short-sighted. We all come from different walks of life which dictate how we see the world. Do conservatives look at the bigger picture when it comes to the environment? I would argue they tend to not. The left sees themselves as the ones that see the "bigger picture" there. Looking at the "bigger picture" for the future. I'm not saying anyone's wrong or right, its just who's "bigger picture" is the one they agree with. There's always someone who's going to be more conservative than you. So their "bigger picture" is going to be different than your "bigger picture". If they are more conservative, does that mean their "bigger picture" is more correct than yours? Your looking at his like its black and white and it isn't. What about gun control? Both sides are looking at a bigger picture. I'm not going to argue about it. They are. If you really look what everyone's goal is and why there is a bigger picture they are trying to attain.

And for the chicken little comment, every time something is mentioned about gun control, you could argue there's a bunch of chicken littles there. Obama was the pres for 8 years. I think I still own my AR and all the guns I had before hand. But how many people were running around saying Obama was going to take our guns. So.........????

Everyone IS different, and that's fine. But here are the fundamental differences between the left and the right........the left makes decisions and policy based on emotions and the right makes those by logic and reason, many times completely eliminating emotions from the equation.

Good decisions hardly ever come out of emotional reactions. The logic and reason side of us says that our country has governing documents in the form of the Constitution and the BOR's. Those give us the right to bear arms, and that particular amendment includes "shall not be infringed upon". To a person that reasons out of emotion, that means something entirely different than to others that reason out of logic.

The Constitution and BOR's does not have a provision in them that states "public land shall not be infringed upon". Public land and hunting in itself are very nice "privileges". So, you can't really compare them to a "right". That is the biggest difference why we fight so hard against "infringements" on our 2nd Amendment rights. Many, many Americans have given their lives to protect all of our rights. We owe it to them, their families, and every American citizen to continue to do so. I haven't seen 10's of 1000's giving their lives fighting to keep public lands public yet. There's nothing wrong with fighting for a privilege, but it isn't even in the same league as fighting for our rights.

If you don't believe in, support, and defend our Constitution and BOR's, then you've made a wrong turn and you're in the wrong country. If you want to change, discredit, or ignore them.......you've made a wrong turn and you're in the wrong country. If you were born and raised here and you don't believe in, support, and defend them........then your parents did a lousy job raising you.

 

[16Bore]

I thought everyone here was all "I'm a public land owner", and all that mess?

We do understand how retail marketing works, correct?

If a Patagonia shirt or pants fits and does what I want, I'll still buy it. I boycott ill fitting clothing and shit that doesn't work.

 

[Shooter19802003]

Its hard to make buying decisions based on politics. Heck, the majority of gun manufacturers give a lot of money to the dems and anti-gun establishments.....because it's good for business. The more fearful you are of your rights being stripped away......the more guns you buy and the more money you give over to the nra. I don't agree with Patagonia one bit, but I do own some of their clothes. I do agree 100% with the above statement by 5milesback and I also don't buy into the this is all of our land speech. Besides Americans can't own land, we just rent it from the gov't. I'm pretty far right in most of my views and libertarian in others....so I rarely agree 100% with anybody, but I can usually see both sides of an argument. I like being able to use public land. The problem we are having here in my county is the blm trying to keep folks out. They unlock fewer and fewer gates each year. All the land in the world isn't worth a hoot if you can't use it. I think land should be managed as locally as possible by the people who use it most and are effected by it every day. Not by folks who live elsewhere, who never even been there, or by folks who just visit on occasion. The folks who tout the whole line about everybody owns it, then why not apply that to all fascists if governing? Why not open up your local elections to all. After all, if I might visit there one day it will effect me. Funny how that same argument doesn't apply, but only where you pick and choose it to.

 

[Gr8bawana]

Because we can read. This is about so much more than just public land. Axes are being ground and "public land issues" is a convenient "in". I mean did you read the article? How in any way was half of the liberal nonsense even relevant to the public land issue? I'll tell you, it's not.

You must be reading the "alternative facts" version.

 

[2ski]

Everyone IS different, and that's fine. But here are the fundamental differences between the left and the right........the left makes decisions and policy based on emotions and the right makes those by logic and reason, many times completely eliminating emotions from the equation.

Good decisions hardly ever come out of emotional reactions. The logic and reason side of us says that our country has governing documents in the form of the Constitution and the BOR's. Those give us the right to bear arms, and that particular amendment includes "shall not be infringed upon". To a person that reasons out of emotion, that means something entirely different than to others that reason out of logic.

The Constitution and BOR's does not have a provision in them that states "public land shall not be infringed upon". Public land and hunting in itself are very nice "privileges". So, you can't really compare them to a "right". That is the biggest difference why we fight so hard against "infringements" on our 2nd Amendment rights. Many, many Americans have given their lives to protect all of our rights. We owe it to them, their families, and every American citizen to continue to do so. I haven't seen 10's of 1000's giving their lives fighting to keep public lands public yet. There's nothing wrong with fighting for a privilege, but it isn't even in the same league as fighting for our rights.

If you don't believe in, support, and defend our Constitution and BOR's, then you've made a wrong turn and you're in the wrong country. If you want to change, discredit, or ignore them.......you've made a wrong turn and you're in the wrong country. If you were born and raised here and you don't believe in, support, and defend them........then your parents did a lousy job raising you.

so much arrogance in this post. You have to see that. There are a lot of "right wing responses" that come from emotional places. The last part of your entire post is a prime example.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

[5MilesBack]

There are a lot of "right wing responses" that come from emotional places. The last part of your entire post is a prime example.

You must be confusing "having emotions" with "governing by emotions" and/or "using emotions to make your decisions". Those are all totally different. Emotional decisions without employing logic rarely lead to good outcomes.

My last statement has no emotion in it at all.......it's just a fact. And confidence and logic are often times confused with arrogance by some folks. But the thing is........when logic and reason are employed, one can be confident in the statements. Show me where I was wrong in any of my points.

 

[WRO]

The Bears ears was the previous Administration giving the finger to the people of utah..

 

[ben h]

I think a prime example of why "local" control is a bad idea because all they'll do is exploit it for profit and it doesn't belong to the states. When the territories were granted statehood one of the stipulations was that they agreed unsettled lands would become federal and then the feds would carve out state trust land. How the state trust lands have been managed is exactly why I'd rather have the feds be in control of federal land. The state trust "Public Land" is essentially private land now in many places, you can't even trespass on your own land, a lot of them are leased to guides to the highest bidder and closed off for everybody else. Hell no, you don't want Utah politicians controlling that land. The local Indian tribes already know this as well.

 

[TJ]

I have nothing constructive to add. Some of this logic bullshit is code word for only my opinion matters. Same story different topic.

There is nothing wrong with having differing views on any subject.

And to suggest that you were raised wrong because you don't agree with ME is pretty insulting.

 

[JWP58]

You must be reading the "alternative facts" version.

Oh no it was the Rachel Madow version I believe...or some other left wing mouth piece drivel

 

[MattB]

Everyone IS different, and that's fine. But here are the fundamental differences between the left and the right........the left makes decisions and policy based on emotions and the right makes those by logic and reason, many times completely eliminating emotions from the equation.

Logic that doesn't agree with mine = emotion

Don't pretend for a second that conservative values such as the defense of the unborn or traditional marriage, or even the allocation of tax burden, isn't rooted in emotion.

 

[5MilesBack]

Some of this logic bullshit is code word for only my opinion matters.

There is nothing wrong with having differing views on any subject.

And to suggest that you were raised wrong because you don't agree with ME is pretty insulting.

Ahhhhhh.....an emotional response, and even filled with gibberish all at the same time. First of all, logic is NEVER bullshit.....except to those that can't figure it out or piece even a little of it together. It's those people's arguments that fail every time, because they make no sense at all. So ya, there is nothing wrong with different views........as long as they all make logical sense. And even if they do all make logical sense, there's most likely one of those views that makes more sense than the others.

And your last line.........sheesh, that's not what it said at all, not even close. But let's not debate individual points, let's just throw gibberish out there and ignore the points.

 

[5MilesBack]

Logic that doesn't agree with mine = emotion

Don't pretend for a second that conservative values such as the defense of the unborn or traditional marriage, or even the allocation of tax burden, isn't rooted in emotion.

Your first statement makes no logical sense.........with or without emotion.

I don't find your examples emotional at all.......not even a little bit. When you put them side by side with their counter arguments, each one has only one logical side to them. Each of those counter arguments is entirely emotional........unless you're going to now redefine "emotional".

 

[JWP58]

Don't pretend for a second that conservative values such as the defense of the unborn or traditional marriage, or even the allocation of tax burden, isn't rooted in emotion.

It's rooted in logic. It's logical to say killing a baby is immoral and should be viewed as such legally, traditional marriage is traditionally a religious matter the gov't has no place in it, and the tax burden should be as little as possible for all. If that's emotional, emotional must be a synonym for logical.

P.s. with all this hate and vitriol I'm feeling triggered....where is the rokslide safe space? I'm assuming it's at a national executive monument. ...

 

[Shooter19802003]

......then your parents did a lousy job raising you.

It's rooted in logic. It's logical to say killing a baby is immoral and should be viewed as such legally, traditional marriage is traditionally a religious matter the gov't has no place in it, and the tax burden should be as little as possible for all. If that's emotional, emotional must be a synonym for logical.

P.s. with all this hate and vitriol I'm feeling triggered....where is the rokslide safe space? I'm assuming it's at a national executive monument. ...

Lol......your my hero! If you are ever in north idaho....look me up.

 

[Shrek]

I think a prime example of why "local" control is a bad idea because all they'll do is exploit it for profit and it doesn't belong to the states. When the territories were granted statehood one of the stipulations was that they agreed unsettled lands would become federal and then the feds would carve out state trust land. How the state trust lands have been managed is exactly why I'd rather have the feds be in control of federal land. The state trust "Public Land" is essentially private land now in many places, you can't even trespass on your own land, a lot of them are leased to guides to the highest bidder and closed off for everybody else. Hell no, you don't want Utah politicians controlling that land. The local Indian tribes already know this as well.

The Federal Government used coercive tactics and demanded the right to own lands as a stipulation for statehood. Just because they got away with it at the time doesn't mean it is constitutional or morally right.