Maybe their opinions were based on principle. I know you do not care, but your dismissal of 80k people you don't and will never know says volumes about you as a person.
Thanks for the ad hominem.
It isn't that I care or not, approving this well is a technical environmental decision, and shouldn't depend on how much people scream. It doesn't matter if there were 10 million people against it, the agency isn't there to evaluate public support for a project, it is there to evaluate the technical and environmental aspects of the project.
Don't let an angry crowd make technical decisions.
That wasn’t an ad hominem. The parent was making an observation—unnecessary as it may be and regardless of its accuracy—on your character based on your comments. The parent was not dismissing your argument based on or by switching to refuting it with a personal attack of your character.
That's completely incorrect because the state is run by politically elected leadership who ultimately answer to the people. If the people hated Nestle because its factories were painted green, they have the right to complain and ultimately vote for leadership that would disallow Nestle to paint their factories green.
This isn't being voted by elected officials, this is being approved by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality following the standard procedure set in law by elected officials.
> If the people hated Nestle because its factories were painted green, they have the right to complain and ultimately vote for leadership that would disallow Nestle to paint their factories green.
Yes, and they should do so at the ballot or at their elected officials.
Or are you suggesting that any laws and regulations are legally void when 80k people comment against it?
What if they didn't like Nestle hiring black people?
You have the right to complain, yes. That doesn't mean you automatically get your way. Not even if everyone votes for it.
Not sure why everyone is so upset by my post that essentially is reiterating, "the people have a right to be heard and they ultimately elect how their town/state/country is run".
Imagine a hypothetical world where the South won the Civil War and successfully seceded.
The elected government of the Confederate States of America says that black people have no civil rights whatsoever.
Okay by you?
A comment like this one also breaks the guideline that says: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."