Coal Ship Boarded By GreenPeace

[DC]

George carlin FTW

"The Planet is fine...the PEOPLE are ****ed. Difference!"

ah lol. i love that one.
i should not have said it the way i did indeed

 

[linusrichard]

I know this will sound extremely selfish, but they were not my responsability

No, you're right.

I have not chosen for them to die. Is the failure to save as life as immoral as murder? No. The consequence may be the same, but the CAUSE was a lot more different.

You didn't cause them to die, but you chose for them to die. I'm not talking about morality, I'm just talking about the mechanics of the situation. Had you chosen to murder the other two (and I'm not saying you should have), you would have saved those million. You chose instead to spare the two, and you chose for the million to die. It's not that you did anything immoral, it's not that it was your responsibility, or your fault. But it was your choice.

You could say it is wrong for me to be so selfish and to sacrifice a billion lives for my own self-interest.

I haven't said that.

But the truth is its not me who is sacrificing them, and i have no claim on any other person's life, neither do I owe them anything.

All true.

Actually we are. Greenpeace has used force to enter the ship (not actual physical force or threat, but by entering someone else's property without their consent).

If by "we" you mean "people in this thread," then yes. If by "we" you mean you and me, then no. We are only arguing about Greenpeace's hypocrisy/inconsistency in doing this.

 

[hayenmill]

You didn't cause them to die, but you chose for them to die. I'm not talking about morality, I'm just talking about the mechanics of the situation. Had you chosen to murder the other two (and I'm not saying you should have), you would have saved those million. You chose instead to spare the two, and you chose for the million to die. It's not that you did anything immoral, it's not that it was your responsibility, or your fault. But it was your choice.

Well, how did i got myself in such a situation that i had to choose?

I haven't said that.

I know, i was merely anticipating a response

If by "we" you mean "people in this thread," then yes. If by "we" you mean you and me, then no. We are only arguing about Greenpeace's hypocrisy/inconsistency in doing this.

okay, i mixed your arguments with other peoples arguments, but youre right.

 

[linusrichard]

Well, how did i got myself in such a situation that i had to choose?

I put you there. You didn't choose to be in the situation. But once in the situation, you had to make a choice.

 

[hayenmill]

I put you there. You didn't choose to be in the situation. But once in the situation, you had to make a choice.

then i wouldnt choose. and if you were holding me at the threat of me being killed myself, i wouldnt choose as well.

 

[linusrichard]

then i wouldnt choose. and if you were holding me at the threat of me being killed myself, i wouldnt choose as well.

That's a choice as well. Sorry. It isn't nice and it isn't fair, but choosing not to choose is a choice. A million died. Not that I blame you.

 

[Ferguson]

who cares when people like you laugh about that movement? sure not me.
terrorists LOL

No offense, D.C., but the comments by you and others here are making Greenpeace sound more like a Taliban, Al Qaeda, style group."who cares about laws"

"Even if you don't agree with their agenda and methods of achieving this, you must respect the fact they're constantly striving to have to compromise as little possible from their core-agenda/beliefs. I don't agree with them in many issues, but I really value this kind of dedication." - hayenmill [ETA: Tapio, not hayenmill]

So, regardless of their methods, you value their dedication. So then may I count the Taliban, Spanish Inquisition, Mussolini, Hirohito, Lenin, Hitler, and Attila the Hun among your heroes?

Non-criminal environmental activism is important, criminal and violent activism is one step forward, two steps back. Attacking a random coal ship does nothing but discredit environmentalism.

 

[Tapio]

"Even if you don't agree with their agenda and methods of achieving this, you must respect the fact they're constantly striving to have to compromise as little possible from their core-agenda/beliefs. I don't agree with them in many issues, but I really value this kind of dedication." - hayenmill

That was my thought which hayenmill quoted. And yes, taken out of context like you have does make it sound like supporting any fanatic behaviour (which I'm definitely not aiming at). But this you can do to any part of any text and is cowardly at least. Maybe you should read a bit more carefully .

To all of you criticizing Greenpeace, a question.

Am I correct if I draw the conclusion that what bothers you most about the kind of Greenpeace activism referred to in the OP is their breaking of some law?

 

[Ferguson]

That was my thought which hayenmill quoted.

I apologize to both hayenmill and Tapio for the misattribution. I got a bit confused while trying to multi-quote.

And yes, taken out of context like you have does make it sound like supporting any fanatic behaviour (which I'm definitely not aiming at). But this you can do to any part of any text and is cowardly at least. Maybe you should read a bit more carefully .

That the statement does support any fanatic violence, is exactly the point.
"Even if you don't agree with their agenda and methods of achieving this, you must respect the fact they're constantly striving to have to compromise as little possible from their core-agenda/beliefs. I don't agree with them in many issues, but I really value this kind of dedication."
Even "in context," as stated, this is a defense of any fundamentalist violence. Agenda and methods define a movement. They are not hand-waved away by "dedication."

breaking of some law[/I]?

As an individual concerned with the environment, what bothers me most, is the damage in credibility. Greenpeace taints the work of legitimate environmental scientists and political action committees. In a similar manner to the way PETA discredits legitimate animal shelters and animal rights groups. That said, the breaking of certain laws, in certain situations, can bother me. Breaking laws can be considered righteous, if the laws are unjust. Boarding a random ship making a coal delivery as a protest of fossil fuels everywhere will strike many as juvenile and self-righteous. This clouds legitimate debate with ideological in-fighting and generalization of environmental activists as violent whackos.

To be successful a movement must be credible, this is why MLK is still remembered today while the Black Panthers remain mired in legal troubles and self-defeating ideological rhetoric.

 

[fuelair]

It would become a REAL sticky situation if this passes.

Shouldn't even be necessary to have such a bill, but I am full on for it.

 

[fuelair]

I apologize to both hayenmill and Tapio for the misattribution. I got a bit confused while trying to multi-quote.


That the statement does support any fanatic violence, is exactly the point.
"Even if you don't agree with their agenda and methods of achieving this, you must respect the fact they're constantly striving to have to compromise as little possible from their core-agenda/beliefs. I don't agree with them in many issues, but I really value this kind of dedication."
Even "in context," as stated, this is a defense of any fundamentalist violence. Agenda and methods define a movement. They are not hand-waved away by "dedication."


As an individual concerned with the environment, what bothers me most, is the damage in credibility. Greenpeace taints the work of legitimate environmental scientists and political action committees. In a similar manner to the way PETA discredits legitimate animal shelters and animal rights groups. That said, the breaking of certain laws, in certain situations, can bother me. Breaking laws can be considered righteous, if the laws are unjust. Boarding a random ship making a coal delivery as a protest of fossil fuels everywhere will strike many as juvenile and self-righteous. This clouds legitimate debate with ideological in-fighting and generalization of environmental activists as violent whackos.

To be successful a movement must be credible, this is why MLK is still remembered today while the Black Panthers remain mired in legal troubles and self-defeating ideological rhetoric.

But, they had a good newspaper!! As did the Black Muslims!!

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I find it particularly interesting that they're against coal and nuclear.

They appear to be in favour of wasting natural gas on baseload power and shaving off a tiny little bit of that with wind turbines whenever the wind happens to blow. That seems like a terrible idea in the US where natural gas is quite abundant; it's downright assinine if you happen to be in Europe and need to import gas from russian Gazprom.

My gawd... you have NO idea how rare it is to find someone who understands the problems of baseload generation with respect to "alternative" energy sources.

 

[realpaladin]

As far as I know, you can not kill Nature at all.

You can screw ecologies and habitats and whatnot.

But Nature itself will be happily birthing new stars and go it's own merry way.

So just tell it like it is; you are not happy that a pretty lot of species, including ourselves, could be offed by our current behaviour.

But killing Nature? Killing the planet? That's just arrogant.

 

[paximperium]

Am I correct if I draw the conclusion that what bothers you most about the kind of Greenpeace activism referred to in the OP is their breaking of some law?

No. It is the use of force and intimidation to accomplish their goals AND breaking laws.

 

[Tricky]

Several bickers and personal attacks moved to AAH. Don't bicker. Don't make personal attacks.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[Travis]

i dont have a car, the idea to drive around 1.5 tons of steel and plastic in form of a car just to move my 100 kilo of blood and fat is laughable.

I think you'd quit laughing the first time you have to hike 16 kilometers to get to the supermarket (which is how far I have to drive now that all the local stores are out of business).

a street blockade ? good idea, taking away provate owned cars, not so much, or going into someones house, not so much. But blocking the meet section in a shoppingcenter, why not.

So we can put you squarely in "the ends justify the means" bracket?

Wasn't it this type of behavior, in relation to American foreign policy, that you have repeatedly denounced?

 

[realpaladin]

I think you'd quit laughing the first time you have to hike 16 kilometers to get to the supermarket (which is how far I have to drive now that all the local stores are out of business).

But it would help him to get that 100 kilo's down to something that a normal car can haul...

(Really, is 1.5 tons of car a normal thing in the U.S.?)

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Hard to make babies across bucket seats.

 

[realpaladin]

Hard to make babies across bucket seats.

Be that as it may, but maybe Greenpeace should board a couple of those battleships first...

 

[DC]

I think you'd quit laughing the first time you have to hike 16 kilometers to get to the supermarket (which is how far I have to drive now that all the local stores are out of business).



So we can put you squarely in "the ends justify the means" bracket?

Wasn't it this type of behavior, in relation to American foreign policy, that you have repeatedly denounced?

I have the luck to have a great infrastructure around me, we have one of the thightest railway systems, busses and trms every 6 minutes etc.

I can understand others do need a car because they havent such a great infrastructure.

I think violating a few laws to get attention to problems, our way of life is causing, is ok. Because it doesnt look like humans are getting it, no mather if they belive they are aware of the problem. they sure dont act as if they are aware of it.