• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Hostage situation at Discovery Channel HQ

If you get a chance, read the guy's list of demands.

To summarize his views:
1.) Humans are "the most destructive, filthy, pollutive creatures around"
2.) Civilization is disgusting and comes from horrible religious-cultural roots.
3.) He's against global warming
4.) He's against Anchor babies and all immigration.
5.) He's a supporter of Malthus and Darwin.
6.) He's anti-War.
What an idiot, as war is a decent way to reduce population. He needs to check his own ideals, mayhap ...
 
Nothing can save the Lions this season.


But we got Suh. And Stafford is healthy. And... and...



...oh who am I kidding?
suicide.gif
 
Left/Right is a stupid way to try to break down politics anyway. Almost nobody on the sum of issues is entirely one or the other. And most people have positions on any given issue that are not entirely one or the other.

You might enjoy this:

The notion of a "left" and a "right" has been with us a long time. It originated in the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly during their revolution. The delegates marched into the Hall of Machines by traditional precedence, with the aristocrats and clergy entering first, then the wealthier bourgeois, and so on, with the aristocracy seated on the Speaker's right. Since the desire for radical change was pretty well inversely proportionate to wealth, there really was, for a short time, a legitimate political spectrum running from right to left, and the concept of left and right made sense.

Within a year it was invalidated by events. New alliances were formed. Those who wanted no revolutionary changes at all were expelled (or executed). There came a new alignment called "The Mountain" (from their habit of sitting together in the higher tiers of seats). Even for 18th Century France the "left-right" model ceased to have any theoretical validity.
 
To be fair, number 1 fits with extreme environmentalist and animal rights activist views.(If you want, I can start a thread regaling a conversation regarding animal testing at a local skeptics meeting I went to). Hence, leftist view.
Funny how the eye of the beholder makes such a difference here.

PETA and that ilk represent such a minor proportion of liberals, you can't equate hating humans (a particular South Park episode comes to mind) as anything close to representing Progressives. Compassion for the poor and recognition we live in one world significantly overrides PETA type sentiments among Progressives.

The issue with these extreme groups on the right is that mainstream GOP courts their radical elements as a strategic vote getting method. The left does not court the PETA vote.


And number 2 has definite anti-religion views, another more left leaning view point.
Nonsense. That's a really narrow view of the actual religious community. To claim the left is anti-Christian or anti-religious ignores half the Christian community that supports charity and believes God made man stewards of the Earth. Perhaps you were unaware of the big split even among Evangelicals between those who believe the rapture is coming and man is too puny to endanger God's creation (paraphrasing how Falwell put it) and those Evangelicals who believe we are responsible to take care of God's Earth.

And all those mystical Eastern religions many liberals embrace, what about those "religious cultural roots"?


And let's not forget the overall population control argument, which is typically a left view as well.
I gave that Malthus point to the left.
 
Funny how people argue he's either Left or Right, as if those are the only two possible labels, and that if he's either, then everyone else on that side of the (arbitrary) political divide can be blamed for this guy's crimes. That's American political dualism for you.
I didn't argue that. I argued he was going to turn out to be mentally ill and schizophrenia is the most likely disorder.
 
Not sure he's dead, though. CNN says he's in custody.

Well CNN is dumb then. I know we know he's dead now. But when I was watching the news conference where it was announced the guy had been shot and a bomb went off, and the officer giving the answers refused to say the condition of the suspect, it was also noted no one had rushed the guy to any hospital. That says dead.
 
Since when does a lousy 1,149-word document count as a manifesto? That barely even qualifies for a good rant or screed. It could even be an ambitious email. I bet Ted Kaczynski has a good scoff over what an amateur this guy was.
 
Michelle Malkin weighs in on the left/right dispute:

The gunman was reportedly motivated by Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth eco-propaganda. Guess what? I’m not playing that opportunistic blame game here. It’s not Al Gore’s fault when an enviro-nut goes off unhinged (and I’ve said that before). The blame in this case lies with the crazy man who terrorized the Discovery Channel employees. Period.
 
Nope. Apparently, this seriously disturbed individual has harbored a grudge against the Discovery Channel for a long time, but has never worked there. He has an online manifesto with his grievances and demands, but the site is unavailable right now (no doubt because of high traffic).

http://www.savetheplanetprotest.com

I'd like to be able to explain why he has a problem with Discovery, but I can't in a way that makes any sense at all. I just hope this can be resolved without any innocent people being hurt.

Well, you can't say the Discovery Channel wasn't warned. The damage they are doing to this planet needs to be dealt with.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom