zomg green peace

Caydr · Post by **Caydr** » 16 Dec 2007, 03:47

...But... the exploding sound......

SwiftSpear · Post by **SwiftSpear** » 16 Dec 2007, 09:26

Greenpeace needs to disband. Unfortunately in the organization, for every sound intelligent participant that has relevant say as to the organization's agenda, there are 2 crackpot conspiracy theorists. Their PR division is in shambles, their name is tarnished beyond repair, and their agenda runs off into the realm of complete fiction as often as it reflects actual reality.

Sleksa · Post by **Sleksa** » 16 Dec 2007, 10:26

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Greenpeace

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Te ... 8CA39.html

Greenpeace doesn├óÔé¼Ôäót have to fool everyone, it only has to fool enough people to create the general impression that Apple├óÔé¼Ôäós customers bear a weighty ├óÔé¼╦£green guilt├óÔé¼Ôäó that can best be assuaged by... donating money to Greenpeace.

RoughlyDrafted presented a series of articles that factually disputed Greenpeace├óÔé¼Ôäós claims and demonstrated that the group was willfully publishing bad data and advertising presumptions it knew were not accurate:

http://www.answers.com/topic/criticism-of-greenpeace

More recently, Greenpeace was fined for damaging almost 100 square meters of coral in Tubbataha Reef. The group accepted responsibility for the act, and paid a fine of approximately $7,000 equivalent in Philippine Pesos,

] Greenpeace's protests were discussed at the same IWC meeting with agenda item IWC/58/3, relating to their protest actions against Japanese whaling in the Southern ocean in December 2005 / January 2006, during which a collision occurred between a Japanese whaling ship and a Greenpeace ship, resulting in this resolution from the IWC.

Nov. 14, 2003 - When Greenpeace activists illegally scrambled aboard the cargo ship APL Jade, it was the start of a pretty typical day. Convinced the ship was hauling contraband mahogany from Brazil, the environmentalists aimed to draw attention to it by unfurling a banner with this message: ├óÔé¼┼ôPresident Bush, Stop Illegal Logging.├óÔé¼┬Ø Their arrests by the Coast Guard were also part of a day├óÔé¼Ôäós work. But the later use of an obscure 19th century law to charge the entire organization with criminal conspiracy has Greenpeace defenders claiming that they are the target of U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft├óÔé¼Ôäós attempts to stifle political criticism of the government.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3475218/

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=1888

Millions of lives could be saved and economic development could be helped along if Greenpeace ended its senseless campaigns against the insecticide DDT and biotechnology, says the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Steven J. Milloy.

Although the Environmental Protection Agency banned DDT use in the United States in 1972, the ban and its tenuous rationale was never intended to be applied outside the country.

* Environmental groups, including Greenpeace, nevertheless exported the ban, making control of malaria-bearing mosquitoes in poor countries essentially impossible.
* Every year, the ban helps cause hundreds of millions of cases of malaria and tens of millions of resulting deaths in Africa and other parts of the developing world.
* Greenpeace also campaigns against the use of agricultural biotechnology, including "Golden Rice," which could help with the severe Vitamin A deficiency that afflicts hundreds of millions in Africa and Asia and blinds 500,000 children each year.

Scientists developed Golden Rice using the gene that makes daffodils yellow. The gene makes the rice rich in beta-carotene, a precursor to vitamin A.

But as pointed out by Greenpeace co-founder and former President Patrick Moore, now a vociferous critic of the activist group: "Greenpeace activists threaten to rip the biotech rice out of the fields if farmers dare to plant it. They have done everything they can to discredit the scientists and the technology."

Source: Steven J. Milloy, "Rock Stars' Activism Could Be Put to Better Use," Competitive Enterprise Institute, June 24, 2005.

Basically all the activity i know of greenpeace in finland has been them tying themselves into a nuclear power plant, getting peppersprayed for raiding a cargo ship and afterwards suing the police. Also campaigning against the hunt of wolves in lapland, which kill the primary source of food in the most northern part of finland.

and

n June 1995, Greenpeace took the trunk of a tree from the forests of Mets├â┬ñhallitus in Ilomantsi, Finland and put it on exhibitions held in Austria and Germany. They said in a press conference that the tree was originally logged by local people from an ancient forest, but in truth that tree had crashed over a road during a storm a few weeks before

When a group disregards their own and the lives of others, and consider them to be above the law, doing what they want whenever they want, outright lying and making propaganda campaings with false information, using shock/distatestful ads (for example images of drowning babies)
they become a terrorist organization in my books, much like the kiddies who run around freeing animals used to make furs, only to see them die of starvation outside their cages, wasting real people's real living.

HildemarDasce · Post by **HildemarDasce** » 16 Dec 2007, 11:32

I'm not disputing that members of greenpeace do retarded stuff such as the examples you've brought up here Sleksa (and I actually said so in my first post here).

My argument is just that _elements_ within Greenpeace do very good things, and fill a constructive function for corporations and governments alike.

Sleksa · Post by **Sleksa** » 16 Dec 2007, 12:24

My argument is just that _elements_ within Greenpeace do very good things, and fill a constructive function for corporations and governments alike.

i havent seen a single article about greenpeace councelling goverments, except your saying that the spanish goverment took advice from them(which i doubt)

and it doesnt matter if they do one odd thing like that, single members from greenpeace CANNOT buy TV ads and campaigns of those shock images, Greenpeace buys lawyers to harass police doing their job, they buy lawyers for people who do irresponsible shit and bail them out of it. I fail to see how SINGLE, INDEPENDANT BODIES ARE BUYING ALL THIS STUFF.

look at this comparison;

Sweden just doubled its gas prices, financially forcing people to cut down driving and to use public transportation. Nobody got hurt, no tankers were raided, no skinned animals were shown on tv.

The swedes acted according to the law, made proposals and urged their candidates in the parliament to vote for these laws.

Greenpeace's way on the other hand is to make up lies like "20 nuclear reactors have blown up since zernobyl, fight the power and chain yourself into a nuclear reactor", then running gore ads, and after all this shit they go and hit the reactors, harass people raising livestock in lapland, raiding oil tankers and kamikazing into whaling ships, and on the top of the cream they use lawyers to then SUE the police and all the other people FOR DOING THEIR GODDAMN JOB.

Way to go greenpeace, your research on the coral reef's decay is sure duly noted when you yourself are fined for destroying it.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_ ... estruction )

now please show some articles about this research, show me some good articles about greenpeace councelling germany in enviroimental issues

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_ ... orestation )

or shut the fuck up and go raid a fur farm with a ski mask

SwiftSpear · Post by **SwiftSpear** » 16 Dec 2007, 15:08

HildemarDasce wrote:I'm not disputing that members of greenpeace do retarded stuff such as the examples you've brought up here Sleksa (and I actually said so in my first post here).

My argument is just that _elements_ within Greenpeace do very good things, and fill a constructive function for corporations and governments alike.

That's like saying cancer is good because sometimes it kills criminals.

HildemarDasce · Post by **HildemarDasce** » 16 Dec 2007, 16:50

Sleksa, I totally understand your argument. You disapprove of dangerous extra parlamentiary action. You disapprove enough to feel that all of the Greenpeace organisation's credibility is removed as a result of the actions that some of their members partake in.
And I accept, and respect, that argument.

But personally, I think they do enough good things to balance the bad out. That does not, however, say that I approve of the negative things.
It's the same with any large organisation.

I disapprove of many things the Swedish government does for example, but that doesn't mean that I want to instigate a coup d'etat. I'm willing to accept that there are some sour apples in the basket I buy with my taxes.
I agree that decisions on governmental, or intergovernmental, level are more effective when dealing with environmental issues. But sometimes there isn't political will to reach those decisions. And sometimes there isn't political will to do the research required for their foundation. And there third party organisations can be a big asset.

As requested, some links to back up my argument:

http://www.apple.com/hotnews/agreenerapple/

http://www.bakeryandsnacks.com/news/ng. ... soy-amazon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FS_Clemenc ... ontroversy

http://www.hinduonnet.com/2006/02/17/st ... 221500.htm

or shut the fuck up and go raid a fur farm with a ski mask

I'm just putting in my two cents on the issue. Cool down a notch or two.

The dichotomy in our opinions is just rooted in how much emphasis we put on the Greenpeace activists.
I think we both agree that we will not convince eachother of changing our respective opinions (incidentally, that's not what I'm trying to do here anyway). I understand and respect your opinion, we just value things differently.
So I'll drop this issue now.

Sleksa · Post by **Sleksa** » 16 Dec 2007, 17:18

But personally, I think they do enough good things to balance the bad out. That does not, however, say that I approve of the negative things.
It's the same with any large organisation.

so if i kill a man and later on help a woman give birth the killing becomes nullified?

or better yet what if hitler would've apologized for killing 5 million jews would he have gotten a pardon and pat on the back?

I disapprove of many things the Swedish government does for example, but that doesn't mean that I want to instigate a coup d'etat. I'm willing to accept that there are some sour apples in the basket I buy with my taxes.
I agree that decisions on governmental, or intergovernmental, level are more effective when dealing with environmental issues. But sometimes there isn't political will to reach those decisions. And sometimes there isn't political will to do the research required for their foundation. And there third party organisations can be a big asset.

oh right the evil goverment is the reason why we need to have people chaining themselves into trees

Sleksa, I totally understand your argument. You disapprove of dangerous extra parlamentiary action. You disapprove enough to feel that all of the Greenpeace organisation's credibility is removed as a result of the actions that some of their members partake in.
And I accept, and respect, that argument.

What credibility an organization holds that talks about enviroimental catasthrophes while destroying enviroiment at the same time?

What credibility does a organization that pays lawyers for gravediggers and sues the police from detaining them?

They are in every sense, a terrorist organization with above average funding with absolutely ridiculous propaganda campaigns and straight lies intended to make people donate money for them.

After all this i really fail to see how anyone anywhere can think of anything positive about this group primarily composed of 15-25 year old people running around

It's the same with any large organisation.

A large organization does not pay lawyers for their members who are on trial for rape.

HildemarDasce · Post by **HildemarDasce** » 16 Dec 2007, 17:42

Ah, the obligatory Hitler comparison. No internet debate is complete without it.

(speaking of which, this is pretty interesting: http://beautifulatrocities.com/archives ... ure_e.html )

Yes you have uncovered me, I am in fact a nazi child molesting satanist.
And I was a fool to think that it wouldn't be glaringly obvious seeing as how I could approve of any act done by the satanical Greenpeace organisation, truly the most vile monstrosity of our time, indeed on par with the perpetrators of the holocaust as you so rightfully pointed out.

I will leave this thread in shame, having been defeated and exposed by your valiant and eloquent prose.

Comp1337 · Post by **Comp1337** » 16 Dec 2007, 18:03

Sleksa wrote:hitler

GODWIN!

Sleksa · Post by **Sleksa** » 16 Dec 2007, 18:09

hell yeah

nemppu · Post by **nemppu** » 16 Dec 2007, 19:29

heil yeah

hrmph · Post by **hrmph** » 16 Dec 2007, 20:41

Thats ridiculous anyways.. Most people I know keep their consoles for an eternity, or they trade them to a place like gamestop. Computers are more likely to get thrown out after they reach a certain age.. Just imagine how many 486s are taking up space in landfills around the country.

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 16 Dec 2007, 21:19

I have 3 NES and 3 Atari 2600. Hrmph speaks truth.

pintle · Post by **pintle** » 16 Dec 2007, 21:41

just found this in one of sleksa's links:

"The factual basis of particular campaigns has been criticized, for example over the Brent Spar oil platform affair in 1995, in which Greenpeace mounted a successful campaign (including occupation of the platform and a public boycott) to force one of the platform's co-owners, Royal Dutch/Shell, to dismantle the platform on land instead of scuttling it. A moratorium on the dumping of offshore installations was almost immediately adopted in Europe, and three years later the Environment Ministers of the countries bordering the North East Atlantic agreed with Greenpeace, and adopted a permanent ban on the dumping of offshore installations at sea (PDF). After the occupation of the Brent Spar it became known that Shell had not misled the public as to the amount of toxic wastes on board the installation. Greenpeace admitted that its claims that the Spar contained 5000 tons of oil were inaccurate and apologized to Shell on September 5. However Greenpeace also dismissed the issue that it was one of wider industrial responsibility, and as the first offshore installation to be dumped in the North East Atlantic, the Brent Spar would have been followed by dozens or hundreds more, thereby setting what Greenpeace considers to be a dangerous precedent. It also pointed out that the decision by Shell to scrap the Brent Spar had been taken before the incorrect amount of toxic waste was published by Greenpeace, and therefore that its mistake could not have influenced Shell's decision."

The environmental crisis has not been at the forefront of the public consciousness for very long at all, whereas greenpeace have been around for some time.
They are far from perfect, but that should not be taken to imply that they are all evil terrorist bastards. I could make the same judgements about, say, the entire government of the USA if i wanted to.

Their role in maintaining the presence of environmental issues in the public eye has been an important one over the past 20+ years, and while their methods are at times reprehensible, it is unfair, imo, to write off the entire organisation and its intentions on the basis of the results of googling "criticisms of greenpeace".

bring on the flames :D:D

Sleksa · Post by **Sleksa** » 16 Dec 2007, 22:07

pintle wrote: The environmental crisis has not been at the forefront of the public consciousness for very long at all, whereas greenpeace have been around for some time.

if by public conciousness part you mean the last 200 years is not a long time, okay. The greenpeace is not the only group to notice the global enviroimental problems/crisises, really.

Their role in maintaining the presence of environmental issues in the public eye has been an important one over the past 20+ years, and while their methods are at times reprehensible, it is unfair, imo, to write off the entire organisation and its intentions on the basis of the results of googling "criticisms of greenpeace".

greenpeace has arranged several raids on people who hunt wolves, because they want to preserve the current amount of wolves in finland, but what they fail to realize is that the wolves are predators who kill reindeer, which in turn are the primary source of living for people in lapland. every time the amount of wolves rises in finland their natural hunting areas grow to sustain the amount.

For greenpeace, the primary goal is to preserve and to hopefully grow the amount of wolves.

for others, the primary goal is to ensure the survival of the people in lapland and minimize the damage caused by the wolves on their livestock.

for one raider its a funny weekend action trip, but for one resident who has just lost livestock its something much more bigger.
i honestly think there is something wrong if you are putting the well being of animals over the well being of humans. Or if you force other people to comply with your views of the world.

Their role in maintaining the presence of environmental issues in the public eye has been an important one over the past 20+ years, and while their methods are at times reprehensible, it is unfair, imo, to write off the entire organisation and its intentions on the basis of the results of googling "criticisms of greenpeace".

that's like saying that finland should deny ever being allied to nazis in ww2 to be more pleasant looking in the history books.

Their methods ARE rephensible, shocking, and selfish. Again, single agents and individual people do not buy shock ads for greenpeace on tv , single agents do not hire lawyers for these people who run around in these raids.

if you want to make a change, sell your car, drop your room temperature, or some shit like that, but only do things that affect ONLY YOURSELF.

Forcing some people to comply with your views of the world(read, falsified facts on propaganda ads) and forcing them to comply with them ( raids) is where it all goes wrong, i dont give a fuck if you buy scientists to work on more clean fuels if the salary of those scientists is paid by popularity and donations from destroying another man's living.

1v0ry_k1ng · Post by **1v0ry_k1ng** » 16 Dec 2007, 22:30

I think this sums up my oppinion to that video;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uh1jB4hVJRg

pintle · Post by **pintle** » 16 Dec 2007, 23:02

Sleksa wrote:Forcing some people to comply with your views of the world(read, falsified facts on propaganda ads) and forcing them to comply with them ( raids) is where it all goes wrong, i dont give a fuck if you buy scientists to work on more clean fuels if the salary of those scientists is paid by popularity and donations from destroying another man's living.

On reflection, I completely agree with that sentiment.

I stand corrected

HildemarDasce · Post by **HildemarDasce** » 17 Dec 2007, 00:15

I think this sums up my oppinion to that video;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uh1jB4hVJRg

That was very very funny. Love the monotonous voice.

manored · Post by **manored** » 17 Dec 2007, 01:28

Forcing or trying to force our ideas into other people is a inevitable part of human life... really! :)

I tough dont agree with putting nature above mankind, We should only care about parts of the nature that we will miss if we lose, like, dont kill all frogs so mosquitoes dont eat us :)

The PS3 video was fun :)

Spring RTS Engine

zomg green peace