zomg green peace

SwiftSpear · Post by **SwiftSpear** » 17 Dec 2007, 02:13

Pintle: I find it ironic that the best possible scenario you can find regarding green peace still has them outright lying to the public.

I have a problem when large scale organizations lie to manipulate public opinion and get their way. Sure, the ends justify the means, but the ends achieved are never going to be ideal when the means are dishonesty.

pintle · Post by **pintle** » 17 Dec 2007, 03:40

That absolutely was not the best possible scenario i found, it was the first paragraph i read of the first of sleksa's links that I idly clicked, and i found it amusingly ironic that the "criticism" portrayed the net result of their actions in a positive light.

I find it difficult to believe you are cynical enough to perceive that as the "best possible scenario" ever to occur involving greenpeace

SwiftSpear · Post by **SwiftSpear** » 17 Dec 2007, 14:07

mmmm, I misunderstood.

Obviously I don't trust Green Peace very much though

, I wonder why that could be :)

manored · Post by **manored** » 17 Dec 2007, 16:21

Cause they would save the life of a rare tree instead of yours? :)

SwiftSpear · Post by **SwiftSpear** » 18 Dec 2007, 13:24

manored wrote:Cause they would save the life of a rare tree instead of yours? :)

I could forgive that if it were acctually valid. The thing is, they'ed be more inclined to kill me over the "rare" tree, just to find out later that it was a common breed that's acctually in the process of hostilely taking over the jungle. Then they'd make a press report claiming it's ok because I was about to murder babies anyways.

That's the point. They take absolutely zero responsibility for their actions, they bear arms over utterly unlikely and unproven theorys, and they will take any means to achieve ends which are often not even of valid concern, most notably lying to the public.

If they acctually acted based on intelligent and relevant research they would have a valid organization... but things like their campaign against golden rice, which could RIGHT NOW, TODAY, be being used to save literally thousands of lives of starving people dying every day of malnutrition. It's NOTHING more than an easy to grow, vitamin enriched breed of rice. There are VERY few risks, and the risks are VERY manageable, yet they still advocate the total and utter ban of it, simply because they can't tolerate the scientific basis of it, the conspiracy theory of the evil scientists churning out manpigs and devilplants is all they can envision, but it's COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY FICTION.

The point is, from the side of green peace NO research is being done, NO real research is being considered. They have no basis for their organization, they are basically a weekly world news group that acctually believes their own idiocy.

Pxtl · Post by **Pxtl** » 18 Dec 2007, 15:29

Actually, thinking it over, video games are probably the most environmentally-friendly gift that kids will be receiving this Christmas. Think about packaging - if a guy gets an action-figure, it will come wrapped in a cardboard box, with a heavy plastic shell over the toy. The toy itself will be made of a large amount of non-biodegradable plastic, and may require countless toxic alkaline batteries.

Meanwhile, a videogame is a thin disk that takes up very little space in the landfill. There is a far more active resale market for old games than old toys, so it will stay in use much longer. The packaging of the game is used as storage when you own it - so it's not like a toy that has to be kept in a toybox (yet another unnecessary piece of furniture that will end up in a landfill when it gets old). It takes up less space, so your house needs less of a footprint (ever hear parents complain that they need a bigger house because of all the clutter?). And it doesn't run on batteries.

Even better if it's an online-distribution game off of Steam, LiveArcade, or VirtualConsole.

So save the planet! Buy a game!

pintle · Post by **pintle** » 18 Dec 2007, 16:06

CDs and DVDs are pretty horrendous in terms of the carbon footprint of their construction, let alone the other non-desirable effects of their production. There is also the energy usage of the gaming system to take into account.

Hard copy distribution of software should become a thing of the past imo, limited to a minority for people without access to the interwebs

HildemarDasce · Post by **HildemarDasce** » 18 Dec 2007, 16:24

pintle wrote:Hard copy distribution of software should become a thing of the past imo, limited to a minority for people without access to the interwebs

Amen brother.

Sleksa · Post by **Sleksa** » 18 Dec 2007, 19:27

taken from today's local newspaper. "greenpeace protested against excessive fishing by blocking European Commission main door with several meter tall concrete walls. roughly 100 greenpeacers blocked the other doors.

http://www.vt.se/nyheter/utrikesnytt.as ... id=2908159 (swedish)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7147992.stm (english)

It was before sunrise and it was clear that the environmental group, Greenpeace, had planned some sort of stunt.

The European Commission has already proposed further cuts in fishing catches to help protect stocks but Greenpeace is convinced the new quotas will not go far enough.

Cue the arrival of a large van - and a multinational, multilingual army of around 200 activists, from over a dozen countries, wearing bright yellow tops.

Breezeblocks and fish nets

Within seconds, breezeblocks were being carried towards the entrance of the building. Within 10 minutes, using cement, they'd built a wall around 20 metres long and two metres high.

Police moved in and began arresting the demonstrators.

For intrepid employees not put off by the wall and trying to get into the building using other entrances, fish nets appeared to stop them getting any further.

Do you still want to argue that the main body of greenpeace does not support or think positively of this kind of stunts, and that people just happened to posess concrete walls and means to transport them and 200 protestors spontaneously pulled this stunt out?

HildemarDasce · Post by **HildemarDasce** » 18 Dec 2007, 20:30

Sleksa wrote:Do you still want to argue that the main body of greenpeace does not support or think positively of this kind of stunts, and that people just happened to posess concrete walls and means to transport them and 200 protestors spontaneously pulled this stunt out?

Ah, I never said that they don't support that sort of stuff (checking out the GP website makes it pretty obvious that they do). I just said that the main body do other things.

As for the issue with the fish, I think something drastic has to be done as well (although building a cement wall at the EC isn't exactly what I had in mind). I just read a book by this woman who got the Big Journalist Prize in Sweden (the most prestigious journalism award here), where she details just how close the European nations are to pretty much destroying the last reserves of fish.

Sweden, incidentally, is one of the worst countries when it comes to this.
The fishing industry has taken so much fish out of the ocean here that it's not even economically viable to fish anymore (the amount of fish pulled up per fishing run is not enough to pay for the run itself). The fishermen's union lobbied the government, who stepped in and payed for better equipment in order to pull the last few fishes up basically.
So now a whole range of species are reaching catastrophic levels on the Swedish East and West coasts. The Eel has diminished by slightly more than 99% the last 20 years for example, and six other species are already gone.

So yeah, I get why environmental activisits get frustrated that no political instance has been able to reach a sustainable fishing quota yet.

But again, I think the action you mention wont exactly push things in the right direction. If they put the money in lobbying it would most probably be more effective.

The book mentioned is called Tyst Hav (Silent Ocean), written by Isabella L├â┬Âvin.

SwiftSpear · Post by **SwiftSpear** » 19 Dec 2007, 04:37

I like green peace stunts, I just don't like their agenda alot of the time.

The concrete wall for instance, it probably cost maby 10-20 thousand dollars to make it, put that money into lobbying and it does virtually nothing, but the concrete wall infront of parlement guarentees that greenpeace, for better or for worse, is on the front page of every newspaper in the country.

That's the point, the stunt creates drama, drama forces people to question motive, and questioning motive ultimately raises awareness for the issue. If greenpeace, or some other organization then takes up donations in light of the issue, income would MASSIVELY outweigh the cost of the initial wall.

The stunts are a good thing IMO, but the problem is, if you're going to create so much strive and hardship with these stunts, you really need to double and triple check that your facts are accurate, and your agenda is valid, which greenpeace rarely does.

HildemarDasce · Post by **HildemarDasce** » 19 Dec 2007, 11:52

SwiftSpear wrote:I like green peace stunts, I just don't like their agenda alot of the time.

The concrete wall for instance, it probably cost maby 10-20 thousand dollars to make it, put that money into lobbying and it does virtually nothing, but the concrete wall infront of parlement guarentees that greenpeace, for better or for worse, is on the front page of every newspaper in the country.

That's the point, the stunt creates drama, drama forces people to question motive, and questioning motive ultimately raises awareness for the issue. If greenpeace, or some other organization then takes up donations in light of the issue, income would MASSIVELY outweigh the cost of the initial wall.

The stunts are a good thing IMO, but the problem is, if you're going to create so much strive and hardship with these stunts, you really need to double and triple check that your facts are accurate, and your agenda is valid, which greenpeace rarely does.

Fair enough, but in this particular instance it's a very valid cause (I have a reference!!111├é┬ñ%)

Sleksa · Post by **Sleksa** » 19 Dec 2007, 14:30

i have a valid cause too, i work against rasicm by killing white people

HildemarDasce · Post by **HildemarDasce** » 19 Dec 2007, 15:56

Sleksa wrote:i have a valid cause too, i work against rasicm by killing white people

There is a difference between 'some goals justify some means', and 'some goals justify ALL means'.

Sleksa · Post by **Sleksa** » 19 Dec 2007, 16:37

HildemarDasce wrote:
There is a difference between 'some goals justify some means', and 'some goals justify ALL means'.

yes i agree

HildemarDasce · Post by **HildemarDasce** » 19 Dec 2007, 16:45

Sleksa wrote:yes i agree

Then you win a 2 Euro gift voucher at H&M. This will however be null and void should you be in judicial custody for murder, given your previous hints of vigilante anti racism crusading.

Sleksa · Post by **Sleksa** » 19 Dec 2007, 16:55

Your course of action leaves me with no lawful way to voice my opinions so the only choice left is to wall your house inside a concrete bunker and suffocate you so that i may steal your 2 euro gift voucher

HildemarDasce · Post by **HildemarDasce** » 19 Dec 2007, 16:59

Ah, looking sharp is indeed an end that justifies all and every action in its pursuit! At least a small consolation when I exhale my last breath.

SwiftSpear · Post by **SwiftSpear** » 20 Dec 2007, 06:54

The ends always justify the means... but if you have dead people in your ends then your ends suck.

HildemarDasce · Post by **HildemarDasce** » 20 Dec 2007, 13:24

SwiftSpear wrote:The ends always justify the means... but if you have dead people in your ends then your ends suck.

Unless you are constructing a graveyard with disability access.

Spring RTS Engine

zomg green peace