Greenpeace Draws The Line...Finally!

[Socratesabroad]

Civil disobedience does not "force [its] moral views on others".

Trespassing, breaking and entering, destruction of private property, willful endangerment, and similar acts by Greenpeace stopping individuals (or whaling/scientific fleets, companies, whoever) from the exercise of their legal rights is in fact forcing their views [moral or otherwise] on others.

With such actions, Greenpeace is no different from a pro-life Christian protester breaking into a women's clinic to deface it or simply walking in and causing a ruckus. Both are simply eschewing the system in favor of forcing others to curtail the free exercise of their rights. And I'm comfortable in opposing both.

[drpepper]

Civil disobedience does not "force [its] moral views on others".

Trespassing, breaking and entering, destruction of private property, willful endangerment, and similar acts by Greenpeace stopping individuals (or whaling/scientific fleets, companies, whoever) from the exercise of their legal rights is in fact forcing their views [moral or otherwise] on others.

With such actions, Greenpeace is no different from a pro-life Christian protester breaking into a women's clinic to deface it or simply walking in and causing a ruckus. Both are simply eschewing the system in favor of forcing others to curtail the free exercise of their rights. And I'm comfortable in opposing both.

Gotta say I am with Socrates on this one, wrongs don't justify rights unless you are talking about serious extremes like slavery or a national revolution. I don't think GP qualifies in that..

[DJEB]

Leaving aside the issue of imposition of moral values on others, which I don't agree is the case, is not protection of the biosphere upon which all life relies a serious enough extreme to warrant civil disobendience?

Merry Christmas

[Socratesabroad]

Leaving aside the issue of imposition of moral values on others, which I don't agree is the case, is not protection of the biosphere upon which all life relies a serious enough extreme to warrant civil disobendience?

But

[m]any Christian fundamentalists feel that concern for the future of our planet is irrelevant, because it has no future. They believe we are living in the End Time, when the son of God will return, the righteous will enter heaven, and sinners will be condemned to eternal hellfire. They may also believe, along with millions of other Christian fundamentalists, that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed -- even hastened -- as a sign of the coming Apocalypse.

Point is, you can justify just about any action with such appeals to a greater goal.

I want rational, reasoned debate not theatrics


or zealoutry...
Environmentalism as Religion
by Michael Crichton
Commonwealth Club
September 15, 2003

Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don't want to talk anybody out of them, as I don't want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don't want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can't talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.

And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.

[DJEB]

Well, at least you've blown apart anti-abortionist Christians. If the world will end anyway, who cares?

However, if you accept drpepper's comment on "serious extremes," then one would agree that protection of life on the planet would be a reasonable cause for inconveniencing a few people for a short time.

As for a rational debate, such debates are unfortunately usually disregarded in the cause of profit. In such cases, theatrics may be the only way that attention will be captured.

[drpepper]

And killing whales is going to lead to the end of the world??

[Greener]

And killing whales is going to lead to the end of the world??

According to greenpeace, the world will end if I use too much toilet paper when taking a dump if you listen to them long enough. Maybe I can use their donation forms instead of TP.

[GuyJean]

I want rational, reasoned debate not theatrics

Theatrics like this?

Or this?


I understand what you're saying, but sometimes it's seems 'theatrics' spark the 'reasoned debate'..

GJ

[GuyJean]

Maybe I can use their donation forms instead of TP.

Actually, if you had no intention of donating, I think they'd like that.

GJ

[Greener]

I want rational, reasoned debate not theatrics

Theatrics like this?

Or this?


I understand what you're saying, but sometimes it's seems 'theatrics' spark the 'reasoned debate'..

GJ

Greenpeace has been around for something like 35 years and still haven't gone past theatrics and the hunger for martyr status. Which is why they are nowhere near the same conversation as the two you compered them two just now.

[GuyJean]

Greenpeace has been around for something like 35 years and still haven't gone past theatrics and the hunger for martyr status.

Are you saying there is no whaling debate, no global warming debate, no nuclear waste debate? Everyone agrees on each subject?..

How can you be sure Greenpeace, with their 'theatrical martyrdom', didn't draw some attention to these debates? I'd be willing to bet they have..

In fact, when I was teaching I remember students, who probably would've otherwise never thought about it, 'debate' the dioxin levels in Japan because Greenpeace hung a banner on Japan's tallest incinerator. The students were curious why someone would do such a thing..

Although on a much smaller scale than MLK or Teinimen, it is an example of their theatrics sparking critical thinking.. Theatrics that harmed no one.

GJ

[Socratesabroad]

However, if you accept drpepper's comment on "serious extremes," then one would agree that protection of life on the planet would be a reasonable cause for inconveniencing a few people for a short time.

These dire predictions about the fate of the planet and humanity get old...quick

Crichton again

Okay, so, the preachers made a mistake. They got one prediction wrong]With so many past failures, you might think that environmental predictions would become more cautious. But not if it's a religion. Remember, the nut on the sidewalk carrying the placard that predicts the end of the world doesn't quit when the world doesn't end on the day he expects. He just changes his placard, sets a new doomsday date, and goes back to walking the streets. One of the defining features of religion is that your beliefs are not troubled by facts, because they have nothing to do with facts. [/b]

As for a rational debate, such debates are unfortunately usually disregarded in the cause of profit. In such cases, theatrics may be the only way that attention will be captured.

Ah, so you then admit that you, or the side you support, has and given up on logic and rationality in favor of emotion.

If Greenpeace wishes to turn things into circus

so be it. But don't be surprised when such tactics flatly alienate the more rational of us.

[Socratesabroad]

[Greener]

If Greenpeace laid off the terrorism and actually did something of substance legally, all would be good but again, they need to get their names in the paper and be martyrs to boost their egos. (Likely due to small penises on the part of most hardcore activists. Or the Howard Stern Syndrome.)

[Greji]

If Greenpeace laid off the terrorism and actually did something of substance legally, all would be good but again, they need to get their names in the paper and be martyrs to boost their egos. (Likely due to small penises on the part of most hardcore activists. Or the Howard Stern Syndrome.)

I suspect Greener has noticed something in these martyrs that we have overlooked. I will now start making a check each time I go to the men's room to see if I can spot these guys, how would you say? Off hand?

[kamome]

Greener, I haven't seen one link from you corroborating your claims of "terrorism". Equating a group like Greenpeace to a group like Hamas is laughable.

[GuyJean]

Ahhh, but they have.

Hhmm. Interesting.. So you support stem-cell research, cloning, and genetically modified food, correct? Anyone banning these practices must be responsible for killing millions of humans.

Again, I don't agree with GreenPeace on everything, but I do think they are less harmful than your basic Union Carbides of the world. Do you think China puts it's citizen's health over economic progress? What about Japan? These governments need no checks and balances?

Greener, I haven't seen one link from you corroborating your claims of "terrorism". Equating a group like Greenpeace to a group like Hamas is laughable.

On the Internet, the first person to call someone a 'terrorist', loses the argument.

GJ

[GuyJean]

[Greener]

Greener, I haven't seen one link from you corroborating your claims of "terrorism". Equating a group like Greenpeace to a group like Hamas is laughable.

http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.17751/article_detail.asp

Interesting stuff in there. So invading ships and attacking people isn't terrorism?

[Greener]

http://www.suisankai.or.jp/iken_e/iken99_e/ik001_e.html

More illegal acts of terrorism. Sabatoge is definately an act of terrorism. Also funding terrorist groups like they do is no better than giving money to Bin Laden.

I hope someone eventually stomps these pricks.

[GuyJean]

[Greji]

[quote=""GuyJean So what happened? This article gives no details..

GJ[/quote"]

They would not buy in the pub!

[GuyJean]

They would not buy in the pub!

Oh, so now I'm a terrorist too!?

GJ

[Greji]

They would not buy in the pub!

Oh, so now I'm a terrorist too!? ]

Old Roppongi Chinese Proverb: "If the Foo Shits Wear It."

Merry Xmas GJ!

[GuyJean]

Old Roppongi Chinese Proverb: "If the Foo Shits Wear It."

Merry Xmas GJ!

Nice one!.. My foo definitely shits

Merry Christmas to you too! Hoe, hoe, hoe!

GJ

[GomiGirl]

Interesting subject. Had a conversation about this yesterday actually.

Greenpeace do like the spotlight and do like to take extremem measures to get the media focus on their issue du jour...

However, in this case of the whaling *cough* scientific ships, I really think they are really going about it the wrong way. Whale meat has been a part of the Japanese diet for much longer than people choose to remember. It was the "barbarian" commercial whaling that nearly wiped out the population. The scientific rubbish is just to meet the demand of the Japanese market.

If Greenpeace were actually serious about stopping the whaling cull (rather than basking in the media circus), then they should remove the demand at grass roots - eg the Japanese dinner table. If no-body was buying it then there would be no whaling... der...

How to do this.. I dunno, I don't really care for whale but I am sure that some inventive methods could be investigated. I am not sure how the Greenpeace actions are percieved or reported in the J-newspapers as I am away in Australia at the moment, but I can't imagine many Japanese being swayed by Greenpeace's current activities..

I doubt there is a collective "Oh maybe the whaling is wrong as all of these hippies are protesting.. let me rethink my attitude to whale meat."

It is probably closer to, "Ah the westerners are not understanding the way we Japanese traditionally eat whale. Ignorant hippy westerners."

So while Greenpeace may be drawing attention to the sham of the scientific excuse of the whale cull in western countries, this action will be useless in actually achieving anything where it really matters - the FISH MARKETS.

Supply and demand peoples.. this is a simple economic concept and the only way that whaling will be stopped.

[Socratesabroad]

[Socratesabroad]

So you support stem-cell research, cloning, and genetically modified food, correct? Anyone banning these practices must be responsible for killing millions of humans.

I happen to be in favor of stem-cell and cloning research along with use of genetically modified crops in a prudent and controlled manner. Banning the application of that research, and especially in humans, is not the same as banning the actual research outright.

Though you might want to be careful with your choice of issues - Greenpeace, along with many other 'environmental' groups, actually opposes all three.

[DJEB]

And killing whales is going to lead to the end of the world??

Greenpeace is interested in more than just whales. But here is a question for you: what impact does the deer mouse have on North American forests? Is it important?

According to greenpeace, the world will end if I use too much toilet paper when taking a dump if you listen to them long enough. Maybe I can use their donation forms instead of TP.

Yuk yuk yuk! Hooray for straw men and diversionary humour!

And...

Ah, so you then admit that you, or the side you support, has and given up on logic and rationality in favor of emotion.

Hooray for straw men! Oh, BTW, Crichton specialises in fiction. And junkscience.com ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? You don't know much about the PR industry, it seems.

I'll save my admiration for true civil disobedience

And what is the "true civil disobedience"?

Greener, I haven't seen one link from you corroborating your claims of "terrorism".

Nor will you see any from any reputable source... (Mr. Greenaway's American Enterprise link did not provide any evidence of terrorism committed by Greenpeace. Same for the JFA link. And don't forget, Chris, you claimed Greenpeace "murdered people for decades.")

And did somebody say Patrick Moore again? ? ? And Michael Fumento? ?

[GuyJean]

So you support stem-cell research, cloning, and genetically modified food, correct? Anyone banning these practices must be responsible for killing millions of humans.

I happen to be in favor of stem-cell and cloning research along with use of genetically modified crops in a prudent and controlled manner. Banning the application of that research, and especially in humans, is not the same as banning the actual research outright.

Though you might want to be careful with your choice of issues - Greenpeace, along with many other 'environmental' groups, actually opposes all three.

Why would I want to be careful? I support responsible research in those fields as well. But I also believe Greenpeace's extreme views on the subject help produce that responsible research; checks and balances, baby!

I'm glad they are doing what they are doing, even though I disagree with them.

GJ