PDA

View Full Version : Militant environmentalists:your views


captain cumulonimbus
8th Feb 2006, 19:42
hi all.

Just curious,theres a huge debate here in SA at the mo over the "Sea Shapherd Organisation"-an anti-whaling,anti-seal killing group who have been branded "eco terrorists" as well as "heroes"...

They apparently employ very violent and wreckless tactics.

What are your thoughts.Mine are "bunch of Tw*ts" but i also am not too keen on how whales get knocked off so cruelly....

Lord Snot
8th Feb 2006, 19:54
I used to think that. Bunch of mung-bean, hippy, dole-bludging, hair-head [email protected]

Now I'm considering joining up as an "operator" or whatever they call them.

Greenpeace policy seems to be to play by the rules. I'd like to see (and maybe join) a group who will get out there and sink these frigging Jap whaling boats on sight when they're blasting whales.

I probably won't get around to it, though, because I'm lazy.

The Aust Gov't had the chance to shaft them, by means of the RAN, Harbour protocols and Aust Customs but they didn't. Probably to to fear over trade issues.

Time for someone else with loads of cash and spare time, not to mention good lawyers, to jump in and save the gay whales.

KeyboardHeadbutt
8th Feb 2006, 20:10
I always have to wonder where some hardline environmentalists and particularly animal rights protesters keep their brains. Some of the violence which has been dealt out to animal researchers and their families in England leaves me speechless. In these people's minds it's wrong to use animals for research (a fair enough point), but at the same time they don't hesitate to violently assault the researchers, and in one infamous case steal the decomposing remains of a family member from a grave. Aren't humans animals?

con-pilot
8th Feb 2006, 20:13
I believe as with many groups and organizations when they are first formed for good reasons the logical minded originators of these groups are soon overwhelmed by the more radical members.

I think this has happened to the 'Greenpeace' organization, many animal rights groups and all religions.

I'm all for saving the whales, can't see any reason they should be hunted in this day and age. But I'm sure not going to get in a little tiny boat and do my best to get run over by some huge whaling factory ship.:eek:

Lord Snot
8th Feb 2006, 20:19
Some of these groups have more than just tiny boats. I'm all for it as long as it's whalers they're harrassing, not boats we all love like yank nuke boomers, nuke carriers, etc, etc.

The yanks and other navies (nuke or not) are welcome except when they s***w our women and throw their garbage overboard near our beaches like they did recently near Brisbane.

The women thing and polluting our beaches are rights we reserve exclusively for ourselves.

con-pilot
8th Feb 2006, 20:27
You stew your women, oh my, whatever for?:p

Lord Snot
8th Feb 2006, 20:29
Soften up them Queensland boilers..... that's what fer!

Saintsman
8th Feb 2006, 21:04
Hypocracy is what comes to mind. I'm sure many of them are wearing leather shoes and tuck into a plate of roast beef every now and then. (I know a lot of them are supposed to be veggies).

Why is it okay to eat fish, meat etc but not whales? At least they are eaten and most of the carcus used, unlike those animals bred for their skin. I can understand people getting excited over the latter and also over whales where numbers are verging on extinction. If certain whales are sustainable though, why not?

There are few animals on earth that do not kill another one for food one way or another. If you're going to eat it, its fine by me.

colmac747
8th Feb 2006, 21:06
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=207265&highlight=whale+in+thames

:E

captain cumulonimbus
8th Feb 2006, 21:25
Well i believe Animal Research is indeed VERY necessary and,provided it is done with the minimal amount of suffering caused and for purely medical reasons such as researching for drugs to cure diseases such as cancer or altzheimers or the like,it is not unethical.Of course i'd much prefer to see these drugs being tested on imprisoned murderers or rapists but,well,we can all dream...

As for the envoro-morons,remember the lot that tried to tunnel under Manchesters new runway to stop it being built? Bunch of Pr!cks!

Marvin the Robot
9th Feb 2006, 06:20
researching for drugs to cure diseases such as cancer or altzheimers
How do you assess a rabbit for altzheimers? They're thick as s**t when they're healthy! :confused:

Howard Hughes
9th Feb 2006, 06:48
Hypocracy is what comes to mind. I'm sure many of them are wearing leather shoes... Leather toe thongs actually (flip flops);), damn hippies, whilst I agree with some of there causes (whale slaughter by the Japanese, research my a:mad:, why don't they just use the 100's of whales that beach themselves each year?), I totally disagree with others (Anti Nuclear, are you kidding me this is by far the cleanest way to generate the large amounts of power the world needs to stop climate change), admittedly the disposal is a problem....

1DC
9th Feb 2006, 07:44
Do any of them act within the law? Greenpeace certainly don't, and they will lie and distort the facts to get the soundbites they want.They published a letter containing absolute lies about a business I was in and when challenged they agreed it was all wrong but refused to retract. They had achieved what they wanted and misinformed the local public.
The guy on the Sea Shepherd is just a criminal as far as I am concerned..
As far as the whales are concerned I enjoy my fish and meat so how can I condemn the people who want to eat them.

patdavies
9th Feb 2006, 11:35
Leather toe thongs actually (flip flops);), damn hippies, whilst I agree with some of there causes (whale slaughter by the Japanese, research my a:mad:, why don't they just use the 100's of whales that beach themselves each year?), I totally disagree with others (Anti Nuclear, are you kidding me this is by far the cleanest way to generate the large amounts of power the world needs to stop climate change), admittedly the disposal is a problem....


Well there's all these old (and now empty) coal mines...........

If you really want to confuse a 'greenie' ask them why they fervently support nuclear power. After all, the Sun is the biggest nuclear reactor in our solar system

Send Clowns
9th Feb 2006, 13:11
Didn't Greenpeace finally admit that the most environmentally-sound way of disposing of the Brent Spar would have been to tow it to sea and sink it? Exactly what they prevented happening. That is certainly the truth, but they took advantages of the headlines they could produce by saying the opposite. That was shameful exploitation of popular ignorance, finally putting me off the environmentalists with whom I always strongly disagreed about nuclear energy.

Since then I have learnt how shameful is the over-emphasis on dangers of nuclear energy, amongst other misrepresentations. Did anyone else realise that the leukaemia cluster near Sellafield is almost identical to that in any town with a relatively rapid population increase due to a new industry? Does anyone else realise that the current best estimates for additional deaths due to the worst British nuclear leak (at Sellafield when it was called Windscale) are between zero and the low tens? The additional radiation would have done very little cell damage, and it now seems that our cells can repair that level, so there is a good chance no-one dies due to the accident. Did anyone know that the vast majority of the "5 Albert Halls worth" of nuclear waste often quoted is low-level, and can be left in a landfill site without any environmental hazard?

Do you see Greenpeace advertising these facts to correct the misinformation they have previously spread, and to praise nuclear power for its cleanliness and lack of carbon emission?

Capt.KAOS
9th Feb 2006, 13:21
Militant environmentalists are and have to be treated like terrorists.

Having said that, I don't think that Greenpeace are militant environmentalists.

Jerricho
9th Feb 2006, 13:35
Do you see Greenpeace advertising these facts to correct the misinformation they have previously spread, and to praise nuclear power for its cleanliness and lack of carbon emission?


Of course not. Like that fat prick Michael Moore, they are becoming the very mechanisms they are against.

airship
9th Feb 2006, 14:42
You all should know that I've never been a paid-up member of any environmental organisation as far as I'm aware. Though a couple of years ago I did donate $100 to those foolhardy folk who wanted to go to Baghdad in order to protect that city from what we all now admit was probably an illegal, if not simply just a downright stupid, invasion... ;)

Didn't Greenpeace finally admit that the most environmentally-sound way of disposing of the Brent Spar would have been to tow it to sea and sink it? But you miss the point SC! Which is that without groups like Greenpeace, there probably wouldn't have been any discussion about how to properly dispose of a spent rig. And the oil company would have carried on regardless, with what just happened to also be the cheapest solution in this case... :}

An ongoing example is what's happenning with regard to the old French aircraft carrier Clemenceau heading out to the breakers' in India (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4692420.stm). The French MOD are now offering to 'take back' any asbestos found (after breakup). The real point is that the Indians who are going to be breaking up the vessel won't have the necessary personal protection to safely deal with the asbestos. Not what to do with it all after it's been removed... :rolleyes:

Anyway, back to Greenpeace. If these sorts of organisations could simply be lumped together as a bunch of silly trouble-makers without a case, just why would a 1st World country like France have resorted to what anyone today would be obliged to call a 'terrorist act'? Back then, perhaps it was just National security interests, these days it's more likely vested 'commercial interests' with long arms which reach politicians in places that other 'cries' cannot reach... :sad:

No, I don't see why rabbits or cats have to undergo tests in order to ensure that 'new shampoo' is safe... :yuk: Looking at it all from a simple human perspective, it could be said that these militants are merely manifesting the feelings of the mammals / fish concerned, should they have been granted the wherewithal to express their own feelings about the matter in the first place... :8

After all, when did you ever hear about rats conducting human experiments?! Well OK, there were a few German ones once, but that was all along time ago. I shouldn't have mentioned it.

captain cumulonimbus
9th Feb 2006, 18:20
i think i said clearly "only medical research"...testing shampoo on animals etc is just the sign of a person without conscience at all.As the 'most developed lifeform' on earth (some WILL debate this but remember:dolphins never built a space shuttle!),we have got the right to use animals to our benefit (we do this daily by eating them,sitting on leather couches etc),so i think those that do die do so for a legitimate reason...but it is equally humankinds duty to see to it that they do not suffer any more than is absolutely necessary

Whats interesting is how many are "anti" the rabid greenies on here.I always though I was in the minority...

Onan the Clumsy
9th Feb 2006, 18:50
Perhaps if we really were the 'most developed lifeform' on earth
we wouldn't make such extrordiary statements aswe have got the right to use animals to our benefit



Furthermore, to claim that building a space shuttle is an example of humankind having obviously more value than any other species is ludicrous at best, especially when compared to the ability to last for 300 million years (the celeocanth), or to be able to survive a nuclear attack (the cockroach), which of course, can only be caused by one particular species (need I fill in these parentheses?).



PS, we can't even build Space Shuttles successfully

PPS, Bacteria may have made it to Earth from Mars and if so would have survived a journey far in excess of any the Space Shuttle made - all without the benefit of any environmental support capability. Not even a spacesuit. So who's more advanced, humans or bacteria?