Did Greenpeace's Controversial Stunt at Ancient Site Cross the Line?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nsaspook
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Thinking
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around Greenpeace's controversial actions at an ancient archaeological site, which many perceive as a defilement of cultural heritage. Critics argue that the organization's decision to display a sign promoting renewable energy at such a significant location is not just misguided but fundamentally wrong, equating it to an act of evil rather than mere stupidity. Some participants suggest that Greenpeace's actions could be seen as a publicity stunt, raising questions about the ethics of their approach to environmental advocacy. The debate highlights the tension between activism and respect for cultural heritage, with many asserting that the negative ramifications of this incident overshadow any potential benefits of increased visibility for the organization.
nsaspook
Science Advisor
Messages
1,476
Reaction score
4,849
Physics news on Phys.org
nsaspook said:
What were they thinking?
I do not accept the premise of that question.
 
  • Like
Likes Astronuc, nsaspook and lisab
Humanity is littered with lost souls like these - people who believe they're on truth's side. Such certitude nearly always results in clusters like this one.
 
B4a2ed3IAAA6j1i.png

Footprints?
http://elcomercio.pe/peru/pais/line...s-greenpeace-son-irreparables-noticia-1777541
 
Last edited:
Who gave Greenpeace the right to defile this pristine archeological treasure?
 
Lol. I watched the video and thought, what's so bad about this, looks kinda cool. And then I saw the link to the NYT article. That kinda changed the equation. Obviously some bone-head maneuver unless they knew what they were doing. I sure hope they didn't.
 
  • Like
Likes Silicon Waffle
It's not stupid. It's evil. There's a difference.
 
  • Like
Likes mheslep
No, stupid is all it takes. Evil actually implies intelligence.
 
Could have achieved the same thing with Photoshop.
 
  • #10
Aaronvan said:
Could have achieved the same thing with Photoshop.

Some say that any publicity is good publicity. They did get their name in the papers after all. (If they thought this that far through then they are evil after all.)
 
  • #11
Vanadium 50 said:
It's not stupid. It's evil. There's a difference.
Robert J. Hanlon said:
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Hanlon's[/PLAIN] razor.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
Algr said:
Some say that any publicity is good publicity. They did get their name in the papers after all. (If they thought this that far through then they are evil after all.)

Well, when you're Greenpeace and your brand ostensibly stands for "conservation," then there is something called bad publicity, and I think this qualifies.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top