Greenpeace vs. Japanese Whalers WHO WILL WIN?

  • News
  • Thread starter Mk
  • Start date
  • #1
Mk
1,984
3
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051226/sc_afp/australiajapanwhales [Broken]
Greenpeace is at it again with an "Arctic Rising" campagin, I don't know what they do, do they just drive next to the ship and yell at them or what? Don't those boats pollute?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
464
0
fishermen > tree hugging hippies
 
  • #3
740
13
ya my money's on the sailors :frown:
 
  • #5
2,985
15
I hate Greenpeace. I would respect them if they actually stood for something, but all they do is go around shouting their liberal propoganda. They don't care about helping anyone but themselves. Didn't they give out pamphlets to children about how their mommy and daddy kill, because they eat meat? What a bunch of crap, totally inappropriate. Shame on you Greenpeace. I hate you. :mad:

Edit: Oops, that was PETA handing out the pamphlets. I hate them too now.

No, in all seriousness. It’s good that they expose these injustices that go on. But some of the extreme actions that they take are no better than what they are trying to stop. Like burning down buildings. They even had one nut job on the news a while ago saying he would kill people that did lab experiments on animals, and this guy was a doctor in a hospital! They have one site about killing dogs and cats for fur in china. They were torturing the animals. It was very sad, and made me depressed.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
Mk
1,984
3
cyrusabdollahi said:
But some of the extreme actions that they take are no better than what they are trying to stop. Like burning down buildings. They even had one nut job on the news a while ago saying he would kill people that did lab experiments on animals, and this guy was a doctor in a hospital!
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=103668".
Some people are blind, and won't listen to anybody else's opinion. I saw a PETA representative on FOX a few days ago. PETA says be nice, don't eat meat. Neil Kavuto asks if Jesus ate meat or not. She says there is a large following of people who believe Jesus was a vegetarian. Nice try!
They have one site about killing dogs and cats for fur in china. They were torturing the animals. It was very sad, and made me depressed.
Congratulations, you are another victom of the media.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7
Mk
1,984
3
I LOVE this!!!
The Japanese always have taken whales for food. Due to the Buddhist beliefs, people didn't eat meat of the "four-legged animals" until the middle of the 19th century. However, since whales were regarded as fish by the Japanese, they took whales and ate whale meat. Whales have no legs and swim in the ocean (Misaki, 1996).
He even added a reference!!
 
  • #8
2,985
15
Congratulations, you are another victom of the media
I can give you a link to the video so you can watch it for your self. Its very sad.
 
  • #9
Mk
1,984
3
Thanks, but no. >>:biggrin:<<
 
  • #10
cyrusabdollahi said:
I can give you a link to the video so you can watch it for your self. Its very sad.
So they torture them? You do know that they eat them right? They don't just take their fur.

Mk said:
He even added a reference!!
I know, it was pretty funny.
 
  • #11
2,985
15
Yeah yeah, I know. But still, you don’t have to do some of the things they were doing. They were doing it just for fun. If their eating the animals, it really makes no point. It’s more a matter of being low enough to torture a caged animal for your amusement. But in this video they were skinning them. I don't know what they did with the carcass'. If you want to eat it, kill it and eat it. Don't make it suffer more than it has to for your own pleasure. I don't object to them eating dog or cats, a hindu would think were crazy for eating cows.
 
  • #12
Mk
1,984
3
What did they do to torture it? Tape a steak to the outside of their cage?
 
  • #13
Mk said:
What did they do to torture it? Tape a steak to the outside of their cage?
I have read that they skin dogs alive and/or very shortly after they are killed because if they don't the skin starts to stick. It wont come off as easily and they could ruin the pelts that way. They may be preparing the dogs to be skinned or they're just kinda sociopathic by the mere fact that their job is to kill and skin animals.
 
  • #14
2,985
15
I wont go into what they did on here, because it would depress the hell outa anyone that reads it. Im still bummed from that video a day later. I can send you the link MK, then you wont make that joke. You will have tears running down your cheeks.

There was a show on the discovery channel, called going tribal. In one episode, he was in tibet?. There they had a annual killing of a bull? that the hole community did together. They killed it in a not so nice way, but that was different. They were a small village, and killing the animal brought them closer. Then they used the animals flesh for food, and its skin for clothing. It was part of their tradition. I don't take offense to that. But these a** holes were just greedy b****rds that were taking fun at harming caged animals for their own greed. The video just speaks for itself.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
356
3
cyrusabdollahi said:
I hate Greenpeace. I would respect them if they actually stood for something, but all they do is go around shouting their liberal propoganda. They don't care about helping anyone but themselves. Didn't they give out pamphlets to children about how their mommy and daddy kill, because they eat meat? What a bunch of crap, totally inappropriate. Shame on you Greenpeace. I hate you. :mad:
Edit: Oops, that was PETA handing out the pamphlets. I hate them too now.
No, in all seriousness. It’s good that they expose these injustices that go on. But some of the extreme actions that they take are no better than what they are trying to stop. Like burning down buildings. They even had one nut job on the news a while ago saying he would kill people that did lab experiments on animals, and this guy was a doctor in a hospital! They have one site about killing dogs and cats for fur in china. They were torturing the animals. It was very sad, and made me depressed.
What did greenpeace do that you hate them for?
 
  • #16
221
0
They spread liberal propogader....

Anyone who equate Greenpeace with "liberalism" or perhaps "socialism" needs a lessons in Politics.. (because I have heard numerous people equate "liberalism" and "Solicalism" together, and also "socialism: with "communism")

I think we should put a stickie up in this forum that defines what Political terms mean

Ohh and by the way GreenPeace are not "Liberals"
 
Last edited:
  • #17
Anttech said:
They spread liberal propogader....

Anyone who equate Greenpeace with "liberalism" or perhaps "socialism" needs a lessons in Politics.. (because I have heard numerous people equate "liberalism" and "Solicalism" together, and also "socialism: with "communism")

I think we should put a stickie up in this forum that defines what Political terms mean

Ohh and by the way GreenPeace are not "Liberals"
I concur. Speaking as a diehard Liberal :P (in the British sense mind, there's a big difference) I get slightly annoyed when people call Greenpeace Liberal. One of the centrel tenets of liberalism is the freedom of the induvidual - for Greenpeace to achieve their goals they have to coerce people to follow their dogma (e.g. eat meat or die etc.). They are also fundamentally illiberal when it comes to issues of trade - trying to get people to buy local food instead of importing it from elsewhere due to the pollution caused by transporting it. Whilst this is a problem it essentially amounts to protectionism and works as a tax on the poor by denying third world farmers access to our markets even further and is entirely illiberal (there are other solutions that don't involve screwing the poor but they don't seem to care). Also their way of dealing with excessive CO2 consumption is not to involve the market (e.g. the carbon credits scheme) but by using the state to coerce polluting industries into submission, which would have the effect of destroying them in most cases, with the inevitable job losses and negative effect on the national economy which that would entail.

To conclude, Greenpeace are a group of brainless hippies who would be best described as socialist (state above the induvidual, promoting a command and control economy, 'father knows best' laws coercing people to follow a government line etc.) and certainly not liberal.
 
  • #18
379
0
Mk said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051226/sc_afp/australiajapanwhales [Broken]
Greenpeace is at it again with an "Arctic Rising" campagin, I don't know what they do, do they just drive next to the ship and yell at them or what? Don't those boats pollute?
it is not about the pollution of the boats. It is about the commercial slaughter of whales for food.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
379
0
cyrusabdollahi said:
I hate Greenpeace. I would respect them if they actually stood for something, but all they do is go around shouting their liberal propoganda.
Greenpeace are not liberal. Please stop equating extreme positions with liberalism which simply stands for social justice for all people.
 
  • #20
379
0
Just some guy said:
To conclude, Greenpeace are a group of brainless hippies who would be best described as socialist (state above the induvidual, promoting a command and control economy, 'father knows best' laws coercing people to follow a government line etc.) and certainly not liberal.
Not even Socialist. Socialism still allows private business and citizens to have control over their doings with out control (though regulations do exist, they are bounds, not directives)
Greenpeace would be more appropriately equated to communism, more likely Trotskyism or leninism than Stalinism or maoism (and certainly not cambodian style)
 
  • #21
Since when do you equate socialism or communism with control economy? Any economic control is decided by the people democratically. Both ideologies revolve around democracy.

Greenpeace, to my knowledge, are "people" who care about the environment and are willing to do whatever it takes to see that innocent creatures are not wrongfully killed.
 
  • #22
221
0
Since when do you equate socialism or communism with control economy? Any economic control is decided by the people democratically. Both ideologies revolve around democracy.
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Let me get this straight you are saying that communism, at least EVERY implimented type we have had on earth, is a form of Democracy? I take it you have never seen Communism in practise?
 
  • #23
221
0
Greenpeace, to my knowledge, are "people" who care about the environment and are willing to do whatever it takes to see that innocent creatures are not wrongfully killed.
and yes u are right, they are activest, they policies are nothing to do with communism or solicialism... And IMO they do good work...

I hate Greenpeace. I would respect them if they actually stood for something, but all they do is go around shouting their liberal propoganda.
The Greenpeace mission statement
*
Last edited: 31-10-2005

Greenpeace is an independent non-profit global campaigning organization that uses non-violent, creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems and their causes. We research the solutions and alternatives to help provide a path for a green and peaceful future.

Greenpeace's goal is to ensure the ability of the earth to nurture life in all its diversity.

Greenpeace organises public campaigns

* for the protection of oceans and ancient forests
* for the phasing-out of fossil fuels and the promotion of renewable energies in order to stop climate change
* for the elimination of toxic chemicals
* against the release of genetically modified organisms into nature
* for nuclear disarmament and an end to nuclear contamination.

Greenpeace does not solicit or accept funding from governments, corporations or political parties. Greenpeace neither seeks nor accepts donations which could compromise its independence, aims, objectives or integrity. Greenpeace relies on the voluntary donations of individual supporters, and on grant-support from foundations.

Greenpeace is committed to the principles of non-violence, political independence and internationalism. In exposing threats to the environment and in working to find solutions, Greenpeace has no permanent allies or enemies.

Greenpeace has been campaigning against environmental degradation since 1971 when a small boat of volunteers and journalists sailed into Amchitka, an area north of Alaska where the US Government was conducting underground nuclear tests. This tradition of 'bearing witness' in a non-violent manner continues today.

Greenpeace has played a pivotal role in, among other things, the adoption of:

* a ban on toxic waste exports to less developed countries
* a moratorium on commercial whaling
* a United Nations convention providing for better management of world fisheries
* a Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary
* a 50-year moratorium on mineral exploitation in Antarctica
* bans on the dumping at sea of radioactive and industrial waste and disused oil installations
* an end to high-sea, large-scale driftnet fishing
* a ban on all nuclear weapons testing - our first ever campaign.
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/contentlookup.cfm?SitekeyParam=C-A&CFID=3771754&CFTOKEN=51484850&MenuPoint=C [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #24
well what an impatial description! Imo their anti-nuclear rhetoric destroys their scientific integrity - as an organisation they seem entrenched in this idea that 'nature = good, artificial = bad' and eschew efforts to reduce environmental damage through science, preferring to throw mankind back into a technological dark age and 'solve' our problems that way - their policies would be ridiculously damaging to pretty much every developed economy on this planet - the fact that there isn't a single good economic head on anybody high up in the greenpeace eschelons makes them a laughing stock imo (to be honest if I want a laff I'll hire some clowns, but these people will do in a pinch).

The fact that they're so against using nuclear power for civil power generation (what on earth do they think is an option? Turning Scotland into the world's largest wind farm? They're even turning against wind power now because by its nature it has to be built in places of outstanding natural beauty. Muppets.) and anti GM foods for no damn good scientific reason whatsoever.

Honestly, I don't care if they have good intentions. I won't invoke Godwin's law by bringing in you-know-who but you get the idea. There are plenty of other NGOs which work in the areas Greenpeace do who aren't a bunch of quacks.

[edit]and their mission statement doesn't say why they aren't socialist/communist (part of that authoritarian command and control crowd). Talk to an activist for a few minutes to see what I mean - it's the effects of their policies which mark them out as fundamentally illiberal. They've become much more than an activist organisation[/edit]
 
Last edited:
  • #25
221
0
Considering the UK has what 10 at a streach Nuclear power plants, banning them wouldnt put the UK back in the dark ages. What it would do would "Focus" Science on finding a safer renewable energy source.. For Example the Sun.
I dont aggree with everything they stand for, but they are a force for good more often than not... Focusing the media on issues that we need to deal with.. FOr example Global warming, They have been harping on about this for Years!!! Now only do we deside it is a problem...
GreenPeace are NOT communists.. Come on they believe in stopping Globalisation ruining the world, not in authoritarian regiems..
Most of the Greenpeace voters I know are stoned out of there minds most of the time to become dictors :rofl:
 

Related Threads on Greenpeace vs. Japanese Whalers WHO WILL WIN?

  • Poll
  • Last Post
7
Replies
168
Views
15K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
22
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
618
  • Last Post
5
Replies
119
Views
9K
Top