Greenpeace vs. Japanese Whalers WHO WILL WIN?

[Mk]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051226/sc_afp/australiajapanwhales
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?

 

[Entropy]

fishermen > tree hugging hippies

 

[fourier jr]

ya my money's on the sailors

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Styx/9189/whaligcon.html?200527
Here's a somewhat slanted look at the issue from a student who is Japanese.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling#Japan
What wiki says.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Whaling_Commission
Wiki on IWC.

 

[Cyrus]

I hate Greenpeace. I would respect them if they actually stood for something, but all they do is go around shouting their liberal propaganda. 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.

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.

 

[Mk]

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.

 

[Mk]

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!

 

[Cyrus]

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.

 

[Mk]

Thanks, but no. >><<

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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.

He even added a reference!

I know, it was pretty funny.

 

[Cyrus]

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.

 

[Mk]

What did they do to torture it? Tape a steak to the outside of their cage?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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 won't 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.

 

[Cyrus]

I won't go into what they did on here, because it would depress the hell outa anyone that reads it. I am still bummed from that video a day later. I can send you the link MK, then you won't 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.

 

[Smurf]

I hate Greenpeace. I would respect them if they actually stood for something, but all they do is go around shouting their liberal propaganda. 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.
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?

 

[Anttech]

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"

 

[Just some guy]

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.

 

[ComputerGeek]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051226/sc_afp/australiajapanwhales
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.

 

[ComputerGeek]

I hate Greenpeace. I would respect them if they actually stood for something, but all they do is go around shouting their liberal propaganda.

Greenpeace are not liberal. Please stop equating extreme positions with liberalism which simply stands for social justice for all people.

 

[ComputerGeek]

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 without 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)

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

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.

 

[Anttech]

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.

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?

 

[Anttech]

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 propaganda.

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

 

[Just some guy]

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]

 

[Anttech]

Considering the UK has what 10 at a streach Nuclear power plants, banning them wouldn't 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 don't 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

 

[Just some guy]

Considering the UK has what 10 at a streach Nuclear power plants, banning them wouldn't 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 don't 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

Focus? FOCUS?? What in God's name does that bloody phrase mean? 'oooh, we must focus on renewables'. Bollocks, we already have a carbon-neutral clean, efficient, safe and cheap (compared to renewables) method of power production and if greenpeace want to eschew it then they're welcome to do that but anybody with half a brain cell realizes it's a load of honk. Building a 200MW wind plant at the same cost as a 2GW nuclear plant is just insanity.

And if you believe globalisation is ruining the world then I sincerely suggest you read some proper economic literature and not the junk shovelled out by greenpeace.

And Britain currently makes up 20% of it's energy production through nuclear power - by 2020 that will have dropped to 0% - a defecit that will mainly be made up through coal and gas fired power stations. This is pure lunacy and wholly against the stated aims of greenpeace, yet they will have just as large a part of the blame if global warming really does get out of control and we don't utilise nuclear power to stop it. Renewable energy sources are just too uneconomical and too inneficient to provide anything like 20% of a large nation's power consumption, yet alone 100%. Nuclear fusion is still on the horizon and it seems unlikely we'll develop a method of power generation that runs of greenpeace's inflated sense of self esteem, so we have to utilise nuclear power. It's thise blind bloody-minded dogmatic crap from greenpeace about how nuclear power is 'evil' which really pisses me off the most - I can only show comtempt for any organisation that gets the facts so blatantly wrong and are so blind to scientific reasoning.

Being anti-globalisation is inherenly anti-free trade and pro-protectionism. Forcing the closure of nuclear plants, banning their construction and solely building reneable power plants (at great expense to the taxpayer. I'm serious in saying that if Britain were to fuel it's energy demands solely through wind power our economy would collapse completely due to the massive cost and inevitable power cuts on calm days) is anti-capitalist as it means the state has absolute control over the industry, completely eschewing the market. Ditto for agriculture as Greenpeace believe in practically banning imports due to the pollition caused during their transport. Greenpeace believe in coercing people to follow their line, at the very least their policies are inherently socialist and utterly authoritarian, at worst they're quasi-terrorists who stop at nothing to achieve their aims.

 

[Anttech]

Focus? FOCUS?? What in God's name does that bloody phrase mean? 'oooh, we must focus on renewables'. Bollocks, we already have a carbon-neutral clean, efficient, safe and cheap (compared to renewables) method of power production and if greenpeace want to eschew it then they're welcome to do that but anybody with half a brain cell realizes it's a load of honk. Building a 200MW wind plant at the same cost as a 2GW nuclear plant is just insanity.

And if you believe globalisation is ruining the world then I sincerely suggest you read some proper economic literature and not the junk shovelled out by greenpeace.

You obviously do not know how to put your brain in gear! Please don't presume to know anything about me!

I never said anywhere we need to build windfarms, so don't put words in my mouth.

Yes I do believe that we are poluting and thus killing our planet via Globablisation! If you want to me to expand then I will. I did not take my references from greenpeace.

And Britain currently makes up 20% of it's energy production through nuclear power - by 2020 that will have dropped to 0% - a defecit that will mainly be made up through coal and gas fired power stations. This is pure lunacy and wholly against the stated aims of greenpeace, yet they will have just as large a part of the blame if global warming really does get out of control and we don't utilise nuclear power to stop it.

Your figures maybe right, but your statements are not. The UK is comitted to Kaoto. Thus it will reduce its carbon emmisions opposite of increasing them.

It's thise blind bloody-minded dogmatic crap from greenpeace about how nuclear power is 'evil' which really pisses me off the most - I can only show comtempt for any organisation that gets the facts so blatantly wrong and are so blind to scientific reasoning.

The more you rant then less liberal you are beginning to look. Do you even know what "Dogma" means? And you my friend are painting a picture which is so extreem and non-sensical its untrue.

Being anti-globalisation is inherenly anti-free trade and pro-protectionism. Forcing the closure of nuclear plants, banning their construction and solely building reneable power plants (at great expense to the taxpayer. I'm serious in saying that if Britain were to fuel it's energy demands solely through wind power our economy would collapse completely due to the massive cost and inevitable power cuts on calm days) is anti-capitalist as it means the state has absolute control over the industry, completely eschewing the market. Ditto for agriculture as Greenpeace believe in practically banning imports due to the pollition caused during their transport. Greenpeace believe in coercing people to follow their line, at the very least their policies are inherently socialist and utterly authoritarian, at worst they're quasi-terrorists who stop at nothing to achieve their aims.

Being Anti-globalisation is NOT anti-free trade, this is pure right wing "propogander" And certianly is NOT a liberal stance. Globalisation relises on "Market Forces" and mainly on the ecconomics of "large." Market Forces are not "Free" it is a system that traps the consumer and companies into follow the pattern of buying of the cheapest, and being eaten by the largest. You will end up with as you can see today Bigger than Bigger Corporations that control the market they are in. This is NOT free or fair, as it just enforces the poverty line, keeping the rich rich and the poor poor. So don't give me your free crap.

GreenPeace are a VOICE against these massive capitalist machines that cant stop poluting. And goverments that look at the bottom line and not at the harm it is causing.

Greenpeace believe in coercing people to follow their line, at the very least their policies are inherently socialist and utterly authoritarian, at worst they're quasi-terrorists who stop at nothing to achieve their aims

LoL that's funny at the best...

 

[ComputerGeek]

Anttech is right. Free trade does nothing to raise a country out of poverty, all it does it provide cheap labor to large companies for rich countries to get cheaper goods.

You want to raise poor countries out of poverty? Stop the World Bank from loan-sharking them. Then they might be able to actually develop an economy that benefits the country rather than one that benefits the west.