Greenpeace--liberalism at its worst
 

BBC News - Greenpeace sorry for Nazca lines stunt in Peru

I'm sure most of you have heard about Greenpeace's stupid stunt in Peru outlined in the link above. If you don't, I'll give you a quick rundown: A bunch of self-important fanatics bent of saving the world from itself aka Greenpeace went to the Nazca lines in Peru and spread out a huge banner on the ground next to the hummingbird. The trouble is, they did not bother to ask for the Peruvian authorities' permission which is necessary not only out of respect to the hosts in whose country you are visiting but because the site is restricted access because without special footwear, you will leave permanent footprints all over the place. The very reason the lines have endured for 1500 years is the same reason why you can't just go walking around out there--because your footprints will endure as well.

At the Detroit Art Institute, they have a sculpture there that they invite people to touch. Everything else is off limits. A plaque on the sculpture points out the amount of wear the sculpture has already endured just from people touching it and points out that this is why none of the other art is allowed to be touched--it would be destroyed. In the American southwest, there was an ancient astronomical sight called the Anasazi sun-dagger. Once its secret was discovered, people trekked to see it. It was located on a sandstone butte which cannot handle that amount of traffic without severely eroding. Ten years after its discovery, the stone slabs that were carefully placed had slipped and the alignment was destroyed due to excessive foot traffic. Peru is trying to prevent the same thing from happening to the Nazca lines.

To make things worse, Greenpeace then issued the worst apology I've ever read. “We fully understand that this looks bad,” it said. That statement shows they are only interested in their image and not what damage they did to this World Heritage Site. Not since the Taliban blew up those 1700-year-old Buddha statues has a certain cult-like group done so much to convince the world what a bunch of humorless, self-righteous, bigoted as-sholes they are.

In the past Greenpeace generally only made asses of themselves in funny ways such as following Japanese whalers into the Antarctic trying to disrupt their whaling activities only to end up stranded for the night on a big chunk of pack ice in the middle of the ocean and having to be rescued by the same whaler they were harassing. Then they say, "But that won't deter us from continuing with our activities." Fine. Next time, I hope the whaler leaves you stranded out there. Then there was the time they ran their boat into path of a Japanese whaler, got run over and then accused the whaler of deliberately hitting them.

I ended up arguing with a bunch of these jerk-wads in some forum and they are hopeless. I told them Greenpeace has a lot of nerve to point the finger at Japan or the Inuits or the Makah Indians for hunting whale when it was the Yankee Quakers far and away that nearly drove the sperm whales extinct. And Greenpeace was founded by Quakers. How is that for hypocrisy? How about actually doing something for whales instead of pointing fingers at everybody else? I really got jumped on by everybody there--all loony lefties. Well, can you hear me now?

The difference between a conservative and liberal is that the liberals lie to themselves a bit more to maintain their worldview. "We care about the world and conservatives don't." Neither of them do. Both have a rock-solid belief in the righteousness of their cause and that any means justifies the end. Their messages matter more than culture or people or anything. Conservatives would just knock down an ancient site and build a strip mall over it and call anyone who objects a bunch of damn cry-babies. Liberals, in contrast, would destroy an ancient site by plastering it with banners telling everyone to conserve the environment. Conservatives and liberals are each other's reflection which both find utterly repulsive and for good reason. They are the same type of people cut from the same cloth.

With these types of people protecting our environment, you can see why the environment doesn't stand a chance.

Btw, feel free to tldr this thread to death.

I've always despised those Greenpeace cunts.

tl;dr

When I was in Norway serving aboard a vessel, Greenpeace made it very hostile for us. They started this "No Nukes Here!" campaign and picketed us at the pier we docked at. First off, we were not a nuclear vessel and we did not carry nuke weapons all the time--probably very little if at all.

They had these boats that surrounded us in the harbor and they just watched us. Do these people have ANYTHING else to do than float in water giving us hostile stares sunup to sunset? But then we cast off to leave--you would think it was what they wanted--but THEN they try to board us! We had to have teams of guys with charged up fire hoses to spray at them to keep them from boarding the ship. One guy even got onto the anchor before the sprayed him off and into the water.

What were they trying to do?? If they got onboard, they'd have been arrested, if they resisted they would have been shot. We were one, little ship in their harbor at their govt's invitation and you'd have thought we had opened fire on their town or something. They were very nasty people.

Unfortunately, Greenpeace has a lot of influence in Scandinavia. What they are doing amounts to a form of terrorism. But, as I said, they and their supporters believe wholeheartedly in their cause and believe that anything they do in the name of that cause is just--which is exactly how all terrorists think.

This Nazca vandalism stunt was a disgusting insult to all of humanity. I hope those fools get the death penalty. You don't mess with 2000 year old art.

I'm also very tired of the whole "left versus right" thing. There are ultra-conservatives blowing up statues and ultra-liberals stepping on protected environments, and it takes an equal amount of hypocrisy and ignorance to do both. Anything when taken to an extreme ends up this way. And yet each side has to have their little pot-shots at the other. And since the later part of your post agrees with what I just said, I find the above quote kind of hypocritical and out of place.

Greenpeace is the Facebook of the environmentalist world.

Conservatives, strangely enough, don't care about conservation. They don't lie to themselves if they destroy, say, an ancient Indian mound. It was in the way and therefore impeding progress and profit. It may be heartless and stupidly lacking in cultural and historical perspective but they did it and they knew they did and they wanted to do it so they did it.

Liberals, however, will destroy the same mound claiming they were saving it and saving the environment. So they have to lie to themselves more than conservatives who have a "F-uck the environment" mentality. Liberals are as heartless but they hate to think of themselves that way so they have to rationalize. Conservatives don't care how heartless they are being. To them it's just, "Awwww, cry me a river so I can pollute it for you!" As long as it pisses liberals off then they'll do it and f-uck all. Liberals are the same about conservatives but make up narratives that deny it otherwise they wouldn't be able to distinguish themselves from the conservatives they hate so much.

I see your point. But earlier you talked about the Taliban destroying statues of Buddha. The Taliban is a Conservative group, and they did what they did because they thought they were "saving" the morality of humanity. So you see, both Conservative and Liberal extremist groups want the same thing: to get people to submit to their moral ideals. It's just that typically ultra-Conservatives want to stop things from changing because they consider change morally unfounded, while ultra-Liberals want to bring about change because they consider the modern state of affairs to be morally unfounded.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Don't let the extremist dickheads ruin any movement.

Well, are Yankee Quakers still the ones killing whales?

But they meant to destroy it and they did so unapologetically.

They don't exist anymore. Once the whaling thing dried up, so did they.

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/23...b8231f5042.jpg

So why should Greenpeace be concerned with them when there are people who are actually killing whales at this moment?

Once we learned to rape the earth for oil we stopped killing whales which was good because there weren't many left by then. Now we are dictating to other nations how wrong it is to kill whales. It wasn't wrong when we were doing it on a scale so massive we nearly wiped them out in only 150 years. I know--when we did it, it was IMPORTANT! When they do it, it's just wanton destruction.

But... who cares about pointing fingers? Whales are being brought to the brink of extinction. That sucks. We should stop that from sucking. Quit ****ing whining. Jesus.

Well, that's a separate argument. I'm concerned about the hypocrisy and not the whale populations because, frankly, the whale is probably doomed. At best, their numbers have to be kept low and yet more nations want and need to start whaling:

Poorer whaling nations argue that the need for resumption of whaling is pressing. Horace Walters, from the Eastern Caribbean Cetacean Commission stated, "We have islands which may want to start whaling again - it's expensive to import food from the developed world, and we believe there's a deliberate attempt to keep us away from our resources so we continue to develop those countries' economies by importing from them."[36]

So, you see, anti-whaling keeps rich nations rich and poor nations poor and so really isn't as altruistic as it sounds.

Then there's the problem with fish stocks which Science magazine predicts could run out as early as 2048.

The Marine Conservation Society conducted a study of Britain's fishery that concluded:

The study calculated 'landings of fish per unit of fishing power' (LPUP) from 1889 to 2007 to give an indication of changes in the amount of fish available for capture by the fishing fleet. In that time, LPUP declined 500 times for halibut, more than 100 times for haddock and more than 20 times for plaice, wolffish, hake and ling. Cod has declined by 87 per cent.

Fish stock decline worse than previously thought | Marine Conservation Society

Press release - Exploitation of fish stocks has declined significantly during the last decade

Then there is the "rapid" decline of ocean plankton:

Rapid Plankton Decline Puts The Ocean's Food Web In Peril | ThinkProgress

According to Scientific American, phytoplankton population has dropped 40% since 1950:

Phytoplankton Population Drops 40 Percent Since 1950 - Scientific American

Phytoplanktons are absolutely essential to life on earth.

The problem is whales eat fish and plankton and they eat a lot of them. Large populations of whales is simply not feasible. In the end, I think the whale has had it.

But that is not my argument against Greenpeace. I focus only on the hypocrisy of telling other nations that they may not do what we did at a time when it was economically vital to us to do it. It's economically vital to them now--always has been.

Resorting to the whales-are-declining argument doesn't wash because almost all marine life in the oceans are declining because there are too many people--we have overfished, polluted and destroyed too much habitat and it isn't going to stop.

As I said, conservatives and liberals are the same. One claims to care about the environment and yet do you really think that even if you could prove to Greenpeace that whale stocks are as high as they have ever been that they would allow the killing of a single whale? I don't. And if you could prove to them that too may whales will negatively impact the environment, you know what these nature-lovers will say--"F-uck the environment! Nobody's going to kill any whales if we can do anything about it!"

They are not responsible people and nothing they say should ever be believed.

Yep. Basically everyone is full of shit.

Tough ****. It sucked when we did it, and it still sucks. But by all means, lets let people destroy the environment in the long term for short term rewards. Wouldn't want to sound like a bunch meanies after all.

I'm going to side with the batlord on this one. Killing off whales was a ****ty thing then and it's a ****ty thing now, but why should I (or greenpeace) feel like hypocrits about it?
Why do people need to identify with what their nationality/race/whatever did before they were born?

Which isn't to say I agree with what greenpeace has done here, mind you.

But Liberal Extremists blow things up all the time, and there are many Conservative Extremists who try to "protect" things and end up destroying them (how many conservative dictators have imposed strict laws on their population, citing "preserving public morality" as their reason, only to have their nation driven to the point of poverty and rebellion?). My point is that both sides think they are "saving" humanity with their violent actions, and neither is any better than the other.

We use to have slaves in this country. We don't anymore. Should we turn a blind eye to other countries that have slaves today?

What's wrong is wrong. Whether we use to do it or not. Plain and simple.

Agreed. But people are still full of sanctimonious shit.

Oh, for sure. Case in point.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...211-story.html

And another Lord Larehip thread becomes pages of posts that are just tl;dr. May as well just use the spam thread next time.

So you think we should tell people to lay down and die? Because that's the alternative.

You sound as if you believe that there is a long term plan unlike yesteryear. By all means, clue us in on what it is and who is implementing it. Long term plans needed to be laid long ago so things wouldn't get to where they are now because then it's too late. All there is now is the short term because everything is running out.

You might want to choose a better example. When has the US ever tried to stop slavery in another country?

So what happens when the whales are gone? What do the po' islanders eat then? Sounds to me like we'll just have hungry natives and no whales. Or we could, ya know... save the whales. Still have hungry islanders, but it is what it is.

I actually see no reason why that makes it a bad example.

aw man... that sounds like a really fun job to me.
how about the fact that conservatives lie to themselves about global warming because it makes it inconvenient for business? if they were like you say then their line of rhetoric would be "**** the environment, money over everything." or when it comes to evolution their rhetoric would be "**** any theory that disagrees with the bible." instead they put most of their effort into disproving solid science. long story short: everyone is full of **** (except for me).
the world becomes a slightly more boring place. unless we decide to replace them with robot whales mounted with weapons that are programmed to shoot torpedoes at japanese shipping vessels.

Where were you during WWII?

nah, i want them to look like organic whales so that the japs go to hunt them and then out nowhere they open their mouths and a torpedo comes flying out.

Save the whales how?? By chasing Japanese ships all over the place?? The Japanese are not and never were the cause of the whale's problem. At first it was the whalers of Europe and America that did it but since the 20th century, it has been because we are destroying the whale's food sources (fish stocks and plankton) and habitat:

Australia

Half of Great Barrier Reef Lost in Past 3 Decades

Warming waters linked to giant jellyfish outbreaks, Sea of Japan | Global Warming Effects

Great Pacific Garbage Patch - National Geographic Education

You want to save the whale, start there; otherwise don't bother.

Totally. But not stopping a practice that's cutting down endangered species' numbers is retarded. Should we let poachers kill elephants for ivory just because we're not doing enough to preserve their habitat?

The whale's habitat and food sources are vanishing at an unsustainable rate. If you have too many whales, it vanishes that much quicker. Their numbers must be necessarily small because a single adult humpback whale eats 5000 lbs or more of plankton a day--two and half tons--every day. With plankton vanishing faster than it can reproduce, how long do you think that can go on?

The whale will be extinct or nearly extinct by 2100 and will go the route of other animals as the honeybee, the tiger, the polar bear, the koala bear and the rhinoceros. I just read today that a Northern white rhino died leaving only 4 or 5 left--in the world--and those live in captivity. And we can't keep whales in captivity like that, it has already been discussed and dismissed as unworkable.

We needed to address this problem decades ago and didn't and so now we pay the price. And pointing fingers is just stupid.

But that's all you've been doing. Pointing fingers at Greenpeace for being hypocrites. Pointing fingers at Quakers for killing so many whales in the first place. Now all you're doing is saying to let the Japanese kill whales, almost as if you just want to spite Greenpeace.

**** everything else here: this has GOT to happen. I would pay to make it happen!!

Well, it's official. This is the most exciting Lord Larehip thread ever.

^A concise history of Larehip's posting history.