Greenpeace?

[britishboy]

what do we think of them?

I think they're horrid attention seeking hippies, who oppose everything, burn fossil fuels, they moan, nuclear power, they moan, energy turbines, they moan

[Harry Smith]

what do we think of them?

I think they're horrid attention seeking hippies, who oppose everything, burn fossil fuels, they moan, nuclear power, they moan, energy turbines, they moan

You can call them hippies all you like- that doesn't outline their view or their ideas. It just shows your high level of bias. Considering the hippie word comes from 1960's american pop culture influenced by drugs and Beatles it's a pretty poor choice of word.

When you burn fossil fuels it destroys the environment, countries like mexico are seeing the problems of pumping gas into the atmosphere. There's a reason that the UN, EU and G20 are working towards reducing carbon emissions.

Nuclear power also has the problem that you have to dispose of the waste and we simply don't know how to do that yet. There's also the safety issue behind nuclear power.

Energy turbine? What's that

I think that Greenpeace do a very good job of standing up for the environment and working with the government to help protect it. It's really the biggest issue of our life-time because I don't want to have swim to work in 20 years

[britishboy]

You can call them hippies all you like- that doesn't outline their view or their ideas. It just shows your high level of bias. Considering the hippie word comes from 1960's american pop culture influenced by drugs and Beatles it's a pretty poor choice of word.

When you burn fossil fuels it destroys the environment, countries like mexico are seeing the problems of pumping gas into the atmosphere. There's a reason that the UN, EU and G20 are working towards reducing carbon emissions.

Nuclear power also has the problem that you have to dispose of the waste and we simply don't know how to do that yet. There's also the safety issue behind nuclear power.

Energy turbine? What's that

I think that Greenpeace do a very good job of standing up for the environment and working with the government to help protect it. It's really the biggest issue of our life-time because I don't want to have swim to work in 20 years

why cant they do it nicely like the green party? that would be a lot nicer than closing down power stations and ruining f1 matches

[Harry Smith]

why cant they do it nicely like the green party? that would be a lot nicer than closing down power stations and ruining f1 matches

The Green party MP is currently in court for being at a fracking protest. The green party is just as militant as Greenpeace

I hate to tell you but a lot of protest relies on not being very nice, how do you think women got the vote in the 1900's? Direct action is a staple of a democracy and allows them to get their message. How do you think people opposed the Vietnam war in america?

[britishboy]

The Green party MP is currently in court for being at a fracking protest. The green party is just as militant as Greenpeace

I hate to tell you but a lot of protest relies on not being very nice, how do you think women got the vote in the 1900's? Direct action is a staple of a democracy and allows them to get their message. How do you think people opposed the Vietnam war in america?

did the green party close down a power station? do they ruin the f1 race for paying guests?

the women got the vote because of their work in ww1, there was two groups, suffragists(if that's how you spell it) and suffragets, suffragists peacefully, suffragets not so much, they burnt down churches and attacked MPs, that does not demand respect, suffragists while not so herd about, had male MPs, had meetings with goverment.

who would you support? a democratic party? or attention seeking uneducated lunatics

I don't like the green party, they're a joke but i respect them

[Anselmo]

I wouldn't call them "horrid attention seeking hippies". Although they i understand what they fight for and agree with them on various subjects, i higly disagree with their methods. Sometimes I feel like they take it too far. Overall i dislike greenpeace more then i like it, I just wished they had a different approach...

[Harry Smith]

did the green party close down a power station? do they ruin the f1 race for paying guests?

the women got the vote because of their work in ww1, there was two groups, suffragists(if that's how you spell it) and suffragets, suffragists peacefully, suffragets not so much, they burnt down churches and attacked MPs, that does not demand respect, suffragists while not so herd about, had male MPs, had meetings with goverment.

who would you support? a democratic party? or attention seeking uneducated lunatics

I don't like the green party, they're a joke but i respect them

The suffragists had been around for about 10 years and hadn't done anything to help the cause. People started talking about it after the action of emeleine Pankhurst. The other peaceful group didn't achieve anything apart from getting fucked over by the liberal government in 1906 Just look at Vietnam for an example of how direct protest can work, or the poll tax. That was stopped due to a violent protest.

Direct action is needed for a group like Greenpeace so they get can influence the policy. History shows us that direct protest is extremely effective

attention seeking uneducated lunatics

That's actually wrong- the CEO of greenpeace went to oxford and I'd say about 99% percent of their activists have a better education than you or me. So it's simply wrong to call them uneducated.

This is the major issue I have with you Jack- you can't just make up statements and pass them off as being true- that's called libel

[Stronk Serb]

They are doing the right thing.

[britishboy]

Direct action is needed for a group like Greenpeace so they get can influence the policy. History shows us that direct protest is extremely effective


no, the green party is good and respectable, I don't like them though

greenpeace shut down power stations and annoy people, they shouldnt present their argument formally, then I'm sure they will be respected more, and taken more seriously

'99% percent of their
activists have a better education than
you or me. ' really? I am privately educated and meeting all predicted targets, you must be studying at a university now? why if they are properly educated would they be dirty and tying themselves to trees, also where did you get that figure from?;)

[Harry Smith]

no, the green party is good and respectable, I don't like them though

greenpeace shut down power stations and annoy people, they shouldnt present their argument formally, then I'm sure they will be respected more, and taken more seriously

'99% percent of their
activists have a better education than
you or me. ' really? I am privately educated and meeting all predicted targets, you must be studying at a university now? why if they are properly educated would they be dirty and tying themselves to trees, also where did you get that figure from?;)

Meeting grades isn't an education- they've been to oxford and other top universities. That's a better education than paying 10K a year to play rugby and wear a straw hat.

Hygiene has nothing to do with education.

The riots in favour of civil rights annoyed people-that doesn't make them bad. Greenpeace aren't just about protest, they lobby the government, write petitions, organize rallies and sent letters.

You seem to be against direct protest which seems very strange considering that nearly every single movement in the last 100 years has used it in order to spread their message.

Your whole argument is based on calling them names and saying that they annoy people. This isn't primary school.

[Vlerchan]

Oh, God. Let me just say that I disagree with all three of your currently active threads, this is just the one that I found your argument to be so devoid or logic; and so full of blatant stereotyping that I felt obliged to intervene - that is not to say that any of the others are much better, mind you.

greenpeace shut down power stations and annoy people, they shouldnt present their argument formally, then I'm sure they will be respected more, and taken more seriously
The democratic system is rigged in the favour of corporations and crony capitalism. Greenpeace largely operate through sensational, non-violent direct action because it is the most effective means of getting their aims achieved in our truly broken democratic system. At the moment one of their major projects is actually the Democracy Initiative (http://www.democracyforus.org/) which is committed to "building a movement to halt the corrupting influence of corporate money in politics, prevent the systemic manipulation and suppression of voters, and address other obstacles to significant reform, including the abuse of U.S. Senate rules that allow a small minority to obstruct deliberation and block action on legislation drafted to address the critical challenges facing our nation."

[britishboy]

Oh, God. Let me just say that I disagree with all three of your currently active threads, this is just the one that I found your argument to be so devoid or logic; and so full of blatant stereotyping that I felt obliged to intervene - that is not to say that any of the others are much better, mind you.


The democratic system is rigged in the favour of corporations and crony capitalism. Greenpeace largely operate through sensational, non-violent direct action because it is the most effective means of getting their aims achieved in our truly broken-broken democratic system. At the moment one of their major projects is actually the Democracy Initiative (http://www.democracyforus.org/) which is committed to "building a movement to halt the corrupting influence of corporate money in politics, prevent the systemic manipulation and suppression of voters, and address other obstacles to significant reform, including the abuse of U.S. Senate rules that allow a small minority to obstruct deliberation and block action on legislation drafted to address the critical challenges facing our nation."

with respect, how is Greenpeace related to democracy? they're campaigning for the environment not democracy, we have that

[Vlerchan]

with respect, how is Greenpeace related to democracy? they're campaigning for the environment not democracy, we have that
"... building a movement to halt the corrupting influence of corporate money in politics ..."

[Harry Smith]

with respect, how is Greenpeace related to democracy? they're campaigning for the environment not democracy, we have that

They're campaigning using their democratic right to protest and to involved everyone within the democrat process. Democracy comes the Greek word meaning rule of the people. Greenpeace are simply using their democrat right to protest and take power away from the privileged elite

[britishboy]

"... building a movement to halt the corrupting influence of corporate money in politics ..."

we're not in the third world although the conservatives are influenced by their own corporate interests

[Abyssal Echo]

Even though I think they get extreme and take things to far at times I still feel they are doing the right thing.

[britishboy]

Even though I think they get extreme and take things to far at times I still feel they are doing the right thing.

I like the fact theyre bringing attention to things and helping issues such as deforestation, I just wish they was more respectful, and didn't do things such as shut down power stations

[Vlerchan]

we're not in the third world although the conservatives are influenced by their own corporate interests
There is crony capitalism visible in every capitalist economic system. That includes Britain; that includes the United States; that includes Ireland - we're especially bad here; that includes Russia; that includes India; that includes China; that includes the Philippines; and I could go on. Also, Cronyism is just as bad - if not worse - in developed nations as it is in undeveloped nations. The amount received in corporate donations by both Republicans and Democrats preceding the last election is an absolutely staggeringly large amount. Check this. (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638)

[Harry Smith]

attention seeking uneducated lunatics

I like the fact theyre bringing attention to things and helping issues such as deforestation, I just wish they was more respectful, and didn't do things such as shut down power stations

Once again it's funny how quickly your opinion changes, they've gone from flight lunatics to protests bringing key issues to national attention.

One power station isn't an issue- global warming is. The power station in question deserved to be closed down- it was a new but albeit outdated coal station which not only would damage the environment but damage Britain change of reaching it's quota on CO2 emissions.

Look at the action of MLK in the 1960's, they carried out actions which weren't at all respectful but it was for a noble cause.

[Emerald Dream]

we're not in the third world although the conservatives are influenced by their own corporate interests

There is crony capitalism visible in every capitalist economic system. That includes Britain; that includes the United States; that includes Ireland - we're especially bad here; that includes Russia; that includes India; that includes China; that includes the Philippines; and I could go on. Also, Cronyism is just as bad - if not worse - in developed nations as it is in undeveloped nations. The amount received in corporate donations by both Republicans and Democrats preceding the last election is an absolutely staggeringly large amount. Check this. (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638)

Let's please not turn this into something it's not. Nothing to do with Greenpeace at all.

[Vlerchan]

Let's please not turn this into something it's not. Nothing to do with Greenpeace at all.

One of Greenpeace's current projects is the Democracy Initiative which aims to put an end to crony capitalism and corporate influence in politics - something that gets in the way of many of their other major aims. (I provided a link to the project above.) I'd consider it every bit relevant, and everything to do with Greenpeace. But if you say so, I suppose.

[britishboy]

Let's please not turn this into something it's not. Nothing to do with Greenpeace at all.

yes ma'am:P

back on topic, I do oppose some of the issues they also oppose, but the way they go about it is wrong

[Harry Smith]

yes ma'am:P

back on topic, I do oppose some of the issues they also oppose, but the way they go about it is wrong

How else are they supposed to go about it? The current government don't care about the environment at all. There is what one green MP in parliament meaning they can't introduce any form of laws. They've held rallies, written letters and started petitions. There is only so much you can do before you have to use other methods

[Vlerchan]

... but the way they go about it is wrong
You read what I posted about the cronyism in our current capitalist democracies - the corporate donations, and all that jazz. Right? Right. It wasn't just spam; or off-topic posting. It had a point behind it. There's a reason that corporations get involved in that [corporate donations], and the reason being is that they expect favours in return. A lot of these times these favours come in government vetoes of proposed environmental policy - the stuff that Greenpeace proposes. Why? Because pro-environmental legislation tends to push up operating costs, and then corporations lose out. At the moment we have a democratic system where that is allowed to happen, and is largely and quite actively ignored by large portions of the population. This is why Greenpeace have turned to operating primarily through direct action. Not because they enjoy living on abandoned oil rigs; or tying themselves to trees; or whatever other highly sensationalist stunts they plan. But rather the democratic system is rigged in favour of the corporations - back to crony capitalism - and they know it will be largely impossible to get much of the needed legislation passed through democratically unless they've huge amounts of public support behind them - which they try to raise through aforementioned publicity stunts. Have I made that clear enough?

To Summarise: The current way is the only way. You can disagree, but that's reality.

[dsi411]

I don't know and I don't care
Greenpeace can pull down their own underwear
Never heard of them, I guess they're hippies
But what you're saying isn't really clicking
Teens don't care about this kind of stuff
Or maybe they do, and this is just a bluff
Ah, I'm sad, this doesn't really rhyme
Oh look, gotta go, look at the time!

[britishboy]

You read what I posted about the cronyism in our current capitalist democracies - the corporate donations, and all that jazz. Right? Right. It wasn't just spam; or off-topic posting. It had a point behind it. There's a reason that corporations get involved in that [corporate donations], and the reason being is that they expect favours in return. A lot of these times these favours come in government vetoes of proposed environmental policy - the stuff that Greenpeace proposes. Why? Because pro-environmental legislation tends to push up operating costs, and then corporations lose out. At the moment we have a democratic system where that is allowed to happen, and is largely and quite actively ignored by large portions of the population. This is why Greenpeace have turned to operating primarily through direct action. Not because they enjoy living on abandoned oil rigs; or tying themselves to trees; or whatever other highly sensationalist stunts they plan. But rather the democratic system is rigged in favour of the corporations - back to crony capitalism - and they know it will be largely impossible to get much of the needed legislation passed through democratically unless they've huge amounts of public support behind them - which they try to raise through aforementioned publicity stunts. Have I made that clear enough?

To Summarise: The current way is the only way. You can disagree, but that's reality.

when I think Greenpeace I think hippies, not communist like moaning at democracy, (which we have) I will ask to lock this thread soon if it dosent get back on topic, can we refocus?

democracy is the people choose who leads, it dosent matter what they do as long as its chosen

I don't know and I don't care
Greenpeace can pull down their own underwear
Never heard of them, I guess they're hippies
But what you're saying isn't really clicking
Teens don't care about this kind of stuff
Or maybe they do, and this is just a bluff
Ah, I'm sad, this doesn't really rhyme
Oh look, gotta go, look at the time!

nice rhyme:D

[Vlerchan]

when I think Greenpeace I think hippies, not communist like moaning at democracy, (which we have) I will ask to lock this thread soon if it dosent get back on topic, can we refocus?

democracy is the people choose who leads, it dosent matter what they do as long as its chosen
Please actually read my posts. Your responses - which have absolutely nothing to do with my points - show that you aren't. I'm saying that the corporate donations have a negative impact on our current democratic system - not that we don't live in democratic nations - because they unfairly influence the stances our leaders take on certain issues, including stances taken on environmental legislation. Repeat For Clarity: Due to these corporate donations Governments are less inclined to pass new environmental legalisation because it'll have a detrimental impact on the profit margins accrued by corporate donors - which may lead to corporate donors choosing not to donate the next time around. Got that? I hope so.

The above is relevant because it means that democratic-minded Green groups have a tough time getting their preferred legislation passed. This has lead to the rise of protest groups like Greenpeace who have decided to force change outside of the democratic process. (Read this post at least three times before responding. I won't be repeating it. Not for a fourth time.)

[britishboy]

Please actually read my posts. Your responses - which have absolutely nothing to do with my points - show that you aren't. I'm saying that the corporate donations have a negative impact on our current democratic system - not that we don't live in democratic nations - because they unfairly influence the stances our leaders take on certain issues, including stances taken on environmental legislation. Repeat For Clarity: Due to these corporate donations Governments are less inclined to pass new environmental legalisation because it'll have a detrimental impact on the profit margins accrued by corporate donors - which may lead to corporate donors choosing not to donate the next time around. Got that? I hope so.

The above is relevant because it means that democratic-minded Green groups have a tough time getting their preferred legislation passed. This has lead to the rise of protest groups like Greenpeace who have decided to force change outside of the democratic process. (Read this post at least three times before responding. I won't be repeating it. Not for a fourth time.)

I agree, every party is bias to certain causes, however if people wanted the green stuff they would vote in the green party