This Greenpeace Stunt May Have Irreparably Damaged Peru's Nazca Site

[untermensche]

I'm not laying out a defense for the tactic. It was a very bad tactic and should be condemned.

But I can focus on more than the tactic.

I can walk and chew gum.

I can look at the message too, and focus on that if I choose. Which is not a defense of the tactic.

And is not what this thread is about. This thread is about the tactic.

If that is all the thread is about then the thread is long dead.

It died on the first condemnation of the tactic.

Everything beyond that was repetition and superfluous.

 

[Mageth]

Aah, tu quoque and strawman...a double whammy...

A strawman?

So there are not those who want to condemn the message?

Your naivety is not my fallacy.

Adding straw to the strawman, I see. Again, this thread is about the tactic, not the message.

 

[fromderinside]

That's not what this fucking thread is about. This thread is about some fucking irresponsible idiots that pulled a fucking stupid stunt and potentially damaged a fragile historical monument. And in so doing undermined the very message they were trying to get across. Greenpeace should get behind bringing criminal charges against them!

There is no fucking defense for it, unter.

I'm not laying out a defense for the tactic. It was a very bad tactic and should be condemned.

But I can focus on more than the tactic.

I can walk and chew gum.

I can look at the message too, and focus on that if I choose. Which is not a defense of the tactic.

While you're walking and chewing try chewing on the fact that what green peace did was to destroy an environment to make an ecological point t. You haven't yet succeeded. Its like disclaiming torture in support of the CIA. Please try to avoid walking into that. Until Green Peace is fixed I withhold my support for them.

 

[Mageth]

And is not what this thread is about. This thread is about the tactic.

If that is all the thread is about then the thread is long dead.

It died on the first condemnation of the tactic.

Everything beyond that was repetition and superfluous.

Everything beyond that was your tu quoque derail and strawman stuffing.

 

[Mageth]

I'm not laying out a defense for the tactic. It was a very bad tactic and should be condemned.

But I can focus on more than the tactic.

I can walk and chew gum.

I can look at the message too, and focus on that if I choose. Which is not a defense of the tactic.

Someone earlier on this thread said "one could be both concerned about the state of the planet (and thus sympathetic to at least some of Greenpeace's position) and disgusted and angry about their tactics...I'm both angry that they'd risk damaging the Nazca site to pull this stunt and that they pull such counterproductive, stupid, irresponsible stunts which undermine the environmentalist position."

I suppose they can walk and chew gum at the same time, too?

 

[untermensche]

If that is all the thread is about then the thread is long dead.

It died on the first condemnation of the tactic.

Everything beyond that was repetition and superfluous.

Everything beyond that was your tu quoque derail and strawman stuffing.

It is not a derail to look at a message clearly shown in the OP.

Your dictatorial tendencies are noted.

 

[Mageth]

Everything beyond that was your tu quoque derail and strawman stuffing.

It is not a derail to look at a message clearly shown in the OP.

Your dictatorial tendencies are noted.

So you're adding irony to the list...

The thread is not about what the message said, it's about where the message was and how it got there. The message could have said "Jesus is coming!" or "Eat at Joe's" or "Drink more Ovaltine" or anything else and I'd be just as disgusted and pissed, and it would have been just as damaging to the respective cause.

 

[untermensche]

It is not a derail to look at a message clearly shown in the OP.

Your dictatorial tendencies are noted.

So you're adding irony to the list...

The thread is not about what the message said, it's about where the message was and how it got there. The message could have said "Jesus is coming!" or "Eat at Joe's" or "Drink more Ovaltine" or anything else and I'd be just as disgusted and pissed, and it would have been just as damaging to the respective cause.

Who exactly made you dictator of this thread?

Yes, we condemn the tactic.

But we are not mindless apes that then proceed to throw our feces nonstop.

After we condemn the tactic we look at the motivations behind the tactic, and of course this is where we find the hypocrisy. We also find a message that is being totally ignored by the world powers.

We can of course join them in ignoring it, or we can point out that much bigger crimes than walking near historic sites are going on. This is not to mitigate the crimes of Greenpeace but to put things in perspective.

Why do we focus on the splinter in the foot when the leg has gangrene to the groin?

 

[bilby]

The message might just as well have said 'Jesus is coming'.

Greenpeace is just another of the worlds surfeit of cults who believe that their own narrow obsession should be shared by the entire world, and that this entitles them to ride roughshod over anyone and anything that is not exclusively concentrated on those same goals.

It is, like all cults, childish, self-centred and dangerous; and there is no outrage nor harm that they can commit which would not be considered by their members to be perfectly acceptable as long as it 'raises awareness'.

FFS. There isn't anyone out there who is unaware. People do NOT oppose sustainable power generation because they have not heard it exists. The reasons why people don't act the way Greenpeace would like them to are many and complex, but they have nothing whatsoever to do with lack of awareness.

These morons really believe that people would behave differently if only they were 'aware'. Well guess what, Greenpeace - everyone's aware, and they still act the way they act. Your article of faith is false; your beliefs are wrong; and your actions to raise awareness are completely unnecessary. They would be valueless if they were harmless. But they are not harmless, so they have negative value.

You need to stop doing them.

 

[Mageth]

So you're adding irony to the list...

The thread is not about what the message said, it's about where the message was and how it got there. The message could have said "Jesus is coming!" or "Eat at Joe's" or "Drink more Ovaltine" or anything else and I'd be just as disgusted and pissed, and it would have been just as damaging to the respective cause.

Who exactly made you dictator of this thread?

Yes, we condemn the tactic.

But we are not mindless apes that then proceed to throw our feces nonstop.

After we condemn the tactic we look at the motivations behind the tactic, and of course this is where we find the hypocrisy. We also find a message that is being totally ignored by the world powers.

We can of course join them in ignoring it, or we can point out that much bigger crimes than walking near historic sites are going on. This is not to mitigate the crimes of Greenpeace but to put things in perspective.

Why do we focus on the splinter in the foot when the leg has gangrene to the groin?

Hey, you should start a fucking thread on that!

This thread, however, is about fucking Greenpeace pulling a fucking stupid stunt and shooting themselves in the fucking foot.

 

[untermensche]

Who exactly made you dictator of this thread?

Yes, we condemn the tactic.

But we are not mindless apes that then proceed to throw our feces nonstop.

After we condemn the tactic we look at the motivations behind the tactic, and of course this is where we find the hypocrisy. We also find a message that is being totally ignored by the world powers.

We can of course join them in ignoring it, or we can point out that much bigger crimes than walking near historic sites are going on. This is not to mitigate the crimes of Greenpeace but to put things in perspective.

Why do we focus on the splinter in the foot when the leg has gangrene to the groin?

Hey, you should start a fucking thread on that!

This thread, however, is about Greenpeace pulling a stupid stunt and shooting themselves in the fucking foot.

That's a nice opinion.

Mine is different.

I think the thread should examine motivations behind the tactic.

Like the destruction of species on the planet.

Blind rage against Greenpeace without looking at what they are reacting to is mindless. It is the way those who oppose the message want people to act.

 

[Mageth]

Hey, you should start a fucking thread on that!

This thread, however, is about Greenpeace pulling a stupid stunt and shooting themselves in the fucking foot.

That's a nice opinion.

Mine is different.

I think the thread should examine motivations behind the tactic...Like the destruction of species on the planet.

Hey, that would be a great topic for another thread! Since it has fuck-all to do with this one.

(And irony strikes for the second time...who says it can't strike twice in the same spot?)

Blind rage against Greenpeace without looking at what they are reacting to is mindless. It is the way those who oppose the message want people to act.

Jesus H. Fuckin' Christ! Once again with the strawman stuffing!

Again, someone earlier on this thread said "one could be both concerned about the state of the planet (and thus sympathetic to at least some of Greenpeace's position) and disgusted and angry about their tactics...I'm both angry that they'd risk damaging the Nazca site to pull this stunt and that they pull such counterproductive, stupid, irresponsible stunts which undermine the environmentalist position."

Who was that someone?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The medium by which this message was conveyed will do far more to cause people to reject the message than to cause people to accept the message.

It's as simple as that. Mageth is completely right. I'm no fan of Greenpeace, and I can see that if they wanted me to like them destroying an ancient monument is not the way to do that.

On the other hand, perhaps untermensche doesn't care because this ancient monument celebrates the ancient Nazca 1% aristocratic class and isn't a monument to the Nazca proletariat.

 

[laughing dog]

I am surprised that Greenpeace has any feet left to shoot. It seems to me that they let their zealousness override whatever common sense they may have at almost every opportunity.

 

[Turambar]

A big "What the fuck were they thinking?" is in order...

Good question, I am pondering that myself... some theories:
"Nothing enrages big polluting corporations more than damaging ancient amerindian archeological sites"

"Hey, let's do that in Peru, one of the least polluting countries on this planet on per capita figures!"

"Protest at NASCAR?? I though you said NAZCA!!

 

[barbos]

I am glad they are not beheading people....yet.

 

[abaddon]

Why do we focus on the splinter in the foot when the leg has gangrene to the groin?

If you care for Earth you’ll care about when messages over-ride the Earth. Caring would send the message far better than saying “Care”.

The message doesn’t matter more than the way it’s lived. These people cared too much about the message and too little about the sacred place they were at. They were in the head rather than on the Earth, and that’s the gangrene.

 

[untermensche]

The medium by which this message was conveyed will do far more to cause people to reject the message than to cause people to accept the message.

Yes, because people are morons and care more about how messages are delivered than the message itself.

It is possible to condemn Greenpeace for stupidity and also have much more condemnation for those destroying the environment as rapidly as possible.

 

[Rhea]

The medium by which this message was conveyed will do far more to cause people to reject the message than to cause people to accept the message.

Yes, because people are morons and care more about how messages are delivered than the message itself.

And Greenpeace is, IMHO, monumentally stupid and arrogant for not predicting this.
So who's the moron? The one who says, "wait, two wrongs don't make a right?" or the one who says, "who knew people would get distracted by the two wrongs argument?"

Was there a shortage of visible places to protest?
Some people you just can't reach.

It is possible to condemn Greenpeace for stupidity and also have much more condemnation for those destroying the environment as rapidly as possible.

Yup. Absolutely. And thereafter dismiss Greenpeace as NOT BEING FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, i.e. not on our side.
Which is what we have here today.

Greenpeace appears to be not on our side, not helping change minds on climate change and actually destroying efforts to get more people on the side of environmentalism.

 

[bilby]

The medium by which this message was conveyed will do far more to cause people to reject the message than to cause people to accept the message.

Yes, because people are morons and care more about how messages are delivered than the message itself.

It is possible to condemn Greenpeace for stupidity and also have much more condemnation for those destroying the environment as rapidly as possible.

I condemn Greenpeace for being more a part of the problem than they are a part of the solution. Absent these ill-informed nutters blocking nuclear power at every turn, we could be generating a much larger fraction of our power via almost carbon neutral fission by now, and the coal could stay in the ground where it belongs.

Good intentions are all very well, but they don't excuse counterproductive and damaging acts. Greenpeace do more harm to the environment than good, and this latest incident is just a tiny example of the vast harm this bunch of well meaning idiots cause.

Action without a basis in rationality rarely achieves a net benefit to society; and Greenpeace are an irrational cult, made up of people who genuinely believe that everyone would agree with them if only they were 'aware', despite their beliefs being founded in emotional nonsense, childish over simplification of complex problems, and a deep devotion to the naturalistic fallacy. Fucking idiots.