20 replies to this topic 1 votes

[+Phouchg]

I despise human race as a whole. They're irrational, self-contradicting, delusional, self-righteous and arrogant species. I don't want them to have future, especially on my expense.

[Calum]

MiukuMac, on 18 May 2012 - 12:45, said:

I personally don't hate Greenpeace but I feel that their activity is inefficient and ultimately pointless.

Other less vocal groups have done much more for the environment and eventually companies and governments are forced to invest and develop more efficient energy sources in face of the sheer reality that the resources are slowly dwindling and cannot be sustained as the population grows. Greenpeace tend to claim that due to their activity companies and individuals are taking steps to improve their environment but in reality we were doing it on our own long before they came around or did anything about it.

In short, they're making a lot of noise but have very little to show for it.

Them making a fuss is still better than nothing, in my opinion It still drums up interest in the cause. Of course, if other organisations are doing more for the cause, it's up to the donator to decide who best to donate to, but everyone should be thankful that Greenpeace are at least campaigning and protesting, in my opinion.

FloatingFatMan, on 18 May 2012 - 12:49, said:

It's not their message, it's their messengers and the methods they use.

Which messengers and what methods do you disagree with? I feel that as long as no one is being harmed, everything is fine. But you might be able to provide examples of methods that aren't fine.

[nik louch]

IF Greenpeace's agenda were this "let's save the planet" nonsense they hide behind, then fair play.

But it's not. It's pure self-publicity for the organisation and those concerned. They do as much damage as they do good, and are often labelled as eco-terrorists due to the tactics they employ.

Look at the damage they did to the coral reef, how their ship spewed pollution, etc... They seem to attract the type that are just looking for a protest.

[FloatingFatMan]

Calum, on 18 May 2012 - 12:52, said:

Which messengers and what methods do you disagree with? I feel that as long as no one is being harmed, everything is fine. But you might be able to provide examples of methods that aren't fine.

I could list all sorts of things (like Nik has above), but you're far more likely to believe me if you spend a little time with Google/Bing and look yourself. I did that once with Mother Teresa, and it was quite an eye opener!

[n_K]

They break into nuclear power stations and protest about them...
If those that did that got radiation poison and died out in the fields I wouldn't really care, but the amount of disruption they do.
Half of greenpeace wants nuclear power, the other half wants to get rid of it, and I bet the latter half were those protesting at apple using coal power.

[FloatingFatMan]

n_K, on 18 May 2012 - 23:05, said:

They break into nuclear power stations and protest about them...
If those that did that got radiation poison and died out in the fields I wouldn't really care, but the amount of disruption they do.
Half of greenpeace wants nuclear power, the other half wants to get rid of it, and I bet the latter half were those protesting at apple using coal power.

99% of the morons in Greenpeace can't even spell nuclear, let alone actually understand it. If they did, they'd know full well that modern power stations are far safer than current coal powered ones.