| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So Greenpeace's claims were correct, because they are an unbiased source, while the people fined for cruelty to animals because of filming the movie claimed Greenpeace paid them to do it, something that also happened with the baby seal story?
Yeah. Sure.
If thats your take away from the conversation you should see why I don't trust your comprehension of a news article from 20 years ago. You have trouble not inventing reality around a conversation you're IN, much less one you remember.
Greenpeace's claims (or rather what you say greenpeace was claiming, I can't find the video) make sense because
1) They are not an unbiased source of information. Nor do i expect them to be one. They are an advocacy group. I fully expect them to take the absolute worst that exists and exaggerate it to make a point or shock people. Making things up out of whole cloth however is as pointless as it is unnecessary.
2) wiki and any number of other sources confirm roo count kills at around the 2 million mark annually. This takes place via many disparate, private groups that number at least in the hundreds, and out of that there are bound to be more than a few morons gleefully cutting into things. I've met more than a few people that give hunters a bad name and I doubt its strictly an american phenomenon. There seems to be no reason to fake this.
3) Kangaroos do not have a breeding season, they get preggers, put the pregnancy on hold till the joey is out of the pouch, start it and get pregnant again. They're six foot tall tribbles. Unlike deer, where you can avoid starving the fawns to death by not killing the mother in the spring. If you're going to kill 2 million kangaroos then you either have one heck of an animal adoption center going on or a whole range of fetuses/babies with low chances of independently living.
4) You cannot articulate a coherent motive for greenpeace to torture animals to make a point. They're not making money off of it, so unless its just one sick joke for the evulz you have nothing. They gain influence... influence to do WHAT exactly?
5) You cannot cite any sources for greenpeace having done what you claim. The mere existence of the film and accusations yellow journalism do NOT create your very specific points.
6) You pick up right wing conspiracies theories as fact. You have a hard time with fact A being fact A and not facts B C D and E. You swallowed climategate propaganda whole, and this looks to be along the same lines. There was something that was less than absolute 100% perfect (knowing these kinds of films far from it) and therefore its an evil conspiracy.
It's strange that whenever I don't agree with this specific crowd, I always get called paranoid. Signing off, moving on after flagging. Thank you.
Massive environmental differences between the US and Oz. It's a bad thing if you don't have fires because the next year the fires are 10 times worse... Loggers have no interest in back burning as it hurts thier bottom line.Everything I've found on the Australia wildfires matches up to the U.S. wildfires on the lack of smaller fires causing bigger fires; both seem, from what I have read, to be linked to the same cause.
The U.S. found a solution that doesn't involve burning. Even with the environmental differences, the fact you have loggers at all suggests a potential possibility that the same solution can be applied to Australia as well. With some modification to account for the differences.
However, this is based on an incomplete knowledge of Australia's environment. I tend to avoid places that are inherently hostile to human life, such as New Jersey, or places where everything is trying to kill you, such as New Jersey or Australia :P
Australia's Forrest's are primarily Eucalyptus. Eucalyptus are filled with a flammable oil, they burn fast, often explode into flame. In the summer you can see a blue haze over the forest, that is the oil permeating the air like gasoline vapour.
Lightning strikes start most fires in old growth forests. If you don't have a fire you don't clear the leaf litter made up of oil rich eucalypts leaves.
A lot Eucalypts can not reproduce without fire, while California's climate is similar it's forests aren't evolved to burn.
Not entirely true, fire is indeed part of the growth cycle here too. I have heard that some (pine species i believe) require fire to reproduce as well, as well as changing the dynamics of shade and sun to allow some species to grow.
All in all loggers MIGHT be more interested in healthier forests than many enviro types, much as most hunters care more for healthy game than animal rights wackos.
Forestry workers are usually interested in healthy monocultural forests. Once they have clear-felled the old-growth, species-rich (flora and fauna) forests of giant trees (what we call one-log loads) they are very keen to look after the single-species tree farms.
Also, are you suggesting all those interested in animal rights are wackos? Just trying to get a measure of your ideas.
Love this thread, has definitely exposed Sissyl's attitudes, and it seems your own.
Forestry workers are usually interested in healthy monocultural forests.
Bit of an oxymoron there... as i think you realize. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, the animal rights whackos are for healthy game thats been given proper cardio by running for its life from the native predators that are supposed to be there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A question for you BNW, how do yo feel about the humane as possible removal of non native species that have no value beyond that of pets.
I for example support a ban on the sale of cats in Australia and the neutering of all existing cats and the destruction of any feral cats.
For me the protection of native species should out weigh invasive species.
A question for you BNW, how do yo feel about the humane as possible removal of non native species that have no value beyond that of pets.
Conflicted, but against.
While I'm well aware of the massive amount of harm endangered species can do, I think the cat is out of the bag (literally). Getting Australia ecology back to a pre colonial condition would require such a massive and expensive effort to not only do, but to maintain, that it would never happen. How are you going to get rid of EVERY cat, red fox, (rat?) and rabbit on the entire continent? As soon as you leave any behind you're only setting the stage for the problem to crop up again. As soon as a pair sneak in somehow you're back to where you started.
I for example support a ban on the sale of cats in Australia and the neutering of all existing cats and the destruction of any feral cats.
I'm fine with the first two , not with the third. Harming individuals in pursuit of an unattainable, broader goal doesn't sit well with me. In another 50 or 100 years or we'll probably have a better technological solution for sterilizing unwanted pets. You can do damage control until then.
Of course, once cloning becomes an option, I'm going to get myself unfrozen just so i can see the maori eagles take to the skies over Australia's pre schools, along with all the other megafauna we wiped out. You thought the DINGOES were bad...
For me the protection of native species should out weigh invasive species.
Speciest!... nationalist!.... nationalspeciest ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's strange that whenever I don't agree with this specific crowd, I always get called paranoid. Signing off, moving on after flagging. Thank you.
You: Bunch of wild claims with a paranoid, conspiratorial tone.
Us: "Um...can you back any of that up with evidence? Can you explain..."You: *takes her toys and goes home*
@Sissyl: It's not "whenever you don't agree" it's whenever you make wild claims without substantiating them.
meatrace, LazarX: I have taken quite enough abuse for explaining why I feel as I do. I stopped partaking of that discussion. Please don't push it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
meatrace, LazarX: I have taken quite enough abuse for explaining why I feel as I do. I stopped partaking of that discussion. Please don't push it.
I'm sorry that challenging your assumptions and requesting evidence of your wild claims is interpreted as abusive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, it's more the constant implications and flat out statements that I am insane and paranoid, attempts to smear me with whatever inane websites you can find, stuff like "only Sissyl can understand that hogwash", constant ignoring of what I actually said in favour of repeating stuff I already answered, and so on. You're not "challenging my assumptions", you're being douchebags.
I did not. I told you about my experience.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I did not. I told you about my experience.
Yes, your experience of watching a film 28 years ago and later hearing (from an unnamed source) that it was all done by Greenpeace. A claim you've never yourself investigated, apparently, but which has soured you against the organization SO MUCH that you now stand in opposition to their goals on principle?
It makes no sense to any of us. We're trying to understand.
I mean, how are we meant to react?
You are NOT trying to understand. You are trying to prove to me and to everyone else that I have no reason for feeling as I do, can't prove anything, and claiming that the default position and the only thing that is sensible is that Greenpeace is doing Good and there is no reason to question them.
A good way to react would be to say something like "That must have felt awful", "Greenpeace is a complex phenomenon, that people with an agenda sometimes go too far isn't unheard of", or even "That's interesting."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry I didn't know you were here to be mollycoddled. It's not my job to validate your emotions.
From all that I can tell, you DON'T have any reason for feeling as you do. Despite finding your claims far-fetched at first blush, LazarX have done your homework in trying to trace it to its source.
In fairness, the link that LazarX found is merely reprinting a story which originally appeared elsewhere. However, that elsewhere is The New American the official publication of the John Birch society.
Yeeeeahh....
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are NOT trying to understand. You are trying to prove to me and to everyone else that I have no reason for feeling as I do
And why isn't this a possibility?
Just because you feel something is true does not mean that it is. Your feelings are not a necessarily reliable indication of reality. This is truthiness, not truth.
Your feelings have lead you to a position that you have no evidence for, makes no sense, and even the anti greenpeace new american cannot bring itself to take. My options are either that you fell for a deliberate piece of propaganda, or that an organization dedicated to the environment and all things in it tortured animals in order to gain influence in order to... something evil.
can't prove anything
You don't. That looks like can't.
and claiming that the default position and the only thing that is sensible is that Greenpeace is doing Good and there is no reason to question them.
Given the information available that is the only sensible position.
A good way to react would be to say something like "That must have felt awful", "Greenpeace is a complex phenomenon, that people with an agenda sometimes go too far isn't unheard of", or even "That's interesting."
So if someone tells you that Obama is a lizard person do you "Well that's interesting" "wow you must feel awful at being under your reptilian overlords" or "prove it" or "malarkey!"
Do I have to send all of you to your rooms? Knock it off. (And people tell me I have no maternal instinct.)
Did someone leak a picture of kangaroos piloting the Enola Gay?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sissyls claims are quite interesting, if mired in nostalgia and memory. Like all things, I take them with a grain of salt. I'm not a fan of dismissing things outright, but even less of a fan of conspiracy theories.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where it will prevent the extinction of a native species I am for culling humanely where possible.
In fact if there were a myxomatosis for cats I would be happy for that to be released into the wild. As long as people could get their neutered pet cats inoculated.
Proud to be national speciesist ;-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Greenpeace: total donations €268,000,000 ($370,000,000)
Exxon-Mobil: net income $32,000,000,000
Greenpeace took in slightly over 1% of Exxon's profits. If you're going to run a conspiracy, environmentalism isn't the most profitable area to consider.
Also, Exxon's profits don't include the CEO's salary, which was over $40,000,000 last year, or about 15% of Greenpeace's total donations.
Where it will prevent the extinction of a native species I am for culling humanely where possible.
In fact if there were a myxomatosis for cats I would be happy for that to be released into the wild. As long as people could get their neutered pet cats inoculated.
Proud to be national speciesist ;-)
When do "introduced" species become naturalised 8th? How long have dingoes been here? What about cats? Native mynahs vs indian mynahs?
Or are you more looking at the impact of introduced species. Not sure whatthefossil records say, but I have heard cats have been here more than 250 years - regardless they are quite destructive to birdlife.
Also: How do you like "wild dogs" - where do you draw the line on "pure" dingoes? My brother's dog (my dog's daughter) had a mother that was part Kanimbla wild dog - mixed blood dingo.
I'm not being silly here, as a trained bush regenerator and forest activist I've examined a lot of this stuff from the radical and less barmy points of view. I saw zealous bush regenerators remove the last vestiges of habitat for a Lane Cove endemic bird because that habitat was... lantana.
I found David Horton's Pure State of Nature an interesting read (and counterpoint to the Bradley sister's bush regeneration creed) on pristine Australia and the difficulty in defining it...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not too long ago, I was over my comrades' house and Mrs. Comrade and I had a screaming argument.
It hadn't started out as such, it started as a rational discussion of how one of our other comrades had inadvertently hurt her feelings. I kept trying to make her see that the insult was unintentional but it was to no avail. She yelled at me and I retreated with Mr. Comrade out to the deck to smoke cigarettes. He started to apologize for her and I was just like, "Dude, I'm sorry. She hasn't done this in a while, and I should've realized that it had nothing to do with anything rational it was all about her feelings. This is the part where I go back in and say 'I love you, I love you, I love you' right?" "Uh, maybe, if it was your wife, but it's my wife, so you better not."
Anyway, I apologized, order was restored and we got back to smoking pot and planning the international proletarian socialist revolution.
I spoke to Mrs. Comrade a day or two later and she had spoken with another female comrade and had been convinced that the other other comrade hadn't meant to hurt her feelings. I, of course, could not leave well enough alone. "Oh yeah? So what did Genevieve say that was different from what I was saying?" Blah blah blah psychobabble about validating feelings and a bunch of other emotional crap that makes me uncomfortable.
Women.
In other news, I love you, Madame Sissyl, I love you, Madame Sissyl, I love you Madame Sissyl.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
There's a MRS. COMRADE?!?
I was surprised too, but the goblin comrade in this story. His friend is comrade and his friends wife is the Mrs Comrade
...
There's a MRS. COMRADE?!?
Well he didn't hatch from an egg.... (thats kobolds)
|
Greenpeace: total donations €268,000,000 ($370,000,000)
Exxon-Mobil: net income $32,000,000,000
Greenpeace took in slightly over 1% of Exxon's profits. If you're going to run a conspiracy, environmentalism isn't the most profitable area to consider.
Also, Exxon's profits don't include the CEO's salary, which was over $40,000,000 last year, or about 15% of Greenpeace's total donations.
Then again exxon is a business selling a product. what does green peace do to earn money?
|
|
Where it will prevent the extinction of a native species I am for culling humanely where possible.
In fact if there were a myxomatosis for cats I would be happy for that to be released into the wild. As long as people could get their neutered pet cats inoculated.
Proud to be national speciesist ;-)
Cats around the world need to be knocked down several pegs in population. Forget emotions about the kitty you love, they are destructive as hell. Dogs are not too much better.
Greenpeace: total donations €268,000,000 ($370,000,000)
Exxon-Mobil: net income $32,000,000,000
Greenpeace took in slightly over 1% of Exxon's profits. If you're going to run a conspiracy, environmentalism isn't the most profitable area to consider.
Also, Exxon's profits don't include the CEO's salary, which was over $40,000,000 last year, or about 15% of Greenpeace's total donations.
Doing prety good for people just giving them money.
Not entirely true, fire is indeed part of the growth cycle here too. I have heard that some (pine species i believe) require fire to reproduce as well, as well as changing the dynamics of shade and sun to allow some species to grow.
Take a look at the redwoods in California. IIRC, they need fire to open their cones up for seed dispersal. Pitch pine is similar. I can't recall if Douglas fir is the same or not. Fire is essential for some of these species as it opens up cones on the trees, letting seeds sprout in the now nutrient-rich ashes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The more pinkskins I meet, the more I love my cat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then again exxon is a business selling a product. what does green peace do to earn money?Greenpeace: total donations €268,000,000 ($370,000,000)
Exxon-Mobil: net income $32,000,000,000
Greenpeace took in slightly over 1% of Exxon's profits. If you're going to run a conspiracy, environmentalism isn't the most profitable area to consider.
Also, Exxon's profits don't include the CEO's salary, which was over $40,000,000 last year, or about 15% of Greenpeace's total donations.
Asks people to voluntarily contribute their money to a cause that can't have a profit motive attached... you know, the way you want every non profit creating enterprise to work.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with anyone who wants to see cats destroyed.
All cats everywhere are the devil.
lies. Cats are the superior life form.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love my cat. My cat has personality. Personality goes a long way.
|
|
Then again exxon is a business selling a product. what does green peace do to earn money?Greenpeace: total donations €268,000,000 ($370,000,000)
Exxon-Mobil: net income $32,000,000,000
Greenpeace took in slightly over 1% of Exxon's profits. If you're going to run a conspiracy, environmentalism isn't the most profitable area to consider.
Also, Exxon's profits don't include the CEO's salary, which was over $40,000,000 last year, or about 15% of Greenpeace's total donations.
Asks people to voluntarily contribute their money to a cause that can't have a profit motive attached... you know, the way you want every non profit creating enterprise to work.
Then why compare them to an international business? What is the point to it? Compare apples to apples
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, to the above discussion with Sissyl...
"The most important rule: Don't be a jerk. We want our messageboards
to be a fun and friendly place."
I think this alludes to not having to face an inquisition when you state your opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"You're all very stupid and wrong, because I am deeply upset by something I seem to remember seeing on TV half a lifetime ago!" -> Not an inquisition, nor abusive.
"Is that necessarily the best-supported argument?" -> An abusive inquisition.
"You're all very stupid and wrong, because I am deeply upset by something I seem to remember seeing on TV half a lifetime ago!" -> Not an inquisition, nor abusive.
"Is that necessarily the best-supported argument?" -> An abusive inquisition.
You're forgetting the "don't be a jerk, keep it friendly" part
Then why compare them to an international business? What is the point to it? Compare apples to apples
The idea, very popular on the right and that Sissy's been dipping their toes into, is that environmental groups are the evil twin of corporations.(see all those hippies with goatees? EVIIIIL!)
Environmental groups allegedly have as much sway in politics and public opinion as corporations do, so the truth between what the corporations say and what the environmentalists say is therefore either somewhere in the middle or unknowable. Demonstrating the exponential difference in wealth between for profit corporations and environmental groups pretty much discredits this idea.
You're forgetting the "don't be a jerk, keep it friendly" part
Freehold, if someone like Fakey or Kruelaid invokes "don't be a jerk," it's pretty clear it's time to straighten up one's act. But when Madame Cruella de Sissyl (tag line: "Let me help hold this one down while you cut his throat") invokes that rule, it rises to high comedy. It's like Citizen R telling people not to sound racist.
It wasn't her, it was me invoking it.
It's not hard to not be a jerk.
The only thing i'll say about greenpeace is, at least they aren't destroying animals by the dumpsterload. Ya know, for the cause.
And before the "welcome to the internet" BS starts, I'd say welcome to Paizo's corner of the internet, where they kindly ask people not to be jerks.
It's not hard to not be a jerk.
For me, it's not hard -- it's impossible!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, there's always exceptions to the rule ;)
You're forgetting the "don't be a jerk, keep it friendly" partFreehold, if someone like Fakey or Kruelaid invokes "don't be a jerk," it's pretty clear it's time to straighten up one's act. But when Madame Cruella de Sissyl (tag line: "Let me help hold this one down while you cut his throat") invokes that rule, it rises to high comedy. It's like Citizen R telling people not to sound racist.
even so, the rule is there. Let's avoid jerkitude on all levels, including funny tag lines.