bongomania
Commercial User
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Nestle's EPIC Fail on Facebook
- Thread starter itswac
- Start date
Sorry, I should have added subjective to that sentence. The day we have a universal greater good, the world will be a better place. Unless it's uniting against alien invaders or zombies or something.
I just find their use of motorised boats to ram sailing vessles ironic.
In reality I would much rather support someone with positive outcomes. If all greenpeace did was hold seminars and gettogethers to raise awareness about the environment, and distribute resources into researching biofuels and sustainble energy, I would be a very strong supporter. However they waste there time with all these little protests ect. that do nothing but halt progress and make them look like a buch of loonies.
What do you mean unless?
Tbh people will always need to fight something, and were going to be fighting each other untill we find something else to go fistycuffs with. If aliens do exist it is unfortunatly inevitable that we will go to war with them, probably under 'preventative means'
Two videos of that other collision I mentioned in my posts. The name of that Atlantic crossing vessel was called the Ady Gil. It was donated to the Sea Shepherds for their 'cause'. This is what they did with it.
This is the Sea Shepherd's angle. This is not what they used when they were claiming the Japanese vessel rammed them. You can clearly see the Japanese vessel is trying to angle away from them by steering a course away from the course of the Ady Gil, and then steer behind it (turning into the vessel). This is cut off by the Ady Gil because it accelerates into it's course.
This is the Sea Shepherd's angle. This is not what they used when they were claiming the Japanese vessel rammed them. You can clearly see the Japanese vessel is trying to angle away from them by steering a course away from the course of the Ady Gil, and then steer behind it (turning into the vessel). This is cut off by the Ady Gil because it accelerates into it's course.
Again, Sea Shepherds and Greenpeace are seperate entities. Please don't discount an organisation that is taking a stance on issues you agree with because all you ever hear about them in the media is the direct action/protest side of things. For instance, to stop a third runway being opened at Heathrow, they have purchased some of the land that would be used and are giving small plots away free to supporters, so should the UK government try and purchase the land under a compulsorary basis there would be countless people they would need to take to court individually. This is straying too close to politics though.
What do you mean unless?
I use the word unless because imho, a global war of some description would not be a good thing and would definitely not make the world a better place.
I am hoping they will be friendly.
If they were friendly, why would they be invading?
Yes. They're separate entities, but they're both organizations involved in ramming boats in the open sea. Their tactics are the same, even if their rhetoric is slightly different. I hope you can see the comparison, and how they get clumped together.
Ah! To those taking issue with my most recent posts: this tidbit was all you really needed to ram my point off course.
Mike
Yeah, but even bio diesel is a toxic contaminant when it's seeping into the water from the bottom of the ocean.
Yeah, but when I made my statement, I wasn't aware that the boat was sent to Davy Jones Locker with an erl leak. Now that I know, I'm (of course) still right, but at the time I could have been silenced with the biodiesel factoid.
Mike
That's my point. You made mention of an alien invasion. I was just saying I am hoping the aliens will be friendly. No invasion. But we have to be on guard. Remember Independence Day. Nobody new what the ships were all about till they blew the roof off the White House.
The Andy Gil looks like something Batman would drive. Cool looking.
I don't have a problem with people standing up for what they believe in but organizations such as PETA and Greenpeace have taken some of their tactics to the extreme. They eventually lose all or most of their credibility no matter how noble their cause.
There was a link to greenpeace ramming a sailing boat sponsered by nuclear energy before.
Also what you just explained is part of the problem. They are trying to stop an airport from being expanded. It inevitably must happen, the population of the earth is increasing, and more people need to move around, eventually airports must get bigger.
Wouldn't they be better off, instead of getting in the way of something that they likely won't change, researching and implimenting more fuel efficient aircraft? Actually trying to solve the problem rather than just delay the effects?
Its great that they want to help the environment, but they just always seem to go about it the wrong way.
Thats not too bad, but still its not great for the environment. They should try using yachts, then they would have an excuse when the ram into people too
There was a link to greenpeace ramming a sailing boat sponsered by nuclear energy before.
Also what you just explained is part of the problem. They are trying to stop an airport from being expanded. It inevitably must happen, the population of the earth is increasing, and more people need to move around, eventually airports must get bigger.
Wouldn't they be better off, instead of getting in the way of something that they likely won't change, researching and implimenting more fuel efficient aircraft? Actually trying to solve the problem rather than just delay the effects?
Its great that they want to help the environment, but they just always seem to go about it the wrong way.
Thats not too bad, but still its not great for the environment. They should try using yachts, then they would have an excuse when the ram into people too
The yacht incident, which as Maki rightly pointed out, used similar tactics to those of the Sea Shepherds, but imho is on a different level of magnitude to the more violent actions of the Sea Shepherds against whaling boats. Once you get into it, like a subjective greater good, it's all about what action people see as right or wrong as individuals and that's when it gets messy. Greenpeace on the whole however, support nonviolent direct action, which isn't something the Sea Shepherds can claim.
As for the runway, I fail to see why a non-profit NGO should pay for the obscene research costs into more eco friendly flying. The airlines and plane manufacturers should be doing this research, Greenpeace are there to try and influence them into acting in a more ecologically sound manner and to raise awareness of the issues among the general populace. If we keep building more runways etc because we "need" them, pretty soon we'll run out of planet to build them on. We ought to alter our behaviour to minimise damage to the environment as a society and as individuals. If that means not flying so much, then it's fine with me. Big companies however, will 9 times out of 10 go for profit before environmentally sound business practices and somebody needs to stand up to them.
Of course they do, they are businesses. wouldn't they be better off working with the businesses, speaking their language, 'You could save 1.5% on fuel consumption by implimenting this technology we have been researching..'
Why should a non-profit organisation not research things? Think about things like the breast cancer foundation. What do they do? The help create awearness for breast cancer, and they raise money for research into breast cancer prevention/detection/treatment. Think of an organisation that does the same for the environment, would this not be a good thing? I would certainly back them, 100%
While you and me may be willing to make sacrafices for the environment, plenty of people in the world don't think that way. The last thing they want to hear is 'Sorry, there will be a 10% increase on excess baggage charges due to greenpeace's prevention of the airport expansion'
I personally would see this as much more productive than the current greenpeace methods. I would respond better, and im sure average joe would too, to 'Greenpeace, helping you save money on fuel costs' rather than 'Greenpeace, spamming Nestle's facebook and delaying your flights'
Edit - Snipped the rest out because it was too far OT, was a reply to the second part about population ect.
I wasn't looking to silence you. I kind of agreed with your point. I just wanted your zingers to be well informed.
If that were really the moral and ethical signpost then nobody would be charged for possession of narcotics.
They're one of the buyers most responsible for continuing the commodity's viability and are, thus, culpable.
If your argument can be put into play it could significantly impact world drug policy.
So operating dirty boats to kill whales is a greater good when it supports an economy?
Not so.
bongomania
Commercial User
I agree, and I think it should. It makes sense to demonize traffickers and dealers, not addicts and occasional users. Addicts need medical help, and occasional users (maybe) need more education; neither they nor society benefits when they are demonized.
