Pangloss Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Good times: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17104337-28793,00.html The funniest part is right at the end of the story. Not only do they have to pay a fine for damaging the reef, but they didn't find any evidence of damage to the reef due to global warming! BWahahashdAHAHsdahafda!!!11one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 You gotta love the irony, but we do need to evaluate the environment to see what effect we are having on it. This may cause damage sometimes, but it is better than just ignoring it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted November 1, 2005 Author Share Posted November 1, 2005 Sure, but Greenpeace is not in the business of objectively evaluating the environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 I don`t see what`s so funny/hilarious here at all? it`s as if you`re Pleased it happened? can you explain this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Pretty much the definition of hilarious! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 As John said, it's the irony. If an oil tanker had accidentally hit the reef, Green Peace would have ripped them to shreds and demanded a 10 million dollar fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted November 1, 2005 Author Share Posted November 1, 2005 I think irony is all the more delicious when it's delivered with a heavy background of hypocrisy. It's my bread and butter. Sorry if it offended anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 I don't get what's so funny. It was accidental, a result of erroneous charts, and they agreed to pay the fine. The only theme I detect is "we all make mistakes, and pay for them appropriately." Mokele Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Sure, but Greenpeace is not in the business of objectively evaluating the environment. They are trying to show that global warming is real and destroying the environment. Just as many companies try to show that global warming is non-existent. I don't agree with some of the things they do, but this seems pretty tame. One problem we face is if man tries to proactively save the environment, not just keep from damaging it, he is taking unnatural actions that may further damage the environment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted November 1, 2005 Author Share Posted November 1, 2005 They are trying to show that global warming is real and destroying the environment. Just as many companies try to show that global warming is non-existent. But your statement was: but we do need to evaluate the environment to see what effect we are having on it Which I agreed with, and then pointed out that that statement does not apply to Greeneace. It still doesn't. They're not "trying to show that global warming is real", John, they're trying to *convince you* that global warming is real, whether it is in fact real or not. There is a huge difference. ---- Some people find it amusing, others do not. But whether it's amusing or not is based on whether it is amusing that a special interest group is so focused on spinning its agenda that it ends up damaging the very thing it's trying to convince everyone should not be damaged. That's ironic, and irony is amusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Yeah, Greenpeace has been known to spout a few lies along with some half truths. I suppose they started out with good intentions, but as the bureaucracy grew, they probably found the need to manufacture some anxieties. Organisations such as Greenpeace have got themselves onto a cash flow treadmill. They have mouths to feed. In order to do this they must manufacture more and more of their product, which is anxiety, to keep the donations rolling in. They live in symbiosis with bureaucrats in organisations like the EU, each giving the other a pretence of justification for existence. The tragedy is that they face no concerted resistance and are able to ride roughshod over the interests of ordinary people and businesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glider Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 I suppose it could be their version of fighting fire with fire. They may feel the need to say things are worse than they are simply to offset those who say things are better than they are. Strangely, I feel more inclined to believe that greenpeace believe what they are saying (whether or not its true) more than large businesses. Whilst I can't argue with the need for objectivity in science, I do think that too much objectivity = 'I don't care', which is not always appropriate, and certainly not when it comes to issues like global warming, the destruction of rainforest and the extinction of species which affect everybody on the planet. Having said that, I'm not above a little Schadenfreude...Teeheehee...they crashed their boat and smashed a reef Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zyncod Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 You know, Pangloss, the more posts of yours I read, the more I come to the conclusion that you're in total agreement with the scorched earth philosophy of the Republicans, no matter how much you deny it. Destroying a reef is funny? It's not funny (at all) that national security was compromised in the Valerie Plame affair, no matter how "ironic" it might be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Which I agreed with' date=' and then pointed out that that statement does not apply to Greeneace. It still doesn't. They're not "trying to show that global warming is real", John, they're trying to *convince you* that global warming is real, whether it is in fact real or not. There is a huge difference.[/quote'] Yes, they are biased toward their agenda. I and you understand that. Exxon/Mobile and many Fortune 500 are biased also. Do you understand that? They didn't lie about their results or forge any documents to convince the public and senate apparently. They said they found no evidence. Some people find it amusing' date=' others do not. But whether it's amusing or not is based on whether it is amusing that a special interest group is so focused on spinning its agenda that it ends up damaging the very thing it's trying to convince everyone should not be damaged. That's ironic, and irony is amusing.[/quote'] I do find it amusing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted November 2, 2005 Author Share Posted November 2, 2005 You know, Pangloss, the more posts of yours I read, the more I come to the conclusion that you're in total agreement with the scorched earth philosophy of the Republicans, no matter how much you deny it. Destroying a reef is funny?[/b'] It's not funny (at all) that national security was compromised in the Valerie Plame affair, no matter how "ironic" it might be. I never said *anywhere* in this thread that I thought it was funny that part of a reef was destroyed. That is a mean-spirited, ugly distortion of what I've said. I have a problem with this post, and view it as a personal attack and a straw man argument, both of which are violations of your user agreement. If you said it to anybody else, I would have issued you a warning. This is the kind of attack and smear, by the way, that contributes to polarization and breakdowns in communication. I think that by now I've posted enough of my personal thoughts and positions so that people here understand something about my position. I say this not because I think Zyncod's post suggests that this is not the case -- I know his post is not indicative of the community -- but to point out that this is the kind of thing that some people are willing to do. This is the kind of thing we HAVE to fight. As I pointed out above, Jon Stewart and Al Franken (probably two heros of yours, Zyncod) LIVE in this territory, making jokes about the far right all the time that are exactly like this in every way. I laugh at both sides. If you can't do the same, that should tell you something about yourself, not about me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zyncod Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Ok, let's say that I have a problem with FEMA because they were utterly worthless when my house flooded 6 years ago during Hurrican Floyd (which they were). Now say that I post something that says "Ahhahhaa! They were directly responsible for people dying in Katrina and everybody knows it!!" I'm not laughing at people dying, I'm laughing at FEMA, but that's maybe not the slightest bit offensive? What I said was uncalled-for, but laughing in this type of situation is also mean-spirited. On an unrelated note, I used to be able to laugh at both sides, but the Republicans are becoming markedly less funny as time goes on. And Al Franken, at least, is one of the more worthless human beings walking around the planet. Jon Stewart... well, at least he doesn't take himself at all seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 "The road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions" and I`m sure they all meant well, but I still can`t see anything "Funny" in it at all either? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted November 2, 2005 Author Share Posted November 2, 2005 Zyncod you just accused Al Franken of being "one of the more worthless human beings walking around on the planet". You wouldn't hear me say something like that -- I think he's one of the funniest comedians working politics since Mark Russell. I also think he's a radical demogogue, but I don't think his value as a human being is any lower than yours or mine. You should just admit that the reason you didn't find it funny is because you sympathize with Greenpeace and perceived this humor as an attack. This statement from your post is particularly revealing, I think: I used to be able to laugh at both sides, but the Republicans are becoming markedly less funny as time goes on. Since I never said anything about Republicans in this thread (you labelled me clear out of the blue), really the question is not whether you found this amusing, but whether you're so nailed-down in your ideology that any humor anybody finds with any aspect of it is perceived by you as an attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zyncod Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 You should just admit that the reason you didn't find it funny is because you sympathize with Greenpeace and perceived this humor as an attack. Oh, I'm labeling you, am I? The clues that I gave you as far as my environmental leanings were the statements that destroying a reef isn't funny and that Republicans pursue a scorched earth policy. Given the last 5 years of relentlessly lowering environmental standards, the latter statement is a (somewhat hyperbolic) version of the truth, and actual science will back that. I don't agree with Greenpeace; they focus with an inhuman zeal on insignificant points of the environmental movement (ie, destroying GMOs). Like Al Franken, Greenpeace's ego is so large that they don't see what damage they're doing to the movement they are trying to help; that's why they're both worthless. As far as I see it, the only way you can find this situation to be this funny: "BWahahashdAHAHsdahafda!!!11one!" is if you completely disagree with not only the tactics but also the motive of Greenpeace. Like how the only way I could find the Katrina/FEMA situation actually funny is if I disagreed with their goal of saving people from disasters. Since the motive of Greenpeace is saving the environment, that's why I said that you agreed with the scorched earth policy of the Republicans. I don't think this is a "strawman" argument, although it is a bit of a personal attack. I really don't care whether or not you find this reef situation to be funny, but don't get all huffy when somebody dares to point out that your sense of humor is a little perverted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted November 2, 2005 Author Share Posted November 2, 2005 You're right, that's exactly why I find it funny. So what? The difference between you and me, Zyncod, appears to be that I can laugh at both myself and the things that I believe in, when they're amusing. Tell me a joke about a libertarian and I'll be the first one rolling on the floor. That doesn't seem to be the case with you. But hey, it's a free country. Laugh at what you like. I don't have a problem with people not finding it funny. I had no objection to, for example, YT's question. It's you saying that I was "in total agreement with the scorched earth philosophy of the Republicans, no matter how much you deny it" that I objected to. If you don't find something funny, then you don't find it funny. (shrug) If you chose not to explore why it's not funny, and instead put up a front about offensiveness, that's really your problem, not mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zyncod Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Eh, I guess I should come clean. That first post was just belligerence after going out to the bar last night, and the rest was not wanting to lose an argument. It's really tough playing devil's advocate for Greenpeace - they annoy the hell out of me, but probably for different reasons than they do you - and I did laugh, before I caught myself, when I saw the story earlier yesterday. Sorry and all that - no offense meant; I've got no problems with libertarians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Republicans pursue a scorched earth policy. .Out of curiosity, is there a particular "scorched earth policy" that you're concerned about?? Wondering....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted November 2, 2005 Author Share Posted November 2, 2005 Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike90 Posted November 5, 2005 Share Posted November 5, 2005 jesus isn't this flame wars a bit excessive? Bury the hatchet already Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Out of curiosity, is there a particular "scorched earth policy" that you're concerned about?? Wondering....... One that bothers me is the spending of tremendous resources to prop the Middle East up so we can siphon the oil, but no real concern for developing alternative energy. If Americans had to pay the real cost of gas at the pump, our cars would already be more efficient, and alternative fuels would be making better headway. Also ignoring the effects of global warming is a concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now