Jump to content

Greenpeace Pussies


allthumbs

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 247
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Per the peerless online reference known as www.dictionary.com :

 

puss·y

n. pl. puss·ies

1. Informal. A cat.

2. Botany. A fuzzy catkin, especially of the pussy willow.

3. Vulgar Slang.

--The vulva.

--Sexual intercourse with a woman.

4. Offensive Slang. Used as a disparaging term for a woman.

5. Slang. A man regarded as weak, timid, or unmanly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by RobBob:

I want to expand on my modest proposal for worldwide population control. Let's do something about it before famine and disease cause catastrophe around the globe!

 

All of our best world organizations can get involved: The UN, IMF, UNICEF. Funds, trade status, and Playstations go to the third-world nations who successfully lower their birthrate to steady-state.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So, are you suggesting something along the lines of more condoms or more genocide? Will the population control measure be imposed on each country equally, from a random population sample? Who will be deciding all this? You?


Dr. Flash,

The beauty of my plan is that it is simple, involves positive incentives to the nations in question, and leaves them to the details of getting it done. Kind of like empowering states to do their own governing. [Wink][big Grin]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Cpt.Caveman:

are they engaged in any acts or stunts that can harm the "enemy"? Just some simple questions before I make any judgements....

The harm Greenpeace offers is financial and public relations, not physical.

 

Some of their stunts are pretty damn bold too, getting in the way of large whaling vessels with zodiacs. I don't know that you would like their politics Ray, but they are honorable opponents.

 

[ 10-23-2002, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: Off White ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

The harm Greenpeace offers is financial and public relations, not physical.


Hey Off,

Now you know better. You have enough life experience to know how provocative those boats might seem if they were crossing your bow. That's physical jousting, man. [Mad][Wink]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Sure, common good is a (admittedly fuzzy) moral concept, and its where I differ from Mtn Goat's vision of five billion people looking out for number one and screw the rest of you."

 

Five billion people can look out for number one and take others into account in doing so. Don't *you* look out for number one, while still taking others into account? Of course you do. So do most people, I think.

 

As for the "screw the rest of you", it would be better if you made it clear this is your view of what I believe, and not something I have ever espoused. Does this fact enter your deliberation when you consider my actual positions, or does your view of what I contend outweigh what I actually say?

 

Looking out for others simply does not imply that doing so will result in actions you agree with. The problem seems to be some folks only count a decision as "looking out for others" if it meets their view of what looking out for others means. Folks can make perfectly honest, valid, and intentional choices to look out for others and still disagree about how that is achieved.

 

What strikes me repeatedly in these discussions is the seemingly inherent expectation that "looking out for others" has only certain, particular actions always related to one innate view of a particular ideology as "good", namely one that inevitably involves some kind of enforced collectivism as a basis..... Instead of of allowing for the fact that this idea can be expressed in many, many ways, all valid and all honest. Just because someone's consideration of "the good of others" does not meet an implied standard that the result will follow "progressive" points for action, does *not* indicate such thinking has not occurred. I find that the good of others is best met by allowing said others the power to decide what is for their *own* good, not my imposition of a view of what is good for them.

 

[ 10-23-2002, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...