Jump to content

Greenpeace Pussies


allthumbs

Recommended Posts

quote:

Originally posted by Beaver Joe:

My first post and can you believe its on the spray board?
[Frown]

 

Everybody's life is full of contradictions. And we can pick at each others' contradictions all day long without accomplishing anything. The only thing anyone can do about it is being informed and asking themselves if they feel warranted in making any given decision.

Pretty lame for your first one, sparky. [Wink] It'll get easier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 247
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I thought you'd like that j_b, all it demands is that those you claim support screwing others actually, personally, and expressely claim they do so. Not your contention that they do by your standards, their contention they do, by their standards.

 

Inserting your judgement of someone elses claims, as their words and beliefs may pass muster with some, I expect a better standard... their own words. If one wishes to claim someone else says they support something, you should be able to show where they say it, not paraphrased, not your interpretation of their words, their *actual* words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Off White:

Did they actually run him over? Personally, I side with the tribe.

OW, it was a woman on the ski. Yes, I saw the footage on TV, they ran her bony ass over. I was MUCH impressed. She later tried to make an issue of the event, but evidently retained Barney Rubble as her attorney. Nothing came of it. [laf]

 

[ 10-23-2002, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: trask ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by chucK:

quote:

Originally posted by Greg W:

You may exercise your personal freedom and liberty to the extent that it does not infringe the personal freedom and liberty of your neighbor. Very simple.


Yes, very simple. Noone disagrees with this.

 

Unfortunately, this statement is never applicable in the big world of resource consumption. If you let consumers have free reign, the conservers will be infringed upon. If you let conservers have their way, the consumers will be upset.

 

Greg seems to think that his statement validates degradation of the environment, because people who protest such activities are infringing upon the freedom and liberties of the degraders.

 

If called on this point, he makes up some bullshit sidestep of how mining and logging are very clean and don't hurt anyone.

 

Remarkable!!!
How can one argue with a true believer of such twisted logic? It's beating your head against the wall people.

Leave for awhile and some enviro-nut thinks he knows how you'll post. [Roll Eyes] Don't tell me what I think, Chuck, and DO NOT put "words in my mouth". I do not agree with wonton degradation of natural resources. There are ways to protest that do not infringe upon others' rights. If you chose not to use them, prepare to accept the consequences of your actions. Of course logging and mining exact a toll on the surroundings. It is unfortunate, but the market drives these forces. I never said that logging and mining never hurt anyone; get real. Again, the market drives the demand for steel, copper, paper, etc. Offer FINANCIALLY VIABLE alternatives and this may change.

 

I don't really understand why you would be such a prick in your post; we have traded posts on other threads in a respectful manner (I think [Wink] ).

 

Greg W

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Greg W:

I don't really understand why you would be such a prick in your post; we have traded posts on other threads in a respectful manner (I think
[Wink]
).


Sorry I hurt your feeling puddles. Maybe you can go and cry with Allison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

I thought you'd like that j_b, all it demands is that those you claim support screwing others actually, personally, and expressely claim they do so. Not your contention that they do by your standards, their contention they do, by their standards.

I see, we don't spew 25% of global CO2 emissions because we don't think we do? or is it that spewing CO2 in the atmosphere is not bad because we don't think it is bad? [Roll Eyes]

 

[ 10-23-2002, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: j_b ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Greg W:

quote:

Originally posted by Dr Flash Amazing:

Just curious as to where you draw the line, as it seems that eventually your politics and your various forms of recreation are at a danger of conflicting eventually.

Did you see my post to daniel about responsible use and management? The technology is there to extract the oil in a minimum-impact operation, much like the current Alaska pipeline and its related works.

The above exchange is where I got the idea that you were using a bullshit sidestep claiming that mining is very clean. Sorry if I misinterpreted.

 

quote:

Originally posted by Greg W:

I never said that logging and mining never hurt anyone; get real. Again, the market drives the demand for steel, copper, paper, etc. Offer FINANCIALLY VIABLE alternatives and this may change.


Why should the burden be upon us to offer "FINANCIALLY VIABLE" alternatives to inhibit wonton resource destruction? Forgive me if I misinterpret again [Roll Eyes] but this sounds like in order to get people to stop soiling our environment we need to pay them? Do we need to provide for their God-given right to make their money if we want them to leave us a reasonably healthy place to live?

 

The people soiling the environment are "infringing on my freedom and liberty". According to your earlier post that's not a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Greg W:

quote:

Originally posted by chucK:

quote:

Originally posted by Greg W:

I don't really understand why you would be such a prick in your post; we have traded posts on other threads in a respectful manner (I think
[Wink]
).


Sorry I hurt your feeling puddles. Maybe you can go and cry with Allison.

Again you put words in my mouth; I was just trying to keep the debate friendly. Oh well, go fuck yourself, asshole.

Putting words in your mouth?? I quoted you verbatim!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by chucK:

Why should the burden be upon us to offer "FINANCIALLY VIABLE" alternatives to inhibit wonton resource destruction? Forgive me if I misinterpret again
[Roll Eyes]
but this sounds like in order to get people to stop soiling our environment we need to pay them? Do we need to provide for their God-given right to make their money if we want them to leave us a reasonably healthy place to live?

 

The people soiling the environment are "infringing on my freedom and liberty". According to your earlier post that's not a good thing.

My point here is that in order for people to change, you have to make it affordable. The majority (which is what you need to effect change) of people will remain with the status quo unless so motivated to change. If you can offer them a cleaner-burning engine with the same power, torque, ease-of-operation, and ease-of-maintenance, for the same cost, they are more likely to try it.

 

I don't know if there is a "God-given right to make money"; I think "pursuit of happiness" does or does not include money. No one has a "right" to make lots of money; we all have the right to be free to attempt this.

 

I have yet to understand how "people soiling the environment are infringing my 'freedom and liberty'". Which freedoms? Define "soiling." You are soiling the environment by driving to the crags. I'm serious.

 

Greg W

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by rbw1966:

quote:

Originally posted by Greg W:

You can make fun of my guns, I don't care; should the situation arise, I'll make sure not to use them to protect you or your family. Deal?


Just doing my part to keep the thread going.

I don't consider street crime a domestic invasion. I made this point to my neighbor lady a few weeks ago when she said she hated guns. Since she hates them (and the fact that I have several), why should I use them if her house gets broken into when her husband is out of town?

 

Greg W

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My bad--I missed the reference to "street crime" in your post. I just noticed you use that sort of phrase every once in a while and was wondering if you know something I don't.

 

I had an interesting conversation with a Portland cop one time over beers. I was asking when it was ok to shoot an intruder in your home. She told me anytime--the key phrase to use afterwards is that you were "in imminent fear of bodily harm." As long as it passes the reasonableness test, of course.

 

She also said to make sure you iced his ass so's he can't sue ya.

 

Is it time for milk and cookies yet?

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...