MrLocke Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 The Exxon Valdez also didn't intend on harming the environment - it just kinda happened. These laws exist because of the efforts of organizations like Greenpeace. It's amazingly hypocritical that there is an expectation for everyone else to follow the law but Greenpeace doesn't. They violated an order to stay in port - which is why they were cited in the first place. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation issued verbal and written requests that the ship remain at anchor in Tongass Narrows until the paperwork was cleared, prosecutors said, but it departed Ketchikan on July 14. Publicity More Important than Following the Law Typical hypocrisy. Had a business done the same thing, we'd be inundated by hippy rastafarians with their dirty hair and quilted beanies singing "kumbaya." ADN Article 333739[/snapback] You got it dead on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 The Exxon Valdez also didn't intend on harming the environment - it just kinda happened. These laws exist because of the efforts of organizations like Greenpeace. It's amazingly hypocritical that there is an expectation for everyone else to follow the law but Greenpeace doesn't. They violated an order to stay in port - which is why they were cited in the first place. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation issued verbal and written requests that the ship remain at anchor in Tongass Narrows until the paperwork was cleared, prosecutors said, but it departed Ketchikan on July 14. Publicity More Important than Following the Law Typical hypocrisy. Had a business done the same thing, we'd be inundated by hippy rastafarians with their dirty hair and quilted beanies singing "kumbaya." ADN Article 333739[/snapback] but...but....it was just paperwork! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 The Exxon Valdez also didn't intend on harming the environment - it just kinda happened. These laws exist because of the efforts of organizations like Greenpeace. It's amazingly hypocritical that there is an expectation for everyone else to follow the law but Greenpeace doesn't. They violated an order to stay in port - which is why they were cited in the first place. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation issued verbal and written requests that the ship remain at anchor in Tongass Narrows until the paperwork was cleared, prosecutors said, but it departed Ketchikan on July 14. Publicity More Important than Following the Law Typical hypocrisy. Had a business done the same thing, we'd be inundated by hippy rastafarians with their dirty hair and quilted beanies singing "kumbaya." ADN Article 333739[/snapback] I think most folks probably view this as not a big thing due to several real life things: 1. They recognize there may be a slight difference between the Exxon Valdez and the Greenpeace vessel in terms of the reason why folks are doing what they are doing. Both are certainly doing what they are doing for personal gain even if you want to take the most craven Greenpeace rationale (getting their name in the paper, feeling important and getting into someone's pants) and the most charitable Exxon worker rationale (earning some bacon to send there kid to school). People see a real world difference between those whose rationale is saving the world (even if they do it for personal gain) and those whose rationale is to help a corporation make a financial profit (even if they do it send their kid to college). Most normal people see a real world big difference between the Exxon Valdez and a Greenpeace boat. Maybe you don't. 2. They recognize there is a difference between a drunken Joe (whatever the name the Capt has) and a Greenpeace captain flaunting the rules as part of his efforts. Most normal people see a real world big difference between the Exxon Valdez and a Greenpeace boat. Maybe you don't. 3. They recognize there is a difference between an oil tanker carrying hundreds of thousands barrels of oil and a ship carrying 70,000 gallons. Certainly in principle they are both oil and the amount does not change the principle. However, in reality big is big and smaller is smaller and it does make a difference in whether this is a "big" thing or a smaller thing. Most normal people see a real world big difference between the Exxon Valdez and a Greenpeace boat. Maybe you don't. One could go on and on laying out why in reality this makes a difference for folks that the think is important. However, i doubt those who conveniently choose to view this simplisticly as a issue only of principle and choose to ignore the reality will pay any attention (beyond them choosing some new principles to apply if it serves their argument) will pay much attention to reality here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 I think most folks probably view this as not a big thing due to several real life things: 1. They recognize there may be a slight difference between the Exxon Valdez and the Greenpeace vessel in terms of the reason why folks are doing what they are doing. Both are certainly doing what they are doing for personal gain even if you want to take the most craven Greenpeace rationale (getting their name in the paper, feeling important and getting into someone's pants) and the most charitable Exxon worker rationale (earning some bacon to send there kid to school). People see a real world difference between those whose rationale is saving the world (even if they do it for personal gain) and those whose rationale is to help a corporation make a financial profit (even if they do it send their kid to college). Most normal people see a real world big difference between the Exxon Valdez and a Greenpeace boat. Maybe you don't. 2. They recognize there is a difference between a drunken Joe (whatever the name the Capt has) and a Greenpeace captain flaunting the rules as part of his efforts. Most normal people see a real world big difference between the Exxon Valdez and a Greenpeace boat. Maybe you don't. 3. They recognize there is a difference between an oil tanker carrying hundreds of thousands barrels of oil and a ship carrying 70,000 gallons. Certainly in principle they are both oil and the amount does not change the principle. However, in reality big is big and smaller is smaller and it does make a difference in whether this is a "big" thing or a smaller thing. Most normal people see a real world big difference between the Exxon Valdez and a Greenpeace boat. Maybe you don't. One could go on and on laying out why in reality this makes a difference for folks that the think is important. However, i doubt those who conveniently choose to view this simplisticly as a issue only of principle and choose to ignore the reality will pay any attention (beyond them choosing some new principles to apply if it serves their argument) will pay much attention to reality here. 333927[/snapback] Last I checked, oh verbose one, Oil and Gasoline are equally damaging to Aquatic environments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted May 11, 2005 Author Share Posted May 11, 2005 Last I checked, oh verbose one, Oil and Gasoline are equally damaging to Aquatic environments. 333942[/snapback] Boy, if I realized these things were such a hot button topic, I would have posted a long time ago... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 1. They recognize there may be a slight difference between the Exxon Valdez and the Greenpeace vessel in terms of the reason why folks are doing what they are doing. What exactly does that insinuate? Exxon is just a big, greedy oil company (gee, how'd YOU get to work today) and Greenpeace is the salt of the earth, so therefore they don't have to follow the same rules? What a load of horsesh--. Where's the vomit icon when you need it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
30dive Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 Greenpeace like all "political" organizations (left and right) bend and sometimes break the rules they push for, however, as critical as many of you seem to be of Greenpeaces actions, leads me to wonder if you actually think the "law" they broke is a bad law? Just wondering and just wondering why this hasn't been moved to the PPP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Hansen Forever Posted May 15, 2005 Share Posted May 15, 2005 Greenpeace/PETA/ELF are terrorist organizations 333645[/snapback] AMEN! They should all be used for pharmacutical testing, save the rats and the mice, use humans instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts