Dan Cass's argument seems to be that the media should just trust Greenpeace because they have tight deadlines and because governments are bad. It would seem he is not really keen to discuss the incident at issue - the collision in the Antarctic.

But he should at least have given the whole story with respect to the advice from the marine law expert. Dr Eric Wilson also said that the Greenpeace ship rammed the Japanese ship, see
http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/001108.html .

While Cass only tells half the story here, last Sunday week the Greenpeace media release was a complete fabrication.

As Graham Young explained, there was evidence that showed it to be such but the mainstream media took days to pickup on this initially just repeating the Greenpeace propaganda.

Greenpeace and PETA give the green movement a bad name. Greenpeace if it wants to stop whaling needs to explain why it's okay to kill fish but not whales, why it's okay to kill roos but not whales.If it is done in a sustainable manner why is it wrong. Most Aussies don't ant whaling and guess what we don't do it but who are we to force our morals on other people. As for the media well there is very good reason why journos are disliked by all.

Thank you, Dan. A much more nuanced analysis, on both the media in general and this particular Greenpeace incident, than Graham Young's earlier article. I would humbly suggest you take note on both counts, Graham.

Jennifer, in regards to your statement, "the mainstream media took days to pickup on this initially just repeating the Greenpeace propaganda"; maybe there's a reason many journalists accepted the Greenpeace version of events over yours. Greenpeace has built up a solid reputation over many years; it has conducted some daring interventions but its core modus operandi has always been informed by its strong belief in non-violence. Whereas, and I don't know for sure, but I suspect that your reputation among journalists might not be quite so solid.

Greenpeace has been thoroughly discredited over the years and this is yet another example of why this is so.
They are blatant propagandists, and they should not be surprised that their antics cause incidents such as this.
I don't support whaling myself, but putting people in acute danger of their lives to "protest" it in this manner is irresponsible and childish.
They should tone down their rhetoric, stop these dangerous acts, and use more reasonable methods of protest.

Dan Cass needs to understand what the meaning of Fact is. You can't just say the sky is purple when it is obviously blue and then get all hoi ti tio ti when challenged.

Fact 1: The greenpeace ship was lined up facing the side of the Japanese ship.

Fact 2: The greenpeace ship started its enginges and began to move forward.

Fact 3: The greepeace ship hit the Japanese ship.

This is all clear from the video footage and no amount of spin is going to convince us that the sky is purple. And where is Bob Brown on all this?

Firstly I strongly support the position of Graham Young. Greenpeace (GP) of course holds strong views on many topics including nuclear energy; Genetic modified organisms; climate change and so on. Their views are extreme with emphasis on dangers and risks that are often at variance with the scientific literature. In the field that I know best (radiation health) GP is just plainly wrong.

The common theme in all of the issues advocated by GP and like organisations is simple, anti-market, anti-capitalism, anti-American (President Bush), and of course anti prime minister Howard. The message from GP is always negative and unhelpful. Predictions of doom are made regularly, unless of course one follows the GP prescriptions.

The media in its reporting of GP should understand that it is not a scientific or learned body; it is an advocacy group that has mastered the art of propaganda. The media should carefully check their pronouncements, even better consult with leading members of scientific and learned bodies in the appropriate field, before accepting GP statements at their face value. In reality there are many in the media who accept GP statements as a type of “revealed truth.” This makes it very clear that the media has a bias towards green/left politics coupled with a low level of scientific understanding.

As for the demonstrations by GP, many are of undergraduate standard, such as dressing up as dustbins. Clearly, according to Dan Cass GP itself is worried about recent maritime events, why else would it wish to distance itself from the Sea Shepherd group.

Bronwyn,

Are you proposing that the media simply cut and paste the press releases of "supposedly" reputable organizations without scrutiny. You seem to have missed the point of Young's piece. Such blind faith is, to me, infinitely more threatening to our wellbeing than any of the trumped up threats GP campaigns against.

I think Graham Young should be commended.

“I commend you Mr Young! For your conduct in giving space to the words of your critics.”

Here Graham has allowed Dan Cass, the Greenpeace Australia Communications Director, free web space to criticise Graham Young, which he does with the self-righteous air of a self-appointed know-all.

Dan Cass, will you be giving space to Graham Young in your publications and websites to enable your audience/readers to hear or read his contrary opinion and view of your organisations actions?

Dan Cass, why are there Japanese Whaling Ships in the Southern Ocean?

1 to tackle whales?
2 to tackle Greenpeace and Shepherd of the Sea?

Why is Greenpeace in the Southern Ocean?

1 to tackle whales?
2 to tackle Japanese whaling ships?

We all know the answer to both questions and we all know who is the “agent provocateur”.

kenny noted “Greenpeace” and “PETA” give the green movement a bad name.

Too right Kenny, PETA have convinced me never ever to buy a suit from Abercrombie & Fitch, having heard some of the deluded idiots from NE USA who sound as if they inherited their wealth and who twitter on about the cruelty of fishing and animal management etc.
It is blatantly apparent, they have not a clue as to the history of mankind, the role fishing and farming has played in supporting life and supplying protein, nor the imperatives which drive fishermen into their dangerous trade of survival.

Everything which is "produced" is the result of either cultivation, animal management, fishing, mining or manufacture. All those activities involve the management of resources. That PETA and Greenpeace hold expectations for our common conduct regarding that management does not matter an iota since – no one ever “Voted” Greenpeace or PETA into any position of any authority.
Like anarchists, terrorists and bullies throughout history, they have simply grabbed it.

Graham Young in his posting, and editorial leadership has “set the bar” for conduct but somehow, I suspect Greenpeace will melt away, ignoring the voice of reason to go back to do their “own radical thing”.

Two issues - Spin and whaling. Australia's claim on Antarctic water is not recognised by some nations. A generation ago, Libs banned it in Australian Water. Does the IPA has a problem with this?

Who nudged whom is an irrelivence - was an odds on probability & given the damage, the vessel was almost stationary.

This is about spin.

The Australia Institutes Sept 2005 newsletter carries a relevant article - http://www.tai.org.au/ (see “news letters”)

"Activists: How to beat them at their own game”

“This was the title of a half-day workshop sponsored by the Institute of Public Affairs and the Public Relations Institute of Australia held in Melbourne in April. Leading the workshop was Canadian PR consultant Ross Irvine, well known for his hostility to community groups and NGOs. Katherine Wilson went along to hear what he had to say.”

Some quotes -:

“Public Relations is war”, announces Irvine. He seems to suggest that the words ‘activist’ ‘terrorist’, ‘criminal’,‘guerilla’ and ‘security threat’ can be used interchangeably.

“My (the author’s) group is charged with ‘empowering others’ to support our cause. Our cause is the Port of Melbourne channel deepening.

(David) “Hawkins (supplier, Vic Gov, PR and other services, event organiser & supremo of the PRIA’s Vic Division – my insertion) suggests marginalising the environmental argument. This could be done with what Bush flacks call ‘the fire hose method’ — bombarding the media with issues, information and press conferences so they don’t have the resources to interview alternative sources.”

“To my (the author’s)suggestion that the case for channel-deepening should be the voice of reason, Hawkins says, “No, no, let’s be the voice of unreason. Let’s call them fruitcakes. Let’s call them nut—nutters.”

You know, let’s say they’re…” “Environmental radicals”, suggests the Darebin PR.

“Exactly. You know… say they represent 0.1 per cent but they dominate, you know, let’s absolutely go for them.”

The IPA co-sponsored the Ross Irvine event. This is Irvine’s war. Enough of the sanctimonious clap trap. GP didn’t make the rules; someone selling tobacco, Agent Orange or some other profitable catastrophy to government generations ago invented them.

Mr Fruitcake

Col Rouge, "providing protein"? I am a vegetarian and since becoming one, have lost no muscle mass but have lost several kilos in fat. I know I'm probably not going to get bowel cancer, mad cow disease, bird flu, salmonella or the numerous other things you can get with eating meat. I live very well.

My body works well, my diet is sufficiently interesting and adequate and... my sex life is better than ever. I abhore animal cruelty of any kind when it is clearly evident that we can live quite well without it. Large scale factory farming is tragically cruel and I've seen it first hand having family in the industry. Fishing is also a cruel, Japanese activity and hunting is just as bad. Big guns and fishing rods = small...

I don't care about tradition and the history of the meat industry, I care about the future and so does Greenpeace, PETA, Animals Australia, Humane Society International, Voiceless, International Fund for Animal Welfare etc etc etc.

And who cares if Greenpeace or PETA aren't voted into any position of authority. It is authoritarianism that is the very thing they stand up against. I can go and protest any damn thing I want because it's a free country.

From your posts I have seen that you are an abhorrent human being, regimental and right wing to the extreme.

Chumley, Of course I'm not suggesting the media cut and paste without scrutiny, and no I have not missed the point of Graham's article.

I stand by my point though that Greenpeace is a principled organization. It doesn't manipulate scientific data and it doesn't use violence.

My other point is that Graham is being mischievously selective in singling out the so-called lies of Greenpeace. The Howard Government is a master of spin and the controlled press release. How about we direct the scrutiny in this direction where it really is needed, and leave Greenpeace to get on with the task of preventing the barbaric harpooning of defenceless creatures.

Perhaps you could name "the trumped up threats GP campaigns against".

Not to mention that the animal industry is unsustainable. Livestock give nothing back to the land, produce tones of methane and CO2, erode the soil, and take up over one-third of the nation's fresh water to raise. Farmers feel the need to chain clear their land to provide for such degradation. In a world where people are starving to death, it takes 17 grams of grain to produce 1 gram of beef. We sit and watch Ronald MacDonald cleverly tapping into family values in order to promote himself and most people do nothing.

I am proudly an animal rights and environmental activist and do so without thinking that my every action should be approved of by some dominant political power. I make no apologies for this.

So, Col Rouge and Graham, lay off the people who are saving the world and your grandchildren may get a chance to see it.

Bronwyn
Greenpeace is an organisation that uses sensationalism, lies, dangerous "protest" activity, and definitely manipulates scientific data.
It is a "master of spin".
Of course it uses trumped up threats - it needs money to survive. Fortunately the public are increasingly seeing through all these lies, and Greenpeace is gradually losing members and contributions. That is why it is so desperate now to get headlines.

It does make you think Froggie, but you can see in the response section a great deal of the “Principle of Unnecessary Plurality” along with “Solipsism” .That is the frightening thing, and where does it come from . We know where it leads to.

Comparing Graham Young's article with Dan Cass's article makes for interesting reading.

It is very clear who is telling the truth and who is engaged in spin doctoring. Mr Young's article was directed at the ramming incident in which it was quite plain that Greenpeace deliberately rammed a Japanese whaling vessel. His post then went on to ask why the Fourth Estate did not do their job when they accepted Greenpeace's version of the incident without submitting the claim to easily checkable verification.

Dan Cass's article did not even directly refer to the incident. It wandered around all over the place talking about John Howard "lying" about coal summits and then Mr Cass claimed that Mr Young was unfairly attacking his own profession. Cass's implicAtion that the ABC is not biased completely destroyed his credibility.

Cass then claimed that Japanese whalers often rammed Grenpeace ships. Even if I believed him, which I don't, since when does two wrongs make a right?

If Greenpeace is "philosophically opposed to violence", then perhaps they had better remove the "can openers" from the hulls of their ships, which sure look like weapons to me.

Tubley “So, Col Rouge and Graham, lay off the people who are saving the world and your grandchildren may get a chance to see it.”

My response to your “demand”

“Go 'flush' yourself”,

Who on earth are you to "demand" I lay off anyone?

You come here and criticise me but do not challenge the content on most of my posts. (presumably because “playing the man” is an easier target in your game of tired anarchist actions).

Since the dawn of time people like you have been on their high horses or running around like a bunch of prancing nancies, claiming the moral high ground and then abusing the power which accrued.

Tubley, you can eat all the salad you want. I could not give a stuff. However, you are neither competent, accredited, approved or authorised to tell me what I will do, what I will eat, how I will live or what views I will hold.

You are simply a small minded bully with no respect for the rights of others.

You are here demanding that Graham Young and I “lay off” Greenpeace as if it were a "sacred cow".

So take your “Greenpeace, PETA, Animals Australia, Humane Society International, Voiceless, International Fund for Animal Welfare” and all the others from the assorted menagerie of wack-job idiots and stick them where the sun don’t shine.

They are not saving anything except their own delusions of grandeur and inventing self importance in their pointless lives.

Want to “Save the world”?
Go and sterilise the underdeveloped nations.

Exploding population growth is what is going to “flush the human race down the pan” and that is squarely a third world problem, the developed world operating at stable to negative population growth.

I will still post and as far as I am concerned, firing a shot at Greenpeace is as good a sport as shooting duck in season and if it don’t suit you I suggest try complaining to the site managing editor.

oh that’s Graham Young.

tubley, me suggesting that, I think you might have just [deleted for profanity] yourself.

Tubley is mistaken if he thinks that being vegetarian frees him from disease, salmonella is present in all food and one of the biggest sources of food poisoning is cooked rice left at room temperature.

Tubley is also mistaken if he thinks PETA do not practice animal cruelty, in the US members of PETA are currently facing multiple charges of animal cruelty.

Tubley is further mistaken if he thinks that he or anyone elses rights are at risk, the only right at risk is the freedom of speech which Tubley wants to restrict.

Dan Cass says: "As an environmental campaigner and a citizen, I believe web media outlets like On Line Opinion should support their colleagues in TV, radio and print media, not shoot the messenger. Crikey! have proven that if online outlet combines good reporting, insider access and a degree of gumption, they earn positive and deserved influence in the wider media."

Dan Cass, While I think your aticle puts Greenpeaces postion very well, I must disagree with your statement above.

We must support fair and unbiased media; and we must "shoot the messenger" when they start playing silly buggers.

I don't want to be governed by media release or choose a candidate or support a policy because such and such party or lobby group has the best media advisors, access to media resources, especially biased ones, and so on.

I think is Graham Young's article is somewhat of a beat up with the intention of discrediting an organisation that he has issues with.

Nevertheless, GY's criticism of the media was constructive - if applied across all media reporting.

I think, on certain issues, Greenpeace have a very responsible attitude and have proven time and time again to be an effective counter to unwise decisions in relation to the environment. Thanks for your hard work. (Skies of blue)

A few things

Firstly to GrahamY - next time Mr Cass writes an article can you make sure he is tagged with his correct title. One of your editors mistakenly called him Greenpeace communication director instead of Greenpeace spin doctor.

Secondly to Tubley, if it wasn't for meat you probably wouldn't be here - there is ample evidence that our carnivorous lifestyle paved the way for brain development and higher consciousness. And remember, without farms there would be fewer cows, fewer sheep, fewer chickens. They are only alive in vast numbers because they are farmed. (Besides - if you still have a sex life you are obviously getting a bit of meat on the side, heh).

Kenny - There are species of whale which are abundant and could be sustainably harvested. But for some reason they are considered "majestic" whereas other more endangered animals don't get Greenpeace attention because they are not as cute. As for PETA - when they start hassling lions and tigers for eating animals (some of which are eaten alive) I might listen to there pleas for me to stop sitting down to a juicy steak.

Save a whale - harpoon Greenpeace.

t.u.s

Col, “Exploding population growth is what is going to ‘flush the human race down the pan’ ….”

Yes!

“….and that is squarely a third world problem, the developed world operating at stable to negative population growth.”

Nooooo!

It is not by any stretch of the imagination only a third-world problem.

I have been a Greenpeace supporter for umpteen years, but one of the biggest problems with them is their lack of effort or expression on population. This just does not sit at all well with their overall environmental ethic

Greenpeace - a left wing socialist organisation created during the cold-war to stop Western technology progressing, so that now defunct Eastern-block nations could play catch up. It was (is) staffed by bored middle-class academics and students who delude themselves that they are global saviours akin to Superman. It's time they grew up, stopped taking drugs, trashed their crystals and pyramids and stopped being spoiled little children.

They came from the late Twentieth Century and that's where they belong. Now they're an embarrassing anachronism. Someone should take their toys away and send those naughty children to bed without dinner.

PETA, interesting acronym, People Eat Tasty Animals, mmm yum, who would have thought. Grilled or baked.

Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace has a lot to say about Greenpeace and why he left it back in 1986.

http://www.greenspirit.com/home.cfm

http://www.greenspirit.com/21st_century.cfm

He said he knew it was time to get out when Greenpeace initiated a pension plan for its staff members. He also realised that confrontation had to give way to the politics of building consensus, especially when the mainstream of human society had accepted that the environment is precious and must be protected.

Whatever credibility Greenpeace had, has long gone. It is an organisation that is well past its "use-by date".

The word "ram" is being used in different contexts.

Greenpeace use the word "ram" in a broad sense, as in hit, strike or wedge. There's a photo showing that the collision was at the bow of the Artic Sunrise, so not misleading; perhaps ambigious if one reads the headline.

Greenpeace critics are using the word "ram" in a more specific sense. Attacking by means of the prow of a ship, at speed. That is misleading.

Then we have the marine lawyer, Eric Wilson, who uses "ram" as a collision involving the prow of the ship. In the NZ Herald article he says "it was the Greenpeace vessel which physically collided with the Nisshin Maru ... physically, materially, Greenpeace executed the ramming action." This statement is not misleading.

Unfortunately, it seems the NZ Herald jazzed up the story. Instead of explaining what may have happened (360 degree turn), they said it DID happen, when no such independent conclusion can be reached.

Poor guy! He's trying to be neutral, but falls into the hands of those who want to hear one side or the other of the story.

According to Eric's email he says: "My overall impression of both reports is that there is a very dangerous game of 'chicken' going on in the Southern Ocean." (http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/001108.html)

Very well observed, Mr Wilson.

"Do as I say, not as I do" is the invisible subtitle of this latest Greenpeace essay.

Greenpeace write "John Howard's big lie about the Sydney coal pact ... ... a reduction of 30 per cent off a business-as-usual increase of well over 100 per cent and would see emissions sky-rocket. The PM's claim would be laughable...The point is the public are unable to make an informed judgment about a policy if it is completely misreported.", they apparently claiming to place high value on accurate provision of information to the public.

A significant part of my earlier OLO essay
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3864
is devoted to showing how Greenpeace mislead the public with their inadequate treatment of vitamin A enriched Golden Rice, which they oppose, despite the fact it might save thousands of lives a day. What's more they never correct their misinformation.

They should desist giving morality sermons to others, and put their own house in order.

Well said 'd'.

rog, if I gave you the impression that I was questioning your freedom of speech then that's not what I intended. I'd certainly fight for the right to free speech, even for my enemies. What fun would I have otherwise?

I'm aware of the alledged ills of PETA and will be following that investigation closely. They're not one of my favourite groups but I do hope the issue is sorted soon as I deplore animal cruelty of all kinds. I did not know about the extent of salmonella but I'm very aware of the broad range of health risks associated with eating meat. I can vouch first-hand that my health has improved dramatically since becoming a vegetarian. I was even skeptical at first but I guess the results speak for themselves. Physically I feel great.

Mr Rouge, I was not attempting to take away any of your rights or to make demands of you. What I put forward was an opinion, one that I expressed vehemently and passionately, as I'm sure you do too. Why would we otherwise be using this forum?

I put forward my opinion on what I perceive as a better way of doing things. After all that is what this website is about.

As for your opinion, why not look at this realistically for a second:

1. My idea – cut down on livestock production in the Western World
2. Your idea – sterilize underdeveloped nations

Given these two ideas the very worst I could be labeled as is a left wing extremist. I can live with that I guess. Whereas your genocidal remark makes you sound like Hitler. Again this is only my opinion.

I suppose I came across strongly to you Col in my earlier post. This is probably because I don't particularly like you. Please consider that a matter of personal disagreement and not as a violation of your valuable rights.

Incidentally there's much more to vegetarianism that "salad". I am sitting here looking at a 738-page recipe book that does not contain blood-dripping carcasses from mistreated mass-produced farmed animals. Enjoy your dinner.

The usual suspect – I know the theories about brain development in early humans and it does bear weight. I know that my cave-dwelling ancestors probably loved their wild boar but, like I said very clearly in my earlier post, I’m more interested in the future. I do consider myself slightly more advanced and capable than the primates from which we have evolved. Don’t you?

I choose this life because it feels right in all aspects and that’s my moral choice. In any case we have strayed far from the topic.

Col: "sterilize underdeveloped nations"? You do realise that extremism ignites the conflicts of the world, do you not? Is there any truly developed person that would advocate such a puerile stance?
It seems to me that the underdeveloped nations pay a high enough price to keep us in our sanctimonious and unsustainable lifestyle.
The underdeveloped mind has more to answer for than its pitiable capacity could ever hope to address. Enjoy your playtime and don't forget to share...

Ludwig – not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me, beyond I was obviously being “dramatic” my terminology and would no more wish to “force” any one to pursue a particular course of action of procreation, beyond accepting their own responsibility for the outcome.

Craig Blanch
Your post do not normally err to the obtuse, I would have thought your thought processes sufficient to have interpreted my comment where you would have read

“go sterilise the underdeveloped nations”

in conjunction with the preceding question of the post “Want to “Save the world”? “

Strange as this may seem, the populus of “underdeveloped nations” do not care a stuff about you or me. Likewise the citizenry of oil rich Arabian states, by their example, have demonstrated they could not give a stuff either.

The point I make is simple. People who mince around complaining about how terrible the western developed nations are because they have a bee in their bonnet about cruelty to kippers or saving bellybutton fluff and think the rest of us should kowtow behind their sometimes extremist demands have largely lost the plot. The biggest, most overriding danger mankind faces is overpopulation.

So if you want to address the cause of all the “issues” of greenhouse gases, deforestation, overfishing, strip mining etc. address and “fix” the issue of overpopulation and all the other problems will be "fixed".

Now since the “developed nations have stable populations and underdeveloped nations have accelerated population growth (partly because developed nations eliminated many diseases which tended to keep underdeveloped nations populations “stable”) I suggest either sterilise the underdeveloped nations or find some less intrusive method of population control.

Tubley “I don't particularly like you.”

I don't parrticularly care.
We could pass each other in the street and be oblivious to the fact.
I am as indifferent to your very existence as I am to your opinions.

I could be tempted to throw another shrimp on the barbee for you but your vegetarian ways suggest a “raw prawn” whilst inappropriate to your lifestyle would more suit your personality.

Khmer Rouge,
You really are a nasty little old man arn't you. Never mind karma will see to it that you get what you give.

The Japanese whalers should not be permitted to whale in our waters, why don't we police our waters and since we, Australia don't agree to whaling, rid our waters of these illegal immigrants, who trespass into our waters.

If they were in international waters they and GP could do as they pleased. To address a previous post the difference between the menke whale and sheep, is that we have plenty of sheep, and very few whales.

As for the suggestion of sterilisation, the writer of the post should have been sterilised at birth, so as not to inflict more people who may be prone to the same paronoid illness that he himself suffers with, undiagnosed of course. He wouldn't have the intestinal fortitude to see a specialist for treatment.

Col

It is the developed nations (over the last two centuries, since industrialization) who have created the greenhouse problem. Developing nations are only just beginning to contribute to it.

Forcing sterilization onto developing nations would be punishing them for our mistakes and greed. Their inate human urge to procreate would be stolen from them and all the while we would continue to plunder and pollute the planet with gay abandon. Hardly fair, to say the least.

Like so many of your ideas, Col, this latest one is simplistic and arrogant. And to think you criticize Greenpeace and others here on the basis of bullying, "delusions of grandeur" and "claiming the moral high ground".

I also think you need to reflect more closely on the basic principles of online etiquette.

Col,
"…I would have thought your thought processes sufficient to have interpreted my comment…"

Col, from my perspective I don't think I misrepresented the quote, even in context. Such a quotation goes much further than mere rhetoric and holds with it a seed of conviction that I find disturbing. I do not know you, of course, and could be doing you a great disservice however we can only react to what we read and that gives us little more than an insufficient glimpse at the writer. As issues are teased out, the opponents polarise and can find themselves pushing their ideas in areas that they, themselves, seem uncomfortable with.

Your post mentioned that you were aware of my writing, then you must also be aware that I am mostly critical of those that give little or no concession to others. That I agree with some of your observations does not mean that I cannot be highly critical of your complete refusal to recognise another's.

The medicinal and social improvements that, you exhort, are made to third world countries are, many times, far from humanitarian. Many of the drugs are those deemed inappropriate or suspect for first world countries and are dumped on the third world. The west needs dumping grounds.

On the 3rd of December 1984, the west came to Bhopal in India in a cloud of toxic gasses that killed thousands and is still killing people today. They do not receive the latest drugs, treatment or benefits so readily available to the west. Your philosophy of the west being the saviour of an embattled world would meet a lot of opposition in India, I would imagine.

The one thing that is difficult to measure is the effect that seemingly beneficial things have on the social fabric of a society that has not used it as part of their social cohesion. I don't know whether there are studies to that effect but common sense would tell me that any such study would be critical in some, if not many cases.
My allowable word count is exhausted…

Sorry, I asked to have my last post removed because it could have been misinterpreted.

I condem entirely the idea of sterilisation of developed nations as espoused by Col Rouge. I strongly recommend to Col that he say he was joking or something, because its a criminal suggestion. It is inhuman to even contemplate such a plan.

Shonga
other people making criticising of me as well as you piffling on like a bandicoot on steroids about big bad "Khmer Rouge" daring to declare the bleeding obvious.

Re sterlisation - I had a vasectomy about 20 years ago after the birth of my second daughter. In terms of your ongoing vilification of me I can only respond with
It should have been your father who should have been sterilised, at least 10 months before you were born.
As for fortitude, I endure you here, that must rate as worse than a dose of the clap or tapeworms (although I have experienced neither).

Bronwyn, short of discouraging people to reduce their rates of procreation what is your solution, have the populations of the “developed nations” culled?

Your recriminations to my factual observation suggest you are happier with your head in the sand rather than facing reality.

Craig Blanch “far from humanitarian.”
Like I said, tell that to those who no longer suffer from malaria, leprosy and the women who have been “reconstructed” after suffering fistula, to name but three (among thousands of) groups.

David Latimer “sterilisation of developed nations” I never suggested that at all.

Re ”because its a criminal suggestion. It is inhuman to even contemplate such a plan.”

Fact China had a population reduction program. criminal?.
Fact India has a bounty payment system for voluntary vasectomies. criminal?

As Ludwig observed “I (Ludwig) have been a Greenpeace supporter for umpteen years, but one of the biggest problems with them is their lack of effort or expression on population. This just does not sit at all well with their overall environmental ethic”

David, the reality is, the number of humans being born (or should I say “surviving” birth) is too high.
Developed nations, supplied the medical technologies which achieved this.
However, it is the underdeveloped nations who, clearly, have a “duty” to balance their populations by reducing their “breeding rates”.

Maybe confronting the Church of Rome about contraception might help.

“Under-developed nations” are the source of the population explosion. Your denial of that “reality” is astounding.

Isn’t it amazing how quickly the arguments of lefties like “Shonga”, David Latimer, Craig Blanch, “Tubley” et al, so quickly degenerate into “ad hominem” attacks when the indisputable logic of an argument defeats them?
They are too busy thinking about “what is politically correct” , to be able to think in a logical way.

Let's sterilise the Japanese whale eaters. Problem solved.

You see posters that's up and up logical response (using Col Rouge's politcal ethics). What's that I hear you say: "You can't sterilise first worlders they're special." Aren't we all? (karma)

Don't worry Rancitas, first worlders are sterilising themselves...
Japanese whaling will stop eventually, because their population is declining, just like ours...
If only the third world would emulate us. It would solve a lot of problems, as Col says.
Anyway, I thought that is what you lefties/greenies wanted- a habitable planet with no inhabitants?

If arguments are presented with indisputable logic, it would be logical not to dispute them.

The same logic applies to the arguments of the inebriate.

Col,

Have you ever seen a bandicoot on steroids? I know Shonga and when I look at him I have never thought about small, fury creatures. Do you like small fury creatures, Col?

I’m glad that you feel the need to share your vasectomy experience with us. I’m not exactly sure what your point was but I assume you might have been suggesting that it was a responsible action that all third world citizens should follow. If only it was that simple. As a teacher I endorse education as the answer. Awareness is a wonderful thing. I also sponsor a young boy in India who is now seeing the benefits of that support and is more able to support his own people. He is growing into a wonderful member of his community.

It is beyond my comprehension that you would advocate, in any way, the sterilization of anyone in under-developed nations as a plausible idea! To begin with, do you realise how many people you would have to forcefully neuter? Talk about an invasion of rights – one of the very things you avidly accuse me of doing. To take away somone's right to reproduce is to take from them the essense of humanity.

Speaking of humanity, what a terrible thing to say about Shonga’s father. How’s that – insulting a man who you don’t even know.

You have never experienced tapeworms? I suppose your s_it doesn’t stink either.

I personally never denied that over-population was a problem. Of course it is a problem. But, to a greater extent, so are all the things Bronwyn said. Australia and the USA have shameful pollution rates. I would not necessarily call Australia overpopulated but it certainly produces a high level of greenhouse gasses. Leaders of western nations are gradually starting to see the necessity to make drastic changes in our consumer-driven lifestyles.

We never recriminated your factual observations, however your comment about Bronwyn’s head being in the sand in a fallacy indeed worth recriminating.

And Col,

Craig is spot on, David Latimer simply made a typing error, and earlier in one of your own posts you attempted to backpedal on your comment about steralising underdeveloped nations by referring to it as “obviously dramatic terminology”. Then after declaring this you gradually return to your original position.

Now let me address one of your facts about China’s population control. Not necessarily criminal under Chinese law but certainly a violation of basic human rights and dignity. If you find nine month abortions ethical then I suggest you talk to a Chinese woman who had her baby injected in the head by lethal poison at its birth, thrown in a trash can and then had a forced steralisation inflicted on her. Is this the kind of regime you want?

And when you refer to the Church of Rome, I assume you mean the Roman Catholic Church or, specifically, the Vatican? If so, a man named Pope John Paul II openly declared his support of contraception not so long ago. What was that comment you made about having your head in the sand? Mind you, most of the world is not Catholic.

Col, I don't think anyone here disagrees with your observation that the overpopulation of the planet is cause for concern however, the world is full of people to whom the concept of 'fault' goes hand in hand with the concept of 'other'. Solutions are wonderful ideas if other people carry the burden.

For all your examples of positive western contributions to the welfare of underdeveloped countries (and I have never denied their existence), I could continue to furnish examples of the deleterious effects of that very same influence. No doubt we could engage in this line of tit for tat ad nauseum but that was not the purpose of my post. It was about defining a balance of cause and effect.

Solutions are not going to come about without the acceptance that fault lies at the feet of many. The allocation of fault does nothing to alleviate its problems but the acceptance of it at least allows a more greater likelihood of a bi-partisan approach to a solution.

Froggie, if Wind in the Willows wasn't one of my favourite books I would have called you a toad. If you had read any of my other posts, I doubt whether you could classify me as either right or left. The reduction of people to two easily identifiable labels was only devised to allow the feeble minded to think without tripping over their fingers.

Froggie says: ” Anyway, I thought that is what you lefties/greenies wanted- a habitable planet with no inhabitants?” I cant see how anyone could come to that conclusion. A world without, inter alia, Uma Thurman, Christina Amphlett, Gazunga Attack, Tank Girl , Disables, Dropkicks, Neil Young, Insurgent Country singers , Toy Dolls (how do I get a CD -TD), Dixie Chicks, Greenpeace and mine and me. Where did you get the idea that absurd idea that the left/greens want us all dead - from Green Spirit? Next you will be telling me fish hold their breath.

I haven’t read that G.S. stuff for a while, but from what I have read, it is clear that the founder of Green Spirit let personal issues cloud his judgement in relation to GP. I think, his academic positon has suffered and has been compromised. In the real world of scientific research academics have little time for either Greenpeace or Green Spirit - real scientists do the research and publish their findings and then these groups take them over to further their own position. That is just the way it is. The science journals are there if you want to try to form your own opinion. But that is off topic.

Froggie: You say Rancitas is left / green. No Rancitas is not that good. Anyhow, so what if someone is green or left. Let me make one thing clearer: in other posts, I said that I thought Greenpeace did good works in” certain” areas. For instance: I am supporter of ethical GM farming (a certain area). Now, Froggie, if you can’t read and comprehend and have this overwhelming compulsion to pigeon-hole people at least have some basis for that choice. This habit of tagging folk to dismiss their arguments or opinions instead of actually presenting some sensible counter-arguments suggests to me weakness in their position? (continued)

Rancitas is conservative and too wasteful to call herself green. Froggie: Rancitas’ main focus and interest above was media management. If wanting a truthful media is left, then Froggie what is your problem with the left, what is your point? Do you want the biased media (either way) to keep on making you feel that you are doing the right thing. Do you want your pre-judices fed for sales rather than the media present even-handed facts.

Posters: Did you hear that the Japanese whalers have hired a New-Zealand public relations firm?

A saying (mine): “If you need PR, it is because you need PR”. To follow the gist of my posts above - we, to be a true democracy, need up-front, as-objective-as-possible and fair reporting which is a left-wing ideal. Keith, Pericles and jboywonder still awaiting your acknowledgement of your mistakes. You were proven wrong. (Spongebob Squarepants)

Tubley, I have briefly scanned what you read but it is not worthy of comment. I guess your banal predictability has become boring.

Craig Blanch.

“tit for tat ad nauseum”

The items I identified were mere examples. I guess I could argue the glass is half full and you would suggest it is half empty.

My observation, if Africa’s glass is half empty, without the benefit of European assistance,. the glass would be almost completely empty.

“The allocation of fault does nothing to alleviate its problems”

Reviewing the chain of “Cause and Effect”
Effect : World population explosion.
Cause : someone somewhere is doing too much “breeding”.
(Alternatively, First World Medicines, having reduce infant mortality rates, should be “blamed” for this “explosion”. Except not many would consider high infant mortality as an effective or appropriate method of birth (and subsequently population) control.)

The point of my comment was not to ascribe fault or blame.

I hold a particular view, that everyone is responsible for their own actions.

If the developed nations are at zero population growth but someone in a third world country is breeding a squad of kids like rabbits do, in the light of what we know about the world population explosion, it is not the allocation of “fault” which motivates my comment but common sense and observation of cause and effect.

Froggie thankyou for your words of agreement.

Col,

Thankyou for not having the decency to reply (or even properly read) my post. Your arrogance is amazing.

But I will say one last thing about you. And even if you don't read it, others will and, probably, most will agree.

Here is my summation, the impression I have developed through reading your numerous posts, Mr Rouge:

You wholeheartedly support the death penalty (denial of right to life).

You believe we should steralise the underdeveloped nations (right to reproduce).

You believe in Western Superiority.

You think that non-authoritative organizations have no right to protest (right to free speech).

You naively believe that environmental cicumstance plays no part in one's destiny (I would love to see how you would cope living in Calcutta for a year or so).

You are a woman-hating chauvinist.

And after all of this, you have the audacity to say that I am somehow trying to restrict people’s rights. The hypocrisy is almost beyond comment.

This is my final word to you, Rouge.

Col Rouge,

You have got no idea what you are talking about in any matter of any situation. What are you doing here? This is a forum for intelligent people who were born with those things that go between your ears. (brains if you didnt igure that one out although you should have) I live in a dog infested community and every day i listen to the stupid muts bark and bark and bark. But i must say that I have heard more sense come from the insane canines' mouths in one day than I have EVER read from your posts. Please, next time you want to post, don't just get on your computer and start moving your fingers across the keyboard not really knowing what the heck your saying. Put some thought into it, and give us all a break. GO GREENPEACE! YOU GUYS ROCK!

May I correct an unintentional mistake from 18-Jan-06, where I used "developed" instead of "undeveloped".

To clarify: I condem the suggestion that any nation or sub-group with a nation be sterilized, as such an act would be an act of genocide. Furthermore any population control measure carried out without the democratic authority of the people directly subject to that measure is also unjust.

Tubley “This is my final word to you, Rouge.”

Excellent!
However, somehow I doubt you will keep your promise.

JT_dontmesswitme – “You have got no idea what you are talking about in any matter of any situation.” Blah blah all the way through to “GO GREENPEACE! YOU GUYS ROCK!”

You writing style resembles that of an arrogant but lowly educated ponce.

Doubtless you may have what you think passes as tertiary qualifications, from which you most likely derive your posturing and prancing nancy attitude.

So, you will be surprised to hear, far from having no idea about anything, I have been competitively tested and duly accredited with several esteemed and world renown professional qualifications, the like of which are beyond your reach and possibly even beyond your comprehension.

So as for “give us all a break”

Sorry, whilst I could oblige , I will not.

I kow-tow to no one, least of all some “greenie fascist” who has deluded himself that he has the right to curb me or anyone else at this site or any other or in any media.

So bring on your worst but somehow I think you are just not up to much.

David Latimer – I would agree with your observation regarding “forced sterilisation”.

If you were to read what I wrote, you will see I said

“Want to “Save the world”?
Go and sterilise the underdeveloped nations.”

The observation is not a “recommendation” but comment to give balance to those who, like Green Peace and PETA, feel compelled to “Save the world” by pushing their anarchist actions down everyone else’s throat but conveniently ignore the most critical and fundamental source of crisis, that of the accellerating "human population explosion”.

That clarified, I will be happy to hear your suggestions to resolve this "Real Issue".

Col Rouge, you're writing style sounds like that of a highly educated, stuck up rich prick with no morals. All you have just done is back up everything I just said. You're post acchieved nothing. From what I could see your basic goal was to insult me, it didn't work. Nothing you could say or do can possibly effect me in any way shape or form. Anything you could possibly post I will ALWAYS have a comeback for, so get used to me always bein here.

In response to whatever other crap you barked at me, if you open you're eyes you will see that you're "George W. Bush" style views are what is wrong with our world. Answer me this, do you get off on seeing whales dragged from their homes and gutted? Do you get off on seeing blown up Iraqi children all because mr Bush was feeling trigger happy one day? Because the kind of things you say certainly make it sound like that. You have some serious issues to work out Rouge. Next time you post, think about us poor helpless souls who have to read it!

Khmer,
Refer your posts 17 Jan, 18 Jan

17th Jan Want to save the world? Sterilise the underdeveloped countries
18th Jan I didn't say that

Khmer,
Congratulations, you are a man amoungst men, not many of your age, having already established arogance and stupidity as you have can add liar to their CV, only you could do Khmer, and as for big bad description of yourself, lol, I would be surprised if you are taller than 5'5" as you display all of the symptoms of "small man syndrome" as for bad, I would fear you, like a sniffle, you poor old bloke.

Greenpeace are a reputable organisation, something that you would not understand being a financial advisor, being rated one place above used car salesmen.

Col, I think I have been quite reasonable and restrained in my postings to your ideas and ideals. I have suggested balance and have attempted to give you latitude in the face of posts that linger on the cutting edge of white supremacist ranting.
As for me, I think you have made yourself irrelevant to any meaningful dialogue of human interaction.

“The point of my comment was not to ascribe fault or blame.
I hold a particular view, that everyone is responsible for their own actions.”

Whether you read this post or reply does not concern me in the slightest for, as the above quotation points out unmistakably, you do not read your own either.

adieu, Col Rouge. It has been a most unedifying experience

Mr Rouge

You must spend an awful lot of time at this site. I have been reading all of your posts. Have your numerous qualifications enabled you to live a life which allows you so much spare time?

Unfortunately, this particular debate seems to have degenerated into a slanging match where you have taken on the role of pompous big brother, self righteous and superior, questioning anybody else's "qualifications" and right to post their views.

Mrs Robinson

JT_dontmesswitme, your opinion of me is completely irrelevant.

However, do not let that stop you, your display of ignorance has prevailed in your previous posts and will, I am sure, increase the more you practice.

Shonga – petulance becomes you.

Craig Blanch so we are here for your edicifaction? Must say, though, I did appreciate your “reasonableness” and “restraint”. Would you like that as an epitaph

“Here lies Craig Blanch, a man who showed reasonableness and restraint in the face of an opposing opinion”

Unfortunately, It is as inspiring an observation as suggesting you wore carpet slippers with zips and enjoyed a boiled egg for breakfast.

I take your last post to concede, your views are essentially Quixotic. Tilting a lance at windmills suites your interests more than dealing with real issues.

Mrs Robinson, how I spend my time is for me to decide and does not require your approval in any form or at any level. However, as seems to be the case, it makes good research for you.

Conversely, for me to research how you spend your time would likely be an exercise of cataloguing the banal.

Now for all of you to consider, I have been researching something suitable, tempted by dear Margaret Thatcher, (Oh I do indulge myself with her quotations) I did resist initially and searched far and wide. I considered Donald Rumsfeld, even Brendan Behan but finally came back to Margaret

“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”

Although, almost sadly, your collected rhetoric has the wounding effect similar to that delivered by a small bucket of earthworms.

Hey All, I've realised that like visiting any asylum you’ll find some very odd characters. I've found it useful to put a face to CR and this link http://www.abc.net.au/kimberley/stories/m965229.jpg does the trick in terms of at least humanising old Col so that I know what and whom I'm dealing with.
I once imagined finding Col, hand over his heart, weeping below a portrait of Maggie, wearing a tattered pair of Y fronts and union jack vest.
.

Mr Rouge,

Such big words for a little man. You might think that dressing up your posts with fancy terms like that makes you look somehow "intelligent". Your wrong. Tubley, you said that this Rouge character is a woman hater, i'm starting to agree strongly with you. the ammount of time he must spend on this website gives me the impression that he is in desperate need of a female companion to comfort him when he is 90 years of age, cold and alone with no friends. Or maybe... he doesn't want a woman. Maybe he's... you know what I mean, Elton style. Maybe that's why he's so hostile. His way of hiding the truth about his sexuality. It's ok Rouge, whenever your ready to come out of the closet. We are very accepting people here, we don't condemn those who are different from us, or in other words "underdeveloped". I take back what I said before about giving us all a break, keep it coming, it keeps me amused.

I thought the topic was Green peace rejects Violent tactic, Not Green Peace attack Col Rouge.
The fellow has an Opinion, leave it at that.

Agreed All

G'Day Viewers,
My pommy forebears were sustained in part during WW2 by the flesh of whales, horses etc, then in the following decade a couple of them migrated to Moreton Bay whence they profitably slaughtered humpbacks for a few years. One of my bros married a Norska girl who introduced most of the family to the delights of whale carpaccio...He's currently working up a business plan whereby we approach coastal councils all round the country for harvesting rights to stubbornly stranding cetaceans which we will then use as grist for our chain of Whale Restaurants...nominally Green Pieces..
I actually prefer dog meat myself...one of the few consolations for business trips to china..
Luv, Alf

I'm personally a vegetarian but... eat as many dogs as you want, ALF. They are pesky mongrels who bark at anything that moves and keep you up all night. They piss on posts and ride your leg, then sniff each other's arses and they eat little children. Why we keep such beasts is beyond me.

The argument dog rooters use is that they are guard dogs - GET A SECURITY SYSTEM, you can't bait one of them.

Then the argument becomes 'dogs are companions'. My response - get a woman/man you sickos.

Sorry about the dog post I'm just in a bad mood... will post later.
PS JT you rock!

Alf, a capacity for wit is a much underestimated gift. A welcome diversion in a world that can take itself all too seriously. Appreciated.

JT_dontmesswitme

I will tell my partner and daughters about your suggestions to my misogyny, they will have a laugh at that one.

Your crude and vulgar attempts at bating are just that, crude and vulgar.

However, “bating” probably comes naturally to you, and may be your sole outlet for social interchange. I am sure you are a “master” at it.

(JT_dontmesswitme call me if I need to come back and "join the dots" for you on that one)

Thanks All- and Meredith

The trouble with Green Peace and fellow travellers, they believe their own sanctimonious views and themselves are protected species.

Consequently, any view converse to their own is attacked and the attacks become more personal the weaker the argument they can, themselves, present.
It is always the way with those who know best for everyone else, regardless of the research, logic or fact which they have to deny.

Rouge makes some very good points. It is always wise to check a Greenpeace claim against other sources of information such as the peer reviewed scientific literature. Contrary to many post-modernist views science assumes that there is an objective reality. Scientific truth is an attempt to describe this reality. Thus Newton’s laws of motion, or the second law of thermodynamics for examples are statements about the universe that are NOT and never ever have been statements that are culturally determined.
On the other hand Greenpeace is not a scientific or learned body. It is an advocacy group that is notorious for massaging data in order to support their special world view

I’m totally against cat and dog eating. It’s now a criminal act in SA and I think NSW as well. I’m sure the rest of Australia will follow.

The reason to criminalize the eating of cats and dogs is to protect their higher legal status as companion animals and not have them become reclassified as livestock, because If that happens they will have the legal rights of cows n sheep which is basically nil.

I grew up in-between 2 farms, one was 70, 000 battery-hens, it’s cruelty and bad practice was beyond belief. The other was a sheep farm, the welfare standards there were a lot higher. The difference was due to not to the industries (both can be horrendous) but the personal morals of farm owners.

I’m lucky to have seen the 2 sides. While personally I don’t like any industrial farming of living things, I realise in my lifetime farming wont go away, some farmers offer a vastly better life to their animals.

We can’t ”force” people into vegetarianism or close down farming. Fact is most people eat it, and farming is an industry. To try n tell people how to buy animal products in a less cruel way is obviously best for animal suffering. From buying genuine free range eggs to not exporting our Aussie Animals (and Aussie jobs in our more humane abattoirs) to countries with no or much lesser animal welfare standards (middle east, most of Asia).

Most people will not be willing to give up meat eating, but realise a brain and nervous system tend to lead to a preference for less pain in any living thing. People are usually open to an idea of less pain to the animal.

Idealism is best kept at home, like my tofu “not dogs” I so love. Otherwise it becomes an alienating force and will actually hurt animals more in the end, as any person naturally rebels against the insult of the moral superiority thrown in their face. I see it as doing more harm than good

Greenpaece stay away from live exports when they are the ones with the boats an the ear.interesting isnt it?I think anybody who works to stop cruelty deserves to be left work in peace with the highest level of support. However as greenpeace once told me they have to get the word to act on anything. Clearly the cruel practise of live exports does not count. Gee wonder why? by the way boys. Who did you say you had to get the word from? Talk about turning the blind eye?

Absolutely brilliant, Meredith. Very resolving for meat eaters, vegetarians and all those in between. Personally I prefer the vegan nuggets to the not-dogs, highly recommended.

PS, back to the topic. I am now in the process of writing post number 67 for this thread. Upon reflection I think that most people who have posted (myself included) have easily done more whinging, and said more spiteful, nasty comments than what Greanpeace have been accused of themselves.

I am making the resolution right now, to resist falling into the slanging trap, to ignore degrading comments as they should be, and to stick with the issue at hand.

Peace to you all.

David Latimer:
You are totally correct, it is logical not to dispute them. And yet, they do! And if they haven’t got what they think is a logical response, they resort to “ad hominem attacks”. That is my point!
The suppression of honest discussion by the use of intimidating language and vile attacks on the integrity of other posters, when they have obviously been misconstrued, does not lead to any possible consensus. This goes for all of us. Myself included.
Is it not more honest to admit that the other poster has a point, if you cannot think of any logical response?
I apologise if I have labelled anyone incorrectly a lefty or greeny.
Craig Blanch:
Yes, the use of labels makes thinking a little easier, but not only for the feeble minded, and saves time when wishing to describe a set of ideas. Isn’t that why people use words like “Conservative”, Neo-con”, “Fascist” “Communist” “Catholic” “Protestant” etc? In fact, people label themselves, it is not always imposed upon them. Some people are very proud of their labels. Tubley, for example, proudly labels himself an “animal rights and environmental activist”. It is a lot quicker to give oneself a label than to have to spell out every time exactly everything one believes. BTW you can call me a toad if you want: it’s your freedom of speech after all.
Tubley: Thanks for your last posting. I don’t agree with all you say, but you certainly have the right to say it without being vilified.
Rancitas: Is your pseudonym, which I think is Latin, (please correct me if I’m wrong) intended to mean “saveur rancide” in French or “rancid taste” in English? If so, it is rather curious. Not a criticism… just curious to know why you call yourself that.
Continued:

Yes, I do have a problem with the left, by which I mean the people who espouse extreme socialism in its many and varied forms. I consider socialism to be a failed idea that has now outlived its usefulness. I believe that the reason it has failed, while it may have had admirable objectives in the beginning, is that it does not take human nature into account.
On the other hand, I do not support extreme capitalism either, because it leads to too much inequity.
I do not like “Political Correctness”, which I think is a development from socialism. This, to me, is a way of deforming language, much in the same way as George Orwell described Newspeak in his book “1984”. IMHO it is a form of intellectual dishonesty, and more importantly it is a method of repression and inhibiting freedom of expression.
The question about “habitable planets with no inhabitants” is obviously an exaggeration. It springs from description of a certain type of environmental activist, most often leftist (sorry for the label but it saves time) who sees the human race as a kind of “blight” or “plague” on the planet. They are anti-business, anti-capitalist, and believe that the human population of the Earth should be reduced to about 1.5 billion.
They are the type of people who gleefully talk about Peak Oil, as causing the death of billions of people, and they rejoice in this possibility.
I admit that not all “greenies” want this, but the tendency is there to some degree in many of them. I am, of course, FOR a healthy, non-polluted environment.
I am against those who try to use this concern for the environment in order to push their own agenda.

"Saveur rancide" here. Thanks for the apologies Froggie.

One more point for you to consider. It was Col Rouge who brought up the sterilisation topic. Come on Froggie. There is a difference between logic and rationalisation. Have a rethink and you will see that the right have their end-justifies-the-means folk as well. (Leaves of Grass)

I always try to present indisputable arguments, but alas cannot say I've ever succeeded.

I'v finally gotten around to trawling through all the posts on this thread. Summing up what I have seen the main topics of posts appear to be

- Greenpeace is good
- Greenpeace is bad
- Greenpeace does some good and some harm
- Eating animals is good
- Eating animals is bad
- Col is bad
- Col should be allowed to have his say
- Those who want to fix the worlds problems need to look a bit further than just the wests problems and posters who call Col names deserve to get called names.

Have I missed anything significant?

My own experience in reading Cols posts over a sustained period of time and of involving myself in some exchanges with Col leave me with the following impressions.
- Col is fairly accomodating, he'll generally let you set the playground rules. Be polite to Col and he will generally be polite to you, start playing the man and Col will be in there boots and all. I'm not sure if Col always gets this right but if not who of us does?
- Col believes very strongly in individual freedom and responsibility. I think that the sterilisation thing was Col playing "devils advocate", I find it difficult to imagine Col supporting anything which so reduced personal freedom as compulsary sterilisation (except for proven criminals).
- Col does not see the need to have his own freedoms reduced to cater for the preferences and or actions of others(and visa versa).

Now back to the original topic. Shooting the mesenger is not generally a good strategy, being aware of messengers who take little care about the validity of the message they carry or who present the message as something other than it is is a very wise strategy. That is the core of this issue, did the media behave responsibly in the way it reported the incident or did it allow an anti-whaling stance (which I support) to intefer with truthful reporting?

R0bert

Green Peace have problem deciphering fact from opinion.

Facts 1&2 are reported headlines in news papers.So reporters accurately describe all events?
Fact 4 Japanese whalers may have history of aggression,so all criminals are responible for any nominated crimes?
Fact 5 They have a policy of non violence, yet we all get a little heated in times of stress and do things that run against our principles.

I agree with Green Peace's stance on whaling,but like all extreme groups they think that their ideology is the only way and don't consider the broader underlying problems such as over population when attacking Govts and industry.

Robert, Profound thanks.

Your post regarding myself describes the person I would wish to be seen as being and do my best to be.
Recognising my “feet of clay”, re “I'm not sure if Col always gets this right “ as a very accurate observation to my some impulsive / spontaneous aspects of my nature (which I will try hard to curb).

You are correct, playing the Devils advocate is necessary to instil the appropriate sense of “gravity” into the issue of population explosion, from which all other human produced environmental /global issues stem and against which, quite honestly all other environmental / global issues pale into insignificance.

Fix the “population” results in

Fixing
The looming water crisis and river pollution
Deforestation
Ocean degradation and over fishing

Etc.

It reduces the pressure on
Remaining Oil resources
The need for more nuclear power plants (still no solution to the waste)
Human competition with other species.

Etc

And Greenpeace go around harassing Japanese Whalers as if that were the only issue that mattered.

Greenpeace know how to ply the emotions. They know there are more dollars to be gleaned from their sponsors seeing a harpoon hit a whale than some Indian peasant have a vasectomy.

I have no problem with “Marketing”, I use it, we all benefit from it. But lets not be fooled. It, like any other capability, can be used or abused.

And Greenpeace are just better at abusing it than most.

Arjay I concur with your summation.

Col…

The looming water crisis and river pollution? Do you know that over one third of this country’s fresh water is used to raise livestock?

Deforestation? Same problem – chain clearing of land to make room for livestock. It takes 17 grams of grain to produce 1 gram of meat.

Livestock also pollute the air and waterways and, unlike crops, give no oxygen back to the environment.

Over-fishing? Not everyone fishes, and those who do so are doing it in an unsustainable manner.

Since I'm a vegetarian I can say that I contribute little to these problems.

What needs to be addressed are the sustainability laws. Your view that we should control the population verges on political genocide and infringes on one of the most fundamental human rights – the right to reproduce.

Your obsession with viewing the population crisis in isolation from other variables is like trying to put together a puzzle without using all the pieces. Your insistance in trying to do so is moronic.

As for continually using the word ‘mankind’, you have inadequately attempted to defend yourself before on this matter so I shall elaborate:

You seem to have missed my point. The fact that you include both women and men in the term is the very problem! You include both genders in a term directed at ‘humans’ that was established at a time when it was accepted that men ‘ruled the earth’.

Many words start with the letters ‘m’, ‘e’ and ‘n’, in that order. On most instances that fact has nothing to do with any gendered persuasion. To use an example that you once gave me, the ‘men’ in menopause has nothing to do with men, whereas the ‘man’ in mankind does, if you would care to check the origins of such terms. Probably not, since you seem so comfortable in your ignorance.

Similar problems:

Man has graced this earth for over 1 million years…
Since white man settled in Australia…
Cave-man…
Man, himself has evolved etc etc etc.

Any modern university would rightfully mark you down significantly for using such non-inclusive language.