The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Greenpeace rejects violent tactics > Comments

Greenpeace rejects violent tactics : Comments

By Dan Cass, published 16/1/2006

Dan Cass argues Graham Young should not be pitting himself against the mainstream media.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. Page 11
  10. 12
  11. 13
  12. All
Sorry about the dog post I'm just in a bad mood... will post later.
PS JT you rock!
Posted by tubley, Saturday, 21 January 2006 8:57:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alf, a capacity for wit is a much underestimated gift. A welcome diversion in a world that can take itself all too seriously. Appreciated.
Posted by Craig Blanch, Saturday, 21 January 2006 9:52:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 22 January 2006 8:29:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by anti-green, Sunday, 22 January 2006 10:40:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by meredith, Sunday, 22 January 2006 1:09:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by Wendy Lewthwaite, Sunday, 22 January 2006 8:34:16 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. Page 11
  10. 12
  11. 13
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy