People who call solar energy "renewable" are aware that the sun will eventually "run out". They don't mean that it will last forever. They mean we don't "use up" the sun when we capture solar energy the way we do with fossil fuels, etc...
The sun will go dark in about 5-10 billion years (give or take, I can't remember the exact estimates). Are you honestly suggesting that the energy stores we have in fossil fuels and uranium will last ANYWHERE FUCKING CLOSE to that long? Do you have the balls to compare a few heavy rocks and some liquified dinosaurs to a fucking star?! I'm perfectly comfortable calling solar energy "renewable" if it will get us through the next few billion years, assuming the human race, if it even exists by that point, remotely resembles what is is now.
Most of these people should have a "recovery disc" with their machine that returns it to its initial state of instalation. They'll lose their data, but the machine is far from 'bricked', and they'll need no intervention from pretty much anyone to do this.
For the record, you're calling a memo titled "Bin Laden determined to attack in US" vague? It seems rather to the point to me. What did you expect, a detailed plan of 9/11?
Also, apart from any analysis on your "limp-wristed" claim, what does Clinton have to do with Bush? Last time I checked, Republicans didn't regard Clinton as a standard on which to judge other presidents, but yet they do? If you're going to defend Bush, you should pick someone you don't think was a terrible president (I'm assuming this, but it seems to be a fair assumption) to compare him to. Anyway, congrats on the first BBBBBBUT CLINTON! post of the thread (that I've bothered to read, anyway). There's a reason this has been meme-ified. It's because it's a really bad argument...
I'm not necesarily a big fan of Clinton's policies, but given the congress he was dealing with, hell-bent on destroying his presidency, I think he did a fair job running the country. However, were I to defend him, I would certainly not talk about Bush unless someone else was unfairly comparing him to Bush. Any critisism or praise I've had for Bush (yes, IMHO, he has had a few moments:) has been independant of Clinton, though I have commented in the past about what I felt were unfair comparisons to Nixon, especially in regard to foreign relations.
Athiests seem to have a fervent bent on hating religion.
No, they just think god doesn't exist; that's the definition of an athiest. Anything else is just your bias. I don't care how many dickish athiests you've met, you can't make that sort of generalization about such a large and loosely defined group.
Agnostics seem to want to believe in something, but not sure??? They seem similar to mystics of sorts.
This is a common misconception about agnostics. Agnostics can be considered even more anti-theist than athiests in that they don't even think athiests are justified in their beliefs. They think *no one* is justified in *any* belief about god or the creation of the universe since there is a lack of evidence for any particular explanation. Someone who "isn't quite sure what to believe" is usually what most people consider "spiritual", or like you sugested, similar to mystics of sorts. Then you also have your "questioning" christians, muslims, etc.., but the closest thing to "dont-care-ism" would be agnosticism, but even agnostics have a belief: that others are not justified in their beliefs. I guess if you're a true "non care-er", there's just no label for you:)
the Democratic Party's wild flailing to the outer most fringes of the left
What is this comment supposed to mean? What, is *not* passing a constitutional amendment to insure gay people never get certain rights "flailing to the outer most fringes of the left"? How about appeasing the whitehouse with funding for an unpopular war you were elected to stop when it vetoes anything that even mentions coming home? How about *not* pushing for socialized healthcare but rather talking about maybe instituting state sponsored health *insurance* *if* they also win the presidency next year? Here's 3 leftist ideals that they're hardly close to. I'm really not sure what people have in mind when they make this "far left" claim.
If you talk to lobbyists, they'll tell you that often a representative will vote according to how many calls from constituents he got on either side, and often only as many as a hundred or so people will call! This is where you can actually make a difference! When you call you'll be greeted by a staffer, so make sure you know the title of the bill AND the code. Citing both will more likely result in your opinion being recorded by the staffer.
I'm not sure what's going on with the bill right now, but it's also important to know when/who to call:
1) call those in a committee dealing with the bill if they're currently making changes to it
2) call everyone the day before a vote to let your representative know how you would like them to vote on it
The humane society often puts all this information together for people who are concerned about animal cruelty issues. Is there a similar group that does the work for us on this front?
The death camps haven't showed up yet, but that is because they have not yet found their "True Leader" The Communists were around far before Stalin, the Socialist party in Germany was around long before Hitler.
This is just plain wrong. Hitler joined the German Worker's Party within months of its inception, and became its leader within 2 years. Stalin was a powerful member of the Bolsheviks long before the revolution (during which time the group was exiled), and began leading the party in less than a year from the start of the revolution. They weren't the "communists" until after the revolution, either. Niether is a "long time". These are very poor examples. It's all irrelevant anyway, as two instances proves nothing, but it's important to know you don't check your facts.
"Socialism" in theory is a wonderful thing. In reality it just ends up as a way for a small group of elite citizens to control the lower classes of the country. When the lower classes get too populous or too strong, then there is a flip, with a small group of the lower classes in charge. This tends to lead to purges and the like. No matter what system you use, human nature is that some will lead and some will follow.
Socialist reform is one way for a charismatic leader to convince a group of loyal followers to make them a dictator through whatever means, though this was more the Stalin or Pol-Pot type of politics. Hitler's was more based on racism, so that's irrelevant. Socialist reform does not imply that a ruthless dictator is behind the call, as has been clearly demonstrated recently in europe and canada.
What have the socialist reforms brought Europe? A population that has some of the lowest productivity in the civilized world. Record high unemployment. Rationing of health care because the state cannot afford to give everything to everyone. Rules that give certain groups more or less rights depending on their perceived class. You see it now with Muslim's being given preferential treatment in their style of life, while Christians and Jews are demonized to wanting their own style of life to be given equal weight.
You're citing unemployment rates as a reason that socialism leads to totalitarinism and death camps? I think there's just a tiny gap in that argument. This is irrelevant, and its showing that you're really reaching here. I wont even get into the fact that you're leaving out any beneficial effect the socialist reforms have had, as that's a completely different issue.
Why does a prime minister get paid more than someone on the dole? Why does a judge make more money than a peasant? How is this fair? Because the group that is in power has decided exactly how much is fair. There comes a reckoning point in which the structure tumbles.
...which is?
By the way, don't assume that all socialist reforms have the end goal of equal pay for all members of society. I would wager to say that most do not have this goal. There's a lot of disagreement among socialists as to what should be reformed and how.
When the extreme Muslim population grows enough that in an apathetic voting year they manage to put a majority of hard line Muslim politicians in France or Spain, see what happens. When Sharia is the law of the land in Europe, see how long it takes for the mass murders to begin. It won't take long. If you think sharia is going to become the law in the land in europe.... I don't even know what to say. That is beyond insane.
Oh please. Religious extremists have enormous sway over the government here, and we're defiant capitalists.
Once you start taking things away from people in the name of society, you place society above the people. It's a short road from there to death camps.
Ah, I now see the core of your confusion. All socities do this, so by your logi
...yeah, all those recent socialist reforms in canada and europe have just brought too too many deathcamps. Too many I say! It's obviously the exact same thing over there as what happened in nazi germany and the USSR. You don't need a dictator to have death camps, just a desire to share the wealth with poor people. Anyone who doesn't think this is an idiot and a socialist!
That is what National Socialism means today, because it is associated with the racist views that the Nazi party came to be known for.
While white supremacy may have been a key social issue for some "voters," the party also had ideas about how to run the other aspects of society. The other views of the party were that the government should control the economy so so that everyone (well everyone who was white non-Jewish) gets their fair share. This is socialism.
"some voters"!??! Please tell me you're not suggesting that the Nazis "came to be known" for racist views and were not, in fact, grounded in them from day one as a primary mobilzing philosophy, second to no other. The "socialist" government intervention you speak of was primarily seen as a correction to the "Jewish problem". It wasn't that everyone deserved a fair share, it was that the Jews had that which was deserved by aryan germans, and the government had to fix this problem. This is how they came to power, not because of a socialist philosophy.
so, someone will throw you in jail if you're a foreign student in college, like falafel, got some money from your parents, forgot to update your visa, and take a one-way flight somewhere? If I wasn't an american and fucked up on my visa, I would fit your terrorist profile exactly come christmas.
I don't really expect any level of ethical behavior from corporations. Corporations have two goals: increase the price of their stock and produce dividends for investors. To that end, they may accidentially or perhaps even intentionally act ethically, but it's certainly not to be expected.
Isn't that a problem?
I do, however, expect the government to provide sufficient oversight of corporations.
Government oversight only goes so far and is often corrupted. In fact, it invites corruption. Shouldn't corporations be held responsible by everyone else? For instance, I don't buy products that come from factory farms because I think they're a cruel practice. I don't buy microsoft products because I think they're meddling bastards. I do this because I expect more than "increasing the price of their stock" from the corporations I support.
I'm not saying that I can, or do, boycot any corporation that does something I don't agree with. I am saying that the only reason anyone would boycot anything is because they, to some degree, expect ehtical actions from corporations. I think it's a gloomy world where we've entirely given up on that...
Hang on a minute. Since when are we required to trust scientists? I trust the scientific method. Scientists are human, and that means they will have their own adgenda's and make mistakes. This is why we have the concept of a peer review (and even this is subject to social pressures that can skew objectivity).
Sorry, I apparently should have been less vague. How about: "if you don't value the achievements of the collective community of scientists spanning that last few centuries"... that would more clearly express what I intended. I did not mean to imply "anything that anyone who happens to call themselves a scientist happens to mutter", as you seem to have gathered. That is, of course, ridiculous.
You would fit right in with the conservative religious seeing as you like to 'trust' and 'respect' people so much. Just change scientist to leader, and your all set!
I'm not sure what you think my idea of 'trust' or 'respect' is, but I imagine it's a lot less severe than what you have in mind, at least in this context. All I'm asking is that he recognize that the scientific community has done a lot of good for society and that claiming that everything they've accomplished is a bunch of hogwash is pretty disrespectful considering how much it has bettered his/her life. Thats all I'm saying, so I'd thank you not to interpret it as anything else.
so, you're implying that the only way to judge a book is by how many people believe what's in it and how old it is? There's *nothing* else you'd look at? Would you even fucking read it?!?
Either way, I have two books in front of me, neither of which _I_ personally can prove as fact, so I'm taking somebody's word for it that it's true.
Don't take someones word for it. Read the fucking book and make of it what you will.
The same faith held by Jews, Muslims, and Christians. Last time I checked, the "scientists" were outnumbered.
Last time I checked, popular belief didn't make things true. A majority of the population of the world used to think the sun revolved around the earth. It was this "scientific minority" you speak of that happened to be right. This was not an isolated incident, either; it has happened fairly regularly throughout history.
Our documentation is far older than anything they have.
...Which only means it was written by less informed people. How does this help you? Guess what, there are religious texts/artifacts that are older than the Bible. Perhaps you should switch to paganism.
Listen, pal, if you don't trust scientists, then give up all your modern conveniences and move into a cave. You should be respectful of the work they've done to provide you with what you have.
except that they found a much better correlation than any of these that they considered interesting. They didn't say "hey! no more lead in gasoline and crime went down. Yippeee!" as you're making it out to be. If you don't believe me, try to publish your CPU speed theory. Much of science boils down to the careful study of correlation.
If you want to bash their study, fine, but at least RTFP, not just the summary on slashdot.
I understand the angle you're going for, but I still wouldn't quite call it hypocrisy. First, I still don't quite buy the "at the expense of the environment" argument. Money going to Greenpeace is not earmarked for the environment, per se; it's given specifically to Greenpeace. Greenpeace is not a government funded organization. Those who donate to Greenpeace do so because they support their efforts. That is, they donate because they believe that's the proper way to achieve their goals. It's difficult to say that, were Greenpeace not accepting their money, that they would then turn to a different organization, or that this other organization would make better use of the money. If you think they suck at achieving their goals, that's their problem. I happen to think that PBS does a better job of entertaining/informing the public than my local public access channel does, but I don't think my local public access channel is hypocritical for accepting money that could have gone to PBS. I just think they're crappier at what they do.
Further, to compare what Greenpeace is doing with that of an organization "seeking to profit at the expense of the environment" is highly disingenuous. You are attempting to compare them with companies who do active harm to the environment, not this 3rd-degree "maybe they're somehow leaching funds from groups who may or may not be more effective than they are" kind of argument. Seriously, there's plenty of reasons to have beef with Greenpeace (no pun intended), even plenty of ways to call them hypocritical... this one's just a bit of a stretch.
All that said, I imagine we're going to have to agree to disagree, though it doesn't really matter as this is all mostly an issue of semantics anyway.
Alright, most people use hypocritical when they mean "holding a double standard." The standard example is of Sen Craig who attacked gays while secretly soliciting sex from men in bathrooms.
But the simple meaning of it is when you say something without believing it, which is pretty clear in this case. They're bringing these charges without caring in the slightest whether or not they're true.
I'm not sure they feel that way about it. Hell, I'm not even sure they're wrong. I'll need a slightly more independant source than "the bromide industry" to convince me of that.
And this isn't just hypocrisy. It's also short-sightedness: they're sacrificing their long term credibility and that of an entire movement for some short term publicity.
I would wholeheartedly agree with this point, were the premise true. I agree with the "short-sightedness" charge, however, either way.
That's ridiculous. So I can't trust the NRA to wrongly harass someone and make me look like a fool for pledging to them just because they didn't explicitly say they aren't publicity whores?
You're taking me too literally, and as someone has already pointed out, that wasn't the most well crafted statement:) I wanted someone to point out to me how their tactic of going after apple was hypocritical. If they didn't care about the facts of the matter, then that's another way this could by hypocritical (that I honestly wasn't thinking of when I posted), but regardless It's not clear to me that they don't believe in their campaign against apple, just that they're forward about the visibility of apple being a motivating factor. That, in and of itself, does not make this hypocritical.
Reasonable people might disagree as to what constitutes publicity whoring, but Greenpeace is an example of an organization that has clearly crossed that line a long time ago. PETA is even worse... they're self-parodying.
I whole-heartedly agree. Publicity-whoring is not hypocritical in and of itself, hwoever. It's just, IMHO, stupid.
Ok, first things first: you don't seem to know the meaning of the word hypocrisy. They are hypocrites because they do something that they condemn in others, not because they do something they claim they don't or won't (that would make them liars, but not necessarily hypocrites).
Hypocrite: a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
That is, were Greenpeace to espouse that they were above such actions, they would be hypocrites. Another example would, yes, be if they pointed these flaws out in others, thus implying that they have such virtues. I understand how you could have interpreted what I said to mean "lying" without my intended interpretation, as I was a bit vague, but both of these interpretations were covered by what I said. You should really be more comfortable with a definition yourself before you charge others with illiteracy. It's very... what's that word again?
In this case Greenpeace are hypocrites because they are profiting at the expense of the environment. (By attacking companies based on how much publicity (and therefore donation money) they can gain, rather than how much pollution said company is responsible for relative to it's peers, Greenpeace not only lets heavier polluters go relatively unchallenged, they also send a message to all companies that their wrath cannot be abated by a better environmental policy, giving companies even less reason to bother cleaning up their act.)
I don't buy your argument that this is "at the expense of the environment". If the environment suffers because of an absense of highly effective, pro-active effort, then your post just hurt the environment. That's silly. Greenpeace is niether the sole entity for environmental action, therefore a lack of action on their part does not imply damage to the environment. Give us normal activists some credit!:)
given that they use whatever money they receieve to fund their initiatives, what exactly do you mean by profit? I'm guessing you mean "squander" or "embezzle". Money is power, thats why *every* political action group seeks it. If this made them hypocrites, then every political action group is hypocritical.
you're leaving out the most important part of what I've already said: their plan is to raise awareness through these stunts, not (just) money. They think it's doing good. I think that's debatable, but it *is* their stated intention.
I suppose they might also be hypocrites because they are indulging in the type of media manipulation that I suspect they have complained about their targets using in the past, but that is clearly secondary to the "profiting at the expense of the environment" thing imho.
This is specifically what I was looking for, although it doesn't mean your previous argument wasn't "off topic", I just don't agree with your conclusions.
besides the point that your post is rather off topic (the question was not whether or not they were, in general, hypocritical)... I'm curious: when has PETA protested euthanasia at shelters? I've heard of some no-kill shelters doing this (which is a load of horse-shit. No-kill shelters *reject* animals, which means we have to euthanise all the animals that they don't want to), but I hadn't heard of PETA protesting the practice as a whole (as you've noted, they've sponsored it). As a shelter volunteer, I'm very concerned about this. Could you provide a reference?
Slashdot Mirror
People who call solar energy "renewable" are aware that the sun will eventually "run out". They don't mean that it will last forever. They mean we don't "use up" the sun when we capture solar energy the way we do with fossil fuels, etc...
The sun will go dark in about 5-10 billion years (give or take, I can't remember the exact estimates). Are you honestly suggesting that the energy stores we have in fossil fuels and uranium will last ANYWHERE FUCKING CLOSE to that long? Do you have the balls to compare a few heavy rocks and some liquified dinosaurs to a fucking star?! I'm perfectly comfortable calling solar energy "renewable" if it will get us through the next few billion years, assuming the human race, if it even exists by that point, remotely resembles what is is now.
Isn't that the point?
Most of these people should have a "recovery disc" with their machine that returns it to its initial state of instalation. They'll lose their data, but the machine is far from 'bricked', and they'll need no intervention from pretty much anyone to do this.
For the record, you're calling a memo titled "Bin Laden determined to attack in US" vague? It seems rather to the point to me. What did you expect, a detailed plan of 9/11?
:) has been independant of Clinton, though I have commented in the past about what I felt were unfair comparisons to Nixon, especially in regard to foreign relations.
Also, apart from any analysis on your "limp-wristed" claim, what does Clinton have to do with Bush? Last time I checked, Republicans didn't regard Clinton as a standard on which to judge other presidents, but yet they do? If you're going to defend Bush, you should pick someone you don't think was a terrible president (I'm assuming this, but it seems to be a fair assumption) to compare him to. Anyway, congrats on the first BBBBBBUT CLINTON! post of the thread (that I've bothered to read, anyway). There's a reason this has been meme-ified. It's because it's a really bad argument...
I'm not necesarily a big fan of Clinton's policies, but given the congress he was dealing with, hell-bent on destroying his presidency, I think he did a fair job running the country. However, were I to defend him, I would certainly not talk about Bush unless someone else was unfairly comparing him to Bush. Any critisism or praise I've had for Bush (yes, IMHO, he has had a few moments
No, they just think god doesn't exist; that's the definition of an athiest. Anything else is just your bias. I don't care how many dickish athiests you've met, you can't make that sort of generalization about such a large and loosely defined group.
This is a common misconception about agnostics. Agnostics can be considered even more anti-theist than athiests in that they don't even think athiests are justified in their beliefs. They think *no one* is justified in *any* belief about god or the creation of the universe since there is a lack of evidence for any particular explanation. Someone who "isn't quite sure what to believe" is usually what most people consider "spiritual", or like you sugested, similar to mystics of sorts. Then you also have your "questioning" christians, muslims, etc.., but the closest thing to "dont-care-ism" would be agnosticism, but even agnostics have a belief: that others are not justified in their beliefs. I guess if you're a true "non care-er", there's just no label for you
I'm sure that the people blowing themselves up on policemen and civilians would be really upset if that happened.
What is this comment supposed to mean? What, is *not* passing a constitutional amendment to insure gay people never get certain rights "flailing to the outer most fringes of the left"? How about appeasing the whitehouse with funding for an unpopular war you were elected to stop when it vetoes anything that even mentions coming home? How about *not* pushing for socialized healthcare but rather talking about maybe instituting state sponsored health *insurance* *if* they also win the presidency next year? Here's 3 leftist ideals that they're hardly close to. I'm really not sure what people have in mind when they make this "far left" claim.
much more effective: make a phone call.
If you talk to lobbyists, they'll tell you that often a representative will vote according to how many calls from constituents he got on either side, and often only as many as a hundred or so people will call! This is where you can actually make a difference! When you call you'll be greeted by a staffer, so make sure you know the title of the bill AND the code. Citing both will more likely result in your opinion being recorded by the staffer.
I'm not sure what's going on with the bill right now, but it's also important to know when/who to call:
1) call those in a committee dealing with the bill if they're currently making changes to it
2) call everyone the day before a vote to let your representative know how you would like them to vote on it
The humane society often puts all this information together for people who are concerned about animal cruelty issues. Is there a similar group that does the work for us on this front?
I have a laptop, but svideo looks like poop on my hdtv. I'm hoping the PS3 can upscale / anti-alias?
This is just plain wrong. Hitler joined the German Worker's Party within months of its inception, and became its leader within 2 years. Stalin was a powerful member of the Bolsheviks long before the revolution (during which time the group was exiled), and began leading the party in less than a year from the start of the revolution. They weren't the "communists" until after the revolution, either. Niether is a "long time". These are very poor examples. It's all irrelevant anyway, as two instances proves nothing, but it's important to know you don't check your facts.
Socialist reform is one way for a charismatic leader to convince a group of loyal followers to make them a dictator through whatever means, though this was more the Stalin or Pol-Pot type of politics. Hitler's was more based on racism, so that's irrelevant. Socialist reform does not imply that a ruthless dictator is behind the call, as has been clearly demonstrated recently in europe and canada.
You're citing unemployment rates as a reason that socialism leads to totalitarinism and death camps? I think there's just a tiny gap in that argument. This is irrelevant, and its showing that you're really reaching here. I wont even get into the fact that you're leaving out any beneficial effect the socialist reforms have had, as that's a completely different issue.
By the way, don't assume that all socialist reforms have the end goal of equal pay for all members of society. I would wager to say that most do not have this goal. There's a lot of disagreement among socialists as to what should be reformed and how.
Oh please. Religious extremists have enormous sway over the government here, and we're defiant capitalists.
Ah, I now see the core of your confusion. All socities do this, so by your logi
...yeah, all those recent socialist reforms in canada and europe have just brought too too many deathcamps. Too many I say! It's obviously the exact same thing over there as what happened in nazi germany and the USSR. You don't need a dictator to have death camps, just a desire to share the wealth with poor people. Anyone who doesn't think this is an idiot and a socialist!
"some voters"!??! Please tell me you're not suggesting that the Nazis "came to be known" for racist views and were not, in fact, grounded in them from day one as a primary mobilzing philosophy, second to no other. The "socialist" government intervention you speak of was primarily seen as a correction to the "Jewish problem". It wasn't that everyone deserved a fair share, it was that the Jews had that which was deserved by aryan germans, and the government had to fix this problem. This is how they came to power, not because of a socialist philosophy.
so, someone will throw you in jail if you're a foreign student in college, like falafel, got some money from your parents, forgot to update your visa, and take a one-way flight somewhere? If I wasn't an american and fucked up on my visa, I would fit your terrorist profile exactly come christmas.
Isn't that a problem?
Government oversight only goes so far and is often corrupted. In fact, it invites corruption. Shouldn't corporations be held responsible by everyone else? For instance, I don't buy products that come from factory farms because I think they're a cruel practice. I don't buy microsoft products because I think they're meddling bastards. I do this because I expect more than "increasing the price of their stock" from the corporations I support.
I'm not saying that I can, or do, boycot any corporation that does something I don't agree with. I am saying that the only reason anyone would boycot anything is because they, to some degree, expect ehtical actions from corporations. I think it's a gloomy world where we've entirely given up on that...
Sorry, I apparently should have been less vague. How about: "if you don't value the achievements of the collective community of scientists spanning that last few centuries"... that would more clearly express what I intended. I did not mean to imply "anything that anyone who happens to call themselves a scientist happens to mutter", as you seem to have gathered. That is, of course, ridiculous.
I'm not sure what you think my idea of 'trust' or 'respect' is, but I imagine it's a lot less severe than what you have in mind, at least in this context. All I'm asking is that he recognize that the scientific community has done a lot of good for society and that claiming that everything they've accomplished is a bunch of hogwash is pretty disrespectful considering how much it has bettered his/her life. Thats all I'm saying, so I'd thank you not to interpret it as anything else.
Did I claim otherwise?
Don't take someones word for it. Read the fucking book and make of it what you will.
Last time I checked, popular belief didn't make things true. A majority of the population of the world used to think the sun revolved around the earth. It was this "scientific minority" you speak of that happened to be right. This was not an isolated incident, either; it has happened fairly regularly throughout history.
Listen, pal, if you don't trust scientists, then give up all your modern conveniences and move into a cave. You should be respectful of the work they've done to provide you with what you have.
Quick! One of the 7 stories kdawson posted this morning is related to ploitics! Everybody freak out!!!
except that they found a much better correlation than any of these that they considered interesting. They didn't say "hey! no more lead in gasoline and crime went down. Yippeee!" as you're making it out to be. If you don't believe me, try to publish your CPU speed theory. Much of science boils down to the careful study of correlation.
If you want to bash their study, fine, but at least RTFP, not just the summary on slashdot.
I understand the angle you're going for, but I still wouldn't quite call it hypocrisy. First, I still don't quite buy the "at the expense of the environment" argument. Money going to Greenpeace is not earmarked for the environment, per se; it's given specifically to Greenpeace. Greenpeace is not a government funded organization. Those who donate to Greenpeace do so because they support their efforts. That is, they donate because they believe that's the proper way to achieve their goals. It's difficult to say that, were Greenpeace not accepting their money, that they would then turn to a different organization, or that this other organization would make better use of the money. If you think they suck at achieving their goals, that's their problem. I happen to think that PBS does a better job of entertaining/informing the public than my local public access channel does, but I don't think my local public access channel is hypocritical for accepting money that could have gone to PBS. I just think they're crappier at what they do.
Further, to compare what Greenpeace is doing with that of an organization "seeking to profit at the expense of the environment" is highly disingenuous. You are attempting to compare them with companies who do active harm to the environment, not this 3rd-degree "maybe they're somehow leaching funds from groups who may or may not be more effective than they are" kind of argument. Seriously, there's plenty of reasons to have beef with Greenpeace (no pun intended), even plenty of ways to call them hypocritical... this one's just a bit of a stretch.
All that said, I imagine we're going to have to agree to disagree, though it doesn't really matter as this is all mostly an issue of semantics anyway.
I'm not sure they feel that way about it. Hell, I'm not even sure they're wrong. I'll need a slightly more independant source than "the bromide industry" to convince me of that.
I would wholeheartedly agree with this point, were the premise true. I agree with the "short-sightedness" charge, however, either way.
You're taking me too literally, and as someone has already pointed out, that wasn't the most well crafted statement
I whole-heartedly agree. Publicity-whoring is not hypocritical in and of itself, hwoever. It's just, IMHO, stupid.
Hypocrite: a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
That is, were Greenpeace to espouse that they were above such actions, they would be hypocrites. Another example would, yes, be if they pointed these flaws out in others, thus implying that they have such virtues. I understand how you could have interpreted what I said to mean "lying" without my intended interpretation, as I was a bit vague, but both of these interpretations were covered by what I said. You should really be more comfortable with a definition yourself before you charge others with illiteracy. It's very... what's that word again?
This is specifically what I was looking for, although it doesn't mean your previous argument wasn't "off topic", I just don't agree with your conclusions.
besides the point that your post is rather off topic (the question was not whether or not they were, in general, hypocritical)... I'm curious: when has PETA protested euthanasia at shelters? I've heard of some no-kill shelters doing this (which is a load of horse-shit. No-kill shelters *reject* animals, which means we have to euthanise all the animals that they don't want to), but I hadn't heard of PETA protesting the practice as a whole (as you've noted, they've sponsored it). As a shelter volunteer, I'm very concerned about this. Could you provide a reference?
I suppose this is what I get for addressing trolls specifically, huh.
BTW, when calling another a pussy, it helps not to have the name "coward".