![[ghc]Games Forums](http://forums.ghc-games.com/images/logo.gif "[ghc]Games Forums"){kind=logo}
+- [ghc]Games Forums (http://forums.ghc-games.com)
+-- Forum: General Discussions (/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Forum: Political Debates (/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Greenpeace (/showthread.php?tid=99)
RE: RE: Greenpeace - =D.C.L.I=Everest - 01-29-2005 12:58 AM
Yellowbelly Wrote:I honestly think that we should try to preserve the earth and not just dump trash everywhere and all thatI\'m glad to say there\'s still hope for you
and I agreed earlier that they can get overzealous. I think it\'s a balance thing: some people criminally pollute, Greenpeace overzealously fights for the environment. Both sides might need a little water in their wine to work to a degree that everyone can enjoy, I guess.But in a world where governments want to drill for oil in preserved biotopes, or bomb atolls for nuclear tests, or whatever, I think organizations like Greenpeace really need to fight hard. That\'s where the fight is at. It\'s not like they\'re bombing cars that pollute too much, is it now? As long as they only take on multinationals and governments that go over the line, I\'m all for Greenpeace :tup:
RE: Greenpeace - The_Punisher - 01-29-2005 04:33 AM
The problem is that Greenpeace fights to stop these things instead of offering solutions.
RE: Greenpeace - izzybob7 - 01-29-2005 08:07 AM
someone say pot?
RE: Greenpeace - dr.moe - 01-29-2005 10:44 AM
unfortunately, i dont know/care too much about greenpeace to offer anything to pertinent to the debate, or sign up for al\'s crazy emailathon of glory; but about nuclear bombs and all that, im pretty solid - they suck. they are very good at what they\'re designed to do, obliterate and obliviate - so good (im diggin the dashes today - - - ) that ground-zero is made uninhabitable for a crazy amount of time. that\'s not cool, and if thats how greenpeace got started and is all about preventing, then im for it.
but nuclear power is awesome, yo. its crazy how one pebble of plutonium can power my hometown for years whilst tons of coal (our current source of power) dont even come close and are tons more polutional. now, if greenpeace is about screwing over my hometown and the atmosphere with their craziness, then they can suck on my car exhaust.
now as for weed smokin, whats wrong with that? it was mentioned as a form of stigma to lessen the credibility and character of such freedom fighters, political zealots, good dudes battling for the higher good and all that (no pun intended, honestly), and i fail to understand why it should and why its was thusly used. is thusly a word? weed smoking should rank higher on the pole of propriety than tobacco smoking, right along with alcohol ingestion. how credible is someone who allows themselve to become addicted to something? cannabis is not addictive, and though alcohol can be addictive, tobbacco is the most addictive substance known to most. look it up sometime, you might be slightly perterbed at the results. tobbacco is more addictive than crack, meth, horse, caffiene, chocolate etc. its so addictive, its legal!
but thats beside the point (on which side i still dont know). greenpeace seems to be doing something, but throwing around extremes in an attempt to sway is ridiculous. picturing your kids playing in a nuclear waste dump is ludicrous, why would you live anywhere near one anyway? think about the reasons for that (cheap? couldnt afford a better house because u wasted ur cash on something else? or just didnt get a college education? etc.) also, dubbing the greenpeace dudes as \"terrorists\" (the modern times equivalent of \"communist\") is just as ludicrous and rather annoying. its cool that its around to bitch about the little things that apparently make little difference, since \"no freedom is lost at once\" and all that. ive rambled enough. im diggin the new forums. merry new forum day!
RE: Greenpeace - Big-Al - 01-29-2005 10:32 PM
i don\'t smoke, i think such comments are rather off topic