• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Greenpeace caught blatantly lying...real surprise there! (1 Viewer)

The Philosopher said:
heh

Like no one saw this coming...
Click to expand...

Although that was wonderfully constructed straw man im failing to see any lying. To prove a lie the article would have to have proven a statement actually made by greenpeace to be factually incorrect. It didnt.

Its illiogical to say that poverty is easyer to illeviate then global warming when the two issues are interlinked. http://www.christianaid.org.uk/indepth/605caweek/index.htm . Your not going to be able to do much about the issues surronding poverty like H.I.V when the poor are being screwed over by global warming.
 
Last edited:
Oh ok then, fine, it was either:

a. So ridiculously marred by falsehoods that their stupidity alone would render them an organization that no one should take seriously.

b. Or they were lying.

Take your pick. :D
 
The Philosopher said:
Oh ok then, fine, it was either:

a. So ridiculously marred by falsehoods that their stupidity alone would render them an organization that no one should take seriously.

b. Or they were lying.

Take your pick. :D
Click to expand...

I cant pick either option untill you expose a falsehood. As i said before you havent.
 
What? Did you not read the article I cited...?
 
I've spent maybe 20 mins trying to figure this out. If Greenpeace fabricated something, and apologized for it, I'm interested in reading about it. I finally found what he intends us to see, but I'm just not real clear on what I'm reading.

Go to his page which says,"you have just entered an all spin zone." Click on the hyperlink associated with the word "caught" and you will read about .... man I can't figure any of this out seems like a whole bunch of spin and I did not find a quote of an outright apology from Greenpeace. You need to go to another link on the second page. I searched a few pages for the word "sorry" and "apologize." Other than the headings, these words aren't on the pages.

Dude, you need to copy and paste on this. If you've got a point to make, and it's based on an article, you should clearly cite your source. But anyone who labels his own opinions "all spin" is going to be viewed with, um, skepticism.

Is your site supposed to be funny? Maybe that's why I'm confused. I saw another of your pages a few weeks back. You had some quote from Al Gore. It looked plausable that he might have said it, but it really wasn't clear to me if he said that or not. Do you just make stuff up?
 
I'm not even certain what it is you're confused about. Roughly Drafted is a very well respected tech magazine, its not Slashdot I suppose, but it has a decent following, its a reliable source. The article clearly stated how Greenpeace was misreporting its findings on Apple, whats there to be confused about again?

lol, you're the first one not to get my site slogan, its a parody on O'Reilly "no-spin zone" thing. Yeah, theres humor in there, but I am fully serious in the points I make, I think this one was pretty clear, and a lot of people agree with me. That article I posted has appeared on numerous social networking sites to much appraise.

And that Al Gore was thing was CLEARLY a joke, and I clarified it within that thread I believe. It would take anyone a whole 10 seconds to google that quote and find out it didn't exist, ergo I was joking. Everything else within that article was 100 percent accurate, however, and based off an USA Today article which I cited.

Ya gotta read things with a sense of the word sarcasm bud, it seems to be you'd die if you ever watched Comedy Central because you would spend all your time trying to diffrentiate between sarcasm and seriousness, completely bypassing the meat of the discourse, so to speak.

Oh, and one last note...you actually spent 20 minutes trying to figure this out man? You either have way too much time on your hands, or...I don't even know. :p

Take it easy, peace out. ;)
 
Last edited:
Why does that article have no actual quote from Greenpeace?


wait, is your entire site a joke?
 
Yep, my entire site is a joke, must be why I cite my sources in every post from such humorist editorials like the NYT, WP, and BBC, most definitely.

Seriously though, some of you guys either have no perception of the concept of sarcasm, or are willfully saying dumb things.
 
My opinion of GreenPeace is somewhat lower than my opinion of stray dogs crapping in my yard, but this article doesn't support the fact that GreenPeace lies. I've seen multiple cases where GreenPeace has flat out lied about issues, but this article doesn't bring those issues into the discussion. It is a world-class spin job, but hardly a logical or supportable indictment of GreenPeace.

P, GreenPeace is an easy target to hit and you completely missed them. Lose the rhetoric and the sloppy logic and stick to supportable, documented facts and you'll nail 'em every time, but when you go down this kind of path, you lose credibility and GreenPeace comes out looking like the victim of an unfair attack.
 
Whatever you say son, I like RoughlyDrafted, they usually have some good tech editorials, in retrospect this wasn't their strongest article, but it makes its point.

But to be perfectly honest, I'm not seeing why everyone is attacking the article, it makes its point, its not the GREATEST anti-Greenpeace article I've ever read, just the latest one to catch my eye. If you're so fervently anti-Greenpeace, why are you antagonizing me?
 
Last edited:
why are you antagonizing me?
Click to expand...

Oh, Antagonization??? Be still my beating heart!!!! Let all antagonizers be on notice. I'm on a beerbinder and won't tolerated.it.

Look you, murkeyily pictured man, even people who I disagree with are calling your pretensions into doubt. Wudja mind copying and pasting the lie? Pritty Pritty Pleze? There's a good kitty. Nice kitty. Nice, nice, pussums.
 
You may want to lay off the mead, or vodka, or whatever it is, try some Coors eh?

I'm not exactly sure because its hard to determine how drunk someone is through a forum, then again, the last place I'd be drunk would be on a forum. :p

Yes, I AM MURKLY PICTURED MAN. YOU WILL COWER IN MY STAGGERING POWER. LOOK, I CAN RHYME. HUZZAH.

They lied about toxins in Apple computers, self-explanatory.

...

(k, maybe i lied about not being drunk, gimme a break. ;) )
 
The Philosopher said:
Whatever you say son, I like RoughlyDrafted, they usually have some good tech editorials, in retrospect this wasn't their strongest article, but it makes its point.

But to be perfectly honest, I'm not seeing why everyone is attacking the article, it makes its point, its not the GREATEST anti-Greenpeace article I've ever read, just the latest one to catch my eye. If you're so fervently anti-Greenpeace, why are you antagonizing me?
Click to expand...
Because your half-assed efforts do more harm than good. This kind of BS puts GreenPeace in the position of being unfairly accused and makes people who bring legitimate arguments against GreenPeace look bad by your association with us. My father used to tell me "Do it right or don't do it at all." There are far too many ways to expose GreenPeace for what they really are that are legitimate and completely unassailable, but you chose to use a hack piece full of innuendo, half-truths and unsupported allegations.
 
You may want to lay off the mead, or vodka,
Click to expand...

Oh I know that. I promise myself "never again" during each and every hangover. I consider myself to be a meticulously virtuous drinker.


Greenpeace is an advocacy group and naturally given to overstatement. But seeing the phrase "blatantly lying" attached to their name really has me curious. I wouldn't implicitly denounce your source, but It seems like I'm going to have to wait for some major media outlet to pick up the story before I understand the nature of the lie.

I expect you know this, but I'll say it anyway, if you want to convince people on this site about this and other circumstances, you need to summarize, cut, paste and link.
 
Bud, I don't have the time to do all that, I give you the link, read it, make your own conclusions. ;)

In retrospect "blatantly lying" may have been a bit on the strong side, but as a strong advocate and user of Apple, that initial Greenpeace press release pissed me off, which might explain my, perhaps overzealous, diatribe.

Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to drain a coupole of Jack Daniel's.
 
In retrospect "blatantly lying" may have been a bit on the strong side,
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true philosopher.

"Greenpeace" is a complex phenomena. They have, obviously, huge name recognition. But they also have a whole lotta baggage. For me, it's a bit like the whole Hillary thing. I like, them, support them, but due to their pervasive unpopularity, I have to acknowledge their limitations.

I expect that Greenpeace continues as a force for primarily one reason: they can generate donations. From what I can see, their effectiveness at achieving their goals is questionable.

I just wish these liberal millionaires would quit making huge donations to universities. The scientists at the universities are nothing more than a bunch of suck-egg mules. We've got some or other environmental crisis? Fine. But why aren't these university scientists doing more to call attention to environmental problems which they detect? Unfortunately they are mollified by 65K per year, and 20 year old poon tang.

Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to drain a coupole of Jack Daniel's.
Click to expand...

Bitof advice: drinkslo or sticktabeer!
 
I take it you're not a George Soros fan? Good man, neither am I, hate that guy. :p

My article on my blog pretty much lays it down for you, groups like Greenpeace are supported mainly by the Hollywood "anti-corporate" elite, "post-materialist" kids who have no idea what life is about yet, and liberal billionaires like Soros.
 
The Philosopher said:
What? Did you not read the article I cited...?
Click to expand...

I did and at no point did it prove anything greenpeace had said wrong. It created a strawman [see wikipeidia] and attempted to disprove it but aside from that feeble attempt no falsehood has been proven
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom