Eco-Terrorists?

[Rox]

At 5 AM in West Covina, someone vandalized and set fire to a car dealership, burning a bunch of Hummers. The news (Fox 11 LA, if it matters) is saying it was done by "eco-terrorists" because some of the vehicles were sprayed with the following graffiti:

I :inlove: Pollution (single heart, of course)
Fat Lazy Americans
E.L.F. (Earth Liberation Front)

Had there been no anti-SUV graffiti, this crime would be classified as arson and vandalism, but with a little bit of spray paint it's now an "act of domestic terrorism."

I just find it very interesting how this one small detail changes things. And I wonder if the perpetrators understood how a few lines of spray paint have turned their crime from one that would fall under local jurisdiction into one that will surely bring the Feds into the picture, and make their punishment far more severe.

Y'know, I'm all for people supporting whatever it is they believe in and feel passionate about, and being able to voice their grievances and opinions in whatever manner they wish. But destroying someone else's property goes over the line. These people could've made their point by peacefully picketing the dealership and they'd have probably gotten just as much media coverage, without alienating people like me by engaging in the destruction of someone's business and putting a whole bunch of hard-working people out of a job.

Everyone knows I lean pretty hard to the left, especially when it comes to preserving the gifts of Nature. But things like this make it easy to see why lots of people get disgusted with the "tree-huggers" and tune out EVERYONE who might speak out against those things that are harmful to the ecology. Extremists of any stripe just piss people off, and make it difficult for the non-extremists to be heard or trusted.

Really sad.

[Vick]

NEWS FLASH .........
The Earth can take care of it's self
We are all at the mercy of this planet
We can be wiped from the face of this planet at any time
I love people who say "Save the Planet", they can't even save the human race
The Earth can wipe us out at any time

[Peaches]

I suspect it was Gonzo and Hellpuppy doing a bit o' painting after a few cocktails during their 24 Hummer test drive....... B)

Seriously, it reminds me of the "hate" crime issue. If a group of white guys robbed and raped a white woman, that's rape. If she's a black woman, it suddenly becomes a "hate" crime. :blink:

[Rox]

http://www.nbc4.tv/news/2424749/detail.html

A link, finally!

[DaveAFX]

A clever defense attorney certainly will use this as a defense against the harsher terrorism prosecution. Claiming that more severe punishment would be infingement of freedom of speech rights. That the crime must be prosecuted simply as the underlying act.
Might work, especially in CA.

[Rox]

Originally posted by Vick@Aug 22 2003, 06:35 AM
NEWS FLASH .........
The Earth can take care of it's self
We are all at the mercy of this planet
We can be wiped from the face of this planet at any time
I love people who say "Save the Planet", they can't even save the human race
The Earth can wipe us out at any time
Vick, I'm with ya there. I'm all for each of us doing what we can to "tread lightly" and not fuck up the planet we live on. When it comes right down to it, this Earth will survive long after it stops being able to support one puny little species like homo sapiens. I'd not like to rush our demise, but I certainly don't think destruction of property or "ecotage" as the ELF calls it is doing a damned thing to help the planet or humankind. What hubris!

[Rox]

Originally posted by Peaches@Aug 22 2003, 06:36 AM
I suspect it was Gonzo and Hellpuppy doing a bit o' painting after a few cocktails during their 24 Hummer test drive....... B)


:biglaugh: Peaches, you crack me up!!!

Seriously, it reminds me of the "hate" crime issue. If a group of white guys robbed and raped a white woman, that's rape. If she's a black woman, it suddenly becomes a "hate" crime. :blink:

Yes, isn't it curious how a little bit of language can change everything?

[Rox]

Originally posted by DaveAFX@Aug 22 2003, 06:49 AM
A clever defense attorney certainly will use this as a defense against the harsher terrorism prosecution. Claiming that more severe punishment would be infingement of freedom of speech rights. That the crime must be prosecuted simply as the underlying act.
Might work, especially in CA.
Dave, I'd almost agree, except for the fact that the ELF (again with the language thing) pretty much identify themselves as what we consider terrorists.

http://www.earthliberationfront.com/about/

By operating in cells (small groups that consist of one to several people), the security of group members is maintained. Each cell is anonymous not only to the public but also to one another.

Even in California, it's going to be difficult to defend as anything other than domestic terrorism.

[PornoDoggy]

Eco-terrorists? Spoiled little suburban kids who take the whole 60s-retro thing three steps too far is what most of them strike me as. Not that I don't appreciate at least some of what they claim to believe.

I think the vandals like these punks should be allowed to work off their debt to society at an hourly wage approrpriate for a more environmentally friendly era ... say, 1700. They should be given hand tools, a knife, a bow and some arrows, and allowed to clear out some of the undergrowth cluttering up our deepest forests, and provided with the materials to build themselves a Waldenesqe little cabin.

Now, if they get to spiking trees that threaten to harm workers, then they should be treated no differently than the murderers who shoot doctors in the name of stopping killing.

But there are a lot of ecoterrorists out there, and not all of them are prone to wearing Earth Shoes. Of course, the majority of them don't profess noble intent - they just want to make a buck, which is neither inherently noble or ignoble. It is entirely appropriate for a ferret or a monkey to have instinctive faith that the earth can heal itself. Man, who is capable of far greater destruction and at least allegedly capable of reason, needs to be a bit more careful.

[wig]

These type of wackos do give the true environmentalist a bad name.

But, less than 1% of the so called environmentalists actually are intelligent people with valid points, common sense and facts.

The rest are either extreme wackos like these ELF characters or misinformed sheep who act more on emotion than reason.

Save the Earth has the same "unwavering" appeal to some people as religion does for others. In both cases you end up with an overwhelming majority of extremists and folks that have good intentions but poor reasoning.

[ulfie]

Ummm, excuse me.....

ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

How does this act not fit the definition of terrorism?

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by wig@Aug 22 2003, 11:10 AM
These type of wackos do give the true environmentalist a bad name.

But, less than 1% of the so called environmentalists actually are intelligent people with valid points, common sense and facts.

The rest are either extreme wackos like these ELF characters or misinformed sheep who act more on emotion than reason.

Save the Earth has the same "unwavering" appeal to some people as religion does for others. In both cases you end up with an overwhelming majority of extremists and folks that have good intentions but poor reasoning.
No offense, but I consider myself an environmentalist and an intelligent person in possession of valid points, facts, and common sense.

I do consider the views of the folks from the "eco-extreme" to have limited touch with reality.

Your characterization of environmentalists differs from the description offered by PETA/ELF/??? for those who do not share their views only in the fact that you take an opposite absolutist position.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by ulfie@Aug 22 2003, 11:23 AM
Ummm, excuse me.....

ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

How does this act not fit the definition of terrorism?
I think they are terrorists, and should be treated accordingly.

I don't think that your garden variety activist who would hang a banner, chain himself to a tree, or mount a treehouse is a terrorist. A nitwit, maybe - but not a terrorist. Don't take that to mean I don't think they should be prosecuted, either - I just don't consider the nature of their crime to be the equivilant of burning shit down, blowing stuff up, or potentially harming other people.

[Mike AI]

Crimes many times are classified by INTENT. Eco-terrorism would certainly fit that bill.

There is a difference between somone tagging a car, and then someone painting anti-polutions things on a car.... at least now in the eyes of the law.

[PornoDoggy]

I don't think that the law should treat a tagger any different that a tagger who tries to hide behind a just cause. They should be no more harsh, nor any more linient, in either case.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Aug 22 2003, 12:07 PM
I don't think that the law should treat a tagger any different that a tagger who tries to hide behind a just cause. They should be no more harsh, nor any more linient, in either case.
Hmmmm PD then you are against the concept of "hate crimes" ?

What about Murder 1, 2, manslaughter, etc...

[wig]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Aug 22 2003, 11:29 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Aug 22 2003, 11:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--wig@Aug 22 2003, 11:10 AM
These type of wackos do give the true environmentalist a bad name.

But, less than 1% of the so called environmentalists actually are intelligent people with valid points, common sense and facts.

The rest are either extreme wackos like these ELF characters or misinformed sheep who act more on emotion than reason.

Save the Earth has the same "unwavering" appeal to some people as religion does for others. In both cases you end up with an overwhelming majority of extremists and folks that have good intentions but poor reasoning.
No offense, but I consider myself an environmentalist and an intelligent person in possession of valid points, facts, and common sense.

I do consider the views of the folks from the "eco-extreme" to have limited touch with reality.

Your characterization of environmentalists differs from the description offered by PETA/ELF/??? for those who do not share their views only in the fact that you take an opposite absolutist position.[/b][/quote]
Why would I take offense? Maybe you are in the 1%. ;-))

Further, I would argue that the hunting and fishing orgs and their members do more to help the environment then the everyday "environmentalists" we see blowing smoke.

As for your last paragraph, I see you have not lost your touch for creating long running sentences that don't really say anything. :D

[wig]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Aug 22 2003, 12:07 PM
I don't think that the law should treat a tagger any different that a tagger who tries to hide behind a just cause.
PD, I think this says it alot about where you are coming from.

[PornoDoggy]

Nice try, Mikey, but it don't fit. By hate crimes, what do you mean?

I don't think there needs to be a separate category of murder that is specifically for hate crimes, if that's what you mean. However, I don't have a problem at all with offering the "hate component" of the crime as a mitigating circumstance to, for example, increase the punishment that would result from a guilty verdict, in much the same way that killing a cop allows elevating a murder from 2nd to 1st degree. It may seem somewhat acadmic - but the LAW itself is academic.

As an example, take three taggers who vandalize a (car/building/bridge/???). Tagger A paints a realistic naked picture of Serge, except with a big dick. Tagger B paints "Save the (Trees/Whales/Unborn/????)". Tagger C paints "Death to the (blacks/whites/jews/arabs/gay republicans for allah/????)."

Again, I don't see the need for creation of a "new" crime for that final offense - but I do see it as a more "heinous" offense than the first two. Unlike some liberals, I don't regard "Tagger B" as "less" of a criminal because his crime is allegedly political; I see it as equal to that of the moron who was tagging just to be tagging.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by wig+Aug 22 2003, 02:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (wig @ Aug 22 2003, 02:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--PornoDoggy@Aug 22 2003, 12:07 PM
I don't think that the law should treat a tagger any different that a tagger who tries to hide behind a just cause.
PD, I think this says it alot about where you are coming from.[/b][/quote]
What do you mean by that? I have what I consider to be just causes, and you have what you consider to be just causes. I don't think I'm going too far out on a limb when I say that they may not be the same causes. I don't expect "my guy" to be treated any differently than "your guy" in the eyes of the law.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by wig+Aug 22 2003, 02:23 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (wig @ Aug 22 2003, 02:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -PornoDoggy@Aug 22 2003, 11:29 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--wig@Aug 22 2003, 11:10 AM
These type of wackos do give the true environmentalist a bad name.

But, less than 1% of the so called environmentalists actually are intelligent people with valid points, common sense and facts.

The rest are either extreme wackos like these ELF characters or misinformed sheep who act more on emotion than reason.

Save the Earth has the same "unwavering" appeal to some people as religion does for others. In both cases you end up with an overwhelming majority of extremists and folks that have good intentions but poor reasoning.
No offense, but I consider myself an environmentalist and an intelligent person in possession of valid points, facts, and common sense.

I do consider the views of the folks from the "eco-extreme" to have limited touch with reality.

Your characterization of environmentalists differs from the description offered by PETA/ELF/??? for those who do not share their views only in the fact that you take an opposite absolutist position.
Why would I take offense? Maybe you are in the 1%. ;-))

Further, I would argue that the hunting and fishing orgs and their members do more to help the environment then the everyday "environmentalists" we see blowing smoke.

As for your last paragraph, I see you have not lost your touch for creating long running sentences that don't really say anything. :D[/b][/quote]
Okay ... let me shorten the sentence for you.

Your position is as devoid of reason and as out of touch with reality as the position taken by the radical environmentalists.

Hunting and fishing organizations have done a great deal to help the environment - I don't dispute that. As a matter of fact, I would probably dispute anyone who claimed that the Democrats have been substantially better for the environment than Republicans have if you take a long view, although the short-term records are pretty clear.

But hunting and fishing organizations alone didn't pass the environmental laws that have markedly improved the condition of the environment over the past 30 years.

Yes, they helped - but your claim is every bit as preposterous as the ELF clown screaming that the earth will cease to exist if we cut down a single tree in the forest.

[Mike AI]

PD thanks for the laugh!

And not that I have 14 cars.... all of them with big v8s and burn a lot of gas!!

:rokk: :rokk:

[VooMan]

This article reminds me of when I worked in Manhattan in my early 20's...

The big thing at that time was spraying red ink on people's fur coats to show the blood of the poor baby seals who were clubbed to death to make them. Now... I think the baby seals are cute as hell and it horrifies me to think of how they die to make those coats, but let's use some common sense here:

1. People who wear fur coats *probably* have some disposable income.

2. People who wear fur coats *probably* like them.

What are they going to do when you ruin their coat? They're going to go out and buy ANOTHER one! :headwall:

[wig]

Your position is as devoid of reason and as out of touch with reality as the position taken by the radical environmentalists.

And what position is that, PD? That the majority of "enviromentalists" are wackos or misinformed? That position is devoid of reason and out of touch with reality?

Or, are you referring to something else?

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by wig@Aug 22 2003, 03:28 PM
Your position is as devoid of reason and as out of touch with reality as the position taken by the radical environmentalists.

And what position is that, PD? That the majority of "enviromentalists" are wackos or misinformed? That position is devoid of reason and out of touch with reality?

Or, are you referring to something else?
I am compelled by an invisible hand to inform you that in this instance I am only referring to your assertion "[t]hat the majority of "enviromentalists" are wackos or misinformed?" as complete bunk and is in fact "devoid of reason and out of touch with reality".



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Aug 22 2003, 03:38 PM

[Mike AI]

I wish the ELFs would come to my house and mess with my property.

Basic math....

NRA > ELF

:D

[wig]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Aug 22 2003, 03:33 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Aug 22 2003, 03:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--wig@Aug 22 2003, 03:28 PM
Your position is as devoid of reason and as out of touch with reality as the position taken by the radical environmentalists.

And what position is that, PD? That the majority of "enviromentalists" are wackos or misinformed? That position is devoid of reason and out of touch with reality?

Or, are you referring to something else?
I am compelled by an invisible hand to inform you that in this instance I am only referring to your assertion "[t]hat the majority of "enviromentalists" are wackos or misinformed?" as complete bunk and "devoid of reason and out of touch with reality?"[/b][/quote]
Well, I disagree.

All I see in the "environmental activisim" arena is a bunch of wackos or sheep. Even some of the so called leaders have extreme views that lack reasoning.

The actual number of enviromentalists that have merit are few and far between.

Let's give it a try... Please name for me 10 activists that you think are intelligent, use common sense and have a factual base for their arguments.

And no, you don't count. :P

[Mike AI]

I hope those ELF people did not use spray paint!! Don't they know the propelants destroy the ozone layer!!!

[wig]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Aug 22 2003, 03:45 PM
I hope those ELF people did not use spray paint!! Don't they know the propelants destroy the ozone layer!!!
ROFLMAO... yeah, more food for the sheep!

[wig]

Okay PD.... times up. If you can't name 10 off the top of your head.... :zzz: and :bwave:

[PornoDoggy]

Nope. I cannot name 10 off the top of my head. There are far more than 10, however. And what would the point of me naming them be? For you to point out what dangereous socialist practices they advocate? If I were one of them, I could then ask you to name ten industrialists that you admire, and castigate them for the earth-destroying capitalist dogs they are.

The fact that I think there are intelligent people with common sense who build fatual arguements who are environmentalists doesn't mean I don't think there are not equally-equipped people arguing from the other side, either.

Unlike you, I don't think there is an absolute involved here. When it comes to questions of the environment, I don't have a pat answer. I am not an advocate of the insanity of stopping all commerce in the name of the environment, nor am I an advocate of allowing the market to regulate its own behavior in the naive hope it will do more good than harm. I listen to both sides and make a decision based on the individual situation under discussion. I honestly do think that both sides perform a necessary function in ensuring that there is balance between the views.

I repeat what I said before ... your position is different from that of ELF, PETA, et al, only in the fact that you think what they call black is in fact white. Equal in your color blindness, I guess.

And Mikey ... when the revolution comes you will be sent to a reindoctrination camp and given a Yugo upon release ... meanwhile, Commisar PornoDoggy's got his eye on your ... :D

[wig]

Nope. I cannot name 10 off the top of my head. There are far more than 10, however. And what would the point of me naming them be? For you to point out what dangereous socialist practices they advocate?

I didn't think so. And the point would be that even though you could name 100, there are far more than 100,000 wackos and sheep, which would make my math correct and NOT "devoid of reason".

If I were one of them, I could then ask you to name ten industrialists that you admire, and castigate them for the earth-destroying capitalist dogs they are.

But this thread is about eco-terroists, not industial earth-destroying capitalist dogs. We can start another thread about that if it makes you more comfortable.

Unlike you, I don't think there is an absolute involved here.

See, that's BS. I don't believe there is an absolute here. I am certain if the topic was Industrialists who pollute and I chastised their supporters as sheeps or wackos you would be perfectly fine with it.

When it comes to questions of the environment, I don't have a pat answer. I am not an advocate of the insanity of stopping all commerce in the name of the environment, nor am I an advocate of allowing the market to regulate its own behavior in the naive hope it will do more good than harm. I listen to both sides and make a decision based on the individual situation under discussion. I honestly do think that both sides perform a necessary function in ensuring that there is balance between the views.

Yeah, you say that but you sure got defensive when I question the common sense and reasoning of the "environmenttal activists".

PD, you may try to play moderate, but you are an old dog, with Democratic fleas.

[PornoDoggy]

Have you seen me singing the praises of, or even coming close to defending, the idiotic antics of the "ecoterrorists" in this thread? I reacted to the extremism of your language, just as I would have if a PETA freak stumbled into Oprano. For the record, I would be just as (but no more) comfortable talking about "industrial earth-destroying capitalist dogs" as I am in debating you about the intelligence of the average environmentalist. Whey you are dealing with a preposterous premise, the so-called ideology of it makes little difference.

In case you missed it behind your assumptions about what I believe, I HAVE NOTHING BUT CONTEMPT for the antics of these fools. As an old leftist with a little bit of knowledge and experience with nonviolent movements I have a certain amount of respect for civil disobedience, but vandalism is not civil disobedience by any stretch of the imagination.

You claim that the majority of environmentalists are either wackos or sheep. You are entailed to your opinion - and when it comes to the wacked out sheep of PETA, ELP, et al, I completely agree with you.

Where you and I part company is that you wish to paint all environmental organizations with the same brush - and that just doesn't wash, any more than the equally simple-minded conclusion that all corporations would be willing to create another Bhopal by their very nature. I suspect that your opinion comes from the your libertarian belief that the market will take care of things; where it comes from is not important. I hold almost all the "isms" in equal contempt.

As far as whether I am a moderate or not ... the most radical tree huggers I know would admit that the only possible way to keep Oprano from ultimately falling over flat on its right side is to sacrifice a couple of old-growth Sequoias. It's not hard to come across as a fire-breathing leftist where folks can talk with a straight face about liberals and other believers of foreign ideologies, or the socialist state of California.

[confucy]

Rox, when I first heard the local Fox news talking about the acts of mass destruction on the cars, I thought it was the competitors of those businesses. There was a time in the past when the competition was so fierce in Orange County, that false advertising was flying everywhere. I don't think the burning and the graffiti have anything to do with the environmental groups.

The Valley is the carjack capital of the U.S. If it isn't the Valley, it is Orange County dealerships fighting among themselves. Good old Southern California...never a dull moment! :nyanya:

[JR]

i guess if they did it with the intent of modifying and changing the behavior of others through intimidation, threats, destruction of property etc, then its terrorism.
:(

to them, its just a "cause" to make them feel good about themselves... and they are always led by older, predatory morons who prey on lost and wayward kids searching for the meaning of life, usually after getting kicked out of their parents house for smoking dope.

*yawn*

if i was there, i would have shot them to protect my cars.

[wig]

Have you seen me singing the praises of, or even coming close to defending, the idiotic antics of the "ecoterrorists" in this thread?

Other than the slip about "hiding behind a just cause", no. But, I don't see where I really made that an issue.

I reacted to the extremism of your language, just as I would have if a PETA freak stumbled into Oprano.

I guess this pretty much sums it up.

What you took isue with and labled as extrem language was my statement that 99% of environmentalists were either wackos or misguided sheep.

I asked you to name 10 that were not, you couldn't.

I then pointed out that for every 10 that you could name (if you could) there are 100k that are wackos of misinformed.

Now, please tell me why that is so devoid of reason that you feel compelled to label it as extreme language and compare it to the antics of the "radical environmentalists"?

In case you missed it behind your assumptions about what I believe, I HAVE NOTHING BUT CONTEMPT for the antics of these fools. As an old leftist with a little bit of knowledge and experience with nonviolent movements I have a certain amount of respect for civil disobedience, but vandalism is not civil disobedience by any stretch of the imagination.


Who would have guessed? LOL I never in this thread put "you" as an individual into the pot with these folks nor did I quetion your contempt for them. But, now I see why you are so defensive.

Where you and I part company is that you wish to paint all environmental organizations with the same brush - and that just doesn't wash, any more than the equally simple-minded conclusion that all corporations would be willing to create another Bhopal by their very nature.

You can jump to all the conclusions and make all the assumptions you want, but the math is still the same.

I suspect that your opinion comes from the your libertarian belief that the market will take care of things; where it comes from is not important. I hold almost all the "isms" in equal contempt.

You suspect?? More assumtions, huh. ;(( What correlation does this have with my comments, anyway?

As far as whether I am a moderate or not ... the most radical tree huggers I know would admit that the only possible way to keep Oprano from ultimately falling over flat on its right side is to sacrifice a couple of old-growth Sequoias. It's not hard to come across as a fire-breathing leftist where folks can talk with a straight face about liberals and other believers of foreign ideologies, or the socialist state of California.

I'm sure that every Opranite goes to bed with a little prayer thanking you for your sacrifice. :wnw:

[wig]

And to further my point in a way that even you can understand it, take religion....

99% of all religious people are either extremist wackos or misguided sheep.

There is less than 1% of them that actually understand what their God wanted them to do and do it.

Now, please jump in and tell me how I painted all these poor souls with the same brush, blah, blah, blah.

[PornoDoggy]

With exceptions for a very few groups, I regard anyone who makes a statement like "99% of all XXX are either extremist wackos or misguided sheep" as cut from the same cloth.

It doesn't matter if it's you attacking environmentalists, or a PETA member attacking carnivores.

I have the same disdain for the small-mindedness it reflects.

[Vick]

PETA - that's the group Ulfie and I belong to (and a few other Oprano regulars)
People Eating Tasty Animals

[PornoDoggy]

I'm a full blown member of that PETA, too ... as a matter of fact, I have the ribs of a very nice pig sitting in the 'fridge waiting to be sacrificed to Bubba, the Gawd of Weber-users & Kingsford consumers (99% of whom are extremists about "the only gas required for barbeque comes 4 hours later" AND only would grill a sheep if they run out of cow or pig).

[wig]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Aug 23 2003, 09:05 AM
With exceptions for a very few groups, I regard anyone who makes a statement like "99% of all XXX are either extremist wackos or misguided sheep" as cut from the same cloth.

It doesn't matter if it's you attacking environmentalists, or a PETA member attacking carnivores.

I have the same disdain for the small-mindedness it reflects.
Okay, so it's the number I used??? Well how about 95%. Is that more palatable to you? What number do you want to put on it?

Seems to me you have no real substantive argument.

But, what should one expect from a self described civil disobedient from the 60's / 70's? :wankit:

[JR]

Originally posted by Vick@Aug 23 2003, 07:55 AM
PETA - that's the group Ulfie and I belong to (and a few other Oprano regulars)
People Eating Tasty Animals



http://www.pleasurelabs.com/pics/eat_cat.gif

[PornoDoggy]

Seems to me you have no real substantive argument.

No real substantiate arguement ON WHAT? Clean air? Clean water? Kyoto? Global warming? Cleaner cars? Chemical use in agriculture? Sustainable resources? The balance between property owner rights and environmental safety?

You want to talk about an issue, I can deal with that. You're the one making the broad generalization here - I'm just stating that your argument is bunk, just like the arguements of the likes of ELF.

what should one expect from a self described civil disobedient from the 60's / 70's?

You left off "who has admitted reading Marx." :zzz:

[nathan]

You know, what you should really think about is this:

By burning those hummers, did those Eco-Freaks actually do something good?

1. we all know Hummers will stay and they will build more of them, so they must not have expected that they are going to stop now because of their actions.

2. knowing this, in what way did they help the environment?
- They burned a bunch of hummers, definatelly shittier pollution than what the hummers would have caused in probably something around a month or so since their fuel probably burned openly without filters and stuff, they themself burned, the colors burning and stuff cause all kinds of shit to get into the atmosphere and so on...
- There are a bunch of trucks and big machinery now that have to pick up the hummer wrecks, move them to some place, and totally demolish them.
- They have to rebuild the dealership, again lots of power needed for that
- And of course, they are going to have to build X MORE Hummers now to replace the ones destroyed. So basically the Energy spent to build the Hummers is totally lost.

Gotta think about this.. the "Eco-Terrorists" probably caused more Energy/Pollution than the Hummers would have ever made by themself...

[wig]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Aug 23 2003, 11:51 AM
Seems to me you have no real substantive argument.

No real substantiate arguement ON WHAT? Clean air? Clean water? Kyoto? Global warming? Cleaner cars? Chemical use in agriculture? Sustainable resources? The balance between property owner rights and environmental safety?

You want to talk about an issue, I can deal with that. You're the one making the broad generalization here - I'm just stating that your argument is bunk, just like the arguements of the likes of ELF.

what should one expect from a self described civil disobedient from the 60's / 70's?

You left off "who has admitted reading Marx." :zzz:
Look numbnuts... you took argument with my statement. After 20 meandering posts, we finally got to the point where you clarified that my broad brushing use of 99% was too extreme a number.

Since my ONLY point was that a LARGE majority of folks are wackos and sheep, I asked you to pick what number you think represents the sides (smart folks vs wackos and sheep. So far you have not priviledged us with your number.

Instead, you took it as a personal insult. Probably because you were one of these clueless knuckleheads in the 60's.

You never, nor did I, bring up Clean air, Clean water, Kyoto.... The debate you started was why I am devoid of reason because I used the number 99% to describe the masses.

Now you are crawfishin' and trying to enter in new topics of debate to camoflouge your loss.

Give it up. It's over.

[jimmyf]

Originally posted by DaveAFX@Aug 22 2003, 06:49 AM

Might work, especially in CA.
hell anything might work here. :blink:



Last edited by jimmyf at Aug 23 2003, 11:38 AM

[jimmyf]

Originally posted by wig+Aug 23 2003, 08:18 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (wig @ Aug 23 2003, 08:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--PornoDoggy@Aug 23 2003, 09:05 AM
With exceptions for a very few groups, I regard anyone who makes a statement like "99% of all XXX are either extremist wackos or misguided sheep" as cut from the same cloth.

It doesn't matter if it's you attacking environmentalists, or a PETA member attacking carnivores.

I have the same disdain for the small-mindedness it reflects.
Okay, so it's the number I used??? Well how about 95%. Is that more palatable to you? What number do you want to put on it?

Seems to me you have no real substantive argument.

But, what should one expect from a self described civil disobedient from the 60's / 70's? :wankit:[/b][/quote]
:headwall: :headwall:

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by wig@Aug 23 2003, 01:48 PM
Look numbnuts... you took argument with my statement. After 20 meandering posts, we finally got to the point where you clarified that my broad brushing use of 99% was too extreme a number.

Since my ONLY point was that a LARGE majority of folks are wackos and sheep, I asked you to pick what number you think represents the sides (smart folks vs wackos and sheep. So far you have not priviledged us with your number.

Instead, you took it as a personal insult. Probably because you were one of these clueless knuckleheads in the 60's.

You never, nor did I, bring up Clean air, Clean water, Kyoto.... The debate you started was why I am devoid of reason because I used the number 99% to describe the masses.

Now you are crawfishin' and trying to enter in new topics of debate to camoflouge your loss.

Give it up. It's over.
Ahhh ... so what you are saying is that 99% of ALL people are wackos and sheep, not just environmentalists, leftists in general, and clueless knuckleheads from the 60's. It really must be difficult putting up with all the fools, cretins, and lesser intellects someone of your vast intelligence and understanding is forced to deal with on a daily basis. :rolleyes:

Still don't buy it. I have opinions based on my understanding and interpretation of the facts. So do other people, including the folks that don't have the insight, intelligence, and mental capacities to see things in the one and only true (in other words, my) way. While I will admit that there are a number of wackos and extremists on EVERY side of any issue, I'm neither so full of myself nor unsure of my own beliefs that I need to refuse to recognize that others have the right to be wrong, er, disagree with me.

And BTW - I am neither clueless nor a knucklehead, and if the circumstances warrant I would engage in civil disobedience again. While I carried some signs and chanted some chants and learned to deal with the smell of teargas in the afternoons, it wasn't the war that I practiced non-violent civil disobedience over. I'm one of those knuckleheads who really does believe in the whole "all men are created equal" thing, and I make absolutely no apologizes for it.

So ... I hereby declare you the winner. It's by forfeit - you are quite right, I did refuse to come down to your level.

Numbnuts? I guess I was supposed to work "fucktard" into this someplace.

[wig]

Ahhh, so reading comprehension is possible with the pornodoggy.... :blink:

Of course you still don't buy it... you look around and see so many people just like yourself. :yowsa:

Next time pick your fights more carefully and you won't have to write all those long winded paragraphs for nothing. :D