Greenpeace

[Rapscallion]

Inspired by a comment here, I began wondering if this view was widespread.

Are Greenpeace a bunch of vandals playing victim when arrested by local authorities, or are they virtuously trying to prevent the destruction of the planet?

Rapscallion

[Salted Grump]

Reasonably-decent intentions (Preserve Life in the wild whenever possible, if not possible at least ensure good health and well-being for the wildlife), absolutely shit means.

Greenpeace isn't openly extremist, but tends to attract a Lot of nuts who think that good intentions are a great shield against things like starving to death, or no money in the slightest for heat in the dead of winter, or that cracking a seal in the head to kill it before skinning it is inhumane.

So, in my opinion at least; started with reasonably-decent intentions, got it all shit up into rampant stupid and criminal acts in the last 40-some years.

[HYHYBT]

They can't be both? Well, I suppose the first half would at least partially remove "virtuously" from the second...

[Andara Bledin]

A bit of column A and a chunk from column B.

They're self-styled virtuous defenders of the environment who often resort to criminal means to do so. And sometimes they're just dicks about it.

[Hyena Dandy]

Are Greenpeace a bunch of vandals playing victim when arrested by local authorities, or are they virtuously trying to prevent the destruction of the planet?

Why can't they be both? Virtuously trying to prevent the destruction of the planet, via vandalism and playing victim when they're arrested for breaking rules that actually make sense to have. Having a good cause doesn't preclude being an idiot.

[Greenday]

As their name implies, they want peace for nature. That peace clearly doesn't apply to other humans though.

[lordlundar]

Well, at least I know the thread is still being viewed.

Personally, I support their ideals. Preserve the planet for future generations. But their methods are questionable at the best of times and one step short of eco-terrorism at the worst. Blockading vital roadways for days to stop a single semi, the Russian ship fiasco (which is FAR too common of an activity), theft, vandalism on a large scale, etc...

It's a long list that spells out "the ends justify the means" when it's not nearly that effective.

[Rapscallion]

Well, at least I know the thread is still being viewed.

Heh, quite a bit of it is quotable, not always for the right reasons. I didn't want to derail it with a discussion of the stuff in here.

Rapscallion

[Gravekeeper]

I view Greenpeace as a sort of Diet Peta. Not quite total batshit yet, but definitely sliding that way. They had a noble goal and direction up until about the late 1980's. Now they're more like attention whoring zealots. -.-

[Salted Grump]

And hey, guess who quit Greenpeace in the 80's? Their Founder/ Voice of Common Sense.

[crashhelmet]

A bit of column A and a chunk from column B.

They're self-styled virtuous defenders of the environment who often resort to criminal means to do so. And sometimes they're just dicks about it.

I view Greenpeace as a sort of Diet Peta. Not quite total batshit yet, but definitely sliding that way. They had a noble goal and direction up until about the late 1980's. Now they're more like attention whoring zealots. -.-

This is exactly how I've seen them. Both organizations have been known to go from simple protestations or civil disobedience to outright acts of sabotage and terrorism.

They're not as bad as some groups, like the Earth Liberation Front, are but they do have their share of extremists within them.

[Aethian]

I admit to being a part of Greenpeace for a short time. The group I was with tho helped plant trees, do trash pick up, helped clean up from a couple old downed barns (lots of reclaimed wood that might have just been bonfires), and even helped stop the splitting if a farm for a condo park. The farm is happily today a lower population sheep farm that produces a very fine thread wool.

When we started getting vigilante members our group unanimously one day disbanded when it was suggested to barricade ourself to the gate of one of the auto maker shops.

[wolfie]

But their methods are questionable at the best of times and one step short of eco-terrorism at the worst. Blockading vital roadways for days to stop a single semi,

Considering the type of cargo a semi would have to be carrying for Greenpeace to want to block it (can't see them going to that much effort to stop me delivering a load of empty food containers), they're asking for SERIOUS trouble. I've read in the trade press about loads of that nature, where the instructions are "Don't stop for ANYTHING - bypass the weigh stations even if they're open". DOT sees a "runner", sends a state trooper to pull him over, and gets VERY curious about the cargo the driver refuses to disclose. State trooper opens the trailer - and within minutes is on the wrong end of multiple automatic weapons. It seems the Army can be rather possessive of their property when it's in transit.

Trucker contracted for that load has a "moose bumper" (i.e. truck won't be damaged if it hits something the size of a deer)? If he's got a redneck attitude to start with (fairly common in the industry), he might take those orders literally, assume the people blocking the road are trying to hijack the cargo, and keep going. "In the left corner, weighing in at 180 pounds, Tommy Treehugger. In the right corner, weighing in at 80,000 pounds, Billy Bigrig and his 379 Peterbilt."