Greenpeace....

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Madman

Growns ups needs a grammars lessons.

people without a valid point need to move along now as you add zilch to the topic

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Brilliant observation. What a bunch of hypocrites!

Rerun and enthused sitting in tree..K-I-S-S-I-N-G. First comes love, then comes marriage then comes Rerun in the baby carriage!

[zuluking]

These GP guys are like a Jackass movie except they put up a nonsensical eco-quote at the end of their stunts. In fact, Jackass is better than Greenpeace because they don't endanger anyone other than themselves. Finally someone out there that can truly aspire to be as ethical as Jackass. I sure hope that's the big media impression they're trying to make.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Rerun and enthused sitting in tree..K-I-S-S-I-N-G. First comes love, then comes marriage then comes Rerun in the baby carriage!

Standing up for your girlfriend little boy?

[Rubicant]

Originally Posted by valo403

You have to place protests into context as well, a number of those protests you referenced occurred in periods where the ability/right to protest in a legal and peaceful manner simply didn't exist. In modern day Canada that's simply not the case. There are ample channels to effectively spread a message without resort to actions that pose a safety risk to others.

One of the smartest things posted in this thread.

I have no problem with people protesting or voicing their opinion. I also have no problem with people breaking the law to get their point across (as long as nobody else's safety is threatened) either. They break the law and deal with whatever the consequences are. Sometimes to get people talking, it has to be a bit of a spectacle and perhaps throw off people's daily routine - otherwise you just ignore it.

That said, for me personally, organizations like PETA and Greenpeace really miss the mark with their message. I want to agree with most of what they say, but they come across as idealistic hippies without any actual solutions to the problems at hand.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Rubicant

One of the smartest things posted in this thread.

I have no problem with people protesting or voicing their opinion. I also have no problem with people breaking the law to get their point across (as long as nobody else's safety is threatened) either. They break the law and deal with whatever the consequences are. Sometimes to get people talking, it has to be a bit of a spectacle and perhaps throw off people's daily routine - otherwise you just ignore it.

That said, for me personally, organizations like PETA and Greenpeace really miss the mark with their message. I want to agree with most of what they say, but they come across as idealistic hippies without any actual solutions to the problems at hand.

I do agree with that previous post too.

I do think that Greenpeace run outside the normal boundries of protest and probably hurt the their organization more than they help.
But i dont think they hurt the message that they are trying to get out, as I think that people hating Greenpeace is less damaging to the cause than the mass coverage that the message reaches.

In this case I have no idea what the message was though. If the media goes with the story and discusses the message for many to hear and see perhaps then it would be worthwhile to their cause.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Standing up for your girlfriend little boy?

Now, now, enthused may be a twerp but I'm sure she has better taste in men than GTF.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

I do agree with that previous post too.

I do think that Greenpeace run outside the normal boundries of protest and probably hurt the their organization more than they help.
But i dont think they hurt the message that they are trying to get out, as I think that people hating Greenpeace is less damaging to the cause than the mass coverage that the message reaches.

In this case I have no idea what the message was though. If the media goes with the story and discusses the message for many to hear and see perhaps then it would be worthwhile to their cause.

Well said.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

Now, now, enthused may be a twerp but I'm sure she has better taste in men than GTF.

Smite!

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Smite!

This has no affect on me. I'm a karma chameleon.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

In this case I have no idea what the message was though.

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Well said.

I agree!

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

That is your opinion and that was the point I am trying to make that a protest is like art.

The road I am going down is that many on here speak of these protesters with vile but may support another so as per my original message I feel that most hate the messanger because they hate the message.

Sometimes art is illegal and it is deemed as "wasteful attention whoring" and sometimes people see it as art, it is in the eye of the beholder.

You may hate one illegal protest and love another.

You are absolutely right that most here hate the message. In this case, the messager and the message are one and the same, and that is the point that you are missing entierly - and missing quite deliberately I would argue.

The message today was that d-bag hippy attention whores went out looking for attention and got it. Indeed, most everyone here believes that, and so too did most everyone who called into QR77.

The problem with shock protests is that they generally have only one result: the general populace loses respect for the protestor. Nobody respects the assclowns who tried to force pictures of aborted fetuses into the face of anyone who happened to have a class at the U of C, and I would argue that a protest such as that would have the opposite intended effect.

OTOH, I once went for a walk up MacLeod Trail, and encountered about a thousand people also protesting a pro-life campaign. They were arrayed up Macleod from at least Chinook Centre to near Southcentre. They held signs and cheered cars that honked, but they didn't interfere with or try to shock anyone. I pretty much walked through the entire thing, and all I got was a single person saying "God bless you". No insults, no threats, no showboating, no interfering with people's lives. I disagreed with their message, but I had a great deal of respect for the way they carried themselves. More importantly, I remember it as a pro-life protest. I remember the U of C clowns as nothing more than a-holes.

If you want people to respect your cause, you need to be respected as an individual or organization. PETA and the SPCA/Calgary Humane Society obstensively have similar goals. PETA will never earn a single penny from me, but I will, and have, donated to the Humane Society. Good organizations exist to promote their cause. Bad organizations use a cause to promote themselves.

[pepper24]

Greenpeace are now against skyscrapers? When will it end!

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Standing up for your girlfriend little boy?

Not at all. I am pointing out how you're attempting to make her your girlfriend after you saw what she looks like.

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Why should you expect less from Greenpeace? Because they've done it countless times before and will do it countless times again.

Good enough for you, basketball star? (you might like that one better).

What?? So, if we can follow your logic, because Greenpeace has broken the law multiple times in the past we should now simply expect that they will break the law, and then give them a pass when they do?

You're on a role Ozy! Started off with a somewhat reasonable position and now have been reduced to talking in circles, making ludicrous claims and calling people obscure names that, I guess, make you feel better about your position? Well done. Why don't you head off now, clearly any point you may have had has been made and you have nothing left to offer us. Good luck with the Greenpeace thing, hope you don't get arrested.

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

For some that can't wrap their head around my point I will really dumb it down.

Many on here have acted with vile towards the protesters but I only wished for them to think equally at all illegal protests and wether they are mad at the act or hated them as they didn't agree with the message.

I see your point but frankly, I don't think the comparison's you're drawing are totally valid. First of all, in this case there was legitimate chance for innocent people to be hurt (either in the accessing of the roof or simply due to the fact that a large number of inner citys first responders were wasting their time on this stunt) and I will not support any cause that resorts to dangerous protest. Second of all, in this day in age of modern technology, the internet, twitter, facebook etc etc there is no need to resort to shock tactics in order to get the populations attention. Back in the 50's and 60's (and 70's and 80's and really most of the 90's) an independent cause or movement almost had to resort to these sort of tactics in order to make the paper/local news and have people take notice. But, I am sorry, in 2010 there is no reason for a group as well known (locally and globally) as this to have to resort to illegal and dangerous protests to get a point across.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You are absolutely right that most here hate the message. In this case, the messager and the message are one and the same, and that is the point that you are missing entierly - and missing quite deliberately I would argue.

The message today was that d-bag hippy attention whores went out looking for attention and got it. Indeed, most everyone here believes that, and so too did most everyone who called into QR77.

The problem with shock protests is that they generally have only one result: the general populace loses respect for the protestor. Nobody respects the assclowns who tried to force pictures of aborted fetuses into the face of anyone who happened to have a class at the U of C, and I would argue that a protest such as that would have the opposite intended effect.

OTOH, I once went for a walk up MacLeod Trail, and encountered about a thousand people also protesting a pro-life campaign. They were arrayed up Macleod from at least Chinook Centre to near Southcentre. They held signs and cheered cars that honked, but they didn't interfere with or try to shock anyone. I pretty much walked through the entire thing, and all I got was a single person saying "God bless you". No insults, no threats, no showboating, no interfering with people's lives. I disagreed with their message, but I had a great deal of respect for the way they carried themselves. More importantly, I remember it as a pro-life protest. I remember the U of C clowns as nothing more than a-holes.

If you want people to respect your cause, you need to be respected as an individual or organization. PETA and the SPCA/Calgary Humane Society obstensively have similar goals. PETA will never earn a single penny from me, but I will, and have, donated to the Humane Society. Good organizations exist to promote their cause. Bad organizations use a cause to promote themselves.

That was not my point it was my question and it looked like you missed it.and I would have to guess deliberatly too.
My question was did the message lose its mark by the distribution of that message.
It appears you answered with your opinion, bravo. I also stated the impact remains to be seen as the news cycle works it.
Greenpeace has created a brand that brings awareness wether we like it or not. It appears you do not agree but we are now on page 9. I do not agree that the messenger and message is the same here but that is your opinion.

I would guess that your awareness of the Human Society would be less if it was not for PETA and Greenpeace. Sometimes you just have to shout to be heard.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by kipperfan

I see your point but frankly, I don't think the comparison's you're drawing are totally valid. First of all, in this case there was legitimate chance for innocent people to be hurt (either in the accessing of the roof or simply due to the fact that a large number of inner citys first responders were wasting their time on this stunt) and I will not support any cause that resorts to dangerous protest. Second of all, in this day in age of modern technology, the internet, twitter, facebook etc etc there is no need to resort to shock tactics in order to get the populations attention. Back in the 50's and 60's (and 70's and 80's and really most of the 90's) an independent cause or movement almost had to resort to these sort of tactics in order to make the paper/local news and have people take notice. But, I am sorry, in 2010 there is no reason for a group as well known (locally and globally) as this to have to resort to illegal and dangerous protests to get a point across.

I would think in an increased media market it is exactly why they would do this even more. You need to stand out and that was their goal. This isn't just for the Calgary market it is to get attention worldwide and they went into the lions den to do it. I wouldnt be suprised to see this on the BBC.
Don't mistake my discussion for support for their actions just a discussion of do their actions justify their attempt for coverage (in Greenpeace's opinion).
The cost of coverage versus $ and opportunity cost is not a is a clear cut answer.

[Devils'Advocate]

As Saul Alinsky said, those that opposed his goals would be extremely happy if his group had nice quiet protests that nobody saw or paid attention to.

"It's when I'm enraging the people that oppose my goals that I know that I'm winning". Based on this thread there have been a smattering of people wanting movement to curb global warming that didn't like this protests. But largely this thread has been dominated by the deniers from the other global warming threads getting their shots in. I don't think Greenpeace was looking for kudos from the adamant deniers.

[Resolute 14]

The hilarious part of this argument is that you are whining about global warming when the protest had almost nothing to do with that. Christ, even the bleeding heart hippies that buy into Greenpeace's nonsense have no clue what their supposed message was.