Enviornmentalist hero or angry lone nut?

Enviornmentalist hero or angry lone nut?

Debates

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.

q

Joined
05 Sep 08
Moves
66636
02 Sep 10

Originally posted by rwingett
He has some good points. some not so good. Of course he could have expressed himself better, but the fact that more people aren't as angry as Mr. Lee causes me more concern than he does.
Would you use the same reasoning to defend Osama Bin Laden? He had concerns that he felt were being ignored and he did something about it. I'd hope you criticism of Bin Laden is more scathing than "he could have expressed himself better"

Civis Americanus Sum

New York

Joined
26 Dec 07
Moves
17585
02 Sep 10

Originally posted by rwingett
He has some good points. some not so good. Of course he could have expressed himself better, but the fact that more people aren't as angry as Mr. Lee causes me more concern than he does.
It's kind of pointless to be "angry" at population growth. Reducing population growth is probably advisable in the long run, but to blame the Discovery Channel or any form of western media or western society in general is absurd. In western countries, especially Europe, but to a lesser extent the US as well, population growth is already either very low or negative. If you really want to do something about stopping population growth, you need to be taking hostages and threatening to blow stuff up in Africa and western Asia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate

P

weedhopper

Joined
25 Jul 07
Moves
8096
02 Sep 10

Originally posted by sh76
or both?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/09/01/maryland.discovery.suspect/?hpt=Sbin

[i] The man who held at least three hostages in a nearly four-hour standoff Wednesday at the Discovery Channel headquarters in Silver Spring, Maryland, is an environmental protester who has posted online rants against the network in the past, a senior law enforcement source ...[text shortened]... e have a good point, if perhaps a poor manner of expressing himself?
He was a (bleep)ing psychopath and he endangered the lives of many other innocent people. He had no right, no point, and now, fortunately, no more ability to harm others again.

K

Germany

Joined
27 Oct 08
Moves
3118
02 Sep 10

Originally posted by utherpendragon
"Zero population growth should be a top priority the world over." rwingett

And how should mankind go about accomplishing this?
Getting rich seems to do the trick.

Ming the Merciless

Royal Oak, MI

Joined
09 Sep 01
Moves
27626
02 Sep 10

Originally posted by sh76
It's kind of pointless to be "angry" at population growth. Reducing population growth is probably advisable in the long run, but to blame the Discovery Channel or any form of western media or western society in general is absurd. In western countries, especially Europe, but to a lesser extent the US as well, population growth is already either very low or negat ...[text shortened]... and western Asia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate
He had some good points mixed into his tirade, just like I said. Population growth is a legitimate concern. He may not necessarily have directed his anger at the right targets, or expressed his concerns well, but it is a potentially catastrophic problem. Taking hostages, though, isn't going to slow anybody's birth rate anywhere.

Ming the Merciless

Royal Oak, MI

Joined
09 Sep 01
Moves
27626
02 Sep 10

Originally posted by quackquack
Would you use the same reasoning to defend Osama Bin Laden? He had concerns that he felt were being ignored and he did something about it. I'd hope you criticism of Bin Laden is more scathing than "he could have expressed himself better"
Osama bin Laden has some legitimate gripes as well. Killing people, however, is an unacceptable method for furthering ones agenda. Unless, of course, you happen to be the commander-in-chief of a nation's armed forces, in which case ordering the death of thousands scarcely causes one to bat an eyelash.

Ming the Merciless

Royal Oak, MI

Joined
09 Sep 01
Moves
27626
02 Sep 10

Originally posted by utherpendragon
"Zero population growth should be a top priority the world over." rwingett

And how should mankind go about accomplishing this?
Beats me.

M

Joined
08 Oct 08
Moves
5542
02 Sep 10

Originally posted by sh76
It's kind of pointless to be "angry" at population growth. Reducing population growth is probably advisable in the long run, but to blame the Discovery Channel or any form of western media or western society in general is absurd. In western countries, especially Europe, but to a lesser extent the US as well, population growth is already either very low or negat ...[text shortened]... and western Asia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate
so maybe that should have been his message -- those countries where the people generally don't have access to the Discovery Channel are the ones producing all the overpopulation -- simple solution: UN ensures that there is universal global access to the Discovery Channel.

q

Joined
05 Sep 08
Moves
66636
02 Sep 10

Originally posted by rwingett
Osama bin Laden has some legitimate gripes as well. Killing people, however, is an unacceptable method for furthering ones agenda. Unless, of course, you happen to be the commander-in-chief of a nation's armed forces, in which case ordering the death of thousands scarcely causes one to bat an eyelash.
There is something seriously wrong with your "means justify the ends" glossing over of kidnap or killing. There are many legitimate processes to advocate causes. Regardless of how important one may think there issue is, it is difficult to think that there is any justification in killing or kidnapping third parties who merely want to go to work. Your glorification of terrorists act is shocking.

Ming the Merciless

Royal Oak, MI

Joined
09 Sep 01
Moves
27626
02 Sep 10

Originally posted by quackquack
There is something seriously wrong with your "means justify the ends" glossing over of kidnap or killing. There are many legitimate processes to advocate causes. Regardless of how important one may think there issue is, it is difficult to think that there is any justification in killing or kidnapping third parties who merely want to go to work. Your glorification of terrorists act is shocking.
You obviously don't have the slightest idea what I'm talking about. Do you even bother to read my posts? Nowhere did I legitimize the killing or kidnapping of anyone. What I said was that Lee had some legitimate points in his argument. I stand by that statement.

SR

Joined
18 May 09
Moves
3183
03 Sep 10

Originally posted by utherpendragon
"Zero population growth should be a top priority the world over." rwingett

And how should mankind go about accomplishing this?
How about ceasing to subsidize further breeding in Africa and other 3rd world countries by cutting 'aid'?

SR

Joined
18 May 09
Moves
3183
03 Sep 10

Originally posted by utherpendragon
"Zero population growth should be a top priority the world over." rwingett

And how should mankind go about accomplishing this?
How about ceasing to subsidize further breeding in Africa and other 3rd world countries by cutting 'aid'?

F

Joined
28 Oct 05
Moves
34587
03 Sep 10

Originally posted by Sartor Resartus
How about ceasing to subsidize further breeding in Africa and other 3rd world countries by cutting 'aid'?
Fertility rates in Africa fall where there is development aid.

Hy-Brasil

Joined
24 Feb 09
Moves
175970
03 Sep 10
1 edit

Originally posted by Sartor Resartus
How about ceasing to subsidize further breeding in Africa and other 3rd world countries by cutting 'aid'?
You're asking the wrong poster.

rwingett seems to be for that, not me.

Unless, you're just stating this as your stance?

F

Joined
28 Oct 05
Moves
34587
03 Sep 10

Little sliver of semi-racist nonsense from Sartor Resartus and utherpendragon's ears prick up.