Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > Chatter > Hall of Fame


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 09-16-2007, 10:01 AM   #201 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
but a corporation is not a person, ustwo.
the analogy is worthless.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 10:05 AM   #202 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Not completely worthless. Destruction or theft of corporate property (or the disruption of revenues) is not a victimless crime. It could lead to job loss, reduction in wages, and the destabilization of retirement portfolios. (Pardon the indulgence of the last item.)
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 10:17 AM   #203 (permalink)
has all her shots.
 
mixedmedia's Avatar
 
Location: Florida
Granted, there may be a literal distinction between 'peaceful' and 'non-violent' but I don't really see the relevance of the question as it pertains to protest.

The terms and ideas that people like Thoreau, Gandhi and King used and prescribed were the terms non-violent resistance and civil disobedience. And both of them, literally, often involve the breaking of laws and the disruption of the daily processes of power-holding entities - in a way that does not require physical force.

So someone explain to me, if you support the rights of people to protest against powerful systems and entities, how this protest falls outside of the realm of what's expected during a protest without resorting to your opinion on the views of the organization involved or Lucifer's inconvenience. Both of which should be completely irrelevant to you being that your true objection is to the breaking of laws and the disruption of trade.

Can anyone do that for me?
__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce
mixedmedia is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 10:35 AM   #204 (permalink)
spudly
 
ubertuber's Avatar
 
Location: Ellay
Quote:
Originally Posted by mixedmedia
So someone explain to me, if you support the rights of people to protest against powerful systems and entities, how this protest falls outside of the realm of what's expected during a protest without resorting to your opinion on the views of the organization involved or Lucifer's inconvenience. Both of which should be completely irrelevant to you being that your true objection is to the breaking of laws and the disruption of trade.

Can anyone do that for me?
Maybe this is the crux of it - I don't support anyone's right to break the law simply because they think of their action as protest.

On the other hand, I support people's right to choose the consequences of their actions - if breaking the law and getting attention accomplishes a greater good, power to them. I guess I just don't see the blanket term "protest" as being a very convincing justification for breaking the law and trespassing on the rights/property of others. These things have to be weighed individually. Not only that, but the entire point of it is that we, as individuals, have to come to terms with which side occupies the moral highground in each case. Protest is a way of forcing the evaluation.

As far as this specific action and the wording floating around the thread, Greenpeace's action was legitimate, illegal, and, in my opinion non-violent but not peaceful. They intended to do economic harm to Lucifer's company. Having the intent to do harm is pretty much the antithesis of peaceful. It's also the accepted and accustomed mode of protest. However peaceful and non-violent are two different terms that, used accurately, denote different things. I'm just trying to be deliberate and precise in my use of terminology.
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam
ubertuber is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 10:44 AM   #205 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
I agree with you, ubertuber. And I would add that I would support the breaking of laws if the protest itself serves to draw attention to greater injustices. I think this is what Greenpeace is aiming to do here. The damages of what they are protesting are viewed as outweighing the damages of what they are doing to protest it. I would be fine with this if the protest actually achieves something. If it is ineffective, they will need to change tactics. I don't know what they do to measure their success, nor do I know if it can even be measured, but this is the only way I could support what they're doing--assuming that I support the idea of moving way from coal and nuclear and towards sustainable and renewable sources.

I guess it all depends on this question: Does Greenpeace effect change?
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 11:08 AM   #206 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Commandeering another mans property against their will is never peaceful, ever.
This statement doesn't change what I said above. It's just another opinion of what constitutes "peaceful". Again (and again, and again), when they say peaceful, they mean non-violent. Non one was hurt, and it's clear their intent was to avoid any physical injury of the crew, therefore they stuck to their definition of peaceful just fine.

I like the use of "commandeering" and "another [man's] property. It was very dramatic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
The fact that Greenpeace is now controlled by radical nut balls who don't even understand the causes they are 'fighting' for only makes it more absurd.
It's not like burning coal has any negative effects.
I don't particularly care if you believe in the reality of global warming or not, but to pretend like burning coal has no negative effects is quite disconnected from reality. Unless you meant something else, in which case please elaborate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Shame that the shipping company was so worried about potential bad PR that they let these hoodlums disrupt shipping. I think they overestimate how much people really give a rats ass what Greenpeace does these days. This sort of childish behavior should not be tolerated and they needed a spanking.
Looks like GP was the ones doing the spanking. Just sayin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
but a corporation is not a person, ustwo.
the analogy is worthless.
Agreed.

If I were given the opportunity to honestly bring about real positive change that involved me peacefully breaking a law that didn't hurt anyone, I'd do it without a moment's hesitation. If laws get in the way of justice, they are meaningless words.
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 12:40 PM   #207 (permalink)
Sir, I have a plan...
 
debaser's Avatar
 
Location: 38S NC20943324
Look, the obvious solution is to chain yourself into the passengers seat of the GP members cars after painting them with slogans like "burn more coal", and "fission this, bitches!".

I mean, it's the same thing, right?
__________________

Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.
debaser is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 01:20 PM   #208 (permalink)
Husband of Seamaiden
 
Lucifer's Avatar
 
Location: Nova Scotia
rofl
__________________
I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls.
- Job 30:29

1123, 6536, 5321
Lucifer is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 01:40 PM   #209 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by debaser
Look, the obvious solution is to chain yourself into the passengers seat of the GP members cars after painting them with slogans like "burn more coal", and "fission this, bitches!".

I mean, it's the same thing, right?
Honestly? You're absolutely right. And I'd defend you to them so far as your right to protest just as vigorously. I'd again remind people that there are laws out there and that breaking them has obvious repercussions, but really, the right to free speech is viscerally rooted in the ability to stand up for yourself without fear of those in power saying, "No, you can't say that." You can say that.
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 05:59 PM   #210 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Honestly? You're absolutely right. And I'd defend you to them so far as your right to protest just as vigorously. I'd again remind people that there are laws out there and that breaking them has obvious repercussions, but really, the right to free speech is viscerally rooted in the ability to stand up for yourself without fear of those in power saying, "No, you can't say that." You can say that.
Whats the repercussion for piracy again?

BTW: Remember people Sep 19th is talk like a pirate day!

Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
but a corporation is not a person, ustwo.
the analogy is worthless.
Most small business are corporations, at least any one that isn't run by an idiot.

Mine is for one thing.

So I guess its ok to screw with someones hotdog stand because 'its not a person'.

Really you should leave business discussions to the people who have them instead of the people who hate them.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Last edited by Ustwo; 09-16-2007 at 06:01 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Ustwo is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 07:29 PM   #211 (permalink)
Deja Moo
 
Elphaba's Avatar
 
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
Ustwo, perhaps you could start another thread regarding idiot business owners and those that hate them.
__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007
Elphaba is offline  
Old 09-17-2007, 02:30 AM   #212 (permalink)
has all her shots.
 
mixedmedia's Avatar
 
Location: Florida
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Really you should leave business discussions to the people who have them instead of the people who hate them.
Following the logic of this statement, since you are neither a member of Greenpeace nor any other left-leaning protest outfit and you do in fact seem to 'hate' them - wouldn't that mean that you should be precluded from the discussion on this thread? Doubly-like?

And we all know that we aren't talking about a hot dog stand here. This has been a real problem with this thread from the first response. Disingenuousness.

We all know that global warming is a huge issue in the world today. Much bigger than whaling ever was. And I dare to purport that if the same exact event were to have happened in China or India, the discussion about it would have taken a much different route amongst most of the posters here.
__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce
mixedmedia is offline  
Old 09-17-2007, 07:33 AM   #213 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Really you should leave business discussions to the people who have them instead of the people who hate them.
I'm both. Booyah.
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-17-2007, 07:35 AM   #214 (permalink)
Lover - Protector - Teacher
 
Jinn's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Wouldn't that make you a hypocrite for working for the coal industry? I mean if I, an avid anti-war type, were to work for Haliburton or be active in the military... well that would send out a rather mixed signal. I intend no offense, of course, but you have to see how being an environmentalist that ships coal is a bit odd.
How did everyone miss this? Or was it just ignored?

There is nothing hypocritical about acknowledging a problem, supporting solution(s) to that problem AND YET still recognizing that it's a necessary evil for the time being.

I'd be careful with that hypocrite word, lest it be reflected upon yourself.
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel
Jinn is offline  
Old 09-17-2007, 08:24 AM   #215 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JinnKai
How did everyone miss this? Or was it just ignored?

There is nothing hypocritical about acknowledging a problem, supporting solution(s) to that problem AND YET still recognizing that it's a necessary evil for the time being.
When your actions contradict your beliefs, you're a hypocrite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JinnKai
I'd be careful with that hypocrite word, lest it be reflected upon yourself.
If I'm being hypocritical about something, I expect people will come out and say something instead of alluding to a hypothetical hypocrisy. Have I done anything hypocritical? Or was that just huffing and puffing?
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-17-2007, 09:58 AM   #216 (permalink)
Winter is Coming
 
Frosstbyte's Avatar
 
Location: The North
Quote:
Originally Posted by mixedmedia
We all know that global warming is a huge issue in the world today. Much bigger than whaling ever was. And I dare to purport that if the same exact event were to have happened in China or India, the discussion about it would have taken a much different route amongst most of the posters here.

Is this to say that we're all very biased towards the US/Canada and are only upset because we think that we're better than China and India and hate how much they pollute compared to how much we pollute and we'd be happy to see their rights invaded by protesters? I don't think that's really true amongst those of us who feel like these protesters went overboard in this protest action.
Frosstbyte is offline  
Old 09-17-2007, 10:14 AM   #217 (permalink)
has all her shots.
 
mixedmedia's Avatar
 
Location: Florida
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosstbyte
Is this to say that we're all very biased towards the US/Canada and are only upset because we think that we're better than China and India and hate how much they pollute compared to how much we pollute and we'd be happy to see their rights invaded by protesters? I don't think that's really true amongst those of us who feel like these protesters went overboard in this protest action.
No, I think just the opposite. I think US/Canadian organizations such as Greenpeace are shown more bias than a similar organization might in a country such as China or India. Nice try, though.
__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce
mixedmedia is offline  
Old 09-17-2007, 10:19 AM   #218 (permalink)
Winter is Coming
 
Frosstbyte's Avatar
 
Location: The North
Nice try to what? Understand what you were saying? You made an ambiguous comment which I wanted to clarify.
Frosstbyte is offline  
Old 09-17-2007, 11:11 AM   #219 (permalink)
has all her shots.
 
mixedmedia's Avatar
 
Location: Florida
Sorry, I didn't think it was that ambiguous. I didn't realize someone's first reaction to it would be that I was saying they thought they were better than people in China or India. But, eh...the internet.
__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce
mixedmedia is offline  
Old 09-24-2007, 05:12 AM   #220 (permalink)
Upright
 
Location: Iceland
Why don't people start protesting the protesters? I would like to see the Average-Joe chain himself to the Rainbow Warrior, tag it, interfere with it's routes, obstruct the possibility of the ship to move in any way - and all just before they've planned to protest something valuable, according to their own beliefs.

I for instance don't understand why protesters can't see how their actions are failing dramatically. They are sharing a vision and try to bring their message through protesting measures - all thinking about their own selfish agendas, yes - it's selfish.

How can it not be considered selfish when people are joining hand in creating a utopia for themselves, ignoring the fact that there are just as many, or more, people sharing the opposite view on matters? Why do they think that bringing a point through actions who consistently make other people's lives more difficult, fine? Where is the justification on the matter when it's so obvious that the majority of their actions are there for their personal gains, you know - like the thing they are protesting are for other's personal gains?

I support some of their agendas, some I do not, and most of their actions are just lame attempts on bringing up discussions which always tend to turn into just like what this thread is already.

Excuse the English, 'tis my secondary language.
Molested is offline  
Old 09-24-2007, 02:52 PM   #221 (permalink)
Upright
 
As has been alluded to previously, the label placed on any political or social action depends on where the labeler lies in the context of the action. From one vantage point, a protester looks like an activist, striving to bring about a better something. From another vantage point, the protester is a terrorist.

Which vantage point is correct? Likely both, and neither. Friends, issues are rarely black-and-white. Each party involved views it from their own personal context and works within their context with the tools they have. Everyone has an agenda, fewer people realize it and even fewer are truthful enough to admit it.

Molested, I would defend your ability to 'protest the protesters'. Protest is a form of discussion, and discussion is what keeps a civilization working in the direction of being 'civil'. It is when the protests stop happening that a society should worry.
larsthegeek is offline  
Old 09-24-2007, 02:54 PM   #222 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molested
Why don't people start protesting the protesters? I would like to see the Average-Joe chain himself to the Rainbow Warrior, tag it, interfere with it's routes, obstruct the possibility of the ship to move in any way - and all just before they've planned to protest something valuable, according to their own beliefs.

I for instance don't understand why protesters can't see how their actions are failing dramatically. They are sharing a vision and try to bring their message through protesting measures - all thinking about their own selfish agendas, yes - it's selfish.

How can it not be considered selfish when people are joining hand in creating a utopia for themselves, ignoring the fact that there are just as many, or more, people sharing the opposite view on matters? Why do they think that bringing a point through actions who consistently make other people's lives more difficult, fine? Where is the justification on the matter when it's so obvious that the majority of their actions are there for their personal gains, you know - like the thing they are protesting are for other's personal gains?

I support some of their agendas, some I do not, and most of their actions are just lame attempts on bringing up discussions which always tend to turn into just like what this thread is already.
Honestly? Turnabout is fair play, even as far as this protester is concerned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molested
Excuse the English, 'tis my secondary language.
You know what molested means, right? Just checking...
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-25-2007, 06:33 AM   #223 (permalink)
Upright
 
Location: Iceland
Quote:
You know what molested means, right? Just checking...
I know exactly what it means. Are you clouding your definition of the term because of the most prominent, and negative, one?

Either way, I'm just checking. ^^
Molested is offline  
Old 09-25-2007, 08:07 AM   #224 (permalink)
MSD
The sky calls to us ...
 
MSD's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: CT
Got to run to school now
note to self: continue at the top of the third page (post 201)
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
This thread is showing me that a lot of people out there don't understand protesters at all, and it's really frustrating. I'm 100% serious.
I understand them; I've been one. I understand that taking drastic action is sometimes justifiable, and I also understand that taking drastic action can result in harm or death to the actor. Piracy in sovereign waters is one of those actions that can result in serious harm, and those engaging in piracy as a form of protest ought to expect that the target of such action is legally permitted to use lethal force against the perpetrators.
Quote:
The difference, of course, is that the Catholic Church, Muslims, and Congress never have suggested, as whole organizations, that they are non-violent, and also they have a history of being responsible for and directly connected to violence. Neither of those is true for GreenPeace.
Announcing that you are a member of Greenpeace does not mean that you are a member. A group intent on destroying or stealing cargo can easily announce that they are with Greenpeace, then board the ship and act in a way highly inconsistent with Greenpeace's philosophy after putting the crew at ease. Boarding a ship is an act of piracy regardless of intent. If I were on board a ship that was subjected to an act of piracy after intent to peacefully protest was announced, I would assume a worst case scenario was occurring and respond accordingly.

Quote:
It's based on precedence. GreenPeace has never been violent. Ever. In over 30 years and hundreds or possibly thousands of actions, not once has a GreenPeace member become violent. They've had violence done against them, of course. So, by precedence, the tanker crew is actually more likely to become violent than the protesters.

Sure, it's not completely impossible for a member of GreenPeace to become violent, but is so unlikely based on reality that planning for or expecting it is unreasonable. A Buddhist monk could become violent, too, but are you going to wear body armor into a monastery? Shit no. Why? It's completely unreasonable.
The tanker crew is more likely to become violent if we see with 20/20 hindsight that it was, in fact, Greenpeace taking action. It is not safe to assume that a group that claims to be Greenpeace commits an act of piracy in violation of international law is going to be completely nonviolent after boarding the ship just because they said so.

The second part is a flawed analogy. Greenpeace clothing is not available exclusively to members. There is no way to stop a terrorist group from joining Greenpeace, loading up on Greenpeace merchandise, disguising themselves as peaceful protesters, and carrying out a terrorist attack, just like insurgents in Iraq who steal Iraqi police uniforms or join the Iraqi police with the intent of carrying out attacks in disguise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mixedmedia
I am referring to anyone on this thread who advocates for the position that these people should have been shot. And those who believe that any protest that interferes with 'trade' is not legitimate.
Boarding a ship in sovereign waters is piracy, even if the group claims to be a peaceful one. Boarding a ship with materials that can be used as weapons is threatening. I do not consider piracy a means of peaceful protest and don't understand how anyone could defend it as such unless they are allowing their preconceived notions of Greenpeace to cloud their judgment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mixedmedia
Everybody go back and look at the pictures of these and imagine shooting them...here I'll make it easy for you, which ones would you shoot first, these guys?
or maybe her?
Sounds like a bunch of big fucking talk to me.
Whichever of them came over the rail first, plus any that were stupid enough to try after the first. If they got on board and stopped immediately when I pointed a gun at them, I would demand that they drop anything that could be used as a weapon, and detain them until they could be turned over to the proper authorities.
MSD is offline  
Old 09-25-2007, 08:27 AM   #225 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct
I understand them; I've been one. I understand that taking drastic action is sometimes justifiable, and I also understand that taking drastic action can result in harm or death to the actor. Piracy in sovereign waters is one of those actions that can result in serious harm, and those engaging in piracy as a form of protest ought to expect that the target of such action is legally permitted to use lethal force against the perpetrators.
Fortunately, we're not talking about piracy in this case, as I've pointed out a few times, most notably in post #70 where I point out that the boarding of the vessel has to be "committed for private ends". We can both plainly see that there is no private profit for GreenPeace from this. They're spending time and money in order to bring about public change. What this means is that there isn't legally permitted lethal force. Had they consciously murdered any of the peaceful protesters, they should be charged with first degree and sent to prison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct
Announcing that you are a member of Greenpeace does not mean that you are a member. A group intent on destroying or stealing cargo can easily announce that they are with Greenpeace, then board the ship and act in a way highly inconsistent with Greenpeace's philosophy after putting the crew at ease. Boarding a ship is an act of piracy regardless of intent. If I were on board a ship that was subjected to an act of piracy after intent to peacefully protest was announced, I would assume a worst case scenario was occurring and respond accordingly.
Again, as I've said several times, never in history has anyone said they were representing GreenPeace and been lying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct
The second part is a flawed analogy. Greenpeace clothing is not available exclusively to members. There is no way to stop a terrorist group from joining Greenpeace, loading up on Greenpeace merchandise, disguising themselves as peaceful protesters, and carrying out a terrorist attack, just like insurgents in Iraq who steal Iraqi police uniforms or join the Iraqi police with the intent of carrying out attacks in disguise.
So you're giving into the fear-mongering "there's a terrorist out to get you" mentality? That's too bad.
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-25-2007, 01:05 PM   #226 (permalink)
spudly
 
ubertuber's Avatar
 
Location: Ellay
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Fortunately, we're not talking about piracy in this case, as I've pointed out a few times, most notably in post #70 where I point out that the boarding of the vessel has to be "committed for private ends".
If they meant profit, they would have written profit into the definition of piracy. This is a legal document, and the language has an accordingly precise definition. I'd interpret this to say that private ends means whatever gain (financial, emotional, ideological, etc.) the actor is after.

We won't know for sure until there is a test in court, and as The_Jazz has pointed out, people's unwillingness to force that test isn't because they think they will lose as much as it is because the battle isn't strategically appropriate.
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Last edited by ubertuber; 09-25-2007 at 05:15 PM..
ubertuber is offline  
Old 09-25-2007, 01:18 PM   #227 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
So you think if they meant profit, they would have said profit. Shouldn't your postulation be held to the same standard? If they meant emotional gain, they would have written emotional gain.
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-25-2007, 01:42 PM   #228 (permalink)
Winter is Coming
 
Frosstbyte's Avatar
 
Location: The North
He's putting forth the idea that they used a legal term of art which is best argued by attorneys for both parties and decided by a judge and jury, as opposed to laymen throwing around other ideas. You would probably be SHOCKED at how different some legal definitions are compared to their lay definitions. And a lot of us in this thread feel like we could make a strong argument for why these sort of actions would fall within a LEGAL definition of "private ends" even if it doesn't fit into the coffee shop definition.

Last edited by Frosstbyte; 09-25-2007 at 01:48 PM..
Frosstbyte is offline  
Old 09-25-2007, 02:03 PM   #229 (permalink)
has all her shots.
 
mixedmedia's Avatar
 
Location: Florida
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct
Boarding a ship in sovereign waters is piracy, even if the group claims to be a peaceful one. Boarding a ship with materials that can be used as weapons is threatening. I do not consider piracy a means of peaceful protest and don't understand how anyone could defend it as such unless they are allowing their preconceived notions of Greenpeace to cloud their judgment.
Believe it or not, I have no preconceived notions of Greenpeace. But there has been no shortage of preconceived notions of them being volleyed around from a negative standpoint on this thread.

I have preconceived notions about the practice of political protest. By whomever and wherever it may be taking place. That has been the sole point of departure from my very first post.

Quote:
Whichever of them came over the rail first, plus any that were stupid enough to try after the first. If they got on board and stopped immediately when I pointed a gun at them, I would demand that they drop anything that could be used as a weapon, and detain them until they could be turned over to the proper authorities.
And what about anything I have said disagrees with this method of ending the protest? I was commenting on the remarks made earlier in this thread, yours included, that said these people should have been shot.

But I also made the comment, somewhere along the line, that I thought a lot of remarks made on this thread were disingenuous (for the most part, I was referring to the shooting remarks) and that I thought they had a fairly drastic warping effect on what could have possibly been a less heated discussion on the whole.
__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce
mixedmedia is offline  
Old 09-25-2007, 04:06 PM   #230 (permalink)
spudly
 
ubertuber's Avatar
 
Location: Ellay
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
So you think if they meant profit, they would have said profit. Shouldn't your postulation be held to the same standard? If they meant emotional gain, they would have written emotional gain.

No Will, it shouldn't. That is not what I wrote. What I wrote is that the formulation "private ends" includes all kinds of gain, not just profit.

Re-reading my post, that is exactly what I wrote.
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Last edited by ubertuber; 09-25-2007 at 05:14 PM.. Reason: spelling
ubertuber is offline  
Old 09-25-2007, 05:08 PM   #231 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ubertuber
No Will, it shouldn't. That is not what I wrote. What I wrote is that the forumation "private ends" includes all kinds of gain, not just profit.

Re-reading my post, that is exactly what I wrote.
I read you condemning my interpretation and then you giving your own, neither are expressly written out. I saw you calling me black, then you being a kettle.
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-25-2007, 06:02 PM   #232 (permalink)
Winter is Coming
 
Frosstbyte's Avatar
 
Location: The North
I think the thrust of his point is that it's a term of art whose definition is pure speculation until a court rules on it. What the law says is perfectly inclusive of his opinion of what it means and your opinion of what it means and, I think, a good argument could be made to a court for either to prevail. Your definition is much more specific and exclusive, which is why he (and I) take issue with it but I don't think there was any snarky pot-kettle stuff gonig on.
Frosstbyte is offline  
Old 09-25-2007, 09:12 PM   #233 (permalink)
MSD
The sky calls to us ...
 
MSD's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: CT
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
So you're giving into the fear-mongering "there's a terrorist out to get you" mentality? That's too bad.
I don't consider boarding a ship while carrying materials that could be used as weapons evidence of nonviolent intent. They claimed that they would engage in nonviolent protest and then took actions that can easily perceived as having potentially violent intent. That discrepancy is a warning sign that something may be seriously wrong, and it is reasonable to believe that such a drastic deviation from the announced action can be an indication tha a terrorist attack is imminent or in progress.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mixedmedia
Believe it or not, I have no preconceived notions of Greenpeace. But there has been no shortage of preconceived notions of them being volleyed around from a negative standpoint on this thread.

I have preconceived notions about the practice of political protest. By whomever and wherever it may be taking place. That has been the sole point of departure from my very first post.
The general assumption made by supporters of this Greenpeace action is that because Greenpeace is known for taking drastic action to interfere with corporate action but taking care to avoid harming individuals, that the action is legitimate. I agree that legitimate Greenpeace members are unlikely to harm others, but I maintain my position that this was an act of piracy and that it is appropriate to react as if it were a worst case scenario.

Quote:
And what about anything I have said disagrees with this method of ending the protest? I was commenting on the remarks made earlier in this thread, yours included, that said these people should have been shot.

But I also made the comment, somewhere along the line, that I thought a lot of remarks made on this thread were disingenuous (for the most part, I was referring to the shooting remarks) and that I thought they had a fairly drastic warping effect on what could have possibly been a less heated discussion on the whole.
Maybe I went overboard by saying that they should simply be shot on sight, but I would not fault crew members for having reacted as if it were a worst case scenario when a peaceful action was announced and non-peaceful actions were taken.
MSD is offline  
Old 09-28-2007, 10:39 AM   #234 (permalink)
Upright
 
DumberThanPaint's Avatar
 
Come on people. Let's use formalistic definitions here.

Piracy
Quote:
piracy
n. the crime of robbery of ships or boats on the oceans.
Quote:
robbery
n. 1) the direct taking of property (including money) from a person (victim) through force, threat or intimidation. Robbery is a felony (crime punishable by a term in state or federal prison). "Armed robbery" involves the use of a gun or other weapon which can do bodily harm, such as a knife or club, and under most state laws carries a stiffer penalty (longer possible term) than robbery by merely taking.
Applying the appropriate, formalistic definitions, there's no way you can construe the actions as piracy. There was no threat of harm nor was there an attempt to take property.

Quote:
Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought
Once again, applying formalistic definitions, that the Greenpeace members were not engaging in an act of terrorism. While it's clear that Greenpeace uses its actions and communications to try to reach a larger audience, the lack of violence or a threat of violence puts this action in a different category.

Q. Do you know what you call (in most places) shooting a trespasser who does not threaten you with serious bodily harm?
A. (attempted) homicide

Why do so many here try to poison the well by making foregone legal conclusions with inappropriate word choice?

The real issue is here is why hasn't GP learned to wage a PR war after all its years of existence? Pissing off some shipping workers in a low-profile stunt like this does nothing to hinder the coal industry, does nothing to reach the target audience, and subjects GP members to unjustifiable risks. I mean, even if the MSM got wind of this story and ran with it, how many people would understand or identify with this act of protest? In this net-roots world we live in, couldn't their money and skills be put to better use in the battle against environmental damage? Isn't it a sign that this well intentioned organization is turning into a dinosaur, a relic?
DumberThanPaint is offline  
Old 09-28-2007, 11:27 AM   #235 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
PIRACY (BY U.S. CITIZEN) - Whoever, being a citizen of the U.S., commits any murder or robbery, or any act of hostility against the U.S., or against any citizen thereof, on the high seas, under color of any commission from any foreign prince, or state, or on pretense of authority from any person, is a pirate, and shall be imprisoned for life. 18 USC [
I don't think its hard to wiggle Greenpeace into that, and btw thats the legal definition, not Websters.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 09-28-2007, 01:43 PM   #236 (permalink)
Upright
 
DumberThanPaint's Avatar
 
That's great, that you can copy/paste US Code, but the problem is without looking how the Courts interpret that law, you are making aimless conjecture.

The DOJ under Ashcroft had tried to take down Greenpeace before in a similar case, and unsurprisingly they didn't even attempt to use the code you cited. Why not? Because the government had to admit Greenpeace's activity was peaceful. Free speech always trumps overbroad laws (which the cited code would certainly be if hostility were to include non-violent protest, it might also strike out for vagueness). And as to the disposition of the case, I'll let you read up on that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailormongering
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0520-12.htm
DumberThanPaint is offline  
Old 09-28-2007, 01:45 PM   #237 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
I guess that makes paint really smart?

Good post.
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-28-2007, 01:59 PM   #238 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
I guess that makes paint really smart?

Good post.

Actually it just shows hes snide.

For fun while he googles he can google greenpeace and piracy, apparently the Seafarers' union is calling for stiffer charges on greenpeace for this incident and several law makers are calling it piracy as well.

Boy thats going to be a tough one for you lefties. You have a union on one side and a bunch of hippies on the other.

Anyways, I'm sure that these kids efforts will stop both coal and nuclear power usage. I do hope they enjoy their criminal records when they try to get those real jobs in a few years when they realize being a radical activist doesn't pay well for most.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 09-28-2007, 02:06 PM   #239 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Actually it just shows hes snide.
I'm sorry to say so, but that's like me calling someone a lefty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
For fun while he googles he can google greenpeace and piracy, apparently the Seafarers' union is calling for stiffer charges on greenpeace for this incident and several law makers are calling it piracy as well.
We'll have to wait and see if that pans out. For now, it's not been resolved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Anyways, I'm sure that these kids efforts will stop both coal and nuclear power usage. I do hope they enjoy their criminal records when they try to get those real jobs in a few years when they realize being a radical activist doesn't pay well for most.
I'm a radical leftist with two real jobs. While I'm not going to illegally board a ship, I do actively protest with other radical activists who also have jobs. The funny thing, though, is that those kids in GreenPeace will be able to look back and say "I did my best to be part of the solution".
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-28-2007, 02:24 PM   #240 (permalink)
spudly
 
ubertuber's Avatar
 
Location: Ellay
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucifer
Your desk copy of Websters is NOT the definitive definition of what constitutes piracy, Will.

The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
(article 101) defines piracy as follows:
“Piracy consists of any of the following acts:
(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for
private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft,
and directed:
(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property
on board such ship or aircraft;
(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of
any State;
(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with
knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;
(c) any act inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in sub-paragraph
(a) or (b).”

http://www.imo.org/includes/blastDat...D7430/1073.pdf

International Maritime Organization

DumberThanPaint: you may have missed this post from Lucifer which deals with the definition of piracy which comes from what is likely to be the most relevant source. We haven't settled on what this means, or how a court would find in actual fact, but I'd say the pertaining code is more relevant than law.com.
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam
ubertuber is offline  
 

Tags
meaning, peaceful, protest


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:13 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360