Ecologists unmoved by 'green' wave in advertising

I don't disagree with you that for most cases, your labeling is appropriate... I would probably agree with you on most of those issues...

But I don't share your confidence that there are only a *few* cases that are not simple. I think the world is a much more complicated place than most people think.

 

Well, you're wrong. I understand fully where they may have been coming from before they achieved their "fruitcake" status. I understand what their goals may have been, but it's an insult to those who are really working hard to save the environment to say they share the same goals. The people who make great efforts, change every aspect of their personal lives, as well as makeing efforts to change corporate and policy in general deserve respect for what they do. The fruitcakes (how could you NOT like that word) of ELF have no respect for anyone or anything other than their own warped beliefs. To say that they are fighting for the environment is ridiculous. Their actions accomplish nothing. To pretend that their goals are the same as the most ardent environmentalists is truly an insult.

For another example, let's use the suicide bombers in Israel. Fine, you could say that their goal is to liberate Palestine. OK, now you have a Palestinian who works tirelessly to affect social and political change so that his country can have improved independence, economic and social conditions. His goal is also to liberate Palestine. How can you even equate the two. The bomber has no consideration for human life, not his own, and not others. By blowing himself up in a crowded market and killing many innocents, how is his political agenda moved ahead. To say that both goals are the same is once again rediculous and unbelievably insulting to the Palestinian who is trying to make everyones life better. The bomber definitely fits into the fruitcake bin.

One more example, is that of Eric Rudolph. Undeniably a fruitcake. I understand completely the goals and beliefs of the pro-life advocates. I understand what they think and why they think it. I don't agree with them, but that is not the issue. Now, about Eric. You could argue that his beliefs wre the same when he blew up that clinic. Not only is it an insult to those who work through the political process, but it's an insult to the Bible as well. Rudolph = fruitcake. Even the picketers outside the clinics only cross the line if they prevent people from entering the clinic. If they are only out there expressing their opinion then they are only exercising their rights. I think there are other ways that they could be working to change things, but that's their choice. I think it's good they aren't doing anything constructive. But I digress into opinoion.

Anyway, here you have three examples of how people have nearly identical beleifs and reasons for doing what they do. Their goals are, on paper, nearly the same, yet in real ife they are incomparable.

I understand where they are coming from. I understand where they're coming from. And that, my friend makes their actions that much harder to swallow. I'm not sure how they got to the level of thinking that their actions would somehow improve the situation, but they don't. To understand them even more would be frightening, because you would have to sink to their levels of depravity. So yes, to some degree I'm choosing not to understand them completely, but it's only becuase thinking like them would be a bad thing.

 

I agree, the world is a VERY complicated place. But to make order of the chaos, you must break things down into groups, you must label them. By breaking things down far enough, or understanding your rules well ehough allows you to label things quite easily.

To say my system is wrong is impossible, as it is a very individual thing. Each person has their own system of breakign things down and labeling them. This is shaped by their life's experiences. To say it doesn't work is simply wrong, as it's a purely subjective system.

 

Your system isn't wrong. It's flawed though. And I don't subscribe to it.

You've confused me. You said before you label people fruitcakes when you don't understand their goals or methodology, but then go on to say that you DO understand them...

The truth is not that that there is anything special about "fruitcakes" ... but that their framework of the world doesn't jive with yours. It says just as much about you as it does them. Despite all you say about "understanding" these people the fact remains you cling to your rigid ideas of progress, right vs. wrong, etc etc...

 

Wait wait... how can it be an objective system if it depends on the individual? Isn't that the very definition of subjective?

 

Extremists of either the far right or far left are fruitcakes. They never seem to be happy no matter what.

 

And that's a bad thing? It's the basis of civilization. Are you actually saying that I'm being closed minded because I refuse to "understand" why some people think it's OK turn burn house, to torch cars, to blow up innocents, and to kill those who do what you think it wrong? Is that what you are saying. I'm actually at a loss of what to say. So your turn. Tell me what you make of these ELF members, suicide bombers, and Eric Rudolph. We'll use the same example for simplify things. Please explain how you go about understanding their actions, beliefs, and reasoning. Since you can so plainly say mine is flawed, please explain yours.

 

Yes, you're right. Typo; trying to do too many things at once. Fixed it now.

 

Exactly! That's my point.

 

Are you sure you mean objective? You might want to look that up in a dictionary, in all seriousness.

Don't make this about me. I am not defending these people. You're twisting what i'm saying to say that i'm trying to defend murder or anything else...

I would imagine I agree with you on almost all of these issues, so there's no point in prodding me to defend these ridiculous examples that you have pulled out of your butt...

My point is that it's simply dangerous to draw the line in the sand so confidently. Of course it is the basis of civilization... but over the history of civilization, this type of way of thinking has caused the ugliest chapters of our history as well. Think of the Native Americans that we forced off their land in the name of progress... it's tricky

 

Opinion is inherently flawed. Of course you didn't ask if I subscribed to it. I stated that. I disagree with you.

 

This way of thinking also stopped some of the worst chapters of our history. Think of WWII. Hitler's beliefs just didn't agree with ours...



Anyway, I've been thinking about your post above:

"The truth is not that that there is anything special about "fruitcakes" ... but that their framework of the world doesn't jive with yours. It says just as much about you as it does them. Despite all you say about "understanding" these people the fact remains you cling to your rigid ideas of progress, right vs. wrong, etc etc..."

Basically what you are saying is that because my view of the world does not coincide with murderers and terrorists, it is flawed. Are you freaking serious? My guess is that you don't want to respond becuse you read this and realized how crazy it sounded. Because their "framework" doesn't "jive" with mine, my system is flawed... So your view of the world DOES jive with theirs, you're OK then, right?

Actually, don't explain this, because I don't want to know how you justify this. You knew the extreme examples I had picked, yet you still made this statement. Yikes. If this is the logic I'm arguing against, I concede defeat.

 

I will clarify my point, but in some circles of internet etiquette, you just ended the discussion. You invoke godwin's law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

You've put a lot of words in my mouth. It will take a while for me to spit all that out and really say what I believe rather than respond to your garbage.

 

I could respond to you, DocVijay, in full, but because of Godwin's law, I'm not going to continue as you've brought the discussion down a notch.

I tried to keep this discussion civil, and I haven't had a chance to get to my real argument. I could have seen this discussion move toward one of modernism vs. post-modernism.

I never pretended I had all the answers. I only wanted to have you think of more questions. I had honestly avoided a single reference to the examples that you used because I wasn't even talking about those extreme examples. I was talking much much more generally, and yet you expect me to defend murderers. That's the type of logic that's frustrating.

Anyway, good luck. We're done here. Hope the next discussion we have doesn't end the same way.

 

Perhaps you need to stop equating "linux enthusiast" with slashdot posters. Most Linux users I know, myself included, use it because it's what we use at work and we've grown accustomed to it. I certainly won't say it's more user friendly than MacOS, because it's not. Am I on the fringes with my beliefs that Linux is pretty nice? Perhaps, but then I guess a lot of Fortune 5K companies must be on the fringes with me, since a lot of them use it as well.