The Follies of Activism

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So yet again you refuse to explain plainly just how you refuse to accept that activism helped raise awareness on ecological and environment issues.
You speak in riddles without giving any actual detail at all.

Be blunt and open and give detail to support your viewpoint - I'd be able to respect that, all you are offering at present are vague allusions and deflections.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: RowanBean

Yes. It's called courtesy and manners when your king orders you to kill people for no reason without protest.

I was speaking about bowing.

Is that all the subjects do? Bowing to the king all day and night?

a reply to: Freeborn

It's what he does, I've given loads of real life stories of my own activism, he just dismisses them. The peasant subject lol.

a reply to: Freeborn

So yet again you refuse to explain plainly just how you refuse to accept that activism helped raise awareness on ecological and environment issues. You speak in riddles without giving any actual detail at all.

Be blunt and open and give detail to support your viewpoint - I'd be able to respect that, all you are offering at present are vague allusions and deflections.

I refuse to accept it because one can become aware of ecological and environmental issues through other means that don't include coercion. Admittedly, I wasn't around in the 70s, and I haven't listened to damn thing from the mouth of an activist, nonetheless I consider myself informed enough on the subject.

Was it greenpeace that led to your awareness?

a reply to: RowanBean

Is that all the subjects do? Bowing to the king all day and night?

You wouldn't bow as a courtesy to royalty? How edgy of you.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: RowanBean

Is that all the subjects do? Bowing to the king all day and night?

You wouldn't bow as a courtesy to royalty? How edgy of you.

Who said I wouldn't?

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

It's what he does, I've given loads of real life stories of my own activism, he just dismisses them. The peasant subject lol.

Because you engage in coercive behavior to achieve political ends.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Yes, I've noticed.

I get the impression he thinks he's some sort of enlightened elite who knows far more than us mere grunts.

Condemned by his own mouth;

I wasn't around in the 70s,

I was yet he knows better than me?

.... and I haven't listened to damn thing from the mouth of an activist,...

He has an insistence that he knows better without even reading / listening to their viewpoint.

I rest my case.

See you around mate.

Double post

a reply to: Freeborn

'The chosen one' ...I don't buy into it either.

a reply to: Freeborn

He has an insistence that he knows better without even reading / listening to their viewpoint.

And you think you know better—some sort of enlightened elite—because you did read and listen to their viewpoints. Really, all you are guilty of is uncritically accepting Greenpeace propaganda. I bet you also rail against GM foods, not because the science says so, but because greenpeace does. If so, like greenpeace, you are complicit in diminishing awareness and misinforming others, as opposed to your claims to the opposite.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I don't really have an opinion on GM foods.
There seems to be evidence that supports both sides of the argument, so for me the jury is out at this moment.

I'm no pompous know-it-all, far from it. But at least I'm providing some sort of reasoning behind my opinion that activists can and do at times provide the momentum for change. On the other hand you have provided nothing at all to support your viewpoint and have indeed openly admitted that you don't even listen to activists reasoning or opinions before making up your mind.

I'm out of this thread for the simple reason that you can't even begin to consider any opposing viewpoint regardless of the veracity or reasoning.

Deny ignorance.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I don't really have an opinion on GM foods.
There seems to be evidence that supports both sides of the argument, so for me the jury is out at this moment.

I'm no pompous know-it-all, far from it. But at least I'm providing some sort of reasoning behind my opinion that activists can and do at times provide the momentum for change. On the other hand you have provided nothing at all to support your viewpoint and have indeed openly admitted that you don't even listen to activists reasoning or opinions before making up your mind.

I'm out of this thread for the simple reason that you can't even begin to consider any opposing viewpoint regardless of the veracity or reasoning.

Deny ignorance.

I’ve considered your viewpoint, and as fallacious as it is, I disagree with it on grounds of evidence, which you’ve failed to provide. Environmental and ecological protectionism was well under way long before Greenpeace. Even the Nazis made advances in environmentalism.

And it’s not their viewpoints I refuse to consider; it’s their methods, as I’ve stated countless times.

Deny ignorance.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

"unscientific"

I previously responded to this claim with:

If they were so good for you the corporations wouldn't fight tooth and nail to have labelling hide their inclusion. Are you sure you're well versed on the subject?

Point me to a scientific study that states that the long term effects of GM foods are benign and safe otherwise they're just your "claims"

a reply to: Freeborn

Approach with caution and at your own risk - it will be dismissed as "word salad"

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

and being a general annoyance until the government makes something illegal is something to be proud of

So the Govt bent to the will of stomping feet in total denial of the scientific studies and benefits of GM.
Okkkkaay

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

And yet you prefer to bow through the propaganda of the "Divine right of Kings"
carry on

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

And yet its obligatory ....

www.thisisinsider.com...

According to the royal family's official website, "There are no obligatory codes of behaviour when meeting The Queen or a member of the Royal Family, but many people wish to observe the traditional forms." They may be optional for peasants like us, but these traditional forms — namely, bows and curtsies — are obligatory for members of the royal family.

And also a moving target.

When Kate Middleton married Prince William, the queen updated the Order of Precedence and dictated that Middleton should curtsy to "blood princesses" — Princesses Anne, Alexandra, Beatrice, and Eugenie, according to The Telegraph. Because they were born into the royal family and Middleton married into it, they outrank her.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

and being a general annoyance until the government makes something illegal is something to be proud of

So the Govt bent to the will of stomping feet in total denial of the scientific studies and benefits of GM.
Okkkkaay

I genuinely believe the UK government didn't want Monsanto growing GM crops here but for reasons of business legislation or whatever they couldn't say no in public.
At the height of our activism destroying crops everyone was surprised they basically let us get away with it, and when the police told Monsanto they'd have to pay for their own private security most of us were convinced we were backed by the state.
They could have come down on us like a tonne of bricks but they didn't. The government effectively turned a blind eye to our criminal damage of test crops because 'they' didn't want them on our island either.

Perhaps the most unusual activism I've ever been involved with having police who supported our cause, heck even fighting the fox hunts was a harder battle than beating Monsanto, I got arrested at hunt sab's more often and with more violence from police than at GM test crops.
I'm convinced the UK government gave us a pass with that because they didn't want it either, but for whatever legal or political reason they couldn't say no to Monsanto. The people won, and we can watch and wait to see how GM turns out over the next few decades in countries where Monsanto won.

EDIT
...and I wouldn't bow to the queen if I met her, I'd offer a friendly handshake with a smile but if she refused it I'd say # you and turn my back walk away.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Yeah - same goes for pretty much every freedom and right we have in the UK, children striking and closing down factories led to the creation of parliament, fair pay for fair days work, abolishment of slavery, then the suffragettes movement, establishment of human rights, etc.. it's why we're no longer in serfdom or under corporate oligarchy (to a limited extent).

Maybe the OP is getting confused with slacktivism - people who hold signs, post on facebook but don't do research or take part in effective action or Astroturfing - companies setting up fake grass routes?

Personally had a lot of success in anti-war, anti-arms, anti-nazi, anti-fracking, anti-corruption, anti-privatisation of Unis and NHS, highlighting gross human rights violations of disabled people in the UK, , illegal overseas 'things', tidying up major defense flaws via years of private research and meetings with numerous sources and unions, using shareholder act and local government finance act to uncover corruption to hand to the information commissioner and regular meetings with my MP and Councillors to keep up to date with what's going on behind the scenes in UK politics.

It's the backbone of a modern liberal democracy.