Difference between revisions of "Talk:Environmentalist"

Revision as of 16:16, May 20, 2007

Give a pat on the back to whoever changed this article from hateful Environmentalist bashing to something that's certainly more pleasant. Good job.

Give some justification as to why claim is appropriate. Alot of people that call themselves environmentalists do seek to protect the environment. Claim gives the impression of people saying one theing and doing something else. -Gasmonkey

from the ATTAC REPORT:

Greenpeace Founding/Supervisory Organizations:

• Red China
• Soviet intelligence apparatus (KGB/FSB)
• World Peace Council (WPC)

Supporting Organizations:

• Red Army Fraction (RAF)
• Earth First! (EF!)
• Institute for Policy Studies (IPS)

Greenpeace

Type of Organization: Semi-violent/protest-organizing

Location: United States, Canada, various European nations, Soviet Russia, Red China, & others

Ideological cover: Environmentalist

Activities: Political & legal activism; provocation & incitement to violence; political & logistical support for terrorism

Target countries: United States, Canada, Western European nations, & others

Status: Confirmed active

Assisted Organizations:

• Earth First! (EF!)
• Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy (SANE)
• Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS)

Derivative/Controlled Organizations:

• Earth Liberation Front (ELF)
• Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS)

RobS 20:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm an environmentalist and I don't belong to Greenpeace. Great job at generalizing there cheif. Just because ONE group of a FEW environmentaly minded people at some times go too far and commit crimes you generalize that to all environmetalists? Seriously, congrats on that. Are you a Christian? Well, then you are proably an Aryan skinhead too by your logic. After all, they claim to be Christians too.

I'm a corncerned environmentalist about the environment, too. That's why I thought my lagunage was pretty good.. What we are discussing here is organizations claiming to be environmentalist, which may have other agendas. I'm sure we can get some gound language rounded out. RobS 23:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

The ATTAC guys also claim that the PLO is behind 9/11 [1]. I'd be wary of giving them any credence. --Scrap 23:46, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Be wary of them? that's not anti-Semitic comment, is it? RobS 00:12, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

if you claim to be an environmentalist and do something else then u aren't really an environmentalist. if I claimed to be a republican but voted for and believed in democratic veiws would I still be a republican?--Benburned 00:18, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

A person can be 40% environmentalist with 60% dedicated to another agenda. Likewise it's not uncommon at all for crossover votes. RobS 14:43, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

The religuion of nature

American, you were on to something, and it's even poetic, but it gets a little sarcastic at the end. I'll try and save what I can. This part,

There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution

can be backed up with scripture, Genesis "because thou hast sinned, cursed is the ground for thy sake". RobS 12:34, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Worship of Gaia?

Where is the sourced information for this section? The only source in it is a link to some speech Michael Crichton made. How is he an expert on any of this? Please clarify, or let's get rid of it. --Colest 16:04, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

No kidding, it's almost incoherent. Pendayho 16:11, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Tis hilarious. Especially the Al Gore picture. I'm going to find me some other 'hilarious' pictures to plaster all over the site. Should be some good George Bush ones. --Wikinterpreter^{Liaise with the cabal?}

And let us not forget about how mockery is a tool exclusive to the liberal repetoire. Oh and it's good to see how it all got put back with no attempt at an explination. --Colest 18:06, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Mockery? It is all very well cited, and only encapuslated. RobS 18:11, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Well cited? I like ATTAC: (I quote directly) which describes itself as 'A Hasidic Analysis of World War III'. The link up, which draws lines from Greenpeace, and the Sierra Club, to 'revolutionary communist terror cells', has had me laugh quite a bit. It's almost as good as this. --Wikinterpreter^{Liaise with the cabal?}

My mockery comment was more directed at the purposeful choice of pictures of liberals that make them look either 1) goofy or 2) sinister. --Colest 18:47, 11 May 2007 (EDT

Shall I replace it with this? I'm not sure having a picture of Al Gore serves any purpose beyond that which I would be loath to accuse RobS of. --Wikinterpreter^{Liaise with the cabal?}

To be honest, I have no idea why this article even needs a picture of Gore other than that he's a noted environmentalist. --Colest 18:54, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

And furthermore, can you explain what any of that has to do with environmentalists? It seems to me if you want to write about Gaia worshipers that should be moved to a different topic. You seem to be looking for the most ridiculous information you can find and trying to stereotype all environmentalists as nut jobs. --Colest 18:54, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

‎::Gaia+environmentalist brings up 115,000 Google hits. [2] RobS 19:00, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

pie+enviromentalist brings up 174,000 Google hits. [3]Perhaps we should include a section on how enviromentalists like pie?MatteeNeutra 19:07, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Mattee brings up a good point, I'm not sure how Google hits validates an argument. If you want to have an article about Gaia worshipers, I don't have any problem with that. But as it appears in this article, you are mischaracterizing all environmentalists as being part of some new age religion. --Colest 19:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Environmentalist + Jesus brings up 317,000 Google hits more that 2 times as many as Gaia+environmentalist.--Reginod 12:12, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Environmentalist + Conservative - 654,000 hits, therefore all environmentalists are conservative. Wuh? RobS, you're going to need some better proof. Anyway, 67900 of your sample above are about Lovelock, so it's not exactly compelling. All I can say is - search engines do nothing to prove/disprove hypotheses. --Wikinterpreter^{Liaise with the cabal?}

RobS, why was that edit reverted? You were given ample time to respond here, but you didn't. In 24 hours, I'm going to revert if you haven't explained why here. --Wikinterpreter^{Liaise with the cabal?} 14:48, 14 May 2007 (EDT) Note the timestamp.

It's all on the discussion page, right here. RobS 14:49, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes. Read the people questioning whether we need a picture of Gore at all. I'd rather not attribute you with the motives I think you're trying to push with that picture. Oh, and do you want me to write that section about the conservative environmentalists who like pie? --Wikinterpreter^{Liaise with the cabal?}

So what. Quayle misspelled potato, but never ran as his parties nominee for President. On the otherhand, Gore is a larger historic figure, and we have sourcing defining exactly what he stands for, represents, and believes in. This is much more relevent than a simple common mistake someone who served in the same office, yet his opponents are intent upon never forgetting (read the Conservapedia article on Dan Quayle, it was created precisely for this reason. No mention whatsoever of any accomplishments that lead him to that office). RobS 14:59, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

What does that have to do with whether Gore needs a picture? There are (three) pictures on Al Gore, not one of them very flattering, though that doesn't matter. You haven't really answered my question. Here some issues -

• The Google thing means absolutely nothing - but since that seems to be let go, I'll do the same.
• An environmentalist is someone who is concerned about the environment. It's boolean logic. If you aren't concerned about it, then you're not an environmentalist.
• Why the picture? Are you trying to suggest with it that Gore's praying to some environmentalist god? If not, then what's wrong with any other picture?

Wikinterpreter^{Liaise with the cabal?}

Go fix the Quayle article and we'll talk about fixing an article that is not in the Al Gore mainspace. RobS 15:56, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

What do you want me to do? Anyway, we're discussing this article, here, and how we should improve it - so answer the question. --Wikinterpreter^{Liaise with the cabal?}

Ok, I suppose we can articulate more about Gaia, neo-paganism, and eco-feminists, and how they have infiltrated the environmental movement. But all that still needs to be kept separate from the various environmental organizations with links to foreign intelligence sources and terrorism. And the environmental organizations on the domestic terrorism watchlist might have to be separate from that (maybe not). RobS 16:06, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Pop stars opinions

Why are pop stars' opinions removed when they make good points and included when they make dumb points (like here)? Pachuca 12:16, 20 May 2007 (EDT)