The Ethics of Green Groups on Show Again

[ellicat]

Do you agree with their ethics of deception as displayed in the link ?

/>http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-20/greenpeace-hijacks-shells-social-media-site/4143170

[Bommie]

need to go all French on greenpeace again wankers they are

[jeff f]

these type of people have no ethics it wont take long before activist becomes terrorist

[dassa]

these type of people have no ethics it wont take long before activist becomes terrorist

\

Jeff,mate some of these hippys already crossed that line may not invole killing anybody YET but they have the propaganda of any terriost org.

The sad part about these bottom clowns is they are so brain washed about what they preach they can't tell between what is real and what is fiction.

[Bommie]

yes their heads are so far up their bottoms that they can't comprehend any other thoughts than their own agenda

[haines490slc]

because big oil companies have the best ethics so we should just go with those. I mean BP did such a great job cleaning up their oil spill in the gulf, and other companies always put the local population and the environment first instead of profits, screw those greenies. Texaco, they are the best, look at how great their ethics are in south america:

Between 1964 and 1990, Texaco (which Chevron acquired in 2001) drilled for oil in a remote northern region of Ecuador’s Amazon rainforest called the Oriente. Using obsolete technology and substandard environmental controls, the company deliberately dumped 18.5 billion gallons of highly toxic waste sludge into the streams and rivers on which local people depend for drinking, bathing, and fishing. The company dug over 900 open-air, unlined waste pits that continue to seep toxins into the ground to this day. The sludge contained some of the most dangerous chemicals known to man — including benzene and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) — in lethal concentrations. Rupturing oil pipelines and gas flaring was also a regular occurrence.

ethics definition:

Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior.[1]

Major areas of study in ethics may be divided into 3 operational areas:[1]

Meta-ethics, about the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions and how their truth values (if any) may be determined;

Normative ethics, about the practical means of determining a moral course of action;

Applied ethics, about how moral outcomes can be achieved in specific situations;

[crazywalrus]

because big oil companies have the best ethics so we should just go with those. I mean BP did such a great job cleaning up their oil spill in the gulf, and other companies always put the local population and the environment first instead of profits, screw those greenies. Texaco, they are the best, look at how great their ethics are in south america:

Between 1964 and 1990, Texaco (which Chevron acquired in 2001) drilled for oil in a remote northern region of Ecuador’s Amazon rainforest called the Oriente. Using obsolete technology and substandard environmental controls, the company deliberately dumped 18.5 billion gallons of highly toxic waste sludge into the streams and rivers on which local people depend for drinking, bathing, and fishing. The company dug over 900 open-air, unlined waste pits that continue to seep toxins into the ground to this day. The sludge contained some of the most dangerous chemicals known to man — including benzene and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) — in lethal concentrations. Rupturing oil pipelines and gas flaring was also a regular occurrence.

How is this relevant to the link Eddie??

[Bommie]

living in the past

[Gary_C]

I voted yes for this particular poll because I certainly agree with the method used in this particular campaign. I most certainly do not agree with the violent and/or illegal tactics that Green groups frequently employ.

In this instance, I honestly take more issue with the way the "journalist" tried to slant the audience's perception from the beginning by using inherently biased terms with negative connotations such as "insidious."

Satire and parodies have been agents of change and peaceful protest since society's inception. I watch The Colbert Report, The Daily Show, and Saturday Night Live. All of these are similar to the campaign in the link because they frequently lampoon individuals, politicians, corporations, countries, etc. If this is so offensive, we had better start a drive to remove political cartoons from public circulation.

They are being disingenuous when they claim that people mistook this campaign for an official Shell corporate approved movement. Large corporations ALWAYS try to claim that they are hurt by these things because the consumer is too stupid to tell the difference between satire and reality. Is there a single person in this community that thinks Shell would allow anything of which they are a part to publicly put out there that "Birds are like sponges for oil" ?

At most, I'd say that they committed copyright infringement (which is of course EVERYWHERE on the internet) so Shell could, and probably did, send a cease and desist letter.

[Bagless]

Think Gary has it spot on. If this campaign brings attention to un-ethical environmentally harmful practices then fair game. If Shell are innocent and it's all a bunch of lies then they can show us the link not to mention use their incredible wealth to seek damages and patch things up. Also worth pointing out this campaign is linked to Greenpeace and nothing to do with any other green parties or movements.

[ellicat]

I doubt you would hold that opinion if Shell performed the same unethical act on Greenpeace.

I already don't believe you if you say you would.

[Gary_C]

I doubt you would hold that opinion if Shell performed the same unethical act on Greenpeace.

I already don't believe you if you say you would.

My opinion of the act itself would not change; I do not believe satire and parody are unethical in any circumstance. Change the words "satire" and "parody" to "slander" and "libel", then I would absolutely change my opinion.

That's the curse of power Brian, Shell is more likely to be successful in a court of law but in the court of public opinion they will suffer. They have different weapons in their arsenal and employ them often.

Now, would you consider it unethical if I were to put up a video on youtube where I insinuate that all members of the Green party are dirty, smelly, pot-smoking, uneducated hippies and used a symbol associated with the Greens?

I just don't see any difference regardless of the target or scale so long as they don't cross the line to libel or slander.

[Bommie]

"Now, would you consider it unethical if I were to put up a video on youtube where I insinuate that all members of the Green party are dirty, smelly, pot-smoking, uneducated hippies and used a symbol associated with the Greens?"

but they are

[Bommie]

[crazywalrus]

Now, would you consider it unethical if I were to put up a video on youtube where I insinuate that all members of the Green party are dirty, smelly, pot-smoking, uneducated hippies and used a symbol associated with the Greens?

but they are

haha Boomie I was waiting for this. The funny thing is that most greenies are well educated. The problem is that they believe in Utopia and their ideas do not always have practical applications.

We need differing opinions on green and development. the problem is that in the last reign of the federal government the balance has swayed dangerously towards the extreme Greens and has caused economic damage and reduced our right to fish.

[Bommie]

hey slow down Ted, don't use big words and sentences I from Ipswich,,, but I can see Brisbane from my house

[jeff f]