DescentBB

Well my friends, just when you think your absurd factor is jaded beyond belief we have the environmentalists proclaiming the tsunami that hit in Indonesia is a wonderful thing. They would have you think the way the wave turned filthy resort and commercial areas along the beaches back into pristine beauty is just what Mother Gaia needed. Who cares 150,000 human lives are snuffed out and who cares all the detritus carried out to sea is probably deposited on pristine coral reefs.
From where the enviros are standing, the view is just peachy.

You live in a warped world. Anyime I think I may be leaning conservative, you set me straight. Thx.

Out of all the threads you could've said that in, Goob, why this one? There are plenty of threads where you could say something like that and everyone would agree with you... but in this thread, woody makes sense.

There are some environmentalists out there claiming the Tsunami was a good thing because it killed so many people. So why do you denounce woody, rather than denouncing the nutjobs who make these kinds of statements?

There are some environmentalists out there claiming the Tsunami was a good thing because it killed so many people. So why do you denounce woody, rather than denouncing the nutjobs who make these kinds of statements?

I consider myself an environmentalist. I recycle, whenever I go hiking I always pack-in/pack-out, I will even pick up other trash if I see it. I'm not a freak about it but I think I do my share.

Yet no, and I mean no, environmentalist that I know thinks that this was a good thing. You are taking by far less then 0.01% of the populations opinion and representing them as, if not the majority, a legitimately sized minority.

You used "some," woodchip used "the", both are unrealistic. I can live more with "some," but I still think its making a story out of nothing.

It's like if I said "the conservatives" are glad that most of the Tsunami victims are non-Caucasian and they feel that this was a good ethnic cleansing. If I made such a statement you wouldn't first denounce the nutjobs that do feel that way. You would correct the statement.

Edit: and sky's post completly disappeared.

Would it surprise you to know I too consider myself a environmentalist? My post was to point out what "some" enviros are saying. To find any good in the carnage caused by the tidal wave is beyond belief. I would put any who do so right up there with lovers of Pol Pot and members of neo nazis whitey first groups.

... and you use woodchip's behavior as representative of conservatives in general, in your first reply in this thread, thereby committing the same error as he did.

Just FYI, "some" is an entirely accurate statement. It happens to be a very small "some", but it is "some" nonetheless, and it happens to be at least one who's managed to get quoted in some level of news. I made no comment as to the size of the "some" in my post; you're putting words into my mouth by saying I'm representing them as "a legitimately sized minority". I know as well as you do that it's only a very small number (I consider myself an environmentalist, too, so there's no way what I'm saying here is meant as a knock on environmentalists in general.) Statements about "some" Christians or "some" Republicans are, likewise, true, and the proper response is to mention how small that "some" is and denounce them.

I'm just surprised by the fact that, instead of responding right away with what you just wrote to me -- saying it's just one or two morons who don't represent the majority of environmentalists -- your first reaction was to take a shot at woody, and it's only after I criticized you for it that you even bothered to denounce the stupidity of the few.

(Also: I didn't touch Sky's post, or any other in this thread, just so you know.)

I'm just surprised by the fact that, instead of responding right away with what you just wrote to me -- saying it's just one or two morons who don't represent the majority of environmentalists -- your first reaction was to take a shot at woody....

And this post you just wrote, you didn't criticize those conservatives that think this was a good ethnic clensing. You only validated that they were indeed "some," and that "some" was a true statement.

Instead, you criticized me for criticizing woodchip. But that doesn't surprise me

This is the exact same thing. All the reasons you need are in the post above this one.

Gooberman wrote:
And this post you just wrote, you didn't criticize those conservatives that think this was a good ethnic clensing.

This is the exact same thing. All the reasons you need are in the post above this one. I wonder if in your responce you will only then criticize those who think this was a good ethnic clensing. Then the circle will be complete.

What conservative has said the tsunami was "Good ethnic cleansing" either on this board or elswhere?

Gooberman wrote:And this post you just wrote, you didn't criticize those conservatives that think this was a good ethnic clensing.

Nice equivocation. Somehow, me not denouncing people who hadn't even been mentioned in this thread when I posted is somehow equivalent to you not denouncing people who were intended to be the main subject of the thread when you posted. Beautiful attempt to dodge the issue, but it has failed.

Now that the issue has been brought up, I'll gladly criticize them.

Those who think this was a good ethnic cleansing -- be they conservatives ("death to Muslims"), homophobes ("2000 dead swedes... how many are fags and dykes?") or the Saudi Sheikh ("divine punishment for the horrible fornication committed by the infidels on Christmas at the resorts") -- are idiots. See Chrenkoff twice for some of the stupidest quotes by some of the stupidest people.

Again... nice equivocation, but your attempted dodge failed.

From an environmental standpoit, anything the environment does is good for itself. Even if that includes mass death of humans.

Maybe this is all just a sign of the times? Mother earth lashing out at those who would poison her forever? Hmm?

Right on cue... somebody with a stupid statement about the Tsunami. To quote Chrenkoff's response to a similar quote, "The good old Mother Earth must be a part of the evil multinational-Bush-neocon conspiracy, as her wrath seems to particularly affect the poor of the developing world. I say to all my left-wing friends, time to boycott Gaia and move to a more tolerant place."

Avder wrote: Maybe this is all just a sign of the times? Mother earth lashing out at those who would poison her forever? Hmm?

So you are stating a second spiritual "God" in the form of Mother Earth exists? I think Lothar and Drakona are going to have fun with this.

If they are that protective of the enviroment, then their suicide will prevent certain resources from being used which pollute the enviroment.

I see no problem with anyone being frinedly towards the enviroment, I believe everyone, people and business should. But after a certain point, they become the crazy people.

Lothar wrote:Right on cue... somebody with a stupid statement about the Tsunami. To quote Chrenkoff's response to a similar quote, "The good old Mother Earth must be a part of the evil multinational-Bush-neocon conspiracy, as her wrath seems to particularly affect the poor of the developing world. I say to all my left-wing friends, time to boycott Gaia and move to a more tolerant place."

1. I said nothing about the poor and the evil bush/necon/multinationalcorporation conspiricy, you did.

woodchip wrote:So you are stating a second spiritual "God" in the form of Mother Earth exists? I think Lothar and Drakona are going to have fun with this.

2. Go ahead, blow my half sarcastic comment way out of proportion. And I'm sure if Jesus were still alive today, he'd be driving a Hummer H2 around wouldnt he?

I love ultra right wing nutjobs. They never fail to fall for the quasi-leftwing bait.

Avder wrote:1. I said nothing about the poor and the evil bush/necon/multinationalcorporation conspiricy, you did.

Of course not. But you did make a dumb comment about the tsunami, in a thread where we're discussing people making dumb comments about the tsunami. So, I quoted a response to a similar dumb comment. Follow my links to see the original usage...

You folks are funny. I like monkeys!

Dedman wrote:You folks are funny. I like monkeys!

Takes one to know one...that why you're "hanging" around here?

woodchip wrote:...that why you're "hanging" around here?

It is actually. That and I like to watch the tag team match of Birds and Goob against Lothar and chip. Now THAT's entertainment.

From an environmental standpoint, the tsunami was good because it returned the beaches to a normal state, I read a business from thailand saying it was good because there was a lot of illegal construction being built on the beaches. Mother Nature is a ★■◆●, it sucks, 150,000 people dead is horrific. Imagine 50 WT centers going down, 50!!, but, same thing happens when people die in avalanches, earthquakes, volcano eruptions, death is everywhere. Terrible though that no one knew what was going on when it happened. Natural selection

The USA gets hit by earthquakes, tsunamis, forest fires, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc... How come we seem to do better? It's because we're religious capitalists. We care enough to do something before/during/after, and we've got the money to pay for it.

Well, if you think about it, a good tsunami in the Atlantic would wipe out New York, Miami, Boston, and a lot of cities that are right at sea level. But, we do not have a lot of development right on the ocean and don't have 15 million people living at 3 feet above sea level. Money and religion have nothing to do with mother nature. It happens when it happens, forest fires can kill people but there aren't many living in the woods where it happens. I can't speak for the near future with this president, but national forests are off limits to residential suburbia. We care enough to do something about it, but the same dilemma would arise if an asteroid was on a earth collision course in the next two years, there is simply nothing that can be done. No oil drillers flying into space, no nothing. It happens and you hope for the best, I guess.

Zuruck wrote: Money and religion have nothing to do with mother nature.

But they have everything to do with man's actions and man's budgets. You prepare for mother nature, you respond to mother nature, you rebuild despite mother nature. That's why you need faith and financing.

Wow, someone oughta save this one as some sort of "Standard Training Thread" for the E&C forum. I mean, we've got almost everything here in pretty standard format:
- First post noting some extreme opinion
- Extreme statements (usually, either bait or sarcasm, often misunderstood, causing more havoc)
- Occasional good debate
- Arguments over semantics: "You said 'x'", "No, I meant 'y'!"
- Random stupid/pointless comments
It's all here!

Seriously, though, it seems like almost everyone has some level of appreciation for environmental concerns, but no one here truly supports the view that this horrific disaster was "good" for humanity overall. (At least I hope not...)

Zuruck wrote:I read a business from thailand saying it was good because there was a lot of illegal construction being built on the beaches.

From what I understand, most of that "illegal construction" was the poorly-built shelters of thousands of impoverished homeless people.

From what I understand, most of that "illegal construction" was the poorly-built shelters of thousands of impoverished homeless people.

If only America was able to outsource more jobs for those poor people, they might have more money to build stronger houses.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/011205E.html

This extremist attitude by its official clerics is also seen in the Saudi government's attitude toward charitable donations for the tsunami victims. As noted by Paul Marshall in The Weekly Standard, "Riyadh originally offered $10 million for tsunami relief; then, after international criticism, upped its pledge to $30 million." Such a commitment obviously contrasts with the hundreds of millions donated by Germany and Australia, while constituting less than 10 percent of the initial target of $350 million from the U.S.

Foil wrote:Wow, someone oughta save this one as some sort of "Standard Training Thread" for the E&C forum.

If you think this is bad, you should've seen me and Goob going at it in instant messages :P

------

Speaking of Saudi Arabia: I don't mind their being cheap (only offering $30 million) so much as I mind how much that pales in comparison to the $150 million they raised in a telethon (April '02) for the Palestinians, including significant portions going to the families of suicide bombers, and most likely to Hamas as well.

While we're at it lets not forget the munificent French. They offered originally something like $135,00.00. Didn't hear anyone call le Frog stingy.

woodchip wrote:something like $135,00.00

nice

Foil wrote:...but no one here truly supports the view that this horrific disaster was "good" for humanity overall. (At least I hope not...)

I think it can be. A lot of the areas that were hit are counted among the poorest in the world. An opportunity exists to replace what had been a series of coastal shanty towns with very little infrastructure with more structured towns with running water and electricity. While not a solution for the poverty that these areas suffer from, this can be a good step in the right direction.

So while this tragedy is monumental in terms of human lives and the effect it will have on future generations, it may just provide the catalyst for positive social change in some of these areas. That is a good thing.

Actually, I'm pretty glad the wave hit them, better them die than us.

Dedman wrote:...So while this tragedy is monumental in terms of human lives and the effect it will have on future generations, it may just provide the catalyst for positive social change in some of these areas. That is a good thing.

Saying "good may eventually come from this disaster" (which I truly hope is the case) is still a world away from saying "the disaster and loss of life was an inherently good thing".

ccb056 wrote:Actually, I'm pretty glad the wave hit them, better them die than us.

I wonder: are you saying that out of your sense of self-preservation (you're glad you're still alive)? Or is this another facet of the same ethno-centric attitude that I've been hearing lately? You know, the attitude of people who say things like, "we ought to just let (insert ethnic group or nationality) die, they're all just a bunch of (insert stereotype) anyway".

Sorry if I'm over-reacting; I've just been a bit more sensitive in the past couple of years about people who consider outside groups as less valuable, or even less human, than their own. I'm not talking about the importance of friends, family, etc.; I'm talking about the kind of attitude that doesn't even flinch at horrific tragedy unless it's someone of one's own nationality/ethnicity/religion/etc.

For example, around 9/11, someone who I consider a friend and an intelligent person started advocating "nuking" a particular foreign country. He didn't care about how many innocent people would die, basically because their life or death didn't mean anything to him personally. At the time I thought he was just exaggerating, but I've been noticing that same sentiment more and more lately.

ccb056 wrote:Actually, I'm pretty glad the wave hit them, better them die than us.

I'm from that part of the world. It's full of backwards countries run by Communists, Muslim dictatorships, and other assorted anti-American regimes. I'm glad I'm an American citizen so I don't have to deal with all that BS!

Now all I need to do is push the Communists... err Democrats... errrr Liberals out of power in the USA so I can live my life with less government intervention and pay less taxes.

KlubMarcus wrote:

ccb056 wrote:Actually, I'm pretty glad the wave hit them, better them die than us.

Now all I need to do is push the Communists... err Democrats... errrr Liberals out of power in the USA so I can live my life with less government intervention and pay less taxes.

Less government intervention? Are you kidding? The govt can run / see more parts of our lives now than ever, and they don't even have to have a reason. You seem to be new here KlubMarcus, or just a different name, but you have without a doubt the most assinine views of anyone here. That honor used to belong to Lothar, but I think it's on you now.

In the end, I seriously doubt any liberal enviro wacko islamikazi (i like the way conservatives use adjectives) would simply say the death of 225 thousand was a good thing. In terms of the environment, it is. In terms of human life, it is not.

Zuruck wrote:You seem to be new here KlubMarcus, or just a different name, but you have without a doubt the most assinine views of anyone here. That honor used to belong to Lothar, but I think it's on you now.

haha, thats a good one Z, you made me tear up. I had the impression, and I'll bet by far not the only one, that you, Paly & Kufyit were the ones with some of the most assinine views around here. I think Marcus just joined your club by default

^^ heh...

I often agree with Lothar...

I often agreed with bashy, but sadly his voice has become somewhat silent these days. Will has basically become the ambassador I agree with on issues I usually don't post about

Lothar's the most asinine one? He's the most stable, level-headed, intelligent person I've ever met online. In contrast, whenever I see your name above a post, I don't even need to read it; I just assume the usual blather.

I'm relatively new here, but am I correct in my assessment that there seem to be sort of two main "groupings" of people here?

I mean, from what I've gathered, there seem to be the stereotypical "Conservative/Christian/Republican" and "Liberal/(Agnostic or Atheist)/Democrat" people in great numbers, with a few others scattered here and there.

Is the general demographic in here really that polarized, or am I just getting that impression because of all the political debate?

Foil wrote:Is the general demographic in here really that polarized, or am I just getting that impression because of all the political debate?

You're mostly getting that impression because of the political debate. You might also be getting that impression because there are a few people who tend to contribute a lot here, and it appears at first glance that everyone else must be in agreement with one of the major contributors.

Really, most of us have been here so long that we've ended up agreeing with everyone on at least one issue, and disagreeing with everyone on at least one issue. I think I can name on one hand the number of people I've never agreed with, and there's nobody here (not even my wife) who I've never disagreed with.

One particular point on which your assessment is off: the conservative/liberal demographic and the Christian/not demographic aren't the same. Most of the outspoken Christians here are also conservative on most issues, but there are plenty of buddhists, atheists, and others scattered about the conservative/liberal spectrum.

If there were a couple more religious threads active, you'd see a completely different divide.

If you dig back about two months you'll find a whole crap load of religious threads. Lothar does make a great point though.

The longer you're here the more you'll tend to make the rounds in agreement with all the different personalities one can find in this community. As long as some of us have been around the block it always surprises me how people can't agree on so many things and on the same note agree on so many others.

It is the sticking point that makes this board, and the community, great.