# Should the "Yes Men" be able to change the world?



## basilio (9 January 2013)

Jonathan Dyles hoax with Whitehaven Coal raises the question of how far should citizens go in challenging what they see as  corrupt or illegal behaviors particularly by business interests. The Yes men are 2 activists who have created a series of hoaxes to highlight particular issues.

In 2009 they created a Press Conferance as representatives of the American Chamber of Commerce and announced a reversal of the Chambers position on Climate Change. (interestingly enough 2 weeks after the hoax the Chamber actually did reverse its position...)

In 2004 the impersonated a spokesman from DOW chemicals to take full responsibility for the Biphol chemical disaster. They fooled the BBC into running that interview.

What do you think of their actions ? Check out the you tube clips.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pmTwIRErcI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiWlvBro9eI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lScyQYUHLA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yes_Men
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhrpSW_pnck


----------



## pixel (9 January 2013)

*Re: Should  the 'Yes Men" be able to change the world ?*

Firstly, I doubt the premise that either hoax has the capacity to "change the world". It merely polarises and antagonises two sides of society at large: Those, who think with their hearts, and those, who use their heads.
IMO it's not so much a question of "Should  the 'Yes Men' be able to change the world ?" but one of "Is one criminal act justified by the mere allegation of another?"

And my answer to that is clearly "No!"

I also find it extremely distasteful to compare Dyles and the Yes Men, Whitehaven and Union Carbide.
As far as I'm aware, WHC has complied with all legal and administrative requirements and is providing jobs in a lawful business. Union Carbide, *not Dow Chemical btw*, has negligently brought death and misery to thousands of Indians.


----------



## DocK (9 January 2013)

*Re: Should  the 'Yes Men" be able to change the world ?*



pixel said:


> Firstly, I doubt the premise that either hoax has the capacity to "change the world". It merely polarises and antagonises two sides of society at large: Those, who think with their hearts, and those, who use their heads.
> IMO it's not so much a question of "Should  the 'Yes Men' be able to change the world ?" but one of "Is one criminal act justified by the mere allegation of another?"
> 
> And my answer to that is clearly "No!"
> ...




+1

It's essentially fraudulent behaviour and financial terrorism in my view.  If everyone with an axe to grind took matters into their own hands in this way, there'd be chaos on a grand scale.


----------



## pixel (9 January 2013)

*Re: Should  the 'Yes Men" be able to change the world ?*



DocK said:


> +1
> 
> It's essentially fraudulent behaviour and financial terrorism in my view.  If everyone with an axe to grind took matters into their own hands in this way, there'd be chaos on a grand scale.




In addition, I was reminded of another recent "hoax", and a thought occurred to me:

What if one of the duped shareholders saw the unexpected slump and suffered a heart attack? Or worse, as has been reported from the Crash of 1929, a few traders got depressed and committed suicide? Would they be considered collateral damage en route to "a better world"? Or would the Social Media crucify the hoaxer as they did the shock jocks?


----------



## basilio (9 January 2013)

Thanks for the observations.

Couple of points. With regard to who was responsible for Bophal. Union Carbide was the original perpetuater . However when DOW chemicals bought them out they assumed responsibility for the fallout from the disaster.

With regard to "financial terrorism" and "fraud".  I can't agree that these incidents are close to these descriptions. Firstly no one attempted to make any financial returns from the actions. So there was no attempt to profit from the stunts. 

Secondly these were very short term actions that were quickly challenged.  The social message got through and there wasn't a long term financial fallout.  

And with regard to "changing the world" ? Lets recognise that "changing the world"  to their advantage is the intention of all big businesses. Essentially they are looking out for No 1 and will (generally) do whatever it takes to extract maximum advantage at anyone else expense.  In my view being able to push back against this trend is in the interests of the little guys.

Anyone  else seen the clips and wish to add to the discussion ?


----------



## McLovin (9 January 2013)

*Re: Should  the 'Yes Men" be able to change the world ?*



pixel said:


> Firstly, I doubt the premise that either hoax has the capacity to "change the world". It merely polarises and antagonises two sides of society at large: Those, who think with their hearts, and those, who use their heads.
> IMO it's not so much a question of "Should  the 'Yes Men' be able to change the world ?" but one of "Is one criminal act justified by the mere allegation of another?"
> 
> And my answer to that is clearly "No!"
> ...




+1

Union Carbide, Ford, James Hardie all got what they deserved.


----------



## sydboy007 (10 January 2013)

Reminds me of the show continuum.

Am just waiting for when enough Govts are bankrupted and the corporations step in.

Suppose then unless your a shareholder, you wont get to vote 

I support the hoaxers intentions, but do question his methods.  I wonder how many small investors sold out and lost some hard earned $$$


----------



## Calliope (10 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Reminds me of the show continuum.
> 
> Am just waiting for when enough Govts are bankrupted and the corporations step in.
> 
> ...




Jonathan Moylan, whom basilio (for reasons known only to him) has alternately rechristened Doyle, Doyles and Dyles has been elevated to hero status by your party for his gallant efforts to reduce the heat wave and bushfires by harassing coal producers and their shareholders.

If ever an irresponsible lout deserved to have his ar$e kicked, it is this guy.


----------



## basilio (10 January 2013)

The topic is not specifically about Jonathan Moylan.  It is the question of how activists can effectively highlight corrupt or antisocial business practices.

The Yes Men have used creative impersonation very effectively for this effect.

Has anyone yet watched any of the clips?


----------



## pixel (10 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> If ever an irresponsible lout deserved to have his ar$e kicked, it is this guy.




+1
... and then some. (I don't even want to see his vile mug)


----------



## white_goodman (10 January 2013)

love to see that coksmoker go to jail


----------



## Julia (10 January 2013)

pixel said:


> +1
> ... and then some. (I don't even want to see his vile mug)



+2.  And then some more.  Utterly irresponsible.


----------



## basilio (10 January 2013)

Is there any possible chance that people can stop kicking Jonathan Moylon to death on a thread that is specifically about other people and bigger issues ?

Or is that just the way it is on ASF at the moment ?


----------



## Julia (10 January 2013)

basilio said:


> Is there any possible chance that people can stop kicking Jonathan Moylon to death on a thread that is specifically about other people and bigger issues ?
> 
> Or is that just the way it is on ASF at the moment ?



You want to judge what may be posted now?  Perhaps set out some guidelines so that we do not OFFEND you, something that will apparently become an offence if Roxon's legislation to that effect is passed.

The translation will be:  No one with any views right of centre may say anything against anyone with views left of centre because it will ipso facto cause offence.


----------



## basilio (10 January 2013)

Julia said:


> You want to judge what may be posted now?  Perhaps set out some guidelines so that we do not OFFEND you, something that will apparently become an offence if Roxon's legislation to that effect is passed.
> 
> The translation will be:  No one with any views right of centre may say anything against anyone with views left of centre because it will ipso facto cause offence.




Nuh !! Just trying to get the discussion back to the topic Julia. I specifically introduced a quite different range of material for comment and discussion. Yours was the third successive comment that  decided  having a free kick at Jonathan was easier thinking about the bigger picture.

And I was a bit surprised that it came from you.  Any other thoughts on the Yes Men ?


----------



## pixel (10 January 2013)

basilio said:


> Is there any possible chance that people can stop kicking Jonathan Moylon to death on a thread that is specifically about other people and bigger issues ?
> 
> Or is that just the way it is on ASF at the moment ?




As far as I'm aware, nobody has kicked JM to death yet. (Although I wouldn't shed too many tears if someone did.)
That aside, I believe the point has already been made that both actions: by the yes Men and by JM, have been criminal acts that only a small fringe group seems to condone. Neither will endear the respective perpetrators to "we, the people" who find it tough enough to survive without stunts like that.

Try and get hold of a novel "The Gods Themselves" by Isaac Asimov. He shows - IMHO - the only way how this kind of "bigger issues" can be resolved. Trying to put Humpty Dumpty together again is not it. Nor will anything be achieved by shooting everybody that picked up one of Pandora's gifts - if you pardon my mixing metaphors.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 January 2013)

basilio said:


> Is there any possible chance that people can stop kicking Jonathan Moylon to death on a thread that is specifically about other people and bigger issues ?
> 
> Or is that just the way it is on ASF at the moment ?




John Cardinal Newman said in the 19th Century that the definition of a gentleman was one who did not cause others pain.

Moylan has his beliefs and I would defend his right to hold them.

He is not a gentleman however.

His actions though have caused many ordinary people to suffer.

So it is valid to discuss him given the context of your original post.

gg


----------



## Calliope (10 January 2013)

basilio said:


> Nuh !! Just trying to get the discussion back to the topic Julia. I specifically introduced a quite different range of material for comment and discussion. Yours was the third successive comment that  decided  having a free kick at Jonathan was easier thinking about the bigger picture.




You can't deny that it was the "heroic" actions of Moylan (Dyles?) that inspired you to start the thread. You can't complain that posters have taken you up on the absurdity of your Green movement installing this nasty piece of work into their hall of fame. He has also given you and other radical posters a lift in wavering spirits.


----------



## Julia (10 January 2013)

pixel said:


> As far as I'm aware, nobody has kicked JM to death yet. (Although I wouldn't shed too many tears if someone did.)
> That aside, I believe the point has already been made that both actions: by the yes Men and by JM, have been criminal acts that only a small fringe group seems to condone. Neither will endear the respective perpetrators to "we, the people" who find it tough enough to survive without stunts like that.



Basilio, you may take pixel's remarks as speaking for me also.  Imo he should be up for a considerably greater 'kicking' than the few words that have been thus far offered on this forum.

He has caused considerable concern and distress to others with respect to a legitimate business, complying with the laws of this country.

I heard some ABC radio commentator this morning likening this character to Rosa Parks and Emily Pankhurst!

The one positive that might emanate from this stupid stunt will hopefully be that a few more people who ill advisedly dumped their vote with the Greens in the last election will see them more clearly.


----------



## cynic (11 January 2013)

The activists mentioned in this thread appear to be self deluded publicity seeking egomaniacs. Being noticed within society is their primary motivation as it satiates their inner insecurity. Their fictional claims of altruistic intent are simply a creative cover story used to excuse and justify the crimes they perpetrate in their quest for publicity.

These activists are emotionally insecure on account of the fact that honest and industrious conduct within society has proven to be too daunting a challenge for them. In order to placate their personal insecurity they have, instead, subscribed to a heroic fantasy i.e. "save the planet from industrial tyranny". They choose to live out this fantasy irrespective of its contrast to reality. Anyone they encounter whom doesn't subscribe to (or support) their fantasy automatically arouses a fear response and is perceived as a threat that must be either converted or invalidated ( ie. denounced, incarcerated,destroyed etc.) so that their fantasy may continue unhindered. Until their personal issues are dealt with, it will be very difficult for them to break the hold that their heroic fantasy has over their lives. After all why would someone choose to embrace the reality of their life as a pathetic and fearful under achiever when this can all be avoided via the perpetuation of a heroic fantasy?

The harmful and misguided actions of these self deluded individuals poses a definite threat to the fabric of our society. As such, I believe it is in our best interests to take protective measures against such activism. To this end, I am of the opinion that these activists require professional assistance/guidance in addressing their innermost fears and insecurities. Failing this, society will need to give serious consideration to incarceration in an appropriate mental health care/rehabilitation facility. Anything less will likely result in further atrocities being perpetrated against innocent entities (individual and corporate) courtesy of these mindless and self ingratiating psychopathic primates.


----------



## pixel (11 January 2013)

cynic said:


> The activists mentioned in this thread appear to be self deluded publicity seeking egomaniacs. Being noticed within society is their primary motivation as it satiates their inner insecurity. Their fictional claims of altruistic intent are simply a creative cover story used to excuse and justify the crimes they perpetrate in their quest for publicity.
> 
> These activists are emotionally insecure on account of the fact that honest and industrious conduct within society has proven to be too daunting a challenge for them. In order to placate their personal insecurity they have, instead, subscribed to a heroic fantasy i.e. "save the planet from industrial tyranny". They choose to live out this fantasy irrespective of its contrast to reality. Anyone they encounter whom doesn't subscribe to (or support) their fantasy automatically arouses a fear response and is perceived as a threat that must be either converted or invalidated ( ie. denounced, incarcerated,destroyed etc.) so that their fantasy may continue unhindered. Until their personal issues are dealt with, it will be very difficult for them to break the hold that their heroic fantasy has over their lives. After all why would someone choose to embrace the reality of their life as a pathetic and fearful under achiever when this can all be avoided via the perpetuation of a heroic fantasy?
> 
> The harmful and misguided actions of these self deluded individuals poses a definite threat to the fabric of our society. As such, I believe it is in our best interests to take protective measures against such activism. To this end, I am of the opinion that these activists require professional assistance/guidance in addressing their innermost fears and insecurities. Failing this, society will need to give serious consideration to incarceration in an appropriate mental health care/rehabilitation facility. Anything less will likely result in further atrocities being perpetrated against innocent entities (individual and corporate) courtesy of these mindless and self ingratiating psychopathic primates.




+1E100
Couldn't have said it better myself


----------



## basilio (11 January 2013)

Cynic, Pixel  I think you have offered far more of an insight into your state of mind than  observations about the Yes Men.

There was a society that considered its actions so right that any protest or disagreement automatically meant the protester needed psychiatric assessment and incarceration .

That was the Soviet Union of the 1950's, - 80's. Can you remember the protests of the Free World on behalf of the valiant Russian activists who exposed the Gulags and excesses of the Soviet government? Perhaps you'd like to check out the reference and see if this model is the one you would use to take care of protesters.

But perhaps CYnic you are already aware  of this and your just running an elaborate hoax to see who agrees ? 

Perhaps....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union


----------



## pixel (11 January 2013)

basilio said:


> Cynic, Pixel  I think you have offered far more of an insight into your state of mind than  observations about the Yes Men.




Glad to see you did gain *some *insight, basilio 

Now go and get that Asimov novel I told you about earlier:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Gods-Themselves-Isaac-Asimov/dp/0553288105
That will provide an even more valuable insight into the human psyche when there is a dichotomy of views and the population faces the choice between immediate personal loss vs potential future discomfort.

PS: The full quote, from which the title is taken, reads 
*"Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain."* 
So I don't expect the Yes Men, Moylan, or all of their doting fans to come to reason. But there may be hope for one or two.


----------



## basilio (11 January 2013)

> The campaign to declare political opponents mentally sick and to commit dissenters to mental hospitals began in the late 1950s and early 1960s.[3]:402 As Vladimir Bukovsky, commenting on the nascency of the political abuse of psychiatry, wrote, Nikita Khrushchev reckoned that it was impossible for people in a socialist society to have anti-socialist consciousness, and whenever manifestations of dissidence could not be justified as a provocation of world imperialism or a legacy of the past, they were merely the product of mental disease.[3]:402 In his speech published in the state newspaper Pravda on 24 May 1959, Khrushchev said:
> 
> A crime is a deviation from generally recognized standards of behavior frequently caused by mental disorder. Can there be diseases, nervous disorders among certain people in a Communist society? Evidently yes. If that is so, then there will also be offences, which are characteristic of people with abnormal minds. Of those who might start calling for opposition to Communism on this basis, we can say that clearly their mental state is not normal.[3]:402





> ] Along with paranoia, sluggish schizophrenia was the diagnosis most frequently used for the psychiatric incarceration of dissenters.[65] As per the theories of Snezhnevsky and his colleagues, schizophrenia was much more prevalent than previously considered since the illness could be presented with comparatively slight symptoms and only progress afterwards.[5] As a consequence, schizophrenia was diagnosed much more often in Moscow than in cities of other countries, as the World Health Organization Pilot Study on Schizophrenia reported in 1973.[5] In particular, the scope was widened by sluggish schizophrenia because according to Snezhnevsky and his colleagues, patients with this diagnosis were capable of functioning almost normally in the social sense.[5] Their symptoms could be like those of a neurosis or could assume a paranoid character.[5]* The patients with paranoid symptoms retained some insight into their condition but overestimated their own significance and could manifest grandiose ideas of reforming society.[5] Thereby, sluggish schizophrenia could have such symptoms as "reform delusions," "perseverance," and "struggle for the truth."[5] As Vladimir Stayzhkin reported, Snezhnevsky diagnosed a reformation delusion for every case when a patient "develops a new principle of human knowledge, drafts an academy of human happiness, and many other projects for the benefit of mankind.*"[69]:66




Does this sound familiar Cynic, Pixel ?  

I urge you to check out the Wiki post on political abuse of Psychiatry in Soviet Union. Desperately sad stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union


----------



## basilio (11 January 2013)

I checked out the short story of The Gods Themselves on Wiki.

Certainly fascinating and I love Isaac Asimov as a SF writer. Thanks for the tip off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gods_Themselves


----------



## cynic (11 January 2013)

basilio said:


> Does this sound familiar Cynic, Pixel ?
> 
> I urge you to check out the Wiki post on political abuse of Psychiatry in Soviet Union. Desperately sad stuff.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union






> ...As a consequence, schizophrenia was diagnosed much more often in Moscow than in cities of other countries, as the World Health Organization Pilot Study on Schizophrenia reported in 1973.[5] In particular, the scope was widened by sluggish schizophrenia because according to Snezhnevsky and his colleagues, patients with this diagnosis were capable of functioning almost normally in the social sense...




Comrade Basilio, thankyou for providing this wiki "reference" to psychiatric misdiagnoses within the Soviet Union. 
I do, of course, understand the difficulties that can arise in discerning words written in plain English whilst attempting to read them through green (or watermelon) tinted lenses.

I fail to understand how one equates  those to whom 

"fictional claims of altruistic intent are simply a creative cover story used to excuse and justify the crimes they perpetrate in their quest for publicity" (as per my original post) 

with those whom 

"were capable of functioning almost normally in the social sense" (as per your wiki quote).

I believe that many would readily agree that there is a chasm of difference between the aforementioned groups. 
Are you able to illuminate me on your thinking in this regard?



			
				Cynic said:
			
		

> ...Anyone they encounter whom doesn't subscribe to (or support) their fantasy automatically arouses a fear response and is perceived as a threat that must be either converted or invalidated ( ie. denounced, incarcerated,destroyed etc.) so that their fantasy may continue unhindered...




One could be forgiven for interpreting these recent efforts at obfuscation (of original intent and meaning) as further examples of one fantasist's need to invalidate those not supportive of said fantasist's self delusion.


----------



## basilio (11 January 2013)

Very simple Cynic.

The Communist Leaders of the Soviet Union decided that anyone who thought there was anything wrong with Communist state had to be sick.

So they sent them to psychiatric hospitals to be treated for their illness - which was criticizing the government.

You are proposing  that we should treat the various Jonathans, Yes Men and other do good fantastists in the same way on exactly the same premise - that they are clearly sick people who need help.


----------



## pixel (11 January 2013)

Jeff Foxworthy penned this to explain the differences between Republicans and Democrats.
Well, we don't have those around here, but I reckon most of it applies to this context:

_If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test! 

If a Liberal is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat. 
If a Greenie is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone. 

If a Liberal is homosexual, he quietly leads his life. 
If a Greenie is homosexual, he demands legislated respect. 

If a Liberal is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. 
A Greenie wonders who is going to take care of him. 

If a Liberal doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. 
Greenies demand that those they don't like be shut down. 

If a Liberal is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. 
A Greenie non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. 

If a Liberal decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A Greenie demands that the rest of us pay for his. 

If a Liberal reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh. 
A Greenie will delete it because he's "offended". 

Well, I forwarded it._

And one more that I'm adding in this context:

If a Liberal recognises a danger ahead, he works towards a solution.
A Greenie demands everyone stop what they're doing and listen to him talk about it.


----------



## cynic (11 January 2013)

basilio said:


> Very simple Cynic.
> 
> The Communist Leaders of the Soviet Union decided that anyone who thought there was anything wrong with Communist state had to be sick.
> 
> ...




Your admired activists have perpetrated frauds that hurt innocent people! The reason for your repeated efforts to compare the oppressive practices of Communist governnments with my contempt for the deceiptful,malicious and criminal acts of self-delusional glory seekers continues to elude me....

Unless... are you perchance one of these fantasists whom thinks it's okay to deceptively and maliciously disrupt the lives (and livelihood) of law abiding citizens in order to further your own idealistic/political pursuits?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (11 January 2013)

cynic said:


> Your admired activists have perpetrated frauds that hurt innocent people! The reason for your repeated efforts to compare the oppressive practices of Communist governnments with my contempt for the deceiptful,malicious and criminal acts of self-delusional glory seekers continues to elude me....
> 
> Unless... are you perchance one of these fantasists whom thinks it's okay to deceptively and maliciously disrupt the lives (and livelihood) of law abiding citizens in order to further your own idealistic/political pursuits?




I don't believe that Anthony Moylan is sick or unwell in any way because of his recent action.

It will be up to the courts to decide if he is a criminal, should ASIC decide a prosecution is warranted.

If he is, he may end up being fined or in Goulbourn Gaol.

Should the latter happen he may feel quite unwell.

gg


----------



## cynic (11 January 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I don't believe that Anthony Moylan is sick or unwell in any way because of his recent action.
> 
> It will be up to the courts to decide if he is a criminal, should ASIC decide a prosecution is warranted.
> 
> ...




Thanks for that GG.

If it comes down to a requirement for action on the part of ASIC then I shan't be holding my breath.

As for fines, what are they going to do? Garnishee his welfare payments perhaps!!

Gaol is too good for this conceited !@#$%. I'd rather see him publicly humiliated by being forced to spend years performing low paid, labour intensive, tasks until such time as all affected are fully recompensed for any financial losses incurred consequent to his stunt.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (11 January 2013)

cynic said:


> Thanks for that GG.
> 
> If it comes down to a requirement for action on the part of ASIC then I shan't be holding my breath.
> 
> ...




No worries mate, basilio was setting up a strawman argument, which I felt was a bit of an unfair response to an excellent original post from you.

I personally hope Moylan does time, qldfrog, a fellow ASF member, has had a considerable loss because of Moylan on WHC.

ASIC will be under considerable pressure to prosecute as this type of action is so easily repeatable, particularly as the behaviour is endorsed by the Greens, a party holding the balance of power in the Federal Parliament and in coalition with the ALP in Tasmania.

gg


----------



## basilio (11 January 2013)

cynic said:


> Your admired activists have perpetrated frauds that hurt innocent people! The reason for your repeated efforts to compare the oppressive practices of Communist governnments with my contempt for the deceiptful,malicious and criminal acts of self-delusional glory seekers continues to elude me....
> 
> Unless... are you perchance one of these fantasists whom thinks it's okay to deceptively and maliciously disrupt the lives (and livelihood) of law abiding citizens in order to further your own idealistic/political pursuits?




Ah my dear Cynic you truly are one with the delusion of words.  An infinite capacity to roll veritable miles of babble across brooks that will not hear you.

Roll on to the sea Cynic. Let your melodious words fill the ocean with their wisdom. Us mere mortals stand in awe and wonder.


----------



## basilio (11 January 2013)

And dear Cynic given the vehemance of your feelings towards our little petal Jonathan for his 20 minute prank I wonder what you would propose for the other 100,000 various scammers who rip off investors on the stock exchange  or similar financial institutions ?

Clearly it must be many orders of magnitude higher if you want any type of  comparison.


----------



## basilio (11 January 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> No worries mate, basilio was setting up a strawman argument, which I felt was a bit of an unfair response to an excellent original post from you.
> 
> I personally hope Moylan does time, qldfrog, a fellow ASF member, has had a considerable loss because of Moylan on WHC.
> 
> ...




Really GG ?  Strawman argument ? Perhaps a quick refesh of Cynics florid response  might refesh your memory



> The harmful and misguided actions of these self deluded individuals poses a definite threat to the fabric of our society. As such, I believe it is in our best interests to take protective measures against such activism. To this end, I am of the opinion that these activists require professional assistance/guidance in addressing their innermost fears and insecurities. Failing this, society will need to give serious consideration to incarceration in an appropriate mental health care/rehabilitation facility




And then I said

Guess what folks ? The last government that decided activists were just sick in the head and should be put in a mental asylum  for treatment was... the Soviet Union.

Seems like a pretty close analogy to me.


----------



## Julia (11 January 2013)

Meantime, since I understand he has been camped in the bush for around four months, one would assume he has no job and is not looking for one.
Presumably, then, the taxpayer is funding his existence?


----------



## cynic (11 January 2013)

basilio said:


> And dear Cynic given the vehemance of your feelings towards our little petal Jonathan for his 20 minute prank I wonder what you would propose for the other 100,000 various scammers who rip off investors on the stock exchange  or similar financial institutions ?
> 
> Clearly it must be many orders of magnitude higher if you want any type of  comparison.




What a surprise! Yet another attempt at obfuscation!

So you want to take this thread off topic now do you? Is your original position becoming too difficult to defend?

Did I hit a nerve when talking about the reasons people cling so dearly to their heroic fantasies?

I am sure I am not alone in wanting to see any criminal prosecuted to the fullest extent of law. I also believe that many would agree that such people should, as far as practicable, be held financially accountable for the losses of their victims and not be allowed to enjoy any notoriety arising from the commission of their crimes.

Are you happy to get back on topic now Basilio? Or are you still finding your original position indefensible?


----------



## pixel (11 January 2013)

Julia said:


> Meantime, since I understand he has been camped in the bush for around four months, one would assume he has no job and is not looking for one.
> Presumably, then, the taxpayer is funding his existence?




Sadly, Julia, that seems to be the case. Meaning your and my taxes paid for his laptop and Internet access fees as well as for all the other fluffheads' upkeep.


----------



## cynic (11 January 2013)

cynic said:


> Comrade Basilio, thankyou for providing this wiki "reference" to psychiatric misdiagnoses within the Soviet Union.
> I do, of course, understand the difficulties that can arise in discerning words written in plain English whilst attempting to read them through green (or watermelon) tinted lenses.
> 
> I fail to understand how one equates  those to whom
> ...




Allow me to jog your memory Basilio, I believe this earlier post highlights the inconsistencies of your "strawman" comparison between my expressed sentiments and your wiki quote re psychiatric misdiagnoses in the Soviet Union.


----------



## Calliope (11 January 2013)

i can see why basilio was confused at one stage into thinking Moylan's name was Doyle.



> Which side are they on? John Doyle interviews Jonathan Moylan on Radio National's Summer Breakfast on Wednesday:
> 
> DOYLE: Now we're also joined of course by Jonathan Moylan himself, the perpetrator of the alleged crime. Jonathan, good morning
> 
> ...


----------



## Julia (11 January 2013)

A verbal stoush between basilio and cynic:  may we bet on the ultimate winner?
I don't think it's really any contest.  Not even fair.


----------



## Calliope (11 January 2013)

Julia said:


> A verbal stoush between basilio and cynic:  may we bet on the ultimate winner?
> I don't think it's really any contest.  Not even fair.




Yes , basilio is totally outclassed. As I told basilio years ago, sarcasm and ridicule are no match for common sense.


----------



## cynic (11 January 2013)

Julia said:


> A verbal stoush between basilio and cynic:  may we bet on the ultimate winner?
> I don't think it's really any contest.  Not even fair.




I'm not too sure how I'd fair against the maestro of all things wiki.

Am I allowed to place bets against myself?


----------



## Some Dude (12 January 2013)

pixel said:


> What if one of the duped shareholders saw the unexpected slump and suffered a heart attack? Or worse, as has been reported from the Crash of 1929, a few traders got depressed and committed suicide? Would they be considered collateral damage en route to "a better world"? Or would the Social Media crucify the hoaxer as they did the shock jocks?




A very good point, very astute.



cynic said:


> The harmful and misguided actions of these self deluded individuals poses a definite threat to the fabric of our society. As such, I believe it is in our best interests to take protective measures against such activism. To this end, I am of the opinion that these activists require professional assistance/guidance in addressing their innermost fears and insecurities.




Another excellent point. If people refuse to take matters seriously that can be demonstrated to have significantly harmful impact, should society at large take action?



pixel said:


> Jeff Foxworthy penned this to explain the differences between Republicans and Democrats.
> Well, we don't have those around here, but I reckon most of it applies to this context:
> 
> ...
> ...






cynic said:


> Failing this, society will need to give serious consideration to incarceration in an appropriate mental health care/rehabilitation facility. Anything less will likely result in further atrocities being perpetrated against innocent entities (individual and corporate) courtesy of these mindless and self ingratiating psychopathic primates.




And unfortunately this is where we start to part ways and highlight what I find a dilemma with the precedent being suggested. Let's compare this to a related problem on a number of levels with current events. ACGW.

What was the primary driving issue that caused Abbott to win the Liberal party leadership from Turnball?

It sounds more comparable that those whom don't recognise the danger of ACGW are demanding that they be heard, despite being overwhelming listened to but rejected by those in the best position to assess, and mitigation measures be stopped.

If the opposition to ACGW and the consequences of inaction are demonstrated to be true, for which there is overwhelming scientific agreement and significant societal support for, should those whom appear deluded, insecure, obstinate, even responsible, be held to account?

So should society start giving _"serious consideration to incarceration in an appropriate mental health care/rehabilitation facility."_ for those who could be considered delusional on issues that can be demonstrated in a court of law to have the potential damages that have been predicted?



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> Firefighting officials are concerned with the effects climate change will bring on the frequency and intensity of bushfires under even a "low global warming" scenario. A 2006 report, prepared by CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Bushfire CRC, and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, identified South Eastern Australia as one of the 3 most fire-prone areas in the world, and concluded that an increase in fire-weather risk is likely at most sites over the next several decades, including the average number of days when the Forest Fire Danger Index rating is very high or extreme. It also found that the combined frequencies of days with very high and extreme FFDI ratings are likely to increase 4-25% by 2020 and 15-70% by 2050, and that the increase in fire-weather risk is generally largest inland.


----------



## Julia (12 January 2013)

Oh god, may we please not turn this into yet another thread on global warming!
Take that argument to one of the existing threads.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 January 2013)

Julia said:


> Oh god, may we please not turn this into yet another thread on global warming!
> Take that argument to one of the existing threads.




+1

gg


----------



## Calliope (12 January 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> +1
> 
> gg




+2. There is even one that caters for those suffering GW hysteria.


----------



## cynic (13 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> +2. There is even one that caters for those suffering GW hysteria.






Garpal Gumnut said:


> +1
> 
> gg






Julia said:


> Oh god, may we please not turn this into yet another thread on global warming!
> Take that argument to one of the existing threads.



+3



Some Dude said:


> Another excellent point. If people refuse to take matters seriously that can be demonstrated to have significantly harmful impact, should society at large take action?




This question has already been answered by earlier posts within the topical context of this thread.  



Some Dude said:


> ...And unfortunately this is where we start to part ways and highlight what I find a dilemma with the precedent being suggested. Let's compare this to a related problem on a number of levels with current events. ACGW...




Let's not! 

I share the concerns already expressed by GG, Julia and Calliope regarding the potential for this thread to be derailed into another climate change debate. We already have various other threads dedicated to such contentious issues. Please take your CC propaganda to the appropriate thread.



Some Dude said:


> What was the primary driving issue that caused Abbott to win the Liberal party leadership from Turnball?




Who cares? 

I fail to understand how this matter has any relevance to this thread. As stated before, there are other threads dedicated to such issues. Please desist from any further efforts at derailment and obfuscation.



Some Dude said:


> It sounds more comparable that those whom don't recognise the danger of ACGW are demanding that they be heard, despite being overwhelming listened to but rejected by those in the best position to assess, and mitigation measures be stopped.
> 
> If the opposition to ACGW and the consequences of inaction are demonstrated to be true, for which there is overwhelming scientific agreement and significant societal support for, should those whom appear deluded, insecure, obstinate, even responsible, be held to account?
> 
> So should society start giving _"serious consideration to incarceration in an appropriate mental health care/rehabilitation facility."_ for those who could be considered delusional on issues that can be demonstrated in a court of law to have the potential damages that have been predicted?




Wow!!! Even more subjective quotes courtesy of the wonderful world of Wiki!!! (Am I supposed to be impressed?)

Where would we be without Wiki? What would *YOU* be without Wiki?

Did Wiki perchance provide you with definitions for the following words: integrity, cohesion, impartiality, prejudice, hypocrisy, derailment and obfuscation ?



			
				Some Dude said:
			
		

> ...I felt a dsicussion on the big picture would be too large of a topic to handle, especially on a forum, hence I try to focus on one point at a time...




For a poster whom elsewhere claims a preference for focussing on one point at a time, you've certainly proven yourself otherwise!

I would've expected (at the bare minimum) a demonstrably higher level of cohesion and logic within the responses of even the lowliest of software engineers. Perhaps I am not sufficiently "educated" to discern the underlying cause of such anomalies, or perhaps the word "educate" has been substantially redefined since my school days.

When reading your posts, Some Dude, I cannot help but wonder: Apart from scrolls of parchment, HECS debts and learning to perform "google" searches, what exactly has taxpayer subsidised, tertiary education been providing to Australians?

In summation, it would appear that the mounting of a direct challenge to my original post is beyond the humble capacity of certain members of this forum. These blatant attempts at misconstruance and derailment have not escaped my attention. Rather than availing myself of the "ignore" facility, I have chosen to take the proverbial gloves off. Any future attempts at distortion (of my expressed viewpoints) will be met with the utter contempt that they deserve.

After reading a number of recent posts from other ASFers, I can see that I am not alone in my sentiments.


----------



## Calliope (13 January 2013)

cynic said:


> In summation, it would appear that the mounting of a direct challenge to my original post is beyond the humble capacity of certain members of this forum. These blatant attempts at misconstruance and derailment have not escaped my attention. Rather than availing myself of the "ignore" facility, I have chosen to take the proverbial gloves off. Any future attempts at distortion (of my expressed viewpoints) will be met with the utter contempt that they deserve.
> 
> After reading a number of recent posts from other ASFers, I can see that I am not alone in my sentiments.




Keep up the good work cynic.

It is ironic that a thread titled "Climate Change Hysteria" can be used as a heat-sink to hive off from other threads the most vocal of the left wing GW alarmists. Through your efforts at least two have been enticed to this thread where their longwinded fanaticism can be easily ignored.

Alarmists however have no sense of irony (or humour) and have adopted the thread with enthusiasm.


----------



## pixel (13 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> Keep up the good work cynic.
> 
> It is ironic that a thread titled "Climate Change Hysteria" can be used as a heat-sink to hive off from other threads the most vocal of the left wing GW alarmists. Through your efforts at least two have been enticed to this thread where their longwinded fanaticism can be easily ignored.
> 
> Alarmists however have no sense of irony (or humour) and have adopted the thread with enthusiasm.




+1

This inspired another "comparison" between Libs and Greens:
If a Liberal has said his piece about a subject, he stops adding to the thread.
A Greenie changes the subject and raves on ... and on ... and on ... ad nauseam.


----------



## Some Dude (13 January 2013)

cynic said:


> This question has already been answered by earlier posts within the topical context of this thread.




I was restating the question in agreement that a good point was made with reference to the rest of my post. I apologise for that not being clearer.



cynic said:


> Let's not!
> 
> I share the concerns already expressed by GG, Julia and Calliope regarding the potential for this thread to be derailed into another climate change debate. We already have various other threads dedicated to such contentious issues. Please take your CC propaganda to the appropriate thread.




I will continue to use AGW as a prop or example for my points i.e we all have groups of people that we believe are deluded and in that context, the problem with how we determine _"serious consideration to incarceration in an appropriate mental health care/rehabilitation facility."_, and the comparison of Liberals and Greens. I do not apologise that some people will find this an inconvenient example and I will continue to utilise it as a reference to the  actual point I was making.

Feel free to continue to express your indignation 



cynic said:


> Who cares?
> 
> I fail to understand how this matter has any relevance to this thread. As stated before, there are other threads dedicated to such issues. Please desist from any further efforts at derailment and obfuscation.




Perhaps you need to go back and read the excerpt I posted, the point I asserted, and the example provided. I can do that here for your convenience.



pixel said:


> If a Liberal recognises a danger ahead, he works towards a solution.
> A Greenie demands everyone stop what they're doing and listen to him talk about it.






Some Dude said:


> And unfortunately this is where we start to part ways and highlight what I find a dilemma with the precedent being suggested. Let's compare this to a related problem on a number of levels with current events. ACGW.
> 
> What was the primary driving issue that caused Abbott to win the Liberal party leadership from Turnball?




If you disagree then feel free to continue discussion with me in any manner you choose. If you object to the point being included in this thread then take it up with the original poster with whom I quoted. I will continue to reference these types of points as posters make them. If they, or you, do not want people to do so then they should not post them.



cynic said:


> Wow!!! Even more subjective quotes courtesy of the wonderful world of Wiki!!! (Am I supposed to be impressed?)
> 
> Where would we be without Wiki? What would *YOU* be without Wiki?
> 
> Did Wiki perchance provide you with definitions for the following words: integrity, cohesion, impartiality, prejudice, hypocrisy, derailment and obfuscation ?




I have no desire to impress you so you don't need to worry and ask if you need to be impressed. If you want to relate any of those other words to something specific, let me know.



cynic said:


> For a poster whom elsewhere claims a preference for focussing on one point at a time, you've certainly proven yourself otherwise!




What exactly was proven? Please be sure to construct an argument and cite my other posts politely asking people for what they found the salient point for the discussion.

If the problem was that I used the same example to respond to pixel's and your post, I do and in future will make sure I post the same text twice with only the excerpted text different. Would that be better for you?



cynic said:


> I would've expected (at the bare minimum) a demonstrably higher level of cohesion and logic within the responses of even the lowliest of software engineers. Perhaps I am not sufficiently "educated" to discern the underlying cause of such anomalies, or perhaps the word "educate" has been substantially redefined since my school days.




Thank you for the opinion.



cynic said:


> When reading your posts, Some Dude, I cannot help but wonder: Apart from scrolls of parchment, HECS debts and learning to perform "google" searches, what exactly has taxpayer subsidised, tertiary education been providing to Australians?




Sadly for those of you who like to focus on my education, I did not accumulate a HECS debt. I can still help you with google searches if they will help you? I do pay higher taxes from the career that I developed which also led to my masters degree which I paid for fully while working full time? I'm not sure how any of that is relevant to either the thread or the points I originally posted about, etc but feel free to continue focusing on how you find my education a discussion point 



cynic said:


> In summation, it would appear that the mounting of a direct challenge to my original post is beyond the humble capacity of certain members of this forum. These blatant attempts at misconstruance and derailment have not escaped my attention. Rather than availing myself of the "ignore" facility, I have chosen to take the proverbial gloves off. Any future attempts at distortion (of my expressed viewpoints) will be met with the utter contempt that they deserve.




I look forward to it 

I hope you are now able to see that I was not attempting to derail the thread, but instead was making my point in relation to the problem with how we determine _"serious consideration to incarceration in an appropriate mental health care/rehabilitation facility."_, and the comparison of Liberals and Greens, using a topic to highlight what I believe is problematic with those points.

One request though, if you are going to accuse people of something, try to dmeonstrate it? Simply asserting your opinion does not make it so.



cynic said:


> After reading a number of recent posts from other ASFers, I can see that I am not alone in my sentiments.




Well then lucky I am not running for president of ASF.


----------



## cynic (13 January 2013)

Some Dude said:


> I was restating the question in agreement that a good point was made with reference to the rest of my post. I apologise for that not being clearer.




Why thankyou Some Dude! 
Although based on what I can discern of your philosophy, I'm a little uncertain as to whether or not your agreeance is a good thing.



Some Dude said:


> I will continue to use AGW as a prop or example for my points i.e we all have groups of people that we believe are deluded and in that context, the problem with how we determine _"serious consideration to incarceration in an appropriate mental health care/rehabilitation facility."_, and the comparison of Liberals and Greens. I do not apologise that some people will find this an inconvenient example and I will continue to utilise it as a reference to the  actual point I was making.
> 
> Feel free to continue to express your indignation




Thankyou - I shall!

AGW might be your religion of choice but it isn't mine! 
Please feel free to post your religious views in the "Religion is Crazy" thread.

Both you and I are already contributors to another thread where AGW related matters are being hotly debated. I see no value in reiterating that voluminous debate here.



Some Dude said:


> Perhaps you need to go back and read the excerpt I posted, the point I asserted, and the example provided. I can do that here for your convenience.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




"Divide and conquer", eh! 
(Wow!! You actually did learn something useful during your years of schooling. )



Some Dude said:


> I have no desire to impress you so you don't need to worry and ask if you need to be impressed. If you want to relate any of those other words to something specific, let me know.




Yes!  I can see that! I am totally underwhelmed already!



Some Dude said:


> What exactly was proven? Please be sure to construct an argument and cite my other posts politely asking people for what they found the salient point for the discussion.




There's really no need to reconstruct this argument/assertion as your very own posts have both constructed and proven it already! If it's unclear to you then you might need to read through it again - carefully!. If the meaning continues to prove elusive, then I recommend that you seek out the assistance of somebody adept in the exercise of basic literacy and logic.



Some Dude said:


> If the problem was that I used the same example to respond to pixel's and your post, I do and in future will make sure I post the same text twice with only the excerpted text different. Would that be better for you?




Does it really matter what one does when one's goose has already been roasted?




Some Dude said:


> Sadly for those of you who like to focus on my education, I did not accumulate a HECS debt. I can still help you with google searches if they will help you? I do pay higher taxes from the career that I developed which also led to my masters degree which I paid for fully while working full time? I'm not sure how any of that is relevant to either the thread or the points I originally posted about, etc but feel free to continue focusing on how you find my education a discussion point




Thanks for that Some Dude, I was simply trying to determine whether you'd actually learnt anything useful. Anyway, given the amount of practice you've been putting in, I'm certain that you're significantly more accomplished at google searching than I.



Some Dude said:


> I hope you are now able to see that I was not attempting to derail the thread, but instead was making my point in relation to the problem with how we determine _"serious consideration to incarceration in an appropriate mental health care/rehabilitation facility."_, and the comparison of Liberals and Greens, using a topic to highlight what I believe is problematic with those points.




As neither the Liberals nor the Greens featured in my original post, I maintain my objection to your repeated efforts at derailment.



Some Dude said:


> One request though, if you are going to accuse people of something, try to dmeonstrate it? Simply asserting your opinion does not make it so.




Why would I need to demonstrate it? You've already demonstrated it all by yourself? 
(I must confess that I'd be hard pressed to surpass your own efforts in that regard!) 

All the evidence of the truthfulness of this observable fact (not opinion) is contained in your posts to this thread.
Sadly, it would seem that some amongst us have been "educated" to the point of no longer being able to differentiate between right, opinion, theory, evidence, fact and wrong!

I am ever thankful that I am sufficiently uneducated as to still be cognisant of the wrongfuness of intentionally harming others.

I shall reiterate the salient points of my original post in just a few sentences. That way even the academic elite amongst us might actually understand where I am coming from:

(i) Some activists are self deluded publicity seeking egomaniacs.
(ii) There is a need for society to protect its members from the intentionally hostile actions of criminals and lunatics.
(iii) Psychotherapy and/or incarceration are amongst currently available remedies.

Is that plain enough for you "Master" Some Dude?
Or do you need to perform another google search and look up what it says in wiki before answering?


----------



## Ves (13 January 2013)

Hey cynic, can you please stop posting utter rubbish now?

Cheers


----------



## IFocus (13 January 2013)

Ves said:


> Hey cynic, can you please stop posting utter rubbish now?
> 
> Cheers





LOL fair go if you don't have a valid argument construct its absolutely necessary to make the obligatory denigrating personalised nasty comments so back off Ves.


----------



## Julia (13 January 2013)

IFocus and Ves, there's always the option of just leaving Cynic and Some Dude to their discussion.
I have the impression they are both enjoying themselves.
Even if that's not so, they are both articulate and I, for one, am finding the exchange more stimulating than many which occur on this forum.


----------



## Some Dude (13 January 2013)

Julia said:


> IFocus and Ves, there's always the option of just leaving Cynic and Some Dude to their discussion.
> I have the impression they are both enjoying themselves.
> Even if that's not so, they are both articulate and I, for one, am finding the exchange more stimulating than many which occur on this forum.




Thanks Julia, I have a thick skin so all good


----------



## Calliope (13 January 2013)

Some Dude said:


> Thanks Julia, I have a thick skin so all good




Yes, you certainly have a hide like a rhinoceros, and all verbal assaults have bounced off you harmlessly. I however will just watch the joust from the sidelines.


----------



## Some Dude (13 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> Yes, you certainly have a hide like a rhinoceros, and all verbal assaults have bounced off you harmlessly. I however will just watch the joust from the sidelines.




Heh. If what people say about me is the worst thing that happens today, it will be a pretty damn good day and I will go to bed and reflect on the day with a smile


----------



## Some Dude (13 January 2013)

cynic said:


> AGW might be your religion of choice but it isn't mine!
> Please feel free to post your religious views in the "Religion is Crazy" thread.
> 
> Both you and I are already contributors to another thread where AGW related matters are being hotly debated. I see no value in reiterating that voluminous debate here.




Get used to it. I see value in my point, and unless the forum administrators indicate to me that I am in error, I will continue to utilise the example I have proffered when making my point in relation to the posts I was responding to whether you like the example or not.



cynic said:


> "Divide and conquer", eh!
> (Wow!! You actually did learn something useful during your years of schooling. )




I'm unsure what you mean here. Do you mean with reference to my initial post where I combined your points because I felt they were of a similar nature and could be addressed with the same example? Or are you referring to my response where you seemed to imply some issue with my desire to focus on an issue at a time? Or that I was addressing your opinion "who cares"? You will have to help me out here, I'm really not sure what you are inviting us to infer?



cynic said:


> There's really no need to reconstruct this argument/assertion as your very own posts have both constructed and proven it already! If it's unclear to you then you might need to read through it again - carefully!. If the meaning continues to prove elusive, then I recommend that you seek out the assistance of somebody adept in the exercise of basic literacy and logic.




Should I use google to find that help? 

One can often dismiss an argument with the same level of effort placed into making it. If you are unwilling to explain why you perceive such, then I am unwilling to accept your criticism as valid.



cynic said:


> Does it really matter what one does when one's goose has already been roasted?




Again, I'm not really sure what you are inviting us to infer here? Perhaps you could be clearer by constructing an argument and utilise cliches less?



cynic said:


> As neither the Liberals nor the Greens featured in my original post, I maintain my objection to your repeated efforts at derailment.




Do you acknowledge that pixel did and that I excerpted pixel as well in my post with reference to the same example i.e. AGW? If so then I believe your objection has been nullified. If not then can you explain why you believe your objection should persist? Further, I offered in my last post to separate the points for you in future discussion as you seem to be having difficulty processing the similarities so I am unsure why this is still an issue for you.



cynic said:


> Why would I need to demonstrate it? You've already demonstrated it all by yourself?
> (I must confess that I'd be hard pressed to surpass your own efforts in that regard!)
> 
> All the evidence of the truthfulness of this observable fact (not opinion) is contained in your posts to this thread.
> ...




Have you heard of begging the question? You need to show your work if you want to be taken seriously. As I said earlier, one can often dismiss an argument with the same level of effort placed into making it. If you are unwilling to explain why you perceive such, then I am unwilling to accept your criticism as valid.



cynic said:


> I shall reiterate the salient points of my original post in just a few sentences. That way even the academic elite amongst us might actually understand where I am coming from:
> 
> (i) Some activists are self deluded publicity seeking egomaniacs.
> (ii) There is a need for society to protect its members from the intentionally hostile actions of criminals and lunatics.
> ...




As flattering as the title is from you, no need for formalities, just Some Dude or just plain Dude will suffice. Though business cards with Master Dude could be amusing. Thanks for the idea! I'll be able to add them to my official ordination papers of my actual religion by The Dude. But thank you for the respect, I worked hard for my education and it is nice when people notice 

Your argument was understood the first time and I am unsure why you believe that I did not understand that argument. I'll try rephrasing my initial my response. As stipulated previously, I'll also help you out by separating pixel's point.

Wouldn't you worry about unintended consequences of such actions based on the premise (i)? If it is accepted that premise (ii) is sufficient then why would society stop with those that you find qualify under premise (i)? For example, there are concepts such as AGW (and others) that are considered by the relevant scientific community and the majority of society to be factual and people identified as qualified for premise (i). Further, those concepts I am referring to are often associated with the potential to do wide scale, large, or unjustifiable i.e. premise (ii). Therefore, why would socety not be justified in the prescription nominated in conclusion (iii) towards people that can be defined as qualifying under premise (i) and (ii) with those concepts?

You can compare if you like 



Some Dude said:


> If the opposition to ACGW and the consequences of inaction are demonstrated to be true, for which there is overwhelming scientific agreement and significant societal support for, should those whom appear deluded, insecure, obstinate, even responsible, be held to account?
> 
> So should society start giving _"serious consideration to incarceration in an appropriate mental health care/rehabilitation facility."_ for those who could be considered delusional on issues that can be demonstrated in a court of law to have the potential damages that have been predicted?






cynic said:


> Or do you need to perform another google search and look up what it says in wiki before answering?




No, I find google searching for your opinion to be not reliable. I prefer to ask  As for wiki, do you feel threatend by people who can reference wiki? I'm not understanding why you object to people utilising great tools to substantiate their discussion. Is that something you are not used too?

BTW, thanks for nominating as being elite, cool! I'll add that to my curriculum vitae.


----------



## Calliope (13 January 2013)

I'm afraid cynic, you may have have sown a gentle breeze but we are reaping the whirlwind. To mix metaphors, you have unleashed an unstoppable torrent. Twenty-two posts (including some very long ones) today so far, and still counting.

Does anybody know what the  record is? If anybody can break it I'm sure Some Dude will. He has already vanquished basilio on verbosity.

Go for it SD.


----------



## FlyingFox (13 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> I however will just watch the joust from the sidelines.




Me too. Very enjoyable indeed.


----------



## Some Dude (13 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> Does anybody know what the  record is? If anybody can break it I'm sure Some Dude will. He has already vanquished basilio on verbosity.




The irony being that I tried to not to be verbose in my initial post by addressing both points with one set of small text


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 January 2013)

I see it as a fundamental principle that people do have a right to express their views regardless of what they may be.

We do however have a democratically elected government to make laws on our behalf. Provided that a business, any business, is operating within those laws then those opposed to it have no moral right to inflict harm upon it. By all means voice your opinion, but if the business is legal then its' operations ought not be interfered with in any way.

My personal observation of the environmental movement is that there has been a sharp move toward "radical" measures since Bob Brown ceased to be Greens leader. That applies both within and outside the actual party. 

I don't agree with many of the Greens' policies (though I agree with some). But that doesn't mean I'll be chaining myself to Christine Milne's car or putting out false press releases trying to shut them down. I won't blow up any engines or produce scary reports that just happen to forget that the hazard referred to exists with or without the development proposal in question either.

Those familiar with the term "jump the shark" will likely recognise these actions for what they are. With the rivers flowing free, the Tas forestry industry dead, the WA gas infrastructure relocated, renewable energy actually being built and a carbon tax introduced etc the party and the movement generally is desperate to remain relevant. 

Being a Green right now is akin to being a union leader after the bosses just handed the workers everything they wanted. It's hard to remain relevant as an activist (for anything) when the issues you represent have all been resolved and everyone is happy with your supposed opponent.


----------



## pixel (14 January 2013)

Smurf1976 said:


> I see it as a fundamental principle that people do have a right to express their views regardless of what they may be.
> 
> We do however have a democratically elected government to make laws on our behalf. Provided that a business, any business, is operating within those laws then those opposed to it have no moral right to inflict harm upon it. By all means voice your opinion, but if the business is legal then its' operations ought not be interfered with in any way.
> 
> ...




+1,
well put, smurf


----------



## cynic (14 January 2013)

Some Dude said:


> I'm unsure what you mean here. Do you mean with reference to my initial post where I combined your points because I felt they were of a similar nature and could be addressed with the same example? Or are you referring to my response where you seemed to imply some issue with my desire to focus on an issue at a time? Or that I was addressing your opinion "who cares"? You will have to help me out here, I'm really not sure what you are inviting us to infer?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You were never, 
ever, 
eveerrrr 
going to accept the validity of my criticism anyway!!! 
It was placed solely for the benefit of other visitors to this thread whom are perfectly capable of making their own determination as to the validity (or lack thereof) of my statements. 
(I'm a little surprised that you weren't already aware of this! I cannot help but wonder what other things you may have failed to notice!)



			
				Some Dude said:
			
		

> Again, I'm not really sure what you are inviting us to infer here? Perhaps you could be clearer by constructing an argument and utilise cliches less?




So you want clarity now! 
I do wish you'd make up your mind! 
My original post was very clear and cliche free! 
Unfortunately, some dudes came along and made various lame attempts to distort, debunk and derail that post. Insertion of  religious dogma, wiki quotes, and interpolation with other posters' comments were the techniques employed by the aforementioned dudes.



			
				Some Dude said:
			
		

> Do you acknowledge that pixel did and that I excerpted pixel as well in my post with reference to the same example i.e. AGW? If so then I believe your objection has been nullified. If not then can you explain why you believe your objection should persist? Further, I offered in my last post to separate the points for you in future discussion as you seem to be having difficulty processing the similarities so I am unsure why this is still an issue for you.




My previous comment refers.



			
				Some Dude said:
			
		

> Have you heard of begging the question? You need to show your work if you want to be taken seriously. As I said earlier, one can often dismiss an argument with the same level of effort placed into making it. If you are unwilling to explain why you perceive such, then I am unwilling to accept your criticism as valid.




What on earth (you are from earth, aren't you?) made you think that I was seeking your acceptance? Acceptance of the validity of my criticisms is the very last thing I'd expect from your kind. Whilst I like to believe myself highly capable, I am simply not a practitioner of magic!



			
				Some Dude said:
			
		

> As flattering as the title is from you, no need for formalities, just Some Dude or just plain Dude will suffice. Though business cards with Master Dude could be amusing. Thanks for the idea! I'll be able to add them to my official ordination papers of my actual religion by The Dude. But thank you for the respect, I worked hard for my education and it is nice when people notice
> 
> Your argument was understood the first time and I am unsure why you believe that I did not understand that argument. I'll try rephrasing my initial my response. As stipulated previously, I'll also help you out by separating pixel's point.
> 
> ...




No thanks!

Yet again, you've attempted to distort my assertions by insertion of your personal religious dogma! I am simply not interested in debating AGW mythology on this thread!



			
				Some Dude said:
			
		

> No, I find google searching for your opinion to be not reliable. I prefer to ask  As for wiki, do you feel threatend by people who can reference wiki? I'm not understanding why you object to people utilising great tools to substantiate their discussion. Is that something you are not used too?.




Didn't Wiki explain it to you? Did your google search also fail?
Well, that all goes to show, cyberspace really does have its limitiations!
Virtually anyone is permitted to insert entries into wiki, create webpages etc. Substantiating arguments that are heavily reliant on the accuracy of such potentially erroneous information is simply another exercise in foolhardiness. It would seem that some have achieved "Mastery" in these foolish arts. 



			
				Some Dude said:
			
		

> BTW, thanks for nominating as being elite, cool! I'll add that to my curriculum vitae.




Future prospective employers will undoubtedly be overwhelmed by your modesty when perusing your cv. 



			
				Some Dude said:
			
		

> ...You will have to help me out here, I'm really not sure what you are inviting us to infer?...
> ...Again, I'm not really sure what you are inviting us to infer here?...




Us?... us??!
How many dudes am I debating here? Are you perchance just a Master Dude with a team of some dude proteges acting as delegates, performing your wiki research and drafting your responses?


----------



## cynic (14 January 2013)

pixel said:


> +1,
> well put, smurf




+2
As usual, you've spelt it out well.


----------



## Calliope (14 January 2013)

cynic said:


> How many dudes am I debating here? Are you perchance just a Master Dude with a team of some dude proteges acting as delegates, performing your wiki research and drafting your responses?




Just when I thought the Some Dude team was going to set a new record for number of posts in one day they suddenly choked at 24. Very odd.:shake:


----------



## Some Dude (14 January 2013)

cynic said:


> You were never,
> ever,
> eveerrrr
> going to accept the validity of my criticism anyway!!!
> ...




I am beginning to understand your dilemma. How does one explicate a criticism that consists of your opinions about their education, research skills, linking to sources, and what you perceive as their negative personal attributes. In that situation, I can only imagine that you would have no other option but to appeal to others that you believe are like minded.



cynic said:


> So you want clarity now!
> I do wish you'd make up your mind!
> My original post was very clear and cliche free!
> Unfortunately, some dudes came along and made various lame attempts to distort, debunk and derail that post. Insertion of  religious dogma, wiki quotes, and interpolation with other posters' comments were the techniques employed by the aforementioned dudes.




Do you mean I posed a dilemma that I believe would be an unintended consequence of the principle you outlined? If so, then yes I did. Are you able to address that point, for which I invite disagreement about, or are you content to simply leave it for those of us reading this thread?



cynic said:


> What on earth (you are from earth, aren't you?) made you think that I was seeking your acceptance? Acceptance of the validity of my criticisms is the very last thing I'd expect from your kind. Whilst I like to believe myself highly capable, I am simply not a practitioner of magic!




Clarke's third law of prediction postulates that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" but I assure you, I am a mere human with normal technology from this planet earth. While my dudely abilities to engage in a polite disagreement seeking an understanding about the nature of your objection may appear like magic to you, I believe that you are more than capable of engaging in a discussion about why you disagree with me if you wanted to.



cynic said:


> No thanks!
> 
> Yet again, you've attempted to distort my assertions by insertion of your personal religious dogma! I am simply not interested in debating AGW mythology on this thread!




I'm not in any way seeking to debate the science behind AGW, or your perception of AGW as a religion, in this thread. I am asking you to consider whether there would be unintended consequences when the principle you outlined could potentially be applied to other issues, citing AGW as an example. If you believe that the example, or other issues, would not apply for some reason, then you could simply state why you believe they would not apply. I could respond and we would be engaged in a discussion. Magical!



cynic said:


> Didn't Wiki explain it to you? Did your google search also fail?
> Well, that all goes to show, cyberspace really does have its limitiations!
> Virtually anyone is permitted to insert entries into wiki, create webpages etc. Substantiating arguments that are heavily reliant on the accuracy of such potentially erroneous information is simply another exercise in foolhardiness. It would seem that some have achieved "Mastery" in these foolish arts.




Could you elaborate on this as I am not understanding the significance regarding why I would search google for your opinion, or the elaboration of said opinion? I did some searches regarding why some people get agitated towards educated people but when it comes to trying to engage you in a discussion about your opinion, who else am I going to ask but you?

As to your comment about wiki etc, the same can be said for people posting on forums but that doesn't automatically invalidate what they post. I will continue to post links and my sources for the readers benefit so that they can choose to read it, discuss it, disagree with it, or even ignore it if they find it objectionable 



cynic said:


> Us?... us??!
> How many dudes am I debating here? Are you perchance just a Master Dude with a team of some dude proteges acting as delegates, performing your wiki research and drafting your responses?




It's always nice when the final point wraps neatly around to the opening point. To quote the great cynic:



cynic said:


> It was placed solely for the benefit of other visitors to this thread whom are perfectly capable of making their own determination as to the validity (or lack thereof) of my statements.




I have always been aware that there is an us, the audience.


----------



## Some Dude (14 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> Just when I thought the Some Dude team was going to set a new record for number of posts in one day they suddenly choked at 24. Very odd.:shake:




Sorry to disappoint my fan base


----------



## Calliope (14 January 2013)

Some Dude said:


> Sorry to disappoint my fan base




Never mind. You did a week's work in one day. I admire your work ethic.


----------



## basilio (14 January 2013)

And what really fascinates me is how this poor thread got so totally and comprehensively hijacked  from  discussion on the Yes Men! (I don't think anyone to date has actually commented on any of their actions.)

Oh well backing to the drawing board.


----------



## Some Dude (14 January 2013)

basilio said:


> And what really fascinates me is how this poor thread got so totally and comprehensively hijacked  from  discussion on the Yes Men! (I don't think anyone to date has actually commented on any of their actions.)
> 
> Oh well backing to the drawing board.




Sorry about that bassillo.

Yes (no pun intended), anyone should be able to change the world, even with hoaxes but as I noted when pixel cited the example of the recent shock jocks prank call gone wrong, the consequences should not be considered inconsequential regardless of the perceived cause.

The ends do not necessarily justify the means and if those means result in significant damage to innocent parties then that is a problem.


----------



## cynic (15 January 2013)

Some Dude said:


> I am beginning to understand your dilemma. How does one explicate a criticism that consists of your opinions about their education, research skills, linking to sources, and what you perceive as their negative personal attributes. In that situation, I can only imagine that you would have no other option but to appeal to others that you believe are like minded.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean I posed a dilemma that I believe would be an unintended consequence of the principle you outlined? If so, then yes I did. Are you able to address that point, for which I invite disagreement about, or are you content to simply leave it for those of us reading this thread?



Another one get's roasted!
(My, my you really have got it in for geese! I wonder what it was that those geese did to upset you so!)

Your ability to perceive the non existent is truly masterful.

Excerpts from two of my previous responses within this thread:



			
				cynic said:
			
		

> What on earth (you are from earth, aren't you?) made you think that I was seeking your acceptance? Acceptance of the validity of my criticisms is the very last thing I'd expect from your kind...






			
				cynic said:
			
		

> ...Although based on what I can discern of your philosophy, I'm a little uncertain as to whether or not your agreeance is a good thing...







Some Dude said:


> Clarke's third law of prediction postulates that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" but I assure you, I am a mere human with normal technology from this planet earth. While my dudely abilities to engage in a polite disagreement seeking an understanding about the nature of your objection may appear like magic to you, I believe that you are more than capable of engaging in a discussion about why you disagree with me if you wanted to.




Been there! Done that!  ... Still doing it!  Hadn't you noticed?
The point has already been addressed in my previous posts. The bridge that needs building is now way behind schedule and long overdue!




Some Dude said:


> I'm not in any way seeking to debate the science behind AGW, or your perception of AGW as a religion, in this thread. I am asking you to consider whether there would be unintended consequences when the principle you outlined could potentially be applied to other issues, citing AGW as an example.




You'll have to excuse me on this one because the dog ate the cheque and my homework's in the mail! 
(You do believe me, don't you?)



Some Dude said:


> If you believe that the example, or other issues, would not apply for some reason, then you could simply state why you believe they would not apply. I could respond and we would be engaged in a discussion. Magical!




Been there! Done that!  ... Still doing it!  Hadn't you noticed?




Some Dude said:


> Could you elaborate on this as I am not understanding the significance regarding why I would search google for your opinion, or the elaboration of said opinion? I did some searches regarding why some people get agitated towards educated people but when it comes to trying to engage you in a discussion about your opinion, who else am I going to ask but you?
> 
> As to your comment about wiki etc, the same can be said for people posting on forums but that doesn't automatically invalidate what they post. I will continue to post links and my sources for the readers benefit so that they can choose to read it, discuss it, disagree with it, or even ignore it if they find it objectionable




Some dudes walk with wiki, others walk on their own two legs. I fail to see how anything constructive can arise out of a wiki war. If I wanted to substantiate with wiki I would be perfectly capable of doing so, however, I fail to see anything productive arising from the overuse of wiki within the context of this or any other thread.

I prefer to hold discussions with those whom can reason for themselves. When I want wiki's opinion I'll look it up!

 As you are already only too well aware, over dependence upon the use of wiki quotes, simply muddies the water and slows the pace of discussion. The target of the quotes usually becomes so overwhelmed by quote after quote (after quote ad nauseum) as to succumb to the "death by 1,000 wikis". Quite pointless really, because this practice only truly demonstrates ineptitude upon the part of the wiki abuser. The abuser then erroneously declares victory and fails to benefit from the direct confrontation with personal inadequacies that would otherwise have resulted.




Some Dude said:


> I have always been aware that there is an us, the audience.





Really!
Have you not noticed what's actually happening here?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (16 January 2013)

cynic said:


> Another one get's roasted!
> (My, my you really have got it in for geese! I wonder what it was that those geese did to upset you so!)
> 
> Your ability to perceive the non existent is truly masterful.
> ...




+1

See original cynic post for context in cynic's reply to Obfuscation Central. 

gg


----------



## Some Dude (16 January 2013)

cynic said:


> Another one get's roasted!
> (My, my you really have got it in for geese! I wonder what it was that those geese did to upset you so!)
> 
> Your ability to perceive the non existent is truly masterful.
> ...






cynic said:


> What on earth (you are from earth, aren't you?) made you think that I was seeking your acceptance? Acceptance of the validity of my criticisms is the very last thing I'd expect from your kind. Whilst I like to believe myself highly capable, I am simply not a practitioner of magic!






cynic said:


> ...Although based on what I can discern of your philosophy, I'm a little uncertain as to whether or not your agreeance is a good thing...




I have understood what your opinion of me is but that avoids the question I asked regarding the unintended consequences of the principle you outlined. Feel free to continue expressing your opinion about me but I will also keep trying to bring you back to that topic that I asked about.



Some Dude said:


> I'm not in any way seeking to debate the science behind AGW, or your perception of AGW as a religion, in this thread. I am asking you to consider whether there would be unintended consequences when the principle you outlined could potentially be applied to other issues, citing AGW as an example.






cynic said:


> You'll have to excuse me on this one because the dog ate the cheque and my homework's in the mail!
> (You do believe me, don't you?)




Other than setting the context with a prop or example for an unintended consequence that I knew you would find objectionable, hence unintended consequence, can you excerpt where in this thread I have debated the veracity of AGW?

Again, for reference:



Some Dude said:


> *If the opposition to ACGW and the consequences of inaction are demonstrated to be true*, for which there is overwhelming scientific agreement and significant societal support for, should those whom appear deluded, insecure, obstinate, even responsible, be held to account?
> 
> So should society start giving _"serious consideration to incarceration in an appropriate mental health care/rehabilitation facility."_ for those who could be considered delusional on issues that can be demonstrated in a court of law to have the potential damages that have been predicted?




If you believe that "being dishonest" (my summary of your comment) is sufficient a response then feel free to leave it as such and I won't ask you for any further clarification.



Some Dude said:


> If you believe that the example, or other issues, would not apply for some reason, then you could simply state why you believe they would not apply. I could respond and we would be engaged in a discussion. Magical!






cynic said:


> Been there! Done that!  ... Still doing it!  Hadn't you noticed?




Would you excerpt from your previous posts a passage or passages that you believe adequately answers the question? I could not find where you elaborated on why you believed it would not apply with the obvious exceptions where you imply a variety of attributes regarding my "integrity, cohesion, impartiality, prejudice, hypocrisy, derailment and obfuscation". If that is an accurate summary then feel free to leave it as such and I won't ask you for any further clarification.



cynic said:


> Some dudes walk with wiki, others walk on their own two legs. I fail to see how anything constructive can arise out of a wiki war. If I wanted to substantiate with wiki I would be perfectly capable of doing so, however, I fail to see anything productive arising from the overuse of wiki within the context of this or any other thread.
> 
> I prefer to hold discussions with those whom can reason for themselves. When I want wiki's opinion I'll look it up!
> 
> As you are already only too well aware, over dependence upon the use of wiki quotes, simply muddies the water and slows the pace of discussion. The target of the quotes usually becomes so overwhelmed by quote after quote (after quote ad nauseum) as to succumb to the "death by 1,000 wikis". Quite pointless really, because this practice only truly demonstrates ineptitude upon the part of the wiki abuser. The abuser then erroneously declares victory and fails to benefit from the direct confrontation with personal inadequacies that would otherwise have resulted.




Thanks for explaining your objection.

I believe it is far more problematic when people do not cite the sources from which they formulated their opinions. Asserting opinions as fact with a limited way to follow up on how they were informed diminishes the readers ability to perform informed reasoning. If I want to be informed about a company before I invest in it, I don't just reason it for myself, I search and find information about that company and then apply my reasoning process before deciding whether to invest. By providing links, I am making it easier for people to follow up on the information I have utilised when formulating my opinion.



cynic said:


> Have you not noticed what's actually happening here?




My impression is that we are having a discussion  I'm certainly enjoying it and I hope you are also.


----------



## Calliope (16 January 2013)

Some Dude said:


> If I want to be informed about a company before I invest in it, I don't just reason it for myself, I search and find information about that company and then apply my reasoning process before deciding whether to invest.




Perhaps you could share your reasoning process and your successful selections with us . After all it is a Stock Forum.


----------



## Some Dude (17 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> Perhaps you could share your reasoning process and your successful selections with us . After all it is a Stock Forum.




Did you mean in this thread or more generally in the stock forums?


----------



## Calliope (17 January 2013)

Some Dude said:


> Did you mean in this thread or more generally in the stock forums?




No, sorry, I was only kidding. I really have no interest in your "reasoning processes."


----------



## cynic (18 January 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> +1
> 
> See original cynic post for context in cynic's reply to Obfuscation Central.
> 
> gg




As per usual, you're very much on the ball!

Congratulations on spotting it so promptly.

I was intending to string the superfluous entertainment along a little further, at least until it became apparent that a certain poster had actually caught on!

However, I think this one's already been thoroughly milked.

My preference is to not overtly state what I believe to be the actual outcome of this debate. 

To those whom sincerely want to understand what was really happening in this debate:

I invite you to carefully read my original post within this thread and then note the way in which a certain poster repeatedly and unwittingly exemplified the behaviours aforesaid original post described.

Many thanks to Basilio for providing the arena, and many thanks to all other posters (particularly SD) for their participation.


----------



## Some Dude (18 January 2013)

cynic said:


> To those whom sincerely want to understand what was really happening in this debate:
> 
> I invite you to carefully read my original post within this thread and then note the way in which a certain poster repeatedly and unwittingly exemplified the behaviours aforesaid original post described.




Closing arguments 

The original post is here.

The excerpts that particularly caught my eye was this:



cynic said:


> The activists mentioned in this thread appear to be self deluded publicity seeking egomaniacs.






cynic said:


> The harmful and misguided actions of these self deluded individuals poses a definite threat to the fabric of our society. As such, I believe it is in our best interests to take protective measures against such activism. To this end, I am of the opinion that these activists require professional assistance/guidance in addressing their innermost fears and insecurities. Failing this, society will need to give serious consideration to incarceration in an appropriate mental health care/rehabilitation facility. Anything less will likely result in further atrocities being perpetrated against innocent entities (individual and corporate) courtesy of these mindless and self ingratiating psychopathic primates.




I encourage readers to go to the post and read it in full, don't just rely on my excerpts. The opinion appeared to  be totally dependent on your perspective of the issue. To demonstrate such, I replaced whom the perceived "self deluded publicity seeking egomaniacs" were and substituted the ability to *legally* apply the principle outlined.

Here is my post outlining that in brief.



> *If* the opposition to ACGW and the consequences of inaction are demonstrated to be true, for which there is overwhelming scientific agreement and significant societal support for, should those whom appear deluded, insecure, obstinate, even responsible, be held to account?
> 
> So should society start giving "serious consideration to incarceration in an appropriate mental health care/rehabilitation facility." for those who could be considered delusional on issues that can be demonstrated in a *court of law* to have the potential damages that have been predicted?




I encourage readers to go to the post and read it in full, don't just rely on my excerpts. There was some confusion because I genuinely believe that both pixel and cynic made some interesting points but I also believe they made some points that I found problematic. I combined them utilising the same counter example but that was eventually separated. The excerpts I have selected were the ones made specifically relevant to cynic's post.

Note the difference in application. *If* said scenario, and it can be demonstrated in a *court of law*, then how would the principle outlined not be applied to "self deluded publicity seeking egomaniacs" who oppose AGW. Basilo picked up on it first with his post noting the principle in a tyrannic state i.e. Soviet Union. However, I also agree with cynic in that I believe this was an invalid example of said application. I believe the counter example is an application that I believe is relevant to both the thread topic and cynic's post.



basilio said:


> Jonathan Dyles hoax with Whitehaven Coal raises the question of how far should citizens go in challenging what they see as  corrupt or illegal behaviors particularly by business interests.





cynic said:


> i.e. "save the planet from industrial tyranny"




I chose that example because I believe it would be applicable to the public figures most people on this forum support and thus potentially an unintended consequence i.e. the public figures, or "activists", often considered by the climate scientific community as self deluded or dishonest publicity seeking egomaniacs.

I further encourage people to read the remaining posts. In seeking discussion about cynic's original opinion consider the following which cynic agrees with:



Garpal Gumnut said:


> See original cynic post for context in cynic's reply to Obfuscation Central.






			
				Merriam-Webster said:
			
		

> ob·fus·cat·edob·fus·cat·ing
> Definition of OBFUSCATE
> 
> transitive verb
> ...




Education, linking, wiki, opinions about my attributes, and advocating AGW science and were not topics that I raised.

Thank you for everyone's time. Cynic, you can have the last word about this particular point if you wish and I look forward to our next discussion


----------



## shermerhorn (30 January 2013)

Smurf1976 said:


> My personal observation of the environmental movement is that there has been a sharp move toward "radical" measures since Bob Brown ceased to be Greens leader. That applies both within and outside the actual party.




Can you qualify this. It appears the Green movement has always been consistently 'radical' from my point of view.

I believe Brown's defense of the Franklin (an instigating action in forming the Wilderness Society and later, the Greens) was illegal activity. He was arrested for this I believe also. Heckling George Bush was looked upon as radical too in some eyes - ironically, not in GB's. forgive lack of citation, but information freely available. 



Smurf1976 said:


> ...With the rivers flowing free, the Tas forestry industry dead, the WA gas infrastructure relocated, renewable energy actually being built and a carbon tax introduced etc the party and the movement generally is desperate to remain relevant.




If you pay an interest in opposing Green radicalism, it's easy to see where environmental campaigns come from, and such information is easily accessible through the wilderness society, getup and the green's website. From a green party pov the carbon tax is inadequate, CSG should be more thoroughly assessed by independent govt science bodies before practiced (some would argue this is just code for stop-work and a ban). The GB reef is also under threat from CSG, another Green concern. From a green radical point of view (assumedly their voters), they are of course as relevant as ever. Also, there is the largest coal mine in the southern hemisphere planned by Whitehaven.  



Smurf1976 said:


> Being a Green right now is akin to being a union leader after the bosses just handed the workers everything they wanted. It's hard to remain relevant as an activist (for anything) when the issues you represent have all been resolved and everyone is happy with your supposed opponent.




Whitehaven developments, for example, have been met with critism and concern from farming groups and sustainable energy advocates alike. Agreeing or disagreeing with the cause might bare relevance to biases offered in your representation of the facts, but as far as I can see no such victories have been attained by greens. If no-nuclear, no-coal power is their target, how are Greens any further progressed with their 'victories'. If they are relevant for these reasons to their voters then they are still as relevant as ever. Given recent developments in CSG and coal, it seems they are more relevant. Politically speaking - and subjectively - this is for the polls to decide, of course. On the existence of 'green relevant' issues (in the eyes of their voters) they are as relevant as ever. It would only be through a lack of observation one could claim there was no work left for perceived greens to do more green things. 


Now, as I have found a number of posts citing your two cents as having some authority, I'm curious to learn where you get the confidence that greens relevance is being reduced (either in real terms given publicised issues, or in perceived terms through perceptions in the media.)  The later might be argued - I could imagine. I can't see how the former would be. You would have to assume that green voters weren't extreme in their demands, or they were ignorant of the parties extremism. Is that the case? If so, I can't see how that maps to anything you have stated so far, but I could concede that point with some relevant demonstrations.

As a final note, you might also notice that many 'green' issues and 'green' protests are becoming alarmingly mainstream within rural australia. For example, farmers claim they were 'derailed' by Whitehaven in their shipping contracts (Gunnedah area), without compensation. The most conservative of farmers (or 'non-greenie' farmers, if you like) is still likely to be marginalised and vote accordingly if their businesses are directly threatened by coal, for example. In this way green is an ongoing and underestimated threat to mining and non-sustainable development. And there are many such instances of marginalisation to pick from occurring around the country: CSG in Sydney (indeed, all NSW and much of QLD, thought to a lesser extent), CSG again, with tourism QLD and the threat posed to the barrier reef. Whitehaven Maules creek is just another example.


----------

