Jump to content


Photo

Why I left Greenpeace


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#21 SJS

SJS

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,064 posts
  • LocationJust east of Lyra

Posted 30 July 2015 - 06:28 PM

I keep seeing these men talking about how women don't like to have sex. I have to wonder if they are really bad in bed or something. If your wife doesn't want to have sex with you, maybe there is a reason?

 

Again, he's not saying this.  He's talking about the realities of life.  He's assuming sex isn't uncomfortable or distasteful to the people involved as a general rule.  His working assumption, which I have to believe is true for most long term marriages, is that people don't walk around in a permanent state of lust.  Sometimes both people are in the mood.  Some days only one or the other is.  Some days neither person is.  Obviously, the tension occurs in the second scenario, not the first or the third.

 

How can two smart people, you and Reb, read this column and not see he's talking reasonably about an every day reality?  How can you read this and assume he's some kind of ogre who believes all women are frigid but need to lie there and take it?

 

I really don't get this.


  • Tony likes this

LYqbjSn.jpg


#22 SJS

SJS

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,064 posts
  • LocationJust east of Lyra

Posted 30 July 2015 - 06:33 PM

I get your OP point SJS and find it enlightening.  Thanks for posting it.  I was a supporter of Greenpeace for a long time but did not know that the antiscience zealots have taken over.

 

Thanks MT.  I'm now contributing to the derailment of my own thread, but it was very nice to read some feedback on the OP. 

 

I think it is the supporters of Greenpeace who should be the most disappointed.  As is clear from this thread, when a video like this is hosted by a channel like Prager U., some people will write it off as just more politically agendized green-bashing.  I don't think that's what's in Patrick Moore's heart.  I think he cared deeply about Greenpeace's original mission, so he's especially bothered that, out of zealotry, they are not using the good will they have built up over the years (calling attention to whaling, for example) to promote earth-friendly and people-friendly technologies.  It's people with your POV that can really make the difference.  How cool would it be if a new pro-science environmental group started gaining a following?


  • Moving Target likes this

LYqbjSn.jpg


#23 A Rebel and a Runner

A Rebel and a Runner

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,658 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 30 July 2015 - 07:07 PM

Thanks MT.  I'm now contributing to the derailment of my own thread, but it was very nice to read some feedback on the OP. 

 

I think it is the supporters of Greenpeace who should be the most disappointed.  As is clear from this thread, when a video like this is hosted by a channel like Prager U., some people will write it off as just more politically agendized green-bashing.  I don't think that's what's in Patrick Moore's heart.  I think he cared deeply about Greenpeace's original mission, so he's especially bothered that, out of zealotry, they are not using the good will they have built up over the years (calling attention to whaling, for example) to promote earth-friendly and people-friendly technologies.  It's people with your POV that can really make the difference.  How cool would it be if a new pro-science environmental group started gaining a following?

I think that's something in general about criticism of politically-affiliated groups or individuals, though. Criticism is more meaningful from their fellows.

For example, I am a liberal-identifying type who takes issue with pretty much all of Michael Moore's published work. At it's best, it's oversimplification to the point of obfuscation, and at its worst, his films are downright untruthful. But because I agree with his starting position, I can more honestly critique his methodology without worrying that my own dislike of his conclusions or initial premises are coloring my interpretation of him.

My own two senators (Ted Cruz and John Cornyn) have recently had a go at it in the Senate, both members of the same party and both in agreement, one would assume, on a good many issues. And I take their disagreements seriously because it shows a genuine disagreement among otherwise-fellows, which is usually a meaty, meaningful disagreement, whose substance can give real insight into the issues of important to different sorts of conservatives.

I feel like criticism of an ideology can come from without (as in, as a liberal, I feel like my positions regarding the broad strokes of conservatism are valid), but criticism of those practicing that ideology, as individuals or organizations, SHOULD come from within that ideology. 

You see it in Christianity with liberal individuals (Rob Bell until he went atheist, the mainstream of the Methodist and Episcopal churches, etc.) acting within that framework to raise issues they find as problematic in the movement itself, not as outsiders who want to see it fall, but insiders genuinely interested in the religion's success who want to see it succeed.
This is obviously a topic for another thread, but I think you've hit on something important that I wish more people considered. I've been saying for years, we should be MORE critical of our allies than our enemies, because to not do so is to be lazy about our own ideas, to allow ourselves to be complicit in organizations, institutions, and movements at odds with our actual beliefs, because we have been uncritical of them because of the (sometimes few) ways in which we are bedfellows, or because we pay attention to their lip service rather than their actions.


  • SJS likes this

#24 RushDoggie

RushDoggie

    Advanced Member

  • Hat Award Winner
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,161 posts

Posted 30 July 2015 - 07:33 PM

First, my post was a little tongue-in-cheek. Someone else in a recent thread posted something else by some conservative that implied that women don't want sex. So I was making a joke about how that might be because the man who wrote it is not a worthy sexual partner.

 

Again, he's not saying this.

Second, this is a direct quote: "If most women wait until they are in the mood before making love with their husband, many women will be waiting a month or more until they next have sex."

 

Really? Because again, myself and most women I know would not like that.

 

 

  He's talking about the realities of life.  He's assuming sex isn't uncomfortable or distasteful to the people involved as a general rule.  His working assumption, which I have to believe is true for most long term marriages, is that people don't walk around in a permanent state of lust.  Sometimes both people are in the mood.  Some days only one or the other is.  Some days neither person is.  Obviously, the tension occurs in the second scenario, not the first or the third.

Notice though, he doesn't say that MEN should do sexual things to their wife if they are not in the mood. How about a little un-reciprocated cunnilingus when your wife is horny but you are not up to a full on boner? You are too tired to get a full on boner? Well, belly up to the Viagra as its your husbandly duty. Didn't notice that in his article.

 

He also compares having sex when one is not interested to caring for a child, but men are autonomous beings who don't need cared for. He also compares it to a man not feeling like going to work that day. Hello? Don't most women work too?

 

Sex is an act of intimacy, lust, loving and relationship building. Frankly, if my husband wasn't really into it, I wouldn't WANT to have sex with him. What a mood killer. And really, joking aside, if your wife's libido is that low, consider why? Are you a good sexual partner? Is she flat exhausted from caring for very young kids and/or working? The biggest killer of lust is resentment, what kind of problems are you two having inter-personally that would make her feel like she didn't want to be intimate with you?

 

That said, every marriage is different. Maybe you have the kind of marriage where a woman trades childbearing/rearing and sex for money and security. Nothing wrong with that provided that both parties agree and knew what they were getting into when they married.

 

But what about a marriage where the woman is the breadwinner? What about a marriage where the husband knew going in that his wife wasn't into sex?

 

Don't misunderstand me, if you as a want to think of sex as the equivalent of giving your tired husband a back rub when you yourself are tired, just to be kind, that's totally cool. I can also see having issues but knowing that men sometimes feel personally rejected if they get turned down a lot and deciding that you don't want to reject him.  But that's not really what he is saying here, is it? He is saying as a good wife your duty is to have sex even if you are not into it, or don't be surprised if your husband leaves you or cheats on you.


“Music is probably the only real magic I have encountered in my life. It's pure and it's real. It moves, it heals.” - Tom Petty

 

 


#25 SJS

SJS

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,064 posts
  • LocationJust east of Lyra

Posted 30 July 2015 - 07:37 PM

Sometimes I wonder why anyone (I include myself) ever writes anything.  The lengths to which people will go to willfully misunderstand you is truly discouraging.


  • Slim and Moving Target like this

LYqbjSn.jpg


#26 SJS

SJS

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,064 posts
  • LocationJust east of Lyra

Posted 30 July 2015 - 07:49 PM

I think that's something in general about criticism of politically-affiliated groups or individuals, though. Criticism is more meaningful from their fellows.

For example, I am a liberal-identifying type who takes issue with pretty much all of Michael Moore's published work. At it's best, it's oversimplification to the point of obfuscation, and at its worst, his films are downright untruthful. But because I agree with his starting position, I can more honestly critique his methodology without worrying that my own dislike of his conclusions or initial premises are coloring my interpretation of him.

My own two senators (Ted Cruz and John Cornyn) have recently had a go at it in the Senate, both members of the same party and both in agreement, one would assume, on a good many issues. And I take their disagreements seriously because it shows a genuine disagreement among otherwise-fellows, which is usually a meaty, meaningful disagreement, whose substance can give real insight into the issues of important to different sorts of conservatives.

I feel like criticism of an ideology can come from without (as in, as a liberal, I feel like my positions regarding the broad strokes of conservatism are valid), but criticism of those practicing that ideology, as individuals or organizations, SHOULD come from within that ideology. 

You see it in Christianity with liberal individuals (Rob Bell until he went atheist, the mainstream of the Methodist and Episcopal churches, etc.) acting within that framework to raise issues they find as problematic in the movement itself, not as outsiders who want to see it fall, but insiders genuinely interested in the religion's success who want to see it succeed.
This is obviously a topic for another thread, but I think you've hit on something important that I wish more people considered. I've been saying for years, we should be MORE critical of our allies than our enemies, because to not do so is to be lazy about our own ideas, to allow ourselves to be complicit in organizations, institutions, and movements at odds with our actual beliefs, because we have been uncritical of them because of the (sometimes few) ways in which we are bedfellows, or because we pay attention to their lip service rather than their actions.

 

From the other side of the aisle, on many things at least, you have a full ally in me on this point. 

 

That's one of the reasons I prefer Rand Paul to Gary Johnson.  Johnson left the party and so lost the opportunity to really make a change.  Paul is fighting from within, critiquing his own, and as you say, those within-party disagreements are in many ways the most interesting.  You know how a Republican will respond to anything Hillary Clinton has to say.  What's more interesting is when Bernie Sanders disagrees with Hillary, or when Rand Paul disagrees with Scott Walker.


LYqbjSn.jpg


#27 Moving Target

Moving Target

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,293 posts
  • LocationThe Duchy of Cornwall

Posted 30 July 2015 - 09:49 PM

How cool would it be if a new pro-science environmental group started gaining a following?

 

Extremely fucking cool. 

 

I used to contribute to Friends of the Earth, the British eco-pressure group, but when I heard then starting to refer to "Frankenstein foods" (i.e. GMO) I took one activist on and tried to explain that we have tampered with crop genomes for centuries - the only difference now is that it is fast and precise, but he wouldn't have it. 

 

Told him that we make insulin for diabetics using gengineered E.coli since 1978, and that freaked him out a bit.  What makes you think that?  he asked.  I  learned it during my B.Sc. in Microbiology, I replied.  He turned away in search of someone less challenging.  :(


  • grep, Tony, A Rebel and a Runner and 1 other like this

#28 RushDoggie

RushDoggie

    Advanced Member

  • Hat Award Winner
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,161 posts

Posted 30 July 2015 - 10:39 PM

Sometimes I wonder why anyone (I include myself) ever writes anything.  The lengths to which people will go to willfully misunderstand you is truly discouraging.

 

Please tell me what I am willfully mis-understanding about that article Reb posted.


“Music is probably the only real magic I have encountered in my life. It's pure and it's real. It moves, it heals.” - Tom Petty

 

 


#29 SJS

SJS

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,064 posts
  • LocationJust east of Lyra

Posted 31 July 2015 - 12:33 AM

Please tell me what I am willfully mis-understanding about that article Reb posted.

 

Just look, for example, at the line you quoted.  He makes a cute little joke and you conclude from that he's a mysogynist. 

 

In any event, I'm sorry I dragged this tangent out further than it deserved.  I get it.  I can't control the content of a thread just because I'm the OP.  I can't expect things to stay on topic, this is CP and the only rule of CP is there are no rules.  And you and everyone else are entitled to their own interpretations of anything posted here.


LYqbjSn.jpg


#30 RushDoggie

RushDoggie

    Advanced Member

  • Hat Award Winner
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,161 posts

Posted 31 July 2015 - 01:54 AM

Just look, for example, at the line you quoted.  He makes a cute little joke and you conclude from that he's a mysogynist. 

 

In any event, I'm sorry I dragged this tangent out further than it deserved.  I get it.  I can't control the content of a thread just because I'm the OP.  I can't expect things to stay on topic, this is CP and the only rule of CP is there are no rules.  And you and everyone else are entitled to their own interpretations of anything posted here.

 

Hmmm, I just went back and re-read the article because I didn't see that as a joke. The sentence in context with the rest of the paragraph doesn't seem that way. I don't think its a joke. I could be wrong, of course, but I (generally) have a good sense of humor.

 

Its certainly not the most demeaning or outright offensive sexist thing I have ever read, but it is still subtly sexist and thus annoys me. Many things annoy me.


“Music is probably the only real magic I have encountered in my life. It's pure and it's real. It moves, it heals.” - Tom Petty

 

 


#31 SJS

SJS

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,064 posts
  • LocationJust east of Lyra

Posted 31 July 2015 - 02:55 AM

Its certainly not the most demeaning or outright offensive sexist thing I have ever read, but it is still subtly sexist and thus annoys me. Many things annoy me.


LOL... I guess I'm not immune to my own particular annoyances - clearly. Sorry I let them get to me.

LYqbjSn.jpg


#32 RushDoggie

RushDoggie

    Advanced Member

  • Hat Award Winner
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,161 posts

Posted 31 July 2015 - 03:02 AM

LOL... I guess I'm not immune to my own particular annoyances - clearly. Sorry I let them get to me.

:Cheers3:


  • SJS likes this

“Music is probably the only real magic I have encountered in my life. It's pure and it's real. It moves, it heals.” - Tom Petty

 

 


#33 Tony

Tony

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 381 posts
  • LocationBolton

Posted 01 August 2015 - 08:01 AM

Sometimes I wonder why anyone (I include myself) ever writes anything.  The lengths to which people will go to willfully misunderstand you is truly discouraging.


It is the scourge anti-intellectualism and it's all over modern news and social media.
  • SJS and Moving Target like this
A prisoner of war is a man who tries to kill you and fails, and then asks you not to kill him.

#34 Tony

Tony

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 381 posts
  • LocationBolton

Posted 02 August 2015 - 07:14 PM

Prime example, David Cameron (who I loathe but...) referred to swarms of migrants at the port of Calais. Next thing he is being accused as considering these people as insects.
It literally gives me a headache.
A prisoner of war is a man who tries to kill you and fails, and then asks you not to kill him.

#35 nickslikk2112

nickslikk2112

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,445 posts

Posted 02 August 2015 - 10:09 PM

Prime example, David Cameron (who I loathe but...) referred to swarms of migrants at the port of Calais. Next thing he is being accused as considering these people as insects.
It literally gives me a headache.

Wasn't he actually referring to the numbers crossing the Med? Whatever. the wilful - or just ignorant - misinterpretation of what people say is just incredible. People can seemingly only think in terms of black and white - and not in a Hemi way.

 

The migrants at Calais refer to their camp as "The Jungle" a BBC reporter got into trouble for asking a migrant if he was "Going back to the Jungle tonight"...


645df0a0-f61a-4f15-a847-b0bdbfe31afb_zps

 

Old Rush Good, New Rush Bad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


#36 Tony

Tony

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 381 posts
  • LocationBolton

Posted 02 August 2015 - 10:42 PM

Wasn't he actually referring to the numbers crossing the Med? Whatever. the wilful - or just ignorant - misinterpretation of what people say is just incredible. People can seemingly only think in terms of black and white - and not in a Hemi way.
 
The migrants at Calais refer to their camp as "The Jungle" a BBC reporter got into trouble for asking a migrant if he was "Going back to the Jungle tonight"...


"when seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea" is a prime example. It may well sound pretentious especially coming out of the mouth of a footballer but it would take a very low IQ not to understand what he meant yet the Press acted like they were completely dumbfounded by its meaning.
A prisoner of war is a man who tries to kill you and fails, and then asks you not to kill him.

#37 A Rebel and a Runner

A Rebel and a Runner

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,658 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 02 August 2015 - 10:46 PM

Look at the uproar about Patton Oswalt's comments about the Cosby rapes.

He said, basically, that only 14-22 or so had pressed formal allegations, but that doesn't mean that's all there were. "When you see one cockroach in your house, there are hundreds." And the news media spun that as "Patton Oswalt compares rape victims to cockroaches."

Because people are stupid, and context is hard.


  • Tony likes this

#38 Tony

Tony

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 381 posts
  • LocationBolton

Posted 02 August 2015 - 10:49 PM

Look at the uproar about Patton Oswalt's comments about the Cosby rapes.
He said, basically, that only 14-22 or so had pressed formal allegations, but that doesn't mean that's all there were. "When you see one cockroach in your house, there are hundreds." And the news media spun that as "Patton Oswalt compares rape victims to cockroaches."
Because people are stupid, and context is hard.


The Crosby alleged rapes. ;)

But, yes, that's a good example.
A prisoner of war is a man who tries to kill you and fails, and then asks you not to kill him.

#39 A Rebel and a Runner

A Rebel and a Runner

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,658 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 02 August 2015 - 10:53 PM

Based on the documents from the '05 case, they're not alleged. He's admitted to engaging in activity that I think most people would define as rape.



#40 MrSkeptic

MrSkeptic

    Advanced Member

  • Hat Award Winner
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,288 posts
  • LocationNorthwesterly

Posted 02 August 2015 - 11:32 PM

The Crosby alleged rapes. ;)

But, yes, that's a good example.

 

Cosby. Crosby beat his kids but didn't rape anyone as far as we know.  ;)


  • Tony likes this

They said I could be anything, so I became a disappointment.

 

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users