Greenpeace protestor gets her ass handed to her

[DaveShoelace]

I admire the guy's skill.

He wasn't talking to her, he was talking to us.

Finally someone with a brain has turned up and figured the whole thing out.

If he is then what's he trying to tell us?

That he's so confident in his argument that he can only ambush an unprepared protester & overwhelm her with unsupported 'facts' and tricks of language? Well whoop dee do that's me in the denial camp now - those that believe in climate change don't have the skill to do that.

 

A climate change protester at a climate change rally (or whatever it was) should not be unprepared like that, if she saw fit to impose her viewpoint on the general public like that she should be able to back it up, if he approached her at work or at home its fair to call it an ambush of an unprepared protester, but she was at the one place where she should have been ready for conflict or indeed to educate others on what she is protesting about.

Sorry, but that's bollocks. Someone only has the right to protest if they can carry out a scientific debate on the subject at the drop of a hat, in their second language & against a prepared opponent? 

People wouldn't protest in your world at all would they?

So you are saying people should be encouraged to protest even though they know very little about the subject matter?

The second language thing was unfortunate for the purposes of this particular argument (Whether he knew she couldn't speak English beforehand would be interesting to find out) and I am not saying someone should spend a lifetime in higher education on the topic in hand before they can protest on the subject, but if you are going to impose your opinion on others in such an aggressive way such as protesting then:

A) You should be expected to know your facts a little better beyond 'climate change is bad', if you are there to protest then you are also there to educate people.
B) You should expect to be challenged, now admitted I doubt anyone is going to ever expect to be challenged in this particular way, but you should expect to be forced to argue your corner.

This woman is not an innocent victim here, she isn't someone walking by who has been press ganged, she made a conscious choice to disrupt something/try and persuade people against something, I dare say she would have seized the opportunity to corner someone else and embarrass them with facts about climate change had the chance.

Just for the record, I know nothing about climate change and don't profess to. I also strongly believe that people should protest. I do think if you are going to protest you should do independent research and come to your own conclusions first like Lord Monckton suggests and this woman did not.

[Rod Paradise]

I admire the guy's skill.

He wasn't talking to her, he was talking to us.

Finally someone with a brain has turned up and figured the whole thing out.

If he is then what's he trying to tell us?

That he's so confident in his argument that he can only ambush an unprepared protester & overwhelm her with unsupported 'facts' and tricks of language? Well whoop dee do that's me in the denial camp now - those that believe in climate change don't have the skill to do that.

 

A climate change protester at a climate change rally (or whatever it was) should not be unprepared like that, if she saw fit to impose her viewpoint on the general public like that she should be able to back it up, if he approached her at work or at home its fair to call it an ambush of an unprepared protester, but she was at the one place where she should have been ready for conflict or indeed to educate others on what she is protesting about.

Sorry, but that's bollocks. Someone only has the right to protest if they can carry out a scientific debate on the subject at the drop of a hat, in their second language & against a prepared opponent?  

People wouldn't protest in your world at all would they?

In a world with many conflicting theories even among the top scientists, if you wish to adhere to a particular camp you cannot just do so on a whim, you have to make a decent attempt to examine the science being presented, the methodology used and the exact claims being made. If you do not wish to do this, or cannot, that is fine, go and sit on the couch. But if you choose one side over another on a whim, but wave a banner around as if there was some rationale behind your conviction........sister, you are going dowwwn
Rod, it looks like she knew nothing, tbf. Looks that way to me anyway  

Seriously?

So next it'll be David Cameron catching a Labour voter on their way to vote ina by-election & destroying him on economic theory & that'll be a win for the Tories will it?

I don't know the woman, I don't know her depth of knowledge, but I'm not buying the assumption that you have to be an expert to have an opinion, or to be ready for a debate against a prepared opponent to show support for something you care about.

If you do have to be an expert to campaign then I'm within my rights to ask for your degree in Divinity on another thread no?

[gatso]

So next it'll be David Cameron catching a Labour voter on their way to vote ina by-election & destroying him on economic theory & that'll be a win for the Tories will it?

I think you need to make your analogy more relevant to what's being discussed here. if you labour voter is standing on the street with banners and stuff protesting against the tories then she should be expected to have some idea of what is bad about them surely rather than just doing it because someone told her they were bad for the country

[G1BTW]

I admire the guy's skill.

He wasn't talking to her, he was talking to us.

Finally someone with a brain has turned up and figured the whole thing out.

If he is then what's he trying to tell us?

That he's so confident in his argument that he can only ambush an unprepared protester & overwhelm her with unsupported 'facts' and tricks of language? Well whoop dee do that's me in the denial camp now - those that believe in climate change don't have the skill to do that.

 

A climate change protester at a climate change rally (or whatever it was) should not be unprepared like that, if she saw fit to impose her viewpoint on the general public like that she should be able to back it up, if he approached her at work or at home its fair to call it an ambush of an unprepared protester, but she was at the one place where she should have been ready for conflict or indeed to educate others on what she is protesting about.

Sorry, but that's bollocks. Someone only has the right to protest if they can carry out a scientific debate on the subject at the drop of a hat, in their second language & against a prepared opponent?  

People wouldn't protest in your world at all would they?

In a world with many conflicting theories even among the top scientists, if you wish to adhere to a particular camp you cannot just do so on a whim, you have to make a decent attempt to examine the science being presented, the methodology used and the exact claims being made. If you do not wish to do this, or cannot, that is fine, go and sit on the couch. But if you choose one side over another on a whim, but wave a banner around as if there was some rationale behind your conviction........sister, you are going dowwwn
Rod, it looks like she knew nothing, tbf. Looks that way to me anyway  

Seriously?

So next it'll be David Cameron catching a Labour voter on their way to vote ina by-election & destroying him on economic theory & that'll be a win for the Tories will it?

I don't know the woman, I don't know her depth of knowledge, but I'm not buying the assumption that you have to be an expert to have an opinion, or to be ready for a debate against a prepared opponent to show support for something you care about.

If you do have to be an expert to campaign then I'm within my rights to ask for your degree in Divinity on another thread no?

Interesting analogy. If all is said and done I think I probably don't know enough about politics (although I follow it a lot) to make a sufficiently informed choice of political party. However, en masse, the alternative is dictatorship., so I'd rather make any choice rather than none.
Objectors against Greenpeace rightly make the point that they are asking us to make widespread and difficult changes to our way of living, based on theories which many of them don't really understand.
Why go around waving a banner at all? To make yourself feel good? To give yourself a sense of identity because you are part of a political organisation? On the face of it, she's asking people like me to change our minds. Based on something she doesn't have a clue about.
I did start studying Divinity, but dropped out. Didn't drop out of the philosophy one or the psychology one though. Should have gone for a PhD in levelling though, would have aced it. Thank fuck kinbishop isn't here, would have been rumbled ages ago. No vocal theists on blonde, people like me have to speak up on their behalf

[Rod Paradise]

I admire the guy's skill.

He wasn't talking to her, he was talking to us.

Finally someone with a brain has turned up and figured the whole thing out.

If he is then what's he trying to tell us?

That he's so confident in his argument that he can only ambush an unprepared protester & overwhelm her with unsupported 'facts' and tricks of language? Well whoop dee do that's me in the denial camp now - those that believe in climate change don't have the skill to do that.

 

A climate change protester at a climate change rally (or whatever it was) should not be unprepared like that, if she saw fit to impose her viewpoint on the general public like that she should be able to back it up, if he approached her at work or at home its fair to call it an ambush of an unprepared protester, but she was at the one place where she should have been ready for conflict or indeed to educate others on what she is protesting about.

Sorry, but that's bollocks. Someone only has the right to protest if they can carry out a scientific debate on the subject at the drop of a hat, in their second language & against a prepared opponent? 

People wouldn't protest in your world at all would they?

So you are saying people should be encouraged to protest even though they know very little about the subject matter?

The second language thing was unfortunate for the purposes of this particular argument (Whether he knew she couldn't speak English beforehand would be interesting to find out) and I am not saying someone should spend a lifetime in higher education on the topic in hand before they can protest on the subject, but if you are going to impose your opinion on others in such an aggressive way such as protesting then:

A) You should be expected to know your facts a little better beyond 'climate change is bad', if you are there to protest then you are also there to educate people.
B) You should expect to be challenged, now admitted I doubt anyone is going to ever expect to be challenged in this particular way, but you should expect to be forced to argue your corner.

This woman is not an innocent victim here, she isn't someone walking by who has been press ganged, she made a conscious choice to disrupt something/try and persuade people against something, I dare say she would have seized the opportunity to corner someone else and embarrass them with facts about climate change had the chance.

Just for the record, I know nothing about climate change and don't profess to. I also strongly believe that people should protest. I do think if you are going to protest you should do independent research and come to your own conclusions first like Lord Monckton suggests and this woman did not.

People should know enough to have an educated opinion (which there's every chance she did) - but to defend it against a prepared opponent who uses every trick to undermine her? That's unrealistic. You seem to want her to recite statistics to join in a protest.

A protest is just that - it's not a debate. There's usually protests because people are scared their view isn't given enough of a hearing in the debating chambers. The Oil lbby etc are heard plenty in the governments, so people took to the streets in a peaceful protest. If Monckton wants a debate he should challenge one.

For that protest to be undermined by this is deplorable, but I'd love to see if he tried it with others - but as this is a hatchet job, filmed and posted by his campaign supporters, if someone did hand him his arse would we have seen it?

[mondatoo]

i agree with rod and actionman but its much of a muchness, she didnt ask for it i suppose and the 10 min thing seemed a bit excessive and some of the stuff was quite low brow but i dont suppose she needed therapy after.

it reminded me of one of my all time favorite p*ss takes where the arena is a bit more suitable and i think illustrates the difference between picking on someone who hasnt really justified the attention and someone begging to get ruined.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_L-gbpKZpo

PMSL 

[thetank]

 Should have gone for a PhD in levelling though, would have aced it.

I'm sure there's loads that you can teach us all about levelling. Could you maybe answer some questions for us?

What do you think the main ingredients are for a good level?

[cia260895]

 Should have gone for a PhD in levelling though, would have aced it.

I'm sure there's loads that you can teach us all about levelling. Could you maybe answer some questions for us?

What do you think the main ingredients are for a good level?

 STABILA

[ScottMGee]

She has chosen to trust someone's opinion on the matter - just like many people do on a wide range of matters.  I would imagine that it would be pretty easy to take the piss out of a cancer patient for not understanding how their chemotherapy worked.

I think this is an awful example, I do not recall that there is any significant doubt in the scientific community or the public that chemotherapy works.

A better example would have been to take the piss out of a homeopathy patient for not understanding how homeopathy worked.

[G1BTW]

 Should have gone for a PhD in levelling though, would have aced it.

I'm sure there's loads that you can teach us all about levelling. Could you maybe answer some questions for us?

What do you think the main ingredients are for a good level?

Copper.
Red and black paint.
Some kind of greenish fluoriding liquid.
A xenon gas bubble.

And a flat surface to measure it on to make sure your level really is level.

[gatso]

what I don't get about getting things perfectly level is that the earth is round and surely if you lay a flat thing on a curved thing it'd be all wobbly wouldn't it?

[G1BTW]

what I don't get about getting things perfectly level is that the earth is round and surely if you lay a flat thing on a curved thing it'd be all wobbly wouldn't it?

Not to mention the level sticking to the earth in places like Australia.

[thetank]

Aww, you deleted the part about me being shit

[G1BTW]

Aww, you deleted the part about me being shit

lol It didn't say that.

[david3103]

She has chosen to trust someone's opinion on the matter - just like many people do on a wide range of matters.  I would imagine that it would be pretty easy to take the piss out of a cancer patient for not understanding how their chemotherapy worked.

I think this is an awful example, I do not recall that there is any significant doubt in the scientific community or the public that chemotherapy works.

A better example would have been to take the piss out of a homeopathy patient for not understanding how homeopathy worked.

I think this is an awful example, I do not recall that there is any significant doubt level of belief in the scientific community or the public that chemotherapy homeopathy works.