Nintendo Fails The Green Test Again

H.R.Shovenstuff

New member
Sep 19, 2008
519
0
0
insanelich said:
Also, Greenpeace. They've been caught *shamelessly* lying for their own ass-backward no-good-for-nature idiotic politic goals over and over again. Anyone who takes Greenpeace seriously is the level of a moron that never deserves any respect, and I dump them in the same mental category with Scientologists - even considering their point is considered treachery towards having a brain.
Care to justify that statement?
 

PayNSprayBandit

New member
Dec 27, 2008
565
0
0
li-ion said:
So, Nintendo produces a last-gen console with a gimmicky waggle-sensor-controller and creates more waste than Sony with the latest in technology? Hm...

PayNSprayBandit said:
And they lowered Nintendo's score for not making things public.
Since when does Nintendo answer to anyone?
Since every major corporation does? Oh no, Nintendo is special, they gave us Mario and Zelda so they get a free ride for everything. Call me paranoid but when a large corporation doesn't publish some numbers in context with sustainability or environment it's usually because they have something to hide.
Um... Okay. You're paranoid.

And they answer to their shareholders and the law, not self-righteous hippies.
 

sms_117b

Keeper of Brannigan's Law
Oct 4, 2007
2,880
0
0
Goddamned stinking hippies, they piss me off, I see a hippie and I just wana kick them square in the nuts!

haha
 

Lord Krunk

New member
Mar 3, 2008
4,809
0
0
I agree with them, surprisingly. The Wii is a great console, but its controllers drain battery juice like power was going out of fashion.
 

Kyouran

New member
Jan 10, 2009
82
0
0
PayNSprayBandit said:
Since when does Nintendo answer to anyone?
Let alone tree-huggers?

Example from my local community: We've got redwood forests. We've also got logging companies. And naturally, we have environmental activists. The activists, who husband the environment as a hobby, are decrying the companies, who husband the environment as a way of life. Three guesses which one knows what's going on, and the first two don't count.
 

Amaurus

New member
Mar 30, 2009
153
0
0
PayNSprayBandit said:
Is it me or is that graph not balanced?

And they lowered Nintendo's score for not making things public.
Since when does Nintendo answer to anyone?
They only answer to people who don't have a brain. Hint: Themselves!
 

GloatingSwine

New member
Nov 10, 2007
4,544
0
0
Electronics bigger than a postage stamp require more unpleasant gubbins than a mobile phone.

Who knew?
 

Durahan2

New member
Mar 12, 2009
167
0
0
insanelich said:
Durahan2 said:
insanelich said:
H.R.Shovenstuff said:
I believe Nokia are doing best since they long ago realised the n-gage was never going to sell and stopped producing them.
Seeing N-Gage has been dead as a gaming device for literally years, I guess it's exactly what Greenpeace wants.

Also, Greenpeace. They've been caught *shamelessly* lying for their own ass-backward no-good-for-nature idiotic politic goals over and over again. Anyone who takes Greenpeace seriously is the level of a moron that never deserves any respect, and I dump them in the same mental category with Scientologists - even considering their point is considered treachery towards having a brain.
It's not just Greenpeace, Same can be said for the entirety of "going green" movement. *points to Al-gore...facepalm*

And so I'm sure this will hurt Nintendo. Eco-friendliness isn't the first thing you think about when buying your gaming machine. Honestly Mother nature can take care of herself; stop using her to blame the corporations for shit they're not doing, and pushing a political agenda.
*shakes fist at Communistpeace I mean...Greenpeace*
And you're the other half of the parade of morons.

There are genuine problems regarding sustainable energy sources and biosphere stability.

NEITHER side here is doing anything against the problem. Other side fabricates amazingly complex utter lies to rally support and money against the most incredible goddamn unrelated subjects (think nuclear energy (anyone who's against nuclear energy is a moron, plain and simple)), other side favors financial structures that were outdated in the 1800s and thinks there's no problem whatsoever that we've shot up to about fifty times the population we know the local biosphere can support (note: does not mean that our local biosphere cannot support current population; merely that we have no idea if it can) and that we're extracting limited resources about as fast as we possibly can.

In the end, both sides are part of a parade of morons, and both sides would prove extremely harmful to human society very, very quickly if left unchecked. We can only thank whatever higher power we thank that they hate each other - they're both stupid but in opposite ways.
Umm dude be sure to read people's posts before you start to rant about something I never was talking about. Now, I never said there wasn't any problems. There are problems, but they're not capitalism, and not the corperations. Blameing them does nothing but push a communist agenda while the planet around us dies. But mother nature has her own way of healing, and if we get in the way and try to heal her our way. We'll just end up doing more damage.

We can do small things, like plant trees in areas that already have an ecosystem in place. Because an area thats recovering, and we plant a tree there we'll fuck up the recovering ecosystem makeing it so things like grass wouldn't grow. You start of with weeds and such, they die and grass grows, after a few generations tree seeds would start to land and grow. And depending on what trees become prominate in that area would show what kind of other wildlife and plants would be there.Now that was just an example, the tree wouldn't always be that factor. Some times it different kind of plant or even an animal.

Other small things is to NOT recycle, other then aluminum of course. Recycleing is a manufactioning process. Which we get all kinds of toxics from. Useing paper because we get paper from tree farms, and not the rainforest like some auto-insurance companies want you to believe. So the more paper we use the more trees that would have to planted in these farms. Much like food. But I guess I'm going off topic now huh :p.

Althought you had to call me a moron, when you're the one that was stupidly blind because you wanted to make a point that had nothing to do with anything I said. *shrug*

EDIT: Lol Finnboghi, he loves underaged trees!
 

Asehujiko

New member
Feb 25, 2008
2,119
0
0
The list should read "which company gave us the most data on whatever they are doing".

I think it's a good idea that all Wii users should donate the cash they saved by buying a cheaper console to a communual fund for renting a submarine and buying a torpedo.

That or we bust the TPB guys out of jail and go after them in an authentic 18th century galleon and give them a broadside.
 

Altorin

Jack of No Trades
May 16, 2008
6,976
0
0
I'm sure the issue of carbon emissions is based on the company, and not the individual product, but it did conjure up a hilarious image of a gas powered Gaming Console, with huge exhaust vents chugging out black smoke.
 

Eatbrainz

New member
Mar 2, 2009
1,016
0
0
Greenpeace's complaints wont even reach anyone important at Nintendo's Golden Castle