The Irony of Captain Planet

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: thereaderrabbit

Originally posted by: daniel49
Stumbled upon this and thought I would put anandtech's brightest minds on it to explain the irony

The irony that Captain Planet is physically hurt when exposed to pollutants, yet wears tight, modern manufactured clothes that are known pollutants (his suit is either lycra, spandex, or some other synthetic, it cannot be cotton or another natural fiber because it is not absorbent).

Since these are synthetic fibers produced in such a way that causes pollution, and are in fact pollutants themselves, Captain Planet?s uniform should in fact hurt him. If anything, he should be wearing flowing, hand knit, wool robes. The only possible solution I can think of is that he is naked and his skin is colored to look like clothing, but that is highly unlikely for a wholesome saturday morning cartoon.

This is a paradox because, while the fact that he fights pollution is PC, he most clothe himself, which by the strictest definitions (which he should adhere) seems to be Un-PC, at least in the way he does (with synthetics).

What are you talking about?

Producing anything causes pollution, even pealing fruit. There is a difference between creating pollution because you have a job to do, and just being lax about the consequences of your actions. The cartoon was focused on the second of the two infractions.

"Since these are synthetic fibers produced in such a way that causes pollution and are in fact pollutants themselves,.." This line of logic is complete BS. Most anything when found in the wrong place can be called a pollutant. (1) The chemicals I work with in the lab would all be called pollutants if I dumped them outside of my building, but they are not pollutants until they are put into the wrong environment. (2) Chemicals such as ozone are pollutants when man vents them in the lower atmosphere, but is not a pollutant in the upper atmosphere.

-Reader

growing a sheep to sheer doesn't produce pollution. Unless you let him poo poo in the stream.
He needs wool tights,

 

[thereaderrabbit]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: thereaderrabbit

Originally posted by: daniel49
Stumbled upon this and thought I would put anandtech's brightest minds on it to explain the irony

The irony that Captain Planet is physically hurt when exposed to pollutants, yet wears tight, modern manufactured clothes that are known pollutants (his suit is either lycra, spandex, or some other synthetic, it cannot be cotton or another natural fiber because it is not absorbent).

Since these are synthetic fibers produced in such a way that causes pollution, and are in fact pollutants themselves, Captain Planet?s uniform should in fact hurt him. If anything, he should be wearing flowing, hand knit, wool robes. The only possible solution I can think of is that he is naked and his skin is colored to look like clothing, but that is highly unlikely for a wholesome saturday morning cartoon.

This is a paradox because, while the fact that he fights pollution is PC, he most clothe himself, which by the strictest definitions (which he should adhere) seems to be Un-PC, at least in the way he does (with synthetics).

What are you talking about?

Producing anything causes pollution, even pealing fruit. There is a difference between creating pollution because you have a job to do, and just being lax about the consequences of your actions. The cartoon was focused on the second of the two infractions.

"Since these are synthetic fibers produced in such a way that causes pollution and are in fact pollutants themselves,.." This line of logic is complete BS. Most anything when found in the wrong place can be called a pollutant. (1) The chemicals I work with in the lab would all be called pollutants if I dumped them outside of my building, but they are not pollutants until they are put into the wrong environment. (2) Chemicals such as ozone are pollutants when man vents them in the lower atmosphere, but is not a pollutant in the upper atmosphere.

-Reader

growing a sheep to sheer doesn't produce pollution. Unless you let him poo poo in the stream.
He needs wool tights,

What's that's that daniel49? Not bright enough to directly address the post you're quoting?

BTW- I'm as liberal as you'll get, but I never cared for CP. Way to preachy and oversimplified. To see you go after it with such an unintelligent critique makes me question your intelligence. Please prove me wrong.

 

[GundamSonicZeroX]

Captain Planet was a stupid show. "Oooh, let's save grass by not eating beef!" They can go off and fvck themselves, I want my beef!

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: thereaderrabbit

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: thereaderrabbit

Originally posted by: daniel49
Stumbled upon this and thought I would put anandtech's brightest minds on it to explain the irony

The irony that Captain Planet is physically hurt when exposed to pollutants, yet wears tight, modern manufactured clothes that are known pollutants (his suit is either lycra, spandex, or some other synthetic, it cannot be cotton or another natural fiber because it is not absorbent).

Since these are synthetic fibers produced in such a way that causes pollution, and are in fact pollutants themselves, Captain Planet?s uniform should in fact hurt him. If anything, he should be wearing flowing, hand knit, wool robes. The only possible solution I can think of is that he is naked and his skin is colored to look like clothing, but that is highly unlikely for a wholesome saturday morning cartoon.

This is a paradox because, while the fact that he fights pollution is PC, he most clothe himself, which by the strictest definitions (which he should adhere) seems to be Un-PC, at least in the way he does (with synthetics).

What are you talking about?

Producing anything causes pollution, even pealing fruit. There is a difference between creating pollution because you have a job to do, and just being lax about the consequences of your actions. The cartoon was focused on the second of the two infractions.

"Since these are synthetic fibers produced in such a way that causes pollution and are in fact pollutants themselves,.." This line of logic is complete BS. Most anything when found in the wrong place can be called a pollutant. (1) The chemicals I work with in the lab would all be called pollutants if I dumped them outside of my building, but they are not pollutants until they are put into the wrong environment. (2) Chemicals such as ozone are pollutants when man vents them in the lower atmosphere, but is not a pollutant in the upper atmosphere.

-Reader

growing a sheep to sheer doesn't produce pollution. Unless you let him poo poo in the stream.
He needs wool tights,

What's that's that daniel49? Not bright enough to directly address the post you're quoting?

BTW- I'm as liberal as you'll get, but I never cared for CP. Way to preachy and oversimplified. To see you go after it with such an unintelligent critique makes me question your intelligence. Please prove me wrong.

I don't know what your babbling about, but let me assure you. Your taking it far to serious,
As for insulting my intelligence as a response.
Alls it shows is that your an ass.
The empirical data is overwhelming on that.