Quizzes & Puzzles34 mins ago
Greta's Back
She needed to keep herself in the public eye, so shes now an expert in virology.
https:/
\\Thunberg said in a statement that “like the climate crisis, the coronavirus pandemic is a child-rights crisis” that will affect youngsters now and in the long-term, especially the most vulnerable.//
Childs rights ?, its affecting everyone.
https:/
\\Thunberg said in a statement that “like the climate crisis, the coronavirus pandemic is a child-rights crisis” that will affect youngsters now and in the long-term, especially the most vulnerable.//
Childs rights ?, its affecting everyone.
Answers
//She's not wrong about climate change,...// She's wrong insofar as her criticism should be directed towards those who are exacerbating the problem to the greatest degree. That is China (30% of global emissions) the USA (14%) and India (7%). That's half of all global emissions. The UK is responsible for just over 1%. It could reduce its share to nothing...
16:49 Thu 30th Apr 2020
I could have been more explicit about what I had in mind, I'll admit. But in this case I wanted to be brief, and perhaps I did wonder a bit too much what people would make of it.
// That global warming, or indeed anything, is a child-centric phenomenon, when I am sure you will agree, it is not. //
Indeed, but did she say that it affected only or mainly children? We're coming back round to the beginning of the topic, and it seems that again people hear an "only" in the message that doesn't belong there and was never intended. I don't see anything that Thunberg has said or done that implies she cares only about children and about nobody else. Still, as the people who can be expected to be around the longest, then, by definition, any longer-term consequences will affect them more than older people. Morbid it may be but it's also simply true, and the threats of Climate Change are expected to become much more acute in the future.
Perhaps also it's a question of what we hear. I personally don't have a taste for the "How dare you?!" approach she took on at least one speech, and even less taste for the surprising and bizarre applause she received from the people that condemnation was addressed to. I can only suppose that world leaders are secretly masochists... but the core of the message, as far as I am concerned, remains the important thing. That she has managed to inspire, either on her own or with the help of a bandwagon, fresh attention to a serious issue simply outweighs anything else in my mind.
// That global warming, or indeed anything, is a child-centric phenomenon, when I am sure you will agree, it is not. //
Indeed, but did she say that it affected only or mainly children? We're coming back round to the beginning of the topic, and it seems that again people hear an "only" in the message that doesn't belong there and was never intended. I don't see anything that Thunberg has said or done that implies she cares only about children and about nobody else. Still, as the people who can be expected to be around the longest, then, by definition, any longer-term consequences will affect them more than older people. Morbid it may be but it's also simply true, and the threats of Climate Change are expected to become much more acute in the future.
Perhaps also it's a question of what we hear. I personally don't have a taste for the "How dare you?!" approach she took on at least one speech, and even less taste for the surprising and bizarre applause she received from the people that condemnation was addressed to. I can only suppose that world leaders are secretly masochists... but the core of the message, as far as I am concerned, remains the important thing. That she has managed to inspire, either on her own or with the help of a bandwagon, fresh attention to a serious issue simply outweighs anything else in my mind.
Mozz - // //As usual, you are late to the party - I have already addressed the concept of similarity.//
A bit uncalled for Andy, especially as Sanmac wasnt even talking to you in their post. //
You are quite right - it was a reaction caused by Sanmac's usual hostility and occasional rudeness directed at me.
But on this occasion, you are right, and I was wrong.
Sanmac, please accept my apologies.
A bit uncalled for Andy, especially as Sanmac wasnt even talking to you in their post. //
You are quite right - it was a reaction caused by Sanmac's usual hostility and occasional rudeness directed at me.
But on this occasion, you are right, and I was wrong.
Sanmac, please accept my apologies.
jim - // Still, as the people who can be expected to be around the longest, then, by definition, any longer-term consequences will affect them more than older people. Morbid it may be but it's also simply true, and the threats of Climate Change are expected to become much more acute in the future. //
That has already been pointed out by Newjudge earlier in the thread.
But please don't let me stray from my personal position in this -
As far as I am concerned, talking garbage about something you know less than nothing about is the absolute right of the adolescent, it's a valuable part of growing up.
Being used as the human equivalent of - as I have previously described - a circus elephant, and using personality issues to drive hysteria on a public platform in order to further a cause that your ill child does not really understand, is beyond immoral.
If I had my way, her parents would be on abuse charges.
That has already been pointed out by Newjudge earlier in the thread.
But please don't let me stray from my personal position in this -
As far as I am concerned, talking garbage about something you know less than nothing about is the absolute right of the adolescent, it's a valuable part of growing up.
Being used as the human equivalent of - as I have previously described - a circus elephant, and using personality issues to drive hysteria on a public platform in order to further a cause that your ill child does not really understand, is beyond immoral.
If I had my way, her parents would be on abuse charges.
// Jim, //The real reason, I said before, for any objection to Thunberg is discomfort with the message. //
Jim - I have no 'discomfort' with the message, I think it's probably piffle, but that doesn't give me discomfort.
Abuse of a vulnerable young woman by her parents for profit gives me serious discomfort, but as I said, nothing to do with the 'message'.
Jim - I have no 'discomfort' with the message, I think it's probably piffle, but that doesn't give me discomfort.
Abuse of a vulnerable young woman by her parents for profit gives me serious discomfort, but as I said, nothing to do with the 'message'.
jim - // Still wanting to see a concrete example of garbage, though. I'm not talking about her somewhat unique and confrontational style -- I'm talking about the core part of the message. //
Can't help you there, because I am not, and never have been, talking about 'the message'.
GT can tell me the moon's a balloon for all I care - as long as she is not being cruelly exploited to do so.
Can't help you there, because I am not, and never have been, talking about 'the message'.
GT can tell me the moon's a balloon for all I care - as long as she is not being cruelly exploited to do so.
Naomi: What is it you say, that you can only go on what people say here? I've seen what they've said, both here and in the past, and I stand by my interpretation. Several times in the past, most of Thunberg's main critics on AB have made clear that they either think Climate Change is a hoax (eg 10CS, Togo, a few others), or that the threat has been exaggerated (NJ), or that it remains effectively a matter of opinion (andy), or that only action sending us back to a pre-industrial existence would be enough (you). Words to that effect, anyway. I don't think unreasonable to consider that this forms a major part of the context for your criticisms of Thunberg.
If you agreed with what she said, would you be quite so vociferous in your criticism?
If you agreed with what she said, would you be quite so vociferous in your criticism?
Yes, it was pretty good wasn't it, ellipsis? I'm glad I've been "told". Clears everything up.
The acid test would be Naomi's reaction to Naomi Seibt, I suppose. As far as I can see, my earlier mention of her went un-noticed, although in a thread this size I don't imagine that means anything other than that it was just missed.
The acid test would be Naomi's reaction to Naomi Seibt, I suppose. As far as I can see, my earlier mention of her went un-noticed, although in a thread this size I don't imagine that means anything other than that it was just missed.
// Ten-a-penny to people like Jim who, in effect, consistently brand other people liars. //
That's a complete lie. Or, rather, a misinterpretation. I don't think people are as aware as they should be of their own internal biases. If you think that's calling people liars then feel free, but it never has meant that and never will mean that.
That's a complete lie. Or, rather, a misinterpretation. I don't think people are as aware as they should be of their own internal biases. If you think that's calling people liars then feel free, but it never has meant that and never will mean that.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles52 mins ago
What Did The Conservatives Achieve In...
Politics55 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles67 mins ago
