Jump to content

Greta Thunberg


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The hypocrisy of demanding climate activists go all stone age or else they have no right to call for change is another kind of rhetoric that should be called out for the misleading nonsense it is. No-

Don't forget about Nayirah. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony

Me

Posted Images

12 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Just a quick reminder to those quoting psychologists saying that Greta's got mental health issues.

Also a note that she's at about the same place on the autism spectrum as Mark Zuckerberg, Isaac Asimov, and Andy Warhol.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Also a note that she's at about the same place on the autism spectrum as Mark Zuckerberg, Isaac Asimov, and Andy Warhol.

It's more relevant that she's only sixteen. An age when most girls are still at school, studying for their exams.

Or having babies with Isis fighters.

Or having sex for money with Prince Andrew. 

They grow up so quick these days. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mistermack said:

It's more relevant that she's only sixteen. An age when most girls are still at school, studying for their exams.

I know, right? It's also impressive that someone your age appreciates the passion and sense of justice this young woman possesses, and is willing to fight for what she knows is right. 

I remember not being taken seriously at that age, and I'm starting to see how being too old makes folks see you differently. I'm so glad critical thought knows no age. A sound and reasonable argument is still sound no matter who voices it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I know, right? It's also impressive that someone your age appreciates the passion and sense of justice this young woman possesses, and is willing to fight for what she knows is right. 

I've got the same passion and conviction from Jehova's Witnesses on my doorstep. 

It doesn't mean much, it's the evidence and quality of the argument that does it for me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to recall you often saying that thinking emotionally is usually a bad idea, Phi, and we should do more critical thinking.
The fact that she is so passionate about AGW while still a teenager, is what affects us emotionally, Zapatos.
I didn't think mentioning her age ( and getting it wrong ) would be seen as a personal attack.

And while I realize that INow's assholes are out there ( as evidenced by Dimreepr's links ), I really don't think anyone on this forum has attacked her personally.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, MigL said:

I didn't think mentioning her age ( and getting it wrong ) would be seen as a personal attack.

 

"Mentioning her age." That's a generous way to describe your post.

You claimed her age and voting eligibility were "problematic", thus subtly casting doubt on the veracity of her arguments. How are those things germane to her message? How is that not an ad hominem attack? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mistermack said:

I've got the same passion and conviction from Jehova's Witnesses on my doorstep. 

It doesn't mean much, it's the evidence and quality of the argument that does it for me. 

We're on the same page completely. The differences between her arguments and the JWs are like light and dark ages.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

The differences between her arguments and the Jehova's Witnesses are like light and dark ages.

Yes. One is preaching that the world is about to end in fire and brimstone.

And the other,   . . .

 

something about Jesus. 😕

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mistermack said:

it's the evidence and quality of the argument that does it for me.

Which is one of the reasons Greta Thunberg has been successful with her message that climate policies should be consistent with the science based expert advice. It is not brimstone and fire, but sea level rise, extreme weather, more extreme droughts, refugees, based on mainstream expert advice, not myths - plus all the extra problems that mismanagement will add.

 

Edited by Ken Fabian
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Zap.
Her age is an emotional 'hook' to most people.
Most feel the need, instinctively,  to 'protect' young people.
And her voting ineligibility means she shouldn't be able to affect her Government.
Unless you want to change voting rights.

But what does any of that have to do with the veracity of her argument ?
Did it put any doubt in your mind  about AGW ?
I don't think it did to anyone else.

I don't expect she is offended by anyone stating her age.
Why are you offended for her ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MigL said:

her voting ineligibility means she shouldn't be able to affect her Government.

I think that differs from country to country. AFAIK young individuals has the right by law to be able affect her government, before being old enough to vote.
May these kind of differences may be one contributing factor to different age related reactions in this case? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MigL said:

And her voting ineligibility means she shouldn't be able to affect her Government.

What? People unable to vote (for whatever reason) have just as much right to protest against injustice or for changes in society. Do you suggest policing peaceful protests to ensure that everyone taking part has the right to vote?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mistermack said:

I've got the same passion and conviction from Jehovah's Witnesses on my doorstep. 

...my "discussions" with Jehovah's Witnesses (and Christian archbishop as well etc) looked like I described in this thread:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

From Wikipedia, made me smile : 

"In August 2019, Thunberg sailed across the Atlantic Ocean from Plymouth, UK, to New York, US, in a 60 ft racing yacht equipped with solar panels and underwater turbines. The trip was announced as a carbon-neutral transatlantic crossing serving as a demonstration of Thunberg's declared beliefs of the importance of reducing emissions. France 24 reported that several crew would fly to New York to take the yacht back to Europe. "     

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greta_Thunberg    

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mistermack said:

From Wikipedia, made me smile : 

"In August 2019, Thunberg sailed across the Atlantic Ocean from Plymouth, UK, to New York, US, in a 60 ft racing yacht equipped with solar panels and underwater turbines. The trip was announced as a carbon-neutral transatlantic crossing serving as a demonstration of Thunberg's declared beliefs of the importance of reducing emissions. France 24 reported that several crew would fly to New York to take the yacht back to Europe. "     

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greta_Thunberg    

You're right, she should have walked. :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MigL said:

And her voting ineligibility means she shouldn't be able to affect her Government.
Unless you want to change voting rights.

Why? And it's not just her government.

In the US, rights do not "turn on" at voting age, nor are most of them (voting aside) reserved for citizens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes ,what is the problem? Should she be prevented from addressing political gatherings?

Should there be a news blackout when she speaks?

Should there be in house training for government officials to disregard the opinions of underage  citizens (and she is foreign too)?

People her age are uniquely qualified to assess the impact of MMGW on her generation  and beyond.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I'd still prefer someone a bit older doing my heart bypass though. 

She is giving us the benefit of her (and her supporters') viewpoint. She doesn't have the political ,scientific or entrepreneurial tools to directly effect change. (voters do have some tools)

Edited by geordief
Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is how this wedge between us gets inserted into the conversation and refocuses the topic completely. Then the result is we argue for days and days and pages and pages about the messenger, forgetting and ignoring the message itself.

We wind up wasting time tribalizing against one another and doing nothing to address the core issue even though most of us largely agree about the importance of the message itself. The trolls started it, then we helped them continue it (and not just here).

It’s happening everywhere online and across topics (climate, brexit, us politics, Hong Kong, the list goes on and is too long to type...) and follows the same “algorithm” or syntax each time. It reminds me a bit of a husband catching his wife cheating by seeing a text message she received on her phone, then spending the next month arguing about how inappropriate it was for him to look at her texts... all while the cheating and infidelity continues. 

Edited by iNow
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, iNow said:

Then the result is we argue for days and days and pages and pages about the messenger, forgetting and ignoring the message itself.

I'm sure that is part of the motivation of people attacking her. It distracts attention from the message, particularly with those who reject the message on emotional grounds.

But most people have been pretty good at ignoring the trolls and haters, and getting on with spreading the message by various means.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MigL said:

But what does any of that have to do with the veracity of her argument ?

Exactly. It has nothing at all to do with the veracity of her argument. So why call it "problematic"?

Quote

And her voting ineligibility means she shouldn't be able to affect her Government.
Unless you want to change voting rights.

Actually she should be able to affect her government.

Unless you want to change her Constitutional Rights.

Quote

I don't expect she is offended by anyone stating her age.
Why are you offended for her ?

Again, you are dancing around what you actually said. You asserted that her age and voting status were "problematic". You didn't simply "state her age"

No one is "offended" by knowing her age.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.