Tony EH wrote: » Ah, but you see, that would mean that all those brown, yellow and black people wouldn't be killed off then.
weldoninhio wrote: » I thought it was an emergency? How long will it take, to plan, fund, implement the above, and if it doesn't work then what? We would continue to be overpopulated. Allow natural selection to thin the herd. Could work in the western world too, no antibiotics for a year until a scientifically determined number of people have expired.
AtomicHorror wrote: » Indeed, but it would certainly help to mitigate the Great Replacement or the White Genocide or whatever horrible version of that idea is in vogue with the chinless neckbeards these days. All solutions, including the abhorrent ones you're alluding to, will take time. You seem to be making some sort of argument from incredulity here. The sooner a humane plan is implemented, the better the outcome.
AtomicHorror wrote: » The sooner a humane plan is implemented, the better the outcome.
Tony EH wrote: » Some people don't want a "humane plan". They just want to see brown people die. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ And then whine about it when the refugees come knocking to escape chaos.
KyussB wrote: » I mean you do realize that what you're saying would make the Holocaust (or even WWI+II) look like a particularly bad season of the flu, in comparison? Can we perhaps rule out the idea of mass-genocide (predominantly against poorer darker-skinned people, since they are predominantly the ones in the most at-risk tropical regions), since that doesn't seem to be the most well reasoned solution?
mooreman09 wrote: » For what Its worth. I think its brilliant that kids are being educated on this and being encouraged to get involved.
weldoninhio wrote: » Genocide?? :rolleyes: The looney left can't help but use extreme emotive language can they. I haven't once mentioned murdering anyone, of any skin tone or nationality. Is it genocide when people die of cholera? measles? dehydration? hunger? cancer? and other natural diseases, as happens every day of the week all over the world??
weldoninhio wrote: » Is there a media ban on reporting today's climate strike?? I haven't heard a peep on any of the news bulletins, nothing on RTE.ie or TheJournal etc that was all over it last week.
jimmycrackcorm wrote: » I'll believe it when I see them walking to school and the school run traffic disappears
KyussB wrote: » It's well established that our countribution to climate change, that will affect these people the most, are not 'natural' - it's a choice. It's partially comparable to the British maintaining the status quo of crop exports from Ireland, in the middle of our famine. They didn't do it out of ignorance, they knew the costs, and they chose to continue anyway - the same way as we know the future costs now - and are culpable for the costs of the choices we make today.
AtomicHorror wrote: » When treatment has been withheld purposefully, and that results in an increase in deaths, yes. I think you're fishing for a leftist-nazi narrative. Please protest in the way that I personally find acceptable, but have not clearly defined. No not like that. No not that. More politely if you please. No. Still wrong. Now you are shouting, your argument must be invalid.
weldoninhio wrote: » People in the western world aren't "brown people". :rolleyes:
weldoninhio wrote: » Cut all financial and medical aid to overseas countries. Stop all immigration from third world countries. Ship dangerous criminals to third world countries. We wouldn’t have to cull anyone, natural selection would take care of it.
weldoninhio wrote: » So all drugs available for all diseases are always available?? Even in Ireland that is not the case due to cost, even though the treatment is available. How come none of the pharmaceutical companies have been up on genocide charges??
AtomicHorror wrote: » It would depend on the practical or ethical reasons for them being withheld and the ultimate intentions of the companies. If they mean to cause suffering, are merely indifferent or are concerned but unable to fix the issue. But we were not talking about that very separate subject. You are deflecting. We were discussing your suggestion to implement a policy to withhold from people medicines they can currently access, with the explicit intention of letting them die of preventable illnesses. If anyone- pharma company, government- has in fact done that, they are 100% guilty of genocide.
weldoninhio wrote: » So where is the uproar at the Israeli genocide in Gaza? Or the Saudi genocide in Yemen? Not trendy enough??
weldoninhio wrote: » So we need to stop/slow down climate change. By doing that and letting natural diseases work their course we will have less people = less carbon emissions. It is completely different to the British here, we would not be exporting anything that anyone needs to survive. If they can survive, and many will, excellent, but it would definitely thin the herd.
road_high wrote: » Way more of them seem to be driven and dropped at the school gate since I was in school in the 90s. A lot of us simply cycled, walked or got the school bus. Foreign holidays were out of the question and a mobile phone wasn’t even on the radar. So the collective virtual signaling from these lot is a tad hard to take seen as they are far greater consumers of energy and resources than we were as kids.
AtomicHorror wrote: » Please, this is a nonsense tu quoque argument. They are either right about climate change or they are not. Hypocrisy, if it is there, doesn't change that. The spending habits of their parents are not their choice and the trend towards cars to school is more about media panic around child safety and declining availability of public transport.
weldoninhio wrote: » They cannot "currently access" it. If they could, we wouldn't be sending aid.
road_high wrote: » Horse ****e- if they GENUINELY cared they’d forsake all these things - mid teen kids are broadly very conscious of choices and decisions- hiding behind the parents holds no water in the context of their tantrum strikes. Change starts with the individual- not someone else
AtomicHorror wrote: » If I catch you from falling off a cliff, and then, deciding I do not like you, I let go, is it murder? Of course it is. Whataboutery. More deflection. Is this really all you have? Ignoring for a moment that there is uproar over both, if there were not uproar that would still have no bearing on whether your idea is abhorrent.
weldoninhio wrote: » Good analogy :rolleyes:
BarryD2 wrote: » Anyway, what this is all about is that we are simply being softened up for the upcoming hike in carbon taxes. Not much more that that. Will it change purchasing habits? No, not in our case anyway as you just simply have to drive a fair bit when you live in rural Ireland. And yes, we also burn a certain amount of (smokeless) coal to keep warm. So these increases will just add to the annual bills.
