AtomicHorror wrote: » Straw man. Not all. Tu quoque. Ad hominem. That's quite a collection.To be fair, I'm not sure what the formal name of the "you should be grateful for all I did for you" fallacy is, but it should probably be called the abusive husband fallacy or perhaps "lleti's Boner".
lleti wrote: » How come it's ok to comment on trumps or johnsons appearance?
lleti wrote: » I'm a millenial myself but a kid whinging about her childhood being stolen helps no one and is not going to win people over. As for the "you won't have to face the consequences so you don't care." commentary, why would people in their 30s and 40s not be affected if things are so bad things will go tits up in 12 years? Do boomers not have kids? Or are they saying boomers don't care about their kids? So why would kids care about their "future kids" either?
gozunda wrote: » Indeed. And yet another example of the type of 'green' tech being produced in China using coal powered energy and gobbled up by virtue signaling gob****es by way of we're 'doing something for the environment'. Looking at the actual costs and lifespans of much of the existing renewable energy technology shows that much of it is not viable without direct subsidy and the use of vast amounts of fossil fuel in production and transportation.* Like Ireland importing biomas by ship from Australia to produce electricity. The hundreds of thousands of gallons of fossil fuel required to do so is truely staggering. But hey let's all drive our EVs and feel smug. There's a lot of that of sure. *Some previous issues detailed here.https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/sep/08/heat-pumps-green-heating
PostWoke wrote: » Yeah man why blame those actually responsible? That much is obvious.
AtomicHorror wrote: » It is worth re-posting as it is sorely needed by some very traumatized middle-aged white dudes on this thread. They also need a decent cloth to clear the spittle from their screens.
BorneTobyWilde wrote: » She's already a victim of intense online bullying. The hatred of her is nothing to do with her cause either, it's more about her. Pretty crazy to put someone that vulnerable in this position
lleti wrote: » Clever of the movement to put a kid as the face of it, any criticism is just used against people "she's just a kid!!! I can't believe you're so mean!!!"
lleti wrote: » It's why a debate with her wouldn't settle much because when someone one ups her everyone will just say "well done, you outsmarted a kid".
JJayoo wrote: » Personally I couldn't care less about Greta, hopefully she won't go loopy from all the attention the same way a lot of child stars go off the rails. However I cannot stand the virtue signalling sh1tes who have suddenly emerged declaring her the second coming while at the same time they wouldn't dare lift a finger to do anything positive. I think before a person is allowed to cry about climate change they should have to show that they have made some form of effort into making a positive impact. I have about 400 oak trees, all 12 years old, that I have to dig out of a nursery area and plant on the land this winter. I wonder how many of the people losing their sh1t over the climate will give me a hand planting them? In the lovely Irish winter months. Already have about 5000+ trees planted, all collected as acorns from Union wood in Sligo. Zero incentive every provided by any time of government scheme, massive costs with posts and tree guards as all trees are planted on land grazed by sheep. Another 10000 trees densely planted in this nursery area that will be planted out each winter. Also have few hundred native flowering trees and 350 commercial apple trees I bought recently for the bees. Not one cent available for any type.of planting yet everyday all you hear is carbon this and carbon that and all the penalties we will have to pay. I believe in climate change, I have been doing my bit for a long time BUT I believe that currently it is being used, and Gretta, to get us ready for a whole host of new carbon/climate taxes. Anyhow
BarryD2 wrote: » It's the other side of the renewables industry that proponents like to ignore. I've visited some of the recent on shore wind farms and the works involved in erecting them are very substantial, they are major construction projects. The Galway Wind Park was I think, the largest construction site west of the Shannon when it was built in recent years. Vast amounts of carbon expended in construction works, fabrication of turbines and ongoing maintenance required. There's no free lunch, energy costs one way or another. That's not to say we shouldn't build some of these but I'd question whether several would be built if they weren't subsidised and incentivised by public policy, taxes and levies.
Veritas Libertas wrote: » Implying anyone who disagrees with you is a 'traumatized middle-aged white dude' is racist.
Veritas Libertas wrote: » Attributing any set of characteristics to people based on skin colour is racist.
Veritas Libertas wrote: » I realize you learnt the opposite in whatever grievance studies course you attended, but none-the-less; shame on you.
AtomicHorror wrote: » That's not accurate. It's not "any criticism", but ad hominem attacks specifically directed at her age, neurodiversity and physical appearance. What's to debate? The relevant experts should not be listened to, or already are being listened to? Greta is symbolic of a generation who have greater stake in this subject than the generation making the decisions for them. That's why her youth is meaningful, not as a defense against criticism. In Trump's case, the physical characteristics commented on are his orange skin, strange hair and his weight. All direct consequences of his vanity, disregard for authenticity and greed. Personality traits which have influenced his actions as president. In Johnson's case, his dishevelment is widely considered to be a carefully-considered affectation designed to make him appear benign or relatable, when in fact he is neither. So he himself has introduced his appearance into the discussion.
BarryD2 wrote: » It's the other side of the renewables industry that proponents like to ignore. I've visited some of the recent on shore wind farms and the works involved in erecting them are very substantial, they are major construction projects. The Galway Wind Park was I think, the largest construction site west of the Shannon when it was built in recent years. Vast amounts of carbon expended in construction works, fabrication of turbines and ongoing maintenance required. There's no free lunch, energy costs one way or another.
Jimmy Garlic wrote: » So is Donald Trump. Part and parcel of being in the public eye. She shouldn't have been put in that position, you're right. The Club of Rome and her parents should be ashamed of themselves.
AtomicHorror wrote: » That's not accurate. It's not "any criticism", but ad hominem attacksspecifically directed at her age, neurodiversity and physical appearance. What's to debate? The relevant experts should not be listened to, or already are being listened to?Greta is symbolic of a generation who have greater stake in this subject than the generation making the decisions for them. That's why her youth is meaningful, not as a defense against criticism.In Trump's case, the physical characteristics commented on are his orange skin, strange hair and his weight. All direct consequences of his vanity, disregard for authenticity and greed. Personality traits which have influenced his actions as president. ...In Johnson's case, his dishevelment is widely considered to be a carefully-considered affectation designed to make him appear benign or relatable, when in fact he is neither. So he himself has introduced his appearance into the discussion.
lleti wrote: » Vast majority of world leaders acknowledge climate change exists. How many politicians were out getting photo ops last friday with the kids saying they agree with them?
lleti wrote: » Ireland is planning for another 1m people in 20 years. You'd think we'd be looking at trying to stop that if we were talking about reducing emissions. I don't hear the kids criticizing this? Why?
gozunda wrote: » So you think its ok to attack the appearance of some and ascribe those traits as negitive aspects of their public personality but not others - and you see nothing wrong with that? Ok ...
Jimmy Garlic wrote: » Cognative dissonance. Open door immigration is trendy so it is supported despite the fact it is at odds with all the preaching about carbon emmisions.
AtomicHorror wrote: » Worrying to have to point out, but immigration does not increase the number of people in the world, just where they are. If they move from countries with higher emission infrastructure, to renewable infrastructure, it might even reduce the per-capita emissions.
AtomicHorror wrote: » Yes, I consider that to be valid. Because Greta's traits and personality have no bearing on the validity of her message. Her neurodiveristy may explain some of her behavior, but has no bearing on whether she is correct.Now, if people criticized Trump for being over 70, I would not support that, but they're mostly focused on the aforementioned indicators of his horrible personality and judgment.
IamtheWalrus wrote: » The fact the Greta Thunberg is young is the point. It’s her generation that mine and the previous generations have f’ed over by our recklessness. She’s become a symbol for that. When she found out the dangers her generation faces, she got depressed. Instead of remaining depressed, she took action and, with the Youth Strike, created a movement that just might have an impact on our politicians today. She’s a symbol of action, not words, and with the clock ticking towards a climate catastrophe, that’s exactly the kind of thing we need.
gozunda wrote: » Nope. Im afraid it doesn't work like that. You either allow puerile criticisms (of everyone) or you recognise them for what they are. Excusing it as being ok for some because you happen not to like a specific person is little other than bias. No ones "traits and personality" have a bearing on the validity of their "message". Greta is not a guru. No more than Trump or Johnson is. They are all open to valid criticism. Placing a public figure such as greta on a pedestal above all others is not only daft - it smacks of religous belief.
DanDan6592 wrote: » It's hilarious that you rightly criticise those who make ad-hominium attacks online about Greta, but then do the exact same to anyone who isn't fully inboard with what she does. Also your paragraph about Boris Johnson and Trump is complete codswallop. There is a clear and obvious double standard when it comes to Trump and BJ and comments on how they look, and you are attempting to make excuses for it. And rather poorly at that. You are classic example of everything that is wrong with modern political discourse. You chastise your political opponents for doing bad things, and then go on to do the exact same things yourself. When this is pointed out you deny it and throw out lame excuses of how it's different when you do it. A little self-reflection wouldn't go amiss.
Jimmy Garlic wrote: » Right so, name all the African countries with higher "emission infrastructure" .
AtomicHorror wrote: » So, you see no distinction between criticizing Greta on the basis of her age, gender and neurology and criticizing Trump on the basis of his spray tan, complex comb-over and excess body fat? Something to do with choice, perhaps?
jackboy wrote: » So you are saying that it is acceptable to mock fat people.
