Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Greta Thunberg (Continued...)

Options
1…3536384041…65

Comments

  • Options
    #1112
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,799 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Tell me how wrote: »
    Covid
    US Presidency
    Brexit Shenanigans
    BLM

    Greta in fairness is continuing to advocate the same message, meet with groups involved in legislating for it and doing her strike.

    So much for all those who said she would stop when she stopped getting the same level of attention.

    But what is she actually doing? Soundbites, tweets, posts on boards - none are anything more than self aggrandisement. Who famously denounced the keyboard "protesters" recently? Oh, yes, one of their own pantheon, Obama.


  • Options
    #1113
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,799 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    gozunda wrote: »
    I reckon the whole blm thing in the States has wiped everything else of the board tbf - even the Pandemic.

    The other thing is that there is a need to be careful in assigning direct cause and effect to such fires. Many of the wildfires in California in 2018/2019 were found to at least partially caused by a failure to upgrade electrical infrastructure there.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50697816

    Observation from a native

    https://spectator.us/how-environmentalists-destroyed-california-forests/


  • Options
    #1114
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Observation from a native

    https://spectator.us/how-environmentalists-destroyed-california-forests/

    Thanks for the link. I've been in some of the mountain forests in California and the ones that were thriving seem to be the private ones. State owned foresty is - as that article described - tied up in a mess of red tape and undernanagement and it appears the screamers have won ...
    The environmentalists have killed the environment they said they wanted to save. In their hubris, they deluded themselves into believing that they were right and just, and any opposition to their enlightened, stunning and brave activism, was the reactionary wrongthink of greedy capitalists or ignorant yokels. 

    The only quibble I'd have is calling those people 'environmentalists'. They are nothing of the sort and know frack all about real environmental management. Much like some of our own green loons ....


  • Options
    #1115
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    KyussB wrote: »
    His position - from way back - is that there is no unacceptable level of warming.

    I think you'll find that's according to yourself ...

    But indeed Pa's opinion on your conundrum will mean that the weather will run amok and we will be all fried to a crisp because of it! If only he had decided on some definitive figure we would all have been saved*!!!!


    :rolleyes:

    *shakes fist angrily whilst having a meltdown or something equally dramatic*


  • Options
    #1116
    auspicious
    Registered Users Posts: 4,497 ✭✭✭auspicious


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOfZgf-YecQ


    Peterson is right but only insofar as to the current attitude of western capitalism.
    Impactful change won't stem from government per se. It will be effected through business. Businesses survive on supply and demand and only customers can demand demand. A bottom-up demand will dictate change which business will adapt to and hence create a top-down approach and government will follow.

    REUSE, RESTORE, RECYCLE, REDUCE.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1117
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,520 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    auspicious wrote: »
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOfZgf-YecQ


    Peterson is right but only insofar as to the current attitude of western capitalism.
    Impactful change won't stem from government per se. It will be effected through business. Businesses survive on supply and demand and only customers can demand demand. A bottom-up demand will dictate change which business will adapt to and hence create a top-down approach and government will follow.

    REUSE, RESTORE, RECYCLE, REDUCE.

    How do you instil a bottom up behavioural change?

    This thread alone indicates that there are many who are averse to any change to their current practices.
    We have seen a massive growth in throw away materials in recent years. The idea of reducing single vehicle car journeys is triggering for some.
    And have seen on other threads here just how people reacted to any movement by the current government to enact climate initiatives.

    I think that unfortunately, many at a personal level use the idea that they are too insignificant to make a difference (the same argument is used by many in relation to Ireland). How do you change that? Ultimately it took legislation (and widespread communication) to bring about meaningful reductions in smoking numbers. Greta is trying to do what she can in relation to raising awareness, what would you do if you were in a position to make decisions tomorrow?


  • Options
    #1118
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    sigh

    a very small minority of posters in this thread have evinced any such points of view.

    you just want to keep insisting that you and only your side are pure in order to keep greta unquestionable

    greta is the figurehead of a weird, undemocratic and unmandated but shadowily funded movement and anyone should worry about her sudden rise to prominence/influence.

    and throwing unfounded, repetitious accusations against anyone questioning this makes you look like you want a cult.

    leave the cause aside. every coup has a cause hitched to them. causes are easy claimed but guess what? you dont have a monopoly on environmental concern simply because you shout down anyone who questions your mitching figurehead, and its ridiculous that you are still behaving in this fashion.


  • Options
    #1119
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,520 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    Deleted User wrote: »
    sigh

    a very small minority of posters in this thread have evinced any such points of view.

    you just want to keep insisting that you and only your side are pure in order to keep greta unquestionable

    greta is the figurehead of a weird, undemocratic and unmandated but shadowily funded movement and anyone should worry about her sudden rise to prominence/influence.

    and throwing unfounded, repetitious accusations against anyone questioning this makes you look like you want a cult.

    leave the cause aside. every coup has a cause hitched to them. causes are easy claimed but guess what? you dont have a monopoly on environmental concern simply because you shout down anyone who questions your mitching figurehead, and its ridiculous that you are still behaving in this fashion.

    'Do as I say, not as I do' so so relevant for the bits in Bold. :D:D:D

    Instead about getting offended with me pointing out the nonsense people come out with while then claiming 'we all actually want change', tell us what and how to implement the necessary action you think should be implemented.


  • Options
    #1120
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ive done so loads of times and i dont feel the need to do so as a toll every time you start pulling the same tricks on every poster who doesnt buy your figurehead.

    nb my statement on greta is fairly straightforward and honest, id like you not to insinuate otherwise unless you are going to counter it with anything more than emojis

    and for the umpteenth time- people criticising and questioning a public figure like greta does not open them up to attacks from you

    that is a deeply weird instinct you seem to have.


  • Options
    #1121
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,520 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    Deleted User wrote: »
    ive done so loads of times and i dont feel the need to do so as a toll every time you start pulling the same tricks on every poster who doesnt buy your figurehead.

    nb my statement on greta is fairly straightforward and honest, id like you not to insinuate otherwise unless you are going to counter it with anything more than emojis

    As expected.

    Nothing to offer but to undermine someone actually doing something.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1122
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    again

    you seem determined to confuse:

    criticism of greta thunberg, a very public figure with a controversial approach and many questions around her

    and

    ad-hom against posters on boards.ie who decline to either agree with you nor to respond to you as directed


    the above post looks to me like the latter tbh and im not sure that my doing the former justifies it unless you are in fact boards.ie poster g thunberg

    in which case i think you should tell us all where your platform comes from


  • Options
    #1123
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,520 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    Deleted User wrote: »
    again

    you seem determined to confuse:

    criticism of greta thunberg, a very public figure with a controversial approach and many questions around her

    and

    ad-hom against posters on boards.ie who decline to either agree with you nor to respond to you as directed


    the above post looks to me like the latter tbh and im not sure that my doing the former justifies it unless you are in fact boards.ie poster g thunberg

    in which case i think you should tell us all where your platform comes from

    Where do you think? George Soros. :pac:

    You seem to have a problem with points you make on a discussion board being discussed. And I'm being generous calling them points, they're just cuts and barbs aimed to undermine a message.

    I commented on someone suggesting a solution to climate problems asking how would that work. You replied ignored the central point of my message and targeting me and my style while refusing to offer something constructive which you claim to have done before (I don't ever recall seeing any such content from you).

    And you want to talk about ad-hominem?


  • Options
    #1124
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    my post to which you seemingly refer is up there. its simple and accurate.

    it clearly sets out the repeated behaviours of yours that have dogged these threads.

    no ad hom and no undermining of anything other than your actual behaviour in this thread

    which believe it or not, environmentalism would survive without.

    people are allowed question and criticise greta without you behaving as if they had picked a fight unprovoked with your friend in a chipper.

    you dont seem to think that.

    its really weird.


  • Options
    #1125
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Deleted User wrote: »
    again

    you seem determined to confuse:

    criticism of greta thunberg, a very public figure with a controversial approach and many questions around her

    and

    ad-hom against posters on boards.ie who decline to either agree with you nor to respond to you as directed


    the above post looks to me like the latter tbh and im not sure that my doing the former justifies it unless you are in fact boards.ie poster g thunberg

    in which case i think you should tell us all where your platform comes from

    I'm afraid I have to agree. I find it just a little bizarre that a discussion about a (controversial) public figure on a discussion board repeatedly sees accusations of other posters being somehow morally questionable simply because - a) the accuser doesn't agree with the other posters opinion and b) that such posters are obliged by way of recompense to provide 'solutions'. The end result is the thread being frequently derailed. Even deliberately so.

    It's just mad Ted ... ;


  • Options
    #1126
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,520 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    Deleted User wrote: »
    my post to which you seemingly refer is up there. its simple and accurate.

    it clearly sets out the repeated behaviours of yours that have dogged these threads.

    no ad hom and no undermining of anything other than your actual behaviour in this thread

    which believe it or not, environmentalism would survive without.

    people are allowed question and criticise greta without you behaving as if they had picked a fight unprovoked with your friend in a chipper.

    you dont seem to think that.

    its really weird.
    gozunda wrote: »
    I'm afraid I have to agree. I find it just a little bizarre that a discussion about a (controversial) public figure on a discussion board repeatedly sees accusations of other posters being somehow morally questionable simply because - a) the accuser doesn't agree with the other posters opinion and b) that such posters are obliged by way of recompense to provide 'solutions'

    It's just mad Ted ... ;)

    Report my posts if you feel the need, if not, either respond to the content within them, or don't, not doing so is an answer in itself.


  • Options
    #1127
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    anyway

    coverage of greta is gone thankfully quiet.

    pity it took a pandemic, obviously.

    hopefully after it all clears away legitimately elected and appointed govts and bodies will continue the important work needed to combat climate change and we'll see no more self-appointed cult types dominate the discourse

    surely nobody could argue about that, right?


  • Options
    #1128
    auspicious
    Registered Users Posts: 4,497 ✭✭✭auspicious


    Tell me how wrote: »
    How do you instil a bottom up behavioural change?

    This thread alone indicates that there are many who are averse to any change to their current practices.
    We have seen a massive growth in throw away materials in recent years. The idea of reducing single vehicle car journeys is triggering for some.
    And have seen on other threads here just how people reacted to any movement by the current government to enact climate initiatives.

    I think that unfortunately, many at a personal level use the idea that they are too insignificant to make a difference (the same argument is used by many in relation to Ireland). How do you change that? Ultimately it took legislation (and widespread communication) to bring about meaningful reductions in smoking numbers. Greta is trying to do what she can in relation to raising awareness, what would you do if you were in a position to make decisions tomorrow?

    You instill bottom-up behavior change with repeated installment of best practices: reuse. restore, recycle, reduce.
    Many are adverse to current practices as these practices are current. Human ingenuity thrives on adaptation. It's what we do.
    Massive growth in throwaway materials is a negligence of education, or re-education.
    Triggering for some- why should the some dictate the path for the many when evidence indicates positive change in certain areas benefits the many and future of all.

    Change is created through reinforced best practices.
    Western societal values are predicated
    on democratic opinions. Change tomorrow depends on what we assert as necessary goals today and they start with each small contribution, and building upon them, each one of us makes, with a view to achieving a desirsble outcome.
    Reuse, restore, recycle, reduce. It's as simple as that


  • Options
    #1129
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,520 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    Deleted User wrote: »
    anyway

    coverage of greta is gone thankfully quiet.

    pity it took a pandemic, obviously.

    hopefully after it all clears away legitimately elected and appointed govts and bodies will continue the important work needed to combat climate change and we'll see no more self-appointed cult types dominate the discourse

    surely nobody could argue about that, right?

    Greta agrees with you.
    "Instead of focusing on the climate and listening to the scientific message, people are instead listening to and talking about me,

    What type of important work needs to be done do you think?


  • Options
    #1130
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    the clearing away of false idols would have to be first priority i think

    seeing as the thread is about greta thunberg i reckon the first action needed is to ensure she doesnt get a free platform again and secondly we find out what consortium pushed her so far into the realm of public influence, how and why

    two very important steps on the thread topic

    good solid content you must agree


  • Options
    #1131
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Tell me how wrote: »
    Report my posts if you feel the need, if not, either respond to the content within them, or don't, not doing so is an answer in itself.

    Its odd you keep trotting out that line every single time your comments are called out. Do you think the many posters who have explained this are all wrong?

    And yes I and others have indeed replied to the content of your comments - where you infer posters are somehow morally suspect or wtte. Other than that no discussion is really possible. And yes that seems to happen with repetitive regularity.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1132
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,520 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    auspicious wrote: »
    Change is created through reinforced best practices.
    Western societal values are predicated
    on democratic opinions. Change tomorrow depends on what we assert as necessary goals today and they start with each small contribution, and building upon them, each one of us makes, with a view to achieving a desirsble outcome.
    Reuse, restore, recycle, reduce. It's as simple as that

    We have had the message about necessary goals for several years now and are yet to see the rate of pollution lessen significantly.

    Last year saw that message reach a Global audience in a more focused manner than ever before, but, in Ireland for example, the latest government was negotiated with a single partner expected to provide all climate focused plans and manifestos. For some reason, the largest 2 parties have gotten away with absolving themselves from the document which FG signed us up to.

    I'm all for the Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Recover process etc but the economy of today is heavily influenced by fast moving sales of new cheap goods which runs counter to these ideals.


  • Options
    #1133
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,520 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    gozunda wrote: »
    Its odd you keep trotting out that line every single time your comments are called out. Do you think the many posters who have explained this are all wrong?

    And yes I and others have indeed replied to the content of your comments - where you infer posters are somehow morally suspect or wtte. Other than that no discussion is really possible. And yes that seems to happen with repetitive regularity.

    Yes, obviously.


  • Options
    #1134
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Tell me how wrote: »
    Yes, obviously.

    lol

    you arent gonna believe this but i like yr spunk, kid

    just think its hideously misapplied to a personality cult, and i hope yr enthusiasm lasts beyond whatever inevitable tears-and-recriminations seem to me to be the obvious end to the greta stunt


  • Options
    #1135
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Tell me how wrote: »
    Yes, obviously.

    Sure eveyone else is wrong :rolleyes: viz.
    Tell me how wrote:
    Instead about getting offended with me pointing out the nonsense people come out with

    And no one is offended. But continously claiming that everyone you dont agree about greta are coming out with 'nonsense' without any other discussion is puerile
    Tell me how wrote:
    Nothing to offer but to undermine someone actually doing something.

    Its a discussion about 'greta' - a public figure on a discussion forum. No-one is obligated to 'do' anything
    Tell me how wrote:
    This thread alone indicates that there are many who are averse to any change to their current practices.

    As already pointed out by Snoopsheep wrong - "a very small minority of posters in this thread have evinced any such points of view."

    Tbh I'm starting to believe you keep doing this to deliberatly derail threads and / or to simply try to bull your way through a discussion. Its hard to tell tbh.

    And no smart quips don't make for an reply to that.

    I'll leave you at it....


  • Options
    #1136
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,520 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    Deleted User wrote: »
    lol

    you arent gonna believe this but i like yr spunk, kid

    just think its hideously misapplied to a personality cult, and i hope yr enthusiasm lasts beyond whatever inevitable tears-and-recriminations seem to me to be the obvious end to the greta stunt

    I will support anyone who advocates for positive action in the world.

    That 'cult' you are referring is science, and unfortunately, I don't disagree that there will be tears and recriminations ahead because the problem persists and there is no sign of meaningful action happening just yet.


  • Options
    #1137
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Deleted User wrote: »
    anyway

    coverage of greta is gone thankfully quiet.

    pity it took a pandemic, obviously.

    hopefully after it all clears away legitimately elected and appointed govts and bodies will continue the important work needed to combat climate change and we'll see no more self-appointed cult types dominate the discourse

    surely nobody could argue about that, right?

    Reckon gretas obsession with ideas of an "existential" threat may have got a bit of a reality jolt when the pandemic started. As a teenager - its likley her ideas about the world are still forming. Dare I say perhaps even her Atlantic hopping excursions may have broadened her outlook on life and helped to lessen the fear of impending doom which she was obsessed with early on. I guess time will tell.


  • Options
    #1138
    Thargor
    Registered Users Posts: 17,881 ✭✭✭✭Thargor


    Do you think if you repeat your new mantra about the pandemic making action on what we're doing to the planet irrelevant enough that people will start to believe it or something? The pandemic will be forgotten about a year after the first successful vaccines, or just through herd immunity. It's like saying climate change isn't a big deal because of 9/11. It's a nice insight into your ability to process the available data and form your own thoughts though.


  • Options
    #1139
    Paddygreen
    Registered Users Posts: 716 ✭✭✭Paddygreen


    gozunda wrote: »
    Reckon gretas obsession with ideas of an "existential" threat may have got a bit of a reality jolt when the pandemic started. As a teenager - its likley her ideas about the world are still forming. Dare I say perhaps even her Atlantic hopping excursions may have broadened her outlook on life and helped to lessen the fear of impending doom which she was obsessed with early on. I guess time will tell.

    Have you not seen the evidence in the wildfires of the US west coast? The world is obviously getting hotter. It has nothing to do with forests there being allowed to grow into a dense tinderbox of undergrowth, dead wood and vegetation because of environmental regulations that limit human activity in “protected” areas like the conspiracy theorists say.


  • Options
    #1140
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Thargor wrote: »
    Do you think if you repeat your new mantra about the pandemic making action on what we're doing to the planet irrelevant enough that people will start to believe it or something? The pandemic will be forgotten about a year after the first successful vaccines, or just through herd immunity. It's like saying climate change isn't a big deal because of 9/11. It's a nice insight into your ability to process the available data and form your own thoughts though.

    Not my words and not stated. Nor were 9/11, vaccines or herd immunity referred to. Id suggest try again. And maybe less of ad hom about others thought processes when your own logic is evidently flawed jumping randomly from one false premise to yet another. Thanks

    My reply was in response to this. None of which I'd disagree with btw.
    coverage of greta is gone thankfully quiet. pity it took a pandemic, obviously.

    hopefully after it all clears away legitimately elected and appointed govts and bodies will continue the important work needed to combat climate change and we'll see no more self-appointed cult types dominate the discourse

    surely nobody could argue about that, right?

    Seems like anyone commenting anything less than gushing on our greta gets the same rubbish thrown....

    :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1141
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Paddygreen wrote: »
    Have you not seen the evidence in the wildfires of the US west coast? The world is obviously getting hotter. It has nothing to do with forests there being allowed to grow into a dense tinderbox of undergrowth, dead wood and vegetation because of environmental regulations that limit human activity in “protected” areas like the conspiracy theorists say.

    Paddy thanks for the input - always interesting ;) . In the quoted text I was responding to another poster about greta et al (ie the topic of the thread) being less visible than previous and her often repeated issues of 'feeling the fear"

    On fires. These articles have been posted. AGWS aside - I do not believe either can be deemed 'conspiracy tbf

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50697816

    https://spectator.us/how-environmentalists-destroyed-california-forests/


Advertisement