I've Not Seen Bridgerton But Understand...
ChatterBank2 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 explained why your point was wrong in the second part. That the planet naturally can change climate doesn't preclude humans from having an effect *now*, which is the point.
Also, no, scientists aren't necessarily right. But they are, by nature of their profession, more likely to understand how to avoid being wrong than the layman. And yes, I'm aware of the chequered history of Climate Predictions, but I don't see the ever-evolving nature of scientific study as a weakness. It's a strength, instead, to have your views tied so firmly to evidence and to calculation, rather than to opinion.
Also, no, scientists aren't necessarily right. But they are, by nature of their profession, more likely to understand how to avoid being wrong than the layman. And yes, I'm aware of the chequered history of Climate Predictions, but I don't see the ever-evolving nature of scientific study as a weakness. It's a strength, instead, to have your views tied so firmly to evidence and to calculation, rather than to opinion.
Also, yes, let us assume that Thunberg, not being a scientist herself, can only offer the views of others. It is unfortunate, then, that what's being lost is that her view is merely that of the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. Ignoring her is to ignore the community whose views she shares. And, if you are going to do that, then argument becomes evidence-based.
jim360 - // Ignoring her is to ignore the community whose views she shares. //
That places on her the Messiah-like influence that she and her followers believe she possesses, which is misplaced in the extreme.
As I have said in many other previous debates, and several times on this one - a point of view does not become more valid, or to be fair less valid, because it is espoused by an overwrought teenager with social issues.
I can take Ms Thunberg's viewpoint from any number of people with the experience and justification to back up what they are saying - I am not inclined to take it from her simply because I do not believe it is her view, it is what she is fed and told to say by adults manipulating her for their own ends, which in my view is utterly reprehensible.
That places on her the Messiah-like influence that she and her followers believe she possesses, which is misplaced in the extreme.
As I have said in many other previous debates, and several times on this one - a point of view does not become more valid, or to be fair less valid, because it is espoused by an overwrought teenager with social issues.
I can take Ms Thunberg's viewpoint from any number of people with the experience and justification to back up what they are saying - I am not inclined to take it from her simply because I do not believe it is her view, it is what she is fed and told to say by adults manipulating her for their own ends, which in my view is utterly reprehensible.
Mozz - // I'm sorry Andy, I've been lurking and reading. Can I just clarify thos? You would believe a scientist telling you something, but you would disbelieve it from Greta, or someone similar, even though it is the same message and supported by the same scientist you believed previously? //
Absolutely no need to apologise, welcome back.
It would be ludicrous of me to say that I wouldn't believe what GT has said, simply because it is her saying it.
Rather more, the point is the other way around - I would not believe something simply because it is her saying it, but if it was backed up by a credible scientist, I would have no issue with GT reiterating the point.
Which speaks directly to my problem with her.
GT is saying absolutely nothing that has not been said before - she does not have an original theory or thought in her damaged mind.
She repeats selected points made by scientists which are fed to her by her parents and advisors.
The whole point of her is that- because she is a teenager and autistic, she is marketed as having some sort of new take on the concept of climate change, which chimes with her generation, whereas the reality is that all that differs from the credible scientists' delivery is that they are not seen as cool with a young audience.
If GT was bright enough to understand the pap she is fed, she would realise that judging the impact of Covid 19 as a 'child rights crisis' is utter nonsense, and she should refuse to utter those words.
Because she is a teenager, she is happy to bask in undeserved attention for statements that are not hers, failing to understand d the difference between potentially valid scientific information and rabble-rousing crap.
Absolutely no need to apologise, welcome back.
It would be ludicrous of me to say that I wouldn't believe what GT has said, simply because it is her saying it.
Rather more, the point is the other way around - I would not believe something simply because it is her saying it, but if it was backed up by a credible scientist, I would have no issue with GT reiterating the point.
Which speaks directly to my problem with her.
GT is saying absolutely nothing that has not been said before - she does not have an original theory or thought in her damaged mind.
She repeats selected points made by scientists which are fed to her by her parents and advisors.
The whole point of her is that- because she is a teenager and autistic, she is marketed as having some sort of new take on the concept of climate change, which chimes with her generation, whereas the reality is that all that differs from the credible scientists' delivery is that they are not seen as cool with a young audience.
If GT was bright enough to understand the pap she is fed, she would realise that judging the impact of Covid 19 as a 'child rights crisis' is utter nonsense, and she should refuse to utter those words.
Because she is a teenager, she is happy to bask in undeserved attention for statements that are not hers, failing to understand d the difference between potentially valid scientific information and rabble-rousing crap.
jno - // not just the messenger but the messenger's parents, whom andy loathes (his words). I try to restrict my own loathing to dictators and whatnot, but apparently the parents of someone younger than me should also be targets of my wrath. //
Your words not mine.
The targets of your wrath should be your own - mine certainly are.
Your words not mine.
The targets of your wrath should be your own - mine certainly are.
Andy, lets take this one point at a time. It may take a while.
//It would be ludicrous of me to say that I wouldn't believe what GT has said, simply because it is her saying it.//
Thank heavens for that.
//Rather more, the point is the other way around - I would not believe something simply because it is her saying it, but if it was backed up by a credible scientist, I would have no issue with GT reiterating the point.//
Many scientists support much of what she says.
//Which speaks directly to my problem with her.
GT is saying absolutely nothing that has not been said before - she does not have an original theory or thought in her damaged mind.//
I get that she is reiterating much that has already been said, but little action has been taken to solve it when it was previously stated. Her message strikes home to her own generation, many of whom are hearing it for the first time. She is the catalyst for them doing their own research into ecological issues to form their own conclusions.
//She repeats selected points made by scientists//
Well, you wanted credible scientists to back her in order to believe her. Now you have them.
//which are fed to her by her parents and advisors.//
Irrelevent if the information originally comes from the aforementioned scientists.
//The whole point of her is that- because she is a teenager and autistic, she is marketed as having some sort of new take on the concept of climate change, which chimes with her generation, whereas the reality is that all that differs from the credible scientists' delivery is that they are not seen as cool with a young audience.//
I wouldn't say it was a new take on climate change, just, as I mentioned before, talking to a new audience.
//If GT was bright enough to understand the pap she is fed, she would realise that judging the impact of Covid 19 as a 'child rights crisis' is utter nonsense, and she should refuse to utter those words.//
How do you know she isn't? This is where a lot of your argument falls down. You assume she doesn't understand what she preaches, but it's just that, an assumption. Yes she's young and she's autistic, I get that, but they are not necessarily negatives. The young are sponges, soaking up information and autism does strange things to the brain, sometimes retaining information beyond the capabilities of the average Joe. Using them as a rod to (metaphorically) beat her with is an easy score, but not necessarily a correct one.
As for her latest crusade, to help kids affected by C-19, I don't see her as making the pandemic a child rights issue, because of course it isn't. All she's doing is focusing her attention on the child orientated issues caused by C-19. She's not trying to solve the whole coronavirus crisis, just a small fraction of it.
//Because she is a teenager, she is happy to bask in undeserved attention for statements that are not hers, failing to understand the difference between potentially valid scientific information and rabble-rousing crap.//
Again, you have absolutely zero idea what she does and does not understand, it just fits your argument to portray her as unknowledgeable on the subjects she talks about. I have to assume (yes, I know. I'm doing it now) that UNICEF have their own facts and figures about the impact C-19 is having on young people, provided by highly knowledgeable experts in their firelds, and GT is basically acting as a spokesperson and public face of their action plan.
I don't see the issues people have with this.
//It would be ludicrous of me to say that I wouldn't believe what GT has said, simply because it is her saying it.//
Thank heavens for that.
//Rather more, the point is the other way around - I would not believe something simply because it is her saying it, but if it was backed up by a credible scientist, I would have no issue with GT reiterating the point.//
Many scientists support much of what she says.
//Which speaks directly to my problem with her.
GT is saying absolutely nothing that has not been said before - she does not have an original theory or thought in her damaged mind.//
I get that she is reiterating much that has already been said, but little action has been taken to solve it when it was previously stated. Her message strikes home to her own generation, many of whom are hearing it for the first time. She is the catalyst for them doing their own research into ecological issues to form their own conclusions.
//She repeats selected points made by scientists//
Well, you wanted credible scientists to back her in order to believe her. Now you have them.
//which are fed to her by her parents and advisors.//
Irrelevent if the information originally comes from the aforementioned scientists.
//The whole point of her is that- because she is a teenager and autistic, she is marketed as having some sort of new take on the concept of climate change, which chimes with her generation, whereas the reality is that all that differs from the credible scientists' delivery is that they are not seen as cool with a young audience.//
I wouldn't say it was a new take on climate change, just, as I mentioned before, talking to a new audience.
//If GT was bright enough to understand the pap she is fed, she would realise that judging the impact of Covid 19 as a 'child rights crisis' is utter nonsense, and she should refuse to utter those words.//
How do you know she isn't? This is where a lot of your argument falls down. You assume she doesn't understand what she preaches, but it's just that, an assumption. Yes she's young and she's autistic, I get that, but they are not necessarily negatives. The young are sponges, soaking up information and autism does strange things to the brain, sometimes retaining information beyond the capabilities of the average Joe. Using them as a rod to (metaphorically) beat her with is an easy score, but not necessarily a correct one.
As for her latest crusade, to help kids affected by C-19, I don't see her as making the pandemic a child rights issue, because of course it isn't. All she's doing is focusing her attention on the child orientated issues caused by C-19. She's not trying to solve the whole coronavirus crisis, just a small fraction of it.
//Because she is a teenager, she is happy to bask in undeserved attention for statements that are not hers, failing to understand the difference between potentially valid scientific information and rabble-rousing crap.//
Again, you have absolutely zero idea what she does and does not understand, it just fits your argument to portray her as unknowledgeable on the subjects she talks about. I have to assume (yes, I know. I'm doing it now) that UNICEF have their own facts and figures about the impact C-19 is having on young people, provided by highly knowledgeable experts in their firelds, and GT is basically acting as a spokesperson and public face of their action plan.
I don't see the issues people have with this.
I don't see for a second that anything Thunberg has said is rejecting the idea that those who are dying suffer less than the children who are losing out on education. All she is saying is that the effects on children are real and need to be addressed alongside -- note, alongside, not *instead of* -- the effects on everybody else.
Mozz71
//Spicy- You have an issue with UNICEF? A organization formed to protect children and support their rights? Why?//
I'm glad you asked me that. Back in the mists of time when I was a young gadabout c.1975, I only cared about 2 things in life, pleasure and horse-racing.
Came a day when I flicked the paper from page3 to the racing results and, lo, it landed on P17 and a little article caught my eye and this is what it said, "Officials at UNICEF have confirmed they spent 98% of their total budget in Paris, last year".
Self-centred as I was, I knew there was something very wrong there.
Could they have built a swanky new HQ just off the Bois de Boulogne?
Put the 3rd World delegates up in the King George V with the PLO and the classy pros?
There was no way of finding out 'stuff' in them days. But we know today that all these UN things are run on sub-FIFA principles, ie. mired in corruption.
//Spicy- You have an issue with UNICEF? A organization formed to protect children and support their rights? Why?//
I'm glad you asked me that. Back in the mists of time when I was a young gadabout c.1975, I only cared about 2 things in life, pleasure and horse-racing.
Came a day when I flicked the paper from page3 to the racing results and, lo, it landed on P17 and a little article caught my eye and this is what it said, "Officials at UNICEF have confirmed they spent 98% of their total budget in Paris, last year".
Self-centred as I was, I knew there was something very wrong there.
Could they have built a swanky new HQ just off the Bois de Boulogne?
Put the 3rd World delegates up in the King George V with the PLO and the classy pros?
There was no way of finding out 'stuff' in them days. But we know today that all these UN things are run on sub-FIFA principles, ie. mired in corruption.
