Greta's Back

[webbo3]

She needed to keep herself in the public eye, so shes now an expert in virology.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/apr/29/greta-thunberg-launches-campaign-fight-coronavirus/

\\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.

[Mozz71]

How foolish of me Dougie!

[jim360]

I could have been more explicit about what I had in mind, I'll admit. But in this case I wanted to be brief, and perhaps I did wonder a bit too much what people would make of it.

// That global warming, or indeed anything, is a child-centric phenomenon, when I am sure you will agree, it is not. //

Indeed, but did she say that it affected only or mainly children? We're coming back round to the beginning of the topic, and it seems that again people hear an "only" in the message that doesn't belong there and was never intended. I don't see anything that Thunberg has said or done that implies she cares only about children and about nobody else. Still, as the people who can be expected to be around the longest, then, by definition, any longer-term consequences will affect them more than older people. Morbid it may be but it's also simply true, and the threats of Climate Change are expected to become much more acute in the future.

Perhaps also it's a question of what we hear. I personally don't have a taste for the "How dare you?!" approach she took on at least one speech, and even less taste for the surprising and bizarre applause she received from the people that condemnation was addressed to. I can only suppose that world leaders are secretly masochists... but the core of the message, as far as I am concerned, remains the important thing. That she has managed to inspire, either on her own or with the help of a bandwagon, fresh attention to a serious issue simply outweighs anything else in my mind.

[andy-hughes]

Mozz - // //As usual, you are late to the party - I have already addressed the concept of similarity.//

A bit uncalled for Andy, especially as Sanmac wasnt even talking to you in their post. //

You are quite right - it was a reaction caused by Sanmac's usual hostility and occasional rudeness directed at me.

But on this occasion, you are right, and I was wrong.

Sanmac, please accept my apologies.

[Mozz71]

There, he apologised. Can I have my demerit points back now Douglas?

[andy-hughes]

jim - // Still, as the people who can be expected to be around the longest, then, by definition, any longer-term consequences will affect them more than older people. Morbid it may be but it's also simply true, and the threats of Climate Change are expected to become much more acute in the future. //

That has already been pointed out by Newjudge earlier in the thread.

But please don't let me stray from my personal position in this -

As far as I am concerned, talking garbage about something you know less than nothing about is the absolute right of the adolescent, it's a valuable part of growing up.

Being used as the human equivalent of - as I have previously described - a circus elephant, and using personality issues to drive hysteria on a public platform in order to further a cause that your ill child does not really understand, is beyond immoral.

If I had my way, her parents would be on abuse charges.

[naomi24]

Jim, //The real reason, I said before, for any objection to Thunberg is discomfort with the message. //

That's the second time (might be more) you've said that on this thread. You've been told once (might be more) that you're wrong. You need to listen to other people ... just for once.

[jim360]

Well, it's quite a big thread by now, I've lost track of what's been said already.

Still wanting to see a concrete example of garbage, though. I'm not talking about her somewhat unique and confrontational style -- I'm talking about the core part of the message.

[andy-hughes]

// Jim, //The real reason, I said before, for any objection to Thunberg is discomfort with the message. //

Jim - I have no 'discomfort' with the message, I think it's probably piffle, but that doesn't give me discomfort.

Abuse of a vulnerable young woman by her parents for profit gives me serious discomfort, but as I said, nothing to do with the 'message'.

[sanmac]

Well, I'll tell you what, Mozz, even though I Like your style, I'm not accepting the resident ah's apology. So your demerit points will not be returned...Sorry about that:)

[andy-hughes]

jim - // Still wanting to see a concrete example of garbage, though. I'm not talking about her somewhat unique and confrontational style -- I'm talking about the core part of the message. //

Can't help you there, because I am not, and never have been, talking about 'the message'.

GT can tell me the moon's a balloon for all I care - as long as she is not being cruelly exploited to do so.

[royfromaus]

What of what she says is nonsense




Do you mean what of what she read from her script is nonsense?

[Ellipsis]

> You've been told

Priceless.

[andy-hughes]

sanmac - // Well, I'll tell you what, Mozz, even though I Like your style, I'm not accepting the resident ah's apology. //

Don't let your animosity eat you up, it's bad for you.

Worse still, it's unfounded anyway.

Relax, sleep well xx.

[jim360]

Naomi: What is it you say, that you can only go on what people say here? I've seen what they've said, both here and in the past, and I stand by my interpretation. Several times in the past, most of Thunberg's main critics on AB have made clear that they either think Climate Change is a hoax (eg 10CS, Togo, a few others), or that the threat has been exaggerated (NJ), or that it remains effectively a matter of opinion (andy), or that only action sending us back to a pre-industrial existence would be enough (you). Words to that effect, anyway. I don't think unreasonable to consider that this forms a major part of the context for your criticisms of Thunberg.

If you agreed with what she said, would you be quite so vociferous in your criticism?

[Mozz71]

//I'm not accepting the resident ah's apology//

Hmmm. All joking aside now, I feel a little let down in defending you. It turns out that you're a bit of a prat as the apology seemed genuine. Never mind, lesson learned.

[andy-hughes]

jim - // If you agreed with what she said, would you be quite so vociferous in your criticism? //

I wouldn't wish to pre-empt naomi's response, but I'm willing to bet that, like me, she is less concerned with the 'message' than the callous exploitation used to make money from delivering it.

[naomi24]

No, Ellipsis, not priceless at all. Ten-a-penny to people like Jim who, in effect, consistently brand other people liars.

[jim360]

Yes, it was pretty good wasn't it, ellipsis? I'm glad I've been "told". Clears everything up.

The acid test would be Naomi's reaction to Naomi Seibt, I suppose. As far as I can see, my earlier mention of her went un-noticed, although in a thread this size I don't imagine that means anything other than that it was just missed.

[jim360]

// Ten-a-penny to people like Jim who, in effect, consistently brand other people liars. //

That's a complete lie. Or, rather, a misinterpretation. I don't think people are as aware as they should be of their own internal biases. If you think that's calling people liars then feel free, but it never has meant that and never will mean that.

[Ellipsis]

Oooh, I've been told now too ...