News1 min ago
Stonehenge Just Stop Oil
there point in vandalising an ancient monument is, let alone portraits buildings etc, if its to get media attention, then people are are not going to listen to there doomsday message let alone care, id bang them up.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by fender62. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
does that make you a communist then? of course it doesn't. we both think that people shouldn't be allowed to buy anything and that some things should not be permitted no matter how much money a person has. I think that private jets should go into that category and you do not... but that doesn't make either of us communists does it!
When you start restricting what people spend their money on for no sensible reason then that is heading down that path. I have a mate who has 8 cars and 3 motorcycles, because he can, I wouldn't want that many but I would not dream of stopping it. When you start telling people what they cannot own based on nothing more than some sort of pious determinism then that is a very slippery slope. Ok stop private jets, once they are all stopped, what next? Some people have more bedrooms than they need? More cars than they need? no one needs a boat, a holiday home? In the end we arive at the "each according to his needs......etc" mantra of communism.
it's not about "need". private jets are actively harmful because of their excess pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. they are 14 times more than a commercial flight!
https:/
your friend with a motorbike collection is perhaps rather gaudy and tasteless but is not fundamentally causing any harm. same thing with bedrooms. private jets should be banned for the same reason that the purchase of rhino horns are banned. you can't own it without causing damage.
how would you go about banning private jets, Untitled? no UK party with a credible chance of gaining a working majority are calling for such a ban, and not even the Green Party are advocating it (the only reference to "private transport" in their manifesto is the re-starting of the road fuel escalator).
even if you were able to vote for (and get into power in the UK) a party committed to the ending of private aviation, how would you go about enacting a ban in the rest of the world? if JSO tactics were tried in a good few countries, the perpetrators would likely end up contaminated with lead.
Anyone with the most basic grasp of reality knows that climate change, if it is to be blamed on anyone, it is indifference of governments like India and China, who have a real ability to change, but opt not to do so.
Targeting rich pop stars who don't care what you think, and only your arrogance makes you think they should, makes them an easy target for your publicity and attention-seeking colleagues.
You don't care that it makes you look petty, jealous, and high-handed, all of which you clearly are.
But why not focus on what makes you famous, even if it reveals how pointless and spiteful your vandalism and hooliganism are.
You have no support beyond like-minded attention seekers.
Your superior morality is confined to a tiny number of individuals, because wider society doesn't think like you, and amen to that.
ok so we start with private jets but it wont stop there. Once you start down that path you end up telling people what they can have based on their needs alone. I don't need a Jaaag and er indoors doesn't need a 3l Lexus, so we'll make it all uniform we can all have a state designed minimalist car, to go with our state defined living accommodation. In fact the state must define and run everything. Like a big commune... ......starting to sound familiar?
“…and reportedly more than a 100 died at Mecca. Mostly due to the excessive heat.”
I believe the total is over 500:
These are among the activities undertaken:
“….perform the farewell circumambulation or ‘tawaf’, circling seven times around the Kaaba, Islam's holiest shrine,”
"… many of the hajj rituals, including the prayers on Mount Arafat which took place on Saturday, involve being outdoors for hours in the daytime.”
Sorry, but anyone spending hours outside in the midday sun, in tropical latitudes in the middle of June must expect a few discomforts up to and including death.
Then of course, there’s this:
“About 1.8 million pilgrims took part in the hajj this year, 1.6 million of them from abroad, according to Saudi authorities.”
So 1.6m people, most of whom no doubt arrive by air. Perhaps 6,000 or so flights in and out. I wonder what that does to the “climate emergency” we are said to be suffering?
Then there’s this:
“Each year tens of thousands of pilgrims attempt to perform the hajj without securing official hajj visas in order to save money, a more dangerous undertaking because these off-the-books pilgrims cannot access air-conditioned facilities provided by Saudi authorities along the hajj route.”
I'm surprised the death toll isn't higher. Why aren’t the JSO warriors in Mecca and Medina, chucking “custard powder” over the holy buildings there? Could it be that in Saudi Arabia (behind only the USA and Russia in terms of volumes of oil extracted and some 15 times that produced by the UK) the penalties for vandalism are somewhat harsher than here in the UK? Don't bother to put your answers on a postcard.
“ok so we start with private jets but it wont stop there.”
Indeed it won’t. Mrs NJ and I do a fair bit of travelling, both local, long distance and international. We travel by private car, taxi, bus train and air, according o our convenience.
Sticking to local, we sometimes travel by bus or train, but often take a taxi. We do this mainly if going out for the evening (though usually travel to the airport by taxi). It’s nice when you’ve got booted and suited to go to a nice restaurant, not to have to schlep down to the bus stop and join 20 or 30 others on a vehicle where many passengers thing nothing of putting their boots on the seats.
Now using a taxi for two is obviously far more polluting than using a bus for 20 or 30 (in fact our buses have a capacity for almost 90 people). So, if you prohibit private jet travel on the basis that there is a less “harmful” alternative, the prevention of private taxi hire Is obviously next. Nobody needs to do it. They can go on the bus.
In fact, Mrs NJ and I don’t “need” to go out for a slap up at all. So perhaps we should just knock it on the head entirely and stay indoors. Because that will be next after taxis have been banned. If you think I’m being silly, how silly would it have sounded 10 or 20 years ago for people to seriously call for the prohibition of private jet travel?
"The existing state of society is that our economy is extremely reliant on fossil fuels, and the usage of individuals cannot really change that.”
Of course it can. If we all watched JSO activists spraying “custard powder” over Stonehenge and snooker tables and we thought “D’ya know what. They’re right. I’m going to stop using fossil fuels immediately” then there would be a change.
But the plain fact is that not everybody wants that. In fact, comparatively very few people want that. They are happy with their fossil-dependant lifestyles; they do not collapse into hysteria with statements such as “civilisation is at risk”; they are quite prepared to make a gradual change away from fossil fuels, but only when the technology to sustain a similar lifestyle to that they enjoy at present is available (which it certainly is not at present).
And there’s the rub. The overwhelming majority of people do not want what JSO want. They know that fossil fuels will be a vital part of the UK’s lifestyle and economy for many years to come and to prevent their extraction in the UK will simply offshore that activity elsewhere (which will involve greatter cost and emissions). If the majority don’t want something it should not be imposed on them by undemocratic hooligans.
"Did they walk to Stonehenge, I wonder ..."
Most unlikely. And many of them can be seen taking rips around the world, also not walking. They enjoy the facilities that fossil fuels provide and are basically hypocrites.
Of course they will have good reason for enjoying the trappings of modern lifestyles, facilitated by fossil fuels in various ways. But that seems somewhat lost on them.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank3 mins ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Crosswords11 mins ago
ChatterBank14 mins ago
