ChatterBank1 min ago
Lineker Backs Just Stop Oil
51 Answers
saying their 'interventions' are justified and legit.
What a bloody hypocrite like a lot of these pseudo-do-gooders.
The evidence - now, of course, with his BBC income and other streams behind him, he can afford to drive around in a nice car. He mentions his super-smart Jaguar F-Pace, worth around £50k, on Twitter.
However, he's also been seen riding a Mercedes SL550 (around £85k), BMW 650i convertible (around £75k), Range Rover Sport (from £65k) and a Jaguar XJ (also from 65k).
This is blatant hypocrisy......what do you think?
What a bloody hypocrite like a lot of these pseudo-do-gooders.
The evidence - now, of course, with his BBC income and other streams behind him, he can afford to drive around in a nice car. He mentions his super-smart Jaguar F-Pace, worth around £50k, on Twitter.
However, he's also been seen riding a Mercedes SL550 (around £85k), BMW 650i convertible (around £75k), Range Rover Sport (from £65k) and a Jaguar XJ (also from 65k).
This is blatant hypocrisy......what do you think?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by DTCwordfan. 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.
“ You can only refer to oil as reprensible evil if nothing you use is derived from oil,”
why? you are right our economy is totally dependent on oil and it is impossible for an individual person to divest themselves of it completely… why should that mean i have to turn a blind eye to the very real evils of the fossil fuel industry or advocate for less dependency on it?
individual actions while laudible and necessary are simply not enough. we need action on a policy level to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels… walking everywhere isn’t going to do that
why? you are right our economy is totally dependent on oil and it is impossible for an individual person to divest themselves of it completely… why should that mean i have to turn a blind eye to the very real evils of the fossil fuel industry or advocate for less dependency on it?
individual actions while laudible and necessary are simply not enough. we need action on a policy level to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels… walking everywhere isn’t going to do that
andy hughes
harm is not in the eye of the beholder... if i kick someone's head in or blow up a hospital full of people it is impossible to say that nobody has been harmed
sorry but having one's enjoyment spoiled might be unpleasant and even annoying but it is not harm... i have been annoyed and inconvenienced by extinction rebellion though not yet JSO but i am able to separate my personal frustration from the issue at hand
harm is not in the eye of the beholder... if i kick someone's head in or blow up a hospital full of people it is impossible to say that nobody has been harmed
sorry but having one's enjoyment spoiled might be unpleasant and even annoying but it is not harm... i have been annoyed and inconvenienced by extinction rebellion though not yet JSO but i am able to separate my personal frustration from the issue at hand
// I, and I suspect many others, have no problem with defending the right to free speech. But speech is done with your mouth ... //
This isn't really correct. "Free speech" as a concept has long been understood to extend to *any* form of self-expression that communicates an opinion, and isn't just limited to literal speech. Most obviously, if instead of shouting "Just Stop Oil", the protesters have it written on their clothing, this is still (independent, at this point, of whatever else they get up to) an exercise of their right to free speech; as would be the distribution of written material. Even not using words (in either spoken or written form) is still an exercise of "free speech", as long as the symbolic statement communicates the meaning. Going back to JSO for now, the colour orange, in the form of powder or confetti, is rapidly getting associated with the movement to the extent that we need only see that colour scattered all over the place to understand the message and who's sending it.
The freedom also extends, at least somewhat, to acts of self-expression that are disruptive to others. If "free speech" is limited only to acts of expression which cause no harm whatsoever, then it's barely free. None of this is to say that there are no limitations, but if your definition of harm is so broad as to include "I was annoyed by this", then that's a restriction on free speech that renders the term meaningless.
Also, free speech is a protection from *criminal* restrictions (or from restrictions imposed by the State, where those restrictions are unreasonable), rather than from civil ones. So crowds can freely boo and jeer, or private organisations like Wimbledon can eject JSO members after (or before) their protest, and that isn't per se a violation of the right to freedom of speech (and of assembly, which combined implies a right to protest).
I'm personally unconvinced that JSO's campaign is helpful or effective, or even particularly well-targeted. Still, a certain amount of disruption is necessary if the aim is to be noticed, and to be listened to, which is what a protest is about.
This isn't really correct. "Free speech" as a concept has long been understood to extend to *any* form of self-expression that communicates an opinion, and isn't just limited to literal speech. Most obviously, if instead of shouting "Just Stop Oil", the protesters have it written on their clothing, this is still (independent, at this point, of whatever else they get up to) an exercise of their right to free speech; as would be the distribution of written material. Even not using words (in either spoken or written form) is still an exercise of "free speech", as long as the symbolic statement communicates the meaning. Going back to JSO for now, the colour orange, in the form of powder or confetti, is rapidly getting associated with the movement to the extent that we need only see that colour scattered all over the place to understand the message and who's sending it.
The freedom also extends, at least somewhat, to acts of self-expression that are disruptive to others. If "free speech" is limited only to acts of expression which cause no harm whatsoever, then it's barely free. None of this is to say that there are no limitations, but if your definition of harm is so broad as to include "I was annoyed by this", then that's a restriction on free speech that renders the term meaningless.
Also, free speech is a protection from *criminal* restrictions (or from restrictions imposed by the State, where those restrictions are unreasonable), rather than from civil ones. So crowds can freely boo and jeer, or private organisations like Wimbledon can eject JSO members after (or before) their protest, and that isn't per se a violation of the right to freedom of speech (and of assembly, which combined implies a right to protest).
I'm personally unconvinced that JSO's campaign is helpful or effective, or even particularly well-targeted. Still, a certain amount of disruption is necessary if the aim is to be noticed, and to be listened to, which is what a protest is about.
> I'm personally unconvinced that JSO's campaign is helpful or effective, or even particularly well-targeted.
I think as time goes on it's getting more effective. They are getting the message out, people are talking about them ... they will be changing minds, slowly, but probably not too many on this thread yet.
I think as time goes on it's getting more effective. They are getting the message out, people are talking about them ... they will be changing minds, slowly, but probably not too many on this thread yet.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.