By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
The point I was making was that you can pretty much argue against any criticism of the way ‘things are’ by reduction to ‘you should be grateful you’re not a poor African child’. I wasn’t saying everything was like Hitler was I? I said it was like an inverse Godwin’s Law where everything is compared to the poverty of African children. For example, you could argue that schools need to invest more in teaching IT. You could, however, counter that by saying no you should be grateful with what you’ve got as most kids in Africa don’t even go to school. More broadly, it’s also not the case that Africa’s comparatively weaker development is a result of stifling environmental rules. It’s virtually a free for all there (environmentally speaking).
49th. You want me to provide you with a “list of which treaties...Thatcher signed that she might not have done had she been of any other mindset than the one you described.” Apologies but I genuinely have no fooking idea what you’re on about.
I can, however, categorically say that (mindset or otherwise) during her tenure the UK underwent significant economic and political European integration than that which existed prior to her first election.
That wasn’t my argument though. I was arguing that Africa and parts of Asia want the same comforts we have and will use their new found industrial base to get there. Much like China has. My argument wasn’t “Africa is a shithole so stop moaning and be happy with what you have got”
And then I followed it up with a reply about how countries in Africa and parts of Asia will and are becoming industrialised and living standards are rising.
It's called "acting in the national interest", and she signed on the dotted line after securing major concessions including the rebate after they'd been ripping us off since our original entry into the EEC (otherwise why would they have agreed to it?)
Going back even further though, i think General De Gaulle's "Non, Non, Non" was prescient in that he understood how having the UK within the European political fold would result in tensions which have taken 50 years to come to the boil. We're better off out of the political union; and they're better off without us, except financially of course
Inconvenient fact No 1 Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant its actually good for plants humans and the planet although it is akin to nuclear radiation to the doomsayers
Apologies for the late reply (mortgage-paying adult responsibilities, which it seems you have too). I won't repeat BDMC's point which covers the raging gap in your argument, but you didn't really answer my question. Is it her youth, gender, or Scandinavian-ness (Scandinavianicity?) that prevents you from taking her seriously?
I just feel sorry for her really. She speaks about her childhood but hasn't that already been decimated when your best years are spent being coached and drilled into becoming a public mouthpiece?
"She first heard about climate change when she was 8 and could not understand why so little was being done about it."
You’re slating a girl who’s still in school for not being able to answer questions about climate change? It doesn’t take a genius to know that climate change is real (apart from to the tin foil hat, truth is out there brigade - DorsetDale, kiwidale et al.), but she isn’t there to get into the science of it or to find a solution for it. That’s for, well, the scientists.
She’s there to lobby world leaders and, crucially, to raise the conversation - which she’s been hugely successful in doing.
Some of the abuse she’s receiving is scandalous, but it says more about her abusers than her - the same kind of people (men) who are intimidated by any kind of woman with a modicum of intelligence, charisma or power.
If she's so passionate about climate change she would be able to answer the simple questions about it, but she cant, look at her videos.
I agree about the abuse she gets, it's totally out of order but if you put yourself in that environment regardless of your age ,you leave yourself open for criticism/abuse.
Why is everything always motivated by misogyny or sexism or any other kind of ism with you people. If you make a kid with obvious mental health issues the spokesman for your global movement you’re going to get people taking the piss on social media.
Shun, I have a modicum of respect for you simply because you post sensible football related opinions. But if you wish to debate other issues I'm more than capable of taking your inane uneducated bullshit apart. Instead of referring to me without any facts, how about showing us some errm truth
YOU do not have the right to give someone else permission to tell me what I can and can't do.
Because you said you couldn't take her seriously and you won't say why that is?
And I'm sorry for inconveniencing you, but can you expand on that last sentence? A spokesperson with Aspergers Syndrome should expect to have the piss taken on social media? Shouldn't you be asking yourself how f*cked up that is? Absolutely astounding.
It's equally as "f*cked up" that she was put in this position with her mental health history. Rightly or wrongly (mostly the latter), you open yourself up to all sorts of critcism when you get thrust into the public eye.
However, that isn't a consideration that was hers to make. The abuse she is receiving is unwarranted and should be directed towards those who did this to her
are you arguing that is a good thing - do you agree with taking the piss out of those who are seen as 'different' or 'weaker' than oneself or just that there are people with a very low bar in their moral compass although you don't agree with them?
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
