I've picked up more women in gay bars than anywhere else combined. It's fantastic for that.
Greta Thunberg
- Thread starter rubberduck
- Start date
I've picked up more women in gay bars than anywhere else combined. It's fantastic for that.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,304
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
I like Greta though
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
I've been in a couple of gay bars but was once called a tease as I was in a gay bar but not gay and I saw his point.
I don't like Greta or Pinocchio or any of the sesame street characters.
You sure they were, err, like "proper" women? Did you do the Croc Dundee test?
Honestly, some of the states I was in, I don't think it really mattered tbh. Every hole and all that.
Neither, it's pretty much screwed. Don't know if you've noticed but we're getting record breaking heat and drought every year. Wildlife extinctions are at a high. The icecaps are melting faster than expected. The seas are warming faster than expected.
Don't stress, mankind is blessed with hundreds of thousands of geniuses, and millions of talented and very competent scientists - they can reverse it.
Unfortunately none of these people are in power, the people we elect are idiots, because we are idiots. I blame us for all of this.
We'll only give the geniuses the money and resources to fix it once we're up to our necks in it - I pray they are still able to reverse it then. Without too much loss of life. Especially mine.
Last edited:
What disturbs me most is the Climate Change deniers seem to resort to attacking her as a person. Is this because they know they have lost the argument about Climate Change? But whatever, I just don't think the person is relevant here. Her words are what we should be discussing.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,304
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
There probably isn't one person on these forums that would have a hatred for David Attenborough or what he says but have a 17 year old girl say it and some are triggered.
The person is the only relevant thing because that's how it's been done - it's a cult of personality. She offers no solutions and says nothing that hasn't been said by more knowledgeable people. It's purely a cult of personality, so the person is the whole point.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Mar 2011
- Posts
- 5,440
Also I think its pretty obvious that they aren't her words anyway... (at least the posts like the one above aren't)... I still don't think its right to attack her anymore than it's right to attack Ronald McDonald for things McDonalds has done
Agreed on both points, I don't think she believes some of what she says. She just appears to be a mouthpiece for other environmentalists. So while I don't know enough to criticise the content of what she says, I do criticise her belief in it.
This is the problem with the world today, ignorant, opinionated people with no shame in admitting their ignorance just before they share an uneducated opinion.
You are literally saying you dont know whether she's right to believe in the science because you dont know enough about it, but that she's definitely wrong to believe it.
That's an unfair twist of what I've said. I said I don't know enough about the science - that much is true - but she doesn't convince me that she cares or knows what she's talking about, so is therefore a bad spokesperson.
That wasn't how I read that comment. As I understand it, GT has some disorder that has an impact on how she behaves. That is why she comes across as so utterly unyielding in her belief in her position and I somehow doubt that she has personally developed that belief. I think she has been told something, which she believes to be true, and cannot tolerate any other position than the one that she believes. Her belief is that she's right, anyone who disagrees with her is wrong. No grey areas, no room for discussion or movement.
Compare what she says (and how she says it) with what David Attenborough says (and how HE says it). The message is the same, the reaction from the audience completely different. She's preachy, unreasonable. Authoritarian. He's convincing and speaks from experience. Authoritative. It probably helps that he's built up decades of credibility in this area.
It's all about targeting the young like propagandists generally do, use someone young as a front for your message and promote them as good+intelligent, young people will idolise her and start espousing the same views because they want to receive the same favourable treatment and not be attacked like they would be for opposing her views.
The left basically use celebrities and peer pressure to form a consensus and attack those who won't conform. Science is based on facts not consensuses and theories are not facts, many scientific theories that had 'consensus' were later disproven by a single individual. The problem with global warming is it's become a political tool to empower government and restructure the economy to a socialist system of top down control, like we're witnessing with the COVID response.