Greta Thunberg

Malevolence said:
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate that souls are moving into Hell and the rate they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.

As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell.

With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added. This gives two possibilities:

  1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
  2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over. So which is it?
If we accept the postulate given to me by Claudia during my first year, "...that it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you", and take into account the fact that I still have not succeeded in sleeping with her, then #2 above cannot be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and will not freeze over.
Click to expand...

If you end up in hell no doubt the coroner will state you had or have had covid within the last 28 days.
 
FoxEye said:
If she's autistic or whatever that still doesn't mean she gets to say whatever she wants consequence free; or worse, that you can only ever praise her ("so brave") and any and all criticism will be batted away ("despicable attack on an autistic child, so brave").
Click to expand...

Just remember it is more simpler than you think.
She went on strike on her own and gradually others joined her.
Adults in power from around the World were told about her and invited her to speak at Climate Conferences.
By the time she got to her famous angry speech she was properly pee'd off at being invited everywhere to talk but nobody did anything about it.
That's basically it.

Shortened version:
She didn't say much but was invited to talk about it.
 
Spicy shenanigans on Twitter, as Greta Thunberg accidentally tweets (and hastily deletes) the activist 'toolkit' that tells her what to say and how to maximise its reach.

943cy6.png


a31f4x.png


3bpgjx.png


She has since replaced it with this document, which is clearly for public rather than private consumption.

In related news, Indians are not impressed by Greta's support for the farmers' protest.

6sk00y.PNG
 
It's been obvious from the start she's just a manufactured 'celebrity' to get gullible children behind whatever message she pushes, it's dangerous the way celebrities are used to push politics in the same way they promote manufacturing brands and people don't realise they're being manipulated by the people with money behind the scenes.
 
It has been pretty obvious for awhile - sadly some are easily taken in by it. That isn't to excuse or validate the way some people react (negatively) to her either.
 
Reading around and in context of some of the other tweets about this India thing... it seems less like "this is how her handlers control her" and more that the docs that leaked were a pack sent around to a bunch of paid-for influential celebs on Twitter to manufacture interest and sway over the matter...

Doesn't make it any better because it implies that like so many others she can simply be bought and made to say whatever the buyer wants. And in this case it sounds like part of the demands were the repeal of various laws to do with burning hay and use of bad diesel fuels or whatnot, which is directly at odds with the environmental causes Greta claims to champion.
 
Also something that not one person has picked up watching the documentary but hit me like a ton of bricks.

I accept that she was a young autistic schoolgirl who saw something and decided to do something about it so went on her School Strike.
At this point her Dad kept an eye on her and filmed her but strangely as soon as she came away from the School Strike there was a dedicated camera person following her every move.
It could be totally innocent, one of the kids latched onto her and followed her everywhere but still strange that every incident would now be filmed.
 
Anyone who is posting positively about the farmers is getting trolled, threatened, and if a celeb pics of them getting burned by these backwards idiots in India who are fully against the farmers and on the govt side
All she and others did is highlight an issue which has been happening since sept/oct
 
I've only looked at this Greta / India thing briefly on Twitter. I don't fully understand it. There seems to be outrage that this campaign had a detailed strategy - well dur, all half decent campaigns have strategies, timelines, targets, prepared statements, social media management, celebrity engagement etc. It's what campaigning is in the 21st century. Some campaigns even do it all in public. Is it that this western approach of campaigning is new to India?

Was Greta actually paid, real money, for a few tweets? That doesn't pass the sniff test.
 
Aye some random schoolgirl who really cares for the environment just so happens to end up addressing world leaders :p

Anyone else would get told to get back to school or maybe something written about them in the local rag at best!
 
SexyGreyFox said:
Don't be silly.
She was just a school girl who went on strike to get attention.
She may be fake now though.
Click to expand...


Again you missed the back story.
Her parents had a lot to do with the start of all this.
And no one said a thing till companies got involved.

The idea started with Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shootings and gun control.
She then started writing a essay for her school about how she doesn't feel safe.
Bo Thorén picked up on this and Thorén suggested that school children could strike for climate change.
It was never her idea.

She can never speak for herself...ever. It all has to be written for her.
She will do a book one day called "How the Adults used me"
 
The vitriol directed towards Greta Thunberg by climate change deniers amazes me. I have tried to work out what lies behind the personal attacks to which she is persistently subjected and have come up with the following possible explanations.
  • She is young and therefore cannot possibly have the insight, knowledge and expertise of her armchair bound critics.
  • She is young and famous and people whose inconsequential lives will pass by wholly unnoticed are simply jealous of her fame.
  • She is female and can therefore safely be dismissed as incapable of insight, sincerity or rational thought.
  • She is an unwitting, unthinking ventriloquist’s dummy who is manipulated by some unseen figures who probably have evil intent - they probably also want to implant microchips in everyone by propagating a hoax and vaccinating the world.
  • She is autistic, therefore must always be misguided and as a consequence deserves to have her beliefs ridiculed rather than considered seriously and debated.
  • People who are not attracted to her feel the need to demonstrate their discernment by ridiculing her.
Most of these seem like plausible explanations for the irrational urge to shoot the messenger when you want to silence the message but some of them come unstuck when you realise that her views are shared by amongst others, Sir Richard Attenborough and Mark Carney who are not young, not female, not autistic and who probably get to speak to people who do actually know what they are talking about - this poses a problem for climate change deniers.

However, the reassuring news for selfish, shortsighted people is that Sir Richard Attenborough and Mark Carney are unlikely to be around for long enough to be personally affected and are therefore not entitled to express an opinion :rolleyes:

Mark Carney said:
Climate crisis deaths 'will be worse than Covid' (LINK)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom