Jump to content

British Politics


Gracii Guns

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

So by merely removing transport you solve 23% of the problem?

So you didn't get this sentence from earlier: Experts have looked at what will make the greatest impact in regards to carbon emission while causing the lowest negative outcome on critical aspects society?  Have you resorted to trolling now? Isn't that ominous for you? When I am not sure about whether your actually don't understand a simply sentence or have just started trolling? :lol:

There is another thing to point out here but it will surely go over your head: Anthropomorphic emission of CO2 isn't a problem per se, it is the excessive emission, i.e. emission above the threshold for when CO2 will start accumulating in the atmosphere, that is a problem. Your figure shows the total emission from human industrial activity (so not even the total carbon emission), not the excessive. The figure serves to show where we can theoretically reduce carbon emission, but it doesn't support your claim if we were to reduce emission from transportation down to 0 it would remove 23 % of the problem. More likely it would reduce emissions to below the threshold and thus remove the problem altogether. Not that it matters, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

So you didn't get this sentence from earlier: Experts have looked at what will make the greatest impact in regards to carbon emission while causing the lowest negative outcome on critical aspects society?  Have you resorted to trolling now? Isn't that ominous for you? When I am not sure about whether your actually don't understand a simply sentence or have just started trolling? :lol:

There is another thing to point out here but it will surely go over your head: Anthropomorphic emission of CO2 isn't a problem per se, it is the excessive emission, i.e. emission above the threshold for when CO2 will start accumulating in the atmosphere, that is a problem. Your figure shows the total emission from human industrial activity (so not even the total carbon emission), not the excessive. The figure serves to show where we can theoretically reduce carbon emission, but it doesn't support your claim if we were to reduce emission from transportation down to 0 it would remove 23 % of the problem. More likely it would reduce emissions to below the threshold and thus remove the problem altogether. Not that it matters, though.

giphy.gif

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

So you and Homer share both what is missing on the outside of the skull and the inside. Okay.

Basically all you have said is waffle to justify still using cars and flight - throwing the word ''expert'' around like confetti. 

PS

When are you sciencey types going to discover life on mars or time travel, or bring back dinosaurs? Because basically you have done bugger all of interest since the moon landings.

Edited by DieselDaisy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

Basically all you have said is waffle to justify still using cars and flight - throwing the word ''expert'' around like confetti. 

Nothing waffle about pointing out you are wrong about what the scientists say on the matter, that you are wrong in regards to what is urgent about climate change, that your idea that we should simply end climate change by the abolishment of air travel (or carbon emission in general) is ludicrous beyond comparison, that you fail to understand that sufficient reduction in carbon emission can happen through more intelligent ways than an end to transportation, that you are wrong in thinking an end to transportation would only reduce the problem with 28 %, or that your tendency to try to end discussion by referring to those you discuss with a hypocrites doesn't work because you are too stupid to know what hypocrisy is. 

No matter how hard you try you simply cannot reduce these demonstrable facts to waffle. The world doesn't work that way. Otherwise you wouldn't be sitting in a basement translating boring documents while rubbing ointment on your scalp.

And let's not forget that is all just a digression because you got called out for attacking a woman for fighting racism and sexism simply because she belongs to a political party you hate. For trying to divert our attention from the fact that to you, fighting Labour is more important than fighting racism and sexism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

And let's not forget that is all just a digression because you got called out for attacking a woman for fighting racism and sexism simply because she belongs to a political party you hate. For trying to divert our attention from the fact that to you, fighting Labour is more important than fighting racism and sexism.

Correction, ''...belongs to a political party which is antisemitic''.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Correction, ''...belongs to a political party which is antisemitic''.

About as blockheaded as refusing to help Schindler because he belonged to the Nazi party. And that analogy only works if you equate Labour with the Nazi Party (which I am sure you find only natural) :lol: It's like, I have to make really stupid comparisons to even demonstrate how ridiculous your position regarding this politicians and her fight against racism and sexism is. 

One starts to wonder if you really hate Labour that much, or just don't care for fighting racism and sexism? I mean, if you are like normal people (you aren't), you would really be against racism and sexism like the rest of us are, and hence this focus on cancelling this politician in her fight against racism and sexism, must mean you hate Labour even more. That's a lot! Or, maybe you don't really hate Labour that much, only slightly more than your bordering-to indifference to racism and sexism? What makes more sense? A distorting hatred of Labour that results in your making a fool of yourself by attacking a Labour politician when she merely speaks out against racism and sexism, or an indifference to racism and sexism and a distinct hatred of Labour? It is actually hard to tell :lol: I mean, you obviously hate Labour and you have never said anything that suggests you are against racism or sexism...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

About as blockheaded as refusing to help Schindler because he belonged to the Nazi party. And that analogy only works if you equate Labour with the Nazi Party (which I am sure you find only natural) :lol: It's like, I have to make really stupid comparisons to even demonstrate how ridiculous your position regarding this politicians and her fight against racism and sexism is. 

One starts to wonder if you really hate Labour that much, or just don't care for fighting racism and sexism? I mean, if you are like normal people (you aren't), you would really be against racism and sexism like the rest of us are, and hence this focus on cancelling this politician in her fight against racism and sexism, must mean you hate Labour even more. That's a lot! Or, maybe you don't really hate Labour that much, only slightly more than your bordering-to indifference to racism and sexism? What makes more sense? A distorting hatred of Labour that results in your making a fool of yourself by attacking a Labour politician when she merely speaks out against racism and sexism, or an indifference to racism and sexism and a distinct hatred of Labour? It is actually hard to tell :lol: I mean, you obviously hate Labour and you have never said anything that suggests you are against racism or sexism...

Hopeless analogy as Schindler didn't give his boss, Hitler, 10/10 for performance. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Hopeless analogy as Schindler didn't give his boss, Hitler, 10/10 for performance. 

Neither did Oscar Schindler publicly chastise his party and Adolf Hitler for being too hard on the Jews :lol:

That being said, how do you even know Schindler didn't pay duly obseqiuous respect to his party leaders?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SoulMonster said:

Neither did Oscar Schindler publicly chastise his party and Adolf Hitler for being too hard on the Jews :lol:

That being said, how do you even know Schindler didn't pay duly obseqiuous respect to his party leaders?

He circumnavigated and contravened Hitler's racial policy at every turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

He circumnavigated and contravened Hitler's racial policy at every turn.

If you are right that the Labour party is an anti-semitic political party, then one of their members chastising her leaders for not doing enough about this and personally declaring war on racism, just makes the comparison better, and should be something you would cheer and applaud. But your hatred of Labour (or indifference to racism...) means you cannot follow simple logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jess Phillips out of the leadership race and Thornberry can't have much longer to go so I guess it's going to be down to Wrong-Daily, Starmer or Nandy. I actually like Lisa Nandy more the more I read about her but I can't see her winning and I don't think she has the charisma to take on Johnson at the dispatch box.

Edited by Dazey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dazey said:

Jess Phillips out of the leadership race and Thornberry can't have much longer to go so I guess it's going to be down to Wrong-Daily, Starmer or Nandy. I actually like Lisa Nandy more the more I read about her but I can't see her winning and I don't think she has the charisma to take on Johnson at the dispatch box.

Out of that dire lot, Nandy has to be the best choice. I wouldn't completely rule her out either as she has the support of the GMB. 

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

If you are right that the Labour party is an anti-semitic political party, then one of their members chastising her leaders for not doing enough about this and personally declaring war on racism, just makes the comparison better, and should be something you would cheer and applaud. But your hatred of Labour (or indifference to racism...) means you cannot follow simple logic.

I certainly loath Momentum, and make no apologies for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, dontdamnmeuyi2015 said:

Harry is in Canada with Megan. All is right with the world! lol

Tell me why anyone should care about these two living their lives they way they want to?

I commend them for doing this because you know the Royals aren't happy about it.

Because it is the British taxpayer footing the bill. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Because it is the British taxpayer footing the bill. 

Personally, I would feel much better if my taxmoney was used for a young couple to enjoy their lives and love in peaceful Canada than for them having to endure a tortuous existence as meaningless royals in the UK. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SoulMonster said:

Personally, I would feel much better if my taxmoney was used for a young couple to enjoy their lives and love in peaceful Canada than for them having to endure a tortuous existence as meaningless royals in the UK. 

You are veering into a whole different type of argument, but so long as they are royalty, and consequentially derive money from the nation, it is seen as an unwritten prerequisite that they fulfill numerous obligations in Britain.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

You are veering into a whole different type of argument, but so long as they are royalty, and consequentially derive money from the nation, it is seen as an unwritten prerequisite that they fulfill numerous obligations in Britain.  

I think they have just proven you wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I think they have just proven you wrong. 

You clearly do not know sufficient about the story to comment. They are forgoing public money, paying back monies spent on refurbishing Frogmore House, and resigning from public duties. They also can no longer use HRH and Harry has relinquished his military appointments. 

Quote

What I want to make clear is we’re not walking away, and we certainly aren’t walking away from you. Our hope was to continue serving the Queen, the Commonwealth, and my military associations, but without public funding. Unfortunately, that wasn’t possible.

Prince Harry, 

Edited by DieselDaisy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

You clearly do not know sufficient about the story to comment. They are forgoing public money, paying back monies spent on refurbishing Frogmore House, and resigning from public duties. They also can no longer use HRH and Harry has relinquished his military appointments. 

That's brilliant, then :) Then surely everybody is happy? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...