Jump to content
Gracii Guns

British Politics

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't think it has anything to do with hypocrisy. Because only really stupid people would be blind to a good idea like fighting racism when it happens to come from someone who could only through a really half-assed argument be construed to be a racist herself, and I don't think you are quite that stupid. No, your use of hypocrisy is just a conversational cop-out. Whenever you struggle in a discussion you turn to accusing your opponents of being hypocrites as if that renders their otherwise sensible arguments automagically invalid. Like now, you attempt to cancel this politician's admirable determination to fight racism and sexism because you hate her political movement and so by the stupid's propensity for moronic association you hate her too, and when called out for this you claim that somehow her opinion is invalid because you can present a rather tenuous argument for her being a racist too. It is hilarious. And when I argue that we should do our job in recycling and that you are a disgrace for not caring about this particular issue, then I am a hypocrite because I happen to have a job where I fly quite a bit (as if these things are even connected). So no, you don't loath hypocrisy, you love it. You love it because you believe it presents you with a polemic get-out-of-jail card whenever you make a fool of yourself, so quite often, although most people would see right through such unintellectual argumentation.

If you believe in the urgency of climate change you wouldn't fly, or at best seriously curtail your flying. It is that simple. Otherwise you are a gross hypocrite. 

If however climate change isn't an urgency, and is in fact a load of nonsense, well...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

If you believe in the urgency of climate change you wouldn't fly, or at best seriously curtail your flying. It is that simple. Otherwise you are a gross hypocrite. 

If however climate change isn't an urgency, and is in fact a load of nonsense, well...

It is a urgent that politicians adopt recommendations from the experts on mitigating factors. It is not urgent that people stop flying.

How can this be so hard for you to fathom? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

It is a urgent that politicians adopt recommendations from the experts on mitigating factors. It is not urgent that people stop flying.

How can this be so hard for you to fathom? :lol:

Yet plane travel is a significant contributor.

Listen, Soul. Just admit it is a load of nonsense and you can fly to your heart's content free of hypocrisy. 

Edited by DieselDaisy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

You seem to put a big premium on how many countries one has visited? 

Not at all. I don't even think I have been to that many countries myself compared to a lot of people. I just didn't believe what you said (even though I have no proof that you hadn't actually seen nearly every European country because I obviously don't know you). But from your posts and the way you often exaggerate in them, I took a gamble of calling you out on your statement and it turns out I was right. You often say to people on here that they know nothing about you, and you're right in a way, but judging from your posts one can make a fairly right assumption regarding certain things. 

(and yes, those high-speed trains are rather comfortable, even for people with my height, so I don't have much to complain, I spent 12 hours listening to music and watching the German landscape, not too shabby for Evan.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

Yet plane travel is a significant contributor.

Despite this, the experts don't call for abolishment of air travel, how can that be? This is a rhetorical question of course, I don't suspect you, or even encourage you, to try to answer this. It is obviously somewhere beyond your grasp.

Like the experts, I have never called for or argued for a stop to air travel, nor condemned other for flying, and hence I cannot be a hypocrite for flying myself. I have called you out for being a lazy slouch who won't recycle, which I do, hence I am not a hypocrite. 

It must be frustrating when you are so incompetent at wielding your primary weapon of argumentation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, EvanG said:

Not at all. I don't even think I have been to that many countries myself compared to a lot of people. I just didn't believe what you said (even though I have no proof that you hadn't actually seen nearly every European country because I obviously don't know you). But from your posts and the way you often exaggerate in them, I took a gamble of calling you out on your statement and it turns out I was right. You often say to people on here that they know nothing about you, and you're right in a way, but judging from your posts one can make a fairly right assumption regarding certain things. 

You are another pedant I see regarding language?

I would say I have been to a lot. Was in Spain for three months and worked in Asia - those are not everyday experiences. Do you want my airline receipts? It is really of no concern irrespective because you know bugger all about me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Despite this, the experts don't call for abolishment of air travel, how can that be? This is a rhetorical question of course, I don't suspect you, or even encourage you, to try to answer this. It is obviously somewhere beyond your grasp.

Like the experts, I have never called for or argued for a stop to air travel, nor condemned other for flying, and hence I cannot be a hypocrite for flying myself. I have called you out for being a lazy slouch who won't recycle, which I do, hence I am not a hypocrite. 

It must be frustrating when you are so incompetent at wielding your primary weapon of argumentation. 

Probably because they're hypocrites also, attending those cushy science summits like the numerous WOKE celebrities and Harry and Megan.

If I was polluting the water stream, no matter how minor, I would certainly be determined to eradicate the source - my transgression - of that pollution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DieselDaisy said:

You are another pedant I see regarding language?

No, I merely stated that I didn't believe you. You responded to that and therefore we are still going on about it now.

Quote

I would say I have been to a lot. Was in Spain for three months and worked in Asia - those are not everyday experiences. Do you want my airline receipts? 

I'll pm you my e-mail, you can send them to me if you want.

Quote

It is really of no concern irrespective because you know bugger all about me.

I don't. That's what I said. I don't even know whether you are really bald or not because I have never seen your picture.

But regarding to certain things one who has read enough of your posts will be able to make a fair assumption of the character that is you. But I am the first one to stand corrected if I am wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, EvanG said:

I'll pm you my e-mail, you can send them to me if you want.

I am going to assume this is in jest, or this is Soul Monster - contacting a lecturer of a university that he mistakenly thought was mine - levels of creepy stalkerdom!

Rather than conjecture you could have actually read my posts. If you stroll over to the general discussion I was inquiring - unsolicited - about Krakow, which would be a strange post to make if I was the itinerant ignoramus you make me out to be. 

Edited by DieselDaisy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

I am going to assume this is in jest, or this is Soul Monster - contacting a lecturer of a university that he mistakenly thought was mine - levels of creepy stalkerdom!

Rather than conjecture you could have actually read my posts. If you stroll over to the general discussion I was inquiring - unsolicited - about Krakow, which would be a strange post to make if I was the itinerant ignoramus you make me out to be. 

Of course, don't worry, I'm not going to send you my e-mail.

And I am not making you out to be some kind of ignoramus either. I know you have been to some European countries, I just didn't take you as someone who has been to almost the entire continent, (most people haven't really), but that is what you claimed and that is all I responded to. Nothing more, nothing less. It's really no big deal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Probably because they're hypocrites also, attending those cushy science summits like the numerous WOKE celebrities and Harry and Megan.

If I was polluting the water stream, no matter how minor, I would certainly be determined to eradicate the source - my transgression - of that pollution.

With that flawed logic we should end all CO2 emissions no matter how small, which would be the end to all kinds of motorized transportation, including electric trains, the end to all kinds of freight transportation so basically every consumer good transported internationally would disappear (in my case that would mean no cars, no medicine, no computers, no phones, no kitchen appliances, no bikes, basically nothing we don't already produce ourselves here in Norway, or here in Trøndelag), the end to consumption of everything that is transported or produced in a carbon negative way (basically changing our diet to how it was in the stone age), the end to having pets (because they breathe), the end to heating or cooling our houses (we would all have to move to equator), the end to any strenuous activity like sports (not cricket of course, so you are good there), because sports speed up metabolism and leads to more CO2 emission, end to having children (those miniature hypocrites breathe while still being all snotty faced about recycling), and of course, the end to respiration altogether since that is an unescapable outcome of existing. 

Fortunately we don't have to do all that.  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, mostly involving reducing pollution from the industry but also incentivizing consumers to adopt more environmentally friendly behavior. And it is these mitigating steps that politicians are now so slow to put into effect and get deserved flack for.

All this nonsense about people being hypocrites if they fly yet still are concerned about climate change, is just something either very stupid people say who don't get it, or people who object to making any changes themselves so they cynically try to make it seem like the entire climate movement is comprised of hypocrites and hence their sensible advice is somehow, by magic I presume, made insensible.

Doesn't work that way, of course.

52 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

You are another pedant I see regarding language?

It must be frustrating being surrounded by people who take you seriously when you claim to have been to most of Europe. Such pedants! When will they just let you lie and exaggerate in peace?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

With that flawed logic we should end all CO2 emissions no matter how small

We rather should if, as scientists claim, the world will end in x number of days or less.

Taken to its logical conclusion...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DieselDaisy said:

We rather should if, as scientists claim, the world will end in x number of days or less.

Taken to its logical conclusion...

Logic is a scary weapon in the hands of the ignorant. Because scientists don't claim what you claim they do.

55 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

It is really of no concern irrespective because you know bugger all about me. 

There are just so many things we know about you, and now also that you don't like being called out for exaggerating your travelling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Logic is a scary weapon in the hands of the ignorant. Because scientists don't claim what you claim they do.

iea_co2emissionsbysector.png?ua=1

So by merely removing transport you solve 23% of the problem? Solving the climate change crisis is simple once hypocrisy and selfishness are removed.  

Why don't you follow through with your own convictions Soul? Too keen on those airmiles freebies? Easier to hector against people who do not fly as frequently than follow through with what you so espouse? Too keen on fish spunk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Edited by SoulMonster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

itinerant ignoramus 

I like that phrase. I will use it myself.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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''.

Share this post


Link to post
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...

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×