Jump to content
Axl's Agony Aunt

British Liberal Media's Multicultural Fascism Exposed

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, soon said:

No, today all is not fine. How about not turing our brothers and sisters into climate refugees or casualties? Would that be kind?

It's fine, they're foreign and poor and far away...

Share this post


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

No, today all is not fine. How about not turing our brothers and sisters into climate refugees or casualties? Would that be kind?

if your argument is that I'm turning my loved ones into climate refugees, then I think this necessitates further explanation.

Could you put a value, in %, to my contribution to climate change over the past 50 years (I was born in the early 80s and climate change started since before then)

Case of knowing just how much I'm personally contributing. If I know this number which you will provide me, then I can weigh the negative effects of my behaviour to the vast positive effects my behaviour has on myself, my wife, my son and everyone I love. Because you're asking me quite a drastic change in lifestyle, which will directly impact the life quality of my surroundings. 

Edited by action

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, action said:

if your argument is that I'm turning my loved ones into climate refugees, then I think this necessitates further explanation.

Could you put a value, in %, to my contribution to climate change over the past 50 years (I was born in the early 80s and climate change started since before then)

Case of knowing just how much I'm personally contributing. If I know this number which you will provide me, then I can weigh the negative effects of my behaviour to the vast positive effects my behaviour has on myself, my wife, my son and everyone I love. Because you're asking me quite a drastic change in lifestyle, which will directly impact the life quality of my surroundings. 

Silly me; I think of humanity in terms of being my siblings. And if you meant literal biological bros and sisters then you have excluded the rest of your family. Shameful.

This movement that you keep speaking about is after system change. Its not focused on the personal the way that you seem confused about. Why not educate yourself before speaking so much to these issues and movements?

Edited by soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, action said:

if your argument is that I'm turning my loved ones into climate refugees, then I think this necessitates further explanation.

Could you put a value, in %, to my contribution to climate change over the past 50 years (I was born in the early 80s and climate change started since before then)

Case of knowing just how much I'm personally contributing. 

Its you, its all you, take my word for it :lol: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, soon said:

 

This movement that you keep speaking about is after system change. Its not focused on the personal the way that you seem confused about. 

then I don't know what you're even blaming me of, or even what i'm supposed to do.

All I take from this is, that somehow I'm a selfish bastard who is partly to blame for climate change. Well, I guess every day is a school day.

I'll be a spectator then, and just see the madness unfold before my eyes, as I take another bite from my generous jack burger, and have another sip of my starbucks coffee.

Share this post


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

then I don't know what you're even blaming me of, or even what i'm supposed to do.

All I take from this is, that somehow I'm a selfish bastard who is partly to blame for climate change. Well, I guess every day is a school day.

I'll be a spectator then, and just see the madness unfold before my eyes, as I take another bite from my generous jack burger, and have another sip of my starbucks coffee.

Huh????

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, action said:

then I don't know what you're even blaming me of, or even what i'm supposed to do.

All I take from this is, that somehow I'm a selfish bastard who is partly to blame for climate change. Well, I guess every day is a school day.

I'll be a spectator then, and just see the madness unfold before my eyes, as I take another bite from my generous jack burger, and have another sip of my starbucks coffee.

This is completely random and feel free to tell me to fuck off if you like but where are you from?  Just curious, sometimes you sound like you're from around here and then other times not.  Here is England btw. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

This is completely random and feel free to tell me to fuck off if you like but where are you from?  Just curious, sometimes you sound like you're from around here and then other times not.  Here is England btw. 

what do you mean here is england? 

*looks around*

fuck me, I thought I lived in belgium

Share this post


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

you can avoid climate change, like you can avoid death.

as certain as death is, as certain it is that mankind will get extinct and it's increasingly likely this will be our own doing.

but today, all is still fine. enjoy life, and be kind to your brothers and sisters.

Extinction? Do you think that is the likely outcome? That's an extremely pessimistic outcome of the various scenarios of global warming outlined by climate scientists.

The more realistic pessimistic forecast is that if we aren't able to reverse the trend, the average global surface temperature will increase by X degrees over Y years. This will result in big changes to local weather, including more extreme weather and draughts, resulting in the need to change agriculture and failed crops. This together with an increase in water levels will result in mass migrations (most people live at low altitudes near the coast). All of this will put tremendous strains on humanity and the likely outcome is more conflicts, wars, famine, and natural disasters. 

Additionally, ecosystems will be hit hard with an increase in the observed 6th mass extinction event. With ecosystems disrupted it will result in failed crops, further exacerbating the effects described above. 

In worst case scenarios this will lead to humanity going through a population bottleneck over the next centuries. 

But as a species we will likely survive, we benefit from being highly adaptable. 

But we will become weakened which makes us sensitive to other disasters and challenges that might arise at the same time, and this could in theory lead to our extinction. 

So thinking that there are two outcomes here, death or all is fine, is dangerous. In reality we are looking at a spectrum of outcomes where at best we only see a small increase in tension on our ecosystems, mass migration, and ensuing conflicts, at worst we will experience total collapse in ecosystems, extreme extinction event, and an immense humanitarian disaster as we have to adapt to an entirely new reality where large parts of earth has become barren and where the majority of living organism have died out (which it will take evolution millions of years to rectify). 

So we can do something about this. Any reduction in future global warming will make our future less bleak and make life for our descendants less difficult. 

Personally, I also think it would be utterly shameful if the only species that has evolved brains to be cognizant to a looming catastrophe, would be indifferent to it and selfishly only think about themselves. Not only out of love for our descendants, but for all other forms of life that we through our negligence and indifference will decimate or make extinct. We could be the protectors of life, but instead we might choose to become its death. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Extinction? Do you think that is the likely outcome? That's an extremely pessimistic outcome of the various scenarios of global warming outlined by climate scientists.

The more realistic pessimistic forecast is that if we aren't able to reverse the trend, the average global surface temperature will increase by X degrees over Y years. This will result in big changes to local weather, including more extreme weather and draughts, resulting in the need to change agriculture and failed crops. This together with an increase in water levels will result in mass migrations (most people live at low altitudes near the coast). All of this will put tremendous strains on humanity and the likely outcome is more conflicts, wars, famine, and natural disasters. 

Additionally, ecosystems will be hit hard with an increase in the observed 6th mass extinction event. With ecosystems disrupted it will result in failed crops, further exacerbating the effects described above. 

In worst case scenarios this will lead to humanity going through a population bottleneck over the next centuries. 

But as a species we will likely survive, we benefit from being highly adaptable. 

But we will become weakened which makes us sensitive to other disasters and challenges that might arise at the same time, and this could in theory lead to our extinction. 

So thinking that there are two outcomes here, death or all is fine, is dangerous. In reality we are looking at a spectrum of outcomes where at best we only see a small increase in tension on our ecosystems, mass migration, and ensuing conflicts, at worst we will experience total collapse in ecosystems, extreme extinction event, and an immense humanitarian disaster as we have to adapt to an entirely new reality where large parts of earth has become barren and where the majority of living organism have died out (which it will take evolution millions of years to rectify). 

So we can do something about this. Any reduction in future global warming will make our future less bleak and make life for our descendants less difficult. 

Personally, I also think it would be utterly shameful if the only species that has evolved brains to be cognizant to a looming catastrophe, would be indifferent to it and selfishly only think about themselves. Not only out of love for our descendants, but for all other forms of life that we through our negligence and indifference will decimate or make extinct. We could be the protectors of life, but instead we might choose to become its death. 

 

You might be spot on, but you have no right to have this opinion or share this information because you take flights for your work :P .

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there are more urgent issues at hand, such as turkey invading syria, and feeing IS fighters.

this is a massive event, this little war that erdogan started just now. there won't be much climate to save, when the world is at war wih each other

Share this post


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

there are more urgent issues at hand, such as turkey invading syria, and feeing IS fighters.

this is a massive event, this little war that erdogan started just now. there won't be much climate to save, when the world is at war wih each other

You are running from goalpost to goalpost. You have claimed we can't possibly reverse the global warming because of physics, you have claimed there is not even a point in trying because we will all die anyway, and you now claim we have more urgent issues to take care of (like a continuation of a war in Syria that will likely cause much less than 100,000 deaths). It is REALLY hard to take you seriously :lol:

Facts are that we can reverse it, our future extinction will likely not come as a result of global warming, and a realistic scenario of unchecked global warming is substantially worse than what is happening in Syria now. Not only that, one doesn't exclude the other. We can work at reducing global warming AND try to prevent wars and conflicts. I would even say we are obligated to do both.

Share this post


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

You are running from goalpost to goalpost. You have claimed we can't possibly reverse the global warming because of physics, you have claimed there is not even a point in trying because we will all die anyway, and you now claim we have more urgent issues to take care of (like a continuation of a war in Syria that will likely cause much less than 100,000 deaths). It is REALLY hard to take you seriously :lol:

Facts are that we can reverse it, our future extinction will likely not come as a result of global warming, and a realistic scenario of unchecked global warming is substantially worse than what is happening in Syria now. Not only that, one doesn't exclude the other. We can work at reducing global warming AND try to prevent wars and conflicts. I would even say we are obligated to do both.

this thread is about fascism isn't it? doesn't this include the fascism of environmental extremists and the fascism of erdogan? ;) (just kidding)

I guess what i'm trying to say is, good luck getting the world on the same page on the environment, when we're just on the eve of another massive war.

there are lots of reasons why global warming can't be halted. these reasons include reasons of physics, the state of world affairs between nations and just people not giving a shit.

this whole affair, really seems like a modern retake on the fairytale of the golden pot at the end of the rainbow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Graeme said:

You might be spot on, but you have no right to have this opinion or share this information because you take flights for your work :P .

Yet refraining from just one of those flights will have the second biggest positive impact one could make following absenteeism from cars, 

800px-Wynes_Nicholas_CO2_emissions_savin

There is a lot on the devastating impact of plane travel on the environment online. It is funny how, in this instance, you can be facetious on the subject, yet in others (Trump's disregard of the problem) you are in earnest! Probably because you also are unwilling to refrain from plane travel and therefore another hypocrite,

co2_emissions_300dpi_1_57905.jpg

Edited by DieselDaisy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Yet refraining from just one of those flights will have the second biggest positive impact one could make following absenteeism from cars, 

800px-Wynes_Nicholas_CO2_emissions_savin

There is a lot on the devastating impact of plane travel on the environment online. It is funny how, in this instance, you can be facetious on the subject, yet in others (Trump's disregard of the problem) you are in earnest! Probably because you also are unwilling to refrain from plane travel and therefore another hypocrite,

co2_emissions_300dpi_1_57905.jpg

you might say that still taking planes is.... irresponsible and selfish?

18 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

That irresponsible and selfish. And based on the flawed idea that we can't make changes and still enjoy ourselves, and the flawed idea that it is futile.

(I couldn't erase the soon link on my phone, sorry.) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All you fuckin' patronizing climate change cunts, I'm probably the most fuckin' efficient person in that regard, I've hardly been nowhere in my life by plane, hardly been abroad, I ain't got a car at the moment, I don't take the bus, cant even ride a bike, never been on a boat that didn't have oars in my life (actually I've been on a speedboat once for 40 minutes) and I got no children, I'm doin' my fuckin' bit over here :lol:

15 hours ago, action said:

what do you mean here is england? 

*looks around*

fuck me, I thought I lived in belgium

Oh right, cool.  Just you say and phrase certain things like you're from England.  Don't ask what and shit, I ain't been takin' notes :lol:

Edited by Len Cnut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Hasn't BBC always been the voice of reason? 

I think it was more when I was young, but I wanted it to be more open then (music, culture, politics etc). 

Ironic, that now I'm older, and want more reason; more Mary Whitehouse than Katie Price; it's become a crazy revolutionary!

Typical!!

Share this post


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

 

Oh right, cool.  Just you say and phrase certain things like you're from England.  Don't ask what and shit, I ain't been takin' notes :lol:

:lol: well you sure got me curious now!

yeah, i've been told that before. I think I've developed my own style during my time on internet forums. Stuff like "blimey", "nah" and "frowned upon" are some of the words I think are cool, but might be region specific for all I know. Sometimes, I even use neologisms, words that don't even exist, to make the confusion even bigger.

I don't think you've ever heard my native talk in real life before. It's one of the smallest languages on earth, but ironically, it's us people who founded the united states. that's why you find funny street names in new york, and you hear names like "van den berg".

Share this post


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

 

All you fuckin' patronizing climate change cunts, I'm probably the most fuckin' efficient person in that regard, I've hardly been nowhere in my life by plane, hardly been abroad, I ain't got a car at the moment, I don't take the bus, cant even ride a bike, never been on a boat that didn't have oars in my life (actually I've been on a speedboat once for 40 minutes) and I got no children, I'm doin' my fuckin' bit over here :lol:

 

Len, fucking eco warrior. Hes ard and that innit! :lol:

Its the people who dont care about climate change making all these lifestyle demands. Would be quite ironic if its role as propaganda werent so clear. Its the exact same model as anti health care in the US. They pretend that the pro health care people are suggesting that the current system should be suddenly burdened with new demands and then claim it would be an impossible scenario. "Its $10 000 for an annual check up, who's gonna pay for that?!" And no matter how many times you explain that there will be a new system were costs arent so high, they will just say "who's gonna pay the $10 000?!?!" Same here. Greta is after systems changes, Klein is after systems changes, XR is after system changes - but they just ignore facts and respond about how nothing will change within the current system based only on personal changes :facepalm: Which no one ever said and in fact everyone is saying otherwise. :lol:

Im in your ball park of carbon foot print, Len. Speed boating sounds bad ass, though! Plus my childhood off grid and youth in the wild. If this world were fair at all, Id be the one with a climate cult comprised of teenagers :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course personal change can be valuable and I'm into it. But I mean no ones heard the half of it because its what works for me in my life and maybe wouldnt be suitable for others. But universal personal changes are coming and from that regard its down to whether if one needs the nanny state to reduce their beef consumption for them or if they can handle the responsibilities of liberty under their own authority. :headbang:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Yet refraining from just one of those flights will have the second biggest positive impact one could make following absenteeism from cars, 

I couldn't reply sooner since I was....flying :lol:

As to your claim that refraining from flying is the second biggest positive impact one could maket: Nope. There are a lot more things one can do than is included in those graphs of yours. Stop breathing is one of them. Not have pets another. Move to warmer climates another. That list just represents some of the main things we regularly do that results in carbon emissions. It is not a comprehensive list of efforts we could make to reduce our carbon emissions.

 

18 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

There is a lot on the devastating impact of plane travel on the environment online. It is funny how, in this instance, you can be facetious on the subject, yet in others (Trump's disregard of the problem) you are in earnest! Probably because you also are unwilling to refrain from plane travel and therefore another hypocrite,

It actually hurts me to again point out that you are only a hypocrite if you preach one thing and do another. Aren't you a translator? You should know this. To drive the point home: I can't remember Graeme ever saying we should end all air flights. I certainly haven't.

And this also ties in with the utterly moronic idea that if we care about global warming we should reduce our carbon footprints to zero, otherwise we are hypocrites :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, action said:

you might say that still taking planes is.... irresponsible and selfish?

Not necessarily. We cannot stop flying altogether, that would give us a host of other problems. 

What is selfish and irresponsible, on the other hand, is not care about whether we fuck up for future generations. 

Share this post


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

Not necessarily. We cannot stop flying altogether, that would give us a host of other problems. 

What is selfish and irresponsible, on the other hand, is not care about whether we fuck up for future generations. 

true, but the difference is that my selfishness only matters a blip in the scheme of things, while one single plane flight equals a lifetime of driving a car.

I think the conclusion is quickly made in this one.

Share this post


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

true, but the difference is that my selfishness only matters a blip in the scheme of things, while one single plane flight equals a lifetime of driving a car.

I think the conclusion is quickly made in this one.

Heh, I will let your hilarious exaggeration slide and just point out that it is not caring that will result in excess carbon emission. If you care, you try to limit it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, action said:

 It's one of the smallest languages on earth, but ironically, it's us people who founded the united states. that's why you find funny street names in new york

When I was there I saw Dutch names everywhere... it was almost like being at home... almost...

Also, I don't think it's one of the ''smallest languages'' on earth...  about 23 million people speak it as a first language, 5 million as a second and Afrikaans is a daughter language of Dutch.

Edited by EvanG
  • Like 1

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.

×