Greta Thunberg's Groupie

[SoulMonster]

Dare I say hypocrite? 

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, Len Cnut said:

Come on man, you’re the one that has a go at Soul for taking shit literally, surely you get whats being said when someone gets called a Hitler.

I am assuming they believe what they mean in that the term Nazi equates Neo-Nazi - we live in such hyperbolic/politicised times - so the analogy falls flat. Maybe however my assumption is incorrect.

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

we live in such hyperbolic/politicised times

Huh? Are you saying we live in a society where people will castigate their opponents by focusing on hyperbolic, ridiculous fringe cases rather than what they actually think and mean, thus creating a divide where people on both sides attack bizarre straw men?

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Huh? Are you saying we live in a society where people will castigate their opponents by focusing on hyperbolic, ridiculous fringe cases rather than what they actually think and mean, thus creating a divide where people on both sides attack bizarre straw men?

You'll have to rephrase that as it doesn't make any sense.

[action]

who is greta thunberg's groupie anyway, and isn't she a bit young for that?

[Len Cnut]

31 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I am assuming they believe what they mean in that the term Nazi equates Neo-Nazi - we live in such hyperbolic/politicised times - so the analogy falls flat. Maybe however my assumption is incorrect.

I always thought it was just a turn of phrase to denote something/someone harsh/dictatorial/generally cunty.  Its like someone calling the supervisor at work ‘a hitler’, I don’t think it necessarily means that they are suggesting that they are the Austrian leader of the Third Reich.  But you know modern (or historical for that matter ) politics better than me, maybe they are being literal.

[SoulMonster]

George and Elaine really though the guy selling soup was part of 1930s National Socialist German Workers' Party.

[DieselDaisy]

6 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I always thought it was just a turn of phrase to denote something/someone harsh/dictatorial/generally cunty.  Its like someone calling the supervisor at work ‘a hitler’, I don’t think it necessarily means that they are suggesting that they are the Austrian leader of the Third Reich.  But you know modern (or historical for that matter ) politics better than me, maybe they are being literal.

You and Soul are just manufacturing straw men here. My post specific to the name Hitler was more general,

9 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Yip. It is astonishing the grip alter Adolf has on political discourse. Here we are in 2020 and his name and political party are thrown around like confetti.

Quite general and not referencing specific examples as you can see?

A typical usage of Hitler would usually proceed along the lines of comparing somebody like Boris or Trump to Hitler. I have seen people say things like, ''this is how Hitler gained power''. 

[Len Cnut]

Quote

You and Soul are just manufacturing straw men here. My post specific to the name Hitler was more general,

I'm not tryna prove you wrong about anything, you're thinking of Soul, what I was saying applies as much to Nazi's as it does Hitler, I just threw an analogy out there thinking you'd see how it applies quite broadly, again, people have used the term Nazi's to denote a bunch of bossy self serving dictatorial cunts in much the same way as they would Hitler, I don't think its meant literally.  I might, in passing, refer to, oh I dunno, Britain First as a bunch of Nazi's, football refs, Trump supporters, hardline Tories, its often just a turn of phrase, they're not literally Nazi's or Neo Nazi's obviously (though if you got a few pints into certain Britain First members or Trump supporters they might surprise you ).  Come to that if you get a few pints into a few Corbyn supporters and get em goin' on Judaism they might surprise you too   I wonder why all that is.  I mean Marx was a Jew, weren't he? 

P.S. Don't take that too much to heart Trump supporters, I'm sure some of you are lovely people, I've talked to a fair few but you've got to admit, you've a fair few wankers on the firm too

Edited September 3, 2020 by Len Cnut

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I'm not tryna prove you wrong about anything, you're thinking of Soul, what I was saying applies as much to Nazi's as it does Hitler, I just threw an analogy out there thinking you'd see how it applies quite broadly, again, people have used the term Nazi's to denote a bunch of bossy self serving dictatorial cunts in much the same way as they would Hitler, I don't think its meant literally.  I might, in passing, refer to, oh I dunno, Britain First as a bunch of Nazi's, football refs, Trump supporters, hardline Tories, its often just a turn of phrase, they're not literally Nazi's or Neo Nazi's obviously (though if you got a few pints into certain Britain First members or Trump supporters they might surprise you ).  Come to that if you get a few pints into a few Corbyn supporters and get em goin' on Judaism they might surprise you too   I wonder why all that is.  I mean Marx was a Jew, weren't he? 

P.S. Don't take that too much to heart Trump supporters, I'm sure some of you are lovely people, I've talked to a fair few but you've got to admit, you've a fair few wankers on the firm too

For confirmation of this you merely have to turn to this very forum where we had a discussion on whether Trump is a 'fascist' (although I believe Nazi was also mentioned). I myself disagreed with this claim so you therefore are probably best asking the triumvirate, Dazey, Soul and Downzy who seemed to believe it had some merit.

I generally do not like to delve into the mind of the loony left I'm afraid - speaking of which, Layla Moran espoused giving 11 year olds the vote! You have to love the Lib Dems: entertainment if nothing else!

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

For confirmation of this you merely have to turn to this very forum where we had a discussion on whether Trump is a 'fascist' (although I believe Nazi was also mentioned). I myself disagreed with this claim so you therefore are probably best asking the triumvirate, Dazey, Soul and Downzy who seemed to believe it had some merit.

I think the discussion was whether he displays fascist-like behavior, not whether he actually is a self-identified fascist. But of course, now my "literalism" yet again ruined for you and your attempt at moving goal posts. Sorry!

There is really no problem with pointing out resemblances in behaviour among modern-day politicians (and I use that term veeeeerry loosely when talking about Trump) and fascists or Nazists, or anyone really, as long as there is a factual similarity there and it isn't just used to vilify; people who pop a vein when they see such a comparison are typically big supporters of any of those being compared.

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

I think the discussion was whether he displays fascist-like behavior, not whether he actually is a self-identified fascist. But of course, now my "literalism" yet again ruined for you and your attempt at moving goal posts. Sorry!

There is really no problem with pointing out resemblances in behaviour among modern-day politicians (and I use that term veeeeerry loosely when talking about Trump) and fascists or Nazists, or anyone really, as long as there is a factual similarity there and it isn't just used to vilify; people who pop a vein when they see such a comparison are typically big supporters of any of those being compared.

There is no similarity. End of discussion. Back to you Horrible Histories books I'm afraid.

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

There is no similarity. End of discussion. Back to you Horrible Histories books I'm afraid.

The great historian who admits knowing next to nothing about contemporary North American politics rejects the idea of there being similarities in Trump's behaviour to fascist-like behaviour. Hilarious. 

But thank you, that actually underlined my point above about why people would reject such similarities.

[DieselDaisy]

Another example of Woke v Woke,

 

I have said it before: you lot will chew each other up. Saturn devouring his children. 

[soon]

24 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Another example of Woke v Woke,

 

I have said it before: you lot will chew each other up. Saturn devouring his children. 

Yes, climate warriors are able to have discussions about race and class.

And this is more than you can comprehend?

[soon]

In January our federal government released a scientific study on plastic pollution. The Environment Minister is announcing bans on single use plastics today, effective in 2021. He stated clearly that one reason we need to act is because they have found microplastics in our tap water.

I guess they didnt consult the forums tap water experts. Or our govt is in on the water filter conspiracy

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, soon said:

In January our federal government released a scientific study on plastic pollution. The Environment Minister is announcing bans on single use plastics today, effective in 2021. He stated clearly that one reason we need to act is because they have found microplastics in our tap water.

I guess they didnt consult the forums tap water experts. Or our govt is in on the water filter conspiracy

I thought your problem with tap water was the chlorine? 

And for the record, there is no reason to assume microplastics are harmful to humans, the issue with it in tap water, or in any water really, is the accumulation of it in marine animals where it can be harmful. Kudos to Canada for this decision.

[soon]

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I thought your problem with tap water was the chlorine? 

 

You do easily get yourself confused.

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

And for the record, there is no reason to assume microplastics are harmful to humans, the issue with it in tap water, or in any water really, is the accumulation of it in marine animals where it can be harmful. Kudos to Canada for this decision.

No. You are not more informed then our scientists and reearchers. Nor our govt.

So now, you want to be wrong about filters and microplastics

[SoulMonster]

40 minutes ago, soon said:

You do easily get yourself confused.

No. You are not more informed then our scientists and reearchers. Nor our govt.

So your "scientists and researchers" claim that microplastics are dangerous to humans? That's major news, if true. I thought the reasonable decision to ban single use plastics would be to reduce microplastic in the ocean where it has a proven negative effect. Really interesting. Any source for this?

[soon]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

So your "scientists and researchers" claim that microplastics are dangerous to humans? That's major news, if true. I thought the reasonable decision to ban single use plastics would be to reduce microplastic in the ocean where it has a proven negative effect. Really interesting. Any source for this?

The correct statement that a rationale person would make is that we dont yet know the full extent of the harm caused to humans by consuming microplastics. More research is needed. And becasue you are not an informed, rationale or serious person, I have no interest in further educating you.

 

[SoulMonster]

8 minutes ago, soon said:

The correct statement that a rationale person would make is that we dont yet know the full extent of the harm caused to humans by consuming microplastics. More research is needed. And becasue you are not an informed, rationale or serious person, I have no interest in further educating you.

So the "scientific study" you talked about didn't present new data demonstrating harmful effects of microplastics on humans, after all? Alright. Then I suppose I was right all along when I pointed out:

"And for the record, there is no reason to assume microplastics are harmful to humans, the issue with it in tap water, or in any water really, is the accumulation of it in marine animals where it can be harmful. Kudos to Canada for this decision."

And most likely it is the concern to the environment, more so than to us humans directly, which is the reason for this ban on microplastics, and it ties in with similar bans all over the world which form a common effort to reduce microplastics in nature, in particular the oceans where it has been shown to be detrimental.

Thanks for this great little chat, always a pleasure.

[action]

15 minutes ago, soon said:

The correct statement that a rationale person would make is that we dont yet know the full extent of the harm caused to humans by consuming microplastics. More research is needed. And becasue you are not an informed, rationale or serious person, I have no interest in further educating you.

 

this is a correct assertion, and one that has a basis in international (environmental) law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

[soon]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

So the "scientific study" you talked about didn't present new data demonstrating harmful effects of microplastics on humans, after all? Alright. Then I suppose I was right all along when I pointed out:

"And for the record, there is no reason to assume microplastics are harmful to humans, the issue with it in tap water, or in any water really, is the accumulation of it in marine animals where it can be harmful. Kudos to Canada for this decision."

And most likely it is the concern to the environment, more so than to us humans directly, which is the reason for this ban on microplastics, and it ties in with similar bans all over the world which form a common effort to reduce microplastics in nature, in particular the oceans where it has been shown to be detrimental.

Thanks for this great little chat, always a pleasure.

WTF are you talking about? Is this Action Im speaking too? You just made that conclusion up based on nothing material. you think there are not studies yet - and youd like to be taken very seriously.  So odd and desperate.

Thank you for demonstrating my point that you arent worth my time.

I really do feel for you and your dizzy brain, sometimes

[action]

5 minutes ago, soon said:

WTF are you talking about? Is this Action Im speaking too? You just made that conclusion up based on nothing material. you think there are not studies yet - and youd like to be taken very seriously.  So odd and desperate.

Thank you for demonstrating my point that you arent worth my time.

I really do feel for you and your dizzy brain, sometimes

did someone call my name? here I am!

what issue can I help you to understand? 

[SoulMonster]

Just now, soon said:

WTF are you talking about? Is this Action Im speaking too? You just made that conclusion up based on nothing material. you think there are not studies yet - and youd like to be taken very seriously. 

Well, if I am wrong and there IS a Canadian paper that presents evidence for microplastics being harmful to humans, then I am sure I would have heard about it by now. Such things tend to end up in my feed pretty quickly. So yeah, I am confident that the study, and the resulting ban on single use plastics, is to reduce plastics in the environment, not protect humans directly. And as I read about this it turns out that the ban is happening under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and has the objective to not only reduce microplastics in nature but also macroplastics which tend to get ingested by marine birds and mammals

But hey, I am sure tap water filters can protect you from microplastics and chlorine so go for it! 

And again, great decision by Canada