Jump to content

Teenager Thunberg angrily tells U.N. climate summit 'you have stolen my dreams'


webfact

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
6 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

 

You can throw whatever you like. Other than tossing hollow political labels about - no actual support for such alliance provided by you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

I have, guess you haven't - because it doesn't actually make the nonsense argument you're trying to push.

Great, since you have read it, then you have noticed this:

 

Quote

Anarchists, along with Marxists, Maoists and anarcho-syndicalists, are usually among the most visible, vocal and violent elements that participate in antifa protests.

Last I checked Marxists and Maoists are communists.

 

Anyway, I see what you're getting at, and I think I was wrong. The original question was why didn't Greta attack China. I suspected it was because her group has commie alliances, but there was a good comment that mentioned China is no longer communist, instead Xi has pushed it over the edge to full on fascism. The trick they pulled was letting the world think that hasn't happened and yeah, fooled me too. 

 

The real question then remains.. why didn't she attack China, if she is a CO2 believer and anti-fascist, as China is the very obvious target. It just became a really good question. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

Great, since you have read it, then you have noticed this:

 

Last I checked Marxists and Maoists are communists.

 

Anyway, I see what you're getting at, and I think I was wrong. The original question was why didn't Greta attack China. I suspected it was because her group has commie alliances, but there was a good comment that mentioned China is no longer communist, instead Xi has pushed it over the edge to full on fascism. The trick they pulled was letting the world think that hasn't happened and yeah, fooled me too. 

 

The real question then remains.. why didn't she attack China, if she is a CO2 believer and anti-fascist, as China is the very obvious target. It just became a really good question. 

 

What I notice is that you cherry pick. The article you linked makes the case that Antifa is not quite as ideologically consistent, "pure" or solid - but rather, that it appears to be more of a greenhouse for discontented people who are into a bit of the ultraviolence. Asserting from the above that there's an "alliance" is quite a leap.

 

As said, IMO you're reading way too much into political labels and manifestos.

 

I don't know that "why didn't she attack China" is the "real question". That you see it as something central and nefarious doesn't mean a whole lot. One obvious explanation (if not a particularly satisfactory one) is that it's easier to affect change on these issue in other countries. Can't say I care all that much either way - the ones inflating her importance are either fanboys or haters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well how else could it work. There are roughly 35,000 climatologists. How is it that they wouldn't be challenging each other if their research was consistently false? How would their journals know which papers to reject and which to accept? The only way the widespread propagation of a falsehood that you profess acc to be is if there is a conspiracy. 


I said nothing of their data being false, nor did I claim they were wrong.

Again, if you had a real argument, you would not resort to making stuff up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Morch said:

What I notice is that you cherry pick. The article you linked makes the case that Antifa is not quite as ideologically consistent, "pure" or solid - but rather, that it appears to be more of a greenhouse for discontented people who are into a bit of the ultraviolence. Asserting from the above that there's an "alliance" is quite a leap.

 

As said, IMO you're reading way too much into political labels and manifestos.

 

I don't know that "why didn't she attack China" is the "real question". That you see it as something central and nefarious doesn't mean a whole lot. One obvious explanation (if not a particularly satisfactory one) is that it's easier to affect change on these issue in other countries. Can't say I care all that much either way - the ones inflating her importance are either fanboys or haters.

Well they did note it too:

Quote

In the end, both fascists and communists/anarchists strived to dominate the world based on diametrically opposed utopian narratives: the Aryan Third Reich versus an international workers' paradise. Both of these ideologies opposed — and continue to do so — the current bourgeois political and capitalist economic system in the United States and the West. They seek to overthrow the current world systems with new orders, which is why it is no surprise that anarchists and communists — whatever their enduring differences of opinion on how to organize society — detest the police as representatives of the state and frequently clash with them during protests. During demonstrations, they also often vandalize businesses and destroy property belonging to multinational companies.

That's the unholy alliance I was referring to. I'm with the 'bourgeois political and capitalist economic system in the United States and the West', apparently.

 

Why is Greta not attacking China the real question? Because if she was serious about CO2, that's where you'd sink your teeth into. I did previously mention that maybe she just likes to stir <deleted> up. Would be the obvious answer, she's just doing it fot the sake of doing it, instead of trying to point out the real culprits. Yapping at UN where many of the members are bending backwards for the CO2 crusade (which I don't believe in, but it matches other goals I do support like greentech so another unholy alliance)  is unproductive. Wrong tree, wrong crusade. I kinda dig her style, though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

Well they did note it too:

That's the unholy alliance I was referring to. I'm with the 'bourgeois political and capitalist economic system in the United States and the West', apparently.

 

Why is Greta not attacking China the real question? Because if she was serious about CO2, that's where you'd sink your teeth into. I did previously mention that maybe she just likes to stir <deleted> up. Would be the obvious answer, she's just doing it fot the sake of doing it, instead of trying to point out the real culprits. Yapping at UN where many of the members are bending backwards for the CO2 crudade (which I don't believe in, but it matches other goals I do support like greentech so another unholy alliance)  is unproductive. Wrong tree, wrong crusade. I kinda dig her style, though. 

 

You may refer to whatever you like, but there's nothing about an "alliance" in the bit you quoted. Having a common adversary doesn't imply such an alliance exists.

 

The real question, for me, is why some are apparently obsessed with her. She's a teen. She's today's main show. Remains to be seen if she'll stick around. My personal best guess - not. It's kinda amusing some on here do their best to disparage her, with the result being more of an attention generator.

 

I don't have any real expectations out of her, not holding her to the lofty standards some posters appear to relate (or for that matter, herself too). She's a kid. And kids dreaming of changing the World is normal. She got something that's closer to it than most. Whether she's clueless or whether she does or doesn't go on about China? Who cares.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

The real question, for me, is why some are apparently obsessed with her. She's a teen. She's today's main show. Remains to be seen if she'll stick around. My personal best guess - not. It's kinda amusing some on here do their best to disparage her, with the result being more of an attention generator.

You answered your own question. It's the hottest thread around here, tends to pull in attention. Dead boring in the Thai news section. 

 

I think I'll join your guess, she's 16, people change when they get to their 20's and we should be dead because of climate change by then anyway, if the CO2 theory proves to be true. No idea to which direction she'll go, but dear flying spaghetti monster, please don't let it be into militant feminism. I'm having nightmares just thinking about that. Since she's Swedish chances are good, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

 

 

I think I'll join your guess, she's 16, people change when they get to their 20's and we should be dead because of climate change by then anyway, if the CO2 theory proves to be true. 

Be of good cheer. Climatologists are predicting no such thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DrTuner said:

You answered your own question. It's the hottest thread around here, tends to pull in attention. Dead boring in the Thai news section. 

 

I think I'll join your guess, she's 16, people change when they get to their 20's and we should be dead because of climate change by then anyway, if the CO2 theory proves to be true. No idea to which direction she'll go, but dear flying spaghetti monster, please don't let it be into militant feminism. I'm having nightmares just thinking about that. Since she's Swedish chances are good, though.

i dont know if it counts, but one of our very own

climate specialist here on tvf foresee

that we will have to evacuate thailand in a near future

due to, wait for it, climate change

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/26/2019 at 6:54 PM, JamesBlond said:

That the world would be full of birds, bees and flowers for her generation and generations to come, perhaps. These things can no longer be taken for granted. Populations of all of them have plumetted in just a few years. Mock if you will, but Nature is the touchstone of all meaning. It is rapidly being stripped out of life by technology. This is the existential threat.

I agree. All caused by overpopulation and human greed. Not proven that caused by rising CO2 levels.

 

Mock? When someone's mother claims that their daughter can see CO2 in the air, they lay themselves open to mockery.

Don't believe that? Google it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Morch said:

The real question, for me, is why some are apparently obsessed with her.

IMO that's simple. She's put herself up as a "leader" in the climate change debate, addressing the grown ups in the UN, and having a little rant about her dreams. 

Anyone putting themselves in such a position should expect some stick.

IMO no one is obsessed with her, but she's a convenient target for now, and she'll probably be yesterday's news in a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO that's simple. She's put herself up as a "leader" in the climate change debate, addressing the grown ups in the UN, and having a little rant about her dreams. 

Anyone putting themselves in such a position should expect some stick.

IMO no one is obsessed with her, but she's a convenient target for now, and she'll probably be yesterday's news in a while.

 

Guess we have a different take on what counts as "stick" and what amounts to "obsessing". Given many of the comments on this topic, I think you either didn't bother reading, or glossing over some parts. 60 pages is a wee bit more than the standard "stick" for tvf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Guess we have a different take on what counts as "stick" and what amounts to "obsessing". Given many of the comments on this topic, I think you either didn't bother reading, or glossing over some parts. 60 pages is a wee bit more than the standard "stick" for tvf.

LOL. More pages for the thread about believing in God. 60 pages is probably normal for this sort of subject. 

There isn't much of interest going on these days, apparently, and it beats asking where the best burger in Pattaya is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Guess we have a different take on what counts as "stick" and what amounts to "obsessing". Given many of the comments on this topic, I think you either didn't bother reading, or glossing over some parts. 60 pages is a wee bit more than the standard "stick" for tvf.


Yeah, sixty pages and we’re getting into Trump and Brexit obsession. Once we break a hundred we’ll be getting close to duel-pricing....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, DrTuner said:

I did previously mention that maybe she just likes to stir <deleted> up. Would be the obvious answer, she's just doing it fot the sake of doing it, instead of trying to point out the real culprits.

Doesn't she just do what her handlers tell her to? A 16 year old girl doesn't get to address that U N on her own merits. She has to have powerful backers with an agenda. Carbon fiber yachts are not cheap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, RideJocky said:

 


I said nothing of their data being false, nor did I claim they were wrong.

Again, if you had a real argument, you would not resort to making stuff up.
 

 

Not much. Here's what you wrote:

 

"If the IPCC disagreed they’d all be looking for work. They (like the 97%) have a vested interest."

 

So their research isn't false but their the results of their research are due to having " a vested interest." and not based on ascertaining the facts?

Who are you kidding? Unless you can explain why your statement doesn't accuse them of dishonesty, what other explanation can there be for your contention?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Doesn't she just do what her handlers tell her to? A 16 year old girl doesn't get to address that U N on her own merits. She has to have powerful backers with an agenda. Carbon fiber yachts are not cheap.

 

Could you name these handlers and powerful backers?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/24/2019 at 12:45 AM, webfact said:

"This is all wrong. I shouldn't be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean yet you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you?" said Thunberg, 16, her voice quavering with emotion.

 

"You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words," she said.

You tell them Greta, they need to hear what the actions of the past and inaction of the present have cost the next generation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

You tell them Greta, they need to hear what the actions of the past and inaction of the present have cost the next generation.

Thats right Greta ,you tell us ,tell us how we lived without Mobile phones,x boxes ,foreign holidays ,no drinking water in plastic bottles ,our milk in glass bottles which we returned ,our lemonade in glass bottles which we took back and got two pence for , tell us how we did without plastic carries bags ,and how we only had a small amount of clothes not wardrobes full ,come on tell us how we didnt fly off all around the world on holidays and junkets and last of all tell us how our parents looked after us and did not use us when we had mental health troubles and did not let us be used ,come on Greta do tell us .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...