| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament 23:11 - Jul 25 with 42158 views | StokieBlue |
Nice to see them all taking it so seriously, after all it was only 42.6C in Paris today.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49092653
SB [Post edited 25 Jul 2019 23:12]
|  |
| Avatar - M51 - The Whirlpool Galaxy - Taken on 29th April 2024 |
| |  |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 11:19 - Jul 28 with 1519 views | StokieBlue |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 10:19 - Jul 28 by caught-in-limbo |
The biggest difference between you and I is our culture. I assume you're from a AngloSaxon culture and have lived most of your life in that culture. That is not my culture, though I am familiar with it as one of my parents was from that culture and I lived in the UK for the first few years, though not brought up with that culture thrust upon me.
One of the hallmarks of a western anglo-salon culture like yours is the role of right and wrong in society. (Individualism is another and that also plays a part in how we think differently). You probably don't realise it, but it pervades your life total. Your legal system is based on, your religions are based on, your thoughts are based on it, every discussion you have with your friends and partners are based on it. This board is evidence of it every single minute of every single day. Who is right and who is wrong? And based on determining that, who is respected more, allowed to speak more and conversely who is disrespected and who ideally should be silenced.
You say yourself "Everyone else is wrong, CIL is right. That is the paradigm to which you post." That's the lens through which you see life. It's not the one I use mainly, and it rarely the one I use on this site.
When you understand this, and you probably never will, you will continue to view my comments as intentionally structured attempts to obfuscate.
I mentioned "individualism" earlier. It's connected to right and wrong in many ways. I'm sometimes accused of making everything about "me". That's simply not true either, but it's clear why DK, for example, thinks that way. Your culture looks at everyone as individuals and therefore think that I do too. As you know, Asian cultures look much more at society as a group, not as a number of individuals. The West's view on Human Rights, their political system and even their religions are far more rooted in the individual than Asian cultures.
I see these differences through my cultural lens and accept their existence as part of the nature of the universe. People from an Anglo-Saxon culture look at these differences through their lens and judge them as good/bad or better/worse. This is why I apparently frustrate you so much.
Tolerance is not just a question of accepting that people have differing skin colours, genders and names for their beliefs, it should also extend to accepting the different cultural lens through which we view and interpret the world. |
That's rather a lot of assumptions there and it's quite a stereotypical assessment.
If you substituted the words Anglo Saxon for African I suspect it would come over rather racist as well.
I don't think you're doing yourself any favours.
SB [Post edited 28 Jul 2019 11:19]
| |
| Avatar - M51 - The Whirlpool Galaxy - Taken on 29th April 2024 |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 11:21 - Jul 28 with 1508 views | Herbivore |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 11:19 - Jul 28 by StokieBlue |
That's rather a lot of assumptions there and it's quite a stereotypical assessment.
If you substituted the words Anglo Saxon for African I suspect it would come over rather racist as well.
I don't think you're doing yourself any favours.
SB [Post edited 28 Jul 2019 11:19]
|
That's just your Anglo-Saxon upbringing making you see it that way apparently. |  |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 11:24 - Jul 28 with 1504 views | eireblue |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 11:14 - Jul 28 by BanksterDebtSlave |
You should note that CIL has uppied my "that's the way to do it" response to Gordon's considered reply in which he acknowledges that debate is not over and does not resort to personal attack!
Taking in the views of the opposite side of an argument does not make one 'contrarian' that charge is often levelled by those that only want their view to be the settled one! |
From a Skeptical position.
If there is a consensus view, then to move people away from that view, needs to have very compelling, rigorous, critical and intellectual level of justification.
An example of successful contrarian is the doctor that revolutionised treatment of childhood leukaemia.
A real skeptic would look at the fact that 99% of scientific debate points to climate change being caused by humans, and would look at what should result from that.
To move people from that position, a real sceptic would demonstrate, with sufficient rigour why their position is different, and more likely to be the correct position.
That is a real Skeptical approach, that I assume, even Anglo-Saxons would respect.
Sitting on the fence, but only posting weak content from one side of the fence, is not Skeptical. |  | | |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 11:34 - Jul 28 with 1494 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 11:24 - Jul 28 by eireblue |
From a Skeptical position.
If there is a consensus view, then to move people away from that view, needs to have very compelling, rigorous, critical and intellectual level of justification.
An example of successful contrarian is the doctor that revolutionised treatment of childhood leukaemia.
A real skeptic would look at the fact that 99% of scientific debate points to climate change being caused by humans, and would look at what should result from that.
To move people from that position, a real sceptic would demonstrate, with sufficient rigour why their position is different, and more likely to be the correct position.
That is a real Skeptical approach, that I assume, even Anglo-Saxons would respect.
Sitting on the fence, but only posting weak content from one side of the fence, is not Skeptical. |
Although attacks on CIL in this thread started when she questioned the miracle of Greta being granted a voice....which has nothing to do with denying human induced climate change. |  |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 11:48 - Jul 28 with 1483 views | eireblue |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 11:34 - Jul 28 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Although attacks on CIL in this thread started when she questioned the miracle of Greta being granted a voice....which has nothing to do with denying human induced climate change. |
I haven’t “attacked” CIL, on anything other than the paper she posted.
I have been “attacked” for a culture, that is assumed, that means I am somehow not able to see things in shades of grey.
Do you think that is ok?
On the Greta thing.
I have posted on this similar topic before.
In summary, what I have observed is that there is reverse snobbery that is invoked against protesters, to attack them, and hence deride them and their cause.
E.g. people point out that the protester seemed to be middle class affluent studenty types.
Sometimes the people that want to protest, can’t. The people that can protest do son on behalf of all people.
Would you criticise the family background of Emmeline Pankhurst or Emily Davison, was it ever suggested William Wilbourforce wanted to make a profit out of new technology. | | | |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 11:57 - Jul 28 with 1472 views | Bluesquid |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 09:19 - Jul 28 by StokieBlue |
Coming from perhaps the worst pusher of conspiratorial nonsense on these boards I'm sure I'll live.
Perhaps if you actually read her replies without your huge bias you'd see that's an entirely correct statement given how she structures her replies. Hardly just me saying it either but nice you decide to reply to just my posts.
Give it a rest.
SB |
In this instance you name dropped me and had a dig which is why i replied or have you forgotten that?
You wonder why you got a reply and also suggest "giving it a rest" but seem to struggle to remember what you actually said less than 24 hours ago when you made a snide comment.
Is there someone at your end who can help you keep track of your blabbering? Just a suggestion. [Post edited 28 Jul 2019 12:00]
|  | | |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 12:04 - Jul 28 with 1462 views | gordon |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 10:19 - Jul 28 by caught-in-limbo |
The biggest difference between you and I is our culture. I assume you're from a AngloSaxon culture and have lived most of your life in that culture. That is not my culture, though I am familiar with it as one of my parents was from that culture and I lived in the UK for the first few years, though not brought up with that culture thrust upon me.
One of the hallmarks of a western anglo-salon culture like yours is the role of right and wrong in society. (Individualism is another and that also plays a part in how we think differently). You probably don't realise it, but it pervades your life total. Your legal system is based on, your religions are based on, your thoughts are based on it, every discussion you have with your friends and partners are based on it. This board is evidence of it every single minute of every single day. Who is right and who is wrong? And based on determining that, who is respected more, allowed to speak more and conversely who is disrespected and who ideally should be silenced.
You say yourself "Everyone else is wrong, CIL is right. That is the paradigm to which you post." That's the lens through which you see life. It's not the one I use mainly, and it rarely the one I use on this site.
When you understand this, and you probably never will, you will continue to view my comments as intentionally structured attempts to obfuscate.
I mentioned "individualism" earlier. It's connected to right and wrong in many ways. I'm sometimes accused of making everything about "me". That's simply not true either, but it's clear why DK, for example, thinks that way. Your culture looks at everyone as individuals and therefore think that I do too. As you know, Asian cultures look much more at society as a group, not as a number of individuals. The West's view on Human Rights, their political system and even their religions are far more rooted in the individual than Asian cultures.
I see these differences through my cultural lens and accept their existence as part of the nature of the universe. People from an Anglo-Saxon culture look at these differences through their lens and judge them as good/bad or better/worse. This is why I apparently frustrate you so much.
Tolerance is not just a question of accepting that people have differing skin colours, genders and names for their beliefs, it should also extend to accepting the different cultural lens through which we view and interpret the world. |
The GWPF / Koch Brothers type of Climate skepticism on show here is pretty entirely Anglo-Saxon in it's origin. It's a means of attempting to protect the shareholders of the global oil, gas and mining conglomerates who are pretty exclusively Anglo-Saxon and stand to lose billions and billions of assets if governments were to legislate effectively to reduce emissions quickly.
These companies own the rights to extract vast resources which are currently still in the ground - if we were to limit global co2 emissions to safe levels, these assets would effectively become worthless and the shareholders of these companies would lose massive amounts of money - that's why reports like the one being discussed here materialise.
Meanwhile, those who are will suffer the most extreme effects of climate change are not Anglo-Saxon - and, there are lots and lots of excellent climate scientists and practitioners dealing with the effect of climate change on the ground from Asia, Africa and South America. |  | | |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 12:14 - Jul 28 with 1451 views | Darth_Koont |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 11:24 - Jul 28 by eireblue |
From a Skeptical position.
If there is a consensus view, then to move people away from that view, needs to have very compelling, rigorous, critical and intellectual level of justification.
An example of successful contrarian is the doctor that revolutionised treatment of childhood leukaemia.
A real skeptic would look at the fact that 99% of scientific debate points to climate change being caused by humans, and would look at what should result from that.
To move people from that position, a real sceptic would demonstrate, with sufficient rigour why their position is different, and more likely to be the correct position.
That is a real Skeptical approach, that I assume, even Anglo-Saxons would respect.
Sitting on the fence, but only posting weak content from one side of the fence, is not Skeptical. |
"Sitting on the fence, but only posting weak content from one side of the fence, is not Skeptical."
Spot on.
A genuine sceptic doesn't play fast and loose with the truth or rely on specious arguments. Especially not moving the goalposts at every step but instead focusing closely on the details at hand.
I certainly question CIL's genuine interest in moving the debate, challenging the consensus or even caring about the underlying issues. Seems to be much more about promoting her view of herself as a "deep" thinker. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 12:14 - Jul 28 with 1450 views | caught-in-limbo |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 11:15 - Jul 28 by Herbivore |
Despite her protestations, CIL is one of the most blinkered posters on TWTD. She is dogmatic in her contrarian ways. |
A specific example or two to back that up would add a modicum of credibility to that claim. |  |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 12:19 - Jul 28 with 1436 views | Darth_Koont |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 11:34 - Jul 28 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Although attacks on CIL in this thread started when she questioned the miracle of Greta being granted a voice....which has nothing to do with denying human induced climate change. |
Yes, and then she moved the goalposts to something else.
No-one is denying that Thunberg has people behind her (family and a friend of the family who promoted her from the start) - and has now got the attention and backing of even more privileged and influential people. But that's reality and doesn't detract from her or more importantly the truthfulness of her message.
Question instead the people and their motivations who don't deal in truths, especially if that means starting with yourself. | |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 12:28 - Jul 28 with 1411 views | Herbivore |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 12:14 - Jul 28 by caught-in-limbo |
A specific example or two to back that up would add a modicum of credibility to that claim. |
How about the fact you take up a contrary opinion on pretty much every topic and selectively use evidence (usually of a poor quality) to try to back up your contrary view whilst never submitting said evidence to anything like the scrutiny you apply to any counter evidence? | |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 12:29 - Jul 28 with 1409 views | caught-in-limbo |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 11:19 - Jul 28 by StokieBlue |
That's rather a lot of assumptions there and it's quite a stereotypical assessment.
If you substituted the words Anglo Saxon for African I suspect it would come over rather racist as well.
I don't think you're doing yourself any favours.
SB [Post edited 28 Jul 2019 11:19]
|
So no specific example to present? Well, that's hardly a surprise.
There appears to be a pattern forming here. | |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 12:32 - Jul 28 with 1400 views | caught-in-limbo |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 11:24 - Jul 28 by eireblue |
From a Skeptical position.
If there is a consensus view, then to move people away from that view, needs to have very compelling, rigorous, critical and intellectual level of justification.
An example of successful contrarian is the doctor that revolutionised treatment of childhood leukaemia.
A real skeptic would look at the fact that 99% of scientific debate points to climate change being caused by humans, and would look at what should result from that.
To move people from that position, a real sceptic would demonstrate, with sufficient rigour why their position is different, and more likely to be the correct position.
That is a real Skeptical approach, that I assume, even Anglo-Saxons would respect.
Sitting on the fence, but only posting weak content from one side of the fence, is not Skeptical. |
"A real skeptic would look at the fact that 99% of scientific debate points to climate change being caused by humans, and would look at what should result from that."
A real scientist would provide a something a prove that claim. | |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 12:33 - Jul 28 with 1395 views | Darth_Koont |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 12:28 - Jul 28 by Herbivore |
How about the fact you take up a contrary opinion on pretty much every topic and selectively use evidence (usually of a poor quality) to try to back up your contrary view whilst never submitting said evidence to anything like the scrutiny you apply to any counter evidence? |
I can imagine CIL in a lab carrying out the same experiment 250 times without confirming her hypothesis. Then spending the next two years poring over the corporate structure of the test tube manufacturer to argue why the powers at be won't allow her theory to be confirmed. | |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 12:36 - Jul 28 with 1373 views | caught-in-limbo |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 11:34 - Jul 28 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Although attacks on CIL in this thread started when she questioned the miracle of Greta being granted a voice....which has nothing to do with denying human induced climate change. |
Well said. There appears to be some effort to assign a viewpoint that is not my own upon me.
My view has been stated at least a couple of times, but it would appear that is not the one that some on here want to challenge.
Misrepresentation is often used to "win" debates and discredit those who challenge official wisdom or beliefs. | |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 12:37 - Jul 28 with 1369 views | Ryorry |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 12:29 - Jul 28 by caught-in-limbo |
So no specific example to present? Well, that's hardly a surprise.
There appears to be a pattern forming here. |
Look, just a suggestion and feel free to ignore it of course, but you backed yourself into a corner early doors & have been trying unsuccessfully, with increasing desperation, to wriggle out of ever since, actually reducing your credibility in the process as several others have posted very solid stuff puncturing your balloon.
You'd be given more respect & taken more seriously if for once you just stuck your hand up & admitted you got it wrong. |  |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 12:38 - Jul 28 with 1367 views | caught-in-limbo |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 12:28 - Jul 28 by Herbivore |
How about the fact you take up a contrary opinion on pretty much every topic and selectively use evidence (usually of a poor quality) to try to back up your contrary view whilst never submitting said evidence to anything like the scrutiny you apply to any counter evidence? |
It's clear that you don't even know what my view is in this case then. | |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 12:40 - Jul 28 with 1363 views | caught-in-limbo |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 12:37 - Jul 28 by Ryorry |
Look, just a suggestion and feel free to ignore it of course, but you backed yourself into a corner early doors & have been trying unsuccessfully, with increasing desperation, to wriggle out of ever since, actually reducing your credibility in the process as several others have posted very solid stuff puncturing your balloon.
You'd be given more respect & taken more seriously if for once you just stuck your hand up & admitted you got it wrong. |
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Please cite evidence, otherwise it just looks like unsubstantiated accusations. I'm sure you don't want to do that. [Post edited 28 Jul 2019 12:43]
| |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 12:44 - Jul 28 with 1349 views | Ryorry |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 12:36 - Jul 28 by caught-in-limbo |
Well said. There appears to be some effort to assign a viewpoint that is not my own upon me.
My view has been stated at least a couple of times, but it would appear that is not the one that some on here want to challenge.
Misrepresentation is often used to "win" debates and discredit those who challenge official wisdom or beliefs. |
"Misrepresentation is often used to "win" debates and discredit those who challenge official wisdom or beliefs."
I agree that it is, notably by yourself on countless occasions on this forum over the years. | |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 12:45 - Jul 28 with 1346 views | Ryorry |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 12:40 - Jul 28 by caught-in-limbo |
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Please cite evidence, otherwise it just looks like unsubstantiated accusations. I'm sure you don't want to do that. [Post edited 28 Jul 2019 12:43]
|
Lol, read the thread CIL - you're just backing me up with that post! | |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 12:46 - Jul 28 with 1343 views | caught-in-limbo |
Thanks, I'll take a look at that and get back to you. It's family time now so I'll be off line for white a while. Cheers. | |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 12:47 - Jul 28 with 1337 views | DanTheMan |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 12:46 - Jul 28 by caught-in-limbo |
Thanks, I'll take a look at that and get back to you. It's family time now so I'll be off line for white a while. Cheers. |
That's an article on the study I posted earlier in my first reply on this thread, if you're interested in reading directly from the publishers. [Post edited 28 Jul 2019 12:47]
|  |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 13:14 - Jul 28 with 1305 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 11:48 - Jul 28 by eireblue |
I haven’t “attacked” CIL, on anything other than the paper she posted.
I have been “attacked” for a culture, that is assumed, that means I am somehow not able to see things in shades of grey.
Do you think that is ok?
On the Greta thing.
I have posted on this similar topic before.
In summary, what I have observed is that there is reverse snobbery that is invoked against protesters, to attack them, and hence deride them and their cause.
E.g. people point out that the protester seemed to be middle class affluent studenty types.
Sometimes the people that want to protest, can’t. The people that can protest do son on behalf of all people.
Would you criticise the family background of Emmeline Pankhurst or Emily Davison, was it ever suggested William Wilbourforce wanted to make a profit out of new technology. |
I didn't say you had.
On the wider point I think these matters can be addressed without it being a case of shooting the messenger to challenge the message. I had some interesting, non confrontational discussions at Latitude with the Extinction Rebellion lot for example about the wisdom of letting Emma Thompson (?) getting up on a boat to address the world....which did plenty to detract from getting the message to a wider demographic.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2018/02/suffragettes-women-100-ye | |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 13:22 - Jul 28 with 1301 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 12:19 - Jul 28 by Darth_Koont |
Yes, and then she moved the goalposts to something else.
No-one is denying that Thunberg has people behind her (family and a friend of the family who promoted her from the start) - and has now got the attention and backing of even more privileged and influential people. But that's reality and doesn't detract from her or more importantly the truthfulness of her message.
Question instead the people and their motivations who don't deal in truths, especially if that means starting with yourself. |
Ok so I do not doubt there is human induced climate change....so no fence sitting...but am happy to consider opposing points of view. At least you accept she was attacked prior to this report being introduced.
I have a sneaky suspicion that I question myself more than you do yours.
Edit...I doubt many people had the foggiest idea about the people behind and promoting Greta until it was raised here.
Edit2...before you say it , it is entirely possible to know this without it detracting from any message. [Post edited 28 Jul 2019 13:25]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
