Watch "Dear Greta, Are Trees Worth More Than Babies?" on YouTube

  • Thread starter Thread starter SaberBob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
blackforest said:
Has Thunberg argued for abortion as a means of population control?
Click to expand...
I would be thrilled to discover that Ms. Thunberg is against abortion!

It would be interesting to see how quickly she would be ignored by the media, the journalists, and the entertainment establishment if she made it clear that she was opposed to abortion on the grounds that it is the killing of innocent human beings!

Dream on, Peeps!

Look what happens when any Hollywood big shot declares themselves “pro-life.” The only one who gets away with it is Jack Nicholson. Everyone else gets skewered by critics from then on.

However, even if Ms. Thunberg is anti-abortion, it would not make a difference in her zealous fight against a world that she seems to have little understanding of. Implementing many of the extreme climate change ideas would put millions out of work and out of hope.

Sure, lets work towards cleaner energy and more responsible stewardship of the earth, but in a reasonable, intellectual, and adult way that doesn’t result in the destruction of scientific progress and prosperity.
 
Last edited:
Peeps said:
It’s not speculation. Several articles from reliable sources in her home country discussed Ms. Thunberg’s struggles with various mental illnesses.
Click to expand...
If it’s true, then it’s wonderful. It’s about time society recognized that the mentally ill can also achieve greatness. For Thunberg, it’s activism. Other mentally ill individuals have become revolutionary artists, musicians, writers, and political leaders.

It is, however, irrelevant to her arguments about the need to stem climate change.
Annie said:
I agree with older adults not infantilizing younger adults 🙂
Click to expand...
But it’s OK with teens?
Annie said:
I’ve known activists for over 40 years, so I have had a chance to see how they change as they get older and more experienced.
Click to expand...
Anyone can get more experienced at anything. But everyone has to start somewhere.
Annie said:
Which is why I said all too often. 😉
Click to expand...
It’s a generalization. 🙂 “All too often” is a term “not confined by specialization or careful limitation.” Every cause has its hypocrites. I certainly hope you aren’t holding climate change activists to a higher standard of virtue simply because you disagree with them.

I have Christmas celebrations to prepare for, so you can get the last jab in for the day . . .
Peeps said:
Implementing many of the extreme climate change ideas would put millions out of work and out of hope.
Click to expand...
Pull-ease. The entitled daddy in the video, (see original post), won’t even limit his red meat consumption or driving habits.
 
Last edited:
FiveLinden said:
By definition, in the worst-case scenario, it will.
Click to expand...
No. The climate models in the worst case scenario indicate an increase in sea levels, climate changes and extinction of a large number of species. Climatic events of the past were even worse and yet we’re still here.
Humans will survive because we adapt easily. Also, climatic changes will drive species to other regions. They aren’t going to sit there and die. No, they’re going to move. Of course, not all species can migrate easily nor could they compete with others. Also, Svalbard is home to a seed bank so that plant species are preserved.
FiveLinden said:
But we need to remember the 99% of known species are extinct and only one hominoid species remains of possible a dozen or more. There is nothing to say we will survive.
Click to expand...
That 99% of species going extinct is questionable. IIRC, most of those are insects and may not have been categorized as seperate species. I might try to find that again if I can.
I found this (emphasis mine):
More than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species,[1] that ever lived on Earth are estimated to have died out.[2][3][4] Estimates on the number of Earth’s current species range from 10 million to 14 million,[5] of which about 1.2 million have been documented and over 86 percent have not yet been described.[6] In 2016, scientists reported that 1 trillion species are estimated to be on Earth currently with only one thousandth of one percent described.[7]
Extinction - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
So your 99% figure includes ancient microbes, neanderthals and dinosaurs. And “species” at times can be subjective. There are new species discovered because an existing one looks so similar. Unintentional goal post moving needs to be considered.
And “insectageddon” was debunked by the BBC in 9 minutes because the methodology in the paper cited by the media was inherently flawed:


So we can easily say using inaccurate data and misrepresented models is not proper policy making. We should always critically question statistics and figures that are commonly cited.
And panicking helps no one. Panicking is how some fires kill hundreds because people panic and they get trampled. In emergencies, you’re supposed to remain calm and level-headed.
 
Last edited:
Peeps said:
It’s not speculation. Several articles from reliable sources in her home country discussed Ms. Thunberg’s struggles with various mental illnesses.
Click to expand...
Ms. Thunberg’s mental illnesses, particularly her Asperger’s, aren’t things that can be “resolved.” You live with them and develop coping strategies. In some cases there may be medication. But it’s not like she has some kind of Freudian complex that she needs to deal with in therapy before she can be a contributing member of society.
 
Peeps said:
The science is rock-solid–an embryo is a human being. Someone who claims scientific expertise about climate change but does not recognize this fact is not credible.
Click to expand...
The argument is not over whether a zygote, embryo or fetus is a human being. The argument is over whether it is a human being with a right to occupy another human being if that other human does not wish it. The first, I agree, is a question of science. The second is a question of philosophy. ‘Child’ is not a scientific concept. It is socially defined. Some consider human beings before birth or viability to be children, some do not, and some consider them on a continuum from non-child status to child status achieved at birth. When you characterise pro-choice people as not getting ‘facts’ you ignore their actual understandings and this means you cannot influence them.
 
Last edited:
Good message about standing up for the rights of the unborn.

But how dare you, those on the political right who talk about saving babies, yet pass laws that hurt the most vulnerable of society, the poor.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
Understood properly: abortion, climate change, and a number of other issues all fall under the same tent, which is upholding the dignity of human life and creation, and its source is in the Great Commandment, which is to love the Lord your God with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your body and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself.
 
Anonkun said:
The problem is Thunberg and her ilk support a broad social policy that includes…
Click to expand...
There is no common broad social policy that is supported by Greta and her “ilk”. And you certainly don’t know if Greta herself supports anything other than reducing carbon emissions.
 
Correct. It is a stereotype and not a rule.

And if a person doesn’t like the social policies that a group of people are supporting then the absolute last thing they should do is vacate participation in the discussion. Except, unfortunately, that is exactly what sometimes happens even among world leaders.
 
Last edited:
repentant2 said:
And yeah I’m going to go out on a lim and say Gretas parents probably raised her to be pro abortion and that climate is more important than what to them would just be a fetus and not a baby.
Click to expand...
Along the same lines, I’m going to go out on a limb and say many pro-life conservatives are actually more concerned with lowering taxes than preventing abortion. I’ve got no data to back up my assertion, just as you have no data to back up yours.
 
Also agree.

A lot of conservatives actually care more about lowering taxes, keeping their guns and don’t really care for the poor. At worst, they demonize the poor.

Of course not all conservatives are like this.
 
I feel for Greta. She is a child. Her views may not be totally formed. Mine aren’t and I am in my sixties. As I understand her mental issues are Aspergers and ADHD problems she shares with many great people in history.
 
I too have Aspergers and ADHD.

I understand the challenges she faces.

It’s difficult to deal with when young and one doesn’t have the coping strategies only obtained through experience.
 
Last edited:
Nope.

I’ve been a conservative since I realized what the nature of the world actually was.
 
Greta herself is an underaged savant baby. No point asking her anything. What if she says yes?
I understand the political subtleties of eco-terrorism, however I fail to see why, claimed fully functional people, take it up against Greta T, an Asperger sensible child, raised with eco-concerns. Does she lack discernment? How about her critics? Why don’t her critics man-up and go to UN, like she did, and talk with people in power about this problem? Why don’t her critics also go bow and praise the businesses she accuses of polluting (how much of Earth population is babies born in say petrol or air-born companies) and say they support those businesses? Going negative and attack the speaker, hides many sins including indecisions.
 
Last edited:
Mary888 said:
Why don’t her critics man-up and go to UN, like she did, and talk with people in power about this problem?
Click to expand...
Suppose I tried to speak to the UN about my concerns about their policies?

They would not let me speak, because 1) I don’t agree with them, and 2) I am not a young famous leader of youth with something the UN considers profound.
 
Annie said:
with something the UN considers profound.
Click to expand...
They didn’t. They laughed at her. Now of course someone up there helped her come forth, but apparently it was only so she can laughed at by some big belly (metaphor ) leaders.
Probably Greta would reply that without the trees the babies will be suffocated to death across their lifetime so she will present the fact that babies need trees.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top