ChatterBank1 min ago
Miss Greta Tonight
298 Answers
Anybody going to watch ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Samuraisan. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
pixie - // Andy, please tell us what you disagree with about what she has said, rather than who you think she is. //
I have been entirely consistent in my view on Ms Thunburg on this thread, and every other thread on the subject on which I have posted.
I don;t diagree with what she says because I have no idea what she says, I have no interest in either hearing or reading her views.
That is not because what she says may or may not be true, I genuinely do not care either way.
I object to the notion that being a teenager, with or without Aspergers, somehow gives you a brand new groundbreaking slant on a complex scientifi subject which for the sake of argument, you studied to the exclusion of anythying else from, say, four years old, that gives you a grand totlal of four years - which is when she claims she picked up an interest in the subject, and fourteen years until today.
That in my opinion does not give the the knowledge or life experience to address world leaders in a meaningful fashion likely to make them take an iota of notice of what she says.
As I have said, and I repeat - what she says may be true, it may not, but either way, I am not going to embrace what she says because someone thinks that her being a teenager makes her views any more fruitful or logical or true than anything that has been said before by plenty of people who have spent a lifetime studying the subject.
I believe she is a damaged individual being exploited for gain by her parents and others, and I think that is deeply reprehensible manipulation of a vulnerable child - and for people to play along with this facile notion that she has something groundbreaking to add to the discussion is frankly not worth my time.
Yes teenagers are concerned, but the arrogance of a position that says she and her age range are being 'failed' is simply the blind posturing of youth, as it always was, and always will be.
// ummm says, quite rightly, she has aspergers. There is every possibility that she knows far more about what she is saying than her parents do. //
That is not relevent - she is exploited like a freak show, and that is morally repugnant, however lofty the supposed 'message' may claim to be.
I have been entirely consistent in my view on Ms Thunburg on this thread, and every other thread on the subject on which I have posted.
I don;t diagree with what she says because I have no idea what she says, I have no interest in either hearing or reading her views.
That is not because what she says may or may not be true, I genuinely do not care either way.
I object to the notion that being a teenager, with or without Aspergers, somehow gives you a brand new groundbreaking slant on a complex scientifi subject which for the sake of argument, you studied to the exclusion of anythying else from, say, four years old, that gives you a grand totlal of four years - which is when she claims she picked up an interest in the subject, and fourteen years until today.
That in my opinion does not give the the knowledge or life experience to address world leaders in a meaningful fashion likely to make them take an iota of notice of what she says.
As I have said, and I repeat - what she says may be true, it may not, but either way, I am not going to embrace what she says because someone thinks that her being a teenager makes her views any more fruitful or logical or true than anything that has been said before by plenty of people who have spent a lifetime studying the subject.
I believe she is a damaged individual being exploited for gain by her parents and others, and I think that is deeply reprehensible manipulation of a vulnerable child - and for people to play along with this facile notion that she has something groundbreaking to add to the discussion is frankly not worth my time.
Yes teenagers are concerned, but the arrogance of a position that says she and her age range are being 'failed' is simply the blind posturing of youth, as it always was, and always will be.
// ummm says, quite rightly, she has aspergers. There is every possibility that she knows far more about what she is saying than her parents do. //
That is not relevent - she is exploited like a freak show, and that is morally repugnant, however lofty the supposed 'message' may claim to be.
It is possible that we are arguing completely different things. In any case, I can only recommend that you spend less time explaining why what she says isn't important, and more time learning about the topic in question. After all, if you know nothing about something, what harm is there in going ahead and expanding your knowledge?
jim - //
// I have never ever claimed to know anything whatsoever about the subject of climate change... //
Even aside the fact that this total lack of knowledge hasn't stopped you from commenting on the topic in the past, what this also shows is that, despite your long life, you've never looked into the topic. What use then, on this specific topic, that you are older? Someone who was younger, but was motivated to research a topic, will know more on that topic than anybody older than them.
Which, frankly, shouldn't require spelling out. This is how research works. No doubt there are things that Thunberg understands far less well than you do, because you have looked into them and she has not. That, again, is nothing to do with age. Her age is therefore irrelevant; what matters is the message, and, as you have established, you are in no position to evaluate it. //
I appear to not be making my point clearly -
My issue is not whether or not Ms Thunburg is right or wrong in what she says - it is simply that she is regurgitating complex information which she is simply not old enough to understand, because her parents have parlayed the fatuous notion that becuase she is a teenager, her spouting has greater relevenace and / or accuracy - and that is simply not a viable position for her to adopt.
// I have never ever claimed to know anything whatsoever about the subject of climate change... //
Even aside the fact that this total lack of knowledge hasn't stopped you from commenting on the topic in the past, what this also shows is that, despite your long life, you've never looked into the topic. What use then, on this specific topic, that you are older? Someone who was younger, but was motivated to research a topic, will know more on that topic than anybody older than them.
Which, frankly, shouldn't require spelling out. This is how research works. No doubt there are things that Thunberg understands far less well than you do, because you have looked into them and she has not. That, again, is nothing to do with age. Her age is therefore irrelevant; what matters is the message, and, as you have established, you are in no position to evaluate it. //
I appear to not be making my point clearly -
My issue is not whether or not Ms Thunburg is right or wrong in what she says - it is simply that she is regurgitating complex information which she is simply not old enough to understand, because her parents have parlayed the fatuous notion that becuase she is a teenager, her spouting has greater relevenace and / or accuracy - and that is simply not a viable position for her to adopt.
jim - // I can only recommend that you spend less time explaining why what she says isn't important, and more time learning about the topic in question. //
I have never ever said that '... what she says isn't important ... ' my issue is with the notion that because she is a child, her version of previously stated information is somehow new and groundbreaking and she is the same - and that is simply not true.
I have never ever said that '... what she says isn't important ... ' my issue is with the notion that because she is a child, her version of previously stated information is somehow new and groundbreaking and she is the same - and that is simply not true.
Andy, ignoring her because you think she is too young, is your choice, but doesn't make her wrong. Neither is she "vulnerable" necessarily. It seems a bit patronising tbh. Most likely she knows more than you or me about some things and less about others. That never changes, with anyone. But you never learn, if you never listen.
And I know you do.... I just can't see why she in particular, has nothing worth listening to?
And I know you do.... I just can't see why she in particular, has nothing worth listening to?
jim - //
ZM's quote was literally from your post at 21:59 today. //
I stand corrected - my apologies to zac.
What I should have typed was that I neither agree or disagree with what she says because I have never actually heard or read anything she has said.
My argument is not with what she says, it is with the notion that because she is a teenager with Aspergers, it makes her some sort of Joan Of Arc - it doesn't, but that is my argument, nothing more than that.
ZM's quote was literally from your post at 21:59 today. //
I stand corrected - my apologies to zac.
What I should have typed was that I neither agree or disagree with what she says because I have never actually heard or read anything she has said.
My argument is not with what she says, it is with the notion that because she is a teenager with Aspergers, it makes her some sort of Joan Of Arc - it doesn't, but that is my argument, nothing more than that.
pixie - //
Andy, ignoring her because you think she is too young, is your choice, but doesn't make her wrong. //
I am not ignoring her because i think she is too young, I am ignoring her because I think her approach to climate change - as I understand it, is naive in the extreme, but I may be wrong, I honestly lack the will or inclination to explore the subject at all.
I would ignore any child who held forth with such pseudo-authority about any subject as complex as climate change clearly is, because she has not lived long enough to espouse her views, which are clearly the views of others filtered through the bizarre novelty of the freak show her parents have created around her.
Neither is she "vulnerable" necessarily. It seems a bit patronising tbh. Most likely she knows more than you or me about some things and less about others. That never changes, with anyone. But you never learn, if you never listen.
And I know you do.... I just can't see why she in particular, has nothing worth listening to? //
I don't say she is not worth listening to - I say she is not saying anything new or different - she simply appears different because of her presentation, and the vast amount of baeless hype that surrounds her.
How do I know she is not saying anytying new or different? bercause if she was, the sceintific community, who laregely appear to ignmore her, and the world leaders, who comprensively ignore her in any meaningful way, would be taking a lot more notice, and she would be in the news for something other than being under the age of consent and suffering from a mental condition.
Andy, ignoring her because you think she is too young, is your choice, but doesn't make her wrong. //
I am not ignoring her because i think she is too young, I am ignoring her because I think her approach to climate change - as I understand it, is naive in the extreme, but I may be wrong, I honestly lack the will or inclination to explore the subject at all.
I would ignore any child who held forth with such pseudo-authority about any subject as complex as climate change clearly is, because she has not lived long enough to espouse her views, which are clearly the views of others filtered through the bizarre novelty of the freak show her parents have created around her.
Neither is she "vulnerable" necessarily. It seems a bit patronising tbh. Most likely she knows more than you or me about some things and less about others. That never changes, with anyone. But you never learn, if you never listen.
And I know you do.... I just can't see why she in particular, has nothing worth listening to? //
I don't say she is not worth listening to - I say she is not saying anything new or different - she simply appears different because of her presentation, and the vast amount of baeless hype that surrounds her.
How do I know she is not saying anytying new or different? bercause if she was, the sceintific community, who laregely appear to ignmore her, and the world leaders, who comprensively ignore her in any meaningful way, would be taking a lot more notice, and she would be in the news for something other than being under the age of consent and suffering from a mental condition.
pixie - // Surely, any argument should be with what she actually says, not who she is... in your view. //
How can it be?
Her entire selling point is who she is - her age and her condition.
Take that away, and she may well be saying exactly the same as Al Gore, or David Attenborough, or any scientist - but that is not why she gets to have documentaries made about her.
If I was going to address the world on a subject dear to me, I would want the focus to be on my message, not on me - and you have to admit, in her case, it is absolutely not on her message, and entirely on her.
How can it be?
Her entire selling point is who she is - her age and her condition.
Take that away, and she may well be saying exactly the same as Al Gore, or David Attenborough, or any scientist - but that is not why she gets to have documentaries made about her.
If I was going to address the world on a subject dear to me, I would want the focus to be on my message, not on me - and you have to admit, in her case, it is absolutely not on her message, and entirely on her.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.