Comments by "Cinderball" (@cinderball1135) on "Channel 4 News"
channel.
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
28
-
28
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
[Mild rant!]
I'm afraid I find it difficult to take people seriously when they dismiss Labour's defeat as being solely because they were "too left wing". It's grossly simplistic, and it glosses over the purpose of having multiple parties in the election. Why bother having two different parties at all, if both of them are vaguely centrist / right wing, and both broadly echo each other's policy positions?
And what's this about Boris Johnson's government somehow being "moderate"? It's not. The only way you can present Johnson as a moderate is by ignoring 90% of what he says and does, and cherrypicking the bits you want to hear. The reality is that breaking off our ties with the EU without a deal is an incredibly extreme position, and one that even Nigel Flipping Farage wouldn't dare stand on, during the 2016 referendum campaign!
I think right-wingers like him only make sense, if your memory and understanding of politics doesn't stretch back to the days before 2016. People like me who studied politics before Brexit was a glimmer in the mingy milkman's eye, will recognise a No-Deal scenario as a sudden and extreme divergence away from a course that we plotted nearly 50 years ago. There is nothing moderate about that.
And that's before we mention the fact that for no readily apparent reason, the Conservatives have decided to go after child refugees' rights and protections. Like I say, no readily apparent reason - it's not as though they promised to do this in their manifesto, and literally nobody asked them to do this. They just seem to have plucked this idea out of thin air, and included it in their white paper, without the remotest consideration for the harm it might do. This is not what a Moderate would do.
But hey, I suppose the purpose of panels like this is to get us discussing politics and engaging with other people's points of view, so mission accomplished. It's just a shame that people like Ollie are now considered part of the mainstream, instead of the right-wing kooks they really are.
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
21
-
21
-
A friendly reminder to some peculiarly angry commenters on this video: Channel 4 reports the news - it doesn't make the news.
If you're interested, I'll provide a broad overview of the problem below - please keep your replies civil:
It just so happens that we live on a planet with limited resources. I'm going to keep it simple, but the two resources which matter in this case are arable land and CO2 absorption. If you emit more CO2 faster than plants can absorb it, then that excess gas remains in the atmosphere, building up over time. Elementary stuff, I know, but not everybody's as clever as you, smartypants.
The purpose of farming is to produce calories for human consumption. Again for the sake of simplicity, I'm going to just boil it down to two broad ways we can obtain calories - meat and vegetables. Using the same amount of land and allowing the same amount of carbon emissions, vegetable farming wins every single time. When you want to produce meat calories (by raising animals) you actually have to create vegetable calories first and then feed them to your livestock. At a conservative estimate, when you farm animals, 90% of the calories produced by the system are straight-up wasted this way.
Remember, the amount of arable land in the system is a fixed quantity. So once we reach a certain population count, the land simply cannot support a growing population that relies on meat. If we swap over to vegetable production, then we can increase the carrying capacity almost ten times over.
In fact, because of the cavernous difference in efficiencies, it would be very possible for people to continue eating meat in reasonable quantities well into the future, without cutting the population at all, and potentially leaving quite a bit of arable land to spare. However, there will be a tradeoff. Either we exceed the carrying capacity of the Earth, or we cut our present meat consumption down.
Notice how I explained this without once adopting a political viewpoint. That is what Channel 4 has also done. Raging against vegans isn't going to change the cold, hard, mathematical realities of living on a planet with finite resources.
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16