Comments by "Mat Broomfield" (@matbroomfield) on "Channel 4 News"
channel.
-
565
-
343
-
311
-
250
-
204
-
171
-
137
-
133
-
126
-
116
-
114
-
112
-
105
-
98
-
90
-
89
-
88
-
86
-
83
-
79
-
74
-
73
-
70
-
62
-
61
-
60
-
59
-
58
-
57
-
56
-
55
-
51
-
50
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
44
-
43
-
40
-
40
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@timingmile7030 Men DO hold each other accountable. And yet again, you are blaming men. How about if I say "It's time for women to hold each other accountable for the majority of child murders that they commit?" You'd rightly be outraged. The LAW opposes rape and murder. Men in prison treat rapists and murders incredibly harshly. There's no place in society where a rapist or murderer would not be a pariah. Children of both sexes are taught that violence is wrong from the earliest age both at school and home. What more do you think "men" should be doing?
As for the law being consistent in locking violent men away, that's a complicated subject. I don't entirely disagree, but that's not entirely the law, that's social workers who turn up at court with sob stories. Ironically, due to an excess of compassion - a trait which, I would point out, tends to be associated with WOMEN not men.
Face it, women have NEVER and will NEVER be 100% safe alone. Just like you can never be 100% certain that you will not be attacked by a dog while you are out. But it's incredibly rare. Looking at the 1 in a million exception and using that to make broad declarations about society in general is unreasonable. Each of us needs to take sensible steps to ensure our own safety. This woman's horrible murder is a tragedy. I just don't know what else can reasonably be done. If this was YOUR town, would you be willing to sacrifice other services services to place monitored cameras along every inch of footpaths? If it was your son at school, would you be satisfied with him being assigned collective responsibility for all attacks, or taught as a teenager that he is a potential rapist?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@realthings5821 I know you think you're being clever, but you're really not. UK scientists went against WHO advice, and Bozo went against the advice of British scientists. The second they started talking about herd immunity it was clear to any remotely intelligent person that it was as ludicrous as Sweden's plan not to lockdown at all.
Similarly, when they told me I couldn't go out at all, or to the beach, or far away, or for long walks it was clear that these things were prohibitions designed (belatedly) to simplify the message, not because they decreased our odds of transmission. If I went for a walk of 200 miles but maintained distancing and touched nothing, there was zero risk to me.
Now when they say it's okay for schools to reopen, I will NOT be returning to the school I work at part time and whilst the science on schools is constantly evolving and sometimes contradictory, I will NOT be guided by a man whose prime objective is to get the drones working and supporting the corporate machine once more.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@RubenWhitter "What about being an adult suggests that you can't read a piece of paper?" You're kidding right? Most adults don't fully read their mortgages, bank loans, finances, or most other documents with serious implications. They're written in legalese that is impenetrable to most people. Now add to that these students' inexperience.
As for predicting their jobs, most university students NEVER use their degrees in their chosen fields, and the majority of those who choose majors because they will be good career choices, don't stick in those careers.
Also, "future lawyers and doctors?" You think that's the only two subjects students study at university? And even if it was, until they are TRAINED as lawyers, why would they be any better at this stuff than anyone else?
You're making so many assumptions, and I'm going to bet that you would not rise to the standards you hold them to. Did you read every word of your car loan? Your bank account? Phone contract?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+C06 Kll4r I just pulled a random number out of the air. There's a world of difference between expressing opinions and being prepared to action them. And what does "ISIS supporter" mean? that they are soldiers? That they are willing to go die alongside them, or that they like the idea of someone militarily standing up for their faith?
And I have to take issue with the wording of the poll.
Suppose I say to you, "Do you think it's ever justified for me to murder children in defence of the constitution?"
If you answer yes, then you're a brutal monster, yet all but the most unimaginative person cannot imagine situations where murdering children in support of an esoteric ideology MAY be morally justified.
What do the respondents mean by "Islam" the faith, or its followers? What do they mean by "civilian targets" INNOCENT civilians, or a town full of Muslim haters on the rampage?
I admit that the statistics on their face are extremely disturbing, and I suspect that we are in little better possession of true facts about what is going on in these countries than they are. But I am reminded of the old saying "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics".
A clever man can word a questionnaire, or parse the data in such a way that it tells a far more damning story than it actually should.
Not to defend Islam. If I could click my fingers and all religion and nationalism was gone from the planet instantly, I'd do it without hesitation.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Paul Wood Black people are poor across the globe because of white colonialism (amongst other factors). And black people have a PERFECT right to blame whites in America for their situation, from which they have yet to recover. Just as they can THANK them for their athleticism. The harm of two and a half centuries of slavery, and a further hundred of state sanctioned prejudice are not eliminated in 50 years!
Blacks are literally born with a massive millstone around their necks that drags them back. So yes, black people in America DO blame whites, because it's whites who are DIRECTLY responsible for their situation. Even now.
The one time in America when blacks collectively raised an entire community out of poverty, (black wall street), and what happened? Whites got jealous, burned the entire town down, and killed hundreds of the residents, and worked to ensure that the community could NEVER rebuild. Whites have HUGE amounts of blood on their hands, and then simply to say, "Well blacks make themselves poor" is such a simplistic analysis of the situation.
Poverty begets poverty, and poverty begets criminality. Fact.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Dick Tracy That was your second post. And if in your very first post, you accuse my comments of being evil, and in your second you attempt to dismiss my opinions because of the leisure activities I participate in, you have NO RIGHT to subsequently whine about being insulted.
I can assure you, I have not melted, but simply listing a dozen different organisations in no way constitutes an argument - at best it's an appeal to authority, and frankly without actual citations carries no weight whatsoever.
When you talk about "documented fact", you do realise that for that sentence to make any COHERENT SENSE (something you are still apparently struggling with), the subject to which you are referring needs to have a close enough proximity to that statement for any reasonable person to comprehend what the hell you are talking about?
I appreciate that you are attempting to cut your intellectual teeth by arguing with grown ups, but you've massively bitten off more than you can chew. There was a brief moment when you actually seemed like you were making a case that we could legitimately wrangle over, rather than this silly semantic exchange of willy waving, but you have retreated from that and instead tried to salvage your tattered ego. Don't bother sonny, you're done. Blocked and ignored. Now fuck off.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Thenybo There's a world of difference between practicing for a healthy lifestyle, and giving in to gluttony. Yes, I would a thousand times sooner my taxes go to pay for someone who had a surfing or climbing accident, than someone who would simply not stop eating. One is living their life to the full, the other is doing the complete opposite.
If you climb Everest and lose a leg, or do free running, or base jumping hell yeah I'm gonna be disapproving, because those activities are needlessly reckless.
But, as I said, that doesn't excuse rudeness. Personally I find wilful obesity extremely distasteful, but I would be exceedingly unlikely to say that to an obese person, much less ridicule them for it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@fabrizio483 Don't play junior psychologist Fabby boy, it's not working. And if I grant you Christianity's dubious role in the rise of western civilisation, does that mean I can also attribute Hitler, the Inquisition, a million castrated choirboys, thousands of raped catholic children, destroyed South American civilisations, the Crusades, the corruption of young minds, religious bigotry, and the religious oppression of the past 2000 years to Christianity too?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@andipandi5641 It's conceivable that by insterting it in quotation marks, you avoided the alogorithm. I'm no expert on the subject but have been monitoring it on my own posts over the past year. Phrases that express contempt or negativity towards certain groups (even if they deserve it), phrases articulating violence, anything expressing sexual sentiments in the proximity of minors, etc. In your case, I'm going to guess that it was "t******ism," in conjunction with something else. The problem is, the algorithm is heuristic so it tries to guess at your intent, and while it's kind of okay, it is turning youtube into a pathetic SJW haven where nobody can offend anyone anymore. The algorithm is appalling at assessing context or justification, so if you say something appalling too me and I retort *I can end up being penalised.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mccari09 You could't be more wrong. Galileo was imprisoned for going against Catholic orthodoxy, NOT simply for arguing against claims of geo-centrism.
Moreover, the fact that there was consensus in an age before the scientific method is tribute only to how far bad ideas can spread without widespread dissemination of competing ideas, a method for examining claims, and the untellectual freedom to do so.
How many things can you point to that had the support of a literate scientific majority, that turned out to be wrong? And was it not the scientific method that disproved them, that gives us greater faith in widespread consensus? We can point to LOTS of things that had the support of some, even many scientists, that may not be what they appeared to be - black holes, the expansion rate of the universe, and dark matterto name but three. But ALL scientists recognised them purely as placeholder theories.
Climate scientists have a consensus because the effects of different gases on the atmosphere can be measured and predicted, and their effects on solar radiation trapping or release and other planetary phenomenon can also be predicted, and these predictions are broadly consistent with reality. Unless you have a superior way for evaluating reality, it seems foolhardy or arrogant to dismiss them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jo18533 If you're ignorant of politics, it's probably best if you don't make sarcastic comments about it to people who are not. But, for the record, McConnell blocked Obama's left wing supreme court pick Merrick Garland which would have retained a level of balance, supported all three of Trump's extreme consevative right wing picks changing the the balance of the judiciary in America for a generaion, and potentionally reversing Roe vs Wade - the law that enabled women to get abortions. They are also anti-gay rights, and pro corporate, which likely means more pollultion, lower corporate oversite, less banking regulation, less environmental protection, and worse worker rights. To name but a few effects.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Oh do me a favour! NOBODY is telling girls that they can't play tennis. The western world is bending over backwards in its fawning efforts to tell women the lie that they can do everything that men can do, and as well. But the fact is, of 10,000 starters, male or female, in ANY sport, only 1 will ever have the commitment to become a pro, and a fraction of that to reach the very top. Raducanu is an amazing, 1 in 10 million athlete who has that super rare combination of talent, commitment, biological make up, financial support, and mental fortitude to reach this level. It's not prejudice that has stopped other women doing the same - it's a deficit in one or more of those areas. Massive congratulations and respect to Emma, but don't demean her achievement by contextualising it against the supposed glass ceiling that supposedly holds women back. If I were you, if you are concerned about limited opportunities for success, I'd be paying more attention to trans women that all you touchy feely SJWs are bringing into women's sports, and who take the medals from biological women.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@AnkeshKumar-du1dm I'm not coining a "neologism" - I'm using one of the common definitions of the word. Your increasingly petulant and artless responses reveal your growing frustration at being unable baffle me with bullshit. This message is the clearest example yet. The fact that science cannot achieve the impossible, nor knows everything about everything is not a failure as you appear to be implying; rather it is simply a fact of reality. Even if there was a god (which there is not in the Christian sense of the word), it would have limitations of knowledge and ability. Anything else would be a logical contradiction. It could not, for example, be certain that there was not a MORE supreme being that hid its existence from IT. As for the fact that a tiny percentage of families require children to make appointments to see their parents is utterly irrelevant. You're also incorrect when you intimate that this is a recent phenomenon - for over two thousand years, the wealthy have had wet nurses because they don't wish to perform the most fundamental parenting role themselves, and in many cultures, children have simply been shipped off to schools or residences so that parents are not burdened with the effort of raising them.
Frankly, your side of the conversation degraded into absolute absurdity several comments ago. You use a lot of big words (which is the trademark of the Indian pseudo-mystic BTW), but your desperate flailing and constant throwing of handfuls of unrelated mud at the wall to see if any will stick, is utterly transparent. Sadly, you are seriously outmatched. Especially as you are simply incorrect in the underlying themes that you are using your disparate statements to illustrate. I had hoped that you might have some interesting perspectives, but it's painfully clear that you are just another woo peddlar who couches his desperate need for a sky daddy in big words. We're done. There is NOTHING that you can add that I will even bother to read. You had your chance.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@christophercrowley7574 At my school, we learned about the Magna Carta, the Crusades, Queen Victoria, The Romans, ancient Egypt, the two world wars, the industrial revolution, the irish potato famine, and maybe some stuff about America. History was one hour a week and it was incredibly boring. I love some areas of history now, but the syllabus and delivery at school left a lot to be desired.
That said, you've mentioned your were taught about a wrong that was done to you in history, but how much more were you taught about the history of Ireland?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@catnap387 "Your answer firmly puts the onus on women instead of the fact that MEN should be looking at their own attitudes and behaviours to women and speaking out about what makes a man."
I'm sorry, but this is the kind of position that endangers women - teaching them that they have an entitlement to go anywhere at any time, behaving any way they like, and have the expectation of safety, and worse still, that men are the ones that need educating. There's NO group of men on the planet that teaches that it is acceptable to murder women (although the feminist SCUM manifesto quite openly taught the murder of men).
Of COURSE the onus is on women, because they're the ones whose safety needs looking out for. I don't need to tell a man not to go to a strange bar and start gobbing off. We already share that information with each other. I don't have to tell men not to go to certain areas of the city alone, because we largely have that survival sense. But women are educating each other to expect the world to conform to their expectations, and that will NEVER happen.
Do you think the person who did this doesn't KNOW that murder is wrong? Do you think s/he just doesn't have enough peers teaching him/her to respect women? Maybe he/she is exactly the kind of loner or misanthrope who would never have enough close peers to receive such a message in the first place.
NO amount of programming, male collective guilt tripping or "education" of males would stop this kind of thing from happening, any more than it would stop some women from snapping and murdering their children. So knowing that, why WOULDN'T women take sensible precautions to ensure their own safety? Or accept the fact that there is a miniscule risk of death, just as there is every time they get into a car. Yes, it sucks that women can't go out alone on empty roads for a jog, but the world will never be 100% safe. I would also note, that this is what - a 1 in 10 million occurence, so any broad societal conclusions you draw need to bear that rarity in mind.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@peteredwards338 "You are totally wrong on the number of scientists." You're correct - it's 97% not 95%. Thank you for winning the argument for me. Mike drop.
"the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. " https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/
Dunno who William Happer is, but calling him a "proper scientist" because he confirms your opinions is hilarious. By what process do YOU conclude that he is correct in the face of all the contrary expertise?
" atmosphere contains 0.04 %CO2. Only 3 % of that tiny amount is the result of human activity" And precisely what percentage rise of CO2 is enough to trigger runaway greenhouse effect?
"Don't forget : 99. 06% of the atmosphere is not Co2." Irrelevant. That's like saying the drink you just gave someone was only .04% polonium.
"The sun makes up 99.9% of the solar system, look there for answers" The volume of the sun by mass is not the issue, and I might add, another irrelevance borne from ignorance. The distance of the earth, the eccentricity of our orbit, the density and albedo of our atmosphere and the stability of the sun's heat output ARE relevant.
Frankly, simply throwing numbers into the conversation with clearly, zero comprehension of their significance serves only to demonstrate that you are either ignorant, or wilfully attempting to mislead.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Boo-pv4hn "Vegan isn’t better for he animals, the amount of forests cut down to grow vegan friendly food, " I'm sorry, but that doesn't add up Penelope. Let's just say that a million sentient animals per square mile of forest die in the deforestation (which I hate), they only lose their lives once. That same density of animals in a farm will lose their lives yearly or every few years, and that's on top of lives of horrendous cruelty.
"waste so much is being bought into stores but never sold we have an exess amount " Yes 100% agree with you on this.
"not considering the fuel for traveling A LOT of it by plane"
The fuel for vegan food does not REMOTELY outstrip the emissions from dairy farming alone, which is one of this planet's largest sources of greenhouse gases. And whether you eat vegan or omnivorous, it is ALL transported from somewhere else. A lot of our meat is shipped all the way from Australia! And I would add that shipping is one of the very WORST forms of transport in terms of the environment.
The problem is, we live in mega communities, each of us living specialised lives. I personally have no space to GROW my own fruit and veg, even if I had the time and inclination, which I do not. And it would be wholly infeasible for every person to grow their own food. Indeed large-scale agriculture was one of the innovations that enabled mankind to move beyond subsistence living. Your solution, while eco-friendly on the face of it, would literally undo 10,000 of progress, and reduce us all to subsistence slaves. AND it's not better for the environment.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@JohnDoe-tx8lq Ah yes, thank you for the corrections. My bad.
As for surrogate parents, I joined the army at the same age these people went to college. My sergent major didn't come around at night to tuck me in. He didn't ask if I was comfortable among a bunch of rowdy guys, or putting on a pair of boxing gloves, or talking in front of others. The whole western world vhas become dismally fragile, and it doesn't make better people; it makes people weaker, more whiney, and more dependent. Meanwhile, in the 3rd world, kids are already contributing to their families.
Where's the personal responsibility? Where's the well balanced, robust personality? No, instead they attend schools where nobody can lose, forced to attend until 18 years old! Then they go to colleges and universities fearful of micro aggressions and scawy words. This is nothing to do with C4 - it's about the pitiful world that academics and politicians are building for us, and sadly, fragile kids like these are the result and the victims.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What have immigrants done to improve Britain? Well people from all over the Caribbean were invited here during a massive labour shortage in the 1940s, so they saved Britain from economic and infrastructure collapse. Africans are currently a major source of low paid nurses and geriatric care workers so our National Health system depends upon them. People from Asia fought on our side in both world wars. Poles are a very polite and hard working source of menial labour in my town. And this particular gentleman runs a restaurant catering to people in the local area. Add to that maths, which came from Greece, our system of numbers which came from the Middle East, astronomy, also from the middle east, and I think it's impossible to suggest that foreigners have not made major contributions to British life.
And if by "improving their lands", you mean creating civil wars that have cost over a million lives (Iraq and Syria), stealing their resources (Africa), and causing political instability (half the world), then you have a strange idea of improvement.
BUT, I'll certainly grant you that unrestricted immigration, especially from Islamic nations that don't share our cultural values is not desirable. But don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Graham6762 Civilisation is breaking down in America because 20 percent of your population lives in poverty, another 50% earns less each year than the year before, the judiciary is corrupt, the police is institutionally racist, you are taught that the poor are the enemy, and you waste trillions on wars that are not needed.
Chopping people's hands off and executing murders is NOT the solution.
And for the record, in America, using 3 strikes and you're out or the death penalty WORSENS criminal behaviour.
But nah, you're right, the world should stone women to death for adultery, torture kids, chop hands off for thieving and execute the very people that you're appalling leadership has TURNED into criminals in the first place. Must be nice living in simple black and white land Graham.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** No, you misunderstand. No black person is teaching his kids that they ARE subordinate, but they are teaching their kids that they will not receive fair and equal treatment. This is not a moral issue - it's a survival issue!It almost seems like you would sooner lecture the world on the injustice of the fact that there is a minefield, rather than caution your child not to walk through it!Should black people act subordinate? Given the fact that the police are essentially like colour sensitive cobras that are more likely to strike them than white people, yes black people should move slower, speak politer, take less chances, because even though it's unfair, to do anything else puts their lives at danger.And also, hell yeah, every single murderous or violent cop, AND all the corrupt scum who cover for them, should be imprisoned for a long loooong time
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Supernatural" - outside nature. Not really any ambiguity to that is there? As for "magic" it's a much more fluid term with many contextual meanings.So EVERY other "seer" has interpreted the prophesy wrong down the ages, but YOU'RE the one that has it right? Hmmm, maybe you DO see yourself as grand ruler.
Would I be right in thinking that you see the US/UK as the two horned beast. Not any other military alliance that has ever existed right? And why be cryptic in the first place? If you were imparting vital information to future generations, why wouldn't you just say "The most powerful kingdom in the world, which comes from the across the sea to the West, and their ally from an Island in the north"? Why, because as every confidence trickster knows, the more vague you are, the harder it is to be proven wrong, and the more valuable those who can interpret will appear.Except we live in an age of science now, not magic, and believing such stuff simply marks you as being of questionable sanity.
1
-
I'm proposing that God, by definition would have to be outside nature. And the reason I didn't define "magic" is because as I said, it means many things, and is context dependent. But, for the purpose of this conversation, and this is just a superficial, top of my head definition: supernatural is an event which occurs beyond the rules of nature and physics as we comprehend them to be. Magic is the capacity to bring about such an event. I don't believe in either such notion, and if you showed me such an event, I would simply assume that it was a part of physics that we have yet to explore or understand.
I don't "worship" science at all. I am only too well aware of some of its flaws. However, I also believe that it is the only MEANINGFUL way of explaining the world accurately, in such a way that results can be consistent regardless of your beliefs or interpretations. Contrast that with personal experience (which MAY accurately reflect reality) but is subject to a million pressures to skew its results, and I know which I would sooner trust my future to.As for science having no capacity to define ontological understanding, as I understand the world "ontology" (having just looked it up), I see NO reason why science is unable to explain the nature of being. If science revealed every minute thing about our origination, the way that every tiniest component of our bodies and brains worked, and WHY we exist as we do, would that not fulfil your requirement?
If you are using the word to ask questions such as "what is the purpose of existence", I would suggest that you are asking malformed questions, akin to "Why do ladybugs love Beethoven?" You would first have to prove that there IS a purpose, before asking what it is.How do you think that these prophesies were passed down to the person who wrote them down, and where do you believe they originated from?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Apollo Olympos It doesn't matter how many times you call the illegal detainees in Guantanomo "scum" it won't make it so, although your bias is plain to see.
The people in Guantanomo were KIDNAPPED from the streets of various countries, brought to a place where the American rule of law could not be invoked EVEN THOUGH they were kidnapped by American troops. They have then been tortured, in direct contravention of the Geneva convention, to which the US is a signatory.
Some of the original detainees were indeed guilty of acts of aggression towards the US, but many were innocent of ANY hostile or illegal act. President Obama himself admitted last year that 81 of the ones STILL in detention 10 years later, had done NOTHING wrong, but he was fearful of releasing them because they might go onto to become radicalised AS A RESULT of their illegal incarceration.
Regardless of whether you believe that they are in fact guilty of terroristic acts (and you have to be most naïve man in the world to think that people who were 14 and 15 at the time were making ANY contribution to global terrorism), we have rule of law for a reason, and as soon as we abandon that, we lose ALL right to lecture the rest of the world on proper behaviour.
The shame of Guantanomo is a stain on America's rapidly plummeting reputation that will harm her for at least a few decades, fuelling the global hatred towards America that her its citizens targets wherever they go.
And as for this academic, in no way do I mean to suggest that his shameful detention was reasonable. Britain is rapidly moving towards a new age of big brother tyranny. I just think that a chubby middle aged academic whining about 10 days without comfortable mattresses is the height of triviality compared to the massive injustices perpetrated by his nation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+George Calm Russia, country that spent 50% of its budget on the military and fell apart as a result? That nation you mean?Nobody is asking for a free lunch, simply that the wealth is distributed more evenly. For all of your insulting rhetoric, you must be wilfully ignoring the entirety of Europe, Canada, New Zealand and Australia to say something so silly. The fact is, there's enough wealth to go around, but the top 10% exploit the rest of the nation. Even your own nation managed to stop children having to work in life threatening jobs. Of course, now that you have a crazed mongrel in charge whose more interested in posturing, bigotry and hiding his wealth elsewhere, things have taken a turn for the worse and child poverty is on the rise again.I suggest you go ponder a little more deeply before making such silly posts again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I ask you for one second, to put yourself in the place of the person tasked with allocating resources. You have a disabled person who will require 95% of your funding, or you can divide it between hospitals, geriatric care, unemployment benefit, schools, and a wealth of other social needs. How would YOU allocate the resources?
It's not that I am not extremely sympathetic to your situation, but the prosaic needs of reality does not cease simply because life is unfair or people are suffering. 100 years ago, you would have been the total responsibility of your family, in another 100, when the welfare system collapses under the weight of demands placed upon it, the disabled will once again fall to those nearest to them to care for. There is no cosmic right for society to support those unable to support themselves, much as you may have been educated to think there is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** I think you need to calm down or you're going to have an aneurism.
The ELITES in China, and the literati may well have a deeply held love of knowledge, but given the fact that until the last 50 years 99% of the population was an illiterate peasant class, your overgeneralisation about their love of knowledge was in error.
Yet again, you are straw-manning me - when did I ever say that China had embraced western values such as democracy and liberalism? However, they have progressed politically, and the values to which I was most referring was actually capitalism and the aspiration to a non agrarian way of life.
I find it amusing to read your apoplectic attempts to portray emigration as a negative "running away". So anyone who chooses to move somewhere different in pursuit of a better life is a coward huh? Better not mention that to America's founding fathers, or any of the inhabitants of Europe who migrated from Africa.
At no point did I suggest that accepting immigrants and the improvement of nations from within would achieve the same result. I merely illustrated that showing less advanced cultures the benefits of a more civilised, less superstitious existence was a good way to help them to aspire to a better life. Wherever they may live.
"...Provide it for your own bullshit, you fuckin' hypocite!!!"
It's not hypocrisy, because I am willing and capable of doing so.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/aug/20/past.hearafrica05
I could provide dozens of such links on the subject, but as you won't read them, there is hardly any point. Now you really need to stop using big words when you don't understand their meaning or context.
From the Open Society Initiative, I quote "British capital played a key role in extraction of resources during the colonial period, especially in southern and central Africa. The competition to find and control sources of raw materials, including minerals, was one of the main drivers of European penetration and eventual colonial partition of Africa in the last quarter of the 19th century. Africa’s vast resources were plundered to support the development of Britain – and other European powers – while contributing minimally to the development of the continent. "
And now Z's turn to provide evidence for his claim that "Diversity isn't a virtue"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+blackops070771 I agree that it's a DISGRACE to be allowed to change the terms of a pension after having paid into it for 40 years. How can someone simply alter the terms of a contract like that? That's why I stopped even bothering to save for a pension. I saw neighbours see their hard earned saving cut from 50k to nothing overnight and then the country PAYS the same banks that gambled their futures away, with what's left of their taxes - fucking disgraceful.
As for Greece, you admit that there is a culture of tax avoidance and corruption amongst a certain sector of your society. Again, with the Euro, I was VERY happy that Britain never joined for all the reasons that you describe. The idea of our economy being tied to that of countries with entirely different cultures and fiscal policies seemed ridiculous, and it seems now that the only countries that benefit are the ones large enough to dictate to everyone else, such as Germany.
I don't understand how a hostile takeover can be orchestrated of a company that you OWN but I'll take your word for it. Here, that can only happen if you allow others to gain a majority shareholding, or if you are forced into receivership - both of which would be consequences of your tactical decisions.I don't know whether or not your perspective is accurate, but I think one thing we can BOTH agree on - corrupt politicians the world over are raping their populations, and need to be in prison.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MerryXmasMfkrs I don't doubt for a second, the truth of everything you just said about the harms you just highlighted, but you're not debating rationally. Your entire argument is predicated upon "If you saw what I've seen, you'd think differently." That is simply an appeal to emotion.
You said, "People die from food, alcohol cigarrettes, blahblah... ok, let's give them an even worse poison."
The standard for whether or not something is legal is not "Drugs harm people so let's weigh our decision against the harm caused by adding to that." I doon't consume alcohol, but I'd be outraged if it was made illegal begal because "drugs are bad mmkay." Driving fast is fatal. Driving drunk is fatal. Does the government ban ALL driving, punishing the vast majority who are sensible drivers? If I told you horror stories of all the road accident victims I've seen dead; the children mangled, the devastated families, would that make an argument to ban driving any more convincing?
There are numerous studies that show that the black market and BANNING drugs is what leads to its abuse just as it did with alcohol during prohibition. If people could legally buy good quality marijuana and cocaine at a reasonable, perhaps they would never fall into the clutches of dealers who push them towards harder, more expensive drugs. Indeed, in Colorado, when marijuana was legalised, usage DROPPED. It would also facillitate better, more open dialogues about the dangers of abuse in schools, rather than the puritanical pearl clutching current approach that simply pushes young people away from accurate guidance.
On a personal note, I am 100% opposed to government involving itself in anything where there is no harm to others, and yes, I realise familes suffer - the same is true of any self harming or risky behaviour - but there comes a point when self responsibility and autonomy is more important than protecting family members from discomfort. I do NOT accept other people making my decisions for me.
Thank you for your good wishes. I wish you an excellent life also.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Bully you? YOU were the one who came charging into a discussion swearing, and with your foolish talk of god, parading your ignorant misunderstandings.
So you have 3 kids. If one gets hit by a car do you just stand there with your hand up and say to the medics, "No, don't save him - only god has the power over life and death"? If you do, then you don't deserve kids.
"Can you just choose to not die when your time comes?"
Yes, if I have a heart attack, or I've accidentally cut myself, or any of a million other fixable conditions. Otherwise you'd likely have died at childbirth.
"I do not get myself involved in other people's problems "
Well isn't that fucking charitable of you. Let's hope nobody ever thinks that way about your kids if they ever need it.
And who the hell Is talking about murdering anyone? Organ donation happens AFTER death. Someone dies in an accident or from a condition that leaves their organs healthy, and the organs are used for other people.
You say I don't have a real point when you keep saying God this and god that, then you say I'M using manufactured beliefs to put you down. Does the word "irony" mean anything to you? Some bronze age people made up a fairy story about a sky daddy, and here you are, smart enough to operate a computer, still believing fairy stories.
Quite frankly, it's clear that you've come shouting and ranting into someone else's conversation without even understanding what the subject of the conversation was. I suggest you apologise for your ignorance and your rudeness, then leave quietly before you humiliate yourself further.
And by the way - sentences and paragraphs. Try them sometime.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Naryan Robinson Do you think that Walmart considers the emotional and health welfare of the people it does not pay enough to live? Do you think Britain's biggest companies would farm out all their labour to countries with no minimum wage, virtually non-existent health and safety, and child labour if they did NOT view people as assets rather than valued individuals? I am not saying I endorse that view by a long way; I am merely stating the way that it is.Children are something special and wonderful to those who want to have them, but to those who do not, they are simply another of life's choices, like a car or a house. That doesn't decrease their value TO YOU, but don't expect the rest of society to share your values. An increasing proportion of people are choosing NEVER to have kids as they realise that they are not necessary to a fulfilling life. That is a dispassionate evaluation made by people who realise that, enriching though children can be, they are also choices to be made in the plus and minus ledger of one's life. If you cannot see that, then it is YOU who is detached from reality. Perhaps if more people evaluated the impact of child rearing logically, rather than simply drifting into it, there'd be less unwanted kids, or less kids raised by single parents, to the detriment of the kids AND society.I realise that people like you get some kind of gratification and sense of moral superiority by being outraged at everything, but honestly, I'm neither fooled nor impressed. If you'd like to have an intelligent conversation about the issues, rather than using silly fake indignation littered with schoolboy ad hominem's as a tactic, come back and try again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+randomacc27 I agree with almost everything you said there (except questioning my obviously considerable intelligence ;-) And I agree that we need the next generation. Where I am conflicted, is the idea that people should be REWARDED for providing that generation. There is not, nor ever will be a shortage of people willing to have children, planned or otherwise. As a single person, I already pay a disproportionate penalty for that - a higher tax code, a great deal of which is used to support the young via school, medical care, etc. Most of which I willingly pay to help nurture the young. And then IN ADDITION to that, you suggest that I should further contribute to the months or years of leave that people take whilst child raising?
Whilst I am certainly no libertarian or brutal capitalist, leaning more towards socialism than most, a large part of me still feels that people should not have kids that they cannot afford to raise. If you cannot afford for one of you to take 6 months out of your career to raise a child, then don't have a child. People are not born with the right to OWN their own home, two cars, a big screen TV, state of the art phones, and all of the other luxuries that they seem to expect nowadays. In the past, people had to live a little more modestly, but nowadays, single people support the lifestyle expectations of the middle class. I don't see that as reasonable.
However, you make a very persuasive case about the need for a next generation, but it is not one that I find absolutely compelling, hence my conflict.
Thank you for your most interesting thoughts on the subject.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheIrvy "I'm not sure he is trolling, I've met so many people who have that exact opinion." Yes, sadly, the internet has allowed the dumb people to gather in unprecedented numbers.
"The woke movement is actually Orwellian," the really sad thing is, it came from a decent place, but it's like anything taken to extremes, it becomes a negative.
That said, there's no way I'd associate wokeism with flat earthers. I think you're correlated a number of unrelated things, which whilst the consitituent parts are all factually accurate, do not necessarily interconnect.
"In the real world, there are no medals for taking part," yes, anti Darwinism at its finest.
"your wage reflects how hard you work," Not at all. Do you think Bezos is a multibillionaire because he worked that much harder than everyone else? Or Musk?
"advancements are made because of many years of study and research." absolutely agree.
1
-
@TheIrvy I'm sorry, but you don't have a remotely accurate view of employment. Nurses, who just helped save hundreds of thousands of people are being offered a shitty 1% pay rise on an already shitty salary, walmart workers can be paid BELOW a living wage, teachers work long, stressful jobs for too little, and then stockbrokers, bankers and billionaires can earn millions for taking chances with other people's money. The correlation between effort and reward is utterly broken in society, and nowhere is that more so than at the two extremes. Even if he wasn't a lying, scamming POS, there's nothing the Musk could have done in a thousand lifetimes to merit the thousands per second that he earns.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DXmYb I didn't fail to answer your question. You asked "Do I know how a virus works" and I answered in the affirmative.
"Do you think lockdowns are good for mental and physical health ?" Clearly not. Do you think killing your elderly or weakened family members is good for mental health?
Yes, I'm being facaetious, because this is a nuanced situation - a balancing act. For me, not overwhelming the NHS is reason enough ON ITS OWN to continue trying to preven the spread of the virus. If the British public could be trusted to behave responsibly, I would happily have gone instead for a lockdown only of the vulnerable, but seeing what UTTER c**ts vast numbers of people have been, even with the lockdowns as they are, there was no way that could ever happen. That said, Bozo's dreadful message, ineptitude and craven leadership has sent entirely the wrong message. When I see him up there telling us to behave responsibly, then I think of exceptions for MPs and grouse hunters and Cummings and his own father, my only response is "Get the f**k outta here!"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@keanou_k I have been commenting on, and discussing the corona virus, China's handling of it, their ambassador's public statement to the UK about it, and other aspects since the first week of the virus, so well done, try again.
And given that this is a news channel, what would keep the world informed, is concise, information-packed news pieces, not cutesy reality fluff pieces that 75% of people have not interest in watching. Still if that heps you "release your despair", I'll leave you to Ben. And Love Island.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@soraiya2065 I can't speak to the laws in other countries, but I know that there is PLENTY of land on the globe as a whole. The problem is, by and large, people need to live within proximity of where they work, and that increases the desirability AND necessity of land in urban areas - which the wealthy then buy and exploit. Britain also has laws that prevent building in ways that other nations don't.
The average Briton was NEVER voluntarily part of the global land grab - it was the same arrogant, selfish, greedy bastards who own the land in Britain now, but even if that was NOT the case, two wrongs wouldn't make a right.
I've offered repeated justification and rational, fact-based explanations for my opinions - so don't come at me flapping your hanky and acting upset by my righteous indignation. My explanations are totaly coherent, but you are just poisoniong the well because YOUR position is so weak. Frankly, your arguments have been so utterly flaccid, it's clear that you have no intelligent arguments to make. You're the kind of contrarian, pro-authoritarian, corporatist idiot who would argue in favour of police brutality. Don't waste my time with a response. You're dismissed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ticklingoscillators1852 Elon SAYS a lot of things. He's a habitual liar. Judge him by his actions not his words. As for your beliefs about fascism, this is an especially American perspective, coming from a nation that values the 1st amendment above all else. Americans have been conditioned by the Republican party over the past half century, to see this as a sacrosanct right above all other and all who disagree as fascists or socialists or communists. This has been exploited via Citizens United so that spending money is seen as speech, enabling the corporate and billionaire take over of the US political system. Ironically, this has actually drastically weakened America's democracy, taking away the voices of the ordinary citizens. And now a billionaire with a long history of lies, has just bought the town square.
As a man who appears to care so much about fascism, I would have thought that you of all people, would value democracy - the citizens' only true power, even over freedom of speech.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jgt_ Fair question. Nuclear power is relatively safe, and getting safer. There are 443 nuclear power plants in the world, and just three serious or major incidents in all history: two in Russia and one in Japan. We should of course, evaluate the risks before accepting any technology but it's always a risk/reward evaluation. Also, the cost if things go wrong. For instance, the chance of your child getting abducted by a stranger is less than 1 in 1.5 million - inconsequential, yet we all teach our kids to be careful of strangers because the personal cost of losing them would be devastating. The cost if we set the planet off onto a runaway greenhouse effect is the eradication of all life on Earth. No possible reward could be worth taking away the right to life for all the billions of lives now and in the future. I would say that risk requires extra weighting, just as nuclear power stations have extra safety precautions over say, coal-fuelled power stations. Also, unlike nuclear power, which has to cope with unknowables such as earthquake/tsunami that hit the Fukushima Daiichi plant, the correlation between human behaviour and climate change appears to be broadly following predictions.
1
-
@jgt_ There's an old saying "Get a teenager quick, while they still know everything." I have nothing but respect for Thunberg - she did a lot to bring the issue back into government consciousness, and at tremendous personal cost, but she is still just a girl. Like Greenpeace, perhaps her world view is a little lacking in comprehension for the practicalities. I'm not sure I agree with you about renewables not scaling. Solar, thermal, wind, hydro, ocean, bio fuel, and more are all improving all the time. I believe Germany plans to go completely renewable by 2030. The only problem is the government will to do so. But I am TOTALLY with you in your support for nuclear. Just so long as we don't allow private companies to take short cuts as the Tokyo Electric Power Company criminally did with Fukushima.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Dracoti There were 648,000 properties standing empty in the UK in 2019 - a number which has risen year on year. Even if your million per 3 years number was correct (and it's not - and even less so since Brexit,) allow an average of 4 people per property (much higher in immigrant families) and that alleviates the housing crisis by 3-5 million people - 5% of the entiire population. There are currently 280,000+ homless individuals and just under 100k families in temporary accommodations. Clearly the number of empty properties more than doubles current requirement. As for immigrants, they can live in tents on the moors for all I care. It is not Britain's concern to factor them into the equation, except insofar as they may deplete private rental availability.
There are many reasons why building cannot keep up with demand - a limited availability of land, green belt restrictions, farmer's hoarding land, people's former desire to live close to cities, arduous planning permission procedures, and councils that refuse to plow money gained by sale of council homes into building new ones, thus reducing overall stock of affordable houses.
Yet again, in trying to be a smartass, all you succeed in doing is displaying your wealth of ignorance. You're not doing well at this are you mate? I suggest you shut up now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
mc love me Show me the Republiscum equivalent of Green New Deal. Yes, corporate Democrats are a cancer, but the GOP is incomparably worse on the environment. Obama passed numerous legislation to protect the environment, including signing up to the Paris climate accords, suspending the Dakota access pipeline, and imposing emmissions standard. Scump has actively worked to undo all of Obama's actions. If you seriously think that Scump's pressuring of China, a country his beloved daughter has interests in, and where he himself has products manufactured and buys construction steel from, is anything but performative in order to appeal to delusional right wing patriotism, then you're not paying attention.
Yes, SOME Demos are pathetic on the environment, but they are in another league compared to the entire GOP.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jackwatsonepic626 No, I was confirming what you meant. Here's a quote from Wired on why comparisons with flu are not helpful.
"Even taken on their own terms, the flu comparisons rely on wonky and myopic math. Flu can kill Amercans by the tens of thousands, but that’s because it’s been around so long and has had so much time to spread. Millions get the virus every year, and fewer than 0.1 percent of them perish from it. What’s the rate of death from the new coronavirus? No one can say for certain, but estimates have hovered at around 20 times the rate for influenza, or 2 percent. Some virologists assert this is an overestimate, because milder cases might be getting overlooked; others counter that, given lack of access to diagnostic testing, many deaths may be uncounted. In short, it’s too soon to say. It’s also unclear how efficiently this coronavirus spreads from person to person. The total number of confirmed cases has grown from 282 on January 21 to 31,211 on February 7. It’s possible the spread will slow. Or else it might accelerate. In light of this uncertainty, perhaps we shouldn’t be so quick to counsel everyone to “get a grippe” on their concerns."
https://www.wired.com/story/coronavirus-is-bad-comparing-it-to-the-flu-is-worse/
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Saying that we need to vaccinate people in one country first doesn't make sense." Ha ha, nice try.
It makes PERFECT sense. Britain has a duty to British tax payers, not EU obstructionists. No-one in Britain WANTS other Europeans to die, but our taxes paid for OUR wellbeing. Worse still, we have a far greater need than they do.
Our lorries and our goods are sitting at ports, and you do NOTHING to ease their transit to your markets, but now that we own the company that makes the vaccine, you wanna pretend that we're all just part of one global happy family? Boys from the Dwarf huh? F**k off. If Bozo doesn't leverage our position to smooth future transit of goods, then he's a fool. We owe Europe nothing but contempt. If EU members are so infected that they are dangerous to allow in Britain, then they should be blocked, and vice versa. THAT'S how you deal with "we are all part of one globe," especially with nations that have spent the past 3 years being utter a**holes towards us. Right now, I'd be more inclined to share with Africa or Australia than Europe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Gillian Fitton No, not at all. Populations on the planet in the western world are FALLING not rising, and the better educated people become, the faster they fall. Even in the rest of the world, the growth rate is decellerating and will likely start to reverse. If it was not for religion - particularly Islam, they'd be falling faster. It's incorrect to suggest that importing more people or increasing population by birth is comparable to a population rising by simply living longer. Population growth by birth or young immigrants is HEALTHY for the country. They are the producers. Of course, population growth on a finite planet is not infinitely sustainable, but the problem with this planet is not capacity, it's will. The only famines on this planet over the past 25 years have been caused by politics not lack of capacity. Britain has PLENTY of land and capacity, but farmers were urged to cease farming by Europe, and their land was sold at exorbitant prices to land developers. Councils across the country are now forcing developers to build to a higher density, and if the problem becomes severe enough, I suspect land will be repurposed as farmland once again, rather than standing idle whilst farmers screw us all.
I don't know where you pulled that number about Britain being over-populated by 50 million but it's complete nonsense. If the wealthy were not permitted to profiteer off the land, there would a LOT more of it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, I'm afraid that's simplistic Amber. Whilst I despise Johnson and the Tories with a burning fire, many people had valid reasons to want out of Europe: escape from EU over-legislation; EU's creeping expanse of powers, border control, financially supporting weaker nations, and immigration. It may be that those issues were somewhat misrepresented, but they were certainly valid issues. I do agree that deals should have been negotiated sooner, but when the EU is intransigent about our control over our own fishing waters, THEY are the impediment. The fact is, it's not in Europe's interests for us to succeed without them, (especially as those that remain now have to carry more financial burden), but they can't be seen by their own industries that trade with the UK, to actively undermine us. However, if customs is laborious enough to cripple us well that's just procedure - not their fault.
1
-
@eddy66t6 "The point is that the levels of bureaucracy you're talking about are the the ones that kept things moving behind the scenes" That's a huge oversimplification. Whilst I am no libertarian, I do believe in a generally laissez faire regulatory policy with government involving itselves in our lives and commerce as little as possible whilst still serving its mission to protect our interests.
"I don't hear Britons crying out to leave the UPU or the WHO" That's a false equivalence. The UPU is deeply flawed, but as you say, the public are simply not aware, but is an example of yet another damaged system. The fact that it enables you to send packages from China to Britain, more cheaply than within Britain, means that we are literally subsidising their postal service. It's EXACTLY the kind of institution Britons would be outraged by if they realised that the Chinese government literally uses it to attack our economies.
The WHO is another institution that has come under attack since Covid, with its handling appearing to be financially motivated. Hardly smooth running. TBH, neither example really helps your case, but their effect on our daily lives, and their implications on the UK economy are trivial compared to the EU.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@YorickReturns "If a job genuinely isn't worth it, then you quit. It's simple."
Respectfully, that's simplistic not simple. There are many people at that end of the labour market that simply do not have the luxury of quitting a job that isn't worth it. I've had friends work for well below minimum wage because they were so desperate for work. I know teens and people in their early twenties who will do almost anything for work. One of my students has a job as a kitchen porter and they refuse to give him enough hours to pay his bills because they don't want to be liable for sick pay and holiday costs.
To some extent I agree that people have been told that they are owed something (the great lie being that we all have the right to home owners for instance), but I DO think that a person who works a 40 hour week should be able to afford his rent, utiulities, food and at least a little extra.
I like the idea of FAIR competition, but competition is rarely fair. Whether it's migrants that Britain has being forced to accept competing for jobs and undercutting the market because they're willing to live in the short term like rats (no disparagement intended) jammed 10 or 20 to a house, not paying normal living costs, or companies competing by forcing staff to work under conditions that are unreasonable so that they can pay returns to investors, not ALL competition is good.
I think we share some distaste about OVERregulation, but where we diverge is that you appear to trust to the markets to act fairly, self regulate and provide the best result. That's clearly a fantasy that has simply never been the case.
You suggest that the housing market would benefit from deregulation. I don't know in what areas you feel this would be the case? I worked for a housing developer for a while and they would have LOVED to do away with all the regulations about safety standards, environmental compliance, build density and including affordable housing so that Britain's housing stock was not entirely taken over by houses for the wealthy. Even with the measure of freedom they have, the banks lent to people who couldn't afford the repayments, all got burned in 2009 and now you need such a large mortgage downpayment that the people who could previously have afforded to get on the housing ladder cannot do so. How has deregulation helped that situation?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jomila87 It's not a privilege to ignore a subject that until two days ago didn't even exist, any more than it's a privilege to ignore the "conversation" on the fashion sense of haddock. And that's my exact point. People are constantly inventing divisive ways to generate a sense of victimhood. Does racism exist? Yes undeniably, of course it does. Is racism in gardening an issue? No, it's a pathetic fabrication invented to extend the genuine victimhood of black people, just as the whole anti semitisim thing in the labour party was a way for Jewish people to control the conversation and silence their enemies. When EVERYTHING is racist, nothing is racist because the definition becomes so broad as to become nonsensical, losing its utility. If I define "bigot" as anyone who holds different opinions to me, or "rape" as anyone who looks at a woman, then my opinions cease to be a worth-considering part of the conversation.
Were you abused in the garden? Certainly, if you say so. Is that part of a larger issue called "gardening racism"? No, because that is not an issue that exists.
"I hope one day you will be open to listening to people’s views on the subject," I subscribe to the belief "Don't have such an open mind that your brain falls out."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@iamshadowbanned699 So you create an oppressive immoral law, then murder people for not complying with it, then blame THEM for their response rather than YOU for creating that situation. Sounds reasonable...
What specifically are you referring to in Oregon? I know in Colorado, marijuana use when down when it was legalised, but regardless, even if a million Oregonians died of drug use, that's THEIR choice to make. I doubt you support making alcohol or unhealthy food illegal, or forcing people to exercise, even even though diet and inactivity are the leading causes of death in the western world.
Again, I emphasise, you are blaming the consequence not the root cause. Criminality is a problem because drugs are illegal.
The fact that 90% of Filipinos agree with an oppressive, immoral law says more about those people, not the wisdom of the law. 91% of people in the Phillines are Christian - 81% Catholic (the religion of institutional paedophilia), so I am hardly surprised that such a conservative and frankly regressive population supports such outrageous policies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RealMash Why the are you acting like this was all some decision I made, or that I should be the one with all the answers?!
Tell you what, drop the stupid snark and we can have a conversation. No scratch that, just read your ramble in the second post. You're clearly 3 palettes short of a full load if you think the only way to renew Britain's labour force is to wait over 20 years while babies grow into the role. There are many ways that the thousands of nurses who have left the NHS or been poached by the private sector, can be incentivised to return. You answered your own question "This is solved with respect for people doing actual work." If nurse were not expected to work 60 hours for 35 hour wages under siege conditions it would be a start. You could offer better holidays, earlier retirement, shorter hours, fringe benefits such as free child care. As for lorry drivers, a little more money, better facilities, help with training costs, helping women to join the workforce, and more.
As for Peterson's comments on IQ distribution it has NOTHING to do with this situation. That simply says that more men exist at the extremes of the IQ distribution curve compared to women. As 90% of the population do NOT exist at the extremes, and the extremes have NEVER been the source for lorry drivers, that is irrelevant.
1