Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 121 to 160 of 206

Thread: Greta Thunberg

  1. #121
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    If she's autistic then that could throw a wrench in the works. I know an autistic ILE who likes routine and predictability, and who isn't interested in pursuing new ideas unless they're proven to work under all imaginable scenarios.
    Lol my ILE bf is somewhat like this but also very non-autistic in many ways, in the way Heretic 007 described. It's a kind of interesting contradiction. I guess everybody has contradictions in them to a degree anyway though in order to be balanced. Like LII can be a Ti nerdlord but also really Fe social too. I can be a Se meatlord but also Ni philosophical and self-aware, etc.

  2. #122

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mesn View Post
    "Scientists" are not just "some personal authority". We all about big data and meta-analyses now; it's as close as you can get to "being objective". Please (I highly recommend you to) read Karl Popper and his theory of "three worlds" (a very important piece on contemporary philosophy of science; if you didn't read it).
    ...You must not have properly read Popper, because that is exactly the opposite of Popperian epistemology.

    I didn't say scientists were a "personal" authority, they're considered to be THE authority in our current cultural climate. Of course, science has never been about authority, and most scientists don't claim to have any authority. That's why science is about experiments, reproducibility and checks-and-balances in the form of peer-review (which all means that they don't exactly rely on trusting the authority of some certain scientists).

    The point is that people like to rely on authority of any kinds. That is due to our culture.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mesn View Post
    Yes, in socionics and alike ethical types can be too trusting with "facts"; but it's not like a Te dom wouldn't say that. It's not like a Te dom wouldn't trust science (especially when you have a consensus and so much proof), as (assuming they have received adequate education) they understand what science is (its uses, limitations, so on). High Te just gives you more awareness and meta-awareness, I guess; it's more natural and in much higher doses.

    That is, I still think ESI.
    Yes, I said that it's neither "F" nor "T". It's about blindly trusting something without having any personal understanding of it.

  3. #123

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    It's a kind of interesting contradiction. I guess everybody has contradictions in them to a degree anyway though in order to be balanced. Like LII can be a Ti nerdlord but also really Fe social too. I can be a Se meatlord but also Ni philosophical and self-aware, etc.
    They're not actually contradictions. The fact is that people can basically do or think in any possible ways, because the fundamental laws of the universe allows them to. They can be emotional, logical, abstract, sensory, whatever. There are no limitations.

    Incidentally, the exact same logic is applied to computers, and that's why we can basically program anything onto a computer and even create robots or potentially Artificial General Intelligence (not "AI", which is specific and limited intelligence). It's just a matter of knowing how to. We didn't first observe a bunch of different kinds of computers, add them up all together and then somehow created the ultimate universal computer. No, what we did instead was that we simply assumed that there are certain laws in this universe that allows physical objects to be able to calculate virtually anything that the physical objects can calculate. That could be a CPU, or that could be a brain. It makes no difference either way (you can read this up on Turing-Church principle).

    So Greta Thunberg here obviously has the ability to be both emotional and logical. But people like squark will only see a few seconds of snippet of her being emotional, and then assumes that she is always emotional, or even mostly emotional, or even completely lacks logical abilities somehow. That is not only catastrophically wrong in so many ways (ironically, this observation itself is very irrational), but also inhumane in denying her rational abilities and possibilities. The fact is that she is capable of being all.

  4. #124
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    They're not actually contradictions. The fact is that people can basically do or think in any possible ways, because the fundamental laws of the universe allows them to. They can be emotional, logical, abstract, sensory, whatever. There are no limitations.

    Incidentally, the exact same logic is applied to computers, and that's why we can basically program anything onto a computer and even create robots or potentially Artificial General Intelligence (not "AI", which is specific and limited intelligence). It's just a matter of knowing how to. We didn't first observe a bunch of different kinds of computers, add them up all together and then somehow created the ultimate universal computer. No, what we did instead was that we simply assumed that there is are certain laws this universe that allows physical objects to be able to calculate virtually anything that the physical objects can calculate. That could be a CPU, or that could be a brain. It makes no difference either way (you can read this up on Turing-Church principle).

    So Greta Thunberg here obviously has the ability to be both emotional and logical. But people like squark will only see a few seconds of snippet of her being emotional, and then assumes that she is always emotional, or even mostly emotional, or even completely lacks logical abilities somehow. That is not only catastrophically wrong in so many ways (ironically, this observation itself is very irrational), but also inhumane in denying her rational abilities and possibilities. The fact is that she is capable of being all.
    How do you define differences between people then, Singu?

  5. #125

    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    69
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    ...You must not have properly read Popper, because that is exactly the opposite of Popperian epistemology.

    I didn't say scientists were a "personal" authority, they're considered to be THE authority in our current cultural climate. Of course, science has never been about authority, and most scientists don't claim to have any authority. That's why science is about experiments, reproducibility and checks-and-balances in the form of peer-review (which all means that they don't exactly rely on trusting the authority of some certain scientists).

    The point is that people like to rely on authority of any kinds. That is due to our culture.
    I think you did misunderstood me. I do know Popper does consider authority to be just a fallacy, and I do agree with him; and science isn't about authority. But then, I think I misunderstood you - when you were using that "personal authority" thing and I've thought you are somewhat serious.

  6. #126
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Singu is just caught up with trying to deny the obvious reality that people have natural talents/strengths and weaknesses particular to them, to the point where he thinks we all basically have carbon copies of our hardwiring inside us and we're only defined by our experiences, if even that, because we can all do literally anything equally, including things like shooting fireballs outside of our asses.

    Probably butthurt still as an adult over some early experiences where people told him he sucked at certain things and then he magnified it and internalized it forever.

  7. #127
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,778
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ILI with lots of mobilizing-Fi behavior, in need of correction, this is just behavior of a spoiled kid that happens to have weak Fi and Fe. How convenient for the psychology professionals that we can label such behavior as an asperger/autism disorder and make money of that, and how convenient for Greta that she can hide behind the same diagnosis. She needs a slap in the face, just like all unhealthy ILIs.
    “I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking

  8. #128

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    I didn't type her based on emotion. I typed her based on what she said and her approach to the issue. Not sure why I'm bothering responding though, as I think you're kind of an idiot.
    Says the biologist who believes in creationism, lol. Your entire worldview is contradictory, and yet think of yourself as being so logical, and don't even realize it when you're being irrational.

    So much for a "logical" type.

    You've judged her rational/logical ability from watching a fucking 2 second clip of her being emotional. You should just admit that this is irrational as hell.

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    The only thing I mentioned regarding emotion was how she controlled/manipulated it and her timing - pausing dramatically after her first statement, rising her emotion and bringing it back down. But her father is an actor, her mother an opera singer, and performing for an audience can be learned. Something very telling though is that the way she gets what she wants - it's through guilt and it's always been through guilt. She talks about how she changed her parent's views by making them feel guilty. That's her method. Use emotion (guilt) to get other people to do what you want. Quote statistics and show them charts to back you up, but do everything you can to play on their guilt until they give in. This is why I typed her as Te/Fi ethical.

    When she started crying - so did I, it's a human empathy reaction, but listening to her speak as soon as she started on the "how dare you" and blah blah blah all the guilt-trip nonsense, no. Emotion is human, not type-related. Manipulating people by using emotion is something else.
    You can obviously be both "emotionally manipulative" and logical at different times.

    This is not hard to understand, but it is if you're into Socionics, apparently.

    She did say that she "guilted" her parents and her family into caring about climate change so you may have a point, but this makes no difference because pretty much anyone can use guilt for their purpose.

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    Singu is just caught up with trying to deny the obvious reality that people have natural talents/strengths and weaknesses particular to them
    The fact is that people do not differ in their ability to be rational and logical. It doesn't matter how emotional or irrational you have been at certain points. If they differ, then it's just a matter of speed in which they do it. This is not about being "PC", it's a fact.

    By the same logic, you can upload a video of you being emotional, and then judge that you must lack logic, even if that actually makes no sense at all.

    Again, so much for "T types"...

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    to the point where he thinks we all basically have carbon copies of our hardwiring inside us and we're only defined by our experiences, if even that, because we can all do literally anything equally,
    That's exactly what computers fundamentally are.

    There are literally no fundamental differences in computers. All computers, including computers using vacuum tubes, punch cards, transistors, silicones... they're all functionally exactly the same. If they differ, then they're just differences in speed and memory.

    So it's just a matter of knowing how to program certain things. In humans, it's the same way - it's only a matter of knowing how. And obviously people can learn anything, as well as teach anything to others.

  9. #129
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    The fact is that people do not differ in their ability to be rational and logical. It doesn't matter how emotional or irrational you have been at certain points. If they differ, then it's just a matter of speed in which they do it. This is not about being "PC", it's a fact.

    By the same logic, you can upload a video of you being emotional, and then judge that you must lack logic, even if that actually makes no sense at all.

    Again, so much for "T types"...
    Wtf lol. That's exactly what a scale in ability is. Skill is another word for ability. If it takes you 10 months to build a house and another person 1 week max, then you have different levels of ability for building a house.


    That's exactly what computers fundamentally are.

    There are literally no fundamental differences in computers. All computers, including computers using vacuum tubes, punch cards, transistors, silicones... they're all functionally exactly the same. If they differ, then they're just differences in speed and memory.

    So it's just a matter of knowing how to program certain things. In humans, it's the same way - it's only a matter of knowing how. And obviously people can learn anything, as well as teach anything to others.
    You are trying to compare humans to computers as if they are exactly the same. Okay, then. I'll leave you be. Don't put your finger in the socket, Singu. lol

  10. #130

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    Wtf lol. That's exactly what a scale in ability is. Skill is another word for ability. If it takes you 10 months to build a house and another person 1 week max, then you have different levels of ability for building a house.
    Sure, but quality and speed are different things.

    Somebody may suck at building a house and it may take a long time to build one, but he/she may find creative ways of building a house that makes it take a much shorter amount of time.

    In fact, that's exactly what humans did. They found creative ways of shortening the amount of time required to building a house.

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    You are trying to compare humans to computers as if they are exactly the same. Okay, then. I'll leave you be. Don't put your finger in the socket, Singu. lol
    Computers use silicones, brains use neurons. Hardware wise, they're exactly the same. It's just what's programmed into it that's different. And computers depend on the assumption that virtually anything that can be physically programmed, can be programmed. There is no such thing that says "Humans can do this, but computers can't". Both humans and computers are "Turing complete", which means that they're both exactly the same.

  11. #131
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Sure, but quality and speed are different things.

    Somebody may suck at building a house and it may take a long time to build one, but he/she may find creative ways of building a house that makes it take a much shorter amount of time.
    Or not, or they'll build something and it'll fall apart after a month or be unlivable in. What you're saying though points to my point anyway. People have different skills in different things, period.

    Computers use silicones, brains use neurons. Hardware wise, they're exactly the same.
    What the shit is this LOL. You're a silly cone.

  12. #132

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    Or not, or they'll build something and it'll fall apart after a month or be unlivable in. What you're saying though points to my point anyway. People have different skills in different things, period.
    Yeah, no. Somebody may find such a way, and then they can teach that knowledge to others, and then others will have the exact same knowledge.

    Again, the difference is only in speed. Even IQ tests only measure speed, not inherent ability. Somebody may take 10 years, another may only take 1 year. But what they're doing is exactly the same, the difference is only in speed.

  13. #133
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Says the biologist who believes in creationism, lol. Your entire worldview is contradictory, and yet think of yourself as being so logical, and don't even realize it when you're being irrational.

    So much for a "logical" type.

    You've judged her rational/logical ability from watching a fucking 2 second clip of her being emotional. You should just admit that this is irrational as hell.
    Don't be so rude to squark lol. So much for an ethical type u are, Dingu.

  14. #134
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Yeah, no.
    No what, Dingu?

    Somebody may find such a way, and then they can teach that knowledge to others, and then others will have the exact same knowledge.
    .... Why is it that some people figure things out to be the first ones to teach others, and others never do for specific things?

    Again, the difference is only in speed. Even IQ tests only measure speed, not inherent ability. Somebody may take 10 years, another may only take 1 year. But what they're doing is exactly the same, the difference is only in speed.
    This is like saying that a dead person and an alive person are the same. The only difference is the speed at which the alive person is taking to reach the dead state.

    If anyone ever needed proof Dingu is IEI, here it is. @Alonzo etc

  15. #135

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    .... Why is it that some people figure things out to be the first ones to teach others, and others never do for specific things?
    The point is that it's a matter of creativity, not a matter of intelligence, which we don't know how we do it yet.

    This is why you have "Socionician dystopia" where you have people separated by types and quadras, or basically castes.

    Thankfully in real life, people receive more or less the same education, because there is an assumption that everyone has the same ability in being able to learning something. Sure some people may be "smarter" in that they may learn things faster, or they may have different interests, but that has nothing to do with the inherent ability in being able to learn something.

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    This is like saying that a dead person and an alive person are the same. The only difference is the speed at which the alive person is taking to reach the dead state.
    Again, I said the difference is only in the speed in which people do it, not the inherent ability.

    Here you have a "Ti type" who is being absolutely illogical and irrational.

  16. #136
    Professional IEI Identifier on a peaceful hiatus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    TIM
    LII-C
    Posts
    4,366
    Mentioned
    259 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Thankfully in real life, people receive more or less the same education, because there is an assumption that everyone has the same ability in being able to learning something.
    I think this is actually a very bad thing.

  17. #137

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by soundofconfusion View Post
    I think this is actually a very bad thing.
    It's only bad if you think that assumption is false.

  18. #138
    The Morning Star EUDAEMONIUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    gone
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    3,130
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    It's only bad if you think that assumption is false.
    This is a false assumption and a waste of time. Why waste time teaching a kid Shakespeare when he loves to build birdhouses, get that kid on a work site.

    The idea that everyone must be taught this wonderful varied liberal arts education and that it is somehow more fulfilling than learning real-life skills is a bourgeois concept trickled down into modern ideology.

  19. #139
    The Morning Star EUDAEMONIUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    gone
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    3,130
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Greta is not the leader of a movement, she is the mascot.

    How is her UN speech not Fe in use? I don't know if she's actually autistic, but if she is then it is even more odd for her to use such emotion. She's very loud (mouthy), very present in popular culture, and very sure of her ethical righteousness. What type does this sound like?

  20. #140
    Seed my wickedness The Reality Denialist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Spontaneous Human Combustion
    TIM
    EIE-C-Ni ™
    Posts
    8,235
    Mentioned
    335 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    ILI's are very capable of pouring out their Fe in very non suitable manner.
    MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type
    Life is a joke but do you have a life?

    Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org

  21. #141
    The Morning Star EUDAEMONIUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    gone
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    3,130
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Heretic007 I think that the Fe seemed very appropriate however and very effective.

  22. #142
    Professional IEI Identifier on a peaceful hiatus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    TIM
    LII-C
    Posts
    4,366
    Mentioned
    259 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I still think that her speech had nothing to do with Fe, but was more a display of strong Fi (which is the activating function of ILI). Fi judges others, while Fe tries to emotionally excite people.

  23. #143
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,778
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by soundofconfusion View Post
    I still think that her speech had nothing to do with Fe, but was more a display of strong Fi (which is the activating function of ILI). Fi judges others, while Fe tries to emotionally excite people.
    That's right, but there is a relation between the two: most of the time, heavy use of the mobilizing function implicitly involves violations related to the PoLR function. Thunberg's over-the-top use of Fi is a strong violation of Fe-related aspects, i.e. it breaks down social relationships (in which Fe plays an important role as cement), and as such is actually a danger to getting things accomplished. The arrogant self-righteous attitude of Thunberg in the long run will have the effect of more and more people turning against her, and possibly of working to the advantage of climate-sceptics.
    “I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking

  24. #144
    The Morning Star EUDAEMONIUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    gone
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    3,130
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by consentingadult View Post
    That's right, but there is a relation between the two: most of the time, heavy use of the mobilizing function implicitly involves violations related to the PoLR function. Thunberg's over-the-top use of Fi is a strong violation of Fe-related aspects, i.e. it breaks down social relationships (in which Fe plays an important role as cement), and as such is actually a danger to getting things accomplished. The arrogant self-righteous attitude of Thunberg in the long run will have the effect of more and more people turning against her, and possibly of working to the advantage of climate-sceptics.
    and @soundofconfusion

    EIE can be an extremely divisive person, and Fi is sacrificed for the sake of Fe. The "HOW DARE YOUUU!!!" nonsense is very beta Fe, and her acting like a poor little child missing school and so over fraught for the world is victim behavior. As to her "arrogant self-righteous attitude" that's all too dependent on who you ask, to others she's brave and heroic.

    To me She is extremely pompous I saw her in a video with Micheal Moore and she totally believes she belongs on stage as a sort of equality to all these famous people, but that's not democratic behavior. Someone who feels as if they belong on stage is likely aristocratic. I see through that "aww shucks I'm just your typical teenage girl" act.

    Here's the video:



    An ILI as an activist would not open with the words she chose, they would immediately roll into facts and figures with not one worry whether anyone knows or cares about what they're talking about. Half the room would be on their phones, the other half would be utterly confused as to what she was talking about, everyone would be very anxious for her to be finished speaking. The whole speech would never make it on TV, and the video of the speech (that would end up being more like a lecture) would be found with only a few hundred views.

  25. #145
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    The point is that it's a matter of creativity, not a matter of intelligence, which we don't know how we do it yet.

    This is why you have "Socionician dystopia" where you have people separated by types and quadras, or basically castes.

    Thankfully in real life, people receive more or less the same education, because there is an assumption that everyone has the same ability in being able to learning something. Sure some people may be "smarter" in that they may learn things faster, or they may have different interests, but that has nothing to do with the inherent ability in being able to learn something.



    Again, I said the difference is only in the speed in which people do it, not the inherent ability.

    Here you have a "Ti type" who is being absolutely illogical and irrational.
    You know what? I think your posting quality has decreased lately.

    You shouldn't just be this shameless about how dumb you come across. At least try to improve yourself.

  26. #146
    mclane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    TIM
    LIE-Ni
    Posts
    908
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    She is INFp.

  27. #147
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    5,701
    Mentioned
    524 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by consentingadult View Post
    That's right, but there is a relation between the two: most of the time, heavy use of the mobilizing function implicitly involves violations related to the PoLR function. Thunberg's over-the-top use of Fi is a strong violation of Fe-related aspects, i.e. it breaks down social relationships (in which Fe plays an important role as cement), and as such is actually a danger to getting things accomplished. The arrogant self-righteous attitude of Thunberg in the long run will have the effect of more and more people turning against her, and possibly of working to the advantage of climate-sceptics.
    We’ve already been doing nothing for the past century. I doubt somehow Thunberg is going to be the reason we do nothing this century.

  28. #148
    Professional IEI Identifier on a peaceful hiatus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    TIM
    LII-C
    Posts
    4,366
    Mentioned
    259 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think it's good that children have greta to look up to, since their idealism might result in their parents contemplating the consequences of their actions. the problem with climate change is that it's still a very abstract threat for most people, and most humans sadly seem to only deal with things when they are directly affected by it. at least the children are realising that they are going to have a very bad future if we don't do anything now.

    regarding greta saying that older people are destroying her future: I think it's more than fair. I'm 27 and I already think it's quite unethical to bring a child into this world. I can't judge a 16 year old girl for showing a lot of idealism without coming up with immediate solutions. she's basically mostly saying "listen to the scientists, don't fuck up my future". sadly we're imo so deep into capitalism and "economic growth" that it's very unlikely that any change will happen.

  29. #149
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,778
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    We’ve already been doing nothing for the past century. I doubt somehow Thunberg is going to be the reason we do nothing this century.
    Probably not, but she will make a great excuse for climate sceptics. Apart from all that, I think Thunberg, why probably thinks she's fantastatic, is a one issue person focusing on the wrong cause, because even if climate is saved, she and most of her generation will live in societies of labor-slaves.

    This is also why I personally do not care about climate change anymore: climate change is a fact and a serious issue, but why should I (who has only 30 years more to live) care if my government, and all other governments around the western world, are reorganizing societies in such a way (neoliberalism) that people like me, who still have decent jobs but increasingly less control over our own lives and thus securities, do not (within reason) know if I'm able to pay my rent in five years from now? Why should I care about the future in 2060 when even tomorrow is uncertain, when the possibility to plan my life (within reason) are increasingly being taken away from me? Young people should be worried about their economic future first, that is the dream and future being destroyed which proverbial Thunbergs should be worried about in the first place! But she isn't, and 30 years from now she might understand how silly she was, haven fallen for a temporary social construct (the idea that climate change is the most important issue for young people) and haven taken it as a fact.
    “I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking

  30. #150

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    You know what? I think your posting quality has decreased lately.

    You shouldn't just be this shameless about how dumb you come across. At least try to improve yourself.
    What's really happening is that when you make criticism-worthy, questionable judgement about others, then instead of taking responsibility for making that judgment (and perhaps admitting that possibility that your judgment could be wrong), you blame others and call them idiots.

    It's the Socionics way.

    Uploading a video of you being emotional, then having someone typing you as an "F type" doesn't somehow magically bereft you of having any logical thoughts or logical abilities. This is why basing it on purely observations don't work, because which observations are we talking about?

    A much more sensible way would be to say being emotional and logical are both within the realm of possibilities. Of course we don't know if Greta is actually capable of having logical thoughts, if all we see are 10 second clips of her being emotional. But we can also say that the human brain is capable of having any kind of rational, logical thoughts. But at the same time, they're also capable of having irrational, illogical thoughts.

  31. #151
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    What's really happening is that when you make criticism-worthy, questionable judgement about others, then instead of taking responsibility for making that judgment (and perhaps admitting that possibility that your judgment could be wrong), you blame others and call them idiots.

    It's the Socionics way.
    I thought you didn't like socionics anymore, Singu.

  32. #152

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    2,026
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You guys are still talking about her...

    the sad part is that there will be a lot more of Greta to come...I'm going to have to watch her grow up. greeaaaat.

  33. #153

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    2,026
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    @Singu, here's another very short piece of writing you'll never read: LINK

    Many biologists that I've known have been agnostic, some have been theists, some have been atheists. But atheism is by nature a closed-view, it's a denial, a refusal, and also takes faith whereas agnostics remain open to having their minds changed. Agnosticism is more in line with scientific thinking in general, so I'd expect that to be the most common view. Having faith does not make a person's worldview contradictory however, especially if they recognize that it is faith. (The theists tend to be able to recognize that it's faith, the atheists deny it heh)

    There are so many holes in the evolutionary biology fields. The Theory of Natural Selection, although a foundational bedrock for all of the life sciences, still has MAJOR holes to be understood still.

    The gradualism, this slow march from pond scum to people, had to many close calls, to many happen-stance, I for one, just don't buy the aithiest world view. I can't even argue them, because I think they are well argued for their side, and most agnostics can't argue with atheists well either. The atheists have this round and probably many more for a couple generations to come.

    I think quantum physics will reveal God, eventually. The life sciences are far and away the most atheistic there is.

    If it was as simple as a lightening bolt in some water filled with organic compounds, we would have done it by now. The sheer complexity of a RNA encased in a phospholipid bi-layer boggles the mind that it neatly occurred on primordial Earth. Further, that that cell divided with immaculate copies and survived the hell scape....

    Evolutionary biologists might have been able to explain with well founded research and experimentation how life progresses via natural selection, but the very beginnings, how cells and RNA/DNA first started, they want everyone to rely on faith that they have the most educated guess.

    The same thing with the Big Bang, trust us, the Math can't lie. Trust us, we have the cosmic microwave back ground picture...

    Believe me, we are master technicians of reality, but at the same time, science doesn't have as many answers, especially of the big themes and topics, that they like to present as having.

    We, humanity, are fucking children, and science is as culturally bound by bias just as much anything else we think and believe. There is no Universal language, including Math and science. Although it really really feels like it to us WORD-LOGIC- THINKING- MEAT BAGS.

  34. #154
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think she is ILI..... mayyybe IEI.

  35. #155

    Default

    It really shocks me how many fucking idiots there are per capita. I cant imagine seriously getting angry at a young girl activist for speaking out against a scientifically PROVEN phenomena that threatens our species existence. Like seriously wtf is wrong with people. Wake up. Get a conscience. Dont run the entire rest of the species into the ground just because youre too fucking ignorant to wrap your head around whats happening.

  36. #156
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't give a flying fuck how the message is delivered. Facts are facts, and skepticism about climate change is at the same level as flat-earth theory.

  37. #157
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Climate change never used to be a partisan issue. Fossil-fuel industry executives believed in it, for instance, as did the ultra-conservative Margaret Thatcher (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnAzoDtwCBg&t=449). Someone like Thatcher might as well be an alien today―she had a degree in chemistry, unlike a modern politician, with a degree in law, finance, or business.

    Conservatives used to accept expert consensus. They used to believe in civics, even if Thatcherite (and Reaganite) policies played a part in ironing out this disposition. I don't know what happened in the intervening period to turn basic science into such a partisan issue, and I can only assume that it was propaganda sold to us by lobbyists with short term interests.

    (I'm using the word 'conservative' to denote free market conservatism, which is the dominant strain among people who call themselves conservative today. I know there are different types of conservatism that are mutually-exclusive, and I know that people on the left can also be radical free marketers; I don't care for the purpose of this conversation.)
    Last edited by xerx; 10-01-2019 at 05:38 PM.

  38. #158
    divine, too human WVBRY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    TIM
    LSI-C™
    Posts
    6,028
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    Climate change never used to be a partisan issue. Fossil-fuel industry executives believed in it, for instance, as did the ultra-conservative Margaret Thatcher (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnAzoDtwCBg&t=449). Someone like Thatcher might as well be an alien today―she had a degree in chemistry, unlike a modern politician, with a degree in law, finance, or business.

    Conservatives used to accept expert consensus. They used to believe in civics, even if Thatcherite (and Reaganite) policies played a part in ironing out this disposition. I don't know what happened in the intervening period to turn basic science into such a partisan issue, and I can only assume that it was propaganda sold to us by lobbyists with short term interests.

    (I'm using the word 'conservative' to denote free market conservatism, which is the dominant strain among people who call themselves conservative today. I know there are different types of conservatism that are mutually-exclusive, and I know that people on the left can also be radical free marketers; I don't care for the purpose of this conversation.)
    Without Reagan the IPCC wouldn't exist.


  39. #159
    divine, too human WVBRY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    TIM
    LSI-C™
    Posts
    6,028
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interg...igins_and_aims

    The United States Environmental Protection Agency and State Department wanted an international convention to agree restrictions on greenhouse gases, and the conservativeReagan Administration was concerned about unrestrained influence from independent scientists or from United Nations bodies including UNEP and the WMO. The U.S. government was the main force in forming the IPCC as an autonomous intergovernmental body in which scientists took part both as experts on the science and as official representatives of their governments, to produce reports which had the firm backing of all the leading scientists worldwide researching the topic, and which then had to gain consensus agreement from every one of the participating governments. In this way, it was formed as a hybrid between a scientific body and an intergovernmental political organisation.[3]
    That said, the bolded is the reason why climate change became a partisan/political issue.


  40. #160
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ave View Post
    Without Reagan the IPCC wouldn't exist.
    Right. I wish that modern conservatives would be willing to return to the more civic-minded conservatism of their forebears, even if it does come packaged with a hefty dose of Reaganite supply-side economics.


    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ave View Post
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interg...igins_and_aims

    That said, the bolded is the reason why climate change became a partisan/political issue.
    How did being an intergovernmental organisation make it partisan? I can guess, but I want to hear your take on it.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •