So in order to change the world he should be focused on changing his house? It's flawed logic and doesn't fit the profile of your archetypal activist.
Why should anyone take notice of someones proposals for a whole new way of living, when he can't manage to do it in his own home? The guy is a crank who cannot voice his issues coherently, and their actions seem to support those opposed to the changes rather than true environmentalists. As I mentioned, to go in to this in any meaningful way would breach the no politics rule, but it can be revealing to see how weak these peoples grasp of science is, and how often they start mentioning what are political ideologies.
Presumably the poster defending him will approve of Markle and Harry or Prince Charles lecturing us plebs on the need to reduce our carbon footprint, Markle always says she wants to save the planet for her children, whilst living in enormous mansions and flying everywhere in private jets and helicopters having been ferried to and from them in gas guzzling limousines. Same with Bono who lectures us before departing on tours to add to his many millions whilst causing more of a carbon footprint flying his entourage and stage equipment than most of us cause in decades. Seems some are quite happy supporting people whose mantra is do as I say not as I do.
I take your points and explored them a little. This article really delves into their flaws on a social level and makes some solid arguments for how they could improve their work. https://www.resilience.org/stories/...behind-extinction-rebellions-change-strategy/
So, whilst lecturing everyone else about insulating and pollution he doesn’t insulate and ha half a dozen pollutingbdiesel vehicles lying about? You listen to people with double standards?
XR have a habit of demanding things that were already scheduled, and then claiming the success as if they had achieved it. In reality they have achieved little if anything by their actions, and a consequence of their actions and the way their spokespeople present themselves when they get an opportunity for honest debate mean that they really are detrimental to the environmental movement.
For me, it all boils down to left-sided or right-sided brain bias. You are clearly very intelligent and think in a cognitive way, but to have complete disregard for the emotional part of the brain is equally as dangerous.
I don't have 'complete disregard' far from it, but you need to be able to back up an emotional outburst that gains attention, with the facts behind what caused the outburst, as well as a credible solution. If you fail to do that, it's just the actions of a petulant child.
Sadly, people are talking about petulant spoiled brats that can't engage in debates with meaningful facts, and that get upset when their 'facts' are challenged, and there is also a big question regarding what is behind it. That detracts from the grown up conversations that should be taking place. This recent conversation, and possibly this thread being a point in case.
That point was mainly a reference to extreme behaviours, such as those of ER, so it feels pretty relevant to me. When you talk about such matters there is barely a hint about your perspective from an emotional viewpoint. That's all I'm basing it on, possibly unfairly, possibly not.
Oh it's relevant, but I don't think in the way you think it is. Anyway, I'm bored of this now, and it's liable to head south so I'll leave you to it.
I'm talking about left-sided/right-sided bias. It is exactly why ecstacy had such a huge impact in the 90's.
Is that one from Liverpool or one from Hull who supports the local rugby team but not the football one?
