She told Swedish media that she will not be appealing the verdict.
Let me get this straight:
- Destroying the planet for profit: LEGAL
- Peacefully suggesting they shouldn’t: ILLEGAL
The law has nothing to do with morality, no matter what anyone tells you.
Nobody has ever claimed laws are purely for morality.
No, but there are tons of people who believe something is moral as long as it’s legal, and even more people who believe something being illegal makes it inherently immoral.
Okay?
Not really
Or like the line of a song goes:
This is not a court of justice, son
this is a court of law
Thomas Aquinas: Am I a joke to you
Yeah. Your proofs of God were repetitive and wrong.
Then what is natural law theory?
I am afraid you have this very straight :/ I am so sick of our corporate-fascist world order. Big corporations are basically the worst dictator you can imagine, but with money dedicated to a PR department.
Yeah, imagine a 2D graph with axes going from legal to illegal, and legitimate to illegitimate.
Some things are legal although they are illegitimate (like ‘Destroying the planet’), and others are illegal although they are legitimate (like some forms of civil disobedience or sabotage).
In an ideal world the two are aligned, but ours is not ideal. Also worth noting legal-illegal is rather objective, while legitimate-illegitimate is rather subjective.
I found Thoreau interesting on the topic, who commented being jailed for withholding taxes to not support the war: “The bars are meant to separate bad from good people”.
/me does that unusual thing of actually reading the article … ah, here we go “Protestors physically blocked oil tankers in the harbour… When the protestors were ordered to move to allow vehicles to pass, Greta was among those who refused. She was then dragged away by police.”
So she wasn’t peacefully protesting, which by the way IS legal in most places; she was being obstructive, somewhat like those Just Stop Oil muppets who glue themselves to roads. It’s fine to protest. It’s not fine to prevent others from living their lives, and that’s why she was prosecuted.
We can stop oil when we have a better choice.
She was peacefully protesting. There was no violence involved. She refused to move. She didn’t hurt or threaten anyone.
There’s no dichotomy between peaceful and obstructive.
Of all the things to be guilty of these days, that’s a pretty decent one.
Disobeying the foot soldiers of capital is a core tenet of climate protesting. This is akin to charging a band for making noise.
She’s getting into good trouble.
Harriet Tubman was also a criminal. Just about every single hero was technically a criminal.
I’m sure if Harriet Tubman was active today, she would be facing the same sort of bullshit as Greta. Probably worse thanks to her complexion.
deleted by creator
Oh no… Not a minor inconvenience.
How will we go on?
If all she’s done is ‘obstruct traffic’ then how do you even know her name?
Here, I’d say the point is the point at which they face legal consequences to what specific immediate end.
Harriet Tubman faced death as a consequence for directly freeing slaves, after suffering enslavement and terrible ongoing physical abuse that left her permanently brain damaged.
Greta taking things to the level of Civil Disobedience faces a slap on the wrist for the somewhat less impactful goal of delaying oil tankers for a while.
Greta is known for speaking loudly and publicly about climate change. Her level of effort and commitment is commendable, though I’m still not sure why she is held above the chorus of many many others saying the same stuff.
However elevating her to the level of people who faced literal torture and death seems to be a bit much, in some ways diminishing the efforts of those that did risk everything. I can see how some folks might roll their eyes when people start comparing efforts of protesters largely doing safe protests with low risk versus people who risked and sometimes gave everything for immediate dramatic result.
Yep. Denying those slave owners their rights to own slaves ended slavery. Onto the next issue!
Read the OP again. He did not make a direct comparison between the women or their actions. He said the public reaction would be the same.
Which you can agree or disagree with, but it’s a pretty inane thing to get insulted by.
What about the guy running pornhub putting out smut for free to the masses?
her punishment was a 2500 SEK fine? They’ve just told the entire country that we can pay the equivalent of a new bicycle to block oil tankers, this is amazing.
Dagsböter, though, so it is based on income.
Which sorta just makes it better since it’ll be lower if you’re poor lol
Hire a bum to do it and don’t get caught sponsoring them.
This seems like a very good trade.
Where the hell do you get a new bicycle for 2500 SEK? I paid 2 or 3 times that for a midrange bike (in Estonia, admittedly). 2500 SEK is good used bike territory.
250 USD? Shit mate, that’s middle class monthly salary here bro.
Lol a Jula bike…
Eh maybe if you only want to cycle slowly around town, sure. For me, a bicycle is more for exercise than transportation.
It’s kinda the same as saying 8k EUR gets you a new car. I mean yeah, it’s technically true, it gets you a Dacia Sandero, but most people will still go for something they can actually enjoy.
what? this is a standard bike that anyone here would consider a proper bicycle, perfectly usable.
Like, the netherlands (where almost everyone rides a bike on the regular) is known for largely consisting of this kind of bike, it’s all you need and buying something more expensive just poses a risk of theft or damage.
Difference in cycling cultures I suppose. Around here this would be considered an old lady bike. It’s great for slowly cruising around the city, but I just wouldn’t feel comfortable at high speeds, or on trails, etc. I prefer to get everywhere fast like a bat out of hell (an ADHD trait, going anything but my full speed, full-on anaerobic on my commute even, feels wrong and tedious) and need a single bicycle to work on roads, streets and trails, so I got this low-mid range hybrid. This is the most common type of bike here (well actually now fatbikes are more common, but that’s a stupid trend. And I suppose full-on mountain bikes are very popular too).
Well, you’re right, this is a bike meant for transportation, not sports. Still counts as a bike though, so original comment is right too. Everybody in the Netherlands and Belgium has one of these (and if you wanna do cyclocross or bmx or fast road cycling, you have a second, third, … bike)
Ah yeah Estonia is not rich enough for everyone to buy 5 bikes so we buy one that can do everything.
if you only want to cycle slowly around town
That’s what bikes are for.
That’s what THAT bike is for. A good bike can be used to actually get to places in time. Hence why I didn’t know people under 60 get those in other countries.
I’m just saying it’s weird to call the bare minimum “the price of a new X” in a comparison.
8k eur for a new car!? Wow, that’s stupid cheap, here they cost more like 20k eur.
Also, yeah, the gap between cheap and mid-range is often like 2 or 3x. If you want a volkswagen that’s more like 40k eur.
Bicycles for commuting are fundamentally different from bicycles for sport. Some languages literally have different words for the two.
You should read up on dagsböter.
D’ya like dagsböter?
Based
Based and gretapilled
Based as fuck
Civil Disobedience FTW
Complaining about climate change will not make governments move nor civil disobedience, only when we get more than 100+ deaths due to hot temperatures per day and food shortage governments will react.
Sadly that’s how our species work on a global scale, something must go really wrong to make the world do something about it.deleted by creator
Sometimes I wonder how bad things must get to make the whole world actually do something? probably we’ll know soon.
Have you seen Mad Max by any chance…?
No they won’t. Adressing climate change does not fix short term issues. When there’s immediate issues (say flooding), we’ll invest in solutions to those issues (like an upriver dam).
@Cyo Luckily most of us live in a democracy. We get to select our government and change it as all of us see fit.
We can change things. It is up to all of us
deleted by creator
Sweden found guilty of failing to obey world’s leading scientists and researchers’ calls for immediate drastic action against climate change.
arrest Greta Thunberg
We did it, we arrested climate change!
Sounds like a South Park episode
Classic “if I blindfold myself, the threat doesn’t exist anymore!”
Ribbit
Based.
Say it ain’t so, Greta!
She broke the law and was fined. Honestly, that’s a pretty mild punishment. She could’ve probably been sentenced to prison, at least that would have been possible in Denmark (neighboring country). She should consider herself pretty lucky IMO that she got a get out of jail card just on the basis that she’s a public figure known for disobeying the rules.
What if the law she broke was unjust in the first place
Why is this news?
Because she is a public figure and a politically exposed persons
It’s rather silly. She broke the law and was found guilty of doing so. Big deal.
Look, I think she’s doing great things, but that doesn’t give her immunity to the law. If anything, this conviction keeps her name in the news, so it may be a positive after all.
Oh it definitely feels like publicity stunt to me, I only know her name, don’t really buy into either side deifying her or hating her. From what I’ve seen, she’s someone who may not be qualified, but has a platform and is using it for something she believes in.
deifying her
Yeah man, before we start a climate protest, we first pray to our savior goddess Greta Thunberg. We post up a ginormous picture of her and bow, sometimes even prostrate to it. We repeat her mantra “How dare you!” a hundred times before starting anything else, because this all is about creating a personality cult, not actually protesting our meagerness when fighting climate change.
/s
There are plenty of other scientists to get behind, but you guys chose a teenager without any real qualifications.
Sounds like she was your ‘chosen’ one.
deleted by creator
Who is pro establishment here?
Didnt she say on twitter we would already be dead in 2023?
I don’t think you read your article. And Steve Forbes himself doesn’t seem to have basic logic capabilities.
2023 was the supposed deadline for stopping the usage of fossil fuels, not the exact time humanity will be wiped out. Did you think this was going to happen in as little as one year?
It will take decades. But with every year we keep using fossil fuels, we’re ensuring that it’ll be worse.
The way the climate alarmist make it sound it will. Or maybe there is other factors in play but you can’t waste a good way to scare the populous into fear.
Not like we havent have had climate change before industrialization… Those glaciers melted just out of fun, hell we were told the late 70’s it was a “micro ice age”. Been around the block, this is a ploy for control. If these elites really cared about it they would scrape their G5’s jets… Never gonna happen.
Plastic pollution in the sea, yeah thats on us. R22 eating the ozone, yeah again us. But CO2 is a natural compound, some man made, mostly naturally made. So I’m keeping w/ the status quo.
ploy for control
I mean one might want to consider that oil production is also controlled by elites and brings them a lot of money, so it might be why media outlets like Forbes are being paid to call it “climate alarmism” lol
But CO2 is a natural compound, some man made, mostly naturally made
Natural CO2 is part of a mostly balanced cycle. That balance is no longer there. We’re at a level that hasn’t been seen before in human history. Higher CO2 levels have been seen on Earth before, but that was before our species.
The temperatures are going to be high enough that there will be no “going out” in many areas, you’re restricted to air conditioned buildings and cars. If your AC breaks at the wrong time, you’re fucked.
People have been living in way hotter environments for centuries w/o AC and modern convenience. I’m pretty sure we can do it again if it comes down to it…
Example:
Why do you assume climate change simply means ‘it’ll get a couple degrees hotter everywhere?’ Will this ancient air conditioner allow Florida residents to continue living in their homes under 6 feet of water?
What it means is more energy in the atmosphere which will be unleased in things like hurricanes, tornados, blizzards, floods, and yes, hotter weather. It isn’t going to change the entire planet into a desert climate, but it will make lots of areas uninhabitable.
This only works in low humidity. Try again.
Every summer there are some who die of heat stroke. Yes, there are survivors, but that doesn’t mean the heat isn’t dangerous; it just means you’ve decided you’re comfortable with what you perceive to be a low risk. But each summer that heat stroke death toll will get higher. What happens when you decide you’re no longer comfortable with the risk? By then we will have missed several key opportunities in reducing CO2 levels. Better to stem the tide now, no?
The little ice age was not an actual ice age, and it was a tiny blip on the global average temperature charts compared to where we’re headed right now. Have you seen any of those charts? I have no idea how you could still claim “this is normal and has happened before” after you’ve seen them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
If you think this is a ploy for control, please tell me, who do you think is attempting to control who here? Because the people usually accused of that kind of thing (governments and billionaires) are the ones doing frustratingly little to admit and tackle the problem, and they are the only ones who actually could produce meaningful change.
“tiny blip”
This is also a nano blip in the history of this planet. But lets go ape shit and tear our world apart on a theory…
Also until China and India reign it in whats the point?
China and India don’t pollute much per person.
But the point is we need to continue developing clean energy so that it is the best economic choice so that other countries use it.
“China and India don’t pollute much per person”
Not accurate, its easy to divide up the industrial waste on the common folk (per person). Ive been to China, its horrid. Makes Buffalo in the late 1970’s seem green.
Nuclear, then batteries that are made from more common and easier materials that can be safely recycled.
What is the per capita carbon emissions in China and what is it per capita in your country?
I’ll help, it’s 7.8metric tonnes per capita in China.
What country are you from?
EDIT: Oh and it’s a paltry 1.74metric tonnes per capita in India.
Previously you said CO2 isn’t an issue so why are you even bringing up India and China’s pollution levels if you don’t think pollution is to blame for any of this?
Furthermore how can you claim the current trend is a ‘nano blip’ while we’re still in the ‘blip?’ This is like being able to predict when a stock is at its lowest or at its peak, which requires you to know the future.
That’s the issue of your reading comprehension if anything. Like, in general, not only in this topic
What is this micro ice age you are talking about? Perhaps you could point it out on the image here? https://xkcd.com/1732/
No she didn’t. Even her tweet quoted a climate scientist. Here, let me read the article you clearly didn’t.
In June 2018, climate activist Greta Thunberg fired off an urgent tweet: “A top climate scientist is warning that climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years.”
Here’s some context that isn’t just Steve “human ballsack” Forbes complaining about something that didn’t happen.
And it was BS that she propagated…
Read the context. You guys are all into “do your own research” so fucking do some!
She posted it and it didnt happen…
Can you not fucking read lmao
She posted bogus science and climate alarmists (as she is).
Are you going to repeat the same thing over and over hoping it will come true?
Even that article doesn’t say that.
If you think it does, pull the quote from it that proves it instead of linking an article that you clearly didn’t read.
She tweeted a lie, so there we are…
You’re not literate are you? Poor thing.
So Greta has no onus on tweeting a lie? Oh yeah its (D)ifferent.
When did she say it?
Show me then. Literally all I asked for
DO A SHOT!
This girl just follow get famous quick scheme.
If you want to protect environment, prove it by action, not acting.
She already took all the actions she needs and more. Now she is teaching clueless meeks like you that they need to take actions too.
And I’m not talking about recycling and not using plastic straws, I’m talking collectively making elites accountable.
You, of course, will side with the elites that are killing you, but other people might notIt’s never enough for these people. She could literally be pulling carbon out of the environment with her bare hands, and people would say something like “wow, look at her doing it to get all the attention for herself”
Modern conservatism is about complaining, not conserving. Greta is the one trying to conserve in this story.
If you hate climate change get out and do something about it WAIT NOT LIKE THAT!!!
You sound like my grandpa.
