|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 18, 2024 16:00:38 GMT
Producing cleaner air in the UK is not a futile pursuit. It is the right thing to do, and it is the sensible thing to do. Apart from anything else it is agreed that fossil fuels have a limited future. Would you care to give an example of how the UK has hobbled itself as you claim in "is to hobble ourselves excessively to reduce our Co2 output"? You can be and have been very nasty with some of your comments. I AM NOT ALLOWING ANY PENSIONERS TO DIE. The WFA cut, which I have posted more than once that I disagree with, is about balancing the UK economy. A balanced economy would be extremely beneficial for the UK. Killing off OAPs on £218 a week is about ''balancing the economy'' in your opinion? That's a horribly new low - even for a far lefty apologist like you Nope, I have posted a number of times that I disagree with the cut in WFA, but balancing the economy is what the government is about. Your childish attempt to insult me with your lies only exposes your 'Dark Legend' DNA and the fact that lying Rightists like yourself are a total waste of space. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Oct 18, 2024 16:03:16 GMT
I know Rightists don't like the truth and have a serious weakness where their objectivity should be. I would remind all Rightists that people are not who you were born to be, they are who they have learnt to be. The more extremist they are, the more damaged they have been. Not true, people are born with innate attributes in terms of demeanour and action as dictated by their genetic inheritance, how that manifests itself can be dictated by nurture and it is far from a simple measure. Learning is a lifelong undertaking but can be most affected by the teaching and experiences in the early years. Most people apply a little logic to their thought processes but it can be hard to remove the effects of conditioning. Extremism is not necessarily the result of 'damage'. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 18, 2024 16:07:24 GMT
Thatcher "transformed" the economy by almost reaching 4million people jobless. all or most of whom along with their families would have had to rely upon government hand outs. She had the good fortune to take office just as OUR THEN OWNED North Sea oil came on full flow. Add to that the selling off of the Family silver while the NHS and most of State Education sank lower and lower, and it is clear that she only survived by good luck and flogging off our assets. And leaving the costs of rescuing of the NHS and State Education for the next Labour government. LOL, honestly, you're a laugh.  You obviously have a Rightist DNA blockage to the honest truth when it is offered. Proved by the fact you have no answer to it other than silliness. Wake up RR. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 18, 2024 16:20:09 GMT
I know Rightists don't like the truth and have a serious weakness where their objectivity should be. I would remind all Rightists that people are not who you were born to be, they are who they have learnt to be. The more extremist they are, the more damaged they have been. Not true, people are born with innate attributes in terms of demeanour and action as dictated by their genetic inheritance, how that manifests itself can be dictated by nurture and it is far from a simple measure. Learning is a lifelong undertaking but can be most affected by the teaching and experiences in the early years. Most people apply a little logic to their thought processes but it can be hard to remove the effects of conditioning. Extremism is not necessarily the result of 'damage'. Nonsense. The only sensory reaction people are born with is to be 'hard wired' to be wary of danger, from then on it is overwhelmingly learnt reactions. Remember the logical thinking brain cannot itself feel anything, while the sensory / emotional system just learns remembers and reacts, it cannot and does not either think or apply logic. That combination is where learning to be who we are takes place. Any modifying done by the DNA is exacerbated, moderated or weakened by nurture. i.e. by sensory learning. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 18, 2024 16:26:51 GMT
Producing cleaner air in the UK is not a futile pursuit. It is the right thing to do, and it is the sensible thing to do. Apart from anything else it is agreed that fossil fuels have a limited future. Cleaner air is a separate matter. Co2 is not dirt. Point out the obvious and suddenly they want to talk about something else. High levels of Co2 are not recommended but their production is accompanied by pollutants, and that's the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Oct 18, 2024 16:44:09 GMT
Cleaner air is a separate matter. Co2 is not dirt. Point out the obvious and suddenly they want to talk about something else. High levels of Co2 are not recommended but their production is accompanied by pollutants, and that's the problem. What you are now doing is talking about something else. Many of the processes behind many renewable techs are also very polluting. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 18, 2024 16:55:16 GMT
LOL, honestly, you're a laugh. As they say if you tell a lie often enough people will eventually be believe it, even the one who made it up would believe their own lie, the loss of many many Jobs started on Labours watch headed by Harold Wilson , well over a million which was going up and up when they were voted out. Reason being the UK had not kept pace with Manufactures from overseas producing goods faster and cheaper flooding into the UK, on top of that the Union's refused to adapt to better working more efficient methods that reduced costs, gross overmanning , plus demanding unaffordable pay rises they priced themselves and their members out of work The Tories inherited a broken economy, then of course the " Winter of Discontent" arrived strike after strike Jobs went hand over fist, all orchestrated by the Unions the rest is history the electorate kept the Tories in power for 18 years for that reason Hmm, more Rightest propaganda told as a truth timer and time again ^^^ The UK economy never recovered from the mess left by the Tories in 1964 when Wilson inherited lowest level of exports ever recorded up to that date. IIRC the Conservative government had gone cap in hand to the IMF twice followed by one by Labour in the 1960s who then picked up on one in the 1970s that had been started by the Heath government. In 1974 Labour inherited rising unemployment and rising inflation. Two years into office and inflation had risen to 20% something level, then reduced to 10% by 1979. In short it was the so-called Captains of Industry and the very rich who had the power and the wealth to kick-start the economy that failed the country and left the usually nasty dishonest Tory propaganda to blame Labour, it was so obvious that anyone with an ounce of commonsense would have seen it, unfortunately they were all too busy playing politics. Yes the Tories did inherit a broken economy, but it had been a broken economy for decades. The winter of discontent was when the lowest paid workers (grave diggers and the then Bin Men) who after years of low pay and high inflation refused to accept the agreement made between the Government and the TUC to restrict wage claims to 5%. I'm not sure they could be described as either greedy or reckless. I'm not surprised that a Rightist ex police officer is so badly informed. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Oct 18, 2024 17:00:08 GMT
Not true, people are born with innate attributes in terms of demeanour and action as dictated by their genetic inheritance, how that manifests itself can be dictated by nurture and it is far from a simple measure. Learning is a lifelong undertaking but can be most affected by the teaching and experiences in the early years. Most people apply a little logic to their thought processes but it can be hard to remove the effects of conditioning. Extremism is not necessarily the result of 'damage'. Nonsense. The only sensory reaction people are born with is to be 'hard wired' to be wary of danger, from then on it is overwhelmingly learnt reactions. Remember the logical thinking brain cannot itself feel anything, while the sensory / emotional system just learns remembers and reacts, it cannot and does not either think or apply logic. That combination is where learning to be who we are takes place. Any modifying done by the DNA is exacerbated, moderated or weakened by nurture. i.e. by sensory learning. You call it nonsense then seem to agree with what I said. Genes largely dictate character attributes such as selfishness, aggressiveness, kindness, subservience and many others. Nurture hones these to survive in the environment within which one is surviving. Apples not falling far from the tree kind of indicates the observed truthfulness of this saying. Animal breeders in terms of cattle often selected more docile animals for breeding, a waste of time unless genes played an important part. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 18, 2024 19:09:08 GMT
High levels of Co2 are not recommended but their production is accompanied by pollutants, and that's the problem. What you are now doing is talking about something else. Many of the processes behind many renewable techs are also very polluting. Processes behind renewable techs that are more productive of Co2 and pollutions than from coal, gas, oil etc. would be quickly dropped because they would defeat the objective they were supposed to correct. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 18, 2024 19:32:50 GMT
Nonsense. The only sensory reaction people are born with is to be 'hard wired' to be wary of danger, from then on it is overwhelmingly learnt reactions. Remember the logical thinking brain cannot itself feel anything, while the sensory / emotional system just learns remembers and reacts, it cannot and does not either think or apply logic. That combination is where learning to be who we are takes place. Any modifying done by the DNA is exacerbated, moderated or weakened by nurture. i.e. by sensory learning. You call it nonsense then seem to agree with what I said. Genes largely dictate character attributes such as selfishness, aggressiveness, kindness, subservience and many others. Nurture hones these to survive in the environment within which one is surviving. Apples not falling far from the tree kind of indicates the observed truthfulness of this saying. Animal breeders in terms of cattle often selected more docile animals for breeding, a waste of time unless genes played an important part. NO, nurture is the main controller, as it is meant to be. That is what the system is about i.e. learning the dangers and learning the ways to avoid danger. Personal safety and survival is the objective and that can only be learnt through sensory experiences. If you learn to be selfish then that is where your safety is. If you learn to be greedy then that is where your safety is. (Think billionaires who can never acquire too much wealth). If you learn to own the feelings of rejection, then seeking acceptance from others is likely to be your "sensory survival strategy". A learnt position not a product of your DNA. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Oct 18, 2024 22:06:23 GMT
You call it nonsense then seem to agree with what I said. Genes largely dictate character attributes such as selfishness, aggressiveness, kindness, subservience and many others. Nurture hones these to survive in the environment within which one is surviving. Apples not falling far from the tree kind of indicates the observed truthfulness of this saying. Animal breeders in terms of cattle often selected more docile animals for breeding, a waste of time unless genes played an important part. NO, nurture is the main controller, as it is meant to be. That is what the system is about i.e. learning the dangers and learning the ways to avoid danger. Personal safety and survival is the objective and that can only be learnt through sensory experiences. If you learn to be selfish then that is where your safety is. If you learn to be greedy then that is where your safety is. (Think billionaires who can never acquire too much wealth). If you learn to own the feelings of rejection, then seeking acceptance from others is likely to be your "sensory survival strategy". A learnt position not a product of your DNA. Observations in the animal world belie that point of view. Some animals are born aggressive and always fight, others fight until they sense defeat and others do not fight and there is always a balance of said animals in any society. These are genetic traits because survival to breed a successful next generation is the only requirement. That survival also depends on successful learning but that learning is by no means laid on a blank canvas otherwise there is no point to successful breeding, the basic pattern is laid down with all the numbers in place, what happens in nurture gives rise to the colours used to colour it in. Much is reactive such as flinching and ducking on loud noises or aggressive behaviour, all of these can be modified by nurture and eventually thought but the genetic pressures are always there. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Oct 19, 2024 8:35:23 GMT
What you are now doing is talking about something else. Many of the processes behind many renewable techs are also very polluting. Processes behind renewable techs that are more productive of Co2 and pollutions than from coal, gas, oil etc. would be quickly dropped because they would defeat the objective they were supposed to correct. Yes - because the political issue is CO2, not pollution. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 19, 2024 9:11:57 GMT
NO, nurture is the main controller, as it is meant to be. That is what the system is about i.e. learning the dangers and learning the ways to avoid danger. Personal safety and survival is the objective and that can only be learnt through sensory experiences. If you learn to be selfish then that is where your safety is. If you learn to be greedy then that is where your safety is. (Think billionaires who can never acquire too much wealth). If you learn to own the feelings of rejection, then seeking acceptance from others is likely to be your "sensory survival strategy". A learnt position not a product of your DNA. These are genetic traits because survival to breed a successful next generation is the only requirement. That survival also depends on successful learning but that learning is by no means laid on a blank canvas otherwise there is no point to successful breeding, the basic pattern is laid down with all the numbers in place, what happens in nurture gives rise to the colours used to colour it in. Much is reactive such as flinching and ducking on loud noises or aggressive behaviour, all of these can be modified by nurture and eventually thought but the genetic pressures are always there. "Said animals" are sensory beings, the final outcome is the product of nurture. If they have to fight in order to survive then that is what they do. There is a major difference between wild animals or those trained to fight, and a Human being. Some years ago I did some research into the 'Evil Gene', the end result was that some people do carry the potential to be violent but not everyone with this built in trait becomes violent, everything depends upon nurture. Humans are sensory aware for the last three months in the womb, and that is where sensory learning begins which for most will be a warm comfortable place where all their needs are met. From there people learn to be violent by experiences in the world they enter. They don't leave the womb looking for a fight. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 19, 2024 9:22:03 GMT
Processes behind renewable techs that are more productive of Co2 and pollutions than from coal, gas, oil etc. would be quickly dropped because they would defeat the objective they were supposed to correct. Yes - because the political issue is CO2, not pollution. Co2 is a natural and a necessary gas but excessive production of it is a problem, the more so when it is accompanied by pollutants from using coal. oil or gas. EVs do not produce Co2 emissions, so its 'go green' because we know it makes sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Oct 19, 2024 9:36:25 GMT
LOL, honestly, you're a laugh. You obviously have a Rightist DNA blockage to the honest truth when it is offered. Proved by the fact you have no answer to it other than silliness. Wake up RR. ... a rightist DNA blockage... lol how droll. This is the sort of low brow left wing drivel I expect from that fat fuck Jo Brand. Raise your game there's a good chap.  |
|
