Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ohheyisayokay t1_jdptzdx wrote

Reply to comment by Vermaxx in Top lawyers defy bar to declare they will not prosecute peaceful climate protesters by je97

"What difference does a single grain of sand make?" asked every grain on the beach.

Even if the amount Britain contributes doesn't make a difference (and if you had IVs of poison dripping into your veins, don't tell me you would leave one on just cause it wasn't the one dripping the most), Britain's actions make a difference. Countries look to other countries as examples. Countries feel pressure from the actions of other countries. Britain might not make the biggest difference, but they can set an example.

Or Britain can sit, lazy as a turd on a log, and do nothing because "why should I be the first one to do a good thing? Why should I stop doing a bad thing if someone else is doing it worse?" and let everyone else feel comfortable pointing at everyone else instead of doing anything, and we can all go down pointing.

So no, Britain isn't going to solve the climate crisis on its own. But asking it to stop being part of the problem isn't crazy.

1

Vermaxx t1_jdqo7ew wrote

Demanding it cease 100% to economic AND military detriment, in the face of an expansionist and belligerent competitor who won't ever stop, that is crazy.

0

ohheyisayokay t1_jdtcbrz wrote

You keep ping ponging between this nirvana fallacy argument and a straw man argument to justify doing nothing.

So far you have argued against stopping anything because

A) it's unreasonable to ask for 100% cessation and you imply that 100% or 0% are the only options B) you assume China will never stop C) you apparently believe that you should only do what's right when everyone else is already doing it.

You assume, and I think incorrectly, that taking decisive climate action will be too Britain's detriment. You seem to forget that an oil dependency is a military liability as well as an economic liability, and where most of the oil in the world comes from.

If you can't think of a way in which the rest of the world can pressure China to take action, you lack imagination.

1

Vermaxx t1_jdte468 wrote

How does one pressure the new world power once that nation takes control? China will never have to cooperate because they either stay second rate (and we won't invade) or they supplant the west (and we won't invade).

You're a zealot. If I'm not saying anything values then stop tagging me. I know I can't convince you you're wrong, because you fully believe the world will end soon. I've heard them say the world is ending soon for thirty years. The only thing that changes is the reason and the date... but no missed dates ever force an admission that things aren't as dire as claimed. The warnings just get more dire and the demands get more extreme.

0

Vermaxx t1_jdteg52 wrote

Let's also talk about the fact that "peaceful protest" doesn't lead to prison. Rioting and property destruction do. These attorneys are defending terrorism.

0

ohheyisayokay t1_jdttrrw wrote

>Let's also talk about the fact that "peaceful protest" doesn't lead to prison.

Oh my god, do you actually believe that?!

1

Vermaxx t1_jdtvbff wrote

Unless you're colloquially referring to "jail" as "prison," then no. Civil disobedience results in misdemeanor charges. Obstructing roadways, attacking people, using violence or property destruction are all possible avenues for FELONIES, which can lead to prison. Committing felonious acts for shock value to cause political change is one definition of terrorism.

0

ohheyisayokay t1_jdtxp3e wrote

Oho! You almost got me with this one. It almost looked relevant, until I remembered that prison time has fuckall to do with whether prosecutors being charges or not.

Did you lose track of the history of the conversation? We're talking about UK prosecutors refusing to prosecute for peaceful protests, and you're changing the subject to "peaceful protests don't lead to prison time."

Almost!!

1

Vermaxx t1_jdty76m wrote

How does someone go to prison if they're not charged with a crime? The sign says "no prison." I'd expect prosecutors to know what level of charges they're vacating and be technically precise. Ergo, they're not planning on sticking to misdemeanor charges, they plan on excusing felonies.

1

ohheyisayokay t1_jdujp5i wrote

What the fuck? You have to be trolling at this point. Otherwise I am alarmed by how confused you are.

Let's look at how far off you are with this stretch:

  1. You apply US legal terms to UK legal matters. The UK has no misdemeanors and felonies, that distinction was legally abolished in the mid 20th century.

  2. You are now taking a sign you saw in a photo of a protest and applying its text to the intentions of a wholly separate group of people: the prosecutors.

  3. You pull your bizarre logic from all over the place, whether it's connected or not. Assumptions about the US legal system, assumptions about the intent of the lawyers, and extrapolations from the text of one sign at a protest.

You're reaching hard and ignoring facts in favor of your conjecture.

1

Vermaxx t1_jdvripp wrote

You don't have any legal tiers? Well that sounds terrible. You win, I agree. No prosecution for climate activists in Britain.

0