Two Just Stop Oil supporters have painted multiple private jets on the airfield where Taylor Swift’s jet landed mere hours before. They are demanding that the incoming UK government commit to working with other governments to agree an equitable plan to end the extraction and burning of oil, gas and coal by 2030. [1] At
It sounded like you are comparing the stonehenge protest to the one with the planes, not with climate change. Safety is critical in aviation, so it might sound dangerous to people that the planes were painted. I would instead say something like “they are valuing literal rocks over the lives of people claimed by climate disasters”. Then it’s clear you are talking about climate change in the second instance, and not the people flying the plane.
No. You still don’t get it. People think you are comparing stone henge (just rocks) to human lives (potential air disaster from painting a plane and damaging something). Rather than the human lives being lost from climate change.
I legitimately can’t tell if you are legitimately struggling to understand or you are one of the bad faith actors you talk about.
How?! Neither I nor the comment I replied to mentioned planes the only way you could make that jump is if you didn’t bother to read the chain and instead jump to conclusions based on limited context and the title of the article.
I’m not particularly bothered by down votes, to me it sorta weeds out bad faith actors anyway.
This is a case of you failing to communicate though. Not bad faith actors or whatever.
It makes perfect sense.
“It’s literally rocks…” Whats just rocks? Stonehenge!
“You’re valuing human life less than rocks, I think that says more about you than them.”
What are the protestors protesting for? Climate change.
Ie. If vandalizing Stonehenge is a bigger issue to you than climate change then you’re valuing human life less than rocks.
It could not be any more clear and I think that’s pretty evident based on the lack of offering a better wording.
It sounded like you are comparing the stonehenge protest to the one with the planes, not with climate change. Safety is critical in aviation, so it might sound dangerous to people that the planes were painted. I would instead say something like “they are valuing literal rocks over the lives of people claimed by climate disasters”. Then it’s clear you are talking about climate change in the second instance, and not the people flying the plane.
How? Are planes just rocks? Are people?
No. You still don’t get it. People think you are comparing stone henge (just rocks) to human lives (potential air disaster from painting a plane and damaging something). Rather than the human lives being lost from climate change.
I legitimately can’t tell if you are legitimately struggling to understand or you are one of the bad faith actors you talk about.
How?! Neither I nor the comment I replied to mentioned planes the only way you could make that jump is if you didn’t bother to read the chain and instead jump to conclusions based on limited context and the title of the article.