Did any of them comment on the reason for the protest, or just the act itself? I don’t want to see things like stonehenge or priceless art getting fucked up, but I am OK with more things being fucked up if that is what it takes… I’m fully expecting environmental extremism to become a thing in the next few years, as the situation will get worse and these sort of protests haven’t achieved anything.
Did any of them comment on the reason for the protest, or just the act itself?
Pro-tip: if you have questions raised by an article’s headlines, read the article.
“Just Stop Oil said the motivation behind the incident was to demand the next UK government end the extraction and burning of oil, gas and coal by 2030.”
Pro Tip: Don’t be a cunt.
Perhaps my wording was ambiguous, I am aware of the reason for the protest and the content of the article, my point is that the politicians have not commented on the reasons and deflected the topic to the protest itself.
It depends on which “them” is being referred to in OP’s comment. Assuming “them” are the protesters, then the answer provides what the protesters said, or at least what the organisation they represented said.
Why would you assume that? It was obviously asking about what comment the politicians have made, from the fact that they were asking about whether “they” had commented “on the reason for the protest, or just the act”.
It was obviously asking about what comment the politicians have made
Why would you assume that? It was obviously asking about what comment the protesters have made, from the fact that they were asking about whether “they” had commented “on the reason for the protest, or just the act”.
Did any of them comment on the reason for the protest, or just the act itself? I don’t want to see things like stonehenge or priceless art getting fucked up, but I am OK with more things being fucked up if that is what it takes… I’m fully expecting environmental extremism to become a thing in the next few years, as the situation will get worse and these sort of protests haven’t achieved anything.
It’s not what it takes. It turns people against the cause.
How many people do you know that were pro actual environment saving acts before and are now against?
None, but that’s also true in the other direction and those people are now more resolute.
They were never gonna do anything that doesn’t directly and immediately benefit themselves anyways.
Pro-tip: if you have questions raised by an article’s headlines, read the article.
“Just Stop Oil said the motivation behind the incident was to demand the next UK government end the extraction and burning of oil, gas and coal by 2030.”
Pro Tip: Don’t be a cunt. Perhaps my wording was ambiguous, I am aware of the reason for the protest and the content of the article, my point is that the politicians have not commented on the reasons and deflected the topic to the protest itself.
So it didn’t work as a form of protest. Don’t give your opponent such an easy win.
In what way does that quote answer their question?
It depends on which “them” is being referred to in OP’s comment. Assuming “them” are the protesters, then the answer provides what the protesters said, or at least what the organisation they represented said.
Why would you assume that? It was obviously asking about what comment the politicians have made, from the fact that they were asking about whether “they” had commented “on the reason for the protest, or just the act”.
Why would you assume that? It was obviously asking about what comment the protesters have made, from the fact that they were asking about whether “they” had commented “on the reason for the protest, or just the act”.
Yes, it’s very easy to make a bad faith argument if you just randomly pull quotes, rather than actually looking at context.
Removed by mod
Uhh…
It’s a dumb copypasta
Indeed