If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Nine MSN)   Hilary Clinton censors Steve Irwin's kid for pointing out the elephant in the room   (news.ninemsn.com.au) divider line 166
    More: Obvious, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Terri Irwin, Bindi Irwin, Bindi, censorships  
•       •       •

8386 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jan 2013 at 10:00 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



166 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-24 08:35:24 AM
She said the expanding global population caused "most problems in the world today, such as climate change".

Which is wrong. The problem isn't population, it's consumption. The world's wealthiest 500 million people (about seven percent) are responsible for half of all carbon emissions. The poorest fifty percent of the world's population (about 3.5 billion) produce just seven percent of the total carbon emissions. The estimated increase of 2 billion people by 2040 will come almost entirely from those poorest half (turning them into the poorest two-thirds). That will increase their share of emissions from seven to eleven percent. The problem really isn't the number of people but rather the energy and waste intensive lifestyle of the privileged few among us. While population in the third world should be addressed (and is in fact already leveling out due to a number of factors), the much bigger issue is addressing consumption in the first world.
 
Pud [TotalFark]
2013-01-24 08:49:23 AM
FTA - After the edited version was sent to her for review, Irwin reportedly wrote a letter to the state department asking "what happened to freedom of speech?"
"This is my opinion and I don't want that edited out," she wrote.


I like this kid
 
2013-01-24 08:55:36 AM
I can reduce the human population by 50% overnight.

Just classify men and women as different species.

Problem solved.
 
2013-01-24 09:18:24 AM

Sybarite: She said the expanding global population caused "most problems in the world today, such as climate change".

Which is wrong. The problem isn't population, it's consumption. The world's wealthiest 500 million people (about seven percent) are responsible for half of all carbon emissions. The poorest fifty percent of the world's population (about 3.5 billion) produce just seven percent of the total carbon emissions. The estimated increase of 2 billion people by 2040 will come almost entirely from those poorest half (turning them into the poorest two-thirds). That will increase their share of emissions from seven to eleven percent. The problem really isn't the number of people but rather the energy and waste intensive lifestyle of the privileged few among us. While population in the third world should be addressed (and is in fact already leveling out due to a number of factors), the much bigger issue is addressing consumption in the first world.


Humans consume more resources than are readily available. It's our destiny to thrash this planet.

The plane is crashing into the goddamn mountain anyway, so let's all go out in a final blaze of glory.
 
2013-01-24 09:31:21 AM
She's 14?!?

She was like 5 yesterday!

shiat I'm getting old.
 
2013-01-24 09:41:03 AM
Mathusian doomsdayers still live on. Also, HRC had nothing to do with this personally, most likely. Also: is this a scandal yet?
 
2013-01-24 09:47:33 AM

baka-san: She's 14?!?

She was like 5 yesterday!

shiat I'm getting old.


Yep.  Although I'm not aware of any photos that would allow Fark to go all Ariel Winter on her.
 
2013-01-24 09:49:57 AM
But, but...be fruitful and multiply and all that crap.

Sybarite: The problem isn't population, it's consumption. The world's wealthiest 500 million people (about seven percent) are responsible for half of all carbon emissions. The poorest fifty percent of the world's population (about 3.5 billion) produce just seven percent of the total carbon emissions.


So get rid of the 3 billion in between and you've reduced emissions by 43%.

This world would most certainly be better off without as many people consuming as much as they do.  That's for sure.

baka-san: She's 14?!?

She was like 5 yesterday!

shiat I'm getting old.


And THIS

/off my lawn
//adjusts onion on belt
 
2013-01-24 09:53:13 AM

Sybarite: She said the expanding global population caused "most problems in the world today, such as climate change".

Which is wrong. The problem isn't population, it's consumption. The world's wealthiest 500 million people (about seven percent) are responsible for half of all carbon emissions. The poorest fifty percent of the world's population (about 3.5 billion) produce just seven percent of the total carbon emissions. The estimated increase of 2 billion people by 2040 will come almost entirely from those poorest half (turning them into the poorest two-thirds). That will increase their share of emissions from seven to eleven percent. The problem really isn't the number of people but rather the energy and waste intensive lifestyle of the privileged few among us. While population in the third world should be addressed (and is in fact already leveling out due to a number of factors), the much bigger issue is addressing consumption in the first world.


It's more than just emmissions. You're ignoring fresh water shortages, deforestation, erosion, and a host of other problems that are caused by an excessively large population of humans.
 
2013-01-24 09:59:04 AM
Being so heavily edited must sting.

/too soon?
 
2013-01-24 10:03:05 AM
90% of the time, talking about "over-population" is a dog whistle for "there's too many non-whites".

The only time you usually get genuine conversations on the topic is within universities.
 
2013-01-24 10:04:10 AM
After the edited version was sent to her for review, Irwin reportedly wrote a letter to the state department asking "what happened to freedom of speech?"

Area Teen Passionate Defender of What She Imagines First Amendment To Be
 
2013-01-24 10:05:57 AM
As soon as I read the article, I knew within the first few posts someone would step up to defend our collective unchecked breeding mentality.

There are too many farking people on this planet, plain and simple.

Stop having kids. Adopt a dog or something.

Earth will thank you.
 
2013-01-24 10:06:14 AM
Steve Irwin's kid? The Crocodile Hunter? But he died! She lost her daaaad, man! How would you like to lose your dad? You don't censor people that lose their dads! WTF?!
 
2013-01-24 10:06:50 AM
FTFA:  She asked for the new version be pulled from publication - adamant that her message needed to be published in full - and the department complied.

The head of the State Department can't publish an essay that says too many people being alive is causing problems.  The girl said without that in it, she didn't want her writing to be used, so they pulled the essay entirely.

Lately, people seem desperate to find some scandal to pin to Hillary, but they're not having much success.
 
2013-01-24 10:08:15 AM
That's gotta sting.
 
2013-01-24 10:08:20 AM

Bungles: 90% of the time, talking about "over-population" is a dog whistle for "there's too many non-whites".

The only time you usually get genuine conversations on the topic is within universities.


Nah, there's a lot of folks around. It's out of control. It's time to start pulling out.

www.wrsc.org
 
2013-01-24 10:09:19 AM

DjangoStonereaver: Being so heavily edited must sting.


images.sodahead.com
 
2013-01-24 10:09:41 AM

Pud: FTA - After the edited version was sent to her for review, Irwin reportedly wrote a letter to the state department asking "what happened to freedom of speech?"
"This is my opinion and I don't want that edited out," she wrote.

I like this kid


What has this got to do with free speech? The kid can publish her writing, if Clinton thinks parts of it were moronic long discredited nonsense so skips those parts, well it is her blog, so she can publish what she likes, and if the kid doesn't like the edited version going out then she can withdraw permission for publishing the bits Clinton was okay with. No free speech issues involved because 1) Clinton isn't acting as part of the government while censoring the kid or a third party and 2) free speech rights don't imply the right to have your speech reprinted/rebroadcast anywhere with the owners of a newspaper, tv show or blog having no control over what gets included in their output
 
2013-01-24 10:09:41 AM

Pud: FTA - After the edited version was sent to her for review, Irwin reportedly wrote a letter to the state department asking "what happened to freedom of speech?"
"This is my opinion and I don't want that edited out," she wrote.

I like this kid


Then you, like this kid, have no clue at all what exactly 'freedom of speech' under the first amendment ACTUALLY entails.
 
2013-01-24 10:10:36 AM
Next: The "every sperm is sacred" religious right pillories Hillary for muzzling an innocent 14 year old girl's right to talk about population expansion!!!11
 
2013-01-24 10:11:09 AM

Sybarite: Which is wrong. The problem isn't population, it's consumption. The world's wealthiest 500 million people (about seven percent) are responsible for half of all carbon emissions. The poorest fifty percent of the world's population (about 3.5 billion) produce just seven percent of the total carbon emissions. The estimated increase of 2 billion people by 2040 will come almost entirely from those poorest half (turning them into the poorest two-thirds). That will increase their share of emissions from seven to eleven percent. The problem really isn't the number of people but rather the energy and waste intensive lifestyle of the privileged few among us. While population in the third world should be addressed (and is in fact already leveling out due to a number of factors), the much bigger issue is addressing consumption in the first world.


Obviously the solution is to make sure the lower 3rd does not attain the consumption levels of the upper third.
 
2013-01-24 10:11:44 AM
Meh, FOX News does it all the time
 
2013-01-24 10:13:46 AM

Pud: FTA - After the edited version was sent to her for review, Irwin reportedly wrote a letter to the state department asking "what happened to freedom of speech?"
"This is my opinion and I don't want that edited out," she wrote.


[morbo.jpg]
 
2013-01-24 10:15:26 AM

ManRay: Sybarite: Which is wrong. The problem isn't population, it's consumption. The world's wealthiest 500 million people (about seven percent) are responsible for half of all carbon emissions. The poorest fifty percent of the world's population (about 3.5 billion) produce just seven percent of the total carbon emissions. The estimated increase of 2 billion people by 2040 will come almost entirely from those poorest half (turning them into the poorest two-thirds). That will increase their share of emissions from seven to eleven percent. The problem really isn't the number of people but rather the energy and waste intensive lifestyle of the privileged few among us. While population in the third world should be addressed (and is in fact already leveling out due to a number of factors), the much bigger issue is addressing consumption in the first world.

Obviously the solution is to make sure the lower 3rd does not attain the consumption levels of the upper third.


I really good plague would help.
 
2013-01-24 10:15:54 AM

Pud: FTA - After the edited version was sent to her for review, Irwin reportedly wrote a letter to the state department asking "what happened to freedom of speech?"
"This is my opinion and I don't want that edited out," she wrote.

I like this kid


I like the bold part. The rest of it...I realize she may not be American (didn't bother to check), but someone should tell her what is Freedom of Speech (as codified in Amendment 1) and what is "freedom of speach" (Area Man's interpretation).
 
2013-01-24 10:16:56 AM
The rate of population growth has slowed dramatically, and by some estimates worldwide population may actually begin diminishing within a few decades. Which is good, because the Earth is already well beyond its natural carrying capacity for humans - if technology didn't allow us to fix nitrogen artificially (a process which consumes a substantial quantity of petroleum), we'd be in the midst of a global famine.
 
2013-01-24 10:17:15 AM
We have plenty of space, and plenty of resources, and plenty of energy. The problem is that it isn't distributed properly
 
2013-01-24 10:17:33 AM
Wait a second... "elephant in the room"? Where does she call Hillary fat?
 
2013-01-24 10:18:35 AM

ManRay: Sybarite: Which is wrong. The problem isn't population, it's consumption. The world's wealthiest 500 million people (about seven percent) are responsible for half of all carbon emissions. The poorest fifty percent of the world's population (about 3.5 billion) produce just seven percent of the total carbon emissions. The estimated increase of 2 billion people by 2040 will come almost entirely from those poorest half (turning them into the poorest two-thirds). That will increase their share of emissions from seven to eleven percent. The problem really isn't the number of people but rather the energy and waste intensive lifestyle of the privileged few among us. While population in the third world should be addressed (and is in fact already leveling out due to a number of factors), the much bigger issue is addressing consumption in the first world.

Obviously the solution is to make sure the lower 3rd does not attain the consumption levels of the upper third.


Actually, the objective is to make everyone live like the poorest 50%, save a few government officials who need a nice cozy place from which to run things.
 
2013-01-24 10:18:55 AM

Dr Dreidel: Pud: FTA - After the edited version was sent to her for review, Irwin reportedly wrote a letter to the state department asking "what happened to freedom of speech?"
"This is my opinion and I don't want that edited out," she wrote.

I like this kid

I like the bold part. The rest of it...I realize she may not be American (didn't bother to check), but someone should tell her what is Freedom of Speech (as codified in Amendment 1) and what is "freedom of speach" (Area Man's interpretation).


Be warned, Area Man is a passionate defender of what he imagines the constitution to be. I always love when people completely misinterpret the first amendment on an internet board where we all know modmins roam deleting posts that violate the rules.
 
2013-01-24 10:21:05 AM
"I just think it's fascinating that when Bindi does an interview and talks about population, more than 50 per cent of the time it's edited out," she said.

To be fair, the population folks have a reputation for being fanatical douchebags who threadjack every discussion of every other environmental issue. People are probably just censoring her reflexively.
 
2013-01-24 10:22:05 AM
She asked for the new version be pulled from publication - adamant that her message needed to be published in full - and the department complied.


What are they going on about, now?
 
2013-01-24 10:22:46 AM
Hey Bindi, ya wanna bend over? Ohhh.
Say it like Dice. It is funnier that way.
 
2013-01-24 10:23:23 AM
stoush?
 
2013-01-24 10:24:25 AM

DROxINxTHExWIND: She asked for the new version be pulled from publication - adamant that her message needed to be published in full - and the department complied.


What are they going on about, now?


Because "Freedom of Speech" means that any publication must run anything anyone sends to them unedited!

/she is only 14, and not from the U.S., so, I'll give her a break this time
 
2013-01-24 10:25:15 AM

Sybarite: She said the expanding global population caused "most problems in the world today, such as climate change".

Which is wrong. The problem isn't population, it's consumption. The world's wealthiest 500 million people (about seven percent) are responsible for half of all carbon emissions. The poorest fifty percent of the world's population (about 3.5 billion) produce just seven percent of the total carbon emissions. The estimated increase of 2 billion people by 2040 will come almost entirely from those poorest half (turning them into the poorest two-thirds). That will increase their share of emissions from seven to eleven percent. The problem really isn't the number of people but rather the energy and waste intensive lifestyle of the privileged few among us. While population in the third world should be addressed (and is in fact already leveling out due to a number of factors), the much bigger issue is addressing consumption in the first world.


How many Americans make that wealthiest 500 million list?

Most of the world still lives in mud huts where poverty is classified as people making under 2$ a day.

To go with the Fox news thing people like to make fun of...If you own a refridgerator are you considered wealthy compared to the rest of the world......you may not be considered wealthy in the US but now the wealth disparity is on a scale of 7 billion people instead of comparing 350 million Americans to eachother.
 
2013-01-24 10:28:47 AM
I'm at all not big on censorship, but I get the feeling people might actually be doing Bindi a favor by trying to prevent her naive and potentially inflammatory views from ruining her future.
 
2013-01-24 10:28:50 AM

johnnyrocket: Bungles: 90% of the time, talking about "over-population" is a dog whistle for "there's too many non-whites".

The only time you usually get genuine conversations on the topic is within universities.

Nah, there's a lot of folks around. It's out of control. It's time to start pulling out.

[www.wrsc.org image 850x850]


Those sorts of graphs look serious, but they misrepresent what is actually going on because they mostly reflect a change in life expectancies in the last century or two, which has already slowed in most developed countries (because the largest part of it is cutting infant mortality to very low levels, which obviously can't be improved a whole lot more), and in fact increased education levels means that global population will likely decline slowly after peaking at something like 9-11b.
 
2013-01-24 10:28:59 AM

PanicMan: stoush?


I think that's British slang for vagina.
 
2013-01-24 10:29:09 AM

give me doughnuts: It's more than just emmissions. You're ignoring fresh water shortages, deforestation, erosion, and a host of other problems that are caused by an excessively large population of humans.


Even things like copper for wiring and plumbing......corn affected by drought and fungus that drives up the price of milk and eggs and meat and a host of other things.

Look at how often we throw electronic devices away because version 1.34.shiat the market.

The US consumes...it's what we do and we will never stop. We are the T1000 of consuming.
 
2013-01-24 10:32:50 AM
Freedom of Speech means the Secretary of State of the United States has to publish whatever you send her in her personal e-journal without editing it?

They sent it to her for her approval.
 
2013-01-24 10:33:09 AM

someonelse: PanicMan: stoush?

I think that's British slang for vagina.


Australian slang meaning a fight or argument.

British slang for vagina would be twat (and lots of others).
 
2013-01-24 10:34:21 AM

Giltric: How many Americans make that wealthiest 500 million list?


Probably 95% of us, if not more. Even the poverty line in the US ($18k and change?) is some crazy multiplier of the world's median annual wage.

someonelse: I think that's British slang for vagina.


Of those 7 words, 6 are British slang for "vagina".

// they like vagina
 
2013-01-24 10:34:41 AM

Sybarite: She said the expanding global population caused "most problems in the world today, such as climate change".

Which is wrong. The problem isn't population, it's consumption. The world's wealthiest 500 million people (about seven percent) are responsible for half of all carbon emissions. The poorest fifty percent of the world's population (about 3.5 billion) produce just seven percent of the total carbon emissions.


But that's still a population issue. If the wealthiest 7 percent were only 100 million instead of 500 million, then carbon emissions would be dramatically lower---regardless of the distribution of consumption.

This argument also makes some unwarranted assumptions about our consumption---in particular, equating carbon emissions with consumption. The reality is that carbon emissions often increase for economic reasons that have nothing to do with increases in consumption: for example, a massive offshoring of industrial capacity to 3rd world nations, or a nation gradually switching from nuclear to coal-fired power generation, or a lack of urban planning or exodus from urban areas that results in much longer commutes. In none of these cases are people really "consuming" more as individuals, but their carbon footprint gets much larger.

There are, admittedly, other trends in which people directly and dramatically increase their consumption, like the change in the last 100 years in the number of articles of clothing people buy every year, driven in part by a drop in quality and in part by a general attitude that clothing is something that wears out and is to be replaced.
 
2013-01-24 10:34:44 AM

Bungles: 90% of the time, talking about "over-population" is a dog whistle for "there's too many non-whites".

The only time you usually get genuine conversations on the topic is within universities.


Besides, I'm sure this was supposed to be a fluff piece for a softball publication. Someone who has been on television since the age of five should have handlers who know these things. Write a nice "I love animals and am continuing dear daddy's legacy" and let it go.

Nobody cares what teenagers think anyhow. Come back when you have a degree and have done some research to back this up and you might make a difference.
 
2013-01-24 10:34:49 AM
Virtuoso80: I'm at all not big on censorship, but I get the feeling people might actually be doing Bindi a favor by trying to prevent her naive and potentially inflammatory views from ruining her future.

8/10

Subtle
 
2013-01-24 10:37:52 AM
i1151.photobucket.com
♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫
Who's the kid orphaned by a sting ray
Chastising us all for making babies
Who used her dad's coffin as a soap box
Everyone knows it's Bindi
♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫
 
2013-01-24 10:38:42 AM

johnnyrocket: Bungles: 90% of the time, talking about "over-population" is a dog whistle for "there's too many non-whites".

The only time you usually get genuine conversations on the topic is within universities.

Nah, there's a lot of folks around. It's out of control. It's time to start pulling out.


If people knew how to pull out we wouldn't have such a huge population.
 
2013-01-24 10:39:33 AM

CPennypacker: Freedom of Speech means the Secretary of State of the United States has to publish whatever you send her in her personal e-journal without editing it?

They sent it to her for her approval.


Pretty much came to say this. HRC would have to take huge amounts of flak if her journal published an article like this. Freedom of speech doesn't mean forcing someone else to publish your shiat for you, even a 14 year old should know that.
 
Displayed 50 of 166 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report