Green web site tells kids when they SHOULD die.
Would you actually suggest to a child the proper age for them to die? Would you do this in the name of “saving the planet”?
Apparently the environmentalists over at the Australian Broadcasting System really don’t care what kind of message they are sending children. Just look at this little game they have created for children.
It is call Prof. Schpinkee’s Greenhouse Calculator, what a barrel of laughs. And notice the little note that says “Find out when you SHOULD die.” Does anyone think it is a good idea to suggest to children that there is some sort of obligation to die at a specific age?
This “game” tells kids that it will determine “How big a greenhouse pig are you?” Then it tells the children to click on the skull and crossbones “to find out what age you should die at so you don’t use more than your fair share of Earth’s resources!” What the fuck! What sort of sick environmentalist came up with this concept. I have long contended that the Green movement is dominated by human haters and this seems to prove the case.
Here is how this lovely game progresses. First, you can escape being labelled a pig no matter how “green aware” you are. You can be a smaller pig or a bigger pig but all players end up pigs regardless. Of course the questions are all green bullshit with a dose of left-wing crap as well. For instance, you are asked how much you invest in “ethical” investments each year, such as companies that make ethanol -- this makes some of the worst corporate welfare queens “ethical”.
Throughout the “game” there are three pigs. The middle pig represents the child playing the game. When he finishes answering the questions the web site then tells him the age at which he SHOULD die. Then the pig that is labelled “you” starts to quiver and explodes into a bloody mess. You will see what I mean by this screen capture. That is supposedly the players blood all over the ground with a little pig tail being all that is left. In my case the game told me “You SHOULD die at age 9.1.”
Let us take some impressionable child who is indoctrinated with the human-hating Green crap in school on a daily basis. He is told that he killing the planet. He is told that the world is coming to a horrible end because of his consumption. And then some twat at the government television company in Australia comes along and tells this child he SHOULD die before he is 10 years old! So what would they do if some terrified kid takes them seriously enough to off himself?
I hope somebody sues the pants off this assholes. They are sucking up taxpayer funds to push a political agenda that is telling children they should be dead! They deserve to rot in hell.
Update: By the way the test is, of course, rigged. That is given away by the fact that everyone is classified as a resource “pig”. It is just that the “Green pig” is only a smaller pig. I went through and answered the questions in the most “environmentally correct” way possible. Here is a rundown and the results.
Question 1: I had me walking or bicycling everywhere. On question 2 I said I didn’t own a car at all. For question 3 I said I didn’t fly at all. On question four I said I lived in a flat instead of a house of any size.
Five asks how many I live with -- of course a house, which uses more resources fits more people. I have shared a small flat with one other person. So I said that I shared with one other person. (Hey, no kids to pollute the environment.) Question six asked how big are the energy bills. Well that doesn’t necessarily reflect consumption as it could reflect high prices. I said low figuring that was the lowest energy consumption.
Question seven wants to know if the electricity I use is from a renewable source and they specify hydro or “green scheme”. The typical consumer has little choice over this. It’s not like you could out and build your own damn on the local river. But I pretended it was all green.
Question eight wants to know if I recycle my waste in a compost. Well, I guess I could if I wasn’t in a small flat. This seems to contradict the idea of having a small flat over a house with land. So if I gain points for the flat I lose them for not being able to have a compost heap. But I’ll pretend my flat has empty land around so I can compost and pretend I do.
Question nine is whether you eat meat. Eating meat is bad they say and you loose points no matter how small the amount. I pretended I don’t eat meat. (My green opponents no doubt assume I eat baby seals for breakfast.)
Question ten asks how much money you spend. The more you spend the worse your score. This is the big key in their opinion. If you spend less than $10,000 per year you shrink substantially. If you spend more than $100,000 your pig becomes larger than the box it fits in. The only way to shrink your pig is to go under $10,000. So I did.
Now the last question wants to know how my money was spent. I gain a lot of points if I made “ethical investments” by donating money to Green groups that make up scary stories for children. But the problem is that this contradicts the previous question. Investments come out of excess money. If one is spending less than $10,000 a year to live it is unlikely one has money to invest. It is the really fat pigs who earn more than $100,000 who make investments and large donations to Green fear groups.
So the only way to have money to donate or invest is to increase income and lose points there. So I said I don’t have money for donations.
They want to know what percentage of my low income is spent on stuff like clothes, rent, eating and drink. I would guess that if I spent only $10,000 a year it would be substantial. But again I am punished if that is the case. If I buy more expensive organic food I win points but organic is chic with the well-off not with the poor because poor people can’t afford it. The reality is that someone with less income than $10,000 per year is not able to buy expensive organic food and fancy light bulbs, etc.
I could spend more on such things if I increase my income but that would mean a lower score. Again these benefits wash out, which is another indication that the game is rigged.
So, on my meager income, I spent it on just the basics and nothing more.
Low and behold my pig is one third the size of the average pig. But it is more than twice the size of the “green pig”. and when I click on the skull and bones my pig explodes into a bloody mess and I’m told I should not live past 31.2 years old.
Bloody hell. They only way to get low enough to live an average life span is to pretend that you have less than $10,000 income per year. And out of that small amount of money you would not be allowed to spend more than $5,500 per year to cover “eating, drinking, going out, clothes, car, rent, etc.) How is that possible? Apparently to be worth to live an average life span you have to live in a cardboard box and eat out of the garbage can (hey, that’s recycling!).
Consider some lessons from this. Apparently it is impossible for the average person to exonerate themselves enough, in the eyes of the fanatics who prepared this game for kiddies, to be worthy of living an average life span.
Secondly consider the level of life you’d have to have in order to be worthy. That is the goal toward which many Greens are working. They tell us they want the average person to be carbon neutral. If this little propaganda game is any indication that plunging incomes and tiny flats. It means spending virtually no money on food, clothes or food. Apparently that would include medical care as well. Strip naked, roam the woods picking berries (no grubs as that is meat eating) and sleep in hollow trees and you’ll be worth of living.
By the way you can live forever in the game. You just have to stop eating entirely, have no home and give all your money to Green campaigns. Is anyone surprised that they rigged the game to encourage people to give their wealth to these political lobby groups? You can play this rather sick game here.