Good time of day

On Time and Water by Andri Snær Magnason. A bit more philosophically inclined book about the subject.

That was a very tone deaf response.

En usko että tapahtuu. Mainonta kun edesauttaa kulutusta ja siten sitä kaikkein pyhintä eli talouskasvua.

Edit: Älytelkkarin omistavalle kaverille linkkasin tämmöisen kun tuli vastaan: https://smarttubenext.org/

:DDD

Humans can already fit through way too small holes.

A wiki article about a particularly gory diving bell incident. No graphic images, but still not exactly light reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byford_Dolphin#Diving_bell_accident

Neither of the two planes that fell down recently were Boeings.

This isn’t about the holocaust. It’s about your faulty reasoning. I’m just using the holocaust as an easy example of something that is widely considered objectionable in order to demonstrate just how flawed your reasoning is. Angela is just a random value in place of the variable “person Y”.

I have made absolutely no changes to the reasoning within the statements. It’s all just the same flawed reasoning of yours. If the reasoning were valid, then true premises would always result in true conclusions. This clearly didn’t happen, despite the fact that my alternate premises (nazis legalised holocaust) were true. This is deductive argumentation 101.

I do have a dog in the race. I care about the subject. I just haven’t talked about it because you’re too much fun. The meat industry is a significant contributor to the climate and eco crisis. As a person living on the same planet and reliant on the stability of the same atmospheric and ecological systems, it is a concern of mine that people eat meat and other animal products so much. I’ve managed to eliminate most animal products from my diet, but not all of them. But regardless of all that, why shouldn’t I be allowed to criticise someone for not being logical?

Sure, block me if you want, but I still have a feeling that you’ll come to read this, just as you continued the discussion after three times claiming to end it, perhaps hoping that I had slipped up in my response. Who knows, maybe this time you get lucky?

Doing the holocaust was legal.
Angela has no right to tell someone they shouldn’t do the holocaust.
Angela is more than welcome to make the information publicly available to anyone partaking in doing the holocaust.
The nazi is under no obligation to look at said information if they don’t wish to.
Angela should leave the nazi alone to live their life without constant harassment from Angela.
Angela probably doesn’t like others telling her how to live her life, what she should put in her body, who she should marry, love or live with.
Angela should note the irony in this.
Angela should spend her time in support of others that share the same belief, rather than antagonising those who don’t.

You presented one premise, skipped any attempt at reasoning and all the rest are conclusions based on nothing tangible.

Calling me a vegan blowhard is interesting considering that I already said that I’m not a vegan. I have made no claims on the subject here. I just find logical jousting enjoyable. The fact that you’re quite bad at this makes it even more fun.

Your take, broken down into its elements goes as follows:

Premises: Doing X is legal. Person Y considers doing X wrong.

Reasoning: People should be allowed to do what is legal without moral objections from others.

Conclusion: Because X is legal, Y shouldn’t object to other people doing X, despite the fact that Y thinks it’s wrong.

Why shouldn’t child abuse and rape be among the possible objectionable acts inserted in the place of variable X? The beautiful thing about logical structures is that their validity is independent of the specific words that are inserted for the variables. If you think the logic in the statement above is valid, then consider the following statements using the exact same logic, just with different variables:

Eating meat is legal. A vegan considers eating meat to be wrong. Because it is legal, the vegan shouldn’t object to other people eating meat, despite the fact that they think it’s wrong.

Eating children is legal on the cannibal island. Joe considers eating children to be wrong. Because it is legal, Joe shouldn’t object to other people eating children, despite the fact that Joe thinks it’s wrong.

The nazis set laws which made the holocaust legal. Angela considers the systematic killing of Jews, disabled people, socialists and intellectuals to be wrong. Because they made it legal, Angela shouldn’t object to other people doing it, despite the fact that Angela thinks it’s wrong.

These statements are identical in their logic. If despite this you disagree with some of the statements but not all of them, then you need to articulate your stance with more nuance.

I’m a different person, that was my first comment here.

The way I see it, the discussion was about permitting others to commit acts which one considers immoral.

In the case of a vegan that might mean allowing someone else to eat meat, but the ethical dilemma is the very same as allowing a cannibal to eat a child. Does one have any right to intervene in their daily habits and societal norms, just because you think it’s wrong? If yes, why shouldn’t the vegan do the same?

I will say that I can’t claim to be a vegan myself. I just found your logic flawed.

Would you make the same comment if somebody else was eating a human child? If not, why?

“Just leave people alone to do their thing.” “Let’s care less about what others eat.”

Do you see how this very same logic could be used to excuse pretty much any diet or action?

Also the environmental impacts. I don’t own a huge polluting coal powerplant that is actively contributing to fucking up the planet that I live on, and I’m still allowed to criticise them for it. Why should the meat industry be any different?

Might take a while for the mods to get mad. I don’t see how anyone could get mad about such a cute and whimsical little goober.

Me but every time I think I see a nice cloud.

Meh I can understand uncaring, since that’s just the lack of being caring. But yeah plenty of nihilists also slap on some attributes of active malice as well.

This. The meme is inaccurate in that the polar vortex is in fact currently unusually strong. It’s just unusually shaped and oddly elongated. I hope the two following images show up correctly.

Strength of the polar vortex. Blue line is this winter:

source: http://weatheriscool.com/

Map showing the mean 500 hPa geopotential height and surface (2m) temperature anomalies for this week, as forecasted on Monday by ECMW:

source: https://charts.ecmwf.int/products/extended-anomaly-multi-param?base_time=202501200000&projection=opencharts_arctic&valid_time=202501270000

I’m not catholic, but I do like the fact that artillery has its own patron saint.

Carbon capture is needed in the long term, so it’s good that technologies for it are already being developed. Ending emissions isn’t enough, we need to also remove the GHG’s that are already up in the air. But that comes later. The most pressing thing currently is to remove emissions, or to stop shitting on the floor, as Adam put it.

Even then, I am sceptical about the scalability of DAC solutions. Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal (mCDR) seems more scalable, like building huge platforms for seaweeds to grow on, and then sinking them and their stored carbon into the depths of the ocean.

Obligatory Adam Something video on these things.