mintyfrog

I’m sorry that you expect each unknowing consumer to have the intellectual capacity to understand the geopolitical consequences of each product they by based on the environmental damage and human rights violations during its production.

It’s almost like you’re the fool for expecting such a flawed system to work. Saying, “well, you paid me to do it!” does not absolve you of guilt.

Source?

“It’s not our fault, we just produce cheap goods, the pollution is the fault of the people buying the goods”

If your products are cheap because you’re polluting, you are the problem. If you weren’t polluting, your products wouldn’t be as cheap. If your products weren’t as cheap, they wouldn’t be competitive on the capitalist market. If they weren’t competitive, they wouldn’t be bought.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

To quote Epic Rap Battles of History, “Why’d you name your company after your dick?”

Native English speaker here. Option 4 “sounds” more acceptable than 2. Maybe it’s because you can more easily imply where the flowers are?

When Bush stops a recount he’s stealing an election, but when Trump wants a recount he’s also trying to steal an election?

I’m a fan of it but wish there was a Linux app and an easier way to sync my data between devices. I have the backup files synced with Nextcloud but it’s still not intuitive.

No countries recognize a right to protest at any time and location. Imagine if someone could protest the government by just forming a human circle around the leaders shouting, “you can’t move us!” or by standing in a library and yelling constantly.

I try to limit the number of private companies that I give my data to. Each project on its own isn’t enough to warrant creating a new account, and I never have interest in them all at the same time.

Making a Discord account is my barrier to some projects

Welcome to Linux, friends

You cannot trust a government to routinely create arbitrary standards used to regulate that same government.

This is different from a government enforcing your average law because this law applies to the election process itself and allows for significant bias. Where there is room for bias in this process, it will be taken advantage of. Look at gerrymandering.

What problem does your law actually solve? If people are willing to elect a candidate, isn’t that a sufficient measure of competency? At best you’re creating an elitist state controlled by those who set the bar for competency, and at worst you’re creating a one party state.

Most of what you’ve described would inevitably lead to the establishment of a single party totalitarian state.

Competency tests before you can appear on a ballot, with a commission that reviews the requirements to prevent the exclusion of minorities.

Don’t like the opposing party? Just make it part of the test. Today, one party could exclude the other by including questions that agree or disagree with critical race theory, voter fraud, etc.

No elected judges, with stringent training and yearly bias testing. Like a postdoc in judicial impartiality.

Same issue. Who determines impartiality? The party in power? Single party state.

Any person who is a position of trust and power who then acts contrary to the ethics of their role can never be elected. Or have power over anyone again.

Who determines “ethics”? Single party state.

Children must be free of religion until they are 25.

What is religion? You’re definitely banning several books, and possibly banning a lot more. Many books can be turned into a religion or contain religious aspects. The party in power decides what’s a religion and what gets banned.

USA focused: each state gets one senator, plus one per 2 million residents.

At that point, why have a separate Senate and House? The point of a two-chambered Congress is to balance state and federal power.

Oversight by whom?

Disagreeing with general consensus ≠ wrong

An entire country being contrary just because of national pride and arrogance is completely different.

Is it your position that all countries should have the same language regardless of their cultural history?

Also, it isn’t rooted in national pride or arrogance. Aluminum came first and was the name given by the first chemist - a British scientist - to isolate the metal. The variant aluminium came from a reviewer who changed the spelling just because he liked the sound better. Aluminum was recognized by ACS 65 years before IUPAC standardized to aluminum. IUPAC has recognized aluminum as an acceptable spelling since 1993. So yeah, the general concensus is the aluminum is okay even based on your logic because IUPAC says so.

Exactly this. Most G20 countries had reduced coal emissions but China and India (plus Indonesia and Turkey) had increased coal emissions per capita. Because those countries account for ~3 billion people, nearly 40% of the world population, and an even greater percentage of G20 population, the total coal emissions of G20 has increased.

“agrees”

You talk about it like all scientists could ever agree to something and that it would be possible to poll every single one and properly weight their individual scientific relevance.