Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.dmr.nd.gov/dmr/news/studies-underscore-oil-and-g...
"Studies underscore cocaine's significant impact on Colombia's economy" Snort another line while you're at it.
I mean... You're not wrong.
Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case
241–245 of 245 posts
Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does setting things on fire have to do with freedom of speech?
I think this is how it goes: The people who set things on fire weren't directly associated with Greenpeace. But the argument is that Greenpeace's rhetoric incited them to do so. So it becomes a freedom of speech issue. If you tell people something is evil and must be burned, are you responsible for that thing getting torched?
The Hutus that committed genocide in Rwanda were not directly associated with that radio host that called for murders, yet he's a criminal.
Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's never too late, that's not what "the science" says it's what the clickbait vulture news bullshit you're reading is saying. The real science on the matter is that every day things get just a little bit worse, and every improvement makes things just a little bit better. There's no magic cliff, no point of no return, just one day after another.
When I said it is too late, I did not mean tomorrow the oceans boil and the lights go out. I meant something more precise. And more unforgiving. You say there is no magic cliff. No point of no return. Just one day after another, each fractionally worse or better. That sounds reasonable. It sounds adult. It sounds scientific. But it quietly assumes that all damage is reversible if we simply act hard enough and fast en…
Thanks for all the detail. I still wouldn't equate "it's going to get a lot worse" with "it's too late". The only way I can interpret the phrase "it's too late" is as giving up - which means stopping trying, and admitting defeat. We can acknowledge that things are unavoidably going to get a lot worse without giving up. Or even admitting defeat. Because if we do give up, the outcomes will be even worse. And I believe that while many bad outcomes are unavoidable at this point, we are still facing the possibility of truly horrendous outcomes which can be avoided.
Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I said it is too late, I did not mean tomorrow the oceans boil and the lights go out. I meant something more precise. And more unforgiving. You say there is no magic cliff. No point of no return. Just one day after another, each fractionally worse or better. That sounds reasonable. It sounds adult. It sounds scientific. But it quietly assumes that all damage is reversible if we simply act hard enough and fast en…
Thanks for all the detail. I still wouldn't equate "it's going to get a lot worse" with "it's too late". The only way I can interpret the phrase "it's too late" is as giving up - which means stopping trying, and admitting defeat. We can acknowledge that things are unavoidably going to get a lot worse without giving up. Or even admitting defeat. Because if we do give up, the outcomes will be even worse. And I believe…
Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case
#245Earlier quoted context omitted.
We do have power over this. You said it yourself: > I could be living in the woods... And so could the rest of us. If we did, there would be no CO2 emissions and, therefore, no global warming. But we don't choose to do this because we would rather live with modern convenience.
There's fallacies with your argument: - it's technically illegal for me to do that here in France, even if i'm the legal owner of the woods - it could be a choice to live low-tech alternative lifestyles, if there was not active attacks by the State and corporations to destroy any kind of alternative means of survival, such as the very violent processes over the past few centuries to destroy subsistance farming and no…
The main issue here is the implication of human free will.
We're driven by our herd instinct and subconscious manipulation. The way Edward Bernays and others like him have guided us to consumption.
To break free from this woud require either the summoning of collective free will or the brainwashing to keep the eternally growing consumption to cease.
The decision to keep manipulating the masses is something the decision makers behind corporations and governments either enable or actively participate in, but for individual it is extremely unlikely to break this machine.