BigAssFan

Wouldn’t sexism be even more prevalent in right-wing spaces? Or would you say that it’s pretty evenly distributed over the political spectrum?

You’re still killing animals mainly for fun, which is not ethical no matter how you turn it. Humans generally do not need to eat meat, as they’re omnivores. Keeping animals uses up large amounts of land and produces unnecessary greenhouse gases. With the amount of people and cattle being held on this planet, something has got to change in our behaviour in order to get things more balanced and keep a healthy planet for future generations. You try to keep old habits intact, which are not sustainable in the current world. Perhaps you don’t want to know about this take on things, but I’m presenting them anyway, hopefully it will have an influence on your future thinking.

This isn’t about catfood, it’s about moderation.

What I didn’t see in the reactions yet is that a lot of Americans do not want any government involvement at all. Save for things that are supposedly written down in the Bible. The Republican party is providing just that, anti-establishment, anti-intellectual and don’t forget: anti-minority. Just people being tough and dare to support the party who will turn the clock back to when times were perceived to be better. Same sentiment is present in Europe by the way, like it was a century ago.

The solutions are there, but nobody will risk loss of power or popularity. But no worries, nature will strike back harder and harder.

Just go eat plant-based all together, so we won’t have these problems that endanger the existence of life on our planet. Including humans.

*That’s /s

Why is a sandwich pizza not a thing already? Like a calzone, but without folding anything.

Sorry for the late reply, I just read yours, this app is still a bit of a mystery to me. My work allows for flexible working hours, so there’s no problem there. But in the wake of a decision to stay with Summer Time year round I would suppose that the starting times of businesses and schools would be up for debate. Especially for schools, as these already presently do not lign up with the sleep cycles of students, they only match those of the teachers. It’s funny how introduction of Summer Time has convinced through being confusing. When the plan would have been to ask everyone to come in one hour earlier during summer, a lot of people would have protested. By setting the clock one hour later it has gotten authority and nobody was sure which way the hour difference was supposed to go. Later or earlier? People are still not sure after all these years.

We can see that 2. is longer than 1.

No expert, but my take on this is that medicines work because they resemble the chemicals your body already makes itself. Better not interfere with a finely balanced immune system in which pain is an essential signal for the body to cope with infections and injuries. It might be more comforting to take a pill against something but I’m afraid it messes up the immune system too much, better to avoid that as much as possible. Works fine for me.

A good day day day.

When we would permanently go to summer time, I will do everything one hour later than now.

Let’s just stop trying out new referenda, OK?

Well, your view is not unbiased, perhaps it’s difficult to do here, given the limited amount of writing room. And in a discussion it seems to be obligatory to only mention the parts that are favourable to one’s personal outcome, somehow. But still. Even though you seem very convinced on the pros of nuclear, others still beg to differ. Like this research shows. Money remains an important driver of the whole issue, and money being spent on nuclear cannot be spent again on wind turbines or batteries. Unbiased information is difficult to get online however, most websites on the matter have preconceived ideas that they present. Nuclear waste also concerns medium and low level waste, which are a lesser problem, but still a problem in larger quantities. And high nuclear waste remain radioactive longer than homo sapiens has been around, so although the quantity is not a lot, its longevity makes up for it, so it remains quite a problem for which no final solution has been found. As I wrote earlier: the debate is not over just yet, otherwise it would not be newsworthy every time again. Strong opinions on both sides do not make up for it, usually a strong opinion is not backed up by knowledge and facts alone, but also on feelings and emotions, otherwise it would not be a strong opinion. Which makes the discussion more difficult.

The arguments of Greenpeace against nuclear power have nothing to do with age though. It’s too expensive, which takes money away from e.g. wind and solar, with less carbon-free energy in the end for the money spent and more fossil fuels being used as a consequence. And still produces nuclear waste. Just develop batteries, hydrogen and the likes for storage. And ban or tax the use of fossil fuels. This debate is not over yet, not by a long shot, and climate will remain in the news as long as we live, I’m afraid.

There was this case of Lucia de Berk who was locked up innocently.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucia_de_Berk

I’m not saying that it’s the same scenario here, but I would remain careful in passing judgement.

There was this case of Lucia de Berk who was convicted on statistics like these, although she was innocent.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucia_de_Berk

Perhaps your chances with Michelle are better than you thought!

As she did not confess in court, I’m keeping the option open that she could be innocent. We’ve had those cases before.

Rainbow weather.