darq

So, global warming is gonna happen. We no longer have control, it’s not our choice to make.

You’ve flipped flopped between we don’t need to take drastic action, and no action we can take can help.

Conveniently, both means you get to ignore arguments to actually do something to mitigate the damage.

Which really is your entire motivation.

I’m not going to watch a whole youtube video just to pick up on the latest lingo.

Deny it’s happening, then claim we can’t change anything once it’s happened. The moment where we could do something about it is skipped over.

Like you are doing now.

No, mitigation does not require “drastic” action, fortunately. We’ve significantly mitigated it already, concerning our own emissions, and can do so further.

What world do you live on? Certainly not the one the rest of us do. Our emissions have only been increasing.

Yes we require drastic action. In fact we required drastic action decades ago. Now we require radical action.

Do you have an idea that might mitigate it overseas, or change domestic politics enough to speed things up here?

First and foremost, stop pointing your finger overseas. It is nothing but a distraction, a convenient excuse to not do what needs to be done domestically because “oh but China and India”.

Secondly, investment in equipping developing nations with clean energy infrastructure can help.

I don’t think nonviolent protest is going to do it, there’s not enough of us willing to do so.

Ultimately it is going to have to come down to protest.

I am hoping non-violent methods, such as general strikes and direct action will be enough.

But that does require solidarity, motivation, and mutual aid.

You’re responding to a point I didn’t make. Even mitigation requires the drastic action you are arguing is impossible.

But also, no, y’all don’t get to slow-breakup this.

Even if the western nations pollute less, developing nations will still pollute a lot more and will get us to tipping points anyway, albeit perhaps slightly slower.

Ehh, it’s worth noting that developing nations tend to pollute a lot less per capita. And as they develop they can transition to cleaner forms of energy, as they gain the economic ability to do so.

Pointing at developing nations is a convenient excuse for developed nations to avoid taking the actions we need to take.

I don’t only see disaster. But I do see a specific problem, with a very obvious answer, that continues to get worse and worse with catastrophic future consequences. A problem that we continuously refuse to address in a meaningful manner.

In my opinion, this position requires some cherry picking to avoid evidence of times when different things have improved over the past few decades.

Quite the opposite. The times when we have made improvements have come precisely because we have made the sorts of decisive changes that we needed to make, that we are currently pretending are impossible.

We actually solved the issue with the ozone layer, precisely because we took action and passed regulation banning their usage, despite the objections of businesses.

Same thing with leaded petrol. We took decisive action and addressed the problem at a systemic level, rather than just softly appealing for people to make the “right choice uwu”.

In our current unprecedented circumstances, drastic change on a short timescale is going to require one of two things: the suspension of our democracy, or wide-scale bloodshed. Neither of these is actually particularly likely to result in positive change either.

I agree that unrest seems basically inevitable. Because the people with the power to make the changes required have shown us in no uncertain terms that they never make the changes required.

So I’m not sure why continuing to pander to those delusions with half-measures is preferable.

I’m hoping change can be accomplished through general strikes and direct action. So that widespread bloodshed can be avoided.

The problem is there may not be survival at the end of this tunnel. But only one way might work in time, and that’s the one we’ve been using for a couple centuries and seen okayish results with.

Oh. So you are completely insane. Because we absolutely have not been seeing okayish results.

Honestly the protesters that everyone hates kinda have the right idea.

The problem with that being that the “minor solutions” aren’t really solving the problem. We’ve been doing “minor solutions” for many years now, and we have only accelerated in our destruction of the environment.

We need drastic change. Failing some deus-ex-machina-esque invention that quickly and cheaply solves the issue with no sacrifice needed, then we have to be demanding radical change. If that isn’t possible, our other option is to just fail and die.

Because the truth has limits on how hopeful and how simple it can be. Whereas the lies of billionaires have no such limitations.

I agree with your point that the messaging isn’t working. But pushing hope without radical reform of our current systems is basically just trying to diffuse the reaction to the facts without actually changing the facts leading to the reaction.

And I’m saying that I don’t like the meat replacers.

Nowhere in any of my comments have I suggested a “meat replacer” even a single time.

This is why I’m snarky with you. Because you keep pretending I’ve said things that I haven’t.

None the less, in my first post I spesifically pointed out that I am not looking for “just remove meat”, which was the point. And your answer was “well these foods are good if you just remove the meat”.

I know what you asked. But no, that is not what I said.

I did not say “remove the meat”. I pointed out that all these meals are vegetarian until you add the meat. None of them are intrinsically meat-based.

This is EXACTLY what I mean when I say you need a change of mindset, if you actually want to try.

However, I find that the modern vegetarian cousine has stagnated because of the need to sell “meatlesd meat”.

I have no idea where you are looking, but nothing could be further from the truth. Vegetarian options have flourished because more people are moving to a meat-free diet.

I have tried a lot of “vegan options”, and as said, I am not looking to turn vegan. That is why I can decide NOT to compromise when it comes to meat.

And of course, you think pretty much every vegan dish is a compromise, and so you will continue to not try. Convenient!

And if you want to convert people to veganism, you need to change of mindset.

Bite me :)

A recipe is a start.

I’ve suggested three already, I’m sorry you have trouble reading.

This is why people who eat mainly meat don’t even consider vegan food.

No, the reason is that you have invented a false history to justify not even trying.

There are entire cultures where eating meat is either a rare occasion, or simply never done, even though they have access to meat and livestock.

People eat what they had available. Sometimes that was meat, many times it wasn’t.

Just one recipe. Is that too much?

A simple vegetable soup is easy and nutritious. Most curries are vegetable-first and only become non-vegetarian by choosing to add meat instead of something like lentils or checkpeas. Vegetable lasagna is decadent and satisfying.

There are near-infinite recipes available of food that is plant-based and tastes good. But you have this list of exclusionary factors where you have decided that various meals “should” have meat, and therefore a meat-free version has made a replacement, and is therefore inferior and you aren’t going to try it.

You don’t need a recipe, you need a change of mindset.

Whatever. Good luck to you.

There are vegetable versions of every “incorporated” meal where all the ingredients are mixed together, like pasta, soup, curry, stir-fry, etc… And for every other meal, the meat portion is easily replaceable with another portion of vegetables.

Going vegetarian really is as simple as “don’t put meat in it”. Just take it off the ingredient list. Meals do not naturally contain meat, so if you don’t add any, they won’t have any. It’s not something to be “substituted” unless you are wanting to mimic a specific meal.

The system doesn’t actually require any collaboration to eventually become a two-party race. It’s pretty much statistically assured if voters behave rationally, but with limited information.

Well, sorta but also not really.

Neither party seems to have any interest in reforming the voting system to something more representative. So in that way I guess you could say they are colluding, but more reasonably they simply share a common incentive.

But it really is the system itself that makes third party candidates basically impossible. It incentivises people to vote strategically, not for the party they want but rather against the party they don’t want. That system is eventually sure to collapse into a two-party system.

Wild how he doesn’t even mention the possibility of voting for a third party.

Why would he? The US voting system makes third party candidates an impossibility. It’s not a viable option.

So they didn’t rule if the “no hats” rule should go, they were asked if such a rule - if it exists - is applicable to religious hats or if the right to religious freedom protects such symbols. So they rule on half-theoretical questions that are often narrower than the case itself.

And I find that very structure harmful. Because by formulating the question asked of the court in a specific way, then limiting the answers it can give to only that question, you can force these kinds of discriminatory judgements while pretending that that wasn’t the point.

The court should be able to say, as part of the ruling, that while exemptions should not be given on religious grounds, justification for rules that are considered to infringe on religious freedoms may be asked for.

We can easily give a reason why discrimination should not be allowed while serving the public, and similarly why antlers cannot be worn in a workshop.

The “no hats” rule in this case wasn’t a “no hats” rule, but a “no religious symbols are allowed to be worn by anybody” rule. The court saw such a rule as justified because it did not discriminate against specific religions or symbols.

Which is ridiculous because a hypothetical religion could use pants as a symbol of their faith and suddenly pants are banned.

If the rule by itself is dumb or not is another matter.

No. It’s not another matter. It’s the entire matter. That’s my point.

I know what I described is your second option. But I’m deliberately putting the focus on the original rule, because that is where the problem lies.

The rule disproportionately affects people who wear headwear. The rule basically makes that job inaccessible to those whose religion requires headwear. The rule is discriminatory in its effect, even if not in its wording or intention. So the appropriate action is to rethink the rule. If there is no strong reason why the rule exists, and it has these discriminatory effects, then the rule should change.

Now there is a rule that employees aren’t allowed to wear head coverings at work (for whatever reason)

And maybe that rule is the stupid one.

So if one religion is allowed to claim special status for their head covering (Head scarf), can an orthodox jew wear their hat? Can someone believing in druidism wear antlers to work?

Except it isn’t necessarily claiming a special status.

The argument can simply be that the headwear ban should be removed, unless there is good reason for it. So yes, anyone can wear any headwear, so long as it doesn’t interfere with the task at hand or other people. The antlers would probably fall afoul of those requirements.

And what is with people who happen to have no religion they believe in. Why are they granted less rights by the state than the religious people?

They wouldn’t be. The removal of a ban doesn’t somehow mean that atheists have fewer rights. They’d be allowed to wear their desired headwear too.

So: Which other possibilities does a state have to resolve this besides

Still a false dichotomy here.

To be clear here: the second option is not “ban religious symbols alltogether”, it’s “we have our rules, there is no way for you to get an exception with the reason ‘religion’”

The option is not to allow “religion” to be used as an exception, but rather set rules that are permissive to everyone, including religious people, within the limits of the task at hand and inconvenience to other people.

A headwear ban is pretty clearly discriminatory towards Muslim people, and probably also to certain Jewish people though I’m not 100% sure of that. The goal should not be to give them exceptions, but rather rethink the headwear rule.