Agreed.
In my mind the approach would be simple.. figure out how much co2 people/companies can release and ensure the atmospheric CO2 will go down as a result.
Everyone then must meet that number or below. If they can show successful sequestering they get to subtract that number from what they produce. As long as everyone stays below their allowed threshold, we are golden.
The assumption here is if you sequester and it doesnt work, then it shouldnt count as carbon credit.
What Im asking is, if someone sequesters and can show it does, actually, work, should that be allowed as a means to offset their carbon credit?
I tend to agree, that there must be some cutting down. But ig someone is willing to pay to sequester carbon so they can emit carbon, and they wouldnt otherwise purchase that sequestering, who cares, let them. No harm done. They should still be required, overall to be in the negative.
If they were anti-war, didnt support universal healthcare but **did** support a real solution to the problem then I'd actually be voting for them right now.
Their support of the genocide in palestine is the 1 reason for me refusing to support them.
Also while being a victim of universal healthcare in the past i wouldnt wish it on my worst enemy, so that isnt something that sat well with me int he past, and I am glad it isnt something they push so hard on anymore. I just wish they actually pushed for a real solution instead.
Seems they fired the employees once evidence came out they were involved. This would suggest UNRWA is acting in good faith and will not support members that aare known to have acted illegally.
@admitsWrongIfProven Even systematically its not one systamatic thing...
Like take slavery, it was systematic once, no longer. But im sure it had a lasting effect that contributed to this, it certainly added a lot of hostility between minorities and whites. But would i say slavery having existing is the thing "at fault"... well no because i still maintain fault is manifold and it is just one among hundreds of systemic things that likely all contributed as well.
Really I think what you mean is more along the line sof "what are some of the biggest things we could change that would address this problem"
@mapto Exactly! Soneone who cares about money, if they are good must care about catering to the same crowd as a shop that doesnt and beyond. So a large shop will have everything tbr small shop has and more. Cagering to just the mai stream will not get you as much revenue as catering to everyone.
By all means try to understand.. But if your trying to label one specific thing as the "fault" then you will fail to understand every time, since that isnt how reality works.
Instead of looking for fault look at every single player, especially yourself, and try to figure out what you could have done better to contribute to a better ending. Every single person involved will have some way they could have improved their contribution in some way, but the idea of "fault" particularly when its concentrated to a single point (or very few points) will not get you to where you want to be.
@mapto Your exact wording was:
> someone focused on money would have much more "valuable" (in market terms) bookstore. Someone into books would have something that doesn't necessarily sell well, but relates to others passionate about reading, e.g. niche literature
This seems to imply you see large money-focused bookstores as focusing on popular books while less money-hungry book stores might focus more on obscure books.
I argue this isnt the reality. In fact a much more money focused bookstore will try to have everything, and cater to both the obscure crowd and mainstream. Which is exactly the case with amazon.
@admitsWrongIfProven The idea of a singular base cause for anything is a myth that just doesnt add up to reality.
There are major share holders int he responsibility for an event, a major watershed landmarks that mark some turning point. To to try to describe a singular point as the "fault" will have you failing at life every single time :) In truth the "fault" for something is an infinite string of events going back in time and following many different paths. Changing any number of events can steer the course to somewhere new and avoid some undesired event, no one of which is the singular "fault" on its own.
Hitler is often seen as the person we blame for the holocaust.. But we could also say his mother was to blame for having him as a child or raising him with the values he happened to have, or maybe his father, or grandparents, or maybe it was that bully in highschool that beat him up and he never got over.
@admitsWrongIfProven How is war "no fault in humans" ... who are committing these wars, cats?
That would be correct, it would be more linguistically accurate to say "causes this type of psychosis" or something to that effect
No personality disorders can have psychosis as a comorbidity depending on its nature. But no not **all** personality disorder leads to psychosis.
I did not say psychosis is when you are toxic and vile, I said that the type of psychosis int he USA leads to people being toxic and vile. Not the same thing. A person can be toxic and vile and have no psychosis, a person can have psychosis and depending ont he kind may or may not be toxic and vile, in this case the kind of psychosis americans have leads to this.
Well no, but it is a long established part of the culture. The best objective way I could think of to indirectly measure it, based on the assumption that it is driven by tribal instincts to fight across polarized lines we can just look at congress.
See this animation as a reference: https://youtu.be/tEczkhfLwqM?si=JXKA6I8XDrlkvAcM
One can see the beginings of a divide noticably forming starting in early 1990, but then post 2001 the divide becomes very dramatic with almost no bipartisan agreement of any kind.
Both of these seem to coincide with wars, the gulf war of 1990's and the middle eastern wars (specifically afganastan and Iraq) from 911 onward.
So would seem the triggering event were our two major wars a decade apart.
Well psychosis is infectious. When you spend your life growing up in it it becomes the norm and you adopt it. Its hardly a new thing, the same sort of extreme polarization and hysteria can be seen through a lot of the modern US history. Just look at the hysteria over communism during the cold war that lead to people like Lucy Ball being arrested for their opinions.
Jeffrey Phillips Freeman
Innovator & Entrepreneur in Machine Learning, Evolutionary Computing & Big Data. Avid SCUBA diver, Open-source developer, HAM radio operator, astrophotographer, and anything nerdy.
Born and raised in Philadelphia, PA, USA, currently living in Utrecht, Netherlands, USA, and Thailand. Was also living in Israel, but left.
Pronouns: Sir / Mister
(Above pronouns are not intended to mock, i will respect any persons pronouns and only wish pronouns to show respect be used with me as well. These are called neopronouns, see an example of the word "frog" used as a neopronoun here: http://tinyurl.com/44hhej89 )
A proud member of the Penobscot Native American tribe, as well as a Mayflower passenger descendant. I sometimes post about my genealogical history.
My stance on various issues:
Education: Free to PhD, tax paid
Abortion: Protected, tax paid, limited time-frame
Welfare: Yes, no one should starve
UBI: No, use welfare
Racism: is real
Guns: Shall not be infringed
LGBT+/minorities: Support
Pronouns: Will respect
Trump: Moron, evil
Biden: Senile, racist
Police: ACAB
Drugs: Fully legal, no prescriptions needed
GPG/PGP Fingerprint: 8B23 64CD 2403 6DCB 7531 01D0 052D DA8E 0506 CBCE