The placebo effect is "real" in the same sense as, say, an "HHO generator" for your car is real. That is yo say, they both exist, and people claim they do something, but there's no evidence of them actually being objectively beneficial. When people say "I took that pill and felt better" it's no different than saying "I installed the HHO generator and now it feels like my car goes farther on a tank of gas".
Whoops; I misremembered. They actually said they want to "build a fleet over the next 20 years", not build several by 2020. So, yeah, slower development than he was suggesting, but it is actively being pursued.
The government has suggested they want to build several small reactors by 2020. No, they are not currently being built, so he's wrong about that, but there's definitely interest in it, and plans to move forward with it.
The reason nuclear power plants are not being built has little to do with anti-nuclear hysterics and a lot to do with the initial cost of building these facilities.
The reason for the high initial cost has a lot to do with anti-nuclear hysterics.
That'll work. Once China is pumping them out of an assembly line and selling them on AliExpress for $999 with free shipping, I'm sure our consumer culture will take over. Even hippies will be buying one to recharge their Prius.
imagine an the entire suburban landscape with solar panel roofs, enough energy to power the domestic needs of the entire city and most commercial need
In most places rooftop solar would not even be enough to provide domestic needs, let alone commercial needs.
People love to claim that their solar roof provides enough electricity to cover all their needs, and that part may be true, but that's because the people making that claim aren't using electricity for things like cooking, heating, and providing hot water. They are burning natural gas, and the amount of energy provided by that natural gas is much larger than the amount of electricity they consume. If they actually wanted to go "all green" they would have to use electricity for ALL of their energy needs, and that roof would only provide a third or less of what's required.
So no, these MSRs would not just be a "backup to solar"; they would provide the majority of the energy which solar could supplement. Although if we can make the MSRs cheap, safe, and versatile enough to be used anywhere, it might make more sense to just ditch solar entirely.
"You are not educated enough to understand the issue" used as an argument always indicates that you are the one who does not understand the issue. If you understand something, you should be able to explain it in a simple and straightforward way, so that any layman could understand it.
We can, and we have. People just refuse to accept it. I can tell you all day that ethylmercury and methylmercury behave differently in the body, but if you're a jackass who insists on believing that both are dangerous and that I'm part of some grand conspiracy to poison your kids there is not a damn thing I can do to change your mind.
Someone pointing out that you're not an expert and don't understand something is not an insult. None of us are experts in the vast majority of things there are to know. If you're the kind of person who believes that he's an expert in absolutely everything, there is a strong likelihood that you are just an opinionated jackass who doesn't know much about anything. Intelligent, rational people are capable of admitting when they don't know something, and deferring to the advice of experts. That doesn't mean you have to accept everything they say as gospel truth, but if 99% of experts disagree with you it's a damn good indication that you need to carefully reexamine your position.
Your response is not actually a response to what he said. Yes, there are forms of speech which are illegal. No, that's not sufficient justification for banning people from communicating their personal views, even if those views are contradicted by science and could potentially cause some harm. The US specifically prohibits very few forms of speech at the criminal level, and for good reason; the moment you start down the path of defining which ideas should be illegal you swing wide the doors for others to criminalize your ideas as well. This is how tyranny begins.
Ok, now you're starting to grasp at straws here to justify your racism (which wasn't as obvious until this last post).
Ah, yes. As soon as your arguments are exposed for the fraud that they are it's time to whip out the "you're a racist!" card. Nice one. Sure you don't want to call me a nazi, too? Then I can call you a pedophile and things should go swimingly from there.
So here's some context: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19t... this is the Confederate constitution. Notice how negros of the African race are considered property.
Duh. They were property at the time.
Notice negro is used as an adjective to slave, as to point out that other races of slave weren't to allowed but the black man is OK.
Now that's just stupid. The fact that the law at that point in time only allowed for the enslavement of blacks in no way means that "n*gger" is synonymous with slave. Nor does it change the fact that there were free blacks. Nor does it change the fact that free blacks were themselves often slaveholders. Nor does it change the fact that at an earlier time there were white slaves, some of whom were owned by blacks. All of which you just conveniently ignored in you oh-so-honest search for "context".
Now, let's jump over to the term cracker. https://www.npr.org/sections/c... This word as it turns out is of European (i.e. white) decent. It's not a term black people made up, it's a term you called yourselves centuries before African slaves hit the Americas.
That's right, it's OUR word, and you're not allowed to use it. You racist bastard.
You wanting to call people racists terms is nothing more than you attempting to exert superiority over others.
I have absolutely no interest in calling anyone "racist terms". I've never called anyone a n*gger, a kike, a spic, a chink, a dune-coon, or a wop. I did jokingly call friends fags, but that's about it. I also had a good friend who insisted on referring to me as "my nigga"; even in that context I never responded in kind because I think it's a stupid word which should be retired from the lexicon. But IF I wanted to use it I should be able to do so. Forbidding speech because you think it's "hateful" is not just retarded, it's fucking evil.
I could at least give white people credit for confusion with n*gger and nigga where that hard "er" crosses that line between cute and racial slur, but that's not even the case you're trying to make. They have an argument to make as when you're not using the term everyday, they're the same to you and at least they're trying to beore culturally inclusive, but you're just being a dick.
You're the cunt arguing for speech codes, so yeah, I will definitely be a dick towards you. If you weren't creating arbitrary categories of forbidden speech and trying to force them on others we wouldn't have this problem.
Oh, now you try to turn liberal on me? I am not impressed.
It's hilarious to see a far-left jackass like you calling me a liberal.
I'd argue that even religion isn't really a choice: a faith either reflects your lived experience or it doesn't, and your lived experience isn't really something you can change. Something similar can be said of political affiliation.
Right. So having faith in the superiority of the white race is a reflection of your lived experience, ergo being a white supremacist isn't something you can change. I love your logic!
Plotting to enslave or kill millions of people, though?
You're the only retard talking about killing or enslaving anyone, which is why it's obvious that despite your protestations you are in fact a far-left SJW. Reasonable people do not go from "I won't make that cake" to "urhmaghurd you wants ta commit genocides!!!1!1".
Yep, I agree with all of that. Which is why (bringing it back full circle to my original comment) your "Vulcan morality" comment was too simplistic. Often the needs of the many do NOT outweigh the needs of the one, if for no other reason than because violating the rights of the one would have detrimental effects on the many. The reason our laws emphasise the rights of individuals isn't because any one individual is more important than society as a whole but rather because if we arbitrarily take away the rights of the one then we've effectively taken away the rights of everyone.
Well, only one of those words have been used in some form or another to classify me as property
No, it hasn't. The word we used for that was "slave". It's descended from the word Slav; named after a bunch of white dudes in Europe who were property much earlier in our history than "you" were. The word "n**ger" does not and never has meant "slave". There were plenty of free n*ggers who themselves owned slaves. Some free n*ggers in America even owned white slaves. Don't confuse the two words.
It's not always exactly what you say, but also includes some historical context.
It would be useful if you actually understood the historical context. For example:
Not saying cracker can't be used as hate speech, it's just doesn't carry much weight when it's towards the historical perpetrator.
Someone who actually understood the "historical context" would know that us crackers were neither the only nor the worst "perpetrators" of slavery. You n*ggers enslaved each other for far longer, and half the slaves we got were purchased from you. Plus those dune-coons over in the middle east did it for longer and were much more brutal about it. And let's not forget that North Africa in the 15th to 18th century captured and sold around 1.5 million white slaves. But "n*gger" and "dune-coon" are hate speech, while cracker still is not. Because reasons.
I appreciate that you're trying to think seriously about this and trying to put forth some kind of reason for it, but these are all post-hoc rationalizations; things people tell themselves to justify a position they already hold. None of them are sufficient to explain the differentiation.
The analogy of shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not invalidated by it being used in a case which was later overturned. The reason the 1919 Schenck vs The United states was overturned wasn't because the analogy itself was bad. It was overturned because his actions in protesting the draft did not present the "clear and present danger" that the United States government claimed it did. Schenck vs the US and its later overturning is one of the foundation cases of the right of a citizen to be a conscientious objector.
You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. The reason that the analogy is bad is because shouting fire in a crowded theater itself does not "present that kind of clear and present danger". On the contrary, the judge who coined the analogy applied it perfectly; he was concerned that Schenck's speech would create harm to the nation by encouraging others to engage in a criminal act - namely refusing to be drafted (which is still illegal), thereby causing the USA to lose the war. His reasoning was solid, and the analogy was well chosen.
The ruling was overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio. That case had absolutely nothing to do with "conscientious objectors" so the idea that Schenck's case was overturned because the court found draft-dodging to be ok is just stupid. Rather the court in Brandenburg ruled that government cannot criminalize inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". This is a massively important distinction, and illustrated by Brandenburg itself. The case hinged around a group of white supremacists who, at a rally, made statements about wanting to "get revenge against n**gers and jews". Brandenburg - one of the organizers - was charged for advocating violence, and was sentenced to prison. The Supreme Court found that this was unconstitutional. For a crime to be committed it's not enough to just say "we need to get revenge on those n**gers"; rather you would have to say something akin to "Look, a n**ger! Go get some revenge boys!".
This does not, by the way, mean that all of the actions of the "conscious objectors" are automatically legal. Were you to stand outside of an induction center telling men to turn around, go home, and refuse to be drafted, you could very well be prosecuted. You've gone from abstractly advocating the elimination of the draft to actively encouraging people to immediately break the law. The fact that you (and others like you) continually refuse to acknowledge this distinction does not mean that it isn't real, or important.
Your disagreement with one of my points also does not invalidate my other points.
The rest of your points were sophomoric and not really worth engaging with. I got a laugh out of your misuse of the "fire" analogy and figured I would point it out.
That, in general, free speech doesn't not exempt you from consequences
Again, sophomoric left-wing authoritarian talking point, memorized by the mindless to reinforce their preexisting desires. All of the examples you've provided for this claim hinge on government enforcement, and they are soundly refuted by the case law I've quoted.
If you acknowledged that you were wrong about the legal aspects and then, like many of your fellow authoritarians, moved on to insist that "consequences" could just mean people kicking the shit out of you (#punchanazi) you would be closer truth in the sense that yes, if you say unpopular things you may get punched. But we have laws against that, and the person doing the punching needs to be locked up. It turns out that when you assault (or stalk, threaten, and harass) people whom you don't like, you are not free from the consequences of those actions either.
nor does it require any to listen to you.
No, certainly not. This is the first sane thing you've said. It's pe
The big problem with the dimable ones is that, iirc, you also have to replace your dimmer switches. That adds expense even if you know how to replace one yourself (the dimmers were like $20+ last time I looked), let alone if you have to call an electrician.
Probably still worth it in the long run for the energy savings, but it does change the equation.
Free Speech does not, and never has, protected someone from the consequences of their free speech. The classic example is shouting fire in a crowded theatre, leading to false calls to the emergency services who respond and possible panic and injury among the other theatre goers
I always love the irony of people using this analogy to try and support restriction on free speech. You are obviously completely clueless about the fact that the analogy was first made by a judge in a legal ruling which ended up sending a man to prison for the "crime" of passing out pamphlets opposing the draft.
The ruling was eventually overturned, but not before the defendant (and many like him) spent years in jail for voicing an opinion which is commonplace today. However the result of it being overturned is that, yes, in the united states at least, you CAN yell fire in a crowded theatre. What you can't do is engage in speech which "advocates imminent lawless action", as in you can't tell the theatre goers to burn down the building.
I'm aware of the numbers, but you know that facts don't really matter much when the word "nuclear" comes up. Realistically, yes, the environmental harm from launching a couple dozen of these would probably be far less than the environmental harm caused by launching the thousands of conventional rockets required to lift the same load. But the harm from nuclear reactors is likewise a lot less than the alternatives we've been using for decades, yet nuclear power is still stigmatized and opposed by the general public. Fear trumps facts.
I'm not confusing anything; I think "hate speech" is a nebulous category with no functional definition, and is completely useless as a result.
Your "things that can't be changed" theory is cute, but fails even a cursory examination. I can insult you for being short or tall, fast or slow. I can call a bald guy "baldy". I can call a freckly chick "freckles". I can call an Irishman a drunken bastard, an Englishman a limey, an Italian a dago, and a Frenchman a frog. None of those would be classified as "hate speech" anywhere in the world. But I call you a n**ger and oh my fucking god it's the end of the world. Because apparently you need special protection or something. I dunno, ask the fuckwits who made up the rule.
I like how you link to more fake news in order to prove that you're not linking to fake news.
For the record, even using their own statistics, attacks on farmers have INCREASED; it's only resultant deaths which have decreased. This shouldn't be surprising given that farmers have been working for years to improve their security measures and build groups to protect each other. Only a moron would focus on the number of deaths while ignoring an increase in attacks.
I await your next fake news link with bated breath.
Absolutely. I used the same defense at my drunk driving trial. "Just because I was drunk doesn't mean alcohol had anything to do with me rear-ending a cop car!"
Slashdot Mirror
The placebo effect is "real" in the same sense as, say, an "HHO generator" for your car is real. That is yo say, they both exist, and people claim they do something, but there's no evidence of them actually being objectively beneficial. When people say "I took that pill and felt better" it's no different than saying "I installed the HHO generator and now it feels like my car goes farther on a tank of gas".
That's easy; cut off their arms, too. Problem solved.
Whoops; I misremembered. They actually said they want to "build a fleet over the next 20 years", not build several by 2020. So, yeah, slower development than he was suggesting, but it is actively being pursued.
He might be overstating things somewhat, but here's a link for Canada:
https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy...
The government has suggested they want to build several small reactors by 2020. No, they are not currently being built, so he's wrong about that, but there's definitely interest in it, and plans to move forward with it.
The reason nuclear power plants are not being built has little to do with anti-nuclear hysterics and a lot to do with the initial cost of building these facilities.
The reason for the high initial cost has a lot to do with anti-nuclear hysterics.
That'll work. Once China is pumping them out of an assembly line and selling them on AliExpress for $999 with free shipping, I'm sure our consumer culture will take over. Even hippies will be buying one to recharge their Prius.
imagine an the entire suburban landscape with solar panel roofs, enough energy to power the domestic needs of the entire city and most commercial need
In most places rooftop solar would not even be enough to provide domestic needs, let alone commercial needs.
People love to claim that their solar roof provides enough electricity to cover all their needs, and that part may be true, but that's because the people making that claim aren't using electricity for things like cooking, heating, and providing hot water. They are burning natural gas, and the amount of energy provided by that natural gas is much larger than the amount of electricity they consume. If they actually wanted to go "all green" they would have to use electricity for ALL of their energy needs, and that roof would only provide a third or less of what's required.
So no, these MSRs would not just be a "backup to solar"; they would provide the majority of the energy which solar could supplement. Although if we can make the MSRs cheap, safe, and versatile enough to be used anywhere, it might make more sense to just ditch solar entirely.
"You are not educated enough to understand the issue" used as an argument always indicates that you are the one who does not understand the issue. If you understand something, you should be able to explain it in a simple and straightforward way, so that any layman could understand it.
We can, and we have. People just refuse to accept it. I can tell you all day that ethylmercury and methylmercury behave differently in the body, but if you're a jackass who insists on believing that both are dangerous and that I'm part of some grand conspiracy to poison your kids there is not a damn thing I can do to change your mind.
Someone pointing out that you're not an expert and don't understand something is not an insult. None of us are experts in the vast majority of things there are to know. If you're the kind of person who believes that he's an expert in absolutely everything, there is a strong likelihood that you are just an opinionated jackass who doesn't know much about anything. Intelligent, rational people are capable of admitting when they don't know something, and deferring to the advice of experts. That doesn't mean you have to accept everything they say as gospel truth, but if 99% of experts disagree with you it's a damn good indication that you need to carefully reexamine your position.
Your response is not actually a response to what he said. Yes, there are forms of speech which are illegal. No, that's not sufficient justification for banning people from communicating their personal views, even if those views are contradicted by science and could potentially cause some harm. The US specifically prohibits very few forms of speech at the criminal level, and for good reason; the moment you start down the path of defining which ideas should be illegal you swing wide the doors for others to criminalize your ideas as well. This is how tyranny begins.
Ok, now you're starting to grasp at straws here to justify your racism (which wasn't as obvious until this last post).
Ah, yes. As soon as your arguments are exposed for the fraud that they are it's time to whip out the "you're a racist!" card. Nice one. Sure you don't want to call me a nazi, too? Then I can call you a pedophile and things should go swimingly from there.
So here's some context: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19t... this is the Confederate constitution. Notice how negros of the African race are considered property.
Duh. They were property at the time.
Notice negro is used as an adjective to slave, as to point out that other races of slave weren't to allowed but the black man is OK.
Now that's just stupid. The fact that the law at that point in time only allowed for the enslavement of blacks in no way means that "n*gger" is synonymous with slave. Nor does it change the fact that there were free blacks. Nor does it change the fact that free blacks were themselves often slaveholders. Nor does it change the fact that at an earlier time there were white slaves, some of whom were owned by blacks. All of which you just conveniently ignored in you oh-so-honest search for "context".
Now, let's jump over to the term cracker. https://www.npr.org/sections/c... This word as it turns out is of European (i.e. white) decent. It's not a term black people made up, it's a term you called yourselves centuries before African slaves hit the Americas.
That's right, it's OUR word, and you're not allowed to use it. You racist bastard.
You wanting to call people racists terms is nothing more than you attempting to exert superiority over others.
I have absolutely no interest in calling anyone "racist terms". I've never called anyone a n*gger, a kike, a spic, a chink, a dune-coon, or a wop. I did jokingly call friends fags, but that's about it. I also had a good friend who insisted on referring to me as "my nigga"; even in that context I never responded in kind because I think it's a stupid word which should be retired from the lexicon. But IF I wanted to use it I should be able to do so. Forbidding speech because you think it's "hateful" is not just retarded, it's fucking evil.
I could at least give white people credit for confusion with n*gger and nigga where that hard "er" crosses that line between cute and racial slur, but that's not even the case you're trying to make. They have an argument to make as when you're not using the term everyday, they're the same to you and at least they're trying to beore culturally inclusive, but you're just being a dick.
You're the cunt arguing for speech codes, so yeah, I will definitely be a dick towards you. If you weren't creating arbitrary categories of forbidden speech and trying to force them on others we wouldn't have this problem.
Oh, now you try to turn liberal on me? I am not impressed.
It's hilarious to see a far-left jackass like you calling me a liberal.
I'd argue that even religion isn't really a choice: a faith either reflects your lived experience or it doesn't, and your lived experience isn't really something you can change. Something similar can be said of political affiliation.
Right. So having faith in the superiority of the white race is a reflection of your lived experience, ergo being a white supremacist isn't something you can change. I love your logic!
Plotting to enslave or kill millions of people, though?
You're the only retard talking about killing or enslaving anyone, which is why it's obvious that despite your protestations you are in fact a far-left SJW. Reasonable people do not go from "I won't make that cake" to "urhmaghurd you wants ta commit genocides!!!1!1".
Thanks for coming out, I think we're done here.
Yep, I agree with all of that. Which is why (bringing it back full circle to my original comment) your "Vulcan morality" comment was too simplistic. Often the needs of the many do NOT outweigh the needs of the one, if for no other reason than because violating the rights of the one would have detrimental effects on the many. The reason our laws emphasise the rights of individuals isn't because any one individual is more important than society as a whole but rather because if we arbitrarily take away the rights of the one then we've effectively taken away the rights of everyone.
Well, only one of those words have been used in some form or another to classify me as property
No, it hasn't. The word we used for that was "slave". It's descended from the word Slav; named after a bunch of white dudes in Europe who were property much earlier in our history than "you" were. The word "n**ger" does not and never has meant "slave". There were plenty of free n*ggers who themselves owned slaves. Some free n*ggers in America even owned white slaves. Don't confuse the two words.
It's not always exactly what you say, but also includes some historical context.
It would be useful if you actually understood the historical context. For example:
Not saying cracker can't be used as hate speech, it's just doesn't carry much weight when it's towards the historical perpetrator.
Someone who actually understood the "historical context" would know that us crackers were neither the only nor the worst "perpetrators" of slavery. You n*ggers enslaved each other for far longer, and half the slaves we got were purchased from you. Plus those dune-coons over in the middle east did it for longer and were much more brutal about it. And let's not forget that North Africa in the 15th to 18th century captured and sold around 1.5 million white slaves. But "n*gger" and "dune-coon" are hate speech, while cracker still is not. Because reasons.
I appreciate that you're trying to think seriously about this and trying to put forth some kind of reason for it, but these are all post-hoc rationalizations; things people tell themselves to justify a position they already hold. None of them are sufficient to explain the differentiation.
The analogy of shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not invalidated by it being used in a case which was later overturned. The reason the 1919 Schenck vs The United states was overturned wasn't because the analogy itself was bad. It was overturned because his actions in protesting the draft did not present the "clear and present danger" that the United States government claimed it did. Schenck vs the US and its later overturning is one of the foundation cases of the right of a citizen to be a conscientious objector.
You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. The reason that the analogy is bad is because shouting fire in a crowded theater itself does not "present that kind of clear and present danger". On the contrary, the judge who coined the analogy applied it perfectly; he was concerned that Schenck's speech would create harm to the nation by encouraging others to engage in a criminal act - namely refusing to be drafted (which is still illegal), thereby causing the USA to lose the war. His reasoning was solid, and the analogy was well chosen.
The ruling was overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio. That case had absolutely nothing to do with "conscientious objectors" so the idea that Schenck's case was overturned because the court found draft-dodging to be ok is just stupid. Rather the court in Brandenburg ruled that government cannot criminalize inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". This is a massively important distinction, and illustrated by Brandenburg itself. The case hinged around a group of white supremacists who, at a rally, made statements about wanting to "get revenge against n**gers and jews". Brandenburg - one of the organizers - was charged for advocating violence, and was sentenced to prison. The Supreme Court found that this was unconstitutional. For a crime to be committed it's not enough to just say "we need to get revenge on those n**gers"; rather you would have to say something akin to "Look, a n**ger! Go get some revenge boys!".
This does not, by the way, mean that all of the actions of the "conscious objectors" are automatically legal. Were you to stand outside of an induction center telling men to turn around, go home, and refuse to be drafted, you could very well be prosecuted. You've gone from abstractly advocating the elimination of the draft to actively encouraging people to immediately break the law. The fact that you (and others like you) continually refuse to acknowledge this distinction does not mean that it isn't real, or important.
Your disagreement with one of my points also does not invalidate my other points.
The rest of your points were sophomoric and not really worth engaging with. I got a laugh out of your misuse of the "fire" analogy and figured I would point it out.
That, in general, free speech doesn't not exempt you from consequences
Again, sophomoric left-wing authoritarian talking point, memorized by the mindless to reinforce their preexisting desires. All of the examples you've provided for this claim hinge on government enforcement, and they are soundly refuted by the case law I've quoted.
If you acknowledged that you were wrong about the legal aspects and then, like many of your fellow authoritarians, moved on to insist that "consequences" could just mean people kicking the shit out of you (#punchanazi) you would be closer truth in the sense that yes, if you say unpopular things you may get punched. But we have laws against that, and the person doing the punching needs to be locked up. It turns out that when you assault (or stalk, threaten, and harass) people whom you don't like, you are not free from the consequences of those actions either.
nor does it require any to listen to you.
No, certainly not. This is the first sane thing you've said. It's pe
Nice. Good to know that the price for those has come down also. A little too late to be useful to me, but good nonetheless.
The big problem with the dimable ones is that, iirc, you also have to replace your dimmer switches. That adds expense even if you know how to replace one yourself (the dimmers were like $20+ last time I looked), let alone if you have to call an electrician.
Probably still worth it in the long run for the energy savings, but it does change the equation.
Free Speech does not, and never has, protected someone from the consequences of their free speech. The classic example is shouting fire in a crowded theatre, leading to false calls to the emergency services who respond and possible panic and injury among the other theatre goers
I always love the irony of people using this analogy to try and support restriction on free speech. You are obviously completely clueless about the fact that the analogy was first made by a judge in a legal ruling which ended up sending a man to prison for the "crime" of passing out pamphlets opposing the draft.
The ruling was eventually overturned, but not before the defendant (and many like him) spent years in jail for voicing an opinion which is commonplace today. However the result of it being overturned is that, yes, in the united states at least, you CAN yell fire in a crowded theatre. What you can't do is engage in speech which "advocates imminent lawless action", as in you can't tell the theatre goers to burn down the building.
Stop it, you're giving me a woody.
It is actually not as bad as you'd think
I'm aware of the numbers, but you know that facts don't really matter much when the word "nuclear" comes up. Realistically, yes, the environmental harm from launching a couple dozen of these would probably be far less than the environmental harm caused by launching the thousands of conventional rockets required to lift the same load. But the harm from nuclear reactors is likewise a lot less than the alternatives we've been using for decades, yet nuclear power is still stigmatized and opposed by the general public. Fear trumps facts.
There's a difference between being drunk and having alcohol metabolites in your system. The former lasts 6-8 hours. The latter lasts up to 90 days.
I'm not confusing anything; I think "hate speech" is a nebulous category with no functional definition, and is completely useless as a result.
Your "things that can't be changed" theory is cute, but fails even a cursory examination. I can insult you for being short or tall, fast or slow. I can call a bald guy "baldy". I can call a freckly chick "freckles". I can call an Irishman a drunken bastard, an Englishman a limey, an Italian a dago, and a Frenchman a frog. None of those would be classified as "hate speech" anywhere in the world. But I call you a n**ger and oh my fucking god it's the end of the world. Because apparently you need special protection or something. I dunno, ask the fuckwits who made up the rule.
I like how you link to more fake news in order to prove that you're not linking to fake news.
For the record, even using their own statistics, attacks on farmers have INCREASED; it's only resultant deaths which have decreased. This shouldn't be surprising given that farmers have been working for years to improve their security measures and build groups to protect each other. Only a moron would focus on the number of deaths while ignoring an increase in attacks.
I await your next fake news link with bated breath.
A drunk squirrel try to climb a tree is one of the funniest damn things I've ever seen.
Absolutely. I used the same defense at my drunk driving trial. "Just because I was drunk doesn't mean alcohol had anything to do with me rear-ending a cop car!"
Judge didn't buy it. Fucking asshole.
So, can I refuse to make a religious cake because it violates my beliefs sine I think most religious people are morons?
Depends.
Is it for Christians? Then yes, absolutely, tell them to fuck off.
Is it for Muslims? Then no, you fucking racist piece of shit, you better not be refusing! /progressive