• 0 Posts
  • 82 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 27th, 2023

help-circle
  • Hacksaw@lemmy.catoScience Memes@mander.xyzDeficiencies
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    16 days ago

    Our communities are setup like that. We’re separated from eachother, and we can’t afford to spend enough time at local third places to feel community. Church also used to be central to community and most people aren’t religious, but nothing has replaced the churches role in community building.

    It’s rough. If you can get out to places nearby where people congregate that will be nice. Getting a dog is nice too if you like dogs, they give you love and accept your love and they’re a good ice breaker. They also force you out regularly. You can take the dog to dog parks and chat with locals.

    It’s not your fault. Humans are a social animal and we built cities and an economy that didn’t consider that.




  • What country has a system where SOLDIERS IN THE MILITARY can’t be forced to invade another country?

    Like it’s a nice ideal, but considering your idea is novel and radical maybe start with countries that aren’t at war.

    Second of all, once you’re at war, you’re at war. There is no “just defend your territory” because that means there is no reason not to invade you and no loss scenario for your invader, the worst outcome they lose some soldiers and your borders are unaffected. Once you are attacked you have to seek every legal advantage (see the Geneva convention) to obtain victory and repel your attackers. On that basis I’m not even sure your idea is sound or reasonable in the first place for a defending country. And in this specific scenario it’s just helping Russia.

    I’m marking you as a Russian troll just to see how often you’re on here defending Russia by “just asking questions” about the actions of Ukraine while not holding Russia to any standard at all .







  • That’s not what I said. In neither situation does the deal enforce that the person HAS to use the loudspeaker for hate speech. I wish I could blame your reading comprehension but it’s painfully obvious you’re arguing in bad faith since this is the pedantic detail you’re stuck on instead of the rest of my argument.

    Every Twitter user makes a deal with Twitter to get an account. This deal includes what’s acceptable behaviour. If Twitter’s policy allows hate speech then it’s Twitter’s fault their platform is spreading hate speech. If Twitter’s policy prohibits hate speech then it’s still their fault because they’re not enforcing their policy. This is something Twitter had no problem with before their degenerate new owner fired the enforcement team.

    Now let’s see what pedantic detail you get stuck on this time instead of facing the fact Twitter is liable for enabling hate speech to spread faster than ever before!



  • If you make a deal with someone to come on your front porch every day yelling hate speech into your loudspeaker I think you’ll find it’s pretty easy to be held accountable for what other people say.

    Second, if you’ll remember, Twitter makes money from showing adds on this speech. It’s not like they’re doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. Profiting from hate speech isn’t going to be looked at kindly.






  • Like evasive chimpanzee said we need to poop INDIRECTLY in crops. Hot aerobic composting for example has excellent nutrient retention rates and eliminates nearly all human borne diseases. The main problem would be medication since some types tend to survive.

    Also urine contains almost all of the water soluble nutrients that we expel and is sanitised with 6-12 months of anaerobic storage. So that’s potentially an easier solution if we can seclude the waste stream. Again the main issue would be medications.

    I don’t have the answer, if it was easy we would have done it already. The main issue is we don’t have a lot of people working on the answer because we’re still in the stage of getting everyone in the world access to sanitation. Certainly the way we’re doing it is very energy and resources intensive, unsustainable in the living term, and incredibly damaging to the environment. We’ve broken a fundamental aspect of the nutrient cycle and we’re paying dearly for it.

    The other problem is, like recycling, there isn’t a lot of money in the solution, so it’s hard to move forward in a capitalist system until shit really hits the fan.


    1. We mine and manufacture nutrient dense fertilizer at massive environmental cost.
    2. We use the nutrients to grow plants
    3. We eat the nutrients in our food
    4. We expel 95% of these nutrients in our waste
    5. We dump our waste into the rivers and oceans with all the nutrients (often we purposefully destroy the nitrogen in the waste since it causes so much damage to rivers and oceans)
    6. We need new nutrients to grow plants

    Before humans there was a nutrient cycle. Now it’s just a pipe from mining to the ocean that passes through us. The ecological cost of this is immeasurable, but we don’t notice because fertilizer helps us feed starving people and waste management is important to avoid disease.

    We need to close the loop again!