Servo exists

You didn’t though. You replied to me saying this:

What did Clinton do? You mean aside from keeping his mouth shut about being offered an underage girl?

In this specific case I agree, not reporting CSA should be illegal (and probably is?) I’m not so sure that we should codify the current ethical understanding into law though.

We need to leave room for development. Forcing new ideas to first go through the battle of legalization isn’t helpful in this regard. Laws are there to regulate what normal social regulation can’t do properly.

I think people who cheat on their partners are morally speaking bad people. But writing into law you can’t have multiple partners at once is quite obviously a bad decision, because there are happy polyamourus relationships. The government doesn’t need to get involved here, being treated like the ass that you are for cheating is punishment enough, and leaves the room for developing new ways of living together.

Bro the guy was literally “the leader of the free world” and said nothing about his friend selling children to child diddlers and you are going to come at me with a “but akchually WHICH LAW DID HE BREAK?!?!?!?”. Go piss.

What did Clinton do? You mean aside from keeping his mouth shut about being offered an underage girl?

The point being trump would set the bar very low anyways

It’s not like trump is known to not stoop below any bar he sees. Holding the bar up won’t do anything

You just have a chain of unprovable assumptions there.

Kid’s use slang -> they must have picked it up on the internet -> many people are illiterate -> the parents of these specific kids are not raising them right

Excuse me the correct slang here would be to hit someone with that “hawk tuah”

You have written tests for your code and now feel safe because your code is tested. But test quality is really hard to measure. The idea seems to be to introduce “vulnerabilities” (whatever that means…) and see if your tests catch them. If they do that’s supposed to show that the tests are good and vice versa.

Cocknitive balls therapy?

No that’s not the same. In one case there is only the theoretical possibility of help whereas in the other case there is a realizable possibility for help. This is a big difference.

Stupidity shouldn’t result in death. And not following the law also shouldn’t result in death as long as lives aren’t actively endangered.

Aside from that, chasing the guy over a broken light was pretty dumb of the cop. Noncooperative vehicles are a BIG hazard to other traffic. Write down the number plate, visit them at home. The taillight will still be broken tomorrow.

But if a private company does it, it belongs ti the private company.

Unless you don’t believe in private ownership?

“If I invented the means of saving lives that doesn’t make it my responsibility to actually do so. Especially if there are profits on the line”. Wow.

Germany has a beautiful sentence in its constitution:

Eigentum verpflichtet. Sein Gebrauch soll zugleich dem Wohle der Allgemeinheit dienen.

Property implies responsibility. Its use shall also benefit the wellbeing of the general public.

The thought being that while private property is a core staple of our society this is only the case because the concept of private property is seen as beneficial overall. If private property starts hurting the general public then the implied responsibilities coming with the property are not being fulfilled and the concept loses its value to society as a whole.

I really don’t get what you’re trying to say here. That’s obviously great. I am all for doing this stuff, how could you even think I wouldn’t? I’m saying both kinds of activism provide value.

(Aside from the fact that nothing really got damaged…)

Part of your anger seems to stem from me saying that this whole thing isn’t moving forward fast enough and somehow you think that’s a critique of your personal work. I assure you that wasn’t my goal. But you have to admit that we are, globally, not moving fast enough.

The connection to the fight for racial equality is interesting but I’m not sure how well this applies. How do you suppose you can do anything equivalently “not accepting the rules we want to protest” in the context of climate change? Because before there was a big movement there were just a few people breaking the unfair rules. Which where likely talked similarly about as you are talking about these activists right now.

I’m only speculating that you made that situation up because deep down you understand the need to disassociate yourself from these protests, and it’s increasingly clear to me that you see their value in some kind of shell game strategy, where no one knows who’s pulling the strings. But again, you made that up, not me.

I am being very clear about the fact that two forms of activism can and should be done under different names. And that that is because some forms of activism that I deem valuable would have detrimental effects on the other form of activism if done under the same name. You seem to have a hard time getting that but that’s not because I’m being unclear about this.

Because if you’re not embarassed or ashamed of the pipeline disturbance/damage, then you shouldn’t have a problem openly associating yourself with it. The fact that you’re trying to hard to suggest it’s prudent to distance oneself from a disruption/protest tells me that deep down you understand these things are perceived negatively and are therefore more likely to cause friction and disagreement than sympathy for a cause.

You are still arguing from the perspective that activism needs to please people or else it’s “embarrassing” or “shameful”. I do agree that there is activism that displeases people, I think that is still valuable and nothing to be ashamed of.

But I can acknowledge that there are people that do not see that as something that should be supported. Different forms of activism have different target groups and different wanted effects. It’s just a rational thing to address different target groups and produce different effects under different names.

Ah, so now it’s enough to acknowledge that public resources exist and people can find it if they want? Because seconds ago you were cheering for people to paint rocks in a public place to keep people from talking about anything else. Seems you’re not quite sure what you believe or how you think it should be accomplished. So what is it? Should it be shoved into people’s faces so they can’t ignore it? Or should they be left to find their own resources?

I want the issue front and center in the public discussion. You and I are both aware that people aren’t 100% of the time participating in the public discussion but spend time doing their own thing. Which is partially influenced by what is happening in the public discussion. If climate change is a topic, even if just tangential, that still helps influence people to think about it in the times they spend outside of the public discussion.

I am an ally. That’s what you don’t understand and refuse to entertain as a possibility. I’m an environmental advocate both personally and professionally, and I’ve been working on climate change and environmental issues for over a decade. And even I’m telling you that painting a rock is stupid and counterproductive.

Again I want to thank you for your work, we need people like you. But I don’t think that’s all we need. It has become apparent that just silently working on this at the grassroots level hasn’t shown the necessary progress. So people have decided to express their opinion in more loud and disturbing manners.

The only people who give a shit and empathize with it are people who were already on your team.

Again, this protest isn’t about sympathy. I don’t think anyone is having the illusion that a majority would be happy about this kind of protest. But I think “no one gives a shit” is pretty evidently a lie. People very demonstrably give a shit about Stonehenge being orange for a little while.

Oh definitely. I’m just saying both sides have their indiscriminant supporters and that one side is way overrepresented in my experience

The fact that we are talking about this and not about climate change is also partly your decision. You are free at any point to disengage this thread and focus your energy on more productive things. The fact that you’re not doing this is just one example of humans being humans and not always doing the best of all things. Me still arguing with you is of course another example.

Why do you not want these actions associated with the other group?

I can repeat this as often as you want: people want to engage in different kinds of activities under different names because the actions do not relate and the messaging becomes confusing. I can both disturb the operation of a pipeline and try to mobilize locals to support the building of a solar power plant. Doing both under the same name makes everything more complicated even if there is personal overlap. I really don’t get why you are so hung up on this.

Furthermore, you don’t think painting a fucking rock is confusing to the people who want to discuss climate change, but having one interest group perform varying kinds of direct activism and grassroots organizing is confusing to the people who want to discuss climate change?

I don’t exactly get the question here. I’m not saying any of those options is particularly confusing. I’m saying doing both under the same name might get confusing for people not intimately familiar with your group and their actions.

It’s a hypothetical, not a strawman, which should have been obvious when the sentence began with “if”.

The hypothetical that you are posing instead of what I’m actually arguing for. You then argue against that hypothetical instead of my actual points. That’s a classic example of a strawman.

You’re advocating for bothering random people at a tourist attraction,

Yes I’m advocating for bothering people in public. Where else would you bother people?

and you’re doing it in a way that a) distracts from talking about actual climate change,

That’s a choice the public is making. And again I think this is fine.

b) leaves them virtually NO information about how to address climate change,

That’s also fine. It’s not like there aren’t any publicly available sources on how to fight climate change. If the people are interested they can go talk to the many many local groups that engage in productive activities.

and c) is potentially affecting people who already do what they can to address climate change. See how this entire thread has been about painting rocks, instead of daily choices we make that contribute to or affect climate change???

This thread is a prime example of people like you who could be allies here and engage people who aren’t yet convinced that we need to take action, that instead take up a lot of time and energy to argue about the kind of protest.

No I didn’t miss that but taking an explorative pilot project as the defacto standard and then rejecting that it might be possible to build something more space efficient is not how the world works