/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15794996
it's a cyclic thing. it grows and shrinks every year

>>15794996
China started using them again.

>>15794996
There's literal answer in the article you fucking retard

>>15794996
Rogue emissions from China. But we cannot tell whether it is actually industry or just warehouse leaks (they have inventory of tons and tons of unused CFCs)

>Nooooooo the heckin penguins will get sunburn!!!!!

>>15794996
It was me

>>15795026
Stop blaming China. This has everything to do with US carbon emissions.

>>15795847
This. Why doesn't the US pay their fair share of carbon tax and for the war in the ukraine region? Why are amerimutts incapable of ethical decision making and why are their universities not fostering it?

>>15795385
This but unironically

>Although it may be too early to discuss the reasons behind the current ozone concentrations, some researchers speculate that this year's unusual ozone patterns could be associated with the eruption of the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai in January 2022.

>>15794996
Explain why I should care about the ozone layer. To me it seems like just another excuse to control people, "do this or the ozone layer will explode and kill us".

>>15795942
This comment was written by a melanoma

>>15794996
China and third worlders using them again.

It's just spite at this point.

>>15795847
Scurry off now back to your masters you duplicitous rat.

>>15795942
>Why should companies be held accountable for giving us all skin cancer? I want Chinese billionaires to keep their profits margins slightly higher instead.

>>15795848
Russia will pay for it in their reparations

>>15795961
Now do per capita to compare the average Chang to the average John. Then do it consumption based to attribute exports to the actual culprit.

>>15796060
the atmosphere doesn't care about per capita, only the total emissions. Also you see a clear trend down in the western world, not in china.

>>15796060
He's not going to look those up, but I happen to have all of those

>>15795961

>>15795961
>>15796060
>>15796106
>>15796107

>>15795961
>>15796060
>>15796106
>>15796107
>>15796108
Here's the cumulative figures for good measure. Amazing that the US is the top polluter by nearly every metric.

>>15796106
>only the total emissions
Grouped by arbitrary borders? Is Texas 30 times worse than South Dakota?

>>15796117
Take a wild guess how policy is grouped.

>>15796117
I don't get it. Do you want it normalized by a per capita measure, or do you want the total figures for each country? Why do you think any of your complaints would excuse the US for their own actions?

>>15796107
>>15796108
>>15796111
>>15796060
Not relevent in the slightest ratface. Europe makes medical equipment and pharmaceuticsls for the entire planet and billions would die of they didn't.

The difference is since CO2 was declared a problem in the 90s by international community all OECD nations have cut CO2 emissions while duplicitous China did the opposite and stole industries that could've transitioned cleanly.

Scurry along now little rat.

>>15796122
Weird cope. They cut their emissions by exporting their industry. If you had an IQ over 70 you'd be able to parse that data from this graph >>15796108

What's your next facile excuse for inaction?

>oy vey the world is coming to an end!!!
>because the soience gods say so!!!
>trust the soience!!!!
its fake, scientists lie about everything to get attention and money, they're just like women

>>15796162
Source?

>>15796162
What money? Honest question. What money are scientists getting? From whom? For what?

>>15795942
you the type of nigga who dont wear seatbelts right

>>15796175
Scientist here, I'd like to know as well.

>>15796321
you have to live off government welfare payments because you're too lazy to produce anything of negotiable value

>>15794996
ask china

>>15796325
I think you overestimate the salary of scientists lmao. I'd earn several times as much, working maybe half the time if I wanted to work for a bank or an insurance company.

>>15795016
This. Japan even detected it from polluted air blowing west. People ignored it at the time.

>>15796383
>Japan even detected it from polluted air blowing west
???

>>15796160
That's, again, not relevant in the slightest. Those industries are competative only because they can undercut other markets due to essentially zero environmental protection. Not only CO2, but they are raling the Earth by producing 90% of all plastic and hazardous materials released into the ocean.

>>15795385
This but really

>>15796325
Heh, that poster wasn't me

>>15796424
>>15795869
Why do you think they have black feathers? For style? It's UV shielding. The penguins are fine.

>>15796434
Sea bed is black
Like when flying birds have white bellies to blend in with the sky, and dark tops/their backs to blend in with the ground from what's above them

>>15796434
I just BTFO everything you believed in

>>15796451
Penguins don't swim anywhere close to the sea bed, and the most optimal colors for visual stealth in the ocean are shades of gray. Penguins are optimized for immunity to solar radiation.
>>15796476
Where? In your mind?

>>15796494
>Penguins are optimized for immunity to solar radiation.
And yet polar bears are optimised for absorbing maximum solar radiation. Weird. Almost as if you're full of shit.

>>15796558
Polar bears don't live in Antarctica you absolute fool.

>>15795873
>Tonga
Pretty sure this is it. CFCs are naturally produced from the ocean, which is salt and water.
The eruption blasted a lot of saltwater into the stratosphere, and had a lot of carbon dioxide and monoxide as well.
it's just chemistry bro

>>15796236
I don't want the government to force people to wear seatbelts, yes.

>>15795965
>held accountable
Communist buzzword.
You are the one buying products from those companies. If you think what they are (were) doing is giving you skin cancer, don't buy their stuff.

If enough people believe what you believe, they will lose business and stop doing it. Zero need for government intervention.

>>15796162
this

>>15796399
That means those emissions are your fault for patronizing them, retard. They wouldn't keep produce cheap plastic garbage if you didn't keep buying it. What's your next facile excuse for inaction?

>>15796619
>I love sucking capitalist dick
We know. Can you do it quieter?

>>15795847
shut up Francis

>>15796494
They're still dark like the ocean

>>15795016
>>15795026
So what's their long term plan? If they can't have islands in the south china sea no one can by raising sea levels faster?

>>15794996
Solar activity fucking with the earth's magnetic field

>>15796634
You are the one buying products from those companies. If you think what they are (were) doing is giving you skin cancer, don't buy their stuff.
You are at fault for climate change and so on because you value stopping climate change less than spending more of your money to buy non climate changing products.

>>15796890
>Muh carbon footprint
Typical fossil fuel shill deflection. BP created the concept of the carbon footprint to offload their responsibility onto their consumers who largely have no available alternatives.

Don't you have a new issue of Petrol Pete to pay schools to teach?

>>15796107
>per capita
Translation: China has a shit ton of people living in mud hut poverty, but they're not putting out as much carbon as the massive Chinese industrialist so it evens out. :^)

>>15796907
The fact is that you are choosing the cheaper, more polluting company over a more expensive, less polluting company to provide you a service.
This is because you value your time and money more than you value the reduction in environmental damage you create as a byproduct of getting that service.

I would be fine with that if you then did not go on to beg the government to ban things. You right now have the ability to reduce environmental damage but choose not to. Why then should you use the force and violence of the state to reduce environmental damage that you will not do voluntarily?

>>15794996
>We banned CFCs 30 years ago
China isn't enforcing it

>>15796916
See
>>15796108
>>15796111

>>15796921
Nonsense, shill. You can't stick blame on consumers for having one choice. Eventually you'll have to take responsibility for your company's choices and trying to deflect and blame your customers is not sufficient.

>>15796939
>having one choice.
I just explained you have more than one choice. You choose not to take it. This is because you value the environment less than your money.

If we had much less government interference in the free market there would be even more choices.

I think you are an evil controling cunt who wants to use the government to force your will on others. This is evidenced by the fact you choose not to use more environmentally friendly alternatives, but then demand the government uses violence to force people to use environmentally friendly alternatives.
Whether something affects the environment takes a back seat to you controlling other people.

>>15794996
Someone’s pumping the atmosphere with new gases that interact with ozone

>>15796970
You keep pretending this other choice exists, but the reality is that there is no available alternative for the vast majority of people, shill. You will have to own up to your mistakes. Nobody will take responsibility for you.

>>15796978
>You keep pretending this other choice exists
Explain why you believe there is no other choice.

I can tell you with certainty that the government is responsible for the reduction in choices because of regulations.

>>15796934
Okay.
>>15796108
>imported/exported
China has shit environmental controls, and it's somehow the West's fault?
>>15796111
>cumulative
The West's CO2 output is at record lows, and China's is at record high's, but nevermind that just pay attention to what the output looked like for 200 years.

>oh no! the world is coming to an end!!
>I know its true because soiyence says so!!! trust the soiyence!!
>I'm gonna save the world, just like muh superheroes in muh marvel comix moooovies!!!
see how easily manipulated soiygoys are by these soiyence doomsday narratives? the narratives play right into their latent savior complexes that they were programmed with in their hollywood entertainment.
there is no talking them down once they hear about a new soiyence doomsday scenario, their psychological urge to see themselves as heroic powers unbreakable confirmation bias which forced them to believe in whatever narrative was shilled at them by the purveyors of soiyence doomsday tales

>>15796995
>China has shit environmental controls, and it's somehow the West's fault?
Yes. They bought all that garbage from China instead of making it themselves. It's the West's emissions.

>The West's CO2 output is at record lows
Lol no. Record lows would be 0 or less. What do you think you mean when you say "record lows"?

>but nevermind that just pay attention to what the output looked like for 200 years.
Why are you afraid of accountability?

>>15797015
Take your meds.

>>15796993
>the government is responsible for the reduction in choices because of regulations.
Complete nonsense. It's fossil fuel companies throttling their competition to protect their profits. You know this shill.

>>15796160
Didn't china make more concrete in 8 years than the US in 100 for their tofu dreg real estate hustle? You know how much natural gas it takes to make all that concrete, not to mention the fucktons of coal they burn for domestic energy generation.

>>15797166
If it were significant then it would show up in the data. It's not so it doesn't. What's your next excuse for inaction?

>>15796619
>>held accountable
>Communist buzzword
I'm not sure what you mean by this, the perspective is that corporations are getting away with committing crimes against people simply because they have more money and that they should answer to a law immune to such bribes.

Gentlemen please, cease this unseemly argument. At the end of the day it really doesn't matter. If the environment doesn't matter then everything is going to be fine. If it does matter then shit is going to go down in a big way. Either way its a win.

>>15797166
>oh no it takes concrete to house a billion people
>more concrete than it takes to house 300 million
>they developed later, so they don't have housing already but have to build it now
>fuck China for being more people and not having polluted the planet in the past and doing it today

I mean, fuck China indeed, for a variety of reasons, but your reasons are dumb.

>>15796632
They are choosing to undercut by having zero protections for the environment. They are taking advantage of the system for their own benefit to the detriment of everyone. If they passed the same environmental protections as other places then corporations would have to become more efficient and cleaner to get cheaper not just outsource to China.

>>15797112
Yes. It is the West's fault that China and India pollute more than the West ever could. Hold on to that cope.

Just go to any decorations store. China pumps out billions of tons of plastic fucking trash every day.

>>15796434
>It's UV shielding
It’s countershading, you know like almost every marine animal bigger than a sardine has?
>and the most optimal colors for visual stealth in the ocean are shades of gray
Then why are most darker on top and lighter below instead of solid grey?

>>15797301
>"Hello, China and India. Would you please make us some cheap plastic garbage? We would make it ourselves, but we have labor laws and environmental regulations"
>Ok
>"WOW HOW DARE YOU DO WHAT I ASKED YOU TOO AT THE EXPENSE OF YOUR WORKERS AND THE ENVIRONMENT. When can we get the next shipment BTW?"

>>15797289
No, YOU are taking advantage of the system. It's YOUR garbage that they're making. If YOU didn't buy it then they wouldn't make it. You are trying to pretend that you're blameless, but it's YOUR money driving China's exports.

>>15797571
>>15797571
>Then why are most darker on top and lighter below instead of solid grey?
Darker gray on top, not black on top. Sharks have counter-shading. Show me a black and white shark with contrast like a penguin. You can't.

>>15797757
You know, I first wanted to troll you with dall-e, but the images it produced looked like fucking orcas. So have this real image of orcas instead.

>>15797880
Orcas spend much of their time at the surface, exposed to UV radiation. Sharks don't, and therefore aren't colored like this. You know this, because you failed to think of any sharks that are colored this way.

>>15797898
>As discussed above, wild orcas regularly spend 95 percent of their time submerged and swim almost constantly.

>>15797905
>wild orcas regularly spend 95 percent of their time submerged
Near the surface. You can get sunburned through the water you know.

>>15797909
Why are not all animals black then?

>>15797915
A great many are black. Most of the rest have lifestyles of strategies that keep them out of direct sunlight, such as avoiding the surface of the ocean during the day (sharks and many other sea animals come closer to the surface at night)

>>15797112
You're an idiot. The West _wants_ to make those products, but it's too expensive due to strong environmental laws in the West. These laws were from international organisation which thirdies pretended to also agree to, but instead abused the situation to deindustrialise the West while polluting at historically unprecedented levels.

Not just C02, 99% of the plastic in the Ocean has only Chinese lettering. Most of the overfished areas including in the Atlantic are due to Chinese fisher sea cities and scraping techniques etc.

>>15797112
>. Record lows would be 0 or less. What do you think you mean when you say "record lows"?
It's record low since CO2 has been acknowledged as a problem. The West did the right thing when the problem became apparent. Meanwhile third world countries have been exponentially increasing CO2 after they had also acknowledged AGW is an issue.

ONLY evil third world world countries are to blame.

>>15797636
1) I don't buy Chinese.
2) The West is not the biggest consumer of Chinese products.

Fuck off with your corporate line guilt trip nonsense. Consumers are not to blame, consumers tend to do the right thing; ending slavery, buying organic etc. You are evil and supporting corporate globohomo agenda.

>>15797632
Not true in the slightest you lying rat.

What do you think carbon credits are for? The West does everything it can to only consume environmentally friendly products. The problem is Chinks lie 24/7 about everything so the only option remaining is a full sanction.

>>15795942
What really gets me is the sad reality that almost nobody seems to be able to entertain the idea that a detrimental phenomenon can be real, dire AND be uses as an opportunity by the psychopaths in charge to 1984 people.
Everyone just lines up on one side, either accepting the apparent realty and the control, or rejecting the control and the apparent reality.

>>15798913
>1) I don't buy Chinese.
What phone and PC do you use?

>>15797632
What actually happened:
>Western Governments: "There! New anti-polluting laws! Now we can have a clean enviroment!"
>Industries: "Wow, this looks very expensive to impliment, will you subsidize it?"
>Governments: "No."
>China: "Pssssst, come over here and set up factories with cheap labor and zero environmental oversight"
Nobody forced China or India to do jack shit.

>>15798945
>industries asking for government handouts
Lazy fucks should eat less avocado toast

>>15798940
>What phone
Nipphone (Xperia) with parts fron American and Japan, software (KDE) from EU based open source.
> and PC do you use?
American (CPU), American+Taiwanese (GPU, mobo), South Korea (memory).

Next cope?

>>15798945
That makes it those companies emissions, retard. China would not have made their products if they hadn't been paid to make them. They had the option of making their own products and they chose not to. There was even a huge political debate about wether or not they should be allowed to outsource and worker protections and environmental regulations were at the heart of the debate. You are a retard.

>>15796725
What does ozone have to do with sea levels? But to answer your question, maybe China hopes to depopulate Australia via high skin cancer rates.

>>15797118
>It's fossil fuel companies throttling their competition to protect their profits
How?

Governments suppress competition by raising the cost of entry to market. You need a fucking license to drill a well moron. That reduces supply, which gives more power to your evil oil companies. You are the problem.

>>15797230
I mean that it is a buzzword used by idiots like yourself who think a company extracting raw resources to sell to people is in any way comparable to a bunch of spergs in a government genociding people.

>>15798945
Instead of begging the government to ban methods of creating a product that cause pollution, why not take a personal choice to choose to buy products from a company that does not use a pollution method to create their product?

I cannot understand why socialists are this blind. You have the choice right now to reduce pollution caused by your consumer choices, but refuse to do so. Instead you want a government to use violence to get your way. Presumably because the less polluting option would cost you more money that you are not willing to pay.

>>15799867
>why not take a personal choice
Because that's proven to not work. You'd still be breathing in lead fumes and asbestos if we relied on that.

>>15799950
>Because that's proven to not work.
It is actually, that's how business rise and fall.
You're an evil controlling cunt, aka any leftist.

>>15799957
When did they stop putting lead in fuel or wine?

>>15799972
Why do you refuse to make a personal effort to stop buying products from companies that pollute, and then demand the government bans the companies you do buisness with from polluting?

You have a non-violent option available yet you choose not to use it. Are you an idiot who cannot see the non-violent option, or an evil cunt who wants to use violent? I am serious.

>>15800039
When companies are given the option they all choose to pollute and abuse their consumers, retard. Open a history book.

>>15800039
>are you an idiot or… wants to use violent?
Kys. When your physical well-being is threatened by climate change the “violent” solution of enacting legislation is perfectly justified, especially when most of them won’t result in any actual physical conflict. The handful of fossil fuel companies that would be affected aren’t going to default on any theorised fines, and even if they did the purpose of an LLC is to prevent the owners of a company from adopting their corporations liability.

>>15800885
I'm not talking about companies being given an option. I'm talking about YOU having a choice.
Suppose:

You want an apple.
There are two companies that provide apples.
Company A sells apples at $1, and produces 8 units of pollution to do so.
Company B sells apples at $2, and produces 4 units of pollution to do so.

Given this choice, you buy from company A, despite producing more pollution to provide you with that apple. Despite the fact you had a choice to buy from a less polluting company for your apple, you now run off to government to complain that companies are polluting too much, and they must be forced to stop polluting.


This is how I see your actions. From this, it seems to me that you are a cunt, because you are given the choice, albeit more expensive, to reduce the worlds pollution, but choose not to. Then you order the government to use force to reduce the pollution you chose not to reduce.
Please explain your reasoning for why my scenario does not reflect what you see.
Do you feel there no company B?
Do you not see the use of government as force?
If you feel there is no company B, what circumstances have allowed that to be so?

>>15800909
>When your physical well-being is threatened by climate change the “violent” solution of enacting legislation is perfectly justified
Nobody is trying to cause climate change to threaten your well being. Acting like this is an assault on your body or property is therefor incorrect.

>especially when most of them won’t result in any actual physical conflict
This shows me you are misguided in your understanding how laws are carried out. All laws require violence, or the threat thereof. Any and all legislation is always a use of force.
If not, then a mugger is not using force when he points a gun at you and orders you to surrender your wallet but does not shoot, and you comply out of fear.

>The handful of fossil fuel companies that would be affected aren’t going to default on any theorised fines and even if they did the purpose of an LLC is to prevent the owners of a company from adopting their corporations liability.
Irrelevant as it is still a use of force. A thief may not bankrupt you but it is still an act of evil.
This is what I mean about you leftists. You do not seem to even understand what you suggest to be done.

>>15794996
China

>>15800039
So they stopped putting lead in gasoline because everyone was buying lead-free? Huh, interesting. Asbestos was also phased out because everyone was rational and stopped buying it once they found out it gives people lung cancer, right?

>>15801367
> Nobody is trying to cause climate change to threaten your well being. Acting like this is an assault on your body or property is therefor incorrect.
People are aware that it causes bodily harm. They do it anyway. They either do it purposefully or don’t care about causing harm. There is no difference between these two options.

Your comment is full of libertarian nonsense, yet you jump off the libertarian train just when people might start defending themselves.

>>15801367

>>15801430
Nope it was legal mandates. Companies wanted to do it anyways because money.

>>15801357
Your hypothetical is irrelevant to the real world we're discussing.

>>15801435
Oh, really? Fascinating. Almost as if “violence” is the only way to stop corporations from hurting consumers. When did corporations stop using PCB and DDT? After hippies stopped buying their products? No?

>>15801430
Why do you refuse to make a personal effort to stop buying products from companies that pollute, and then demand the government bans the companies you do buisness with from polluting?

You have a non-violent option available yet you choose not to use it. Are you an idiot who cannot see the non-violent option, or an evil cunt who wants to use violent? I am serious.

>>15801445
Why are you incapable of reacting to my points? You’re worse than ChatGPT. This is not about me. You don’t know what I buy and what I don’t buy. But you know that nothing would change if I started consuming differently, in any direction.
Stop being a faggot and talk about the bigger picture. Which harmful corporate behaviour was stopped due to the free market, due to consumers refusing to buy the harmful shit? Not a single one. If it weren’t for government policies, you’d get all sorts of nasty, toxic shit in your food and in the air.

>>15801431
>People are aware that it causes bodily harm. They do it anyway.
That is still not the same as assault. Acting like this is an assault on your body or property is therefor incorrect.

>They either do it purposefully or don’t care about causing harm.
These two are not the same. Next to nobody does it to purposefully cause harm. Acting like this is an assault on your body or property is therefor incorrect.

>There is no difference between these two options.
There absolutely is, assault requires intent.

>yet you jump off the libertarian train just when people might start defending themselves.
You are not defending yourself by using the government to force others to do your bidding.
It's made even worse because you literally have the option to get your way by choosing to do business with a company that aligns with your views.

Keep saying it and you socialist scum don't seem to get it. Are you stupid or evil?

>>15801437
It's relevant because I'm using it as an example to show how I view your actions.

I want you to explain guys don't see it the way I do.

I genuinely believe you guys are presented with a choice of doing business with a less polluting company, yet choose to do business with the more polluting company. Then, I see you complain that governments must stop these evil companies from doing what you paid them to do.

If my view of your actions are correct, I can only conclude that you are misguided or an evil cunt.

>>15801451
> That is still not the same as assault.
Look, I don’t know how this is worded in your country, but there are typically different degrees of murder and manslaughter. If I throw a brick off my balcony to hit someone, I’m a murderer. If I throw a brick without realising I might hit someone, I’m an idiot who committed negligent homicide. If I know that people are walking, someone tells me “don’t throw bricks, you’ll hit people” and I do it anyway, that’s a form of intent. That’s the same kind of intent those corporations show. They intently cause harm. Why are you defending them?
> Next to nobody does it to purposefully cause harm.
They do. If you throw bricks off your balcony not because you want to hurt the people walking below it, but do so knowing it’ll hurt them, you are intently hurting them.
> you literally have the option to get your way by choosing to do business with a company that aligns with your views
I remember a lead-free air bubble appearing around my face once I started buying non-leaded fuel. The exhaust fumes of other cars couldn’t physically enter my lungs because I literally had the option to get my way of not breathing in lead. Oh wait, no. That never happened.

>>15801453
Your opinion is irrelevant to reality. Try opening a history book.

>>15801442
Legal mandates aren't "violence" in any way shape or form.

>>15801453
> I genuinely believe you guys are presented with a choice of doing business with a less polluting company, yet choose to do business with the more polluting company.
Why the fuck do you think that? What in this thread made you think you know anything about the behaviour of other anons ITT? You didn’t even define the kind of company. Not even the field. Are we talking about electricity, transportation, plastics, CO2, toxic waste? Where, do you think, we have a choice and make the wrong one?

>>15801466
Yeah I used the vocabulary of the libertarian retard. I genuinely think that he is medically retarded. No one with an IQ of 85 or higher would post shit like this, not even in an attempt to troll people.

>>15801448
>Why are you incapable of reacting to my points?
You won't address mine, so why should I address yours?

>You don’t know what I buy and what I don’t buy.
Sure but I know the aggregate of environmentalists are presented with a choice, and then of their own free will choose the option that goes against their cause. Then these leftists complain to government that they must be deprived of the choice that allows them to pick an option that goes against their cause.
I think this is flawed thinking on the leftist behalf. How can they not realize they do not need the government to take away their ability to choose?

>But you know that nothing would change if I started consuming differently, in any direction.
Totally wrong. I sincerely believe that are free to choose to do business with companies of your choosing. Pertaining to the affect your choice would have on pollution, if enough people believe that the environmental pollution is a concern, then your individual decisions to do business with less polluting companies will have a noticeable effect.
You deciding that you’d rather do business with the polluting alternative because you feel that your single choice alone will not make a significant impact does not change the fact that you have a choice and that you chose to pick the polluting option.

>Stop being a faggot and talk about the bigger picture.
I am, I do not believe theft or unprovoked violence is ever justified. You have a choice, refuse to take the option you claim to want, then beg governments to take away that option so you can no longer take it.
1/2

>>15801448
2/2
>Which harmful corporate behaviour was stopped due to the free market
There are multiple reasons why any particular product fell out of use, one of those contributing factors is the harm it used to cause.

>If it weren’t for government policies, you’d get all sorts of nasty, toxic shit in your food and in the air.
If that were the case it would be due to the consumers’ preference. I don’t think we would have nasty toxic things in the food and air because I think people would value reasonably clean food and air enough to make consumer choices that reflect that. I also don’t think we’d have perfectly clean food and air because that would be a cost to high that people would be willing to pay for.

>>15801460
>If I throw a brick off my balcony to hit someone, I’m a murderer.
It would depend entirely if you intended to kill someone. If you're going about your business as a renovator and the bricks you're throwing of the balcony land on someone's head, you are clearly not murdering them.

>If I know that people are walking, someone tells me “don’t throw bricks, you’ll hit people” and I do it anyway, that’s a form of intent.
It isn't intent because you did not intend to hit nor kill anyone.

>Why are you defending them?
Because you have the choice to not do business with them, yet you do so, then complain they must not be allowed to do business. I have told you this.
>They do.
The number of people who create environmental pollution for the purpose of causing harm to other people is vanishingly small. For the subject of the argument we are having they are irrelevant.

> not because you want to hurt the people walking below it, but do so knowing it’ll hurt them, you are intently hurting them.
No you are not intently hurting them. To intently hurt you I would have to hurt you and intend to do so. You cannot define an action as intended if it was not intended.

>>15801460
>I remember a lead-free air bubble appearing around my face once I started buying non-leaded fuel.
Once again you have plenty of choices. You have the choice to live in a place with less pollution in the air. You have a choice to wear a gas mask. You have a choice to live indoors, and so on.

You are picking some of the most difficult actions to contend with, yet the laws you want created and that are already created regulate things that are far easier to avoid. The number of regulations over time will only ever increase. Eventually there will be an extremely limited number of choices left.

>>15801463
Then I can only conclude that you are misguided or an evil cunt. This is my view of the overwhelming majority of leftists.

>>15801435
>Companies wanted to do it anyways because money.
How do they get that money? You pay them!
If you want them to stop, don't pay them to do it. Please tell me what you don't understand with my reasoning here.

>>15801470
>Why the fuck do you think that?
I think so because there are many business that provide the same service by different means. People are free to choose which business they get their services from.

>You didn’t even define the kind of company.
Why should I need to? You are free to choose which company you conduct business with. You are even free to create a new business if there is none that suits your desires.
Both of these are true until they are limited by government regulations, which they are substantially of, which explains any potential limitation in the number companies that suit your desires.

>electricity, transportation,
These market sectors are highly regulated by government, which is the direct cause of the lack of market competition.
If we had less government regulations, there could be more diversity in the way companies offer these products.
>plastics,
Where do you believe there is a lack of choice in this market sector?

>>15801466
They require the threat of violence to enforce.
If a company refuses to comply with a mandate, the government uses violence to get their way. At every stage the government is the aggressor who escalates the situation.

>>15801543
this is true, I live in CA and they are requiring restaraunt owners to use 2 trash cans, one for trash and one for compost. If you get any trash in the compost or vice versa, they fine you. The government sanctions a company that will collect your trash and compost, which you are now required to pay for, instead of being able to seek out an alternative collector of trash, or instead of letting us separate trash/compost on our own.

>>15796921
Because without the government there is nothing stopping morally bankrupt cunts like you from doing whatever it takes to get that competitive edge.
Do you like it when morally bankrupt cunts have a competitive advantage?

>>15801513
> I know the aggregate of environmentalists are presented with a choice, and then of their own free will choose the option that goes against their cause
That’s actually bullshit.

> Totally wrong. I sincerely believe that are free to choose to do business with companies of your choosing.
I have never owned a car and never will. Apart from buying beer at night I have never done business with gasoline-selling corporations. Yet they keep destroying the planet. What choice do I have? Drive even less than not at all?

>>15801519
> There are multiple reasons why any particular product fell out of use, one of those contributing factors is the harm it used to cause.
Name one, you fucking low-quality chatbot.
> I don’t think we would have nasty toxic things in the food and air because I think people would value reasonably clean food and air enough to make consumer choices that reflect that.
But we did have nasty toxic stuff in our food and air until they got banned. Are you mentally ill?

>>15801562
>Because without the government there is nothing stopping morally bankrupt cunts like you from doing whatever it takes to get that competitive edge.
I have explained multiple times in this thread why this isn't true. The thing that limits a morally bankrupt person in a free market, is that consumers are the ones who determine a company's success.
If you do something mean, you can only be successful while doing it if many people value your services more than they dislike your mean actions.

>>15801530
>It would depend entirely if you intended to kill someone. If you're going about your business as a renovator and the bricks you're throwing of the balcony land on someone's head, you are clearly not murdering them.
if you throw them knowing you could kill someone and end up doing so anyway, that’s intent. Might be something like second-degree or manslaughter depending on where you live.
>It isn't intent because you did not intend to hit nor kill anyone.
Again, it is.
> Because you have the choice to not do business with them, yet you do so
See above. I don’t. You’re a broken record.
> To intently hurt you I would have to hurt you and intend to do so. You cannot define an action as intended if it was not intended.
Yes you can. There’s a famous case of Germans going to prison for murder, for intentionally killing someone by driving at crazy high speeds. The reasoning was: they didn’t get into the car to kill that guy, but they did so knowing that they could very likely end up killing somebody.

>>15801531
> You have the choice to live in a place with less pollution in the air.
Which part of the globe is not part of global warming? Which part of the globe is not full of microplastics yet?

>>15801572
Libertarians are the worst mistakes of human evolution. You should be put against the wall.

>>15801572
>The thing that limits a morally bankrupt person in a free market, is that consumers are the ones who determine a company's success.
Nice dogma out of The Good Book of Economics.
Everyone knows this is complete bullshit for a myriad of reasons, not least of which is the fact that "consumers" neither have the time or energy to educate themselves on how morally bankrupt cunts like you operate.
Keep posting so that everyone can see how retarded fuckwits and psychopaths are pretty much the same thing.

>>15801580
>Communists are the worst mistakes of human evolution. You should be thrown out of a helicopter.
FTFY

>>15801572
>All their stuff is mine now and it's their own fault for not reading the fine print.
Um Ya ... why don't you go ahead and fuck yourself?

>>15801565
>That’s actually bullshit.
Then explain how, as it is my view that you can chose between doing business with a company, or not doing business with a company.

>What choice do I have?
You have already made your choice to not use a car, good for you on making a choice that goes with your claimed goals but against your convenience, which most environmentalists seem not to do.

>Yet they keep destroying the planet.
Because you have made the choice you have, the quantity of pollution made by that particular mechanism is less. What I have said holds true.

If other people do not feel that pollution is more important to them than things like price or convenience, then what do you want done?
You seem to want to deprive them of that choice.
Instead of depriving them of that choice, why not try to convince them that less pollution is more valuable than convince or lower price? This would be a nonviolent course of action.

>>15801548
Fines are not violence either, retard. Corporations are not the victims here.

>>15801590
Thanks for your contribution to bringing this train wreck closer to autosage

>>15801608
> Because you have made the choice you have,
Wait, now it’s my fault for not driving a car? How? I play the “carbon footprint” game and still lose? That’s unfair.

>>15801535
Open a history book. It's rife with examples on true monopolies, legal monopolies, industrywide coordination, worker abuses, consumer abuses, environmental damages, and outright lies as to these abusive and unethical business practices. "Just don't buy from them" is entirely insufficient as a solution to a problem humanity has been experiencing since we invented tokenized wealth.

>>15801533
>I don't want to open a book and learn
Fuck off, NPC

>>15801580
Throw in economists and you have a deal.

>>15801567
>Name one, you fucking low-quality chatbot.
Using candle light to provide light in coal mines. Gas lighting in houses. Open fires as the predominant source of cooking.
People do not usually give up a particular way of solving a problem for the sole reason of the associated danger, as I said multiple reasons contribute to something falling out of use. One of the reasons of the highlighted examples is the associated safety concerns.

>But we did have nasty toxic stuff in our food and air until they got banned.
Explain why you disagree with my position that we would not have nasty toxic things in the food and air because I think people would value reasonably clean food and air enough to make consumer choices that reflect that.

>>15801622
Nah, I took some economics classes during my undergrad studies. They’re cool dudes, on a lot of drugs. They were interested in stuff like “why did the Soviet Union go bankrupt despite economic growth?” and other abstract/useless stuff. The scum of the earth are the business and marketing people.

>>15801625
> Explain why you disagree with my position that we would not have nasty toxic things in the food and air because I think people would value reasonably clean food and air enough to make consumer choices that reflect that.
Because we did have all those things despite people not wanting them. They only stopped once they were forced to stop. If you’re not a literal NPC, I recommend you to listen to the FDA episode of behind the bastards. The first part is about all sorts of nasty, disgusting stuff they put in food.

>>15801573
>if you throw them knowing you could kill someone and end up doing so anyway, that’s intent.
By the definition of intent, you cannot say that someone intended to do something if they did not intend to do it. The meaning of the word excludes it from being possible.

>Might be something like second-degree or manslaughter depending on where you live.
Appealing to what is in law doesn't change what intent is. It's like saying the Nazis were not evil for murdering millions of people because they made laws stating that murdering those people was legal.
>Again, it is.
It is not, see above.

>See above. I don’t. You’re a broken record.
Explain why you think you are forced to do business with a particular company. Highlight why this is the fault of a free market.

>Yes you can. There’s a famous case of Germans going to prison for murder, for intentionally killing someone by driving at crazy high speeds. The reasoning was: they didn’t get into the car to kill that guy, but they did so knowing that they could very likely end up killing somebody.
Again an appeal to law does not change what intent is. You cannot be said to murder someone if you did not intend to murder them. It is by definition.

Laws are not morality as I explained in this reply. They come about for many reasons, one reason for law is to placate a baying mob. If convicting a man with murder will placate the mob despite it being illogical, then the government will create a law that allows the conviction of that man.

>>15801630
They're mostly fine at parties, but every single one I've ever talked to has had no idea how an economy functions and they mostly just make things up and try to relate them back to well known examples like the tulip bubble. As far as I'm concerned you could get the equivalent education of an economics PhD from some pop sci economics videos on YouTube.

>>15801574
>Which part of the globe is not part of global warming?
The change in temperature around the world is not the exact same everywhere. Some places become warmer, cooler, or do not change at all. This reason has been cited as an explanation for the growth of some ice sheets in spite of climate change.

None the less I have already explained to you that you have non-violent actions that you can take to remedy the unintended consequences created by these things.

>>15801580
>>15801622
When the people you have given powers to in order to facilitate the murder of your enemies turn on you, I hope you find at least one reason for why your ideas are objectively wrong.

>>15801646
Yeah, they’re a bit dumb. I got better grades in the economics classes than in physics despite putting in a fraction of the effort. But when talking to them u felt like they have interesting ideas and thoughts.

>>15801646
The entire field of economics has become nothing more than a completely unscientific rationalization for gluttony and consumerism.
The field had it's chance to be something other than a meme when Nicolas Georgescu-Roegen tried to couple the field with science, i.e. real limitations imposed by the laws of physics, but instead it chose to be nothing more than a shill for corporate oligarchs and the ponzi they run similar to how catholic church in the 14th century.

>>15801589
>not least of which is the fact that "consumers" neither have the time or energy to educate themselves on how morally bankrupt cunts like you operate.
You do not need to rely on education for the free market to work. Natural selection would demonstrate which companies are run by horrible people.

Suppose someone sells snake oil, claiming it as a cure for some kind of cancer.
When customers use it, their cancer will not be cured.
New potential customers will notice that previous customers are not having their cancer cured by the snake oil. New potential customers now make the choice to do business with another company because the snake oil merchant's products do not work as advertized.

By this process the snake oil seller is put out of business. No violence was required for this to operate.

>this is complete bullshit for a myriad of reasons
Please explain why, because I do not believe this to be the case. I still find your desire for violence unjustified.

>>15801599
>Um Ya ... why don't you go ahead and fuck yourself?
Is this your concession that I am right in saying the free market can, and has stopped the use of products in part because of their danger?

>>15801610
>Fines are not violence either, retard.
As I have said many times before, all laws require a threat of violence.

Consider:
What if a fine is not payed? The state escalates the situation repetitively until they initiate an act violence.

I want you people to understand this, as I believe it is one of the integral reasons for you having your beliefs; you do not understand that your calls for government action are tantamount to violence.

>>15801615
>Wait, now it’s my fault for not driving a car? How? I play the “carbon footprint” game and still lose? That’s unfair.
You misunderstood my statement.
The quantity of pollution made by that particular mechanism is less. What I have said previously, still holds true.

>>15801677>>15801673
>Consumers cannot educate themselves
>>Consumers will educate themselves on how the snake oil doesn't work
Is that what you call an argument?
Stop talking to me.
You're a dogmatic idiot who just regurgitates theoretical economics textbook basics and you're incapable of understanding other people's arguments.
Your posts are a waste of your energy and mine. Go away.

>>15801617
>Open a history book.
Go read The Myth of the Robber Barons. You are confusing political entrepreneurs and market entrepreneurs.

>"Just don't buy from them" is entirely insufficient as a solution to a problem
Explain why.

>>15801619
You refuse to explain why my position is wrong, this is not my problem.

>>15801637
>Because we did have all those things despite people not wanting them.
The issue is that reducing pollution increases the cost of a good, technology can reduce that cost. At that time, technology was less advanced, and people had less money to spend. The result is more pollution.

Even under your wildest authoritarian government, you will still have pollution because of the reality that it costs money to reduce it.

>The first part is about all sorts of nasty, disgusting stuff they put in food.
American food quality is particularly low because of the lack of competition and regulations.
It is illegal to buy meat wholesale in many states now. This should be a clear indicator that government interference is not a solution to this problem.

>>15801685
>Is that what you call an argument?
>Stop talking to me.
They did not educate themselves in that instance, they merely noticed that the product does not work.

E.g:
Your friend Barry takes the snake oil claimed to cure cancer.
He dies in spite of taking the snake oil that is claimed to cure cancer.

>you're incapable of understanding other people's arguments.
This is only true of you and others.
You are advocating for unprovoked violence, you are morally wrong.

>>15801689
>My ignorance isn't my problem
The cry of the pseud. Open a history book or fuck off, NPC.

>>15801686
>This one book will totally discount all of history
Peak midwit.

>Explain why.
Open a book and read some history. Corporate abuse is not new.

>>15801739
Explain why my position is wrong.

>>15801740
>Open a book and read some history. Corporate abuse is not new.
Read the book I suggested to you and you will understand that the corporate abuse you speak of is a function of government interference.

Factually you are the one advocating for unprovoked violence. This is one of the reasons why you are wrong.

>>15801680
Fines are not violence, retard, and having to face the consequences of your actions does not make you a martyr. Corporations cannot be threatened with violence and the people involved in that corporation are largely protected by the corporate veil, blame shifting, and scapegoats and so never experience fines or any violence. Stop pretending to be a victim.

>>15801666
>But when talking to them u felt like they have interesting ideas and thoughts.
I have never felt that way about an economist. In my experience their ideas are identical, uninspired, and unremarkable.

>>15801670
>The entire field of economics has become nothing more than a completely unscientific rationalization for gluttony and consumerism.
This.

>>15801659
k thx bai

It probably has something to do with the drought this year. Higher than normal solar activity is the probably culprit. I know nothing about astronomy but I don't see how I could be wrong about this.

>>15794996
Ozone was a scam
Global warming was a scam
and Climate Change is a normal process and panicing over it is a scam

>>15801742
Open a history book and you'll find out why you're wrong immediately. Otherwise you can pay to take my class in the spring.

>>15801744
Nonsense. You libertarians must be the dumbest people on Earth.

>>15801744
>It's literally violence when the government fines me for shitting in peoples' drinking water!!!!!1

Idiots like you are capable of rationalizing pretty much anything.

>>15801755
>>15801757
>>15801761
I think you leftists either cannot understand why you are wrong, or understand what you are advocating for and enjoy the suffering it creates. You have certainly declined to explain why my arguments are wrong.

>>15801767
I think everyone looks like a leftist when you're so far right that Nazis look like actual socialists. Why don't you pull up the history of the East India Trading Company and their extensive abuses. That's a classic example of a company that effectively has no government oversight. See what your free market brings you.

Ah, Dupont got a new HVAC chemical patent again?

i hope it grows at 10x the speed

>>15801767
None of the three said anything that would imply that they're leftists. Are you so far right that everyone is a leftist to you?
>You have certainly declined to explain why my arguments are wrong.
Scrolling through the thread, there are countless explanations to which you only responded that they had a choice, which again, was explained to be nonsense several times. What's your problem? Did you get banned on /pol/ and now look for a new home?

>>15795942
why do you hate white people?

>>15802171
White people colonised and enslaved literally the rest of the world except maybe Ethiopia. Also, they're responsible for most of CO2 in the atmosphere. The world would be a better place without them. It's not even racism, I hate white people for what they did and do, not for the colour of their skin.

>>15801783
>I think everyone looks like a leftist when you're so far right that Nazis look like actual socialists
Literally me.

>>15801745
Violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived.

Dont pay your fine? Eventually the gov will seize your property. The fine is violence. The fine represents that noncompliance will end in violence. What has being a victim got to do with anything? Nothing. This is simply how governance works but your worldview is too simple to understand anything that isnt a perpetrator/victim dichotomy. The idea behind this violence is completely amoral

>>15802180
You sound like a cop. Dumb and violent. There are nonviolent ways to enforce desired behaviour or prevent undesirable behaviour. Do you think that the Amish society works by an underlying threat of violence?

>>15802175
>they're responsible for most of CO2 in the atmosphere
because white people invented everything that makes life easier? It doesn't matter, though, China alone puts out magnitudes more CO2 than we ever will and they are not stopping, but you still place the blame on whites.
>White people colonised and enslaved literally the rest of the world except maybe Ethiopia
and how is Ethiopia doing?
>The world would be a better place without [white people]
this but the opposite, if we wiped your kind out instead of colonizing you, the world would be a better place.
Why do African farmers beg white farmers to come back after they finally "leave?"
It's because your kind aren't capable of feeding yourselves without whites helping you.
> I hate white people
yes, you are a spiteful mutant with slave morality, a useful idiot incapable of grasping complex concepts or running institutions that white people long ago established.

>>15802188
> China alone puts out magnitudes more CO2 than we ever will
Keep living in your delusion.

>>15795961
>export manufacturing to china
>buy plastic trinkets from china
>guys, this rising CO2 emission is purely china's fault!
>buys another funko pop
>the united state's carbon emissions are decreasing!

>>15802191
>cumulative
nice strawman, show the numbers of today

>>15802181
Youre a fucking retard. Im not saying i WANT it to be this way, it simply IS the way it works. Every human society functions this way. Yes even the amish. It may be tertiary or even layered beyond that 5 or 6 times, but if you go down far enough the root of power is violence.
>are nonviolent ways to enforce desired behaviour
And what allows you to be in the position to use such nonviolent methods? Root of all authority is violence

Government of any sort relies on this fundamental truth, just because you dont like it doesnt mean it isnt there.

>>15802200
If you want to move the goalposts, do it yourself. The claim was
> they're responsible for most of CO2 in the atmosphere.

>>15802209
that was the claim, then you said I was delusional for saying China puts out way more CO2 today than any other country including the USA, which is true, retard.
Even though you have not proved that CO2 is a problem, if it was, white people are taking measures to cut down CO2 production while non-white countries don't care, and yet you want to hold CO2 output from the 1970s (before anyone knew any better) as a blood libel against white people.

>>15802180
See
>>15801745

>>15802219
See
>>15796108
>>15802194

>>15802219
>the 1970s (before anyone knew any better)
How can you be this delusional?

>>15802307
see
>>15802203
fucktard, what was the point of that reply? doubling down on being retarded?

>The fine represents that noncompliance will end in violence.
If you really dont thinik that the IRS of FTC wont come knocking youve got another thing coming
>but google will never get raided!!
politicians being bought and sold changes nothing, they are simply using the law, backed by violence, to protect the corps.

>>15802322
See
>>15801745

>>15802326
Oh so you dont have an argument, Gotcha

>>15802381
Your argument is self evidently wrong. It's on par with saying that everyone who doesn't get a raise is being punished. You can play semantics games to try to make the statement sound true, but we both know it's bullshit.

>>15794996
Do people actually believe hair spray caused a hole in the sky the size of Africa?

>>15802603
>You're wrong because I say so!!!
Whatever you say retard, let me know when you have an arguement

>>15802852
Are you still at it? What the hell man. I'm too lazy to see if you're the "everything is violence but nothing is intent" guy, but if you are, get a job.

>>15802871
Where did I say "nothing is intent". What is it with /sci/ niggers having negative reading comprehension

>>15802891
Oh, maybe it was a different retard then. Apologies.

The hole is literally in the only place with no cars. Fake shit.

>>15802941
What do you imagine cars have to do with the ozone layer?

>>15802852
The irony. Let me know when you can do anything other than play semantics games and pretend to be a victim.

>>15802135
>there are countless explanations
There are not countless explainations. People have only claimed they have no choices, they have not explained why this is the case.

I have explained the mechanism by which the free market provides choices. It is up to them to explain why they feel they do not have a choice.

>>15803064
>People have only claimed they have no choices, they have not explained why this is the case.
>be me
>have choice A and B
>choose A
>undesired outcome
>choose B
>same outcome
>at least some faggot can tell me I had a choice

>>15803069
Wrong. By choosing company B that creates less pollution to create the product you want, you are reducing the total pollution produced in the world. You are therefore closer to your goal.

>>15803064
>the free market provides choices
I don't like industrial farming with all the animal suffering. I'm vegan. Industrial farming still exists. What choice am I overlooking?

>>15803077
Me cycling to uni didn't prevent deepwater horizon in 2010. What should I have done differently to prevent this catastrophe? Did I have a choice?

>>15803079
>What choice am I overlooking?
That you can grow your own food.

>>15803089
I'm 99% sure that growing my own food won't reduce the number of animals industrially kept by even a single one.

>>15803079
>I don't like industrial farming with all the animal suffering. I'm vegan. Industrial farming still exists.
This is a complaint that your will is not effortlessly and instantaneously exerted on all of reality. Even with a government you cannot do this, not even if you were a absolute dictator.

In a free market your purchasing choices make a difference to the total suffering in the world. Most importantly, you do not create any more suffering by making any of your choices because of the voluntary nature of a free market.

>>15803086
If enough people decided not to do business with BP that they were unable to afford to operate the deep water horizon, the event would not have occurred.

Each person's choice to either do business, or not do business contributes. As I just said the other guy, you are complaining that your will is not exerted on reality.

Beyond what the free market allows you to do, your will can only be extended further by the use of force. You will need to use violence to get any more power. Normally we consider people who use violence to get their way immoral. This is what I am trying to explain to you people, I am dismayed you can't understand.

I repeat, to get any more power than you have with via voluntary interaction, you must resort to using violence. Unprovoked violence is immoral.
Either accept your power as limited by voluntary interaction, or put forth that you believe unprovoked violence is something you support.

>>15803107
Nonsense. That line is straight out of BP's playbook. They are the company that created the idea of a carbon footprint to offload blame for their actions onto their consumers, most of which have no alternative. Your free market fantasy is just that, a fantasy.

>>15803107
>Laws are violence
Take your meds, caveman.

>>15803187
>Nonsense.
Explain fucking why then. I've explained my reasoning, if you believe it is wrong, explain how.

>>15803190
Yes, every law is enforced with violence.
If you do not believe this to be so, explain why.

All I can conclude is that leftist are stupid or evil. You won't explain why you do what you do because you can't or because you intend to cause harm. Scum.

>>15795948
I want to lick that

>>15803059
>pretend to be a victim
Literally nowhere have I said this, jew rat. Quote me "being a victim". You cant yet you play your little pilpul games because you have no argument.

>>15794996
Wow breakneck speed that's really fast

>>15803079
why do vegans always have to announce themselves and try to make every discussion focus on themselves and their ridiculous virtue signaling?
does it have to do with diet induced low IQ resulting in lack of impulse control?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1790759/#__sec3title
>On average, vegans had a childhood IQ score that was nearly 10 points lower than other vegetarians: mean (SD) IQ score 95.1 (14.8) in vegans compared with 104.8 (14.1) in other vegetarians (P=0.04)

>>15803402
>>/sci/?task=search2&search_filename=vegans%20are%20faggots.jpg

>>15794996
The poles are weakening so more UVC bombards the ozone layer
Will keep happening now and again until they finally reverse

>>15803102
>Even with a government you cannot do this, not even if you were a absolute dictator.
Certain treatments of animals have been outlawed. You are wrong.

>>15803107
So it's every individual's responsibility but the individual has no impact? Wow, am I glad that we have a choice in capitalism.

>>15803107
>Unprovoked violence is immoral.
Are you saying that terror attacks on open-pit mines are justified? I knew libertarians were crazy, but I didn't expect this level of crazy on /sci/. I'd rather solve pollution with laws and regulations instead of saying "well they provoked me, so my violence is moral". I guess that's what happens if you think that regulations are violence.

>>15803373
>Quote me "being a victim"
How about
>mimimimi everything is violence are violence is le bad

>>15803402
>why do vegans always have to announce themselves
Scroll up 80 posts. I've been discussing with this faggot for a while and he kept saying that I make choices that go against my ideals/that contribute to the status quo I am criticising. I tried to explain to him that my choices don't change anything which he didn't accept. If he had had an IQ of higher than 60 I wouldn't have needed to "announce myself".
>try to make every discussion focus on themselves
Again, scroll up. It was about pollution and how to make corporations stop polluting and poisoning people. I didn't make it about myself, but our libertarian friend here kept trying to make this about me.
>You have a choice

>>15803588
I never said violence is bad. I said it is the supreme authority.

Violence being the root of all authority is simply a fact of life, and I specifically said it is AMORAL.

I dont know if youre responding to the wrong person but youre a fucking retard. This is me >>15802180. There is not a single post I have made where anything has to do with being a victim. Every act of authority is rooted in the notion that at some level of non compliance violence will eventually be used. Any "non violent" method that exists is simply a privilege that one is exerting in a system that allows it, a pre supposed system that IS rooted in violence.

You dont have an argument. So fuck off or come back with one

>>15803626
>I never said violence is bad.
So, violence is ok? We should kidnap and torture the CEOs of major polluting companies? That would be moral violence, as it would punish the ones doing harm, right?

>oy vey the world is coming to an end
>better give all your money to the government

>>15803668
What is it that's lacking about your reading comprehension? I'm not making the argument that violence is bad or good. Im saying that in every power structure it exists at the top. It caps the pyramid whether you like it or not. It simply is the way the world works. It is amoral it exists outside of that reference

Legal mandates derive their authority from threat of violence. As all government actions and authorities do.

>>15803683
>>/sci/image/D/Tu6Y34z+RNLpKnKBpCqg

>>15803697
You convinced me though, that violence against polluters is the only option. If I want authority, I need to obtain it using violence. Than you for your explanations.

>>15803740
literally yes. either enacting yourself or obtaining a position of power where you can threaten it

>>15803747
Based authleft anon

>>15803576
Murder is outlawed you idiot. Yet people still do it. In the same way, even with a government your will to not have animals suffer at the hands of humans cannot be fulfilled.

>>15795847
The fuck are you on. China has a consistent track record of not giving a damn about the environment resulting in continued use of banned substances or simply turning a blind eye on such practices. So long as their economy keeps going they will continue polluting without care.
Obvious winniepoo shill.

>>15803579
>but the individual has no impact
No, I just told you that every individual's choice contributes.

>Wow, am I glad that we have a choice in capitalism.
Yes you literally have a choice in capitalism. However that choice may not have as strong an effect as you desire. Again your complaint is that your wishes are not carried out instantly and regardless of it's incompatibility with others.

If you're a vegan who does not want any animals to be eaten and you choose to not eat meat, you have reduced the total number of animals eaten, so are closer to your goal.
You complain that your goal of "no animals being eaten" has not been achieved by your single act. The issue is that for your goal to be achieved you will need to use FORCE to stop people who do want to eat animals from doing so, because in a free market they have a choice just like you do to eat or not eat animals.

In a free market you are welcome to persuade other people not to eat animals, and so get close to your goal of animals not being eaten.

Please explain where you disagree with this logic, as if this logic is true it seems you just want to use violence to get your way.

>>15803587
>Are you saying that terror attacks on open-pit mines are justified?
Please explain how you came to this understanding.

>>15803668
>So, violence is ok?
Are you a brainless leftist? Read what he said again, he tells you in the first and second sentence.

>>15803807
They destroy the environment (which is immoral). The only way to get them to do anything is violence. You said so. So, the only moral thing is violence against them.

>>15803805
> you have reduced the total number of animals eaten
No, since I wouldn't have eaten any animals anyway. I have changed the number of animals eaten by exactly zero. I also have not increased it, but that's a bullshit merit. I also have changed the number of babies raped by zero, since I don't do that. Or do you think that you decrease the number of raped babies every moment you don't do that?

>>15795007
>t. expert in gaping holes that grow and shrink periodically

>>15796111
>>15802191
what are the cumulative numbers in your lifetime, and do you think it's appropriate to blame yourself for something someone else did?
further, why do you treat CO2 emissions like a sin?

>>15803835
>They destroy the environment (which is immoral)
Explain why.

>The only way to get them to do anything is violence.
This is false. I have already explained why this is false.

>You said so.
Where?

>>15803838
>No, since I wouldn't have eaten any animals anyway.

Of the these two options:
Eating animals.
Not eating animals.

The one in which you choose not to eat animals, the total number of animals eaten is less. Are you unable to understand a hypothetical?
If you want, you can view your decision as not increasing the total animals eaten.

The fact is that, your choice, to not eat animals, is an outcome that results in less animal eating.
Thus your choice affects the number of animals eaten. Can you understand this?

If you are a representative of other leftists, this is why the collective group so frequently produces disasters. Many of your kind lack understanding in basic principles, things like supply and demand are often unknown for example.

>>15803987
>Are you unable to understand a hypothetical?
Are you unable to understand reality? Is that why you hide behind hypotheticals instead of confronting the real world?

>>15803961
>Maybe if you make an arbitrary cutoff year for cumulative emissions instead of considering all of cumulative emissions China will look worse
You're not even trying.

>>15803795
The murder industry has not exactly been thriving since murder was outlawed. You used to be able to pay people to murder someone for you. Now if you manage to find a murderer for hire there's a better chance of that guy being a cop or a scammer. That's what happens when things become illegal. Industries cannot operate outside of the law.

>>15803233
See
>>15803187

Nobody has to change their behaviour or their consumption if we just reduce the population.

>>15803992
I am explaining basic logic to you. I will repeat again.

You have a choice:
A) You eat animals.
B) You do not eat animals.

The quantity of animals eaten in option A is greater than the quantity of animals eaten in option B.

This means that your choice affects the number of animals eaten in the world.

This means that you influence the behavior of others nonviolently. In this case, you can influence how many animals farmers raise and bring to slaughter.

Therefore, your comment in >>15803579,
>the individual has no impact?
is incorrect.

Can you understand this? If not, explain why.

>>15803987
>Are you unable to understand a hypothetical?
What hypothetical? Are you unable to understand the problem?
Reality
>I don't eat animals
>animals get treated horribly (e.g. castrated without anaesthesia)
I have the following choice:
>Keep not eating animals, the cruelty continues
>Start eating animals, the cruelty slightly increases

Don't you tell me I have a choice.

>>15803236
vi·o·lence
/ˈvī(ə)ləns/
noun
noun: violence
behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
Similar:
brutality
brute force
roughness
ferocity
fierceness
savagery
cruelty
sadism
barbarity
barbarousness
brutishness
murderousness
bloodthirstiness
ruthlessness
inhumanity
heartlessness
pitilessness
mercilessness
strong-arm tactics
ferity
forcefulness
force
full force
power
powerfulness
strength
might
destructiveness
Opposite:
gentleness
kindness
weakness
strength of emotion or an unpleasant or destructive natural force.
"I was surprised at the violence of my feelings"
Similar:
intensity
severity
strength
force
great force
vehemence
powerfulness
power
potency
ferocity
forcefulness
wildness
frenziedness
fury
storminess
tempestuousness
turbulence
lack of control
lack of restraint
passionateness
fervency
ardency
Opposite:
mildness
LAW
the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force.

>the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force.
>the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation
>the unlawful exercise of physical force
>unlawful

Cope harder, grug. In a civilization we have rules and consequences for breaking those rules. If you don't abide by the rules and you try to refuse your consequences you are the one being violent which means you have broken another rule and now have to deal with more consequences.

You are a child whining about the time out chair and calling it child abuse.

>>15804003
>I am explaining basic logic to you
You are hiding behind this "basic logic" which are actually just semantics games in order to avoid confrontation the reality of the situation. Anyone can shuffle words around until they find a way to phrase nonsense as "logic". Try looking around at the world you live in instead.

>>15797898
>Sharks don't, and therefore aren't colored like this.
Except for the ones that are. Penguins being black has fuck all to do with UV exposure, the penguins living in the highest areas of UV exposure are fucking blue

>>15804000
Sounds good. Are you volunteering?

>>15804003
Let me guess, you believe that opportunity cost is real cost? Well, I didn't murder 100 people today, where's my fucking medal? After all, it's the same as saving 100 people, right?

>>15804012
I think that killing you will save more CO2 than killing a vegan.

>>15803999
You claimed:
>[companies] offload blame for their actions onto their consumers, most of which have no alternative.

Firstly companies are not illogical in the assertion that the consumer's decision to do business with that company is what permits the company to carry out it's operations, e.g produce pollution as a byproduct of creating bauxite.

The second part of your claim:
>[consumers] have no alternative.
Within a free market, is wrong. In a free market there is no government to stop you doing business with any company you choose. If you encounter a situation where there is no company offering the service you desire, you are free to attempt to create a new company offering that service.

So far is this understood?
Now the issue in our current real world when it pertains to choices, is that we do not live a in a free market. In the UK for example, you need to have a license to create a new company. Similarly in the USA, you require many certificates that must be fulfilled for you to have a company. Some sorts of companies require more than others, e.g an oil extraction company requires more than a antique shop.
It is these licenses, regulations, laws, and so on that makes it harder and sometimes illegal to create a new company.

This process results in lower competition, and can reduce your choices or even entirely take them away.

What I find particularly egregious is that you want to create more regulations, which will reduce competition, and so reduce the choices we all have. This will make the problem worse.

>>15804026
So many words just to parrot BP's carbon footprint narrative.

>>15804006
You have a choice, and that choice affects the environment around you which you freely admit.
>Keep not eating animals, the cruelty continues
>Start eating animals, the cruelty slightly increases

You have even more options that that. You could even persuade other people to stop eating meat, which would make the number of animals being eaten even less.

Once again your issue is not that you do not have choices, because you have choices.
And it is not that your choices do not affect the environment, because your choices do affect your surroundings.
Your issue is that your desires are not perfectly, exerted on reality.

To have your desires implemented you would require other people to act how you want them to. What if other people do not wish to act in the way you want?
The free market addresses this situation by allowing both persons to have what they want insofar as voluntary interaction allows.

To get what you want, you require the use of force and violence. This is why you are in the wrong.

>>15804008
Are you appealing to law for what is either logical, or moral?

>>15804015
The average vegan? Certainly not. I hugely offset my carbon emissions by composting, producing a portion of my own food, and integrating more biochar into my soil than the carbon I emit from driving. The biochar also reduces the methane and nitrous oxide produced from wastes and released from soil which further reduces my carbon footprint.

You suggested reducing the population instead of changing behavior. Would you like to volunteer to kill yourself or be sterilized?

>>15804026
>More semantics games
When you grow up you'll learn that every example of a free market has limited consumer choice and actively lied to their consumers in order to enrich themselves. Look up any example. Enron's free market energy scheme in California, the East India Trading Company's entire career, Somalia's free market piracy, ect. The concept of a free market is a smokescreen to hide and justify consumer abuse. All you have to do to confirm this is open a history book.

>>15804009
>which are actually just semantics games
I am not using semantics at all. You seemingly cannot understand what I am trying to tell you.

The fact is that your choice affects the number of animals eaten in the world.

>>15804040
>You could even persuade other people to stop eating meat
>"Why won't vegans stop talking about being vegan? They're all just virtue signaling!!1"

>>15804043
Nope. I'm appealing to the definition so you stop playing semantics games. Laws and fines are not violence in any way shape or form.

>>15804056
Are you really trying to play a semantics game with the definition of semantics?

se·man·tics
/səˈman(t)iks/
noun
the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.
the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text.
plural noun: semantics
"such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff"

>>15804056
Why is the number in scenario A lower? Do you have brain damage?

>>15804050
>I hugely offset my carbon emissions
You cannot "offset" carbon emissions. That's like buying indulgences. The carbon you emitted will remain in the air, no matter how much you repent, buy indulgences or compost.

>>15804059
>>15804061
Apologies, an error in labeling the graph on my behalf.

>>15804063
Are you stupid? Look up carbon sequestration and specifically biochar. The carbon I have emitted is offset by emission avoidance and directly pulled from the air during the production of biochar. Additionally, the biochar remains stable for thousands of years while the residence time of atmospheric carbon dioxide is less than a hundred years which effectively means that over that period I'm sequestering ten times as much carbon as I bury.

But let's get back to the point. You claim that nobody has to change their lifestyle as long as we reduce the population. We can do that one of two ways: killing and sterilization. Are you volunteering to kill yourself or be sterilized?

>>15804058
>Laws and fines are not violence in any way shape or form.
As I have already said, laws require the threat of violence to enforce. Somebody else in this thread has also pointed out this fact.

Please explain to me why you believe laws do not use violence to enforce.

>>15804089
Nope. See >>15804008

>>15804093
In your opinion, are laws backed up with the threat of violence?

>>15804095
Nope. By definition laws cannot be backed up by violence. See >>15804008

>>15804096
Then as before I ask as I did in >>15804043. Are you claiming that what is written in law is what defines what violence is?

>>15804097
Yep. That's what unlawful means. If you attempt to damage people or property in direct violation of the law then you are being violent. Your violence will be met with the law.

I can't wait for your next lame ass semantics game.

>>15804112
To clarify, you believe that the definition of violence is not this: "behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.", but is instead whatever the law defines as violence?

>>15804125
Are you illiterate? Try again >>15804008

>>15804129
How can law be used as what defines the meaning of concepts? Law varies between countries, yet the concept of violence is objective, you cannot be said to both act in a violent manner and not act in a violent manner.

Law does not define morality, because if it did, then you must agree that when the Nazis exterminated people, or the Soviets exterminated people, they were both perfectly moral, because they carried out their activities in a legal manner according to their laws.

You are either stupid or evil.

The definition of violence is much closer to:
"behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something."
Than,
"whatever behavior the government decides it is"

>>15804143
>More semantics games
>Conflating immorality with violence
>"My definition is clearly superior because it reinforces my world view"

Would you like to try again, or do you just want to keep jerking yourself off?

>>15804150
I'm not playing sematic games at all. I am demonstrating you are illogical.

You define violence as what is written in law. By necessity this means what is considered violence by yourself changes.
At one moment you could say someone is acting in violent manner as per one country's law. Then the next moment you could say their same actions were not violent at all as per another county's law.

This makes any honest discussion with you impossible, as the definition of the words we try to use to convey ideas between us are not only different, but changing, because of yourself.
To reiterate, all laws are backed up with the threat of "violence", when the definition of violence is considered "behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.".

>>15804163
Bruh, if you don't even understand what semantics are then you have no business dictating the definitions of words.

>This makes any honest discussion with you impossible
>"NOOO!!1 You can't just say words have meaning! That hurts my argument! You're supposed to accept my idiosyncrasies without question so I can say my world view is correct by definition and not actually have to defend it!"

>>15804173
You are the one arguing for an ever changing definition for words.

>>15804178
Nope. It's been the same definition this whole time. Don't believe me? Read it again >>15804008

>>15803683
>>/sci/?task=search2&search_filename=stonetoss%20zings%20soyence.jpg

>>15804205
The definition of violence as I and the majority of people us it is:

"behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something."

You claim the definition is whatever the law makes up.

All laws use the threat of violence to enforce.

You disagree with this statement because you believe the term "violence" is something made up by the government. It's little different from a mugger declaring he is not mugging you because he defines mugging as something he is not doing to you.

>>15804264
>"NOOO!!1 You can't just say words have meaning! That hurts my argument! You're supposed to accept my idiosyncrasies without question so I can say my world view is correct by definition and not actually have to defend it!"

You are tiresome.

>>15804264
You aren't the majority of anything. You're just a tiny little impotent baby.

>>15804264
Weird hill to die on, but you do you.

>>15804239
Did the stonetoss guy delete his post after being called out?

>>15804268
>>15804294
>>15804304
I am going by the definition that you cited in >>15804008, where it says "behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something."

There are similar definitions for violence given by other dictionaries. They do not say "whatever the law says it is".

I'm arguing with a pigeon. Either that or some Vaush type.

>>15804323

>>15804323
You are discussing law. That means the legal definition applies. See where it says LAW? >>15804008

>>15804324
>You are discussing law.
We are not debating what is law. We were discussing whether doing unprovoked violence to a company by using government to create more regulations is morally correct.
Then the topic was moved by someone else to whether the government use violence to enforce laws.
Then the topic was moved by someone else to what the definition of violence is.

At no point have I debated what's written in laws, I've only the debated the morality of them.
Someone, presumably you, has decided to change the common understanding that the term "violence" does not uniformly describe anyone displaying "behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something." but instead "whatever laws say it is".

The obvious flaw with "whatever laws say it is" is that there are many different places with laws that prescribe what violence is differently, which means that the definition is ever changing, if we follow your definition of it.

It's like you saying the sky is whatever color the law says it is. It's an inferior definition at best.

This is another major flaw with all leftists, they play word games constantly. Are you stupid or evil?

>>15804354
>unprovoked violence to a company
Lol are you hearing yourself? Do you understand what 'law' means? Any action that you would consider 'violence' on the part of the judicial branch enforcing the laws which everyone abides by cannot in any way shape or form be considered 'unprovoked'. The 'violence' you're decrying is provoked by the violation of the laws this poor, defenseless company is operating under. Furthermore, enforcement is not violence because it is a lawful action which you should be capable of understanding because that is the definition. You can play semantics games all you want, but the fact is that laws, regulations, and the consequences of violating either is not violence. Get a different argument.

>>15804354
>It's like you saying the sky is whatever color the law says it is. It's an inferior definition at best.
What color do you think the sky is?

>>15804378
>Any action that you would consider 'violence' on the part of the judicial branch enforcing the laws which everyone abides by cannot in any way shape or form be considered 'unprovoked'.
By the same logic, Hitler would not consider the extermination of the Jews a genocide.

If you subscribe to this logic you are an evil person.

>>15804386
Nope. The genocide he perpetrated was specifically considered a genocide by his government and this was considered to be a good thing. Why don't you stop hiding behind semantics games? Is it because libertarianism is dependent on semantics games?

>>15804390
You an evil person and have nothing of value to discuss.

>>15804394
Enjoy your tantrum. Come back when you have something other than semantics games.

>>15799595
Then do what with it? Scorched earth works against them too. Seriously though, the sun is noticeably hotter in Australia than anywhere else i have been in the world.