This becomes even more ridiculous if you consider that we wasted about 1.05 billion tonnes of food worldwide in 2022 alone. (UNEP Food Waste Index Report 2024 Key Messages)
But no. Supermarkets will miss out on profits if they ban people from their stores who can’t pay.
Seems illogical? Because it is.
That’s a good way to use it. Like every technological evolution it comes with risks and downsides. But if you are aware of that and know how to use it, it can be a useful tool.
And as always, it only gets better over time. One day we will probably rely more heavily on such AI tools, so it’s a good idea to adapt quickly.
Moderate drinking is not a problem.
From a health perspective, it certainly is.
No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health.
And it does assist with socializing
Which is a cultural thing. If people grow up seeing how alcohol is a social catalysator, they don’t learn that it’s perfectly possible to socialize without alcohol.
which seems like it would be beneficial for most people on here.
Idk, if that comes from a well-meant place, but it sounds kinda condescending.
The idea that people here are afraid of/resistant to drinking, yet will use cannabis and other materials seems very strange.
There are not just two kinds of people. From my experience those, who use cannabis or other drugs, are inclined towards alcohol use as well.
After reading through several of their comments and having engaged in a discussion with them myself, I get the impression that they don’t care about respectful and civilised discussions and I think it’s possible they are trolling. As they also resort to throwing insults around, evading questions and not really showing interest in conducting a line of arguments, it’s probably best to disengage.
Critical thinking courses would indeed be very great to have.
Mere factual knowledge transfer is not effective in forming mature and responsible minds if critical thinking is not a focus of education as well.
What is “dumb”? What is “intelligence”?
I think, as long as people have normally functioning brains, it is possible for them to understand. And I think nurturing critical thinking is an important aspect of how to approach this.
You can absolutely present a complicated topic to someone who isn’t educated in that field, or even has low education at all, if you are being humble about how you explain it and try to meet them at eye-level.
You don’t need to give definitive answers, you may give recommendations, but you can always explain a bit and note that there is also a lot more to it than what you explained and that one must take care before making some further conclusions.
Interested people in your audience then have some first basis and grasp of a topic and can take it up on themselves to dive deeper; for example, by asking questions or finding further sources (you might refer them to these).
Sometimes a common error, as people just have a rather ordinary interpretation on the meaning of the word “theory” and sometimes it’s an intentional attempt of discrediting.
Words can mean different things in different contexts. A scientific theory is not the same as the general or ordinary every-day meaning of “theory”.
Classic example and mistake by followers of creationist religions: “evolution is just a theory”.
Well, what if I told you, that, for example, our modern electronic means of communication are part of the wide field of “information theory”?
See above.
Until I see something which resembles a civilised and respectful response, showing an interest in continuing a discussion about the initial topic, I will no longer engage with you.
We seem to have reached a point where our conversation is no longer productive. As I value respectful and constructive dialogue, continuing appears no longer beneficial. Thank you for sharing your perspective. I hope we can engage more positively in the future, so let me know if you feel interested at some point in the future. Take care.
No, did I make the impression?
I am just trying to understand you and have a civilised discussion with you.
where people with conservative-minded views act like words were discovered in a fucking meteor crater
Hahaha, I love that part. :D
That took a very uncivilised turn.
Why are you so angry?
I am absolutely with you on that one.
But I think it’s tied to how we do business and less a problem which is very specific to the movie industry. Or in other words: it’s our fucked up capitalism in action again.
The workhorses of such shows get almost neglected while the shiny poster people and producers get most of the share.
And that’s basically everywhere the case. CEOs, managers, superiors are making insanely more money than those who are contributing a lot of work. It’s an unfair system which is holding the movie industry tightly in its grip as well.
Socially or ethically, I think I know what you mean.
I am being pedantic now and say that it can even be bad socially and ethically as a consequence of that or as a consequence of health concerns.
There’s a loneliness epidemic and low alcohol consumption rates are a contributor to that
Are they? Sincere question, haven’t read a report or something like that on that topic.
Regarding the remaining part, I understand how you see that. Seems logical. However, I would claim that this is more of a problem in societies mindset itself and less one tied to alcohol consumption. If people are raised in a way that they learn how alcohol is necessary, and don’t learn other ways, if it’s even incorporated in the particular culture of a society, then it’s not surprising that those people have a hard time finding new friends.
There are plenty of counter examples, e.g., look at other cultures where alcohol is even forbidden or at least its consumption clearly discouraged. Even in western cultures there are plenty of people who found and prefer other ways. But sure, may of course not be the majority yet.
Regarding a loneliless epidemic, I guess there is also a lot more to it than alcohol consumption alone. For example I have picked up on smartphone usage / social media consumption as related on that. (Which is a very superficial statement now, I haven’t read up on that.)
i don’t need to present an alternative to glueing yourself to things….
I’ve had this kind of talk a lot of times. And when it actually comes to “those alternatives”, which critics say activists should pursue instead, one common reaction is silence, as they are lacking ideas about those.
I’ll leave you with that.
the jury is not out on that…
As far as I know, it is. If there are new studies, which I don’t know of and which come to a clear conclusion, I’d be thankful if you could link them here.
and i don’t really care about your opinions pretending like you’ve read research about how effective gluing yourself to things it….
Well, that’s your decision. If you don’t believe in facts, then don’t. But then it’s not surprising if people call you out on that, if you don’t provide proof for your position.
If you’re interested – which you don’t seem to be – I’ll happily share the studies, historical examples, reports and surveys I’ve collected on that topic.
it’s honestly pretty fucking evil of you to promote it.
I didn’t promote it. Maybe you can explain what gave you the impression?
nobody should hurt themselves to spread your political message.
I agree that nobody should hurt themselves. Although I can understand if people see themselves driven to such measures out of desperation and/or in order to prevent worse.
Regarding that activist group “Letzte Generation”, I couldn’t find any reports about injuries due to glueing.
Also I wonder where you get the “your political message” from as I didn’t make any statement about my political stance on that.
Compared to other religions, I understand that take, if we neglect stuff like not living up to their own doctrine of, e.g., equal rights between women and men, or the Khalistan movement, which has caused death and abused human rights on several occasions, also by killing civilians.
Still, as most organized religions, it became emergent as a tool of mass control and subjugation. Moral behaviour is not formed by critical thought and self-reflection, but by devotion to some mysterious higher power. Which is and always has been a core issue of problematic behaviour we can so often observe today with religious people. A side-effect is that it has the danger of hindering progress and societal evolution by having a creationism as one of it’s core teachings, as far as I know.
A further form of subjugation, hindering freedom of individual human (and harmless) expression, can be found among the Kakkars. For example the “dress-code” with having uncut hair, cotton undergarments etc…
I could go on. So to make it short, no, religions are usually detrimental for the long term constructive development of humanity and Sikhism is no exception.
Sure. But it’s still less.
As I’ve always said, climate protection is economy protection. In the long run especially.
But those fucks in charge are too short-sighted and narrow-minded.
Short term profits are more important than long term financial survival. Or, in case of our climate, even survival at all.
Sadly not just the USA.