Yea I’m never sure why so many people are against this sentiment.

You get 1 vote every four years on an election issue which is often a red herring. There is legitimised if not legalised bribery of politicians. Politicians DONT have to be representative. The party can remove the guy you voted for if he actually keeps his promises. The parliament can be filibustered. The politicians don’t have to vote or read legislation. The parliament can be decided by niche whackadoos whenever there is a slim majority which is 90% of the time. Politicians and media are caught daily lying, porpagabdising and manipulating. Geographical Electorates can be manipulated to get whatever result the ruling party wants. The institution can pick and choose which votes they will count. You will be arrested if you exert the real power of the democratic process; protesting. The governemt monopolizes violence against you. Corporations buy their way out of everything. Socialized losses, privitised profits. There is no reasonable alternative beyond throwing your vote away and before you say preferential voting, I live in a country with preferential voting and it just makes things worse.

All representative democracies are sham democracies and that is all of them.

OP asks why

downvoted to 2/17

I’m just finding out lemmy is crazy for this. Earlier today a guy got brigaded and later post removed because he suggested that people use the mods to sanitise the forum of any dissenting opinion.

I myself made a comment suggesting that “both-siderism” is really a matter of perspective and people should question their leaders rather than continue to choose the lesser of two evils, remaining in a constant state of fear. I asked why people felt that way to a similar result.

Now you have very reasonably tried your hand at reasonable compromise to a similar result.

How is any of this espousing the virtues of democracy?

Lemmy isn’t reddit all over again, it’s worse.

In my town (SA though) we had a similar heat wave I’d imagine. We are a small town that has a few old folks homes now to the point where like a third of the town is now over 60.

The local op shop put everything 50% off after “an unprecedented influx of quality items”

No one made the connection.

Are you ok bud? How’s your day going? Maybe have a short walk outside to calm down?

I just hought that given that you seem to have such a problem you’d care to explain beyond:

"But do be sure to tell the kids that think both sides are equally as bad because of a single issue.

Especially when both are equally to blame on said single issue."

You’ll note that both sentences are short a valid subject.

Do tell, try to use small words for my foreign brain.

I am one of those people and I’d like to explain the ideology because I think most people write or listen to little tid bits on the internet and never really understand where we are coming from.

To you these sides seem vastly different in the same way that any two people are so, so different and unique. However those same two people are biologically 99% similar. A difference in perspective causes this misunderstanding.

In my country it is compulsory to vote and I gladly take the fine every few years because I reject the Westminster system, that is to say I reject bicameral representative government. So when I say they are the same it is because from my perspective they are the same, the world will continue on 99% the same 99% of the time whoever wins regardless of how people freak out about it.

South Park has a startlingly appropriate episode to describe this situation; what to do when faced with the choice between a douche and a turd? The only moral answer is do not vote and protest the system, hope enough others can participate with you and hope your ideology can gain enough traction to prevent any government from attaining a legitimate mandate to govern.

Most who disagree only want you to vote for their guy.

This one is macabre.

I am a homestead farmer so I have hundreds of animals most of which I raised like a baby, they all have names, each was hand fed and raised from birth by my wife and I. We are deeply attached to each of them and it is like losing a child when one dies.

Firstly I can tell you that you can get used to your children dying, you can repress it. I’ve spent many hours digging graves over time made all the more painful by the fact that often times I would stay with these animals through the entirety of their ill health. Often they would sleep in the room with my wife and I or even in the bed if the right type. When you read something like charolettes Web or what have you and see some old farmer indifferent to their child who wants to keep their animal friend. That is not from some kind of “depersonisation” or dissonance or even indifference to this animal, it is knowing acceptance from a lifetime of pain watching their friends and children die and being forced to bury them.

I can tell you that if you need cpr I’m your man, I’ve had alot of practice. There’s lots of things cpr won’t fix but that had never stopped me from trying. Maybe just maybe if they can have that extra breath or beat they can beat whatever ails them so I try. Here’s the fucked part; there is a moment where when something dies, it’s easier to see in mammals, there is a moment just before the death rattle, you can see the thing is dead and if you have seen this before you will know what I’m talking about. At this moment of gasping you can “catch” them, like you are catching their escaping souls with your lungs and blowing it back into their mouths. Their eyes get glazed and they do this straining wail and tilt their head, all things in the same way, that is your moment to bring them back and you can see it instantly as their eyes come back to focus and they usually scream in some way.

I’ve only ever saved 2 in this fashion and I have a large grave yard.

There is no God.

When you take your dick growing pills as a suppository

I got it to work

The prompt was “make me a funny picture I can bait people into arguing over”

I don’t want to be rude but the sentiments expressed here present a double standard that excuses Japanese war crimes.

Point by point:

“Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in retaliation for US’s oil embargo.” This is a somewhat correct statement but omits context vital to the decision making. The Imperial Japanese armed forces had formulated 2 plans for imperial expansion, one into the south and one into the north. The “retaliation for oil embargo” argument is a fabrication of the Japanese military class, a justification for the shifting of focus to the south in search of rubber, tin and of course oil. British and American forces dominated the south pacific and knowing that there would be an inevitable attack based on their expansion the Japanese executed a timed attack on numerous military strong points notably pearl harbour but perhaps more strategically relevant the Philippines. The “retaliation to embargo” argument is straight from the mouths of Japanese military propagandists, the USA in particular had bent over backwards to supply Japan in an effort to slake their expanding resource demands till this point.

“Fascism… imported from Germany”: I’m not entirely sure why this was added as it is quite apparent to anyone studying Japanese military and political history of the late 19th and early 20th centuries that the Japanese empire had minted its own unique brand of extremist imperialism, you can term it fascism with the modern definition of the word but to insist that Japanese militarism in government is a result of European fascism is utterly ridiculous. In any case the foundations of this system date back to Meji era policies that significantly predate fascism in Europe as a practiced ideology.

“Attack on military assests”, “Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes”

While both these statements can be considered to be true it implies that there is some kind of defecit in morality between these two cherry picked events. I needn’t go into detail on the extent of Japanese war crimes mere days after and indeed on the same day if you would consider actions in mainland Asia. You’ve created a fallacy of what-aboutism that doesn’t fit the realities of the war and the extreme inhumanity of Japanese expansionism both before and after their attacks on the US. The atomic bombs while singularly destructive did not meaningfully exceed the levels of destruction wrought through conventional warfare. There is much to be said about if the bombs were in a sense “cost effective” in terms of loss of life needed to achieve peace but once the military losses are accounted for, various plans to fight till extermination, the political climate, etc. It becomes apparent that the bombs precipitated a political coup that would not have been possible otherwise. All things considered the bombs seem to have bought peace rather cheaply.

“crush any remaining resistance from Japan”

Other comments seem to cover this rather well but what alternative is there? When considering the potential loss of life of an invasion not just in enemy personnel or even civilians but your own soldiery it seems to be an easy choice. Arguments can be made about the scale, morality and civil cost of the bombs but it comes down to a philosophical argument on the ethics of the matter. Can such a scale of destruction ever be justified? Absolutely not. Given all the evidence available were the atomic bombs the least costly scenario in terms of the least amount of destruction in every conceivable metric? Absolutely yes. Any other assessment amounts to historical revision.

I read the article and the method of sequestration they have been using is extremely limited, it’s main benefit being minimal long term sequestration by some leafy build up. Even their timber cultivation is a lacklustre effort as timber is often burnt after its limited lifespan. Burning the place down was likely the best thing that could have happened for their long term sequestration goals (sequestration in the form of charcoal). Long term sequestration is best done in the form of hummus, with cellulose and lignin as the carbon holding elements. I don’t know where they get the “carbon saturation”. Optimum carbon is a 1:7 carbon soil ratio, so over that area we are talking about millions of tons which is not something they could have achieved.

The idea that animal protein as a food source is not viable is largely a correct one however there are significant portions of the earth’s landmass that are unsuitable for commercial cultivation. In these places animal grazing is still the best means of calorie extraction from these regions.

The CSIRO among other organisations have long been investigating macroalgal solutions to in rumen methenogenesis. Possibly reducing green house gas emissions from cattle to between 85-99%. That is to say as little as 2 grams of a seaweed cultivar could solve the methane problem, in conjunction with sound diet practices. The linked article (within the linked article) talks about “lacklustre reduction” but utterly ignores other studies achieving 99%. A minute of googling shows achievable results possible on a commercial scale.

The idea of decreasing the time to market of these animals is the opposite of what is needed, it is the grossly intensive feeding regimens of the cattle industry that causes excess methenogenesis. Excess protein causes methanogenesis.

Biological nutrient cycling allowing there is a world of global warming negative (carbon sequestering) beef/dairy in the not too distant future.

For a number of reasons these methods are unlikely to be embraced by the beef/dairy industries as they require mass silviculture which is largely incompatible with current practices.

As usual commercial industry is barking up the wrong tree, trying to amend their inherently flawed method rather than begin a new less intensive, sustainable method.

With that said there is a debate to be had about the phasing out of animals proteins as food to benefit human health but the b12 problem has to be overcome.