ArchRecord
joined 7 months ago
Having cheaper energy from renewable sources?
They think it's more expensive due to the very first time they saw renewables used when they weren't as cost effective as oil, and have been propagandized to with that narrative ever since by billionaire-owned media.
Never running out of oil?
They think there's always going to be enough, and we can just take more from other countries or also use coal to fix that problem.
Being independent from unstable countries with bad human rights records?
They don't care about anyone who's not American, and even then, they're very distanced from the reality of the working class.
Having cleaner air?
They simply never consider this as it's never brought up by any of the media they watch. They also probably just don't think it's a big deal since "I can breath this air just fine already!"
Boosting local economy
See: people like Donald Trump saying clean energy would help china and harm the American economy
Investing in local and domestic research, education, and fabrication?
See above.
These people definitely want these things, they just don't actually believe it will do anything in the first place to help with them, or simply aren't aware that an issue exists at all because of the heavy pro-oil propaganda they've lapped up over the years.
You get what you pay for.
The email was more of a summary of past changes.
The actual donation of shares to the Proton Foundation was a little while ago, and anyone directly subscribed to the Proton Blog probably already saw it (myself included), so seeing it show up again as if it was new news probably just felt a bit jarring to some people.
You decide. We all decide.
On an individual basis, you can decide if you think an action is ethical or not based on if it, for instance, causes harm, and you dislike causing harm to others.
As a society, we broadly come to a consensus on what we consider ethical or not by majority opinion, and turn those into laws. It's why murder is considered wrong, in both religious and non-religious institutions and societies at large.
For example, as a society, we deemed killing other humans to be wrong because then we would be at risk of being killed, and it made it harder for us to survive overall. Those who killed were ostracized, those who didn't were not. No religion was required to form such a belief, but it can certainly be a part of religious teachings.
You can use the Bible as a framework for how you decide what's moral or not, but it's not the only way to do so.
If you fat shame a person, it could bring motivation to become healthier.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6565398/
"exposure to weight bias triggers physiological and behavioural changes linked to poor metabolic health and increased weight gain."
"The more people are exposed to weight bias and discrimination, the more likely they are to gain weight and become obese, even if they were thin to begin with"
"Fat shaming is also linked to depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, eating disorders and exercise avoidance"
What you are advocating for directly leads to higher rates of obesity.
Suppressing them.
Your entire argument here is around discouraging sexual promiscuity (which is exclusively being advocated for specifically with consenting adults) and yet you also argue that a lack of reproduction/sex directly leads to grooming.
You can't have both sides.
On top of that, many aspects about the church can lead to grooming that aren't sexual repression, namely the power dynamics of religious officials, and the idea that those who are religious are more inherently "ethical" or "good" than others, and are thus less likely to do wrong.
she’s also promoting the decline of the nuclear family, because sexual freedom also means relationship instability.
"We find little evidence that having non-marital sexual relationships with multiple partners signals a disruption [...in] marriage, or signals the future disinclination of singles to marry eventually" (1)
A woman that is sexually free also means that fatherhood with such a woman isn’t asured because a man can’t tell if the kids are his or not.
Wanting sexual freedom outside marriage is in no way similar to infidelity within existing relationships.
Men are substantially more likely to cheat than women. (2)
This also means that kids are more prone to be fatherless, lack proper guidance and get into crimes and delinquency.
This would only be affected by the initial personal freedom argument if the prior statements were true, which they are not.
Yes, the Bible and religions are restrictive, but they are somewhat useful and served purposes.
Certain individuals may find its restrictions useful to them.
Others may find them stifling.
You are arguing for morals based entirely on the writings of humans who witnessed unprovable events to be applied to all in society regardless of their current faith or beliefs.
If you find the Bible's restrictions to be useful, then that's perfectly fine for you, but don't attempt to say they should apply for everyone, because of your faith.
Everybody is prone to sins and misconducts, me, you and priests too.
Should the people actively preaching against sin, supposedly following religious best practices, actively steeling themselves against sin not be substantially less likely to ever engage in such misconduct?
You're not actually making a point here, you're putting the very real threat of abuse by religious officials using their power in religious institutions as a means to groom children on the same level as the average person.
Yes, it is, and I find it absolutely insane that so many people haven't spent even five seconds finding out why the products are there.
I think Trump's an insanely weird guy too, but people keep on attributing this to some kind of brand deal when it obviously wasn't.
I swear, furries will do the most random things imaginable, but it's always in the funniest possible way. No exceptions.