Sorry, I suppose I’m a bit too used to idiots going off about the smoke plume caused by the rocket carrying an Earth observation satellite or such. When there’s anything to be gained, the costs of the endeavour should be measured up to that. Here there’s no gain for anybody (unless one of those fuckers onboard has enough braincells to be able to appreciate the overview effect enough to affect their future behaviour for the better), so it’s a net negative no matter how much the cost for the planet is. My intent was not to excuse anything about this.

To copy paste an earlier reply of mine:

I was talking about the direct emissions of launching a rocket. The indirect emissions are obviously vastly larger and might as well include everything in the wider economy that enables stuff like this. Just maintaining the necessary industrial capacity is already a huge strain on the planet. That’s what I’m after with these comments. The rich fucker joyride is a largely inconsequential yet overtly visible result of a bloated system hiding in plain sight. The aerospace sector as a whole is just the tip of the iceberg of a global industrial society in ecological overshoot.

I was talking about the direct emissions of launching a rocket. The indirect emissions are obviously vastly larger and might as well include everything in the wider economy that enables stuff like this. Just maintaining the necessary industrial capacity is already a huge strain on the planet. That’s what I’m after with these comments. The rich fucker joyride is a largely inconsequential yet overtly visible result of a bloated system hiding in plain sight. The aerospace sector as a whole is just the tip of the iceberg of a global industrial society in ecological overshoot.

Yes, the comment I replied to is technically right in that there are some tiny countries out there. Or they would be, if the rocket in question would’ve been a vastly larger rocket that burned a carbon containing fuel. The New Shepard tourist joyride is tiny for a rocket and its exhaust is water vapour.

I hate rich fucks as much as anybody, but this particular vehicle uses liquid hydrogen and oxygen for propellant, so no direct carbon emissions from the fuel.

The spacex superheavy is the biggest rocket stage around and has somewhere around 1.7 million kg of methane in it at launch. That results in about 4.7 million kg (4675t) of CO2 when it’s burned. That’s the same as the yearly emissions of 338 average americans, or 962 people at the global average.

Rockets are big, flashy and make a lot of smoke, but the numbers really don’t amount to much when compared to the sheer scale of more mundane economic activities.

I hate ai slop with a burning passion. This channel on the other hand is actual ai art.

Multiple pictures can be posted at a time by adding the other pictures as embeds to the text body of a post.

My gaidar (generative ai radar) is going off.

I think a good old shitass paint illustration would be preferable. The message itself is good enough to deserve at least that.

The horse probably couldn’t handle the weight of the cow. Both animals might get pissed at you for trying to coax them into this.

Funnily enough, my experience with Tumblr is purely second hand through screenshots like this :D

Does it though? The other user implies that the OOP is a clown who is narcissistic and likes themselves.

Or if the first side is objectively right, an infinite percentage more misinformation.

Good time of day

This isn’t about the holocaust. It’s about your faulty reasoning. I’m just using the holocaust as an easy example of something that is widely considered objectionable in order to demonstrate just how flawed your reasoning is. Angela is just a random value in place of the variable “person Y”.

I have made absolutely no changes to the reasoning within the statements. It’s all just the same flawed reasoning of yours. If the reasoning were valid, then true premises would always result in true conclusions. This clearly didn’t happen, despite the fact that my alternate premises (nazis legalised holocaust) were true. This is deductive argumentation 101.

I do have a dog in the race. I care about the subject. I just haven’t talked about it because you’re too much fun. The meat industry is a significant contributor to the climate and eco crisis. As a person living on the same planet and reliant on the stability of the same atmospheric and ecological systems, it is a concern of mine that people eat meat and other animal products so much. I’ve managed to eliminate most animal products from my diet, but not all of them. But regardless of all that, why shouldn’t I be allowed to criticise someone for not being logical?

Sure, block me if you want, but I still have a feeling that you’ll come to read this, just as you continued the discussion after three times claiming to end it, perhaps hoping that I had slipped up in my response. Who knows, maybe this time you get lucky?

Doing the holocaust was legal.
Angela has no right to tell someone they shouldn’t do the holocaust.
Angela is more than welcome to make the information publicly available to anyone partaking in doing the holocaust.
The nazi is under no obligation to look at said information if they don’t wish to.
Angela should leave the nazi alone to live their life without constant harassment from Angela.
Angela probably doesn’t like others telling her how to live her life, what she should put in her body, who she should marry, love or live with.
Angela should note the irony in this.
Angela should spend her time in support of others that share the same belief, rather than antagonising those who don’t.

You presented one premise, skipped any attempt at reasoning and all the rest are conclusions based on nothing tangible.

Calling me a vegan blowhard is interesting considering that I already said that I’m not a vegan. I have made no claims on the subject here. I just find logical jousting enjoyable. The fact that you’re quite bad at this makes it even more fun.

Your take, broken down into its elements goes as follows:

Premises: Doing X is legal. Person Y considers doing X wrong.

Reasoning: People should be allowed to do what is legal without moral objections from others.

Conclusion: Because X is legal, Y shouldn’t object to other people doing X, despite the fact that Y thinks it’s wrong.

Why shouldn’t child abuse and rape be among the possible objectionable acts inserted in the place of variable X? The beautiful thing about logical structures is that their validity is independent of the specific words that are inserted for the variables. If you think the logic in the statement above is valid, then consider the following statements using the exact same logic, just with different variables:

Eating meat is legal. A vegan considers eating meat to be wrong. Because it is legal, the vegan shouldn’t object to other people eating meat, despite the fact that they think it’s wrong.

Eating children is legal on the cannibal island. Joe considers eating children to be wrong. Because it is legal, Joe shouldn’t object to other people eating children, despite the fact that Joe thinks it’s wrong.

The nazis set laws which made the holocaust legal. Angela considers the systematic killing of Jews, disabled people, socialists and intellectuals to be wrong. Because they made it legal, Angela shouldn’t object to other people doing it, despite the fact that Angela thinks it’s wrong.

These statements are identical in their logic. If despite this you disagree with some of the statements but not all of them, then you need to articulate your stance with more nuance.

I’m a different person, that was my first comment here.

The way I see it, the discussion was about permitting others to commit acts which one considers immoral.

In the case of a vegan that might mean allowing someone else to eat meat, but the ethical dilemma is the very same as allowing a cannibal to eat a child. Does one have any right to intervene in their daily habits and societal norms, just because you think it’s wrong? If yes, why shouldn’t the vegan do the same?

I will say that I can’t claim to be a vegan myself. I just found your logic flawed.

Would you make the same comment if somebody else was eating a human child? If not, why?

“Just leave people alone to do their thing.” “Let’s care less about what others eat.”

Do you see how this very same logic could be used to excuse pretty much any diet or action?

Also the environmental impacts. I don’t own a huge polluting coal powerplant that is actively contributing to fucking up the planet that I live on, and I’m still allowed to criticise them for it. Why should the meat industry be any different?

Might take a while for the mods to get mad. I don’t see how anyone could get mad about such a cute and whimsical little goober.