bhmnscmm @ bhmnscmm @lemmy.world

Posts

111

Comments

510

Joined

2 yr. ago

A war between Russia and NATO would result in the textbook definition of a pyrhhic victory. Everyone should be afraid of that. There will be no winners in nuclear combat.

I've simply pointed out the irony and hipocrisy. I'm making no statement on whether or not Nicaragua should be involved.

The West shoe-horned themselves into the Middle East decades ago. The West currently has a "vested" interest because they've made an absolute mess of the Middle East, when there was never a good reason for getting involved in the first place. Historically, the West has done in the exactly what they're now accusing Nicaragua of.

Additionally, it's particularly ironic due to America's historical meddling in Nicaragua.

I'm making no comment on Nicaragua making this move in good faith. I agree it's obvious that they're a pawn. I'm only pointing out the hypocrisy.

So because Western nations are larger they've been entitled to interfere in the Middle East for the last century?

And how much trade needs to occur between two countries to entitle one to interfere with the other?

The Nicaraguans “have no reason to inject themselves into a conflict over the Middle East,” one of the western intelligence officers said.

Well that's definitely the most ironic thing I'm going to read for a while.

I interpreted the "you" in the reply to my comment as referring to me specifically.

If it was meant as a general "you", then I take it back. I'm not trying build a strawman. I'm just trying to disagree with the notion that every country should have laws like Germany and Austria.

Accusing a stranger of being a Nazi when faced with reasonable disagreement; the mark of true enlightenment.

You've perfectly described the problem with what the OP is proposing. Disagreeing with that position doesn't make you a Nazi.

Don't you understand, if we make the symbols illegal then people won't have those beliefs anymore. Duh.

That's a terrible reason. You would rather a patient in need not have blood available than be charged for it?

There is definitely price gouging in blood. But it also requires testing, transportation, and storage before it can be used. The money for all that has to come from somewhere (unfortunately in the US it's usually the patient).

I thought so too. It's really fun to mess around with as someone who isn't very musically inclined. I did a quick search on Lemmy and was surprised to see neither has really been posted about.

That's a really interesting article. I didn't know there were so many benefits to solar panels over crops.

However, I don't see how growing crops under panels could become widespread.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimate that if just 1 million acres of farmland was covered in solar panels, the nation would meet its renewable energy goals.

For reference, Iowa alone has over 35 million acres of farmland. Solar panels are almost too efficient to cover a meaningful amount of farmland.

Has the US/west made any statements or moves towards moving nuclear weapons into Finland? Seems like that would be unnecessary.

Her job was to be on active tarmac near running aircraft. She isn't some random person that shouldn't have been there.

It appears she wasn't paying attention and people tried to stop her from walking into the propeller.

“Others began shouting and waving to get [Cosme’s] attention as well,” the report said. It added: “Without looking up to determine her position relative to the aircraft, [Cosme] proceeded to walk directly into the propeller … sustaining fatal injuries.”

OP wasn't asking for an accurate answer. The question presupposes Hitler is convicted in the Nuremberg trials.

We're clearly talking past each other here. When I say "chem trails" I'm referring to the stereotypical 1990s conspiracy of the government covertly and nefariously spraying mystery chemicals across the country to experiment/harm citizens: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory?wprov=sfla1

I'm not talking about real weather manipulation, cloud seeding, etc. Which are real, but not covertly and nefariously done by the government and corporations.

I hear ya, there's definitely nuance. There are certainly crazy people that supported this for crazy reasons, and there are rational people who supported this for rational reasons. I'm not trying to dismiss the whole thing as a crazy conspiracy theory.

Gotcha, that comment makes more sense now.

I suppose I was being a bit cynical. However, I think many people supported the bill to ban "Chem trails," and were ignorant to actual weather manipulation techniques it was prohibiting.

Bottom line is that this bill is a good thing. It doesn't really matter what reasons people had for supporting it.

Just because people/corporations can use those legitimate weather manipulation tools, should they be allowed to?

I don't think they should. That's why I'm saying this bill seems like an unintentionally good thing.

I'm confused by your comment. I think we agree there should be regulation on the manipulation you described?

The bill forbids "intentional injection, release, or dispersion" of chemicals into the air.

Instead it broadly prohibits "affecting temperature, weather, or the intensity of the sunlight".

This bill is obviously based in ignorance, but from an envirinmental/pollution standpoint this seems like a good thing. It's not their intention, but it sounds like it would protect the atmosphere from potential real polluters.

Edit: based in ignorance in the sense that some people supported the bill to ban "chem trails" (an ignorant position). Not in the sense that weather manipulation isn't real.