Let's please keep this civil. I respectfully disagree, but I have no problem with you voicing your opinion. The issue is your assumption that the person who disagrees with you is a horrible individual, simply because they have a different opinion. I don't even care who's right at this point - we can debate an issue without insulting each other. And even if you're enraged by it, hiding that fact and calmly countering their opinion with logic is far more effective at winning over an audience...
Edit: Before any accusation of unfair treatment is made, I'd like to clarify that I disapprove of the original comment's rhetoric as well - there was no good reason to insult conservatives ("greedy [expletive]") like they did.
I've grown up in the same educational situation, and this is exactly what I've experienced. Their attempted indoctrination turned me into a liberal, antichristian agnostic. But with mental health issues, because emotional abuse is better than "letting your kid go to hell"...
I had a classical education (full of Christian dogma of course), but we were still expected to know evolution, psychology, secular philosophy, logic, etc. And we still had to do well on the ACT. And the critical thinking and philosophy I learned helped me to escape indoctrination, to the point that theology classes showed me why I'm not a Christian. So I'm not against "classical education" in general - it's when they put religious and political indoctrination above actual classical academics like in this case that it's an abomination.
Idk how the legal accusations stand up, as there are warnings and liability disclaimers everywhere on it...
I've eaten it, most of my friends have, and we were fine. But I've known others who reacted much more strongly to just a crumb, so I can see how with preexisting conditions that could happen.
Yeah, that's the right decision here. I'm all for open forums but anti-vax stuff is likely against the terms of service (false medical advice from non-credentialed amateurs with a political agenda). YouTube is a publisher, there's no such thing as an "open forum" as any such place would be quickly overrun with racists and fascists, etc. It's simply a matter of how consistent and unimposing the rules for removal can be (like Lemmy) vs arbitrary removal for a political agenda (like a news station). And any effective rules set would remove anti-vax content.
Agreed. But in cases where a large amount of energy is needed on one tank/charge (large freight haulers, long-distance busses, trains, etc.) hydrogen might be a good alternative to petrol while we work on improving battery capacity and recharge times.
Solar panels exist... Just use electrolysis from green sources. If we can't figure out electricity without coal, then fuel is the least of our problems...
Let's please keep this civil. I respectfully disagree, but I have no problem with you voicing your opinion. The issue is your assumption that the person who disagrees with you is a horrible individual, simply because they have a different opinion. I don't even care who's right at this point - we can debate an issue without insulting each other. And even if you're enraged by it, hiding that fact and calmly countering their opinion with logic is far more effective at winning over an audience...
Edit: Before any accusation of unfair treatment is made, I'd like to clarify that I disapprove of the original comment's rhetoric as well - there was no good reason to insult conservatives ("greedy [expletive]") like they did.