It really feels like they're gambling the interests of future generations on the selfishness of a few incredibly stubborn old people. — Mr Bee

As you note, Trump has to be beaten democratically for it to matter. He's not going to be beaten with all these trials. — Hanover

looks foldable with one punch — besides being ugly — Lionino

I seem to be the only one (here) mentioning/remembering the hostages — tim wood

10/7 was attempted genocide. — BitconnectCarlos

There is no genocide — Moses

but there are modern day brown shirts — Moses

The thugs that have murdered 15 thousand children or university protesters who’ve murdered 0 people? Which thugs are you referring to? — Mikie

So people who go around punching or burning babies aren't necessarily bad people, Israel is much worse after all. — BitconnectCarlos

Maybe it was the thugs flying Hezbollah flags — BitconnectCarlos

Things don't pop up for no reason — Barkon

protesters are calling for violence and repeats of 10/7 — BitconnectCarlos

Why would they do that? — RogueAI

By prolonging deliberation they are dragging their feet and in effect obstructing justice. — Fooloso4

Your taxes fund an obscure government program that kills millions of wild animals to benefit Big Ag.

Uruguay, a nation of 3.4 million people wedged between Argentina and Brazil, generates nearly all its electricity from renewable sources. In 2008, the government set a goal of transforming the electric grid, which had come to depend on imported oil.

The country had a lot of hydropower, but years of drought in the 1990s and 2000s slashed the dams’ output. Uruguay was forced to import oil instead, at volatile prices, and faced shortages and blackouts. Officials noted the increasing cost competitiveness of renewables, especially wind, and set out to build a local wind industry nearly from scratch.

Between 2013 and 2018, wind generation grew sharply from almost nothing to about a quarter of Uruguay’s electricity mix. By the end of 2022, the most recent year data is available, Uruguay generated more than 90 percent of its power from renewables, with wind and solar growing even as hydropower declined.

Dan Dennett. Sad to see him go.

Fellow resident of my hometown, I remember he signed every book of his that the library had, with a little note saying “To the readers of Andover…”. I always liked that.

Went to a lecture of his when I was a freshman, met him briefly in the hallway. Seemed like a kindly old man.

I liked his take on religion — felt it was a better attitude than the others of the late 2000s, like Dawkins and Hitchens.

This interview (below) with Bill Moyers always stood out to me as fairly reasonable. The rest of his thinking I never found terribly interesting.

In any case— may he rest in peace. A real loss to the philosophy community— if there is one.

Israel is just another country on a long list of countries which have resorted to crimes against humanity in order to try and subdue an occupied population, and used their resistance as an excuse to do it. — Tzeentch

make sure to compare the deaths of maybe 8 or 9000 civilians to the 11 million killed in the holocaust — BitconnectCarlos

Are you concerned about the rise of Islamophobia? — BitconnectCarlos

We’ll go down in history as the first society that wouldn’t save itself because it wasn’t cost-effective.

He’s been a fairly staunch critic of Israel, Brazil, Indonesia, etc. Despite your bogus suggestion, he’s done so for decades.
— Mikie

I admit he's been a critique of Israel. But he mainly focuses on US actions because of the reasons he has given. — ssu

What’s wrong with trying to understand the beliefs and worldview of an interlocutor? I like to understand why people think as they do. — Moses

“Delayers.” Examples of individuals occupying that niche in the media today are folks like Judith Curry of the Georgia Tech School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, former UC Berkeley astrophysicist Richard Muller, and “skeptical environmentalist” Bjorn Lomborg. Rather than flat-out denying the existence of human-caused climate change, delayers claim to accept the science, but downplay the seriousness of the threat or the need to act. The end result is an assertion that we should delay or resist entirely any efforts to mitigate the climate change threat through a reduction of fossil fuel burning and carbon emissions. Despite claiming to assent to the scientific evidence, delayers tend to downplay the climate change threat by assuming unrealistic, low-end projections of climate change, denying the reality of key climate change effects, and employing lowball estimates of the costs of those impacts. When the cost-benefit analysis of taking action is skewed by a downwardly biased estimate of the cost of inaction, it is far easier to make the Pollyanna-ish argument that technology and the free market will simply solve the problem on their own. It is a backdoor way of saying that we do not need to pursue clean, non-fossil fuel energy sources, which are arguably the only real ways to avoid locking in dangerous climate change.

You're an atheist who doesn't believe in anything. — BitconnectCarlos

You don't view intention as morally relevant. — BitconnectCarlos