sojournerc

Please keep this community away from reddit style comments.

You're admitting that much of the rolling around on the ground is _not_ due to injury but some other strategic reason. This is what many object to.

Soccer is an endurance sport, regrouping should be done with possession of the ball, not with theatrics.

Nice ad hominem btw.

But why? They weigh slightly less, but take up a seat. Why should a child be subsidized. Planes are typically full or close to full. The airline doesn't really care what age the butt is in the seat, just that it's a revenue passenger.

My solution: if play has to stop because you're rolling around, you are clearly injured and must be substituted. This would fix a lot of the fakery I imagine.

You haven't addressed the problem of availability. It's one thing to go to the track physically to bet, vs having the track in your pocket available 24/7 with wagers on literally everything.

Do I think betting addiction will be as bad or prevalent as alcholism? Probably not, yet it's worth considering restricting it for social good. Just like we don't let 13 year olds buy bottles of whiskey.

Great reply!

The second type is also inherently misanthropic. Their ideal is some Eden without humans at all. _Any_ human impact is morally wrong to this type of environmentalist.

Contrast that with the conservationist hunters, sportsman, fisherman, etc. who wish to conserve natural environments with a keen eye towards sustainability and ecosystem health. Human intervention in culling herds can actually be a kindness to animals whose predators have been eliminated, yet some will oppose it regardless of what the Department of Fish and Game and other scientists suggest simply because it involves hunting and eating meat.

Cutting off the nose to spite the face... which rhymes with the nuclear debate here.

In addition to the sibling comment, I'll say that environmentalists have opposed nuclear energy for half a century, despite it being far better than coal or ng in terms of emissions. I'd say that the venn diagram intersection of burners and opposition to nuclear is significant.

Maybe it's good, but I'm going to keep questioning. They are vying for market share. If they cornered it I doubt they would be so open. Morals should not be conditional

That's like saying the Dewey decimal system is creepy because it doesn't change. That's the point! A reference should be where you left it. Why must it change?

I'm sorry, but why not just read the fucking book if you're interested?

I agree with your attitude. Technology can give false confidence.

Self-rescue, and self-sufficiency are priority, not some sense that someone will come save you if things go wrong.