🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

This fossil made of opal is soooo cool (its a squid-like creature)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belemnitida#/media/File:Opalized_Peratolelus_sp._1.jpg

#Fossil

@emckean Best of luck in your talks! Thanks for the share.

@freepeoplesfreepress

Glad we agree :)

@TruthSandwich @admitsWrongIfProven

@georgetakei Of course people are real.. its the pigeons that are robots :)

@Meachamus_Prime

Agreed, very very few people even know how what it is, let alone express it.

@georgetakei

@freepeoplesfreepress

The difference between bigotry and "true discrimination" as you say lies in the key word "obstinate"... So long as you are willing to accept that your hatred towards a particular group (in this case bigots) may be misplaced and wrong, and you are willing to hear criticisms to your bigotry and earnestly consider it... then you arent a bigot... to be a bigot you must be stubborn in your stance of hate, even if the target of that hate is deserving of that hate.

@TruthSandwich @admitsWrongIfProven

@ToniScott Glad to hear your friend is doing better!

@bonifartius

> with fossil energy you release the carbon of millions of years, i can follow you that there might be a problem there.
>
> with wood - mind that i argued for planting more than used - it's decades, with shrubbery and grass its years or single seasons. carbon is captured and released as CO2 in these time spans with those. other pollutants like CO can very likely disregarded with a well controlled oxidation. particles might be a problem, but that's a solved problem iirc.

Why does it matter if its decades or millions of years... burning fossil fuel vs plant material release the same set of pollutants more or less, so burning one or the other in and of itself is no more or less harmful.

What your pointing out, rightfully so, is that i can plant a tree and capture carbon dioxide first, having a positive impact, and then burning some portion of that having a negative impact. The idea being that the positive is bigger than the negative.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with what you burn... If fossil fuels release lets say 1 ton of CO2, then why not plant enough trees to capture 1 ton of CO2 then instead of chopping them down for fuel you chop them down and bury it in a deep pit somewhere... Now you did the same thing, you captured as much CO2 as you were going to release. You just choose a different source to release it from... it is all the same.

But just because you can capture the CO2 first before releasing it, doesnt make it any more green... I can capture CO2 countless ways to offset my waste, it doesnt really matter, nor does it change it.

> i just really don't see the difference between energy captured by solar panels or wind power (which is sun energy as well) and energy captured by photosynthesis given it's happening in our epoch and not millions of years ago like with coal or oil.

The difference is huge. and it comes down to efficiency... trees are 6% efficient at turning sunlight into stored energy.Solar panels are 15%-29% efficient depending on how cutting-edge you go with the tech. Thats at least 3x more effecient.

That efficiency means you get more power per unit land (significantly so). And since you arent constantly cutting down trees and disrupting animals and insects and their home, and the panels are usually placed in already developed areas (leaving our forrests untouched)... that leaves for a significantly superior situation that using trees, especially considering the forrests keep doing their thing along side the panels.

@TruthSandwich

> Glad we agree that no, bigotry expressed towards bigots doesnt make you a bigot.

So this is trolling? So your saying bigotry towards bigots does make you a bigot? Make up your mind.

@freepeoplesfreepress @admitsWrongIfProven

@TruthSandwich

I am not, you just want to use the word "bigot" as a weapon (and you can) and when you realize it is not **always** a bad word that weakens your weaponization of it... no matter how factual it may be your ego would never allow for such a thing, so you will fight it.. i get it... and I dont mind, you can make up whatever definition you want for yourself, it isnt important and I dont mind... maybe you should write the english experts that write the dictionary and let them know you know better.

@freepeoplesfreepress @admitsWrongIfProven

@TruthSandwich

Repeating the same thing over and over again without any evidence or reasoning to back it up wont make it true.

@freepeoplesfreepress @admitsWrongIfProven

@TruthSandwich

Glad we agree that no, bigotry expressed towards bigots doesnt make you a bigot.

@freepeoplesfreepress @admitsWrongIfProven

@TruthSandwich

> The key here is the "obstinate or unreasonable" part. This means that reasonably hating bigots is not bigoted.

No you read that wrong... the word **or** is in there, not **and**... that means one of those two conditions must be met (obstinate OR unreasonable), not both.

So it can be perfectly reasonable, but if it is obstinate it is still bigotry.

Is your hate of bigotry a course of actions you are committed to and you can not be talked out of? If so it is obstinate and you meet the definition of a bigotry then.

@freepeoplesfreepress @admitsWrongIfProven

@freepeoplesfreepress

I think there is a difference between "being a bigot" and carrying out a bigoted act.

If a person who is constantly evil, happens to do a single isolated good act, would you say their a good person? No.

So someone who might be bigoted towards bigots in isolation, but is not generally bigoted towards people or groups as a pattern, then they would not be a bigot, by the same logic.

@TruthSandwich @admitsWrongIfProven

Weird, all the bands are open, but no one is on voice....

#Ham #HamRadio

@kungen they would need to conscent somehow... some have the ability to blink. In other cases they can use a non invasive approach to get a yes or no out of them.... so yes

That said if someone has power of attorny over thrm they would legally need to approve